DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This familiar story of an older man/younger woman is surprisingly hard-edged. Bikers, hippies, free love and jail bait mix surprisingly well in this forgotten black-and-white indie effort. Lead actress Patricia Wymer, as the titular "Candy," gives the finest performance of her career (spanning all of 3 drive-in epics). Wymer was precocious and fetching in THE YOUNG GRADUATES (1971), but gives a more serious performance in THE BABYSITTER. The occasional violence and periodic nudity are somewhat surprising, but well-handled by the director. Leads Wymer and George E. Carey sell the May/December romance believably. There are enough similarities between THE BABYSITTER and THE YOUNG GRADUATES to make one wonder if the same director helmed the latter film as well. Patricia Wymer, where are you?

Hailing from Seattle, WA, Miss Wymer had appeared as a dancer on the TV rock and roll show MALIBU U, before gracing the cover (as well as appearing in an eight-page spread) of the August, 1968 issue of "Best For Men," a tasteful adults-only magazine. She also appeared as a coven witch in the popular 1969 cult drive-in shocker THE WITCHMAKER.

THE BABYSITTER has finally made its home video debut, as part of the eight-film BCI box set DRIVE-IN CULT CLASSICS vol. 3, which is available from Amazon.com and some retail stores such as Best Buy.

Sentiment: positive
The Internet is a wondrous thing is it not? I am watching a taped episode of one of my all time favorite documentaries, "Vietnam:The Ten Thousand Day War", from my DVR in Florida USA to my laptop in Kuwait; I'm writing a review about this series and have just read another review from someone who actually lives in Vietnam! Amazing. I would like to just say that for Minh Nguyen to make the statement that America brought the war to Vietnam is one sided. I know America was the main player in the west but it takes two sides to wage war. The Soviets and the Chinese were major arms providers to the North so why Mr Nguyen doesn't mention them as partially to blame is showing an ignorance (well, I think we all know why he doesn't mention them, either ignorance from being raised in a communist system and its political dogma, or because he to scared to say the truth for fear of being arrested.). Also, Mr Nguyen, I guess the parts about the North being the main aggressor it whole war were not shown in your country so to blame America again shows ignorance. Regardless, its interesting to read a review from Vietnam (of course that could be made up as well but I'll take that as real), at least the communist east is somewhat open. As far as the mini series; why do I love it? It doesn't focus on the American involvement solely. This was a war that started 15 years before America got involved and the series covers every facet of the history so thats a real plus. The footage used is first rate, all the Vietnam War programs you see made now will use the same footage so you are not missing anything by watching this older series. The date this series was made is another plus. It has all the major players being interviewed which you can't do now because they are dead from old age, it's a major historical reference. Third, Richard Basehart adds a very distinctive narrative voice, his voice sounds as distinguished as James Earl Jones voice would and I think thats very steep praise. I don't think you could find a better war documentary ever made, it's like taking the relatively modern technology of 1980 and transplanting it to the year 1950 and interviewing all the generals and politicians on both sides of world war two, it does that for the Vietnam War.

OK, I do see some bias, its subtle, a 1970's-80's style subtle bias kind of like NPR "All Things Considered" bias where it all seems so straight forward but when you blink you end up shaking your head. In this shows case the later episodes don't throw a whole lot of light on the role of the media and propaganda in general, all useful tools to influence the outcome of a war, DON'T YOU THINK????? 

From an OIF War Veteran going through the same thing 30 years later.

Sentiment: positive
heres a fun fact, I was the baby in the movie, the one in the crib. :) I am 19 years old now. my parents took me to try out for the part, we lived in Texas at the time.I think I only made like 80 bucks for it, but i wasn't in it very long. My parents said i would cry when i was supposed to be happy and would be happy when i was supposed to cry. I was all mixed up. Strange and funny fact i suppose.. and no I am not a child actress. I am livin' in San Antonio, workin' at a walgreens. I graduated here in Texas but I lived in Maryland most my life. This Movie is a great movie, though, good concept. I have seen it several times in my short 19 years.

Sentiment: positive
Eugene O'Neill's 4 and a half hour 1927 play brought to the screen in less than two hours. The play's combination of symbolic dialogue and gothic melodrama hasn't aged very well and the cast has some difficulty with it, especially Norma Shearer's Nina and Ralph Morgan's Marsden. Clark Gable as Ned Darrell comes off better but mostly because his is a gruff character not given to the philosophical musings of the others which better fits Gable's range. Once the plot settles down to the love quadrangle and the audience adjusts to the voiceover asides the film does become more enjoyable. The technique used here for the asides is another problem. On stage the action froze while the actors spoke their thoughts to the audience. Here they're done as voiceovers. You'd think that would work better but since the action no longer freezes the actors are forced to pause speaking and grimace at the camera to match the emotions in their thoughts. Plus it's difficult for any movie buff to watch this film and not think of Groucho Marx's hilarious parody version in "Animal Crackers." Added to these drawbacks are some cuts made for censorship reasons (Nina's promiscuity is soft-peddled and there is no mention of her getting the abortion that is more central in the play) and a wretched score (uncredited) that sounds like background music to a turn-of-the-century weepie. O'Neill called this film "a dreadful hash of attempted condensation and idiotic censorship," and although "Strange Interlude" is nowhere near as great as his later "The Iceman Cometh" and "Long Day's Journey Into Night," it certainly deserved better than this.

Sentiment: negative
I attempted to watch this film without being able to really sit through it, for while it is suppose to have a "good" message; the problem is that it is obviously produced according to one particular interpretation of scripture. An interpretation, in my opinion, will mislead a lot of people. In addition, I am a movie maniac and the acting in this film was completely unacceptable. Never before had I wished for a negative score to rate a movie. So, if you wish to be preached to incessantly by those without authority, then by all means, get this film. This comment is also a warning to people who like or love scifi, because the title will deceive a lot of people as well. This was an unfortunate film, because the basic idea had possibilities and those possibilities were squandered. The film's only redeemable quality is that it did make me realize that the character in the "Time Machine" probably should have shown a little more moral outrage at the odd behavior by those in his future.

Sentiment: negative
Lindsay Anderson was very much a European film maker , whereas the likes of David Lean , Ridley Scott and Alan Parker make spectacular movies involving visuel scope Anderson`s movie are more about social commentary and subtext , so much so that the message often ends up taking over the entire film whose primary function should be to entertain the audience 

What you think of IF comes down to what you think of British film makers . I`m very much of the view that cinema should be a universial medium ( The best Brit movie makes are those who try to emulate Hollywood in my opinion ) , if you want to send a message try pony express , and I find the movie dated , pretentious and too set in the 1960s . 1968 was the summer of love and the year of student rebellion in France . You can just imagine every single French leftist worshipping this movie especially the climax . French new wave film makers will also admire the abstract surrealism of some scenes but a mainstream international will dislike it , and many will dislike it intensely

Sentiment: negative
I cannot believe I actually set up a 'season pass' on my TiVo for this, apparently they had a good preview or something .. I can't imagine it though. After seeing about 5 minutes I thought to myself.. why am I watching this.. It is definitely not reality, and some of the worst acting I have ever seen on television.. I am a total addict of reality TV and there is nothing real about this. THE ACTING.. (if you can call it that) is awful.. The only ones that are almost 5% decent are the girls that are meant to draw viewers to the show.. although they would need to be a lot prettier to save this train wreck.. if they would have more lines they would probably change my mind as they probably have no talent either. This is obviously a very low budget production with 'actors' who are apparently very cheap. There is no way they could get a job in anything else. Someone needs to direct these people to a job in food service.. Maybe they could do that. Oh and by the way, Parco P.I. no longer occupies any space on my TiVo or TiVo's season pass list. Definitely the worst show I've ever seen.

Sentiment: negative
My question is what was the worst element of this movie? Was it the acting? directing? script?. Maybe it was the waste of Alan Ladd and Jack LaRue. LaRue and, especially, Ladd are capable of bringing extreme sinisterness to a role. In this movie, it was hard to tell who the bad guy was. Granted, Ladd was playing an undercover good guy, but even in his good guy roles, he could be very chilling. So, the net result was a potentially good movie bereft of any feeling of conflict.

Sentiment: negative
Wow! Wow! Wow! I have never seen a non-preachy documentary on globalization until I saw MARDI GRAS: MADE IN CHINA. This film has zero narration and combines verite footage with sensitive interviews with four teenage workers in China who live inside a factory compound. They play with toys, jump rope, and dance. Yet, the majority of their days and nights consist of work, work, and work -- but the footage of their work is illuminating and mesmerizing to watch. The owner of the factory in China is amazingly open, so much so that he hits home the effects of globalization while he "punishes" the workers. Astutely following Mardi Gras beads from China to the Carnival, the film reveals how the local is connected to the global through humor and interesting, compelling footage from both cultures. One of the most interesting parts in this film is the cross cultural introduction of factory workers and Mardi Gras revelers to each other through pictures. Here, the film comes full circle and shows how images can be a point of communication and transformation. The film is never preachy, is not guilt driven, and allows everyone's point of view to be present. At the end, we -- the viewers -- make up our own conclusions about the complexity of the film, and globalization.

Sentiment: positive
"It's not like that big mechanical toy", says a character early on, commenting on "Jaws". Well, "Blood Surf" would only wish to have a beast as convincing as the shark of the "Jaws" series. In other words, the digital special effects of this movie are TERRIBLE. Acting and directing are not much better, either; they seem more suited to a deodorant or a bubble-gum commercial than to a horror movie. The attitude of the people who worked on this film shows contempt not only for the genre, but for the audience too. Saying you "liked" this film only encourages filmmakers to offer us more of this crap, further destroying the poor horror genre. (*1/2)

Sentiment: negative
This movie had so much potential. Anyone who followed the story of Jeffrey knows that there are so many details overlooked in this movie it's ridiculous. Too much time and effort was spent in the movie on Dahmer's homosexual tendencies and his alcohol consumption. Where was the character development? The origins of any villain are always interesting and Dahmer was no exception. Where in the movie does it address his adolescence when he began killing and mutilating small animals? Instead we are giving a dizzying array of flashbacks that seek to explain the origin of the killer, but fail to address the major point in Dahmer's development. Also, the reason why the country became so intrigued with this story was the details - how he stored the bodies in his apartment and the lengths and measures he went to to accomplish this; his cannibalism and his desire for flesh, etc. I could go on, but to sum up, too many lagging points in the film, focused on his sexuality and not enough of the gore - the good stuff you would expect to see when the title of the movie is "Dahmer."

Sentiment: negative
I can't say whether the post-WWII British comedies produced at the Ealing Studios are an acquired taste or not, but I am completely addicted, and The Man in the White Suit is one of the best. No need to go into the well-known plot about the threat posed to both the textile industry and the textile unions by an indestructible, dirt-resistant fiber. Suffice it to say that the slings and arrows suffered by the naively idealistic Sidney Stratton in pursuing his polymer vision make for a comedic delight. Many of the well-known faces from the world of British character actors - the nervous Cecil Parker, the suavely devious Michael Gough, and the bluntly ruthless Ernest Thesinger - put in wonderful performances. Guinness - as always and forever - is superb, and Joan Greenwood is delectable as Daphne (just the way she enunciates the word "Daddy", makes the entire movie worth seeing).

"Knudsen!!!!!!!"

Sentiment: positive
Nicely done evil little comedy pitting the FBI against organized crime with a nice lady caught in the middle. The actress who played the jealous wife of the mob boss 'Tony the Tiger' almost stole the show with her raging tantrums. 3 stars

Sentiment: positive
All I can do is laugh. Wow. I like Jim Wynorski's movies, I really do. I mean, Chopping Mall is a classic. But this, what happened to this guy? He used to make funny horror movies, that tried to be good. But this was hardly even funny...I mean, I guess it was, because I laughed. The villain is incredible. I mean, horrible CGI. It looks...terrible. And the movie has no gore, and no nudity as redeeming qualities. It is rated PG-13. A movie named "Bone Eater" you know won't be a blockbuster movie, you know it probably won't have a smart script. A movie like this may rely on gore...but no. It doesn't rely on anything really, it's just...crap. Check it out if you want to laugh, though. But don't expect a good movie. I hope Jim Wynorski goes back to movies like Chopping Mall and Ghoulies IV, because this and Komodo Vs. Cobra ain't cutting it.

Sentiment: negative
Ah, Bait. How do I hate thee? Let me count the ways. 1. You try to be funny, but are corny and unenjoyable; every joke is predictable and expected, and when it comes, does not inspire laughter. Instead, I want to hurl. 2. You try to be dramatic, but are unbelievable; the woman overacts to a terrible degree, and the "bad guy" looks like Bill Gates, and is about as scary as...well, Bill Gates. (Just try to imagine Bill Gates trying to intimidate somebody with a gun. Doesn't work, does it? A lawyer, maybe, but not a gun. Doesn't fit.) As for Jamie Foxx, well, just watching him try to deliver a dramatic and heartfelt dialogue is ludicrous, and makes me want to hurl. 3. You try to be action-packed, but instead are dull and dragging too many times. And when the action heats up, the tripod for the camera must have been lost, for the scenes wobble more than those in The Blair Witch Project, and I find myself nauseated, and once again I want to hurl. 4. You try to be a good movie, but you failed, you FAILED, YOU FAILED! I would rather walk barefoot across the Sahara with a pack full of beef jerky and no water, no sunscreen, and only Meryl Streep for company. This hell would be lovelier than a single minute more spent watching everyone in Bait overact their way through an idiotically written story with Bill Gates for a bad guy, and let's not even talk about the massive bomb that goes off in a car that Jamie Foxx's character has just driven OFF A CLIFF, but somehow manages to escape...just kill me now, or do the right thing and promise me that somehow I'll never have to watch a movie that is this bad, ever again.

Sentiment: negative
if they gave me the option of negative numbers I'd use it. This movie was truly god-awful. I went into the theaters expecting it to be horrible, and it somehow managed to exceed my expectations.

The script was weak, the acting was painful. I wanted to walk out but my friend was driving and wanted to get her moneys worth, I think we were both disappointed.

The growing of the breasts when the girls got their super power and changing of the hair color was just wrong. Eddie Izzard just seemed wrong for the part of super villain, he came off as oddly weak and silly. Jenny Johnsons (Uma Thurman) came off as psychotic and strange, as did Matt's (Luke Wilson) friend Vaughn (Rainn Wilson.

Sentiment: negative
Well, it's Robin Hood as 'geezer' all right... just as advertised! That didn't sound very hopeful, and alas, it was worse than I'd suspected.

A laddish Robin I can take; a Robin who tangles with a pert dyer's daughter I can credit; but a Robin who exchanges not-very-funny banter with his single henchman is harder to swallow, and a Robin and *entire cast* who seem to be having difficulty managing their lines is the kiss of doom. How could anyone let such laboured delivery pass without re-shooting the scenes? Again and again, Much sounds as if he's struggling with half-comprehended Shakespeare rather than letting loose with a salty quip; I hoped at the onset that it was just a failed comedy trait in a character clearly destined for the role of comedy sidekick, but then it started spreading throughout the rest of the cast.

Whatever else you say about Errol Flynn in the role, he had the knack of delivering high-flown dialogue as naturally as if he'd just thought it up on the spur of the moment... and as this production shows, that's not at all as easy as it sounds! If they were going to cast the characters as cheeky chappies, the actors in question should have been given appropriate lines: they sound as if they haven't a clue how to handle them.

I'm afraid I didn't even like the pantomime Sheriff, for a similar reason; the lines are clearly not intended to be taken seriously but delivered (and in this case written) with a nudge and a wink at the audience. They're out of place all right -- fourth-wall-busting stuff -- but really not that funny.

This much-promised production reminded me of a limping school play. The only actor and character I felt any appreciation for at all was the one playing Guy of Gisbourne, who was the sole one who appeared to have any handle on (a) credible villainy and (b) credible characterisation -- but frankly, I wouldn't have said that was a very good augury for the future of the series! As of the time of writing, I'll give it another shot in the hopes that things may improve and bed down a bit by next week, with less stilted scene-setting required and perhaps the actors more at ease with the dialogue: after all, the opening episode of "Doctor Who" wasn't exactly a show-stopper, though it was nowhere near as bad as this. But if I see no improvement after episode 2, I'm afraid the series has almost certainly lost one viewer.

Which would be a pity, because I've got a soft spot for the "Robin Hood" legend on screen, from the adventures of Douglas Fairbanks to the sturdy reliance of Richard Greene. But this Robin fails to stir my blood in the slightest.

Sentiment: negative
I always thought the Batman Returns was a great sequel to Batman. The story was an interesting one and Danny Devito, Christopher Walken and Micheal Keaton gave great performances. Plus lets face it, Tim Burton was a genius and did the comic book character more justice than Joel Screwmacher ever did.

Plot: Oswald Cobblepot also know as The Penguin(played By Danny Devito) is abandoned by his parents as child for being deformed. He uses this as an excuse to masquerade a sinister plot to abduct the first born children of Gotham with the help of his goons(Red Triangle Gang) and a very shady tycoon Max Shreck(played by Christopher Walken). Max Shreck later makes Penguin the mayor of Gotham. Selina Kyle(Michelle Pfeiffer) is pushed out of a window by Max Shreck and is revived by cats. Later on she develops cat-like qualities and seeks to destroy Max Shreck and Batman. Her reasons for wanting to destroy the dark knight are not explained.

Opinion: Batman Returns is a classic. It has a darker feel in terms of atmosphere. Tim Burton always had a knack for making grim backgrounds look appealing. Micheal Keaton is still sharp as Batman. Danny Devito steals the show as Oswald Cobblepot/The Penguin. When you think about it, he would have made a better Violator for the movie Spawn than John Leguizamo. Michelle Pfeiffer gave Catwoman more personality than Halle Berry ever could. Max Shreck is one of Christopher Walken's best roles. The main reason why I like Batman Returns is that its fun. Its not only creative but its also fun. Something a lot of big budget movies these days sorely lack. The Batman series goes to the dogs after Tim Burton decided to do no more. You don't believe me, look at Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. Thank god that Christopher Nolan breathed life back into the series with Batman Begins.

Sentiment: positive
***LIGHT SPOILER ALERT*** The story sounds good and if you've read the novel, then you're probably expecting a deep and intense movie that could offer some insight for some interesting and insufficiently explored human relationships.

True enough, the script tries to do that, the director tries to do that, but the main cast fails miserably. Maria's acting is so dry that lacks any feeling whatsoever, her most intense moments seem almost comical. Sometimes she seems to be nervous due to the camera. Her only really feeling scene is near the end where she gets dumped by her girlfriend.

Ioana seems even more tense than Maria and even worse, she doesn't seem natural at all. Maria had the attitude, even if it was artificially pushed towards being obvious, but she had it and her character received some credibility. And to make matters worse, we don't have an insight on her: where does she come from, how come she got involved in the lesbian relationship, how did the relationship evolve? We only get some bits from her parents and their relationship just seems to 'be' there: it has a content and and end, but no beginning. Just like her partner Maria, she has only once scene that is truly touching, the scene where she dumps Maria's character Kiki.

Tudor is the only person in this movie (aside from the landlady, great acting there) who manages to prove some acting talent. He has his character's attitude and it fits him. Only once or twice he seems to falter (the scene at his parents' meal, he tries to be obvious when it wasn't necessary at all).

I love the story, Tudor Chirila is OK there, the landlady actually acts and Puya delivers his couple of lines with style, but this doesn't save the movie. Too bad, the entire setting had huge potential and the Romanian cinematography could've used a movie on this theme.

Oddly enough, the incestuous relationship between brother and sister seems to have more credibility than the no-background no-feeling (well, Maria's spoken interludes are a nice try in this direction) lesbian relationship of Maria and Ioana. I'm quite sorry for spending money on a ticket, I'd rather had watched it from the comfort of my room.

Sentiment: negative
When Tsui Hark experiments, nothing and no one can withstand him. Legend of Zu is possibly 6Hours condensed into 1h40. One does not understand all, but like at "2001 A Space Odyssey" you also don't have to, but one feels the power of the film to every second, every picture. An extraordinary vision of the future of the 7th art and the one of the most pioneering, astounding, rejoicing in the recent years. VITAL severe MASTERPIECE! It's absolutely perfect as it is.

When Tsui Hark experiments, nothing and no one can withstand him. Legend of Zu is possibly 6Hours condensed into 1h40. One does not understand all, but one feels the power of the film to every second, every picture. An extraordinary vision of the future of the 7th art and the one of the most pioneering, astounding, rejoicing in the recent years. VITAL severe MASTERPIECE! It's absolutely perfect as it is. 10000000000000/10000000000000

Sentiment: positive
Jim Henson's The Muppet Movie is a charming, funny and brilliant film that can be watched AND enjoyed by adults and kids. I feel this is my favorite childhood film because it combines great characters, great story, and great wit that it is irresistable. The plot involves Kermit the frog (puppeteered and voiced by Henson) in his odyssey across America to follow his dream in Hollywood. Along the way, he meets Fozzie Bear, The Great Gonzo (my favorite), Miss Piggy, Rolf, and DR. Teeth and the electric mayhem.

This film has so many good things I can't even say them. But it is memorable and every time I think of a puppet or muppet, I will think of this film. Look for cameos from Mel Brooks, Dom DeLouise, Paul Williams, Madeline Kahn, Bob Hope, Richard Pryor, Steve martin, Edgar Bergen (and Charlie McCarthey), Elliot Gould, Carol Kane and the great Orson Welles. Excellent and spectacular, one of the best films of the 70's. A++

Sentiment: positive
I can't believe that in the 34 prior comments, nobody mentioned that this film is a blatant rip-off of Born Yesterday. A man is hired to bring an ostensibly dumb blonde up to the requirements of a gangster. Hired gun and blonde fall in love and live happily ever after. Gangster is left in the lurch. But Born Yesterday was an intelligent treatment whereas this is just so much fluff. Technicolor transfer to DVD is deplorable. Natalie Kalmus would be rolling over in her grave. Check out the paperboy. Recognize him? But, it's historically interesting to see the roots of Rock 'n Roll. Also interesting is Ewell's introduction to CinemaScope, a new format at the time.

Sentiment: negative
Firstly, I am not easily scared by... Anything except for my few phobias, but this movie is absolutely horrific. This is not appropriate for children at all! I had my mouth open the whole time it just shocked me I. Couldn't believe how gory it was for a children's movie, bunnies being brutally murdered! It's just unnecessary to be so horrifying and be rated G. I recommend being over 8 to see this. But don't get me wrong, it was probably a good movie if I wasn't scarred mentally as a child. I cannot believe a parent would allow a, let's say, 4 year old child to watch this. It's just to intense and complicated, not to forget gory, for young kids. I'm wayy over 4 and I was shocked by the violence. I don't recommend

Sentiment: negative
I looked over the other comments and was thoroughly amused to find that clearly only people who actually worked on the movie had commented. I mean, I hate to say bad things about an amateur production, but if you make a bad movie and want to comment on it, tone it down a little. "Groundbreaking" is a little over the top. This is a Boston based college production that doesn't even achieve the level of most amateur college film. It's what you would expect a bunch of kids to do. A silly action film without much creativity. It's pretty funny if you're willing to poke fun at it. Not something you will ever see unless you are a student at Emerson college.

Sentiment: negative
Oh-so-familiar comedy story about low-key nice-guy Paul (Jason Lee), who after the night of his bachelor party, wakes up in bed with Becky (Julia Stiles), an attractive blonde he met just the night before. After lying about it to his fiancée Karen (Selma Blair), he's forced to tell more and more lies to cover his tracks.

I'm sure most of us have been witness to a story like this at least once before...on film or on TV. The movie is formulaic and EXTREMELY predictable, with an ending you may see coming a mile away.

At least the cast provides some interest and keeps it watchable. Lee is just right in the lead, and Stiles is a lot of fun in a light-hearted comedic role different from the very serious roles she usually plays. Becky is a free spirit who seems to change jobs as often as other people change their clothes.

But you know, this isn't exactly well-written. At least one question is left unanswered: for WHAT, exactly, is Ray (Lochlyn Munro), Becky's brutal ex-boyfriend, being investigated by the I.A.?

And I didn't like the character of Buck (David Koechner), Paul's stepfather; he's a super-obnoxious moron who got on my nerves so quickly I was begging for somebody to punch him.

Add another debit: a gratuitous, uncredited cameo by comic/actor Larry Miller, once again playing a grouch (in this case, it's a little justified - his character is an ultra-conservative minister).

Not good at all, but as usual for me, I give it a three out of ten based on the efforts of the cast alone.

Sentiment: negative
Like 'Singin' in the Rain', 'Cover Girl' has a trio of two guys and a girl. In 'Cover Girl', Phil Silvers (Genius) is the comic relief. He corresponds to Donald O'Connor's funny man part in 'Singin in the Rain'. In Cover Girl, Gene Kelly's love interest is Rita Hayworth and in 'Rain', it's Debbie Reynolds. That's where the comparison ends.

Whereas "Singin' in the Rain' is a classic American movie musical, 'Cover Girl' is mediocrity incarnate. The story isn't very complicated. Rusty Parker (Rita Hayworth) is a dancer in Danny MacGuire's low-rent nightclub in Brooklyn. Rusty decides to enter a Cover Girl contest sponsored by a wealthy publisher, John Coudair, who made an unsuccessful play for Rusty's grandmother years ago. Coudair introduces Rusty to Broadway producer Noel Wheaton who makes her into a star. Danny feels slighted when Rusty starts showing up late for rehearsals at the nightclub and decides to close the club down and go on the road entertaining the troops along with his sidekick, Genius. At the last minute, with Rusty at the altar with Noel, she realizes the error of her ways and runs back to Danny. They live happily ever after.

Gene Kelly has the least developed part in the movie. All we find out about him is that he owns a nightclub and is madly in love with Rusty. Coudair and Wheaton act like besotted teenagers toward Rusty and Phil Silvers delivers some thoroughly goofy but unfunny shtick. The most interesting aspect of Rita Hayworth's performance is the scene in which she gets drunk. This foreshadows what happened to her in real life. Anyone who has read her biography will learn that she disliked Hollywood, pined away for a normal home life which she could never attain but eventually began drinking and ended up with full-blown Alzheimer's during the last years of her life.

Almost all of the songs in Cover Girl are old-fashioned and not very tuneful. Gene Kelly has only one really excellent dance number and that's the scene where he dances with his 'alter ego'. Earlier, the trio has another number which is a pale precursor of 'Make em Laugh' from 'Singin' in the Rain'.

The most annoying thing about 'Cover Girl' is the way in which Rita Hayworth is put up on a pedestal. A couple of decades later, Raquel Welch had the same problem. Both actresses later in their careers would always try and find scripts that showcased their acting abilities. They wanted to be known as 'actresses' and not 'pinup girls'. Unfortunately, 'Cover Girl' is an example of how Hollywood used to exploit women for financial gain.

Sentiment: negative
The spoof genre, which has lacked creativity and humor for some time already, gets spat upon yet again by hacks with no talent. No point, no fun, no originality; just a few cheap bucks for the film makers. 

It takes more than just referencing some recent movies and giving characters double-meaning names to be satire; to make people laugh. Any clod can pick up a cam-corder, and have some bad-acting buddies in cheap costumes imitate somebody. Since the genre being targeted this time is inspirational sports movies, there are a few lame references thrown out to movies of that type: the jokes are so weak the characters actually have to emphasize the references in various ways, to get you to laugh hysterically. It doesn't work.

That's not comedy. However, the same old worn out sophomoric "jokes" ripped off from a middle school washroom (done even more blandly than usual) are all here. If that's not enough, there's a running "gag" of a bus running somebody over. So funny, right? Also, one pathetically poor scene does more product placement than Michael Bay; again with the same unfunny results. A musical bit flops miserably. Pity Carl Weathers, once Apollo Creed in the Rocky series, now stuck with roles in swill like this.

Lousy beyond words. Watching a snail run the marathon would be less tedious than watching this film is. Probably a lot funnier, too.

Sentiment: negative
Garlin did a great job. Nice concept well executed, and tightly produced. Came across as a very sincere story. As a fan of "Curb Your Enthusiasm", where Jeff was pretty much the straight guy role, I was delighted with how much depth he brought to this role in a simple yet effective portrayal.

Much of the humor was understated and subtle and drew on poignancy, which I really liked, rather than being slapstick or over-explained. And there were some nice little surprises and twists. The convenience store vignettes were a delight.

When I say it is a wonderful "small" film, I don't mean budget or quality. It is simple, intimate and hand-crafted. It tells a highly believable everyday story. Relax and go see it. Let it wash over you, and you will feel good for having done so.

Sentiment: positive
Even though this movie came out a year before I was born, it is definetely one of my favorite comedies. It stars Redd Foxx as a father who tries to understand his son's homosexuality. Like most parents, he doesn't know a thing about what it means to be gay and has all of these stereotypical notions of what gay people are like. His son, Norman, is now grown up and living on his own. When his father, Ben, finds out that his son is gay, he pays his son a visit in hopes of changing him. The title comes from one of the funniest lines in the movie--when Ben gets to Norman's apartments he runs into a female prostitute and thinks it's his son in drag ("Norman... Is that you?"). The movie had me laughing from start to finish. Redd Foxx is great. Although a lot of the content is stereotypical, I didn't find anything offensive about the way the material was handled, and it even has a good ending. Highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
I am so glad when i watch in every time the movie of (Ray) for the Sidney pottier of the 21st century (Jamie Foxx) who played this role as an evidence of his brilliant ability as an actor to take his position beside great actors in Hollywood by his golden supporting for the strong abilities of afro American actors all over the times and periods by his eternal work as an evidence for the eternity of Ray Charles as a grand prove for their legend appearance in every time by their success for winning Oscar prize as (best actor for leading role) an (best mixing sound) between fact and cinematic scenes upon Ray and Jamie as a mixing between two copies of Ray (ray of the past) and (ray of 2004 acted in the person of Jamie Foxx).It was nice from the director to choose those songs to be adapted with dramatical scenes in the accidents of film to enter for the atmosphere of success in legend corn with legend movies in Hollywood since 1893 till now and his cleverness of choosing Sharon Warrne in the role of Ray ,s mother that she succeeded in this role by brilliant analysis for the core of her character that Ray,s mother was the turning point for him upon her grew up to be independent on himself to take his place in this world and to be icon in his talent as (Nat king Cole , Louis Armstrong , Duke Ellington) and at the end of this film by receiving his honorable report from Gerogia and their decision to take his song (Georgia on my mind) the national anthem for this state he made his promise for his mother to be alive until now by his legend songs and brilliant life.

Sentiment: positive
Having read the novel before seeing this film, I was enormously disappointed by the wooden acting and the arrogance of the producers in their blatant disregard of the plot. I feel this film in no way reflects the brilliance of Bronte's work, and rather gave the impression of a shallow love story. In the condensing of the film to a short 2hours, the film lost many of the key features which make the book comprehendable and progressional, thus resulting in a somewhat jumpy plot with little grounding. There is no build up to the romance between Rochester and Jane Eyre, so this appears rather abrupt and unfounded since the two characters have such infrequent interaction you cannot help but imagine their 'love' is superficial. This is such an injustice to Bronte's novel;you are given no impression of Jane's quirky cheek and boldness which attracts Rochester to her, and his arrogance which attracts Jane to him.

Despite to poor scripting, I think that a few of the characters were portrayed very astutely, namely Mrs Fairfax and Grace Poole, however overall the production was poor. Given a better scripting, perhaps the film would have been more successful. See "Jane Eyre" (1970) with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton for an outstanding production.

Sentiment: negative
Students often ask me why I choose this version of Othello. Shakespeare's text is strongly truncated and the film contains material which earned it an "R" rating.

I have several reasons for using this production: First, I had not seen a depiction of the Moor that actually made me sympathetic to Othello until I saw Fishburne play him. I saw James Earl Jones and Christopher Plummer play Othello and Iago on Broadway, and it was wonderful. Plummer's energy was especially noticeable. But in spite of Jone's incredible presence both physically and vocally, the character he played just seemed too passive to illicit from me a complete emotional purgation in the Aristotelian sense. Jones, in fact, affirmed what I felt when in an interview he noted that he had played Othello as passive--seeing Iago as basically doing him over. Unfortunately this sapped my grief for the character destruction. Thus, I felt sympathy for Jone's Moor but not the horror over his corruption by an evil man. In contrast, Fishburne's Othello is a strong and vigorous figure familiar with taking action. Thus, Iago's temptation to actively deal with what is presented to Othello as his wife's unfaithfulness is a perversion of the general's positive quality to be active not passive.1 The horror of the story is that this good quality in Othello becomes perverted. Fishburne's depiction is therefore classically tragic.

Second, Fishburne is the first black actor to play Othello in a film. Both Orsen Wells and Anthony Hopkins did fine film versions, but they were white men in black face.2 Why is this important? Why should a Black actor be the Black man on the stage?3 Certainly in Shakespeare's day they used black face just as they used boys to make girls. Perhaps then, the reason is the same. Female actors bring a special quality to female roles on the Shakespearian stage because they understand best what Shakespeare's genius was trying to present. A gifted black actor should play the moor because his experience in a white dominated culture is vital to understanding what Shakespeare's genius recognized: the pain of being marginalized because of race. An important theme in Othello is isolation caused by racism. Although it is a mistake to insert American racism into a Shakespearian play, there can be little doubt that racism is still working among the characters. Many, including Desdimona's father, think that a union between a Venetian white Christian woman and a North African black Christian man is UNNATURAL.

Third, Shakespeare was never G rated. He never has been. His stage productions were always typified by violence and strong language. But Shakespeare's genius uses these elements not as sensationialism but for artistic honesty.

Sentiment: positive
There are so many "Hollywood" movies made now that are not only torture to watch, but also have no bearing on anyone's life, whatsoever. Granted, movies don't always have to have deep meaning, but it's nice to know that there are still film-makers out there who care about telling "human" stories. I won't give away the premise of this brilliant film, however, the screenplay is surely one of the more complex and memorable ones I have ever seen in my life, and I'm a 32-year-old film buff too! Bug ranks top ten on my list of favorites, which includes: On the Waterfront, Sunset Boulevard, and Black Narcissus, to name just a few. This "moving" movie should become one of your favorites also- that is, if you have a heart!

Sentiment: positive
A good idea let down by heavy-handed production.

Quite a bit of the dialogue was unintelligible because of the level of music/background sound, and this didn't help this reviewer. Nor did the Welsh accents, pretty impenetrable at times. Towards the end I lost the will to live trying to follow the dialogue.

This movie didn't know whether to be a farce or a black comedy - and they require different approaches. Some of the incidents were laid on so thick that they only merited a groan, some were so unbelievable even for this sort of plot that they made the story just not worth following.

The acting was in the main good - although the American just came over as a clone of the "Back to the future" mad scientist. The little boy was very good.

I did watch it all the way through but God knows why: I can't remember laughing once.

Sentiment: negative
Doctor Feinstone is a dentist.He has a beautiful wife and a huge house with a pool.Suddenly he discovers that his wife is making out with the pool attendant-he realises that behind everything clean,there is decay.He starts to torture his patients...Corbin Bernsen is brilliant as the deranged dentist-he is completely believable.There is surprisingly little gore but the scenes of dental torture are quite nasty and grotesque.Highly recommended."The Dentist 2" is also worth checking out!

Sentiment: positive
This movie is simply bad. First of all the story is just weird and it's not good written. It leaves you with questions when you're finished. Sometimes that's OK, but not in this case.

The acting is nothing to write home about. The adults does a OK job, but the kids, taken in consideration they are kids, does not a good job. I thought the lead role, Ian Costello as Mickey, was worst. Well, to be honest I'm not sure that was the lead role. Never quite figured who this movie was about. Mickey or Pete.

There were some shots that stood out, but over all there were nothing exiting about the cinematography. The sound, however, was better. There was a nice score. A little adventure kind of score, though this didn't look like an adventure film to me. It had some elements of an adventure film, but it was more of a drama. However, it was hard to tell who this film was meant for. Children? Hardly. There is too much language and violence for that. Adults? I don't know. It had to many elements of a children's movie in it. It was like a adult movie in a children movie wrapping.

The story was just weird. I don't have much of an idea of what it really was about. You was thrown right in to it without knowing anything, but there were all the time references to something you felt you should know. The fact that the children's parents were dead for instance and that Mickey blamed Pete for it. You expected to get to know what happened , but you never got.

All together this movie was bad and a waste of time. There was no drive in it. Nothing to really move the story forward. This is not what you spend your Saturday night on.

Sentiment: negative
Terence Stamp can carry off anything, but this is still a shallow one-dimensional movie. It's nice to look at - so are the actors - and if you're into drag queens, I guess you might like it a lot, but the plot and characters are as thin as cardboard. It's one of those politically correct movies that warps everything else in order to make a 'minority lifestyle' seem warm and cuddly. It gets a lot of mileage out of bitchy dialogue, which is amusing in this sanitized form, I guess. 

Ninety percent of the action is parading around in gaudy costumes in incongruous situations. The dramatic content is a token appendage - they hardly try to get you to take it seriously.

Sentiment: negative
The 08th MS team features two hopeful romantics from different sides of the conflict. Aina, the Zeon officer, and Shiro, the Federal Forces' new pilot, meet in a battle in space, throughout the 12 episode series (and one "movie") the two debate their love for each other while trying to come to grips with the war that surrounds them. It features a Romeo and Juliet romance and unbeatable animation. By far one of the best to hit American Shores. Suit Up!

Sentiment: positive
Okay, the recent history of Star Trek has not been good. The Next Generation faded in its last few seasons, DS9 boldly stayed where no one had stayed before, and Voyager started very bad and never really lived up to its promise. So, when they announced a new Star Trek series, I did not have high expectations. And, the first episode, Broken Bow, did have some problems. But, overall it was solid Trek material and a good romp.

I'll get the nits out of the way first. The opening theme is dull and I don't look forward to sitting through it regularly, but that's what remotes are for. What was really bad was the completely gratuitous lotion rubbing scene that just about drove my wife out of the room. They need to cut that nonsense out.

But, the plot was strong and moved along well. The characters, though still new, seem to be well rounded and not always what you would expect. The Vulcans are clearly being presented very differently than before, with a slightly ominous theme. I particularly liked the linguist, who is the first Star Trek character to not be able to stand proud in the face of death, but rather has to deal with her phobias and fears. They seemed to stay true to Trek lore, something that has been a significant problem in past series, though they have plenty of time to bring us things like shooting through shields, the instant invention of technology that can fix anything, and the inevitable plethora of time-travel stories. Anyone want to start a pool on how long before the Borg show up?

All in all, the series has enormous potential. They are seeing the universe with fresh eyes. We have the chance to learn how things got the way they were in the later series. How did the Klingons go from just insulting to war? How did we meet the Romulans? How did the Federation form and just who put Earth in charge. Why is the prime directive so important? If they address these things rather than spitting out time travel episodes, this will be an interesting series.

My favorite line: Zephram Cochran saying "where no man has gone before" (not "no one")

Sentiment: positive