DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
The plot of this enjoyable MGM musical is contrived and only occasionally amusing, dealing with espionage and romance but the focus of the film is properly pointed upon the tuneful interludes showcasing the enormously talented and athletic tap dancing Eleanor Powell, abetted by Tommy Dorsey and his orchestra, featuring Ziggy Elman, Buddy Rich and Frank Sinatra. Red Skelton shares top billing with Powell, and he and sidekick Bert Lahr are given most of the comedic minutes, although Skelton is more effective when he, if it can be believed, performs as Powell's love interest, with Virginia O'Brien actually providing most of the film's humor as the dancer's companion. The technical brilliance of Powell is evidenced during one incredible scene within which Buddy Rich contributes his drumming skills, and which must be viewed several times in order to permit one's breathing to catch up with her precision. Director Edward Buzzell utilizes his large cast well to move the action nicely along despite the rather disjointed script with which he must deal, and permits Powell's cotangent impossibilities to rule the affair, as is appropriate.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of my all time favourites. All the actors do a great job. Comparing this movie to "Lawrence of Arabia" does no justice to both movies. "The Wind and the Lion" levels a much lower budget with fantastic actors portraying heartwarming characters in a heartwarming atmosphere. Action and beautiful pictures are provided as well, which all together guarantees a favourite movie to me.

Sentiment: positive
Before seeing this movie, I was expecting a fictional drama based loosely on ideas from the book; instead, it's the book, interrupted with dramatic scenes illustrating the different "illnesses." That didn't bother me much, but it hindered my enjoyment of the film. One story or even two or three long stories with excerpts from the book interspersed through the movie would have been preferable, in my opinion. If you're going to base a movie on a psychology text, you've got to find a more interesting (and preferably accurate) text than this one. The film drags during parts where it's little more than a video encyclopedia of 19th century sexual psychology and would be utterly intolerable if it weren't sexual in nature (because "sex = interesting" for most of us, even me). Luckily, there are several stories with actual character development that pull us in.

But, disappointingly, Krafft-Ebing's theories of sexuality went unchallenged, for the most part. I was hoping it would use stories to show how the imperfections of his archaic view of psychology which is still held by many to this day.

So, in the end, what do you have? A detailed catalog of a few fetishes and orientations, with some mildly interesting stories showing the trials and tribulations of a few "sexual deviants" before they are cured. For most of the film, the film moves with the crawling speed (and mood) of a wake. And, as an obviously low budget film, the cinematography and acting are not exactly top tier. Although I *was* pleased with the music, costume and interior design.

I felt this film's subject was right up my alley, and I still feel it's a below average film. It deserves a 3/10; a 4/10 if I were feeling extremely generous. I can't imagine anyone enjoying this if they didn't already have an interest in sexual fetishism.

Sentiment: negative
Spoiler below, but read on or you'll never know the horrible fate that awaits all planing to rent "Rodentz".

On a moonlit night, in a remote research laboratory, a major medical breakthrough is about to have deadly results. A chemical compound that was created to "hunt and destroy" deadly cancer cells has leaked from the hazardous waste disposal system into the building's basement. Now, the rodents involved in the laboratory experiment upstairs are not the only rats in the facility that will become the altered species. Professor Schultz, a leading bio-researcher, has just determined that the addition of a new enzyme now enables his "hunt and destroy" formulation to regenerate for the length of time necessary to neutralize deadly cancer tumors. When three varying degrees of the new mixture are administered to three different rats and the rest poured down the faulty "Waste Hazard" sink, shocking side-effects result in a night of terror.....right.....

Seriously, this is probably the worst film I've seen this year. Everything about it screams "Low-budget!", from the horrendous acting to the special effects which are some of the worst I've ever seen. The characters are clichéd morons and act in stupid, predictable ways: walking down dark hallways alone, looking for a cat, tripping and falling so the "rats" can catch up with them, boarding themselves up in a small room, etc. 

While some films are cheaply made, this film really takes the cake. Every possible corner is cut, everything from reusing earlier shots, filming the "Lab" hallways from different angles to make it look bigger (That reminds me--why were only TWO guys working in this freakin' massive building?!?!?!?), to music and special effects that could be done on a children's workshop PC.

That brings me to the worst aspect of this steaming pile of dung--the special effects. Just horrendous. The computer generated rats look so fake and stand out in every scene so even the dumbest of film buffs could see they are computer generated. And that giant rat suit--OH MY GOD!!!!!!!! seriously, are we supposed to believe that freaking beany baby is a monster? Just pitiful........On the better side, some of the gore looks pretty cool, especially considering the budget. 

The actors all suck. no one involved with the production cared or knew what they were doing. I've wasted enough time with review, just take my advice, it's garbage. 1/10.

About the DVD: The transfer sucks, the audio is passable and there's a commentary track on the disk by the director and two of his friends, who say they had absolutely nothing to do with making the film but were there to ask questions and make comments. All three of these sub-human primordial slime are so incredibly stupid that they should be institutionalized before they can harm themselves or others. I don't want to waste any more of you kind reader's time or mine, for I am starting to remember more than I want to about this film..... DVD rating: 1/10.

Sentiment: negative
I laughed my ass off for an hour. I had no idea who Dan Finneity was. Why haven't I heard of Dan Finnerty before? He's hysterical and so are his backup singers. They make all of these women songs that we would never wanna hear a new experience. They blow these songs away. This was on Bravo last night. Why isn't this Dan guy like "ultra famous"? Great voice! Charisma to burn! He blew me away with this show! I just read on the internet that he was once a member of "Stomp" I guess there isn't anything he can't do. I saw "Stomp" at a UCLA theater years ago and those guys were amazing. This show last night was done by Dreamworks! Does that mean that Spielberg did this? Why don't they star this Dan Finnerty in a movie. There was a standing ovation at the end of this show and every time the camera's cut to the audience, everyone was so into it, singing along or dancing. The whole show had this amazing energy. My only complaint was that it was not longer, but looking back, when you see how much energy these guys put out, I guess it would be impossible for any human being to perform with such gusto for over an hour. Man I loved this show!

Sentiment: positive
Stewart Moss stars as a scientist who is on a working trip with his wife, and one gets the feeling that he was picked for this role for his ability to roll his eyes back in his head...imagine the auditions for this.."can you...no, that's not quite it, thank you, next!". Anyway, he's bitten by a bat, and then, he's either changing into some kind of bat creature and killing people or....he's not. For no one else sees his strange transformations, but he himself seems to think that he's changing because his wedding ring pops off when his hands turn into claws, etc. To its credit the movie does kind of hold back on whether he's just nuts or whether he's actually transforming into something until almost the very end. This has some good locations & sort of a decent atmosphere at times but unfortunately none of that can make up for the somewhat lame story and the wonderfully bad acting. Kind of fun in a "so bad it's good" way, but leans more towards just plain bad. 4 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
Time line of the film: * Laugh * Laugh * Laugh * Smirk * Smirk * Yawn * Look at watch * walk out * remember funny parts at the beginning * smirk

Unfortunately, this movie has a good concept that it grinds to the ground.

Sentiment: negative
What's not to like about this movie? Every year you know that you're going to get one or two yule tide movies during Christmas time and most of them are going to be terrible. This movie is definitely a fresh new idea that was pulled off pretty well. A very funny take on a rich young guy paying a family to simulate a real Christmas for him. What is the good of having money like that if you can't do fun things with it. It was a win-win situation. A regular family gets six figures and a rich guy gets to experience Christmas like he imagined. Only if.

Drew Latham (Ben Affleck) was incredibly difficult to deal with and it was just a riot to see the family reluctantly comply with his absurd demands. It was a fun and funny movie.

Sentiment: positive
Just given the fact that it is based on the most infamous mass suicide incident of modern times would have been enough to give this 2-part 1980 made-for-TV film attention. But the fact is that it is a superb recreation of the life of the Rev. Jim Jones, who built a church into a virtual empire, and then encouraged it to disintegrate into a sleazy cult in which a Congressman and his entourage were assassinated, and 917 cult followers committed suicide by drinking Kool-Aid doused with cyanide.

Done very tastefully but horrifying enough, unlike the excruciatingly sadistic CULT OF THE DAMNED, GUYANA TRAGEDY features an all-star cast, including Ned Beatty (as Rep. Leo Ryan), Meg Foster, Randy Quaid, Brad Dourif, Brenda Vaccaro, LeVar Burton, and Madge Sinclair. But it is Powers Boothe (in his first big role) that really stands out as Jim Jones. He actually BECOMES the man, and his performance is riveting and chilling. Thus, it is no wonder that this film still manages to attract attention after more than twenty years.

Sentiment: positive
As a Pagan, I must say this movie has little if any Magickal significance. It's a "fun" witchcraft movie and not meant to teach us anything except that love is the strongest Magick of all, and never to use it in a controlling or vengeful way. That's a lesson everyone needs to learn, not just Pagans.

That having been said, this movie is wonderfully written and sweetly executed by Kim Novak and the venerable Jimmy Stewart.

Hermione Gingold delivers a stellar performance as Bianca, Elsa Lanchester (with too many movie credits to mention except as Ms. Jane Marbles of "Murder By Death") was wonderful as Ms. Novak's absent-minded-yet-capable upstairs neighbor Queenie. Also starring Jack Lemmon (wonderful performance) and Jim Kovacs (brilliantly witty).

"Witches can't cry. Why, they can't shed a single tear because their heart is full of Magick. They don't have time for silly things such as love." Queenie.

Gillian Holroyd (Novak) and her brother Nicky (Jack Lemmon) are Manhattan witches. Cloaked deeply within the secret underworld of those of the Craft, they live among other New Yorkers as one of them, without so much as causing a raised eyebrow. 

But then, along comes Shepherd "Shep" Henderson (Stewart), a steadfast, no-nonsense, dedicated businessman who is engaged to be married to Gillian's old college rival. 

By a quirky mishap of chance, he finds himself moving into Gillian's building and is instantly "bewitched" by her charm and grace. By the use of Magick, with a little help from Pyewacket (Gillian's familiar, trained by Robert E. Blair) and Queenie, Gillian begins to work on this handsome new dream man to get back at her old enemy.

But Magick should never be used to control, nor to hurt, and Gillian learns that the hard way in the most bittersweet way. Not only does she have to face what she's done, but she has to face Shep in her guilt. 

From the critical perspective; however, the movie takes a serious turn: The effects are very dated to the point of being pure camp. Some of the scenery was seemingly shot in the basement of someone's small home, but at least the characters were quirky and fun.

On a personal note, Pyewacket steals the show. Great cat! Great training by Robert E. Blair. 

As a Note of Trivia, this is the roots for the beloved Bewitched television sitcom. This introduces the original Samantha and Darrin. All the characters of note are present and accounted for. You have but to look, to see it for yourself.

This is one of my favorites, and I watch it often.

This movie gets a 9.1/10 from...

the Fiend :.

Sentiment: positive
I picked up this movie because it caught my eye as movie with a Jewish comedy focus - something I had not seen before. 

I approached this film with an open mind, and was interested in the way it began. The opening is well put together, and the first half of the film gave me many reasons to laugh, and this is good.

However, the humor soon became repetitive, the plot became confused and strained, and I realized I was no longer enjoying the film. I have tried to avoid saying this, but the movie became rather "cheap" - not a bad thing for a comedy if the humor holds up, but it didn't. I confess that I may have missed some of the humour, not being Jewish myself, and having little experience with Jewish culture. However, considering how heavily telegraphed the bulk of the humour was in this film, it's unlikely I missed much.

The idea is a good one, and perhaps if a little more thought was put into it the film would have been watchable all the way through. I wish I could give the movie a higher rating, but strictly speaking it would have been better as a TV series or as a series of skits. There was just not enough worthwhile fresh material for a full-length movie.

One thing to say about the casting - the lead role looked as if it had been designed with Ben Stiller in mind, but I don't think the movie would have been any more worthwhile if he had been in it.

Sentiment: negative
The funniest scene of this movie is probably when our saviours get their medals and plaques and whatnot. So the basic idea is, the police outnumbers these gangsters by like a million to one, but they're powerless because the villains' guns are just a bit bigger. I guess police ammo just kinda bounces of. They decided to shoot this movie in documentary style with fake interviews and all and seriously, what is wrong with these guys? They're talking like they were armed with rolled-up newspapers. Okay I admit, it's probably still dangerous to be in the line of the fire, even when the situation is so much to your advantage, but don't go nuts. And why the hell did it take 44 minutes to solve everything anyway? I'd say that's a very long time when you have them surrounded and you're allowed to shoot. They're like ten ft. away, they hit absolutely nothing. Then they go and buy bigger guns themselves to increase their heroism. And then yeah, there you have it, one of the cops actually hits someone. Bullet was probably diverted by a lamp post or something. I had a good laugh I guess.

Sentiment: negative
Daniel Auteuil's Bruno in Petites Couperes is a middle-aged model of his Pierre in Christian Vincent's La Separation of 10 years ago. In both films, youthful confidence in left-wing ideology and love (mutual metaphors) crumbles into paranoia - manifesting itself as trapped aggression in Pierre and desperately comic womanizing in the more recent Bruno.

Unfortunately for Auteuil fans, the actor has become reliant on a uniform world-weariness (not unlike compatriot Johnny Hallyday in Leconte's recent l'Homme du Train). Acting it ain't, and becomes rather frustrating as the film progresses. Pascal Bonitzer doesn't help as the writer/director of the project. His sequencing of episodes overlaid with connecting symbolism fail to mask the film's lack of rhythm. I was particularly furious that the imposingly dramatic/romantic backdrops of Grenoble were made virtually redundant by a cameraman who was obviously shivering in the cold.

Krisitn Scott Thomas almost rescues the show with her female counterpart to Bruno, Beatrice. She dramatizes the dizzying contradictions intended as Bruno in a character of increasing complexity to the point of becoming surreal. Bonitzer cannot sustain this though, and the flagging plot demands Beatrice to even out into another bourgeois mannequin. In doing so Bonitzer shows then denies Scott Thomas the Oscar cabinet.

All the characters' submersion into the bourgeoisie may be a viable and indeed tragic outcome, but in this case it's a cop-out of a cadence (unlike the brutal, painful denouement of La Separation). A serious disappointment, 4/10.

Sentiment: negative
Okay, I'll admit that if I didn't have kids, I never would have seen this film and would never see it. But, considering all the rotten kids movies I have seen (such as SPY KIDS 2 or BABE: PIG IN THE CITY), this is a significant improvement. And, it had enough in it that I wasn't totally bored out of my skull or contemplated suicide (something I did repeatedly in the other two movies). Sure, the performances are pretty broad and the plot is kinda silly--but it IS a kids film. And, compared with other films in the genre, this is definitely better than average. Frankie Muniz and Amanda Bines actually appear to have some talent and probably will continue to have careers after puberty--at least on infomercials or doing voice-overs.

So, if you are looking for a film to see with your kids, you certainly could do a lot worse!

Sentiment: positive
I put this movie on not expecting much, other than a B movie gore fest. Thankfully I was presented with a very well made film, that built up the suspense and managed to maintain it throughout its run time. This was an impressive achievement. The acting was solid, creating characters that you cared about and related to; and although some may find the film slow, it did force you to think about what you would have done in the same situation. Added to this there was some fine camera work and the directors pulled it all together admirably. An excellent effort then, that is well worth your time if you prefer development and suspense over gore.

Sentiment: positive
When I first watched this movie, in the 80s, I loved it. I was totally fascinated by the music, the dancing... everything. However, I recently watched the whole thing again on DVD, and I was completely struck by how extremely stupid the storyline was - how it contained holes, inconsistencies and - frankly - a whole lot of crap - and how horrid the dancing was. I mean, in a realistic world, she would NEVER have gotten into that ballet repertory... The whole thing was quite pathetic. The character developments also lacked in depth. I think that this was, very much, a product of the 80s: the film does not hold up today!

Sentiment: negative
In 1858 Tolstoy wrote this in his diary: "The political is not compatible with the artistic, because the former, in order to prove, has to be one-sided." This thought from a great mind is applicable to USA The Movie. The film might be read by those with a narrow focus as a 90 minute slam of Bush, Cheney et. al. as well as a ripping of America as an out-of-control imperialistic force that will ultimately be destroyed by its own folly and thirst for power. The more open-minded viewer will take note of the recurring images and themes that make this DVD a testament to postmodernist thought, as the main character breaks up into bits and pieces surrounded by recurring visuals of the natural world contrasted with the man-made constructions; towers, roads, video monitors, radio, vehicles. Above all the ominous threat of wars that have been and are to come smolder throughout. War and rumors of war are what is created, destroyed and recreated on the screen, in our conscious world and in our unconscious minds.

Sentiment: positive
I can't help but laugh at the people who praise this show as heartwarming and tear-jerking. For one, it's entirely unrealistic that these people will have perfect lives after their new homes.

How can these families afford to maintain these new mega-houses? And what about their poor neighbors? Property taxes must surely increase after this happens. Plus, the noise would annoy me.

Second, how excessive can a reality television show become? It's practically the same repetitive junk week after week. We're introduced to a suffering family, they renovate the home, then surprise the family and everyone breaks out the Kleenex boxes.

Not to mention how boring the renovation part is. The only interesting part of the show is to see what the house looks like, but even that segment is destroyed by the phony confessionals and constant sobbing.

"Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" is a show pretending to be heartfelt but it falls flat. Skip this one. If you like reality television, "Survivor" is far superior and moving.

Sentiment: negative
eXistenZ combines director David Cronenberg's traditional love of blood and gore and exploding heads with the more confusing aspects of a reality twisting David Lynch film. And it actually works effectively. I won't bother trying to give even the bare bones of a plot synopsis here because it'll only cause more confusion. All you need to know is that the film is about a virtual reality computer game that is so incredibly lifelike that it becomes difficult to tell the difference between reality and virtual reality. The film almost seems to abandon its technology fearing point at the end, but then it throws in the final twist in the very last line of dialogue.

There's also some very gross sexual imagery based around the 'bio-ports' in the protagonists backs, as well as some very gross acting from Jude Law. He manages to come off as naive and stupid and boring and any other annoying habit you can care to think of. Jason Jennifer Leigh comes off much better, and everyone else can be called a supporting character, including Willem Dafoe in a functional, if unspectacular, role as a money-crazed mechanic. Overall, eXistenZ is a very effective sci-fi film about the possibilities technology can present and the possible consequences it will receive.

Sentiment: positive
If Sicily is a territory of the baroque, with its doubling of perspective, that's part of this movie's challenge to realism. And it's an exuberant pleasure here, outdoing Fellini with not one but three film directors, plus of course the actual Bellocchio, who has made some really great movies and shouldn't be touchy about his honor. There is a variety of takes and casting improvisations on Manzoni's "I promessi sposi" with, somewhere there, actual marriage. Sicily is also taken to be a territory of skulduggery (You already know this version of the island, so there's no spoiler involved), a comic version of which makes the picture worth seeing for Sergio Castellito's work with guard dogs on the floor of the great hall of a palazzo.

Sentiment: positive
This film is hard to knock. It follows in the tradition of Pulp Fiction, yet succeeds further by stamping its own unique style. The cast is awesome, the script is great - and things like the odd (Pulp Fiction-esque) time-sequencing is done brilliantly. I particularly like how the images provided in flash back vary dramatically depending on who is telling the story at the time. When it is one of the indoctrinated criminals everything is flashy and cool, but when it is the hero's recollection everything is skanky and disgusting.

This is an awesome film - and so I am extremely annoyed to find that I cant buy it anywhere!

Sentiment: positive
"Death Lends A Hand" is one of the pivotal early episodes of "Columbo" that helped define the show for the next thirty years. It marks the first of Robert Culp's four appearances (three as a murderer), playing much the same role in each show.

In this case Culp plays Brimmer, the head of a large private detective company who is asked to investigate whether the wife of a wealthy newspaper magnate, Mr Kennicut, is having an affair. Although she is, Brimmer decides not to tell Kennicut, in the hope that he can blackmail his wife in return for snippets of information about her husband's business associates. She reacts badly to this suggestion, an argument ensues which rapidly turns violent as Brimmer whacks her across the face. Because he is wearing a large ring, the blow knocks her to the ground and kills her.

There are some really priceless moments in this episode. One of my favourite scenes is where Columbo pretends to be into palm-reading, although this is in fact a ruse to discover the shape and size of Brimmer's ring without admitting that he knows the killer wore a ring. Columbo being Columbo, he only reveals what he really knows when the time is exactly right to turn the screws a little. So initially he goofily plays the part of a rather simple-minded man who gets excited by the "lifeline going over the mound of the moon", or some equally ridiculous palm-reading mumbo-jumbo.

Another great scene is when Brimmer tries to offer Columbo a job for his firm, effectively bribing him to stop poking his nose around. Again, Columbo doesn't reveal that he knows what's going on, he pretends to be honoured and excited by this job offer.

And there's another where Columbo says to Kennicut, in front of Brimmer, that he wishes the murderer could hear their conversation. He wants to hint to Brimmer that he is onto him, without directly accusing him, so he rather cruelly (but understandable in the circumstances) decides to play mindgames on Brimmer in order to spook him into panicking and doing something stupid. Which of course he does! All the while, the grieving Kennicut is unaware of the subtext of this conversation. It's only near the end that Columbo explains all to Kennicut (not shown on screen).

I won't reveal how Columbo finally nails the killer bang to rights, but let's just say there's a potato involved... 

A really really good episode, possibly the very best of the first series. If you liked this then you'll like "Double Exposure" too, also featuring Robert Culp.

Sentiment: positive
Up until the last 20 minutes, I was thinking that this is possibly Jackie Chan's worst movie (excluding his pre-1978 work, which I am not familiar with). The final fight sequence changed all that: it is long and good and intense - indeed, one of the highlights of Chan's career. But to get to it, you have to sit through a lot of "comedy" that might amuse five-year-olds (oh, look! someone threw a tomato at that guy's face) and endless "football" scenes. Not to mention the dubbing (which includes the line "How can I turn it off? It's not a tap" - watch to find out what it refers to). "Dragon Lord" is worth renting for the final fight alone, but the rest of the movie is only for Jackie collectors, and even then only for those who've already seen at least 15 of his other movies. (**)

Sentiment: negative
Well, I just discovered that there is a show more disgusting and shocking than "Little Britain" and I like it! "The League of Gentlemen" is a sick British comedy that is about the most awful, insane and disgusting small town in all the UK. This place makes Dibley and Craggy Island (from "The Vicar of Dibley" and "Father Ted") seem pretty normal!! The format of the show is a lot like LITTLE Britain except that all of it centers around the townspeople of this one hellish town. Both shows feature the same skits again and again every episode and some obviously inspired "Little Britain" (particularly the job seeking class skit). But the show differs because although it is crude like "Little Britain" (hence not a show for kids), the show has a sick and sadistic quality that sets it apart from all these shows. In particular, animal cruelty and serial killing are recurring themes throughout the show.

Now if you haven't guessed, this is NOT a show for kids, the easily offended or normal people and that's probably why I liked it. However, you really do need very thick skin and a love of the awful to enjoy this to the max. Funny and incredibly irreverent beyond belief--you have to see it to believe it.

Sentiment: positive
The Russian movie, "4," follows the lives of three (not four) strangers who meet one night in a local bar. One is a musician, one a frozen meat seller and one a call girl.

"4," I gather, is intended to showcase the dreariness and hopelessness of life in post-Soviet Russia (the characters have to make up stories to make their lives appear more interesting than they really are), but the movie is so incoherent and boring that I seriously doubt very many people will be able to sit all the way through it. There seems to be a suggestion running through the film that the shadowy Russian government is up to some shady doings behind the scenes - operating secret cloning facilities, selling decades-old frozen meat etc. - but the movie is so formless and incomprehensible that I doubt anyone could figure out what anybody's really up to here.

Despite decent acting and a few incisively directed scenes, "4" is a two-hour long endurance contest that should be avoided at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
Although the movie was only so so the closed captioning was by far the best I have ever seen! Most of the time the spelling is terrible and the captioning out of sync. I use the closed captioning even though I can hear well but find a lot of actors mumble. Also many times the sound track overrides the dialogue. Thanks!

Sentiment: negative
I saw "Rachel's Attic," thinking that I would be in for an enjoyably visceral, ride. However, it was not to be the case. Visceral, yes, but enjoyable? That would be a big, fat, no! In fact, the only reason that I gave it a "3," is due to the fact that Gunnar Hansen appears (ever so briefly) as one of the film's reprehensible characters. How they ever lured Mr. Hansen into this piece of...work, I'll never know. The story idea is interesting but poorly executed. The direction is pedestrian and the acting is mediocre. The only thing that is worse than that, are the special effects. YIKES!!! I've seen better effects in a grade school play. Give it up, Mr. W, it's time for a career change...I hear they're hiring at Mel's Diner! There are very few, well made, Inde movies coming out of Michigan...and "Rachel's Attic" isn't one of them.

Sentiment: negative
Before seeing this, I was put off by the subject matter, but this is not your average triumph over adversity story. Although this is technically about blind Tibetan kids climbing Mt. Everest, there is so much more to it. This movie shows the very strong, often contradictory personalities of two highly accomplished blind adults leading the children, Erik and Sabriye. Erik is an American blind mountain climber/athlete and Sabriye is a blind German academic who started a school in Lhasa Tibet. They are both exceptional in their own ways, but disagree on what will really build confidence in the kids. Erik wants them to reach the summit while Sabriye wants them to enjoy Erik as a role model and take pleasure in moment. The nuances are complicated and one walks away not really being sure who was right or if the whole climb was a mistake or a great idea. The most profound scenes are with the Tibetan children themselves and the hardships they faced before finding their way to the school. The most moving for me was the story of Tashi, a frail teenager who grew up on the streets after his parents abandoned him. I could watch a whole movie on his life and was happy to learn that thanks to the school, he is now running a successful small business with some of his fellow students. If you liked Spellbound or Murderball, you will love this.

Sentiment: positive
Mel Brooks is a great writer,director and actor, but once in a while even he can have a klinker. The beginning of this starts out almost basically just meeting one character after another.You have Cary Elwes who's charming and talented, but he can't do comedy. His expressions into the camera show that even he can't believe the inanities in the script. Richard Lewis looks bored and distracted throughout without much to do and Amy Yasbeck is stuck in high-school acting mode. Dave Chapelle shows great comedy range mugging and hamming for the camera and Mark Blankfield is mostly stifled in the role of the blind man, but then he does still manage to show great comedy range. Eric Allen Kramer doesn't have much to do, but the few scenes he does have are binding. The best roles are those of Roger Rees, Tracy Ullman, Megan Cavanaugh and Brooks for when he does appear. Dom DeLuise has a funny turn as a Mafia Don employing a Clint Eastwood lookalike, but on the minus side, some of the jokes aren't very funny while some of the really funny ones seem stolen from Mel's other movies.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is best described or compare to "Big Fish" (the movie by Tim Burton). But it's a less glamorous and more in you face tale. And of course here it's not the father, but his grandfather who tells the stories.

The movie's narrative also moves back and forth (so the story outline here at IMDb, might tell you more than you would like to read, before watching the movie). It's funny and engaging enough, even though you get from one story to another and have some dramatic moments too. It also surprises you here and there, with things you wouldn't expect. A nice little movie then, that deserves your attention, especially if you like movies like that! :o)

Sentiment: positive
I was so looking forward to seeing this when it was in production.But it turned out to be the the biggest let down. A far cry from the whimsical world of Dr Seuss. It was vulgar and distasteful I don't think Dr Seuss would have approved.How the Grinch stole Christmas was much better. I understand it had some subtle adult jokes in it but my children have yet to catch on. Whereas The Cat in the Hat screamed vulgarity they caught a lot more than I would have liked.Growing up with Dr Seuss It really bothered me to see how this timeless classic got trashed on the big screen .Lets see what they do with Horton hears a who.I hope this one does Dr Seuss some justice.

Sentiment: negative
For those expecting the cover art and story outline to indicate another entertaining Bollywood Indian production, beware: no musical dance numbers or songs of production value exist to brighten the mood in this rather tired story of arranged marriages in the British Indian culture - with a few variations thrown in. As written by Roopesh Parekh the script jumps around topics worthy of discussion only to cover them up with routine avoidance tactics. Harmage Singh Kalirai directs like a traffic cop, trying to hold together the disparate subplots to the point of Keystone Cop tactics.

Jimi (Chris Bisson) is a medical school student who is gay and has a lover Jack (Peter Ash) and they live with Jack's obese, alcoholic, loose morals aunt Vanessa (Sally Bankes) and Sally's chubby daughter Hannah (Katy Clayton). Jimi's family is visited by the Patel family from Delhi who bring their beautiful daughter Simran (Jinder Mahal) to England to find a husband. Jimi's parents (Saeed Jaffrey and Jamila Massey) and his grandmother (Zohra Sehgal) decide Simran is the girl for Jimi to marry and arrange an engagement and wedding in the custom of Indian ways - without consulting Jimi. Jimi discovers the plot and is too spineless not to go along with it, a decision which enrages Jack and infuriates Vanessa. Hannah tells a 'little lie' to Simran (that she is Jimi's daughter) and the wedding is off. When Jimi's parents visit Jimi's house they discover the drunken Vanessa, are repulsed by her, but eventually decide that for Jimi's happiness they will go along with the fact that Vanessa has given them a 'granddaughter' and decide to use the marriage preparations as a wedding for Jimi and Vanessa. Jimi convinces the very reluctant Vanessa to go along with the idea and before long Vanessa is dressed in a sari, prepared for a wedding, and Jimi, terrified at what he is doing just to please his parents, includes Jack as his best man. At the wedding the truth comes out and to Jimi's surprise his family adapts to Jimi's true self and the day is saved by simply being truthful.

The cast copes with this silly bit of nonsense rather well and there are some good performances: Chris Bisson and Peter Ash are attractive men and play their roles well, albeit without any indication at all of a loving relationship (the director seems terrified of showing the least suggestion of intimacy between the two men); Sally Bankes provides most of the laughs as Vanessa; the rest of the cast repeat the stereotype roles they've played countless times in Indian movies. This is not a bad film - it has its moments - but it is just too superficial and tired to make us care about any of the characters.

Sentiment: negative
Despite gorgeous and breathtaking animation, this is probably one of most uninspiring Disney films I've seen, and I don't slam Disney films very often. Spirit is a wild stallion who repeatedly gets captured, either by the cavalry or by Indians, both of which try to "break" him. Spirit ends up forming a bond with the Indian, and that, in a nutshell, is the story. With exception to the beautiful animation of the horses, neither I or my five year old were very inspired or excited by this film. It's ironic that it's titled "Spirit", as spirit is what this film could have used a bit more of. An extra point was given for the soundtrack, which was enjoyable, with songs by Bryan Adams and Hans Zimmer. And although this film is rated G, you will still probably have to end up explaining what "breaking a horse" means to your five year old. I did.



Sentiment: positive
This was one of the first color films I have seen at the cinema when I was a child. It is good to remember it. The girl, Liz Taylor, who later became a beautiful woman, starred together with the tiny and excellent actor Mickey Rooney. The content of the film plot is good for all ages, good wills and behavior. Good ethics of Velvet's parents, particularly her mother is something to take into account. Our generations should be well educated and this film may help to this purpose. Velvet loves the horses and racing them, and Mi Taylor (Rooney) brought her to an international horse racing competition in England, where at the end the young Velvet won, but was disqualified because of being female.

Sentiment: positive
I am speechless, honestly I cannot understand how anyone could have conceded to a script like this, cast anyone in the film let alone direct it. The fact that I am writing this review feels like an insult to my fingers, this film should be thrown in to the dustbin rather than be reviewed. I am disappointed in Flex Alexander for even thinking about accepting such a POOR EXCUSE FOR A SCRIPT let alone essay the role. OMG! I think I just insulted the word "essay"...uh yeah I did. Y'know what, the less said about this mindless drivel, the better. You have been warned, nobody warned me I had to experience the horror myself. WATCH AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Sentiment: negative
Early in the movie, Cagney's Johnny Cave character tells his gumshoes in the Office of Weights and Measures that in the previous year, unscrupulous shop owners had cheated the American consumer out of more money than the aggregate National War Debt! Then he goes out and tickets a particularly greasy green grocer for short-selling him a bag of sugar that is four ounces off (oh, the horrors!!) and one skinny chicken that his butcher's scale has rather generously proclaimed to be six lbs., after which the fur--or in this case feathers--flies. Er, fly. When a racketeer in politician's clothing attempts to derail an investigation into the paltry poultry purveyor's practices, our hero becomes a lone wolf waging the war of the weights on behalf of housewives across America. After all, four cents here and a quarter there add up and before we know it we have anarchy! Word of his intransigence soon reaches both the Mayor and the Governor's offices, and Cagney becomes a marked man. If it sounds silly, it's not--the dishonest retailing practices are only a plot tool (or as Hitchcock would say, the McGuffin) and while unfamiliar, it works every bit as well here as any Treasury Agent or G-man anthology in which the fight is taken to shady crooks who are operating outside the interests of the country's common good. The production standards are decidedly Grade-B, but it is Cagney who makes this movie the delight that it is: this was his first film away from Warner Brothers after seeking release in court from his unreasonable contract, and he seems to be at ease and enjoying himself tremendously--the performance turned in here is intelligent and crackles with his unique energy and surefire charisma. Mae Clarke's presence lends a definite Warner's feel to the overall production. The supporting players turn in solid performances and the story moves along smartly after a rocky introduction that seems to begin three or four reels into the story--but sit back and enjoy it for the Cagney showcase and engaging Depression-era time capsule that it is.

Sentiment: positive
A montage prologue, quite obviously manufactured by the blessed maniacs who actually chose to distribute this thing, tries to convince us that the comic impact of this staggeringly incompetent bit of nothing is entirely deliberate. Don't you believe it: this is to Lloyd Kaufman as Andy Warhol is to Herschel Gordon Lewis. It is so thoroughgoing in its project of torturing its hypothetical audience that it seems like some kind of misanthropic negationist art installation, only it can't be because it is so completely bereft of self-consciousness. As obnoxious and ugly as "Things" or "Frozen Scream", this manages to up the ante by recycling itself with a maddeningly bald insistence that has to be seen to be believed. A Hitchcock-style shot-by-shot analysis of, say, the attack on the cardio girls might yield twenty edits and perhaps three minutes of footage - only the sequence is ten minutes long! You WANT to believe that this started life as a slightly more bearable short subject, except if you took away the repetition what's left would be far less fascinating: eg. when the 'fiend' does enter the room, he only inspires extended, highly apathetic, utterly blank stares from his imminent (offscreen) victims. Repeat this scenario about four times, in marginally varied settings; bridge these with perhaps thirty lines of dialogue total; offer up actors even more hateful and lethargic than those in the above mentioned classics; and grace us with a monster comprising gauze, ketchup and one yellow Spock ear, and you've got a movie too mind-boggling to refuse, a working definition of bad. I'm proud to own it!

Sentiment: negative
SPOILERS. Like other posters, I felt that the ending was a bit abrupt. I would have liked to have seen the crew adjusting to life back on earth after their return. I suppose the writers anticipated this problem by "front loading" some Voyager on earth sequences at the beginning of the episode. (Of course, that time line has been eradicated, so it's all moot.) I did like how Admiral Janeway died for the Voyager crew. As fans, we get to have our cake and eat it to, by having Janeway both make the ultimate sacrifice and live on. I admit that the scenes of Janeway and her older self having conversations was bizarre and so easily could have crossed the line into camp. Fortunately, Mulgrew(s) pulled it off.

Sentiment: positive
Like most people, I was interested in "More" solely because of the Pink Floyd soundtrack, which has turned out to be the only Pink Floyd album that I still listen to after all these years. It was quite a surprise to run across the film in a local video store, in a digitally remastered version. It was an even bigger surprise to find that it is a pretty good movie.

Visually it is quite beautiful, especially when the two main characters are cavorting on the rocks on the Spanish island of Ibiza. And the use of the soundtrack music, which as far as I can tell is exclusively by Pink Floyd, is excellent. It was a joy to watch the film with my copy of the album alongside me, mentally ticking off each track as it was used in the film. Dave Gilmour's brief "A Spanish Piece" was the only one I didn't hear, and several tracks are used quite prominently, especially "Cymbaline," "Main Theme," and "Quicksilver." That latter track is tedious on the soundtrack album but works very well during the title sequence of the film, resurfacing at least once later on. Maybe now I can appreciate it on the album, now that I have some visuals to accompany it in my mind.

The plot of "More" is a little hard to take at times, especially in the early going, when the film appears to be merely a vehicle to demonstrate the hipness of those involved in making it. But eventually the film proves that it has much more than that to offer, as the plot becomes more focused. Why does Stefan take heroin? Why does ANYBODY take heroin, fully knowing the possible consequences? The film does not attempt to answer that question directly, but Stefan's heroin use seems a logical extension of his single-minded pursuit of pure pleasure.

I strongly recommend this film to any Pink Floyd fan who has an appreciation of the vastly underrated "More" soundtrack. I also recommend it to anyone who has an interest in sixties counterculture and how it was portrayed in the media. I have no idea how realistic this movie is, since I am too young to have experienced the sixties firsthand, but it does seem to capture the spirit of the times in a way that no other movie does.

Sentiment: positive
One of the commenter's is wrong. This is not the only Pat Patterson film and he didn't die two years after this was made. He shot a film called the "Electric Chair" in Pineville, NC. He shot this a few years after Doctor Gore. Patterson died in the late 70's. I know this because he used my house and he left a cat there!! It sucked also. This was a big deal when the movie came out. No independent horror films were being made in NC. This movie didn't help matters. Patterson used to do gore effects for H. G. Lewis. He was also good at magic. His gore scenes in Body shop were actually well done. The film was shot in a building that also housed a 7/11. You can actually see the tops of the walls in some scenes. The budget was less that $20,000 and the script looked like a child wrote it. Only Patterson could understand it. Still...it's entertainment and it's a classic.

Sentiment: negative
The premise of an African-American female Scrooge in the modern, struggling city was inspired, but nothing else in this film is. Here, Ms. Scrooge is a miserly banker who takes advantage of the employees and customers in the largely poor and black neighborhood it inhabits. There is no doubt about the good intentions of the people involved. Part of the problem is that story's roots don't translate well into the urban setting of this film, and the script fails to make the update work. Also, the constant message about sharing and giving is repeated so endlessly, the audience becomes tired of it well before the movie reaches its familiar end. This is a message film that doesn't know when to quit. In the title role, the talented Cicely Tyson gives an overly uptight performance, and at times lines are difficult to understand. The Charles Dickens novel has been adapted so many times, it's a struggle to adapt it in a way that makes it fresh and relevant, in spite of its very relevant message.

Sentiment: negative
The Buddy Holly Story is a great biography with a super performance from Gary Busey. Busey did his own singing for this film and he does a great job.

Sentiment: positive