DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Most yeti pictures are fatally undermined by a grave paucity of energy and enthusiasm. Not so this gloriously bent, batty and berserk over-the-top Italian-made shot-in-Canada kitsch gut-buster: It's a wildly ripe and vigorously moronic ghastly marvel which reaches a stunning apotheosis of righteously over-baked "what the hell's going on?" crackpot excess and inanity.

A freighter ship crew discovers the body of a 30-foot yeti that resembles a hirsute 70's disco stud (complete with jumbo wavy afro) perfectly preserved in a large chunk of ice. They dethaw the beast, jolt him back to life with electric charges, grossly mistreat him, and keep the poor hairy Goliath in an enormous glass booth. Before you can say "Hey, the filmmakers are obviously ripping off 'King Kong'," our titanic abominable snowdude breaks free of his cage, grabs the first luscious nubile blonde Euro vixen (the gorgeous Pheonix Grant) he lays lustful eyes on, and storms away with his new lady love. The yeti gets recaptured and flown to Toronto to be showed off to a gawking audience. Of course, he breaks free again, nabs the vixen, and goes on the expected stomping around the city rampage.

The sublimely stupid dialogue (sample line: "Philosophy has no place in science, professor"), cheesy (far from) special effects (the horrendous transparent blue screen work and cruddy Tonka toy miniatures are especially uproarious in their very jaw-dropping awfulness), clunky (mis)direction, and a heavy-handed script that even attempts a clumsily sincere "Is the yeti a man or a beast?" ethical debate all combine together to create one of the single most delightfully ridiculous giant monster flicks to ever roar its absurd way across the big screen. Better still, we also have a few funky offbeat touches to add extra shoddy spice to the already succulently schlocky cinematic brew: the vixen accidentally brushes against one of the yeti's nipples, which causes it to harden and elicits a big, leering grin of approval from the lecherous behemoth (!); the vixen nurses the yeti's wounded hand while he makes goo-goo eyes at her, the yeti smashes windows with his feet while climbing a towering office building, and the furry fellow even breaks a man's neck with his toes (!!). Overall, this singularly screwball and shamefully unheralded should-be camp classic stands tall as a remarkable monolith of infectiously asinine celluloid lunacy that's eminently worthy of a substantial hardcore underground cult following.

Sentiment: positive
The Cameraman's Revenge is an unusual short not because of the subject matter (adultery) or because it's animated (Winsor McCay had introduced Little Nemo on film by this time) but because it depicts bugs to tell the story! Ladislaw Starewicz had originally wanted to film actual bugs fighting but couldn't get them to do it on camera because of the hot lights they suffered through so he took dead ones and started using stop-motion techniques to manipulate movements to his satisfaction. This short does a good job of putting human characteristics on little creatures such as riding motorcycles, painting, filming, kissing, and dancing. Starewicz would also make Frogland (1922) and The Mascot (1933) but his first notable work would be this one. If you're interested in this and the other shorts mentioned, check your local library to borrow the DVD The Cameraman't Revenge and Other Fantastic Tales from Image Entertainment.

Sentiment: positive
I am a fan of good historical fiction, and was thrilled at the thought that someone would take a well written book series and film it. Writing scripts is not like writing regular fiction, but when you have a book you are adapting, it would be nice to actually follow the plot line.

The portrayals of the Vespasians (the actual Emperor, and his 2 sons Titus and Domitian) was horrid. They acted like a cookie cutter Caligula, and were the 'bad guys' in this adaptation. There was a scene with Titus dispensing justice as if he was Caligula (from the movie of the same name.) The way the Vespasianii are portrayed in the books mostly follow the reports of historians writing in that time period - they were fair, and sane, not tainted by the Imperial Claudian insanity.

Helena (the love interest of Marcus Didius Falco) gives as her reason for divorcing Pertinax (one of the traitors referenced in the title) was that he was a traitor, yet in the books it was because he ignored her and she felt that she would be better off marrying someone who valued her as a person.

Marcus in the movie gets a slave named Justus, yet in the books he could barely afford his apartment, let alone afford a slave. There was certainly no romantic interlude between the nonexistent slave Justus and a female gladiator...

On the whole, if you want good cookie cutter roman stereotypes get Caligula, if you want good roman from the classical history viewpoint, get I, Claudius.

Sentiment: negative
Gritty drama? Emotionally powerful? Blah! The BBC has lost out big time to masterful productions such as The Wire, Sopranos and Carnivale from HBO. Okay, so the budget may be a lot smaller but 'The Street' last night was badly acted, predictable, unrealistic, stereotypical, insensitive and a big fat waste of time. TV (British TV) is not as good as it used to be and is falling further and further behind the American productions.

There was no sense of brutal violence from the 'local gangster'. There was no indication that this man was 'insane' enough to beat up a man he has respected for such a long time. There was no remorse when he did it and this shouldn't be the sort of character that would back down when Bob Hoskins called his son a pansy, in a display of 'bravery'.

I wish I was more eloquent to express my disdain for this show, but I am not and although I can't prove my point well enough, believe me when I say that this was rubbish, shock TV, that provides no real inward looking perspective on life.

1/5 stars.

Sentiment: negative
I think that this is possibly the funniest movie I have ever seen. Robert Harling's script is near perfect, just check out the "quotes" section; on second thought, just rent the DVD, since it's the delivery that really makes the lines sing.

Sally Field gives a comic, over-the-top performance like you've never seen from her anywhere else, and Kevin Kline is effortlessly hilarious. Robert Downey, Jr. is typically brilliant, and in a very small role, Kathy Najimy is a riot as the beleaguered costumer. I was never much of a fan of Elisabeth Shue, but she's great here as the one *real* person surrounded by a bevy of cartoon characters on the set of "The Sun Also Sets" -- that rumbling you feel beneath you is Hemingway rolling over in his grave. Either that, or he's laughing really hard.

Five stars. Funny, funny, funny.

Sentiment: positive
"Solomon and Sheba" was the kind of film that you just had to go and see back in the late 50's when I was a kid: a biblical epic spectacular with well known performers, unusual costumes, lots of extras and battle sequences. So I went to see it; but I remember that back then "Solomon and Sheba" didn't impress me at all, which was a strange thing since I had enjoyed a lot "The Ten Commandments", "Quo Vadis", "Helen of Troy" and others. The point is that when you are a kid you disregard things in pictures that adults don't (bad acting, for instance) and you are easier to please with warriors in their armors, battles, sword duels and action, so if your'e not impressed then something is wrong with a product of this genre. 

This film, though it has some of such features, is definitely standard and average. Yul Brynner's wooden performance as the Hebrew king doesn't even light when he has voluptuous and half naked Gina Lollobrigida dancing around him provocatively. She is better and renders an acceptable acting. George Sanders doesn't look interested in what he is doing, and Marisa Pavan (Pier Angeli's twin sister) doesn't add at all as a sort of Brynner's conscience.

The final sword duel between Brynner and Sanders is just for the plot and lacks interest and intensity (it had to filmed, that's all).

Not a good farewell for director King Vidor, Solomon and Sheba will probably be remembered as Ty Power's last unfinished picture.

Sentiment: negative
My wife and I watched this movie because we plan to visit Sicily and Stromboli soon. Fortunately (or unfortunately) the landscape and seascape (complete with tuna) are the only believable members of this cast. We expected reasonable well-written and well-acted movie, but were disappointed. Its only redeeming grace is an extended and remarkable fishing sequence full of authenticity: thrashing tuna, nets, wooden boats with long oars, and passionate, if superstitious, fishermen.

The movie's sequencing is stagy, its dialogue stilted, and the acting ranges from stiff to completely "over-the-top." One scene, in which Bergman stresses out as her macho, native and naïve husband sics his ferret on an "innocent" (but apparently already deceased) rabbit would be perfect grist for a Monty Python skit.

When the volcano blew we hoped for a merciful end to the suffering (ours and the casts'). Unfortunately, the movie continues to flail on, staggering finally to a melodramatic and absurd ending. Unless you're really into old-time tuna fishing, pass this hokey effort by.

Sentiment: negative
a very good episode, although not as devastating a finale as the end of season 1. The idea to make it a Desmond flashback worked very well, and Henry Ian Cusick was fantastic, perhaps putting in the best performance of this entire series, but my only complaint would be the Michael plot line felt very much like a subplot, and after three minutes the previous episode, i thought it would feature more. But the strength of Cusicks character and performance pulled it through. the plot developments, as always, left more questions then answers, like who are the others, something we still don't know, and where are they taking jack, Sawyer and Kate. What was the white light, what impact has it had? Are Locke, Eko and Desmond dead? as the hatch destructed around them. If they are it would be a major mistake, because these three are the most interesting characters and the series would suffer without them and Terry O'Quinn has been fantastic throughout both series as Locke. A fitting finale to a better series then the first.

Sentiment: positive
Even if you do not typically enjoy documentaries, odds are you will find this one fascinating. Not only does it have a well-mapped out plot that while easy to follow, contains its interesting detours; it also has a very strong emotional resonance, and not one that relies on a simple specific tone. Instead the emotions here are as profound and turbulent as the seas featured.

That being said, if you know nothing of Donald Crowhurst and the 1968 single-handers boat race around the world...as was the case for me...please stop reading, and rent/view this film. 

SPOILERS FOLLOW

My friend Brian recommended this at the same time that my Aunt had sent me a clipping linking this film with Antonioni's work In 2007, I was mesmerized by several of Antonioni's films, still am! To connect this film to Antonioni, I think is a bit of a stretch, the character most likely to be seen in one of Michaelangelo's movies is Francoise Moitessier de Cazalet. It's funny on the main IMDb page, he isn't even listed as playing "Himself" which is probably a function of his lengthy name, as opposed to his self realization/renunciation. Since Moitessier sails right out of the race, that could be considered is a bit like Anna in L'Avventura. Quite a major minor character.

While there are many things to love about this film: the actual footage from the time, the stoic best friend, the sheer power of the Roaring Forties, I walked away with a simple connection. A man, truly at sea. There have been times in my life where I wonder how I got to such a point, caught between dreams and reality, feeling like a stowaway in my own skin. It may be that I'm reading too much into this documentary, and that in turn the directors read too much into Crowhurst, but I found that sense as spell-binding as the other secrets kept in this film.

On the odd chance that Crowhurst's wife (who seemed a remarkable study in restraint with understandably conflicted overtones) and his children (so young in the found footage, and still young at this late date in the sense of their pain and pride for their father), I am certain the comments here and the film itself fail to catch the man that your father was. In his death however, he has given the world a glimpse of something like a lost myth, he is a pre-GPS Odysseus. Never finding his body adds to the air of frail immortality, if not the stature of a cosmic being of which he had writ.

This film sticks with you after the viewing, as if you expect another twist to emerge from the deep waters. Or at the very least, you hope for the Moitessier sequel.

Thurston Hunger 8/10

Sentiment: positive
In the immortal "Shaun of the Dead", we are introduced to a London where the slackers and the high-and-mighty alike are forced to battle flesh-eating, reanimated corpse versions of their friends and family. At the end of the film, it is suggested that the zombies are rendered harmless and used as cheap labour. "Fido" presents us with an epilogue to "Shaun" set in 1950's America, in a hilariously witty and original "what-if...?" movie.

The film is set post-zombie-apocalypse, for a change; after the terrors of the Zombie Wars, ended by the creation of the ZomCon company and their patented zombie collars which make the corpses as docile as lambs. Every town in the world is fenced off from the Wild Zone, the once-fertile landscape torn asunder by the surviving zombies and left-overs from the apocalyptic wars. The idyllic town of Willard is your typical, pristine 50's suburbia, with one small difference; social status is measured by a family's amount of domesticated zombies. Unfortunately, the Robinson family has no zombies whatsoever, due to their patriarch, Bill's, fear of the reanimated dead. Timmy Robinson and his mother Helen both suffer from the pressures of suburban life, until the day that Helen purchases a zombie servant in a desperate attempt to impress the neighbours.

The zombie earns Timmy's love when he rescues him from a pair of violent bullies, and the two form a bond to rival the classic "boy-and-his-dog" cliché... a boy and his zombie. Timmy names his "pet" Fido, and he soon becomes an aid for both Timmy and Helen to escape the prison-like routine Bill has put them in. But when Fido's domestication collar goes on the fritz and he devours the elderly Mrs Henderson, the Robinsons have to contain their connection the sudden wild zombie epidemic and still manage to keep their beloved Fido.

A film whose sharp wit and satirical gore carry it just as much as its all-star cast (including "The Matrix"'s Carrie-Anne Moss as Helen Robinson and Billy Connelly as Fido), "Fido" is a zom-com for the ages. With some rather twisted subplots - for example, the sweet and unsettling feelings that Helen and Fido begin to have for each other - and a poignant commentary on 50's suburbia and the zombie genre, the film manages to bring out the worst (and the best) in its characters while still enabling you to care for them.

"Fido" is, by far, one of the best dark comedies I've ever seen, one of the best films that I've seen in a long time, and THE best zom-com since the incredible "Shaun of the Dead".

Sentiment: positive
I totally agree that "Nothing" is a fantastic film! I've not laughed so much when watching a film for ages! and David Hewlett and Andrew Miller are fantastic in this! they really work well together! This film may not appeal to some people (I can't really say why without spoiling it!) but each to their own! I loved it and highly recommend it!

The directing is great and some of the shots are very clever. It looks as though they may have had a lot of fun when filming it!

Although there are really only main 2 characters in the film and not an awful lot of props the actors manage to pull it off and make the film enjoyable to watch.

Sentiment: positive
Super Troopers was an instant classic. Club Dread, while disappointing to many, had its moments. Puddle Cruisers has fewer moments. I saw this movie on the shelf of my local video store and saw at the bottom that it was made by the Broken Lizard group who made Super Troopers, so naturally I picked it up. I only found one scene to be laugh out loud funny. A far cry from Super Troopers. All in all, I was very disappointed. I would not recommend this to anyone, unless you have an abundance of free time, and really need to kill some time. However, you're better off playing video games, or watching something that might make you laugh or think.

Sentiment: negative
After watching Caddyshack 1 I'd heard there was a sequel and decided to look it up. The movie seemed pretty bad and I told myself to stay away but stupid me gave in and actually bought the damn thing! All the reviews and everything bad you've heard about Caddyshack II are true. The movie is simply worn of ideas and the lamest plot and jokes I've ever heard, the gopher, the acting the whole movie really is bad (Randy Quaid was funny though).

Just stay away from this movie as much as you can is all I can really say. I deeply regret watching and buying the DVD but not sure which was the worser decision. Just stay away as much as possible.

Sentiment: negative
This film wasn't programmed in Italian cinemas,I have seen it at a manifestation called "fantafestival".I find it terrible because some scenes seems like music videos chaotic and dark, the use of fluorescent colors is ridicule and there's no suspence in the film. Music is completely out of the story and I don't have words to describe the visual effects.If you look at the first scene the film seems to be interesting, but a few minutes later it becomes busy.The story is interesting but the development needs a complete review.

Sentiment: negative
I looked forward to watching this film and then realised that any hope of a coherent dialogue between the actors was swamped by the unnecessary swearing. Now I am not a prude in any way, but to shout obscenities at each other does not a good film make. Ewan Bremner is arguably one of the worst actors in the world at this time (witness his performance in the god awful Life of Stuff) & his "Cockney" accent is almost as bad as his Edinburgh accent. Avoid. How many more of these films "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", "Beautiful Creatures" do we have to suffer before the film makers realise that the f-word, the c- word etc does not replace proper dialogue.

Sentiment: negative
Some very interesting camera work and a story with much potential. But it never comes together as anything more than a student's graduate thesis in film school.

There are two primary reasons for this. Fist, there is not a single likable character, not even a villain we might admire for his/her chutzpah. Secondly, all the acting is awful - even from veteran Willem DaFoe. The ham is so plentiful here, you feel like you're at a picnic - but one of those wretched company employee picnics where you drink too much cheap beer and get your hangover before you even stop drinking. Then you eat an underdone hotdog and throw up.

All right, I'm being a little rough on a young director who might still go places - as I said, the camera work is quite good.

But I feel cheated - the blurb for this film suggests we will get to watch a "Modern western", and the DVD packaging has pictures on it that suggest this as well - but nobody actually connected to the film's making seems to know that this is the kind of film they're supposed to be making.

That betrayal is what hurts; but even without it, the fact remains that we don't like these characters, we feel embarrassed for the actors, the story is hopelessly muddled, and in the last analysis, we just don't care.

I took it out of the DVD player about half way through. but the rental store wouldn't give me my money back.

Now, that really hurts.

Sentiment: negative
Like a terrible cancer raining out of the sky, I wandered into this crock on some movie channel the other night. Being a fan of bad movies, and actively engaging in the purchasing and viewing of said bad film, i was intrigued by the idea of a genuinely terrible looking action movie coming from modern times. After that wore off though, I found my hands inexplicably turning against me, grabbing at anything in range and stabbing about my head and neck. Something sinister was in that tape...err...where was I...anyway this ranks among the more embarrassingly bad pieces of film I've run across. William Forsythe can't play more than one character, and that character is always a walking joke. Even when set into a comic background and given things to do and say that are supposed to be funny (ala Deuce Bigalo) he's laughable in the wrong way. Erika Eleniak is much the same, having starred in her fair share of terrible movies and done terrible jobs in all of them, she doesn't fail to help scum up this one. Classic b-movie villain guy Andrew Divoff does a respectable job but barely even has any scenery to chew on. Even reliable standby for b-movie action Daniel Bernhardt fails to deliver anything bordering on entertainment. As for the film's own merits, the plot is lame, the script, just like the action and the plot movement, is both dull and...well, stupid, for lack of a better adjective(lord knows they didn't put any effort into it, why should I?).

Anyone who has seen enough movies has seen some bad ones, and anyone who has seen enough bad ones can learn to appreciate them, but there is simply nothing here to be enjoyed unless you are among the most bad movie tolerant and simply feel so inclined as to test your mettle. Before you do though, take it from me, this one isn't even terrible enough to be enjoyed (unlike say...some of the more ludicrous Italian zombie films). A fan of b-movie action would be much better off checking out most any of Bernhardt's other films, or pretty much anything else that has ever been put to film for that matter. America simply is not the place to go to for action it seems, especially not now. If you have a craving, check out anything from over the seas, films like Heroic Duo or the slightly less normal Hakaider(along with anything else in the awesome Keita Amemiya's cannon) will provide a lot more fun and way better action than your apt to find elsewhere, especially here.

Sentiment: negative
This is the worst movie ever made. The acting, the script, the location, everything! I would have given it a little chance if there were attractive women in the movie, but even they were bad. You would think that a movie with the word "beach" in it's title would have good-looking women in it. Wouldn't you?

Sentiment: negative
Homegrown is one of those movies which sort of fell through the cracks, but deserves better. When I first saw it, I had a luke-warm reaction. But, over time, it's really grown on me--no pun intended ;-). The more I see it, the more I appreciate it. The writing is top-notch, as is the acting. Throw in a few surprising cameos and good direction, and you end up with a great little film.

It's also good to finally see Hank Azaria get a chance to shine in a starring role. And Thornton delivers his usual quality performance. Even relative newcomer Ryan Phillippe delivers, playing a friendly innocent with wit and subtlety.

On a side note, Homegrown is simply a "must see" if you're a Billy Bob Thornton fan. It appears Stephen Gyllenhaal was influenced by earlier Thornton projects like One False Move and Sling Blade (though Homegrown is certainly a lot more tongue-in-cheek than either). And Thornton's role as a character who is both sophisticated and down-to-earth is a perfect match for the actor.

Sentiment: positive
This movie came very close to being a good flick. The direction needs to be a bit smoother to progress from one piece to the next to make it more plausible. In particular: The main character's need to escape is not explicit enough. Is he trying to kill himself? Is he trying to escape? His life does not seem to be that bad, so it makes it more difficult to swallow that he wants to leave his life so much. Also, it is not very clear how much "in love" he has fallen with Jennifer Jason L. If the movie was reworked with some more attention to these details, it would have been Great. On the other hand, for an indy flick, it's pretty good! Maybe if you have a couple of drinks, to dull the logical thinking, it would be more fun...



Sentiment: negative
The progression of the plot is enough to "rope one in" and create curiosity about the outcome. However, ultimately, the feeling that remains is that the producers of the movie forgot to end it. If the intention was to create a perpetual circle (occasionally done in the Twilight Zone), it was too sloppy to view as a positive effort.

Sentiment: negative
The proverb "Never judge a book by it's cover", was coined as a warning to those who fail to look beneath the surface. 

As I viewed the artwork to,"King of the Ants" I instantly thought HORROR! The arcane imagery proudly displayed on the cover & back spoke of a dark vision, the synopsis promised a story of murder, betrayal, & retribution. Instead what I discovered beneath that surface, was less interesting than what you can find under your average rock.

"King of the Ants" features Chris L. McKenna as Sean Crawley, an average guy ready to make a name for himself in this world, even if it means murder. Except Sean Crawley is someone you don't care about, never once did I feel any compassion or sympathy for this character. In fact he's downright unlikable, but not as much as Daniel Baldwin (Ray Mathews)who turns in an uninspired performance as a made all the worst by the utterly laughable dialogue he is forced to recite. Throw in Kari Wuhrer as a grieving widow who apparently has unconditional trust (esp. in the homeless), and little to no common sense, and George Wendt as Duke, which is basically a sober Norm from Cheers but MEAN!

Now there are a couple of interesting "hallucination" sequences in this film (the source of the cover images) but this film never delves further into that world. It prefers to bombard you with unmotivated characters, bad dialogue, and unlikely event after unlikely event. Oh the Horror!

Sentiment: negative
The world may have ended. Unfortunately this film survived as yet another testament to Canada's inability to make movies that go beyond the execrable. Maybe it's because all our really good people (Norman Jewison, Martin Short et al) go to Hollywood.) In fact it's too bad Short wasn't cast in this apallingly pretentious and banal film. He might have given it some credibility. The Canadian government should realize --- and this movie is a magnificent example --- that shovelling money into the trough does not result in good cinema. If the people lapping up these public funds had had to compete, they might have been forced to come up with something worthwhile. As it is they have produced yet another snickering embarassment.

Sentiment: negative
"Four Daughters" introduced John Garfield to audiences, and that is what is remembered most about this film today. Unlike some actors who appear in several films before their screen image gels, Garfield established his immediately, with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth and talk of the fates being against him.

It's actually the story of four girls, their widowed musician father (Claude Rains) and their various suitors, one of whom, Felix, is played by handsome Jeffrey Lynn. He's the one they all have a crush on, but he's in love with Buff (Priscilla Lane). Then she meets ne'er-do-well Mickey Borden, who falls for her as well. When Buff realizes that one of her sisters is in love with Felix, she leaves him at the altar and marries Mickey.

This is a fairly formulaic story given life (and sequels) by the acting. Garfield has already been mentioned, but Priscilla Lane was by far the strongest of the daughters, the most interesting, and the best actress. Jeffrey Lynn was a fresh and good-looking leading man, and this film got him off on the right foot with Warners. However, true stardom was not to be. Like many others of the era, he went into the service, and when he came out, he had a Bronze Star but not much of a career. He later went into television and real estate. Claude Rains is warm and wonderful as the patriarch.

So popular was "Four Daughters" that it inspired "Four Wives" and "Four Mothers," as well as reuniting much of the cast again in "Daughters Courageous" where the actors played different characters.

Very enjoyable, a nice remembrance of simpler and probably happier times, and a chance to see John Garfield in his first film.

Sentiment: positive
this is the first time I'm writing a comment on a movie on IMDb. but i had to write it for this one. its 3 hrs of unadulterated torture. from the starting u get the idea that the movie is gonna be bad. the acting is pathetic. I'm a big fan of Ajay devgan (loved him in bhagat singh) but he is at his worst in this movie. amitabh seems to have worked hard for this one, but somehow the fear is missing. prashant raj is a non actor. and the most irritating part of the movie is nisha kothari. i have no clue why the director took her in this movie. the background score is repetitive. somehow i felt that ramu tried to repeat a sarkar, the color theme, the background score, the camera angles, but it didn't work. PLEASE Don't WATCH IT

Sentiment: negative
I disagree with much that has been written and said about this supposed "masterpiece" of the German New Wave: 

1) There are major flaws in simple exposition, in the basic communication of critical plot points, as relating to Maria's abortion and the secret contract between Oswald and her husband. How many viewers understood that the husband agreed, in exchange for substantial financial remuneration, not to return to and reclaim his wife until Oswald was dead?

2) The ending is highly unsatisfying because arbitrary and accidental. The original screenplay called for Maria to commit suicide after the reading of Oswald's will, on finding out that her husband had in effect sold their marriage to Oswald. In the final version, however, Maria only runs water from a faucet across her wrist in a gesture of suicide. Maria is then summarily blown up, rather than having to confront and live with the consequences of her self-delusion and moral compromise.

3) Fassbinder seeks to forcibly superimpose the public on the private, the political on the personal. Contrary to what the critics and "experts" assert, I don't think it works. Merely intruding historic radio news or the sound of the jackhammers of German reconstruction in the soundtrack on the dramatic events of the movie does not make those historical events integral to the drama. 

The selfish ambition of Maria's rise from poverty to prosperity is meant to parallel the so-called economic miracle of postwar Germany. Maria is thus intended to be a woman specific to and reflective of her time and place, but is in reality unoriginal and nonspecific. Women have been asserting their independence by using sex for self-advancement for ages. 

4) Lastly, there are several instances of inexcusable sloppiness and amateurishness -- Fassbinder's drug addiction and consequent impatience and inattention have had their effect. Unknown people talk off screen without ever being seen; music is clumsily intrusive in places; and melodramatic posturing sporadically substitutes for acting.

Strangely, for a movie condemning a country for willful collective amnesia of the holocaust, it itself never mentions it once.

Sentiment: negative
Hitchcock would be proud of this movie. Even when nothing happens, it is suspenseful. Director David Lynch overuses a few cheap thrill tricks here and there, but he intersperses them with other cinematographic techniques to keep it from becoming obtuse.

Altogether surreal, this movie is like waking up and remembering most of a dream but not enough to make it sensible. I am still trying to figure it all out and will probably have to see it again to catch things I missed and which may help me understand it better. It is a very detailed plot that very slowly comes together, so you must be patient and pay attention. Get your bathroom trip out of the way before it starts. And yet, the plot is overshadowed by the theme, the mood, the character development, and the filming techniques.

The dual roles of the main actress, Naomi Watts, showcase her enormous talent. That is, when I could get my eyes off of her co-star. What an acting pair.

Lynch surprises throughout the movie with unusual camera angles, the length/timing of editing cuts, jumping back and forth between scenes. Combined with smart use of music and sounds, it all helps to build suspense in our minds, doubtless a major objective of the director. Well, he kept me on the edge of my seat, even had me talking to the actors to be careful here, and not be so naive there. You know, the kind of stuff you want to smack your kids for doing at the movies.

Sentiment: positive
Within the first few minutes of this Dutch thriller, we learn that Krabbe is a gay alcoholic writer who sleeps sans underwear, fantasizes about murdering his roommate, tries to steal a magazine from a news stand, and lusts after a studly young man he meets at the train station. And he's the hero of this nonsensical movie that is all dressed up (except for Krabbe in at least one scene too many) but has nowhere to go. The basic plot is very simple but is dragged out to nearly two hours before reaching a pointless conclusion. Verhoeven has a nice visual flair but resorts to scenes of wild hallucinations, overt symbolism, and gratuitous gore when he runs out of ideas.

Sentiment: negative
I did not expect much from this film, but boy-o-boy, I did not expect the movie to be this bad. Chris Rock is not showing a good act here, you can't get the feeling that his caracter is real, I think the movie would have been a bit better if it's drama or romantic scenes would have been a less part of the movie and more/better humor was involved. The movie is like the film makers were having a bad hangover making it. In the "making of" they don't show a single smile. This is a very bad film! I gave it three out of ten because of few smiles it gave me, but I did never laugh!

Sentiment: negative
When I saw Gone with the wind I thought that there could not be better actors than Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable to play Scarlett and Rhett but then I saw the movie Scarlet. I fell in love for this dramatic story. I love Timothy Dalton as Rhett Butler, he's fantastic. This is a movie I could watch a thousand times and it still wouldn't bore me.

Sentiment: positive
The "Wrinkle in Time" book series is my favorite series from childhood. I have read and re-read them more times than I can count over the last 35+ years. The characters, with all their virtues and flaws, are near and dear to my heart. This adaptation contained very little of the wonderful, magical, spiritual story that I love so much. To say I was disappointed with this film would be a great understatement.

If you have never read the book(s) I imagine you will enjoy the movie. The acting is passable, the special effects are well done for a made for TV movie, and the story is interesting. However, if you love the books, avoid this movie at all costs.

I found this statement at the Wikipedia page of the novel: "In an interview with Newsweek, L'Engle said of the film, 'I expected it to be bad, and it is.'"

I, like another reviewer here, feel the need to read the book again to dispel this movie from my mind.

Sentiment: negative
Although flawed in it's view of homosexuals, this movie will shed light for the viewer about the myths and inaccuracies concerning AIDS. Despite the depressing subject matter, this film depicts a warm friendship between two boys, and will make you laugh as well as cry. Very well-acted by all, especially Joseph Mazzello and Brad Renfro. The language is a little strong, though appropriate, and it's an entertaining and intelligent film for the whole family. But remember to have the Kleenex ready!

Sentiment: positive
This is a well directed Columbo episode, with also some good character but the story just doesn't really know to interest enough and doesn't appear as well layered and constructed as was often the case with a Columbo movie. This also goes for the killer's plot to kill his uncle. It's quite simple and doesn't seem as well thought out. Perhaps this movie didn't really took itself serious enough, since the atmosphere of the movie is mostly light. At least when compared to different Columbo movies.

For instance the movie features quite a large amount of comical relief, mostly coming from the Columbo character himself. It makes the movie an enjoyable one to watch but it also gives you the feeling they sort of overdid it times, also mostly since it doesn't correspond with most other Columbo movies.

The characters are good and it helps that it features Martin Landau in a double role. It's always funny to see how much different he still looked as a young man, while for instance a person such as Peter Falk hardly changed any over the years, he only got grayer. The movie also features Julie Newmar among others, who is best know for playing Catwoman in the '60's "Batman" life action series. It's funny how she still moves like Catwoman in this movie. Intentional or is this just her way of acting?

It's an enjoyable and good to watch Columbo movie but it also gives you the feeling that it all could had been a lot better with a better thought out script.

7/10

Sentiment: positive
Here's another film that doesn't really need much of a recommendation. It's a classic comedy, very funny and entertaining and which, of course, ultimately inspired a successful television series which many would say was even better (I enjoy both, personally). 

For some, it's hard to warm up to Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau as Felix Unger and Oscar Madison when they were were weaned on the TV show starring Tony Randall and Jack Klugman (or perhaps vice versa). But what we've got there in both cases are four good actors who in real life seemed so much like their film counterparts that they managed to make these characterizations their own. It's Neil Simon's humorous material that's key, and where the laughs really originate from.

For those who have somehow never heard of THE ODD COUPLE, it's the story of a neurotic and fussy neat-freak (Lemmon) who is thrown out of a 12-year marriage by his long-suffering wife and takes up residence in the Manhattan apartment of his sloppy and totally irresponsible buddy (Matthau). Pitting these two unlikely roommates together within the same four walls makes for some hugely funny predicaments.

Sentiment: positive
It's a shame that they didn't trust the original enough to build on it. 

But "RoboCop 2" takes the great ideas, imagination and characters of the original and replaces them with all the stereotypes that sequels have to offer.

The beginning commercial was cute and so was the scene that follows (reminiscent of the beginning in "Guys and Dolls"!) but aside from a flash of thought here and there, this is one film that is a slow, dirty slog down into the middle of nowhere.

Ideas are introduced then dropped, interesting characters from the original hardly get any screen time here, most of the new characters (Cain, Juliette Faxx) are so boring that they wouldn't hold up no matter what the movie, and then there's the tone.

In the Blessed Original, Paul Verhoeven knew how to direct with the kind of attitude where if you cranked up the attitude and the sensibility of a good pulp comic, even the most repellent violence would be entertaining. Kershner (although he DID direct a "Star Wars" sequel) doesn't. And scene after scene either makes you cringe, look away or just tune it out altogether.

And what's with RoboCop?? HE should be the main thing here, right? But there's whole scenes where he doesn't even show up, and what scenes he is in are so half-thought and shakily written that you don't know or care if he's part-human or part-cyborg - since he's all-boring.

Never have I seen such a rapid fall from grace. Why does Hollywood make such bad sequels? On purpose? Why; did the film-makers have a bet going?

Only one star for "RoboCop 2"; the FX are good but the story doesn't even try to match them.

Sentiment: negative
Yes, that's true. That movie is a horrible piece of... you know what. Almost all fans of Sapkowski's books in Poland think the same. The truth is that polish cinematography can not afford producing fantasy films. It's a shame when you compare "Wiedzmin" and "Conan the Barbarian" for example. I hope no one outside Poland will ever see this nightmare.

Sentiment: negative
The film starts in the Long Island Kennel Club where is murdered a dog,later is appeared dead as a case of committing suicide a collector millionaire called Arched,but sleuth debonair Philo Vance(William Powell)to be aware of actually killing.There are many suspects : the secretary(Ralph Morgan),the butler,the Chinese cooker,the contender(Paul Cavanagh) in kennel championship for revenge killing dog ,the nephew(Mary Astor) facing off her tyrant uncle,the Italian man(Jack La Rue),the brother,the attractive neighbour..Stylish Vance tries to find out who murdered tycoon,appearing many clues ,as a book titled:Unsolved murders. The police Inspector(Eugene Palette)and a coroner are helped by Vance to investigate the mysterious death.The sympathetic forensic medic examines boring the continuous body-count .Who's the killer?.The public enjoys immensely about guess the murder. 

The picture is an interesting and deliberate whodunit,it's a laborious and intriguing suspense tale.The personages are similar to Agatha Christie stories, all they are various suspects.They are developed on a whole gallery of familiar actors well characterized from the period represented by a glittering casting to choose from their acting range from great to worst. Powell is in his habitual elegant and smart form as Philo.He's protagonist of two famed detectives cinema,this one, and elegant Nick Charles along with Nora(Mirna Loy)make the greatest marriage detectives. Special mention to Mary Astor as the niece enamored of suspect Sir Thomas,she was a noted actress of noir cinema(Maltese falcon). The movie is magnificently directed by Hollywood classic director Michael Curtiz.He directs utilizing modern techniques as the image of dead through a lock-door,a split image while are speaking for phone and curtain-image.The tale is remade as ¨Calling Philo Vance¨(1940).The film is a good production Warner Bros, by Vitagraph Corp.

Sentiment: positive
A terrific comedy-drama about the powers of friendship. Despite it's a remake of a 1939 film of the same title, it would probably be compared to Sex And The City. I would not compare to it totally. The story starts with Mary(Meg Ryan) who seems to the life most women would envy, she's happily married, has a good daughter, great friends, and a great home. But Marys perfect life isn't what it seems, when she discovers her husband is cheating on her with Crystal(Eve Mendes) from Zach's. Mary is puzzled and doesn't know what to do. But her four good friends, Sylvia(Annette Bening), Edie(Debra Messing), and Alex(Jada Pickett Smith) try to be there for her in anyway they can. I really don't want to give anymore away. But I found this enjoyable, and I'm a man. Meg Ryan is great, it is nice to see her in on the screen again, after a series of flops. And the rest of the cast are also great including Eve Mendes as Crystal. Just an enjoyable lighthearted comedy.

Sentiment: positive
The Cat in the Hat is just a slap in the face film. Mike Myers as The Cat in the Hat is downright not funny and Mike Myers could not have been any worse. This is his worst film he has ever been in. The acting and the story was just terrible. I mean how could they make the most beloved stories by Dr. Seuss be made into film and being one of the worst films of all-time and such a disappointment. I couldn't have seen a more worst film than this besides, maybe Baby Geniuses. But this film is just so bad I can't even describe how badly they made this film. Bo Welch should be fired or the writer should. 

Hedeen's outlook: 0/10 No Stars F

Sentiment: negative
I also saw this movie at a local screening about a year ago. First, I'm going to say that it looks great. Cassella is incredibly talented and a fantastic cinematographer. I just wish the movie had been as good as it looks. I would not call this a horror movie. Putting in a few shots of a decaying ghost does not make it a horror movie. There's no mystery, there's no suspense, you know who did it the entire time. 

It's a drama. You know what's going on with both sides the entire movie. The acting was okay, I guess, but nothing special.

And the tagline, "Revenge can be deadly"....really?...they should have check how many hundreds of horror/thriller movies have that exact same tagline?

It pains me to say some of this, but I know a lot of the people who worked on this movie, and I know they don't want people blowing smoke up their ass, so I give my honest opinion.

Sentiment: negative
Anna Christie (1931)

On its own terms, this version of Garbo's Anna Christie, shot a year later in German with a whole new cast, is just toned down and refined enough to work better than the English version (both are American MGM productions). Garbo is if anything more commanding (or more beautiful as a screen presence) and her acting is more restrained. And she seems frankly more at ease, probably for a lot of reasons, but we can speculate that she was no longer making her first talking picture, so had adjusted quickly.

Without comparing always one film to the other, this Anna Christie is still the same O'Neill play with too many words. His themes of a woman wanting love without losing her independence are here, but it comes off as oddly old fashioned anyway. There are some scenes missing--the Coney Island section is shortened and isn't as good--but overall it's a direct echo of the first film. The director, Jacques Feyder (Belgian-French), is simply redoing what was done already, which I assume must be a frustrating experience.

It's interesting to see both films in succession because they are blocked out exactly the same way (not only the sets, but the shots, are all the same). There is an occasional scene lifted from the earlier film--some of the storm, understandably, but also a brief scene where Marie Dressler (from the English language version) is walking with her friend on a plank over a canal, drunk as can be. But they are just silhouettes, and when the next scene shows their faces, we see the German actors taking their parts. There is no replacing Dressler, for sure, but for me the German father is more believable and honest in his performance.

Clearly the themes--immigration, wayward fathers, daughters turning to prostitution, and the troubles of finding true love--have strong currents back then, especially with European threads (Garbo, appropriately, plays a Swedish young woman).

Sentiment: positive
Probably grossly underrated by all who never experienced the hell of living under communist regime. Although, it seems hard to believe, all of it happened, actually the reality was even worse than the movie. It resembles Orwellian fiction, only this is no fiction. John Hurt is excellent as always. Yes, the screenplay is not full of action, but life is not either. Plot is breathtaking. Yes, people were shot, yes thousands of them. Their 'crime' was that they wanted to leave communist 'paradise' without government authorization. At times the movie drives tears in your eyes. We need more movies like this to really appreciate what America provides for us. Excellent movie, highly recommend! God bless our country, USA!

Sentiment: positive