DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
The Flock is unjustly maligned as a lesser "Se7en" ripoff. There's really no reason to compare the two, except maybe for the similar scenery in the final showdown.

Now that that's out of the way I'll go into why The Flock is very interesting in some respects. Mostly it's a drama piece rather than a full blown thriller about a very vigilant social worker who monitors sexual offenders. At the very beginning you can clearly see his work has got the better of him. Evident in two scenes where first he's interviewing an offender and slaps him around and second when a woman tries to pick him up and all he can think of are his standard questions from his questionnaire.

Gere is very good as Errol Babbage, the aforementioned social worker. His way of performing his job is not unlike that of a police officer, he carries a gun and is constantly checking newspapers and supplies law officials with information if some of his "flock" may be responsible for a sexual crime. He's also a person who's lost all happiness of living and his only relief seems to come from exacting his own vigilante justice on his flock. Twice you see him smile, once when he's apologizing for treating his partner rudely and the other after he's beaten up a member of his flock.

As a suspense flick, The Flock isn't as successful. Somewhat confusing and with some irritating plot holes but it does have a number of striking set pieces.

Overall The Flock is a solid drama about a man performing a dehumanizing job and in the end he has to work hard to keep from being swallowed by the abyss he's surrounded himself in. The world we live in is a pretty sick place and the further one can distance himself from the worst the happier that person is. The Flock gets that point across nicely.

Sentiment: positive
The first thing I have to say is that I own Jake Speed. I've seen it at least 10 times. This movie is one of the most fun movies ever made. The film begins with Margaret (Karen Kopins) trying to find her sister. Her sister was kidnapped in Paris and the family has heard nothing. Along comes Jake Speed (Wayne Crawford), telling her exactly where her sister is and making an offer to find her. Jake Speed is a hero. He doesn't work for money because he just wants to help and have a good adventure. His partner (Dennis Christopher) follows him around and writes their adventures into novels. This film is a great adventure. It's hilarious, it's action-packed, it's just great. I guess it's a cult film with a very small cult following. Crawford is perfect as Jake Speed and throws out some one-liners that you'll never forget. Kopins and Christopher are also good as the girl and the sidekick, respectively. John Hurt, the guy who's stomach blew up in Alien, plays the devilish, pervertish villian which just adds to the fun. In many ways, this film is similar to Indiana Jones, in some ways it's similar to James Bond films. Maybe it should have been called Indiana Bond but whatever it's title is, it's a very enjoyable film.

Sentiment: positive
More and more french cinema demonstrates that's the only one able to confront Hollywood's, and to spend high amounts on money in their movies. If Bon Voyage had been made in the USA no one would be surprised. Perfectly set in France, in the 40's, when the Nazi invasion, technically irreproachable, and with some of the most international french actors (Depardieu, Adjani, Ledoyen...). Bon Voyage centerers on two parallel stories: an scientific and his disciple (Ledoyen) who tries to hide one of his discoveries (a kind of water that may work as an atomic bomb) from the Nazis; and a poor guy in love with a well known actress (Adjani), which ends up in prison accused of a crime he's not committed in order to protect her. 

Bon Voyage seems to have been made in the old style, without unnecessary camera movements and effects. Without big turns in the plot. As I said before, regarding to the production itself they've made a great job. But the main problem with this movie is about the script. Is it a spy-movie? A romantic comedy? A spy comedy? A comedy of intrigue? It's not clear. That makes Bon Voyage a little unbalanced. When you think you're watching a comedy, suddenly changes to another story-line, a more dramatic one, more slow... I think they should've focused in one of the lines of argument (the one about the spy plot) and left the romantic parts in the background.

My rate: 6.5/10

Sentiment: positive
Get the CD instead. The show is tame, and the editing sucks. The crowd gets way too much screen time, as does Till Lindemann. The cameras spend more time on the same kid shaking his head around in the same way (which leads me to believe it's the exact same shot) than they do during Richard Kruspe's solo in Weisses Fleisch. The scenes change so quickly it's impossible to tell where the camera is pointed, and the replays are simply redundant. Not worth the tape it's recorded on.

Sentiment: negative
It's fun and fast paced, as one falsehood leads to another and another toward an inevitable, surprising conclusion. The suspense separates this Holiday flick from all others. One wonders how the pieces are going to fit, both during the movie and in the future.

The character actors laid the foundation and entertained us in the process. Sinkewicz (Frank Jenks) shows us what manipulation can get...and ultimately what manipulation can cost! Uncle Felix (S.Z. Sakall) sizes up each person for us while trying to protect "Lishka" (Barbara Stanwyck), and this helps us decide who we are going to root for in the end.

If we could ever achieve a perfect world, imperfect people would likely have to undergo a series of events such as these.

A glaring weakness is that fake baby cry after it allegedly swallowed Uncle Felix's watch. I've heard more authentic crying from a doll in a toy store.

Watch it, and you'll really feel like you've been somewhere!

Sentiment: positive
It was very heart-warming. As an expatriated french, I particularly enjoyed this "TV" movie, which I think deserves a broader distribution. The acting was good, and the bonds between each member of this rural French family seemed so

strong and so natural. No doubt a great movie about the concept of family and inclusion in the face of homosexuality and AIDS. One of the strongest aspect of the movie is this privileged relationship between the eldest son (Leo), who has contracted HIV, and the youngest son (Marcel), to whom the rest of the family try to hide the situation. The two characters

progressively explore each other as time runs out for Leo, who is not willing to spend the rest of his life surviving under drugs...

Sentiment: positive
Normally, I do not review online, but it's Saturday and I'm trapped in my room, on a rainy day with nothing to do but watch sci-fi movies and Xena: Warrior Princess (I can't get the damned 'Joxer the Mighty' song out of my head, it's been there for the past ten years or so, just pops up randomly when someone(me) does something idiotic). If you have any complaints about this movie, and actually post them on the internet, do you have ANY idea how much of an idiot you look like? If you expect more out of Bruce Campbell than what he puts out (in the most literal sense) than why in G-d's holy name do you watch his movies? No one watches a Bruce Campbell movie when they want to see something genius and intelligible, we watch them so we feel better about ourselves (like those people who watch Jerry Springer and eat Chunky Monkey), and to be easily entertained by mindless psycho-babble. I, personally, love Bruce Campbell movies. I'm not a complete idiot, in fact, I see myself as an intellectual and a scholar(haha, shut up, Ally). His movies reflect insane, random, quirky, ridiculous ideals which anyone with a brain, screaming or no, can enjoy. That, and he was kind of sexy on Xena: Warrior Princess, even with the facial hair. I rate this movie an excellent 10, just because I can. If you can't take simplistic plot-schemes (if any), hot babes in sci-fi splendor(leather, spandex), and familiar if not exhausted views of insanity, then fer cryin' out loud, don't watch the movie(or any that so much as mention the name Bruce Campbell). Oh yeah, Ted Raimi was awesome in this movie! Way to go Ted! You did the best with what you had. ;|

Sentiment: positive
The first season of Bones is playing in Finland and I can't believe the amount of bullshit that this show puts on - the characters are shallow, poorly directed and clumsy.

It's a poor mans' CSI. Or actually, CSI without coherent plot. Although Bones has potential, it fails due to the lacking of the director who hasn't been able to extract the essence of the show from the actors. It's actually sad to see a show throw it all away when it could had been a descent show with just a pinch more thought. From the start you get the feeling how awkward the acting is.

Long story short - don't waste your time on Bones.

Sentiment: negative
This was the beginning of it all! Granted, this is not Friends at its best, but this was the show's pilot, let's not forget and not a bad one at that. We're introduced to the gang and Central Perk, where our story begins. Even from this first episode we get a sign of the Ross-Rachel relationship that will come over the next ten years, when Ross says: 'I just want to be married again' and Rachel storms in with a wedding dress on... probably not intentional as at the time the writers were going for a Monica-Joey relationship but fits nicely now when looking back. Something else.. in this episode Rachel is introduced to Chandler as if the two have never met before but in later episodes, the so-called 'flashbacks' this is contradicted as the two have met on three previous occasions. Nevertheless, the point is this a fine start to a great show. This episode may not be the usual Friends as we are accustomed to them, with the cast still a bit inexperienced but over the next few episodes we see why the show came to be what it was! Keep watching, first season is a blast!!

Sentiment: positive
Black Day Blue Night was actually good modern noir. Three young nomads on the run from their own lives team up on something of a road trip through a desert in the middle of nowhere (as most modern noir does). One woman finds that her husband is cheating on her, and after finding him in a hotel room, decides to head off and start anew. Strangely enough, she travels with her husband's mistress, who is forgiveable given that the sleazebag never told her he was married. And together, while driving in the pouring rain, they meet a third, very mysterious young man with a suitcase full of secrets. While they're giddy and free and all suspicious of one another, the cops back at town have them marked as suspects in the death of a policeman.

Black Day Blue Night starts out with immediate confrontation, and throws in a pretty good story with all it's twists meant to mislead your suspicions of one character after another, leading to a very unusual ending. That is, the movie starts with immediate action confrontation, and once you think the story is solved, you are immediately thrust into yet another turn in the plot, revealing just a little more than you expected before the movie is over. 

But, as some viewers have written, the ending is slightly confusing and a bit of a let down. The killer is not who you would immediately expect and, once revealed, becomes somewhat confusing due to a rather thinly explained flashback which reveals all of the necessary motive to solve the mystery. But actually, there is a finale beyond that, which I would think is the most interesting of the film. Because modern noir always involves a circle of criminal suspects, almost always all of them guilty of something, it is also a genre that always involves money. And thus the question in these movies always becomes --how far are the characters willing to go for money?

If you like this rendition of modern film noir, I would suggest watching Red Rock West (it's also got J.T. Walsh and some going-ons in the blasted desert)!

Sentiment: positive
A very interesting plot of the film based on the novel "Waltz into Darkness" of the writer Cornell Woolrich. It is a drama rather than a film noir, which tries to send a message that love changes your own life, i.e. your love to any person and the love you received from him/her. A wealthy man really changed his life for love, while his partner finally understood that he was the only one that loved her. Belmondo played well as usual, while a somewhat still young Michel Bouquet played his eternal role of a detective or police agent. Frankly Bouquet was not so impressive in this film, but less than that was the performance of Catherine Deneuve. She was not so convincingly in her role as a prostitute then lover/wife of Louis Mahé (Belmondo). For those who like to visit the world, the film offers the occasion to see part of the Ascension Island, and also Lyon city in France.

Sentiment: positive
Still love it 17 or so years after the first time I saw it, in fact I discovered that I had lost my copy of this and was very upset. Despite it's non-association with the original (which as a kid I never noticed and as an adult I don't care about), this is what cartoons *should* be like. Just dark enough to be interesting and light enough to be enjoyed by everyone. I'm more than glad that my parents raised me on this kind of thing rather than the cartoons we see today that teach our kids nothing. The music is great, and gets stuck in your head forever...I have downloaded the entire soundtrack at one point or another.

Sentiment: positive
American playwright Howard W. Campbell, Jr. (played with a musty obsolescence by Nick Nolte) lives happily in Germany with his actress wife, Helga Noth (Sheryl Lee) before the beginning of World War II. At the peak of his life, Howard is drafted by an American agent (John Goodman) to become a spy on behalf of the Allies; forewarned of the risks the job holds, Howard has everything to lose, but finds the offer irresistible. Following the death of his wife and the end of the war, Campbell camouflages himself with the anonymity of a solitary life in New York City, which muddies his neuroses even further. The central question (indeed, a question that has frustrated many critics) of the movie and Kurt Vonnegut's source novel is, "is Campbell a hero or a traitor?" Director Keith Gordon and screenwriter Robert B. Weide offer us clues, but no answer, and this ambiguitythis NOT knowingis what keeps "Mother Night" fresh and interesting throughout. At the beginning of the film, Nolte portrays Campbell as intelligent and confident; by the end, he's either scared and uncertain, or scared and COMPLETELY certain of his contribution/debt to humanity for the role he played in the war. Gordon applies a certain icy sheen to the images of the film's first half, which complement his portrait of the Nazi bourgeoisie and captures Vonnegut's dramatic side. On the flip side, when Campbell is confined to his lonely New York apartment (which he affectionately calls "purgatory") only to be discovered by a group of Nazis, the humor produced also is purely distinctive of the author, and provides a temporary respite from the dramatic tension that unfolds. The moral (even spiritual) paradox "Mother Night" presents doesn't lend itself to simple resolution, and to a degree, should be left ambiguousthe black-and-white scenes of Campbell staring wearily into space as he is imprisoned in Israel suggest an unspoken contemplation we are not made privy toas Campbell is a character whose inner workings we wind up knowing very little about; the war changes him, coming back to America changes him, and meeting up with the Nazis in New York compels him to prolong the facade of his "act" even further, to the point where he can only stare wearily at an image of himself projected on a wall, spewing anti-Semitic bile. Perhaps that's the best reaction we could hope for.

Sentiment: positive
If I could have given this film 0/10 I would, and this is the first film I have wanted to rate so low. Its worse than awful. If I went to see it in the cinema I would want the cinema to pay ME for watching it (at least minimum wage). Some of the camera shots were quite effective, but a lot were rubbish eg. villains reflection in a mirror that separates his head and shoulders side-ways from his body (seeing is believing). Several totally pointless killings of innocent civilians. 2 murders that made me laugh out loud due to the victims actions/facial expressions when they were shot. I only watched it to the end (fast forwarding about 10 mins of the boring pointless dialogue) hoping to see Seagal in some decent hand to hand combat, but there was almost none of that (should have known that when at the beginning he threw someone while going down an elevator and it was shown in slow motion with music - end of 'action' scene). In one scene we see Seagal hand chop someones neck in slow motion which makes it obvious that his hand never even made contact). The chief villain keeps coming back to life. He gets shot in the chest on 2 separate occasions. The 1st time its with a shotgun which blows him out the 2nd/3rd floor onto the street. To sum up, this film is a total waste of time and a total joke. It looks very low budget (even for Seagal). The colour is dull and grey. I could go on and on....just like this film, but I wont. Watch this film if you've got insomnia. Its guaranteed to put you to sleep.

Sentiment: negative
This show started out okay, but then it turned into a nightmare. The worst part about it was the contestants. Most of them were weirdos. They did stupid things for a living and they also did strange hobbies. In the second season, one guy said he that he talked to his pants. That is sick and repulsive. Also, no one cared about winning money. All they ever wanted to do was make alliances like it was "Survivor" or something. The men were always afraid that the women were going to team up together. The women were the same also. I just couldn't take it anymore. I had to stop watching it. It was truly one of the worst shows ever.

Sentiment: negative
Feh. This movie started out in an interesting manner, but quickly ran the gamut from confusing to dull. The confusing parts happened mostly at the beginning, where the cut scenes are so numerous that its hard to tell just what is going on for the first twenty minutes or so. The dull comes later, with a tepid romance between the two living people(pusses both). The vengeful spirit of the dead girl is actually the most lively person in the film, which is sad. If the rest of the cast had been up to her caliber, the movie might have been better.

Maybe. Because the storyline gets really interesting for awhile, as it appears that the insane priestess mother of the dead sixteen year old girl is trying to resurrect her daughter from the dead, with the decidedly unfortunate side effect that all of the other dead people would come back as well, take on solid human form, and most likely start killing off everybody. A sort of Japanese mystical Night of the Living Dead type thing. But this doesn't come to pass. Even though this hairy unwashed priest with a tiny basket strapped to his head tells the uninteresting young people that this will come to pass if the priestess finishes her ritual, she does just that and the only dead person who manifests is her daughter. No mass rising of the dead, no walking army of corpses, nothing. The priest merely makes the girl's spirit go back to the land of the dead, taking the washed out wuss of a boyfriend with her, as she'd crushed his spine like peanut brittle(at which point I was tempted to cheer loudly, as this idiot went over to kiss and fondle the DEAD girl,,ewwww!!!). The Robitussen sucking, spineless best friend has a long introspective shot at the end as she leaves the village for the last time, and that's it. No real horror, no real creepiness, which the Japanese tend to do far better than American film makers with their emphasis on over-the-top cheesy face make-up, no screaming mimis. I was very disappointed.

Sentiment: negative
Thanks to the BBC for this show. I used to suffer from an inferiority complex, I hated leaving the house, talking to new people and I had an overwhelming sense that people hated me. However after watching one episode of 4 Non Blondes my fortunes started to change. After episode 2 I started applying for new jobs, wearing fashionable clothes and I actually felt talented. When the series had finished I was running the sales department at work, banging a plethora of women and frequently won the karaoke competition down my local. If you ever have a confidence crisis and don't know where to turn then take a trip down to Poundland and pick up the DVD it's only 99p.

Sentiment: negative
The DVD version consists of 2 episodes, the parricide of Caesar being the juncture. In addition, the language was Spanish without subtitles. Hence, it's hard for me to review in depth this movie because because i didn't understand what was said.

Cleopatra being an historic icon, the part is very difficult and i found that for a newcomer, Leonor Varela just plays fine. She is strong-willed but also a very supportive, tender soul mate. Thimothy Dalton as Caesar is perfect and their romance is the main thing of the first episode. So, it is not really a documentary, nor a peplum but a great love story.

After the parricide, a new lover comes (Marc-Antoine) but the flavor is gone: we remember always our first love. So, i found the second episode dull and their tragic fate isn't told powerfully.

Nonetheless, the production is luxurious: the sets are big, tastefully decorated; the Moroccan live location exotic and the wardrobes splendid. The producers have a lot of money for sure, but they spend nothing on the special effects. They are so poor (blue screens, ships, Sphinx) that it's funny.

Finally, I would like very much to hear it in french or English to make a definitive opinion about this two movies.

Sentiment: negative
I've seen some terrible book-to-film adaptations in my day, but this one tops them all! The bizarrely unattractive cast detracts from the story, which is, in itself, untrue to the book. Mr. Tilney is nothing like handsome; as for Catherine Morland, a rat-like appearance makes this heroine a difficult one to sell to a sympathetic audience. Isabella is nothing like the Aphrodite one reads about in the original text, and James Morland appears in the film far too little to leave the viewer with any understanding of his important role in the story. Also, as others have pointed out before, this novel was intended to satirize the Gothic craze prevalent in Austen's time, but it appears that this "soft horror" film was designed and meant to be taken seriously. I'm sure Jane Austen turns over in her grave each time one of her fans is disappointed by this awful interpretation of what was supposed to be a joke.

Sentiment: negative
After the return of "horror movies" (come on Scream isn't scary!) i didn't have very high hopes for this low-budget three story horror movie. But i was positively surprised! Man this is scary!!! The first 2 stories are simply brilliant. The first one about a new wed couple driving in a dark forest with their RV, When they bump into a fierce........(watch the movie)! The second story is about a disgusting man who is obsessed with a little girl, who is home alone for one night.... I know it doesn't sound any special but it is Scary. I promise you. The last story isn't scary but atleast not bad. It's about a biker and a ghosthouse. In fact the stories are based on real urban legends(i guess kevin williamson can steal ideas too).Rent this movie it is Good!!! i'd say i'ts the scariest three-short-story-horror-movie ever made!

Sentiment: positive
I have just watched the movie for the first time. I wanted to watch it as I like Drew Barrymore and wanted to see one of her early movies. 

The movie is about a girl (played by young and beautiful Drew Barrymore), who moves from NYC to LA in order to get over her recently troubled loss. Short after moving to a guy who falls in love with her, it becomes obvious that she has an evil twin=doppelganger, who haunts her.

The movie is quite poor and lousy. Both the dialogs and the acting make the film not really worth seeing it. Summing up it is just something for the fans of Drew Barrymore.

Sentiment: negative
I guess if a film has magic, I don't need it to be fluid or seamless. It can skip background information, go too fast in some places, too slow in others, etc. Magic in this film: the scene in the library. There are many minor flaws in Stanley & Iris, yet they don't detract from the overall positive impact of watching people help each other in areas of life that seem the most incomprehensible, the hardest to fix. Both characters are smart. Yet Stanley can't understand enough to function because he can't read; he can't read because he's had too much adventure in his childhood. Iris, although well-educated, hasn't had enough adventure and so can't understand how to move past the U-turn her life took. In both their faults and strengths, the characters compliment each other. It may be a bit of a stretch to accept that an Iris would wind up working year after year in a factory, or that a Stanley never hid his illiteracy enough to work in construction or some other better-paying job. And while these "mysteries" are explained in the course of the story, their unfolding seems somewhat contrived. I assume no one took the time to rethink the script. Even so, it's a good moviejust imagine what De Niro, Fonda and Plimpton would have done on screen if someone had!

Sentiment: positive
Sadly, this movie is not very good. But does it really matter ? We all know the basics for the story, and this has nothing new. But I love low budget horror & sci fic camp classics ... so I forgive this one. About thew only thing that anyone remember from this movie, is that little Leonardo DiCaprio made his debut in it.

He did OK. The part didn't ask for great acting skills, and the direction probably never gave him any chance of providing one anyway ... Little Leonardo DiCaprio was very cute ... and so was the girl. The movie is fun, if you like horror & sci fic camp classics and are experienced in watching them.

Sentiment: negative
On the Opening night of the San Francisco Silent Film festival I was quite excited to see films that are historical and well not common. The guest speaker who opened this film created a sense of hype towards the obscurity, and how this film is underrated. The sci-fi part of the film was very interesting and fantastic for its time, but i'm not sure if it was due to the fact it was shown directly after the Brilliant 1928 "The Wind" or if it seemed that Russian filmmakers take after what Russian novels are famous for (hundreds of characters, tangled plots) but I know for certain that the dramatic parts, as in the parts on Earth, made absolutely no sense, were boring and I became lost within about twenty minutes. Maybe it was the acting but I found myself convinced as to why this film is "unknown and underrated": It's boring, there is no plot or basic story and the acting is horrible. This certainly is no "Battleship Potemkin", however I will say that Russian films do not make a real good effort in lightning up what life in Russia is like.

Sentiment: negative
I was sooooo excited to see this movie after finally reading the book this week. My 13 year old son was looking forward to it too. I rented it and snuggled down to enjoy a classic holiday story brought to life on screen.

Boy, was I disappointed. This movie veered off from the book more times than is forgivable. George C. Scott is an excellent actor but in this, it seemed that he was fully into character only about 20% of the time. The rest of the time he was quite flat.

I realize that this was made in '84, pre-CG effects, for the most part. But it looked to be very B-movie quality, especially the encounter with Jacob Marley.

The biggest disappointment was the fact that they left out one of the most moving parts of the story: When the Spirit of Christmas Present takes Scrooge on the whirlwind tour of the world, observing people in the bleakest of circumstances still having the light and love of Christmastime.

I will admit that Mr. Scott did a good job with the "reformed" Scrooge at the end. That was a refreshing portrayal.

I wish that Bob Cratchit had been portrayed as a little more ragged and down-trodden. And Tiny Tim... oh don't even get me started on bad child actors...

Sentiment: negative
The first 1/3 of this movie I loved and thought it was going to be one of Truffaut's best films. I loved the plot where a pen pal marries a man from half way around the world--sight unseen. Especially when this woman turns out to be a fraud and was responsible for the death of the REAL pen pal so she could take her place! She then cleaned out the husband's huge bank account and disappeared! I was really hooked and wanted to see more,...

And then, the movie fell apart and became just plain dumb! Despite her coming from New Caladonia (an island in the Pacific) and he from Reunion (an island in the Indian Ocean), when he goes on a trip to the South of France, he stumbles upon her almost immediately. Hmm,....odds are 187,000,000 to 1 but he finds her. Then, instead of either killing her or turning her over to the police, he forgives her--even when she acknowledges what she has done. Okay--this is tough to believe, but okay,...but then he helps to hide her from a private detective by murdering him!!!! No one is that stupid! Yes, the character Catherine Deneuve plays is quite beautiful but come on folks--this is just silly. Plus, if he only wanted her as a sex object, then why would he do this for a woman who is often frigid and completely selfish and evil.

This movie, due to it's very ridiculous plot, does not deserve such high ratings! Unless you are a die-hard Truffaut fan, try another film--even one of Truffaut's--just NOT this one.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was not only disappointing to the horror/suspense film lover, it was disappointing to anyone who sees it. WoW. I thought that this film might be funny because the guy with the huge head. However, it was filled with long and drawn out conversation that wasn't needed. There was so much sex that I hate women and men now. This film was not only boring, but there was no substance. Wow. Wow. On to of all this, each scene looks like it was light from a single light bulb, and I think they used the same set for two different lawyers, a restaurant, and an airport. This movie is not for the movie lover who loves bad movies because in the end, it feels likes wasted time. See the movie!

-party

Sentiment: negative
Overall an extremely disappointing picture. Very, very slow build up to the basic storyline. The role of Maria Schrader searching for her families secret past. (Every take seems to last forever. There is really no rhythm in the film.) ***SPOILERS*** Her Mother Ruth is rescued from the Nazis, by a German woman, played by Katja Riemann. The entire character of Ruth is so one dimensional, so stereotypical. ***SPOILERS END*** The film cuts back and forth between present day New York and Berlin and Berlin 40s something. Please when you do that, give the audience an indication of what time exactly the story takes place. There is never a clear indication of time  very annoying. Worst part is, the end. ***SPOILERS*** The entire show and jabber about the Jews being so terribly tormented, simply by a bureaucratic accident! Give me a break. That's how the Jews got out of the Rosenstrasse? The question of who freed the Jews is NEVER answered. Was is Goebels who freed them? Did Lean Fischer sleep with Goebels? In Venice the film won an acting award for K. Riemann, why?  I have no idea. Must be the Jewish theme

Sentiment: negative
If you liked Roman Polanski's "Repulsion", you should probably check out "The Tenant" since it's a similar concept, just with Polanski stepping in and playing the schizophrenic wacko. This is actually one of my favorites of his movies - second, after "Rosemary's Baby", of course - and is a straight forward journey into the mental collapse of a man who moves into the former apartment of a suicide victim. The other residents of the building are all flaky and sticklers on keeping the noise level down - even the slightest 'titter' becomes a big deal and Polanski, who stars, becomes increasingly paranoid and succumbs to his loony hallucinations further and further as the film carries on. It gets to the point where he is dressing and acting like the former tenant and you realize it's only a matter of time before he decides tor re-enact her fatal leap out the window... The film is a bit slow and dawdling for a while, but if you have ever seen a Roman Polanski movie, you should know it's going to end with a bang and this flick doesn't disappoint. It's also best if you don't question the intricacies of the premise and just take it as a descent into madness, because it's pretty trippy surreal at times. Polanski is very good as the timid, deranged resident who, somehow, attracts the ever illustrious Isabelle Adjani. We also get to see him running around in drag, which is disturbing and hilarious all at the same time! Damn, he makes for one ugly chick! So, Polanski fans - who can actually look past his thirty year-old pedophile charges - should enjoy "The Tenant" as an entertaining psychological head-trip...

Sentiment: positive
Maybe some people may consider this a slow movie. However, it's precisely this "slow burning" that allows it to profoundly affect the viewer. Like that marvelous first scene: first, we can hear the voices; then, we are allowed to see the characters; finally, the camera slowly pans back and to the side and we see another character, a young man who is just sitting there, apparently not even listening to the conversation or, at least, not really caring. The fact that this young man will be the leading role shows the movie's strategy: allowing the character to develop and be determined by the environment surrounding him but without remarking the points more than necessary. People come and go, flow in and out of his life. Although most of the movie follows him (and most of the supporting characters are only seen when close to him, defined according to the relationship maintained with him), we are induced to believe that we are being objective, so subtle is the director touch.

Sentiment: positive
This is your typical cheerful and colorful MGM musical from the early '50's and it's definitely on of the better ones to watch out there.

The movie got directed by the genre expert Vincente Minnelli and stars Gene Kelly in the main lead. Both did quite a few movies together back in those days, of which this one is probably their best known one. 

The movie itself actually managed to win the best picture Oscar over the year, which meant it beat out movies such as "A Place in the Sun", "A Streetcar Named Desire", "The African Queen", "Quo Vadis", "The Blue Veil", "Death of a Salesman" that year. A real accomplishment of course but at the same time also a bit too much credit for this delightful, bright and entertaining movie.

When you watch this movie you surely will be entertained by it all, which is also thanks to the movie its beautiful color look and the many nice characters within this movie. The musical numbers are also all nicely done, which is no big surprise when you have people such as Vincente Minnelli and Gene Kelly at work. 

But really, couldn't had everything that got told in this movie been done in halve an hour less or so? I mean, we already know where the movie is heading to but yet it manages to stretch it out all for as long as possible. Not that it makes the movie drag in any parts, it just makes it a bit overlong. The movie could had also definitely been done with a few less musical numbers in it.

One of the better MGM musicals, that is not without its flaws though.

8/10

Sentiment: positive
this movie has lot of downsides and thats all i could see. it is painfully long and awfully directed. i could see whole audience getting impatient and waiting for it to end. run time is way over 3 hrs which could have been edited to less then 2 hrs.

transition between stories is average. most people confessed being on seating expecting something better to come out.

its funny only in pockets. ambitious project and a below par execution. govinda does a fair job, anil kapoor disappointed me, rest we as expected. if u r expecting anything close to babel or love actually then its no where close.

Sentiment: negative
I watched this movie so that you don't have to! I have great respect for Kris Kristofferson, but what was he thinking? He did this for scale? 

At least the film's title practices truth in advertising, since people and objects routinely disappear throughout the film, adding to the confusion. Kristofferson mentions this in his commentary that even he wasn't sure if Genevieve Bujold's character really existed. This does not bode well for the viewer being able to follow the story!

The "making of" feature was far more interesting than the movie itself. It explores the difficulty cobbling together funding for an indie, even as the film is being shot.

To it's credit, this movie is visually pleasing and doesn't in any way look like a movie made with just slightly over 1M. Too bad the money wasn't spent on a better project.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this last night and voted it an "8". Since then, it's grown on me and I'd give it a "9".

The film has (at first) a seemingly slightly disconnected facade between the first and second halves. The first half is a comedy and there's little hint of the ragged truths of eras, life, wars, religious intolerance that will become revealed in the second half. While at first it may be a little disconcerting because it's a slightly unfamiliar narrative sequence, on reflection it works.

The acting was good (Hultz in the role of Alex, the interpreter, was especially great).

I've scanned most other "User Comments" and see that some who've read the book are pleased with the movie while there are a few who are not. Both feelings, of course, are valid.

For me, a retired family therapist and one-world believer, the film was relevant on two different levels.

The first, as history, gave a powerful reminder of how commonly polarizations happen -- with demonizing and trying to exterminate any of those with a smidge different moral value system than our own. 

The second was that in demonstrating the first, it also revealed something in common to EACH of us, ALL our families -- that each of us must go back to our roots to more fully understand ourselves.

T.S. Eliot expressed this exquisitely in the 4th of his "Four Quartets" when he said: -- "We shall not cease from exploration// And the end of all our exploring// Will be to arrive where we started// And know the place for the first time." 

Jonathan goes on a fulfilling journey that any of us would find fantastically illuminating -- to explore and discover our roots; what were those people going through then, who were they -- really! -- before, when, and during the early years before and after we were born? Etc. 

So the film at first gives us the impression of a comedy, then shifts to give us a lesson in history and human deficiencies, but through all that it also gives us -- subliminally -- a message about each of ourselves. All of us would be abundantly rewarded to go back and understand the place from which we first started.

Sentiment: positive
Thus starts "One Crazy Summer", the evil twin of "Better off dead..". How can any movie be bad when the opening lines are sung by David Lee Roth?

This movie is a total blast. Pairing again John Cusack with Curtis Armstrong, but this time adding Bobcat Goldwaith to the mix has great, funny results. Hyperactive Bobcat grates the nerve of everyone around, Curtis "Ak Ak" is the son of a deranged military with pacifist tendencies, and Demi Moore (with natural breasts... wow!) as the love interest of, once again, chronically depressed Cusack.

The story is, well, simple enough. The laughs are there, but both Savage Steve Holland films have a certain quality to them... they are funny, but they are also sweet. The scene where Curtis finds a blown up doll in the target practice beach, and begins musing about how a little girl won't be able to sleep was dumb, funny and touching. The animation used throughout is quite surreal. "The Boat" is hysterical (complete with Watsamatta U. sail and Odie plush doll). Overall, a fun film, though not as good as "Better off dead..."

Sentiment: positive
### Spoilers! ### 

What is this movie offering? Out of control editing and cinematography that matches up with a terrible plot. It is sad to see Denzel Washington's talents go wasted in trashes like this.We are certainly hinted how the Mexicans cannot save themselves, outside forces needed, possibly militaristic, American ones. And we know the father is a shady character, he is a Mexican after all, unlike the wife who appreciates Creasey more because he is American. He killed all of them thinking she died. And did she? Of course, she won't, she is a young kid and you are not supposed to hurt the sensibilities of the Hollywood fan. The trade off scene was the only thing that prevents me from rating it below the "implausibly successful"(as some critic pointed out)'Taken'. The nausea of such movies will take time to go. It is in the rating of such movies that we have to doubt IMDb's credulity.7.7 for a movie like this and 7.0 for My Own Private Idaho. Go figure! Mine will be in the range of 3.5-4.0

Sentiment: negative
I didn't really know what to expect from "Future-Kill", but I certainly hoped it would be a little better than what I got. I knew the rating was bad and the reviews were unfavorable, but the Subversive DVD-cover illustration looks beyond cool and I can't resist that. For a very long (too long, in fact) time, this film raised the impression of being an unofficial sequel to Porky's with lame, vulgar and offensive fraternity pranks. Five mega-dorks, one of them resembling an exact young clone of Jim Carrey, desperately want to become members of a frat house but their ultimate initiation might just be a tad bit far-fetched and dangerous. They are dropped in the city center with provocative marks painted on their faces, simultaneously with the outbreak of a violent gang war. It doesn't take too long before they are confronted with Splatter, a seemingly half-man and half-machine warrior, who leads a gang of which I never really figured out who or what they were. Were they a government experiment? Cyborgs? Terminator imitations from a distant future? Does anyone care? "Future-Kill" is a bizarre amateur flick with a scenario that leaps from one subject onto the other without any form of logical connection or narrative. The plot borrows vital elements from great cinematic cult classics like "The Warriors", "Escape from New York" and "The Terminator", but the end result is one gigantic Sci-Fi monstrosity. The costumes and special effects are quite pitiable and there's a truckload of cheap and gratuitous nudity. The acting is terrible, but I'm willing to blame the retarded dialogs instead of the cast members. One to avoid at all costs, in spite of really cool DVD-cover art. Resist it!

Sentiment: negative
...Or, more precisely, so bad that you are going to have the time of your life laughing your ass off when you watch it! James Sbardellati's "Deathstalker" of 1983 is certainly one of the most awful productions the Sword & Sorcery sub-genre has brought along, but it is highly amusing. The acting is terrible, the plot is pure crap, and the effects and photography couldn't be more amateurish. But it is the bad acting, the cheesy effects, and the many errors, that makes this movie so hilarious.

- SPOILERS AHEAD -

Deathstalker (Rick Hill) is an extremely strong and skilled warrior. One day, a good witch tasks him to unite the three powers of chaos and creation, a sword, an amulet and a chalice, in order to free the country from its brutal ruler, the evil king and sorcerer Munkar. Obtaining the sword is quite easy, but the amulet and the chalice are in Munkar's possession. Fortunately, the evil king has arranged a tournament in which the county's most skilled warriors fight each other until death. The winner is then to take the king's place. Of course, the king doesn't want anybody to take his place, an therefore he has planned to kill the winner (instead of just not arranging the tournament in the first place). Deathstalker is not only to obtain the the three powers of creation, but also to save the old, good king's gorgeous daughter (Barbi Benton) from the claws of evil Munkar. Luckily, he doesn't get bored on his way to the tournament, since he is allowed hump the gorgeous female warrior Kaira (Lana Clarkson) in the meantime...

The film has many great, incredibly stupid and funny scenes. Some of my favorite scenes include: 

- Deathstalker beheads a bad guy with his sword. The head that falls down, however, is not that guy's head. The falling head has a red goatee, while the guy beheaded by Deathstalker had dark hair and no beard.

- When the character of female warrior Kaira (Lana Clarkson) is introduced, she is first seen in a black robe, hiding her face and body. Deathstalker's traveling companion Oghris (Richard Brooker) fights her, and during the sword fight her robe (under which she is, of course topless) opens, exposing her breasts. Her breasts are the first thing we see of Lana Clarkson, even before her face.

- The last warrior Deathstalker has to fight in the tournament, is a giant guy with the body of a man and the head of a pig.

- Evil Munkar has an ugly little creature locked in a chest. He feeds that little creature human eyeballs and fingers.

... There are many other unintentionally funny, hilarious, and great scenes. The acting is terrible but Barbi Benton and the late Lana Clarkson are eye-candy, and although I described this movie as 'unintentionally funny', I sometimes had the impression that some of the actors were absolutely aware of how crappy the movie is. There is a fair amount of gore, and lots of female nudity to keep the viewer entertained. "Deathstalker" is an incredibly awful movie, but I still highly recommend it. People with a sense of humor will have the time of their lives!

Sentiment: negative
The story behind this movie is very interesting, and in general the plot is not so bad... but the details: writing, directing, continuity, pacing, action sequences, stunts, and use of CG all cheapen and spoil the film.

First off, action sequences. They are all quite unexciting. Most consist of someone standing up and getting shot, making no attempt to run, fight, dodge, or whatever, even though they have all the time in the world. The sequences just seem bland for something made in 2004.

The CG features very nicely rendered and animated effects, but they come off looking cheap because of how they are used.

Pacing: everything happens too quickly. For example, "Elle" is trained to fight in a couple of hours, and from the start can do back-flips, etc. Why is she so acrobatic? None of this is explained in the movie. As Lilith, she wouldn't have needed to be able to do back flips - maybe she couldn't, since she had wings.

Also, we have sequences like a woman getting run over by a car, and getting up and just wandering off into a deserted room with a sink and mirror, and then stabbing herself in the throat, all for no apparent reason, and without any of the spectators really caring that she just got hit by a car (and then felt the secondary effects of another, exploding car)... "Are you okay?" asks the driver "yes, I'm fine" she says, bloodied and disheveled.

I watched it all, though, because the introduction promised me that it would be interesting... but in the end, the poor execution made me wish for anything else: Blade, Vampire Hunter D, even that movie with vampires where Jackie Chan was comic relief, because they managed to suspend my disbelief, but this just made me want to shake the director awake, and give the writer a good talking to.

Sentiment: negative