DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This is an excellent little film about the loneliness of the single man. Phillipe Harel as Notre Heros is a bit like an amalgam of Robert de Niro in Taxi Driver, Inspector Clouseau (in his stoicism) and Chauncey Gardiner in Being There (also Peter Sellers). He is single yet doesn't have a clue how to attract the opposite sex - in fact, he really makes no effort at all!

He has a stoicism and fatalism that defies any hope of ever achieving coupledom - his friend Jose Garcia as Tisserand is in the same plight yet at least makes a brave effort to transcend his extended virginhood (he's 28 and admits he's never had sex).

Very good outdoor shots of Paris and Rouen, where the two software people travel on business. They try various nightclubs and places but all to no avail. My theory is that they're trying the wrong places - they go to more-or-less 'youth' nightclubs; they should try the type that has older people, more their own age.

Harel increasingly becomes isolated and does a little de Niro effort, as in Taxi Driver, urging his friend/colleague to go and stab some bloke who's pulled a nice-looking girl in the nightclub.

Worth watching.

Sentiment: positive
It's a shame that quality actors like Baldwin and Booth have to succumb to lousy stories and scripts just for the money. But, hey, it's a cruel world...

This is just another one of a long line of assassin thrillers that use all the usual narrative twists to try to make it appear more appealing than it is. Sure, it has some nice locations, it's a slick production, there is some good camera work and editing, and it's fairly well paced, overall.

So, what's the real problem? Quite simply, the whole premise is just totally unbelievable. However, instead of spoiling a rotten story for you, I'll let you find out what it's all about, that is, if you can get through it. I managed, but only because I like Baldwin and I kept hoping that it would get better.

It didn't. And, it had one of the most anti-climactic endings that I've seen for a long time. In fact, maybe never...

But, it's harmless fun, I guess, if you've got nothing better to do.

Sentiment: negative
This was the only time I ever walked out on a movie. Years later, I saw it in the cable listings and thought, "Maybe I should give it another try." Suffice to say that I was right the first time. This ranks second only to Godzilla 1998 as the worst movie I've ever seen.

Sentiment: negative
The movie Andaz Apna Apna in my books is the top 5 intelligent comedy movies ever made in Bollywood perhaps even Hollywood. 

When the movie released i was a 8 year old and I heard it was a flop but I never understood till now why was it a flop...but let me tell you one thing...this movie would have more money by selling home Cassettes and DVDs and by showing in TV movie channels than any hit movie in theaters. This movie has been shown countless times in Movie channels and I think even now the public love and the TV producers keep repeating the movie again and again. I personally have watched the entire movie more than 80 -100 times and I still love it.....

The performance by both Aamir khan as Amar and Salman khan as Prem is mind blowing but i especially liked the performance of Aamir khan as a street smart guy....his dialogs in the movie are Hilarious... the story is simple and heres how it goes.....

Amar and Prem are poor , lazy chaps and come from a poor family of tailors and Amars father is a barber. Then they both get a news that a Millionaire 's daughter from London is coming to India to look for a suitable match ...both Amar and Prem think that this is a brilliant opportunity to become super rich.....therefore they both head out to woo Raveena Tandon..(the millionaires daughter)......in their journey they both hate each other and each one of them try to fool the other in order to marry Raveena.....the comedy scenes in between are so hilarious that you would need a glass of water to stop the pain in your stomach by laughing.......and then there is Raveenas Uncle (Millionaire's look alike brother) Teja who wants to take revenge from Raveenas father.....since he is broke and Raveenas dad is a millionaire......his plans include kidnapping Raveena to blackmail Raveenas dad for which he hires 2 butlers.....

but later on we get to know that there is a twist in the movie (watch the movie to know).......then there is Shakti Kapoor as crime master Gogo who is also incredibly funny......

The thing which stood out for me were the dialogs in the movie which has become a legend of sorts.....Aamir khan uses his "aaila " brilliantly and Salman goes like "OOima "........and for Gogo there is " Jab Raat Ko Bacha Soota Nahi Hain to Ma Bolti Hain Ki Sooja Nahi to Gogo Aa Jaega" ......each and every scene is so funny......

I especially liked the one in which Aamir khan and Salman goto get Raveena from Teja and they both go in a Luna having "chillar" money in a bag....that scene is so funny..

I recommend anyone who understands Hindi or Urdu to watch this movie ......this is one movie that I would recommend having a DVD and you will never regret.......

Sentiment: positive
Love the characters and the story line. Very funny with plenty of action. Thomas Ian Griffith and Tia Carrer give great performances. I enjoyed the dynamic and comical interaction of Griffith and Career. Donald Southerland plays a very likable, and surprisingly sympathetic, burnt out hit man. All three actors are among my favorites and having them in this movie made for a special treat. A nice addition to my extensive DVD collection. I highly recommend this movie. If you like... Mr. and Mrs. Smith, The Replacement Killers, L.A. Confidential, The Long Kiss Goodnight, The Abyss and, The Whole Nine Yards... you will love this movie.

Sentiment: positive
Marion Davies stars in this remarkable comedy "Show People" released by MGM in 1928. Davies plays a hick from Savannah, Georgia, who arrives in Hollywood with her father (Dell Henderson). The jalopy they arrive in is a hoot - as is Davies outrageous southern costume. Davies lands a job in slapstick comedy, not what she wants, but it brings her success. She meets fellow slapstick star William Haines, who is immediately smitten with her. Well, Davies then gets a job at a more prestigious studio ("High Art Studios") and lands a job in stuffy period pieces. A handsome but fake actor (Andre Telefair) shows her the ropes of how to be the typical pretentious Hollywood star. Davies abandons her slapstick friend and father for the good life, but of course learns that is not who she really is. Marion Davies is wonderful throughout, as she - outrageously - runs the gamut of emotions required of a "serious" actress. William Haines is his usual wonderful comedic self, and there are cameos by Charles Chaplin, John Gilbert, and other famous stars of the day, including the director of the film, King Vidor. This is a silent film with a few "sound effects" as sound pictures were just coming into their own. A treasure of a film.

Sentiment: positive
I know sometimes its really really corny... But the acting is amazing and Melissa Joan Hart is as cute as a button. I love this show a lot, and I'm almost embarrassed that I do b/c the show has a rep. for being really corny, but it makes me feel good. My only problem is that sometimes it can be pretty low budget - sometimes actors change and you just have to deal with it... Like Sabrina's father is 2 different guys throughout the course of the movie... I mean, couldn't they just say he was an uncle or something? Still, I can't help but loving this show. Harvey and Sabrina make a really cute couple and Salem is absolutely hilarious. I definitely recommend it if your looking for some light and funny entertainment... My favorite episode is "Pancake Madness"... a HILARIOUS episode. The best season is probably 3... I'm not really a fan of some of the seventh season twists... Once you get to college, Morgan joins the group and her dialog is painful and very poorly acted... Plus she is ugly, so the jokes about how she is only surviving off her good looks were lost on me... But I think it was set up to have a really good eighth season and I was really sad to see one of my favorite shows canceled!

Sentiment: positive
Oh, this is such a glorious musical. There's a bit of miscasting -- Frank Sinatra is sorely miscast as the Jewish Nathan Detroit, though it only becomes evident on "Sue Me", which is a distinctly Jewish song. Sadly, the filmmakers decided to cut out one of the best songs from the show, "Marry the Man Today", and replaced it with an inferior Sinatra showpiece. With these two flaws in mind, the movie is otherwise magnificent. Jean Simmons shines as Sarah Brown. Marlon Brando can't sing worth beans, but pulls it off anyway. Stubby Kaye wonderfully reprises his Broadway role (it was written for him). Damon Runyon's language and pacing and humor come through quite well. This is on my see-it-every-chance-I-get list.

Sentiment: positive
This was actually my favorite series of Scooby Doo when I was younger. I thought each episode had more of an edge to it and the villains had a lot of creative thought put into them (and even very scary and believable as well). Some of the best episodes were "I Left My Neck In San Francisco", "Twenty Thousand Screams Under The Sea", "The Ghoul, The Bat And The Ugly" and "When You Wish Upon A Star Creature". If you have never seen these episodes please do. This series was a bit of a mixed bag though as there were other episodes which didn't seem to have the same kind of edge to them such as "Rocky Mountain YIIII!" and "The Ransom Of Scooby Chief". As like the series before it, it was very well put together, interesting storyline and brilliantly drawn. As everyone says though, it would have been so much better without Scrappy Doo. The character was tiresome and distracting to the story that was being told.

Sentiment: positive
Forget about the plot of this movie. Forget about the fact that it is wonderfully acted by Vince Vaughn and Vincend D'Onofrio. Forget about the fact that it is one of the few movies starring Jennifer Lopez that I can stomach. Although the story made be impossible to believe and much of the dialogue seems contrived, the one and only important thing to remember when contemplating watching this movie is that it contains some of the most amazing and disturbing imagery ever put on film. It is as if Salvador Dali decided to make a crime drama. A must see for anyone seriously interested in cinematography and the use of the film cell as a canvas on which to display true works of visual art. I would have to give this movie a 9/10 for it's amazing visual display.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is so cool. It told me to enjoy every moment in life to its fulness. I think that Bonnie Hunt (Jerry Maguire) writes well and I am so happy that she gave aging actors opportunity to have such big roles in the movie. That is really neat, in a society that worships wealth, health and youth, it was nice to see a movie about normal people. The movie reminded me a lot of "While you were Sleeping" which I really love. If you don't like this movie you should work on your sensitivity skills.

Favorite Quotes: Megan Dayton: "I'm just saying, for safety, don't shave your legs,because then you definitely won't let it go too far." Grace Briggs: "Megan, it's a first date." Megan Dayton:" I married a first date. I'm sure you plan on being level-headed, but once you're in the moment, the male brain seems, I don't know, everything they say suddenly seems brilliant. Hairy legs are your only link to reality." Favorite Scenes: Megan (Good Will Hunting) riding her bike. All the scenes in the garden. The conversation and comradery among the grandpa and friends in the restaurant. Please do not miss this movie it will warm up your heart!

Sentiment: positive
I first caught up with Jennifer years ago while out of town when it showed up on TV in the middle of the night; I fell asleep before it ended but it stuck with me until I had to track it down. Its appeal is that, though there's not a lot to it, it weaves an intriguing atmosphere, and because Ida Lupino and Howard Duff (real life man-and-wife at the time) display an alluring, low-key chemistry. Lupino plays a woman engaged to house-sit a vast California estate whose previous caretaker -- Jennifer -- up and disappeared. (Shades of Jack Nicholson in the Shining, although in this instance it's not Lupino who goes, or went, mad). Duff is the guy in town who manages the estate's finances and takes a shine to Lupino, who decides to play hard to get. She becomes more and more involved, not to say obsessed, with what happened to her predecessor in the old dark house full of descending stairways and locked cellars. The atmospherics and the romantic byplay are by far the best part of the movie, as viewers are likely to find the resolution a bit of a letdown -- there's just not that much to it (except a little frisson at the tail end that anticipates Brian De Palma's filmic codas). But it's well done, and, again, it sticks with you. Extra added attraction: this is the film that introduced the song "Angel Eyes," which would become part of the standard repertoire of Ol' Blue Eyes.

Sentiment: positive
A big surprise, probably because I was expecting it to suck. The reviews were pretty dismissive of it, even though they all seemed to agree that the concept was golden: a man finds out his new girlfriend is a super hero, and finds, when he wants to break up with her, that she's kind of a psycho. I kept expecting it to fall apart, but it never really did. Sure, it doesn't make as much of its awesome premise as it could, and chooses to be short when it might have been better to expand the film's universe. But I can't blame it for that. Uma Thurman is great as the bipolar superhero, G-Girl. And I've discovered, after several years of disliking him, that Luke Wilson can be absolutely perfect when cast as a schlub. He's given two of the best comic performances of 2006 (the other in the pretty much unreleased Idiocracy). I absolutely cracked up at the expressions on his face when he and Thurman first have sex. It's one of the funniest sex scenes ever. My only real complaint is that they make G-Girl a bit too much of a psycho, like almost unbelievably so. Maybe with some background I could have accepted it better. I can forgive its flaws, though, because I had a really good time watching it. Underrated, for sure.

Sentiment: positive
I went to see this because of snipes / statham, but honestly, Chaos is terrible. This movie has absolutely nothing going for it - it should not have been made.

Don't read this review if you don't want to read spoilers, cause I'm going to address a lot of plot-holes here.

First of all - the opening scene. It's the great big event that made the two semi-lead characters (Statham and Snipes) turn crooked. But it's boring and mundane. Only at the very end we get to see what really happened and by the time you won't care anymore. Also - this whole event, where one bad guy and his hostage get killed is hardly big enough news to fill hundreds of newspaper articles, as referred to in the movie.

Then the bank job - it doesn't get off the ground for any second. The bank robber makes some un-needed references to chaos theory (which has NOTHING to do with the whole story, by the way). The way Statham gets summoned is very 'Die Hard With a Vengeance', but more boring. Then the things that happen in the bank are strange and pointless. -What's with the safety deposit box. There seems to be some plot unfolding there, but then, it doesn't. -Why go through the trouble of stringing up two people, when it leads to nothing? It involves a lot of preparation and it's used for nothing at all! -Why doesn't the SWAT leader listen to the officer in charge when he tells them to stand down?

And this is only the first 10 minutes. It keeps getting worse and worse. 

-The whole romantic / love interest story (with the 'he wasn't just a better cop, he was a better man' remark to finish it of) is painful to watch. It's just pointless -Why would Statham's character point out the change in camera position in the footage reviewed from the bank. This essentially leads to finding the 'virus' that will get him all the money. -Why go through the trouble of forging some guys signature and killing him, but then NOT kill the guy that can identify you.

I could go on for ages (really), but it's like this movie is... pointless. The whole script is a mess. The 'smart' references to chaos theory are really laughable and quite pathetic. The plot 'twists' can be seen from miles away and the lead characters seem to be making mistakes all the time. It is really painful to watch a movie like this, where the audience is taken for granted as dumb popcorn crunching people, of which the director hopes they won't see all the plot holes and the over-all ridiculous script. The 'explanation scene' at the end only adds to insult. It is really, really not a good movie. In any way.

People who come to see an action film don't get what they come for. People who come to see a cop-buddy movie don't get it. People who come to see a smart thriller don't get that. In essence, everyone gets the same - a huge disappointment and a waste of time and money. Do yourself a favor and skip this one.

Sentiment: negative
My tolerance for shlocky direction was overwhelmed by some of the choices in this could-be-really-good time-waster.

When the "romantic" intervals were of a nature to take me out of the story and into "How-and-why-did-the-movie-maker-do-/that/?" mode, you got to figure something is missing in there; restraint and tastefulness, I think.

Brian Brown is a capable, empathetic actor - usually. I think he didn't like the project or the people, and it shows. I don't remember anything the other guy did. Can't even picture his face.

On the other hand, it doesn't have to be any good to be entertaining; some of the vignettes and twists are fun and even ingenious.

I watched this movie ($2.00 purchase at the vid rental place) against the advice of the screenwriter; I understand he was tempted to remove his name from the credits. Matter of pride, I bet.

Sentiment: negative
Even though the book wasn't strictly accurate to the real situation it described it still carried a sense of Japan. I find it hard to believe that anyone who was involved in making this film had ever been to japan as it didn't feel Japanese in the slightest. Almost everything about it was terrible. I will admit the actors were generally quite good but couldn't stand a chance of saving it. Before the film started I was surprised that there were only ten people in the cinema on a Friday night shortly after the movie had opened in Japan. 30 minutes in I was amazed they stayed. I stayed so I would have the right to criticize it. The whole movie was punctuated my groans and suppressed laughs of disbelief from my Japanese girlfriend. Everyone I saw walking out of that cinema had looks of confusion and disappointment on their faces. 

To the makers of this movie, you owe me two hours.

Sentiment: negative
This film is something like a sequel of "White Zombie", since it is made by the same man (Halperin) and features zombies. Halperin, the George A. Romero of his day, fails to deliver with this one, though.

We have a man who can control the minds of people in Cambodia, and a search to destroy the source of his power so the zombies can be sent free. Also, a love interest for the evil man.

Where this film really excels is in the imagery. The Cambodian temples and dancers are very nice and the zombie look very powerful in their large numbers. Unfortunately, we don't really get to see much of the zombies in action and the love story seems to play a much too large role for a horror film (though this has a valid plot reason later on).

I would have loved to see some 1930s zombies attack helpless city folk, but this film just did not deliver. And no strong villain (like Bela Lugosi) was waiting to do battle against our heroes. And the use of Lugosi's eyes? A nice effect, but misleading as he is never in the film... why not recreate this with the new actor's eyes? Overall, a film that could be a great one with a little script re-working and could someday be a powerful remake (especially if they keep it in the same post-war time frame). Heck, if they can fix up "The Hills Have Eyes" then this film has hope.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of the greatest 80s movies!!! It sticks out like a "turd in a punchbowl"!! I can't believe Mad Magazine denounced it or whatever. And yet, they proudly put their name on a show with "Stuart", "I-speak-a-no-enlish Chinese lady" and "UPS guy on speed". What's up with that? And, I LOVE Ron Leibman-he's foxy!! Wonder why he had his name removed from the credits? It was his funniest role that I know of. Of course, he's not nearly as foxy as he was in Norma Rae. But, in my opinion, this movie is right up there with National Lampoon's Vacation. If you liked movies such as Porky's, Fast Times, Last American Virgin, or any of the other 80s teen-focused movies, you'll love this one!! Rent it and you'll see what I mean!!

Sentiment: positive
If this movie was made two years earlier it could have been a lot better. But unfortunately, it was made in the decade that had no idea about how a horror movie was supposed to look or act. When I first heard about this movie, people on IMDb were classifying it as the sequel to Cheerleader Camp. Oh how wrong they were. Yes, Betsy Russell was in it but Uma Thurman sure wasn't. I'd really like to find the person who started that whole sequel rumor. I'm sure a lot of us would though. I'm not gonna give anything away because frankly I don't remember how this movie even ends! I'm just gonna tell you to watch a real camp horror movie... The Burning starring Jason Alexander, Fisher Stevens, Holly Hunter & the geek from Fast Times at Ridgemont High. A word to the wise - Just because a horror movie has the word camp in the title, doesn't mean its gonna be worth watching. Oh, and another thing, ANY HORROR FLICK MADE IN THE EARLY TO MID 90's WAS EVER CONSIDERED EVEN REMOTELY GOOD!

Sentiment: negative
This is one of my favourite Disney films. It has everything you could hope for in a Disney animation: cute animals, great songs, a nasty villain and lots of adventure. The story begins in Paris, where aristocat Duchess and her three kittens live with their Mistress in a mansion. Life is perfect for them until the Mistress' fiendish butler Edgar discovers that she plans to leave her entire fortune to the cats. He realises that if he even stands a chance of claiming the fortune, the cats will be out of the way. An excellent, often forgotten masterpiece from the 1970's - a time when the Disney studio made few animations - which features songs such as the title number "The Aristocats" as well as "Ev'rybody Wants To Be A Cat", this will enchant viewers young and old with its enduring jazziness.

Sentiment: positive
Cheap and manipulative. This film has no heart.

It's also got dire dialogue, unconvincing characters and a preposterous, or rather non-existent, story. It just lurches from bad to worse in a cynical effort to wrench some kind of emotion from an insincere and unengaging hysterion-afest!

And the HEDGEHOG!!!!How many cheap shots can a film take? The hedgehog, by the way, gave the most convincing and watchable performance in this ninety-minute cringe-athon.

If you have considered watching this film, don't. I'm sorry but I cannot find a single redeeming feature to this movie. It scores a big, fat ZERO with me. Strictly for sub-Dogma knicker-wetters. Yawneroony!

Still, if you liked Dancing In The Dark...



Sentiment: negative
On MTV cribs all the ballers and shot callers pull the classic movie Scarface out of their DVD collection. This may give you an idea that Scarface is a "gangster movie". Sure, there are gangsters and mobs in it, but that's not the point of Scarface. Tony Montana (Al Pacino) is just a cuban refuge looking for a new way of life. He falls in with the mob group and becomes a well-known drug lord. Montana was all for doing what you wanted to do with your life. The classic phrase: "Say hello to my little friend!" is in Scarface. This quote is what always comes to mind when I think about Brian DePalmas movie, Scarface. This falls under my top 10 favorite movies. I would rate it ***1/2 (out of ****). Definitely a movie you must see. PHENOMENAL.

Sentiment: positive
The film is side spliting from the outset, Eddie just seems to bring that uniqueness to the stage and makes the most basic thing funny from having an ice cream as a child to the long old tradition of the family get together. The film is very rare in this country but unsure of availability in other countries i have searched through a lot of web sites and still no luck, phoned companies that search for rare videos and there are year waiting lists for it. SO HINTS ARE VERY WELCOME. If any one likes Eddie Murphy as a comedian and see's the video get it,it is worth the money and can't go far wrong.

Sentiment: positive
i think that it was just like Lizzie McGuire except that it was a lot worse than the original. the only thing that is different is that she likes animals and science and all of that geeky stuff. everything else is the same. she likes a guy that she is too nervous to ask out. and later she finds a guy that does like her and she has no clue. i think that people need to quit making that same kind of shows. and another thing that is the same is that it is always thaw the friends are two girls and one guy. don't people think that these things get old and tired and these ideas keep being used over and over and yet they keep using these ideas. but i do know people who watch this show and i know that they like them.

Sentiment: negative
This film was my first acquaintance with the talents of Chris Cooper. I was deeply impressed with the character he played. I knew when I saw the film that more great things were to come from this gifted actor. He plays a Union Captain who, along with a couple of enlisted men, are foraging in Eastern Kentucky. They happen upon the farm of a "Sesech" woman whose husband has chosen to go off to the Confederacy. 

The portrayal of Eastern Kentucky, and its seriously divided sentiments during the War, is so very accurate. If you are looking for a war film with a lot of blood and guts, this would not be it. If you are looking for a drama that explores the psychology of peoples at war, actually and philosophically, then this is the best study of how divided loyalties affected the interaction of peoples in the border states during America's Civil War.

Sentiment: positive
this was a personal favorite of mine when i was young, it had everything that was great with 90's kids movies... lovable dinosaurs, cute kids, an eccentric villain, and a few great songs (and not the typical little mermaid/beauty and the beast type songs, but ones that are atually entertaining)! i ran into this movie again recently and i still love it as much as ever! i recommend that everyone of every age should see this movie, and i definitely think that it should be introduced to the younger generations! sorry not the most informative, i'm in kinda a rush... just please, trust me. all who go against this movie are killing their inner child!

Sentiment: positive
Saw this movie at the Rotterdam IFF. You may question some decisions of the maker - like choosing a mockumentary form for such a sensitive and horrible subject - but this movie sure hits you in the gut. Especially the last scenes were almost painful to watch. Hope it gets the distribution it deserves.

Sentiment: positive
Writer-director Patrice Leconte takes a universal and potentially bottomless subject - friendship - and turns it into a flat and meaningless farce, despite A-list actors, fine cinematography and elegant production design. It's all in the plot, and the plot is laughable. "Teach me how to be likable", art dealer François Coste (Daniel Auteuil) tells a random stranger (Dany Boon), and that about sums it up. We learn next to nothing about friendship, and Daniel Auteuil may be a fine actor, but not one minute do we believe he could be the cut-throat egoist the script depends on him to be. Just as we hope the travesty is over, Leconte pulls one of his usual cathartic third acts, fast-forwarding from damage to disaster. Like François's treasured Greek vase, everyone and everything in this movie is a fake. Leconte's only asset is Julie Gayet in the part of Coste's business partner Catherine, looking swell and sexy despite a major mishap of a haircut.

Sentiment: negative
Before I give Spike Lee's mess of a film SUMMER OF SAM a well-deserved thrashing, I would like to make one thing clear. I do not revile this film simply for its abundance of sleazy and unpleasant images. What makes this film so unwatchable is the fact that Lee seems to believe that SUMMER OF SAM should be taken seriously as a socially enlightening drama. The crime caper films of Quentin Tarantino, for example, are filled with violence, profanity, and other sleaze, but are nonetheless highly watchable because Tarantino does not attempt to pass these films off as socially redeeming works of art. He knows that such films are for entertainment value only. On the other hand, serious dramas such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and SCHINDLER'S LIST are often unpleasant to watch, but the unpleasantness serves to develop the film's plot and characters, with the end goal of getting the audience emotionally involved with the story and characters onscreen. SUMMER OF SAM, unfortunately, merely wallows in its own sensationalism and sleaze, while believing that it is serving as social commentary, much like other trash epics .

SUMMER OF SAM does not serve as a serious drama because its characters are merely cardboard-cutout stereotypes. Its plot purports to show the emotional impact of the hysteria over the Son of Sam murders on the residents of the predominately Italian-American north Bronx neighborhood where the murders ocurred. However, instead of of presenting the locals as a diverse mix of personalities, Lee simply wheels out every negative Italian stereotype imaginable. The men are ignorant, lazy, oversexed goombahs. The women are split between weak, complacent "good girls" (Mira Sorvino's Dionna) and promiscuous "bad girls" (Jennifer Esposito's Ruby). Lee seems to vindictively wants to "payback" Hollywood for their years of negative African-American stereotyping by wheeling out stereotypes of his own, and few critics seem to care. If Martin Scorsese, for example, presented residents of an African-American neighborhood as a bunch of Amos 'n Andy and Aunt Jemima stereotypes, critics would rightfully condemn such blatant stereotyping. More importantly, one-dimensional, stereotypical characters undermine any film that attempts to be a serious social commentary.

Without exception, the cast of SUMMER OF SAM is excellent. However, the acting, for the most part, is uninspired. The cast is either just going through the motions, or they have little to work with scriptwise. Additionally, there is notable miscasting. Comedian John Leguizamo is very talented, but his Vinny character seems to be a stale, comedic impersonation of John Travolta's Tony Manero from SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER. And Michael Badalucco, a perennial "nice guy" actor, is badly miscast as serial killer David Berkowitz, coming across as funny rather than frightening. The only performance worth paying attention to is Adrien Brody as the troubled, but sincere, neighborhood misfit Ritchie. The Brody performance and the typically stylish Lee cinematography are this film's only virtues.

*1/2 out of ****

Sentiment: negative
Before viewing, please make sure you have seen Night of the Living Dead... This might well be THE best 7 minute parody I have ever seen! Absurd, crappy 'special effects' (the rope, the rope!!!), and maneating slices of bread... what more do you need???

(Do not watch this movie while eating bread... you might get scared!)

Sentiment: positive
BABY FACE is a fast paced, wise cracking, knowing smirk of a film that

lasts only an hour and 15 minutes, but oh what a smart 75 minutes they

are! That a story that covers so much ground could be told in such a

short time puts most of today's movie makers to shame. Screenwriters of

today should study the economy of BABY FACE and cut the bloat that

overwhelms so many of their films. 

The story is no nonsense. An amoral woman rises to wealth first under,

and then over the bodies of the men who fall madly in love with her.

Sure the production code loused it up with a redeeming, happy ending,

but it isn't hard to see in which the direction the writers wanted to

go, so enjoy what's there and use your imagination for the rest. Stanwyck is terrific as is George Brent and Douglass Dumbvrille as a

hapless suitor. Not a great film but certainly an enjoyable one. If

you've never seen BABY FACE catch it the next time it's shown on cable

or rent the cassette. It's worth the effort..

Sentiment: positive
Why do the powers that be continue to cast Jennifer Lopez in unbelievable roles? She was excellent in Selena, and pretty good in Money Train, which both cast her in roles where she could basically be herself. However, roles like this just draw the line. I could never see Lopez as an FBI agent (see Out of Sight for that unremarkable performance), but as a psychotherapist? Give me a break!

Basically, Lopez plays the aforementioned psychotherapist, who is involved in virtual reality experiments in which she enters the minds of her patients in order to help them sort out their issues. When she enters the mind of a comatose serial killer to help save one of his victims, she breaks all the rules to try and crack the insanity of his inner mind.

Lopez's acting here is typically below average. I can't get over that high-pitched squeak of a voice she has. She's no Julia Roberts, but yet she comes across on screen as though she believes herself to be on the same playing field. Well, she's not even in the same stadium. Sure, she is a very sexy lady; however, that isn't going to carry a film, and it certainly doesn't carry this one. With anybody else cast in her role for this film it would have been excellent, especially if it was cast with someone who could lend more credibility to the character.

Having said all that, this film is visually stunning. The colors are fabulous, and the story line isn't half bad in a B-movie kind of way. The audio here is superb as well. This movie gains some points for the fairly original storyline, and major points for how it looks and sounds. Unfortunately, the acting and poor casting bring it down a few notches.

My Rating: 6/10

Sentiment: negative
A fine young cast is wasted in this empty, mawkish, manipulative film that tries to be a combination of both a cute comedy and an insightful drama. The plot moves so slowly that the 90 minutes seems endless as characters do nothing but mope and emote. The dialogue is filled with stilted cliches and fortune-cookie attempts at pseudo-philosophy.

Apparently aiming at being a moving and profound look at life and love, the film ends up being merely pretentious. The only real weight is the burden that the talented cast is forced to carry as best they can. But, never fear -- they are held up by the puppet strings of the contrived plot.

Sentiment: negative
The premise of the story is common enough; average family wants out of the rat race; wants to find the simple life....so they move from Sherman Oaks,California to Lake Tomahawk; kids in tow.

The lake is beautiful, they have leased an old house....but wait; there may be something in the lake; people are being murdered, and no one knows how (never mind why). Gerald McRaney is excellent, a familiar face for Lifetime viewers; Valerie Harper is also good; since this film was made in '88 maybe the writer should produce a sequel!.

You will also enjoy Barry Corbin as the town eccentric, and Darryl Anderson as a Bruce Dern-lookalike/crazed military man.

While the story plot is a bit over the top; if you are a movie buff you will be reminded of similar scenarios from ""Psycho""; ""Deliverance""; as well as other horror stories of that genre. Several camera shots and sequences will give you a sense of deja vu.

Sit back and enjoy; if you don't take it too seriously it is very entertaining; and better than, for example the more recent movie:

""I Know What You Did Last Summer""; it seems they made better movies in the good old 80's!.

Sentiment: positive
I also made the mistake of thinking that I was going to see the 2003 Swimming Upstream with Geoffry Rush. This was worse then a lot of student films that I have seen. The script was forced, the acting was subpar and the editing annoying. It was so slow that I just managed to force myself into staying. But I always give a movie a chance, so I suffered until the very end. Apparently there was a memo out about this movie, because my friend and I were the only ones in the theater. Why didn't somebody send me this memo?!?! That is why I'm posting, as a warning to others thinking of shelling out good money to see this. I just hope that you actually got to this page, and didn't get trapped like I did by looking at the wrong "Swimming Upstream." P.S. Sorry to the cast and crew if you are reading this. I know that you worked hard to make this. I know what goes into making a movie... keep trying!

Sentiment: negative
Audiard made here a very interesting movie. It begins with the description of an almost-deaf young woman, in its working universe as a secretary; she is ignored, frustrated, rejected... Hiring an intern as an assistant appears to be a way for her to find someone in her life : but the guy is just coming out from jail. Their both being rejected by the society reunites them progressively. Characters'description is profund, goes into details...both start to help each other; for she can read on lips, which reveals itself to be very useful for him...She will progressively evolve, far from what she was at first.

It's beautifully filmed; the whole is very convincing, even if it turns into a film noir at the end. Gesture is in particular beautifully observed in Audiard's filming. Emmanuelle Devos should be nominated at the Best Actess Cesar Awards for her magistral play. Action towards the end of the film prevents it from being a simple "etude de moeurs". It's actually surprisingly entertaining : 8/10.

Sentiment: positive
THE TEMP (1993) didn't do much theatrical business, but here's the direct-to-video rip-off you didn't want, anyway! Ellen Bradford (Mel Harris) is the new woman at Millennium Investments, a high scale brokerage firm, who starts getting helpful hints from wide-eyed secretary Deidre (Sheila Kelley). Deidre turns out to be an ambitious daddy's girl who will stop at nothing to move up the corporate ladder, including screwing a top broker she can't stand and murdering anyone who gets on her bad side. She digs up skeletons in Ellen's closet, tries to cause problems with her husband (Barry Bostwick), kills while making it look like she is responsible, kidnaps her daughter and tries to get her to embezzle money from the company.

Harris and Kelley deliver competent performances, the supporting cast is alright and it's reasonably well put-together, but that doesn't fully compensate for a script that travels down a well-worn path and offers few surprises.

Sentiment: negative
I just bought this movie yesterday night, and I LOVE it. Everyone did great acting in it, especially Ryan Dunn and Bam Margera. The whole plot was great, and as Dunn said in the extras on the DVD, they made it seem like he was reliving the whole thing all over again. This movie has made my number one spot in my favorite movies! I can't stop replaying scenes over and over again, just to see it again. I've never done that with any other movie. I would definitely recommend this to other people to watch, because it is such a great movie, and if you like Bam Margera, it's a perfect movie for you!! The little montages that they show in between every scene are just great. I think that those have to be my favorite parts of the movie. They are very sad, with mostly music from the band 'HIM,' which of course is my favorite band.

Sentiment: positive
Without saying how it ended, it is sufficient to say that the whole thing degenerates from about five minutes before the end. If the standard had been maintained throughout, the movie would be worth a seven.

One wonders in a way why a woman was added to the cast. (Well - not really!) The premise is a good one The situation the victims find themselves in is pretty terrifying and it's rather well done, but you get the impression the makers of the film lost interest towards the end, or as a previous contributor said, they changed writers and handed over to someone else.

Sentiment: negative
You gotta be a fan of the little man but I found Burlesque on Carmen dull, unimaginative and totally not funny.

Chaplin is retelling the story of Carmen and plays a big role himself as Don Jose. It's a story about men and the women they love, although it's unclear why one would love such a woman as Carmen, as she is playing the men against each other.

As I said I didn't think much of it. Chaplin made dozens and dozens of better movies so you can leave this one on the shelve.

Oh and I'm curious what the difference is between this movie and the 1915 version... or is it just an IMDB mistake?

On the whole: 3/10.

Sentiment: negative
This is shallow hedonism and/or social commentary wrapped in a tragic tale about a jealous young woman's scheme to drive apart her father and his fiancée. Is it incest or just a view through the eyes of a daughter with an Electra complex? Who cares? All of the characters, except for Anne (Deborah Kerr) are vacuous and vile. Seberg is poor (I agree with the "boys with breasts" comment of an earlier review). The plot plodded. This predictable material was sufficient for about 30 minutes of film that unfortunately was stretched over an hour and a half! If you want to see great gowns and jewels on the Riviera, I recommend "To Catch a Thief" - in which you will get the added bonuses of an entertaining story and likable characters. 

I like for films to entertain me. I personally don't really care where a film is set. Whatever the time or place, I want a good story - comedy or drama. I also want to see some enjoyable characters. It doesn't hurt if I can relate to them. Poor Deborah Kerr gives a typically good performance, and so does David Niven in a despicable role.

The "2" rating is solely for Kerr and Niven, and for the cinematography - the rich color scenes and the murky, foreboding black and white scenes. Unfortunately, all the great cinematography in the world cannot salvage a poor story with un-enjoyable characters. A sow's ear is still a sow's ear. Consequently watching this mess was a serious waste of my time.

Sentiment: negative
Of the spate of Austen films from the 1990s, this is my favorite, more even than "Persuasion," which was the one that converted me to Austeniana. Before seeing this "Emma" I had seen two previous versions, but in one Emma seemed all wrong, more like Lady Teazle, and in the other she seemed half wrong, like a possible impostor, whereas here she seemed just right, young and silly and stubborn. In general I thought the attitude and the atmosphere of the production conveyed the charm of the novel exceedingly well; indeed it is one of the sweetest, merriest things I have ever seen, rather in the nature of a Christmas treat. The script is unusually well formed, and the adapter's additions, like the shaft of light that reveals Harriet to Emma in church, are all in keeping. Mark Strong as Knightley is not what I would have expected, but I enjoyed him very much: he strongly brings out the plain-spoken, practical side of the character, in contrast with Emma's affectations, and his choleric outbursts against Frank Churchill are quite funny. Bernard Hepton makes Mr. Woodhouse a figure of almost Carrollian absurdity; Samantha Morton as Emma's protégé is exactly as soft and exactly as firm as she ought to be. And as in the same producers' "Pride and Prejudice," care is taken that the eventual couplings of characters can be believed--uniquely in some cases. For me this production was and remains a delight.

Sentiment: positive
Hmmm, yeah this episode is extremely underrated.

Even though there is a LOT of bad writing and acting at parts. I think the good over wins the bad. 

I love the origami parts and the big 'twist' at the end. I absolutely love that scene when Michelle confronts Tony. It's actually one of my favorite scenes of Season 1. 

For some reason, people have always hated the Reincarnation episodes, yet I have always liked them. They're not the best, in terms of writing. but the theme really does interest me,

I'm gonna give it a THREE star, but if the writing were a little more consistent i'd give it FOUR.

Sentiment: positive
So, this movie has been hailed, glorified, and carried to incredible heights. But in the end what is it really? Many of the ways in which it has been made to work for a hearing audience on the screen do not work. The fairly academic camera work keeps the signing obfuscated, and scenes that are in ASL are hard to follow as a result even for someone who is relatively fluent. The voice interpretation of Matlin's dialogue, under the excuse that Hurt's character "likes the sound of his voice", turns her more and more into a weird distant object as the film goes on. Matlin does shine in the few scenes where her signing is not partially hidden from view. But nonetheless, most of the movie, when this is a love story, is only showed from a single point of view, that of the man. As Ebert said, "If a story is about the battle of two people over the common ground on which they will communicate, it's not fair to make the whole movie on the terms of only one of them."

The idea that an oralist teacher who uses methods that have been imposed in many deaf schools for decades would be presented as "revolutionary" is fairly insulting in itself. His character becomes weakened as a credible teacher as the movie goes on. Drawing comedy from a deaf accent is, quite honestly, rather low. And his attitude towards the male students of his class is pretty symptomatic of how he seems to act with women: as an entitled man. A party scene involving a number of deaf people including a few academics meeting together leaves him seemingly isolated, in a way that's fairly inconsistent with his credentials: I have seen interpreters spontaneously switch to asl between each other even when they weren't aware of a deaf person being in the area, and yet somehow he feels like a fish out of the water in an environment his education should have made him perfectly used to. As a lover, he seems like a typical dogged nice guy, including his tendency to act possessively afterwards. And yet the movie is, indeed, only really seen through him, as everything his lover says is filtered through his voice. 

The scenes involving the other deaf kids are, in general, wallbangers. The broken symbolism fails, the dance scene, the pool scene, even the initial sleep scene which is supposed to carry some of it - all these scenes that try to hint at the isolation of the deaf main character are broken metaphors, at best: many hearing people I know do dance on the bass beats that deaf people feel (instead of squirming like copulating chihuahuas), and going to take an evening dive for a hearing person is rarely an excuse to make a deep statement on the isolation of deafness (no, seriously, when I go swim, I go swim)...

It also fails at carrying the end of the play, instead making it a story of a deaf woman who submits to a strong man. Even though the original play ended with a more equal ground, where both have to accept each other as they are, and where he has to finally recognize her real voice is the movement of her hands, not the vibrations in her throat.

And for all the breakthrough that it may have seemed to be, Marlee Matlin remains Hollywood's token deaf woman to this day.

Sentiment: negative
Just as Tom Berenger put you into the soul of Sgt. Barnes, he has done it again with Thomas Beckett. If I thought his world was folding in on him in the first scenes, it was nothing compared to how much more I felt during the last scenes. Great movie, even for a girl.

Sentiment: positive