DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Based on the Elmore Leonard novel of the same name, Killshot suffers from a lack of focus, direction, and creativity  all elements which the original story likely had, and negative test screenings forced severe edits, (including the complete excising of a character) resulting in a film that feels almost nothing like a Leonard story. Far too many characters populate a storyline too simplistic and straightforward (not a typical trait of the author's work) and the focus continually switches between two hit men who are difficult to like and a troubled couple who don't command our sympathy. While the story itself provides precious few twists and turns, sadly by the end of the film its appeal still remains a mystery. 

Washed-up hit-man Armand "The Blackbird" Degas (Mickey Rourke) follows a strict code during his missions that inadvertently sours his latest assignment. Now on the run from his former employer, he haphazardly joins forces with inept misfit criminal Richie Nix (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) to gain some quick cash by extorting a wealthy realtor. When struggling couple Carmen and Wayne Colson (Diane Lane and Thomas Jane) are privy to the thieves' blundered plot, they are forced into hiding as the crazed killers will stop at nothing to silence the two witnesses. 

Killshot proves that being based on an Elmore Leonard novel isn't grounds for immediate success or even a promising adaptation. The characters, situations, and even resolutions in the film are all tired and unoriginal and only very randomly hint at something more. It's not that there wasn't potential, especially when Rourke's black-garbed, calm and collected assassin perfectly executes a hit during the opening scene  purpose and principals are just continually abandoned as each minute ticks away. The style and manner in which each character is introduced is the most intriguing; visually the roles of Bird and even Wayne are fleshed out befittingly, giving immediate interest and depth to personas that typically end in a creative impasse.

The pairing of the cold and calculating Black Bird with the irrational and explosive Richie is an enticing combination (comparisons to Fargo would be extravagantly too kind), except that each character seems to slowly lose track of the traits that kept them initially interesting. As Richie starts picking up the more experienced killer's habits, Bird loosens his grip on his own methods of murder. Regardless of what he sees in his momentary lighthearted fling with Donna (Rosario Dawson), it's hard to imagine that his final confrontation with panicky Carmen would provoke a confession of his true nature and subsequent carelessness that drastically affects his outcome. Likely or not, this is Killshot's unfortunate downfall  and little entertainment can be garnered from these characters who steadily lose their originality by continually contradicting the habits that once made them intriguing. 

- The Massie Twins

Sentiment: negative
Well Folks, this is another stereotypic portrayla of Gay life however, the additional downside includes poor acting, horrible script, no budget, terrible sound and let us not forget the impossible storyline.

It is Christmas in New York City and our story immediatly "focuses" on two male individuals, apparently lovers for some time. One of them has not let his parents (the right wing, religious zealot types) know that he is gay (adding to the impluasability of the story 'cause this guy is as efeminant as gay guys come these days) and his parents are coming to viusit him. They will stay in his New York apartment where he and his lover have just decorated for Christmas.

The story continues to develop around the arrival of the parents, who noone will like anyway and - how through only obvious and predictable ways - they come to learn there son is gay. Tears are shed as was my interest in this movie.

The cast of charecters, seemed like an intro acting course at the local community theatre. The lovers in this film are mismatched, and there does not appear to be any cohesion to their union.

The landlord is flat and her attempt to be humanistic in the situation are undercooked and certainly didnt help move the plot any further.

The dragqueen friend who steps to the aid of one of the lovers in his "time of need" is stereotypic and gives a bad name to the unique art of drag.

Although some guys night find one of the lovers to have a nice body (again, stereotypic imagery) it does not help this story.

Stay away from this film, especially if you are considering a purchase. You'll shoot yourself if you do!

Sentiment: negative
Firstly let me get this of my chest I hate Octopussy with an absolute passion. What is so frustrating is that it had so much potential and had a very good opening sequence, unfortunately post the opening sequence it all goes downhill. Firstly there was absolutely no plot to begin with, just an excuse for Moore to tell his corny jokes. Next there are several sequences that would make a Bond fan cringe,for instance the sequence in which Bond turns up to diffuse a bomb dressed as a clown. The villains are pretty poor, Louis Jordon fails to make an impact as Kamal Khan and Bollywood veteran Kabir Bedi is equally poor as his henchman. It's funny that when people debate over what the worst Bond movie is and Octopussy gets overlooked when it can easily give them a run for their money.

Sentiment: negative
Arthur Miller certainly knows. His stories give a clearer picture of what it means to live in the United States in the 20th century than any other writer I can think of.

Focus, based on one of his novels, is no exception.

William H. Macy and Laura Dern give fantastic performances here. Emotionally bruising but ultimately rewarding, this movie is excellent.

Sentiment: positive
I watched this film on Telly the other night and little did I know what a cringe-fest it would be...I knew it would be stupid but not this bad! This film exemplifies everything that is awful in Australian comedy. Apart from the most tedious, uninspired scenarios and characters I have ever come across (aside from those dubious French produced American tax break comedies!), most of the situations were boring, unbelievable, stereotypical and SO not funny just...terrible! 

One such scenario that really annoyed me was the nerds on the bus scene. From a screen writing perspective the writers used the most uninteresting - not to mention unbelievable - scenario to get these three stranded without their luggage...They are on the holiday of their lives and they're going to risk it all (including a $300 deposit, luggage and room) to exert their rights to dance on a bus? I mean, they're about half an hour away from their destination! At least they could have had the bus driver kick them off but, no they leave willingly cos 'they can't take it anymore!'and wreck their holiday...Anyway, I can't believe the writers didn't workshop this appalling scenario out. I think a ten year old could come up with 5 set-ups more clever, funny and believable.

I can go on with many others - the really unimaginative stereotypical psychopath, the whole relationship with the angry jilted girlfriend and tag along virgin, the 'Wow Man! Out there goth girl' inhaling stuff on the train - EVERYTHING was just woeful! I cannot think of one redeeming feature of the this film except that maybe the third wheel nerd was kind of cute. Spoilt his career by appearing in this trash though!

Sentiment: negative
Many people have the irritating habit of dying before completing a vital message, thus confusing the hero, not to mention the audience...

Dr. Ben McKenna (James Stewart) and his wife Jo, a former musical star (Doris Day) are vacationing in Morocco with their son, Hank (Christopher Olsen), when they meet Mr. and Mrs. Drayton, a British couple (Brenda de Banzie and Bernard Miles). They are also befriended by a charming Frenchman, Louis Bernard (Daniel Gelin), who invites them to dinner but then cancels at the last minute...

The MacKennas go to a restaurant and end up having their meal with the Draytons, when they spot Louis Bernard... 

The next day in the market place, they are caught in an assassination intrigue... While they are wandering in the local market, the crowds suddenly scatter to reveal an Arab fleeing from his pursuers... Dr. McKenna stands amazed as the Arab falls into his arms, a knife sticking out of his back... 

Gulping his last breath, the dying man mutters some words and collapses... Dr. McKenna is completely taken aback when the Arab's hood falls from his head and he is revealed as Bernard in disguise... McKenna is left knowing too little, but as far as the assassins are concerned, too much...

To prevent Dr. McKenna from revealing what he knows, the conspirators kidnap his son as a hostage... The film is primarily concerned with the dilemma of kidnappinghow to get the little boy back safely... The subplot about the assassination is just the setup...

The film is a breathless escapade... The death of Bernard comes suddenly and points out that death comes when we least expect it... 

Stewart is charged with emotion as the Midwestern doctor, accidentally involved in political intrigue... His perceptive facial expressions and indignant delivery made him convincingly humana person we could easily identify with... It is his temperament that actually sets the pace for the entire film... 

By 1956, the lovely Doris Day had won increasing esteem as an actress as well as a singer... She had been particularly strong opposite James Cagney in the Ruth Etting's biopic, 'Love Me or Leave Me,' but she was still unsure of her basic Thespian talents...

The casting of character actor Reggie Malder as the assassin, is brilliant... The man looks like a menace and his effusive portrayal radiates evil...

Sentiment: positive
This has got to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen! There were people leaving the theatre, others were falling asleep (ok, it was a late night show)... This is a no-sense movie, one of those who can make you never want to see an out of mainstream picture again. I would love to watch the making-off of this movie as I am deeply interested on what goes on the minds of the authors of such garbage. Do they laugh when they create all this ridiculous stuff or do they actually think they're doing something interesting? I wonder... The soundtrack is awful apart from some instrumental stuff that reminds you of a previous Bjork album. Even if you're a fan of Bjork's music, stay home. It's the best thing to do. The little, tiny, pieces of nice music are no reason for you to go out and submit yourself to this torture. God!...

Sentiment: negative
A family looking for some old roadside attractions to include in the father's coffee-table book come across an ancient, decrepit old freak show run by an eccentric one-eyed man. When their family van breaks down upon leaving the sideshow, they're forced to stay at a nearly abandoned fishing camp that was the site of a prison break decades prior.

There have been many films in the 'freak' subgenre of horror, ranging from Tod Browning's beloved 'Freaks' (1932) to Alex Winter's hilarious 'Freaked' (1993). Those are both classics (or soon-to-be with 'Freaked'). 'Side Sho,' however, never will be. And if it ever does reach classic status. . . well, it will be an obvious clue to the sad state of our genre. From the ridiculously bad opening song to the 17-year-old daughter that's obviously older than her natural mother, this film did not have much going for it. The writing was subpar, but not completely awful. . . just boring. The direction was poor, and the rare freak effects were pretty horrendous and unbelievable. The acting was abysmal and the casting was even worse. Anyone who would believe the ages of these two camp-age teenagers must not have met a teenager in a long, long time. There was far from enough gore & violence to make up for the lack of any other quality. . . and when there was a bit of violence, it was not well done at all. And, I can't forget to mention the ending fight scenes which were, with all honesty, some of the worst I've ever, ever seen in a film. Overall, this is an easily forgettable and poorly made horror film that deserves to be left alone at the bottom of the dollar bin.

Final verdict: 2.5/10.

Sentiment: negative
This stuffy melodrama is quite easily the worst film starring Ingrid Bergman that I've seen. Even her luminous screen presence can't save this insufferably slow and meandering movie that's nearly impossible to sit through without fast-forwarding a lot of it.

Only for die-hard Bergman fans; others are very likely to fall asleep. I suggest you to watch "For Whom the Bell Tolls" instead.

Sentiment: negative
Gary Busey's best performance in a nicely-flowing biography. Since had a musical background, he was able to do his own songs and it really works. It's always good to see that fine actor, Don Stroud (one of the crickets) and Charlie Martin Smith as well.

An 8 out of 10. Best performance = Gary Busey. Thankfully, Mr. Busey was Oscar-nominated for this, losing to Jon Voight in COMING HOME. A fairly low-budget flick that doesn't disappoint, with GREAT SONGS by Mr. Holly. I hope this made plenty of dough. Busey was never this popular again for varying reasons, but thankfully he has this one great one on his resume.

Sentiment: positive
Oh man. If you want to give your internal Crow T. Robot a real workout, this is the movie to pop into the ol' VCR. The potential for cut-up lines in this film is just endless.

(Minor spoilers ahead. Hey, do you really care if a film of this quality is "spoiled?") Traci is a girl with a problem. Psychology has developed names for it when a child develops a sexual crush on the opposite-sex parent. But this girl seems to have one for her same-sex one, and I don't think there's a term for that. It might be because her mother Dana is played by Rosanna Arquette, whose cute overbite, neo-flowerchild sexuality and luscious figure makes me forgive her any number of bad movies or unsympathetic characters. Here Dana is not only clueless to her daughter's conduct; she seems to be competing for the gold medal in the Olympic Indulgent Mother competition. 

It's possible that Dana misses Traci's murderous streak because truth be told, Traci seems to have the criminal skills of a hamster. It's only because the script dictates so that she manages to pull off any kind of a body count.

A particularly hilarious note in this movie is the character of Carmen, a Mexican maid who is described by Dana as around so long she's like one of the family although she dresses in what the director thought would say, "I just fell off the tomato truck from Guadalajara." Carmen is so wise to Traci's scheming, she might also wear a sign saying, "Hey, I'm the Next Victim!" Sure enough, Traci confronts Carmen as Carmen is making her way back from Mass, and bops her with one of those slightly angled lug wrenches that car manufacturers put next to your spare as a bad joke. I rather suspect than in real life those things are as useless as a murder weapon as they are for changing a tire. 

In another sequence, Arquette wears a flimsy dress to a vineyard, under cloudy skies, talking to the owner. Cut to her in another flimsy dress under sunny skies, talking to the owner's brother. Then cut to her wearing the first dress, in the first location, under cloudy skies - but it's supposed to be later. You get the picture. We're talking really bad directing.

As for skin, don't expect much, although Traci does own a nice couple of bikinis. 

For those looking for a trash wallow, 8. For anybody else, 1/2.

Sentiment: negative
I'm not sure why there are no articles or posters or anything about this film because I just saw it and thought it was AWESOME. I guess it's not for everyone because it's basically Kafka's "The Trial" meets "Beevis and Butt-Head", which is a pretty tough combination to swallow. Still, I thought it was great. If you're going to see it because you want a sequel to Office Space you're probably going to be disappointed. But if you want to see one of the most brutal, acid-tongued, and hilariously honest looks at where our society is headed you're in for a treat. I just saw the 8pm show opening night in Los Angeles and there were only 12 people in the theater, which means the film will probably be gone in a week. That's really a shame because, in its own way, Idiocracy is one of the best satires to come along in quite a while. But then again it's basically making fun of the people who make up about 99% of the movie-going audience so I guess it's no wonder the studio panicked and tried to dump it.

Sentiment: positive
PREY 

Aspect ratio: 1.37:1

Sound format: Mono

A lesbian couple (Sally Faulkner and Glory Annan) living in a remote country house are driven apart by the arrival of a young man (Barry Stokes) who turns out to be a flesh-eating alien, the vanguard of a massive invasion...

Despite its shoestring budget and leaden pacing, Norman J. Warren's follow-up to SATAN'S SLAVE (1976) amounts to a great deal more than the sum of its meager parts, thanks to a surprisingly complex script by Max Cuff (apparently, his only writing credit): Faulkner and Annan indulge an obsessive relationship whilst living in isolated splendor within the English countryside (rendered alternately beautiful and ominous by Derek V. Browne's eye-catching cinematography), though Annan's discovery of bloodstained clothing in an upstairs room marks one (or both) of these doe-eyed lovelies as psychologically disturbed, which may explain the absence of their respective families, some of whom appear to have lived in the house at one time or another and 'left' under mysterious circumstances. Stokes' unexpected arrival throws the relationship into disarray, partly because Faulkner has a pathological hatred of men and partly because Annan is attracted to him, creating tensions which result in a climactic whirlwind of violence. There's an extraordinary, multi-layered sequence in which Faulkner attempts to 'emasculate' their clueless visitor by dressing him in women's clothing, though Stokes' alien mentality allows him to rise above the intended mockery.

In the early scenes, at least, the relationship between Faulkner and Annan is depicted with uncommon grace and dignity, but this heartfelt sapphic liaison quickly devolves into crowd-pleasing episodes of sex and pulchritude, culminating in an explosion of horror when Annan allows herself to be ravished by Stokes following a violent argument with Faulkner. The closing sequences are (quite literally) gut-wrenching, especially Annan's final scene, which appears to have been clipped for censorship reasons in 1977 and never fully restored (what remains is still pretty vivid, so brace yourselves!). Excellent performances by the three leads, bolstered by Warren's unobtrusive direction, which takes full advantage of the stunning woodland locations, thereby compensating for the film's budgetary shortcomings. Originally released in the US as ALIEN PREY.

Sentiment: negative
It's not a big film. The acting is not amazing (some sub charterers are even played badly), The film is not beautiful in any sense. Nothing really inventive or new. If you like big films, this one is not for you. yet it has a big - REALLY BIG plus on the story. Larry's story works, because we know this story from our own lives. The girl we didn't ask to a date, the test we've failed, the friend we let down, are all in our history. This movie works, because it touch it, It's a great story because it's a small one. It's the life we all have, with regrets we all have, and yet the message hits: every life we could have lived would have had their downside. The first time I watched it, I was 15. It was shown in a party at my school. 16 years later, I keep reflecting on it every once in a while, and every time I see it, it puts a smile on my face. Watch it. It will do you good. You'll be happier with what you have.

Sentiment: positive
Once again the same familiar story about a man (writer here) who sell his soul to the devil in order to have his most desired ambition in life: success. Unfunny script (we should "go home and write better"), ridiculous lines in order to understand the "strong" "Christmanish" message (our only aspiration in life is to find love, respect and a good friendship) and a very long trial scene at the end where the agent Hopkins beat the devil (Jennifer Love Hewitt is no sexy or evil at all) for all the bad things she made to this unlikable character. Not bad efforts from the actors (Baldwin also as a director, Cattrall in a "Sex and the City" role again, Aykroyd with some funny lines in his limited role). P.S. Try also a not so popular film from Greece called "Alloimono stous neous", a brilliant adaptation of this myth (an old man give his soul to the devil to get back his youth)

Sentiment: negative
Featuring a few of Hammer's all-stars, this highly effective slice of British horror revolves around a house and the fates of it's previous tenants, whose stories are all told to a Scotland yard detective, in search of a missing actor.

Story number one, which is probably the least impressive of the four, deals with a writer and his wife who've just moved in the house and plan to stay just for a short time so that he may write one of his horror novels. He creates a demented character named Dominic, who's a very creepy looking strangler, and soon finds himself going mad as he starts to seeing this beastly looking man everywhere he goes. After his wife convinces him to seek psychiatric help, a sub-plot is introduced which frankly, didn't really work for me. I won't spoil it for you.

The next story (the best in my opinion) stars the wonderful Peter Cushing as Philip Grayson, a man who's moved into the home for his retirement years and soon makes his way to a nearby wax museum(that deals in the macabre) where he's very startled to find a wax figure that looks exactly like a woman from his past. Soon thereafter, an old friend(who also has a history with this woman) is in town for business and drops by to see him. The two men are in for a rude awakening as they soon discover that there was more to this woman than meets the eye.

Story three stars one of my very favorites...Christopher Lee, who plays John Reid. After moving into the home with his peculiar daughter Jane, the nanny that he hires becomes awfully suspicious as to the way Reid suppresses his daughter. Well come to find out...if she knew what Lee did, she would have certainly understood.

The final story is a rather light-hearted vampire tale that stars John Pertwee and Ingrid Pitt. After buying a cloak from a mysterious merchant, actor Paul Henderson finds himself turning into the very creature that he's portrayed several times in his career.

Overall, the pacing and direction were very good, as was the most of the performances. There were nice Gothic touches here and there and an effective score to complement the ambiance. This one's a keeper, and comes highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
It only took one viewing of this dog, for me to say "Never again!" It's so profoundly unmemorable that I had to read other people's reactions to it before I could remember anything beyond (1) it was awful, (2) Connery should have quit while he was ahead, and (3) the film included a total gross-out bit involving faking a retinal scan through the most gruesome (not to mention horribly inefficient) means possible.

Actually, I've never understood why anybody would prefer even the best of Connery's Bond films over even the worst Moore or Dalton outings. Or Lazenby, Brosnan, or even David Niven, for that matter. I personally found Octopussy and Moonraker, among other "canonical" Bond films, to be far more entertaining than this, and probably for the very same reasons why others deprecate the Moore Bond films, namely their wry humor, and their willingness to surrender to the preposterousness of the whole basic Bond milieu.

Sentiment: negative
It pains me to write such a scathing review but by not doing so I'm simply encouraging these people. First off, just because a film is made on a small budget does not automatically make it good nor endearing. In fact in this case, the small budget is probably the films sole achievement in that it prevented large sums of money from being squandered on a one legged race horse with the shits. Have you ever seen a comedy at the theatre? Ever heard people laugh and thought "what the dickens are you on"? Well even these twats weren't laughing. Things got so bad by mid way my cat took his first ever bath. This is not film, this is children....no monkeys making images that leave you feeling like moving to France. Got to go, there's a clown at my door.............

Sentiment: negative
Highly recommended to all those who appreciate watching movies. Great acting, perfectly surreal awkward humor, requisite prison sh-t, accurate depiction of the male condition. Music is also spot-on. I think the artist is "Dip" but not sure. The short loop of the title credit song on the DVD menu is well-timed, and sounds like Slint. (one thing to know is that IMDb maintains a ridiculous policy of a MINIMUM comment length based on, not CHARACTERS, not WORDS, but rather LINES. Measuring post quality and quantity based on LINES in the bold era of UNICODE and flexible, web-based typography, is like smoking poles.) ! Your comment does not contain enough lines - the minimum length for comments is 10 lines of text. Please see the guidelines. Attempts to pad the comment with junk words can result in your account being blocked from future submissions.

Sentiment: positive
Angela (Sandra Bullock) is a computer expert but, being shy and somewhat of a recluse, she does all of her work from the confines of her condo. Just as she is about to take a vacation in Mexico, a co-worker sends her a computer disc with disturbing information on it. Angela agrees to meet with her fellow employee but he mysteriously dies in a plane crash. Angela heads to Mexico but takes the disc with her. While she is sunning on the beach, a terrific looking gentleman named Jack (Jeremy Northam) makes overtures to her. She falls for them and the two end up on a boat to Cozumel. However, Jack works for the folks who generated the secret information on the disc and he is out to get it. Even after Angela escapes from his clutches and lands back in the USA, Jack makes things difficult. He changes Angela's identity on every computer across the nation, making her lose her condo, her bank account, everything. Can Angela, a computer whiz, beat Jack at his own game? This very exciting movie has many assets. First, Bullock and Northam are two very beautiful, interesting actors and their presence adds immediate captivation. The script is very clever and sure in its knowledge of the capabilities of computers and their relevance in today's world. The costumes, sets, production, and direction of the movie are also quite wonderful. And, despite how it sounds, there is a great deal of exciting action as Angela goes on the run to defeat her enemy. If you love thrillers without unnecessary bloodshed or violence, this is a great choice. It delivers twists and turns with great frequency, making it possible for the viewer to "net" a very good evening of entertainment.

Sentiment: positive
*The ELITE sniper team that has inserted 24h or so earlier have instead of digging in and making them selves invisible decided to take cover behind a big rock in one of the first scenes. *When the hero "runs" to rescue his wife he actually jogs. *When inside a building and aiming for a target only some 20-30 meter away the hero USES HIS SCOPE. Besides the fact that most non elite soldiers would make that shot from the hip and still hit there is also the fact that the scope probably wouldn't be able to focus that close. *There is a satellite that can actually look horizontally into buildings.

The list is endless... and the film is the biggest heap of crap I have ever put in my DVD player.

Sentiment: negative
I don't know what that other guy was thinking. The fact that this movie was independently made makes it no less terrible. You can be as big a believer as you want... the majority of this film is mindless drivel. I feel i have been insulted by having to watch the first 40 minutes of it. And that alone was no small feat. Not only is the acting terrible, but the plot is never even close to developed. There are countless holes in the story, to the point where you can hardly even call it a story anymore. I've never read the book, so I can't critique on that, but this is the first review that I've written here and it's purpose is solely to save all you viewers out there an hour and a half of your life. I can't remember the last time I couldn't even finish watching a movie. This one really takes the cake.

Sentiment: negative
I was so excited and hyped up about watching this film when the promos first came out in November! It looked awesome and the songs! I was quite disappointed when I went to watch it! This is a film which weaves 6 couples together. It has a multi cast of 12 people! A huge amount of stars have worked on this film. I think the director, Nikhil Advani, has not managed the situation well and should not have had many people in this movie as this would of made it easier for him. Compared to Nikhil's directorial Debut 'Kal Ho Naa Ho' , 'Salaam-e-Ishq' falls quite behind. I think Nikhil should have a smaller star cast. I think the best factors of this film is the songs! The songs are excellent and I think that all of the songs are awesome, Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy done an excellent job and have done an excellent jobs over the years. I think the ratings of this movie may go up because of the excellent songs! One thing I was disappointed with, is that the director should not have included nudity in this film which is done by Sohail Khan and Isha Koppikar. I found this extremely rude watching this with family! Although, some may find this nude as comedy, it is not something you would want to watch with parents! I think the best acting was performed by Salman and Priyanka Overall, I think its an alright movie!

Sentiment: negative
While I can understand some of the points made regarding the cinematography (I thought a more purposeful approach would have better supported the low-fi, home movie feel) I must say that I thought the script and acting of WHAT ALICE FOUND were excellent! Dean Bell has crafted a real gem that Judith Ivey charms with character-driven delight. Her performance of Sandra is a pleasure -- unfolding, alternately, as diabolical and romantic. We are at once intrigued and repulsed by her actions... and never given more information than is necessary. Her's and the supporting cast's efforts meet Bell's post-modern fairy tale with arms wide open. Emily Grace's Alice is infused with a doey-eyed magic. She seems to mold like clay before us, morphing into some sort of beautiful, lost beast. By the end, we are at odds with words, as she is, saying goodbye to her mother. Kudos also should be doled out to Jane Lincoln Taylor -- whose Mother provides the right amount of tragic historic weight -- and Justin Parkinson -- whose shy first-time John, Sam, provides one of the sweetest, if not most awkward, sex scenes in film. Bell has created a first rate story and assembled a plethora of talent to make it.

Sentiment: positive
No one is a greater fan of Geroge Macdonald Fraser's Flashman papers than I am.

I was surprised to see just now that Richard Lester directed Royal Flash, since I also see he had made the Three/Four Musketeers with Fraser which I though turned out rather well.

Not so Royal Flash.

I was 12 years old when the film was released and could not have been more enthusiastic since I had read all the Flashman papers published up to that time, and was intoxicated with A Clockwork Orange and Malcolm MacDowel (I still am, but he was never really given a chance after that).

What a disappointment (I saw it once again when I was about 20 on television and it seemed even worse).

None of the sharp dialogue in the books is transfered to the screen. The comedy of Flashman's character seemed to me to have been mishandled in about the same way one could imagine a group of high school students trying to parody it would do. The dueling and fencing was awful and undramatic.

Looking back with more mature eyes, the film failed completer to exploit the possibilities of direct satire of earlier film versions of the Prisoner of Zenda.

If you have read the book and not seen the film, I can only say that the film ends with Flashman and Rudi von Starnberg becoming fast friends and playing a game Rudi has just invented: Russian roulette.

A pathetic betrayal of everything the books are about.

My comments would be more direct if I had seen the film more recently, but I am glad I have not.

If by any chance Fraser ever reads this, I can only say I think he is a genius--perhaps the greatest comic novelist of his generation, but, based on my appreciation of that corpus of work, it as hard to believe that he wrote the screenplay of this film, as that he did all those awful Roger Moore James Bond films.

Sentiment: negative
This movie makes me want to fall in love all over again!I am naming my next daughter "Adelaide". Just so that someone who sings like Ol Blue eyes can swoon her one day, and feel the butterflies I felt hearing it sung, and it wasn't even to me! I give it a 9/10

Sentiment: positive
Something of a disappointment. Lee J. Cobb is the anti-union head of Roxton Garments in New York. His partner in the business is killed when an elevator is unleashed and plunges twenty-seven floors to the bottom of the shaft, in the scariest scene in the film.

Cobb doesn't know it, or doesn't let himself realize it, but the man behind the killing is Richard Boone, who protects the business from union organizers.

Then Cobb's son, Kerwin Mathews, returns from Europe determined to learn the business and join his father in running a clean shop. He's shocked -- shocked! -- to learn that Boone has been clobbering the union members and killing a few who have become irretrievably irritating.

Robert Loggia is one of the organizers who is killed by a couple of Boone's goons, led by Wesley Addy. Loggia leaves behind a widow, Gia Scala, with whom Mathews, understandably and decorously, takes up.

In the end, Cobb pays for his self deception, Addy and Boone get their just desserts, and Mathews winds up with the succulent Scala, after whom an opera house is named.

There isn't a sparkle in any line of dialog. A couple of lines are stolen verbatim from "On the Waterfront" -- "pistoleros", "you'll talk yourself right into the grave." The plot is schematic and holds absolutely no surprises. Vincent Sherman's direction is pedestrian. The photography is flat an uninspired, though there are a couple of nice shots of New York streets.

Lee J. Cobb can act. In this case, it must have been easy for him because he replays Johnny Friendly from "On the Waterfront," only this time with a soft heart. Richard Boone can act too. Joseph Wiseman, in a minor part, does a good job. Gia Scala hits her marks, says what the script demands, and does what the director tells her to. A stunning woman, her life soured early on. The director and photographer do a good job on Wesley Addy. He has white hair, a blanched face, eyes the color of a glacial lake, and he's sometimes shot through a wide-angle lens than turns his surprisingly fleshy lips into those of some kind of parasitic fish. I don't see him as a low-tier muscle man though. He and Boone should have switched roles. Harold J. Stone is his reliable self, although he's forced to be more "Italian", as Tony, than comes naturally to him. Nobody else in anything resembling a major part is more than mediocre, and some performers don't clear even that bar. Kerwin Mathews may be a nice guy in real life, but he's blandly sterile and belongs in domestic dramas on afternoon television.

Great title, suggestive of intrigue and shadows. Some good people in the cast. A potentially explosive expose of a business nobody knows much about but which deals in megabucks.

And it all comes out like this.

Sentiment: negative
Big spoiler right here: this film is B!A!D! But enjoy, it's good bad.

Bugged is the kind of film you can't believe exists, with dialog, plotting, and direction so ineptly handled that Uncle Ned's Carlsbad Cavern home video looks like an IMAX experience. Since it's a Troma flick, there's plenty of gross-out gore on tap, but its even sillier than usual.

Most of the production money seems to have gone into buying soda and sandwiches for cast and crew. The brilliant dialog is best summed up in the immortal, "%@#$! What was that?" which is second only to the oft screamed, "Now what?"

Any knowledge of how people act in a desperate situation is alien to Ronald Armstrong, the writer/director. When one of the friends is found being eaten alive by a grasshopper/termite/chiapet thing, Armstrong has the survivors immediately making time with cute, but dumb-as-a-doorknob, "Divine." While she's being hit on, Divine is cooking up a big steaming pot of a rat-poison/oatmeal mixture on the stove, stirring, smiling, stirring, smiling, never falling over dead from the fumes!

The killer bugs are as frightening as piñatas, which they too closely resemble. The effects used to move them include dragging them across tile floors real fast with their legs dragging behind.

The highlight for the film would probably have been the house blowing up, but they were either out of cash or never had any, so instead of seeing even a miniature go up in flames, they simply let the screen go black (eat you heart out ILM).

The cast is virtually all black. How can the NAACP consistently censor something truly funny like Amos and Andy (which depicts characters certainly no less similiar than those on 99% of all white comedy shows), but says nary a peep about something like Bugged. Oh well, it's best they don't know about how demeaning this film is to all involved (as it would be if it were played by any single ethnic group, frankly). Before they put the kabosh on Bugged, get some friends together and get ready for the Plan 9 of Bug Exterminator movies.

Sentiment: negative
Richard Dreyfuss stars in "Moon Over Parador," a 1988 Paul Mazursky film also starring Raul Julia, Sonia Braga, Jonathan Winters and Charo. Dreyfuss plays a New York actor, Jonathan Nolan, in the Caribbean country of Parador to make a film. When the dictator dies suddenly, the Secret Police Chief (Julia) who is the one actually controlling the dictator and the country, drafts Jonathan to play the dictator, having noticed the resemblance between them. Soon Jonathan is ensconced in the palace as Alphonse Simms, and Simms' prostitute girlfriend Madonna (Braga) who realizes the switch promises to help him in any way she can.

Mazursky, who appears in drag as Simms' mother, gives us a look at how the CIA operates in third world countries. The Winters character, supposedly a salesman, is actually a CIA operative. The film, however, flirts with but doesn't really tread on very serious ground and is more of a send-up, and a funny one at that.

Richard Dreyfuss does a fabulous job as Jonathan the actor and Alphonse the dictator, creating two separate characters and nailing both. The gorgeous Sonia Braga is great as Madonna, and Raul Julia hands in a wickedly funny performance as Strausmann, the man behind the dictator. It's one of those performances where you never quite know what the character is thinking - he can be pleasant or turn psycho at any moment. Charo is on hand as a maid and manages to be funny and unobtrusive at the same time.

A very good film, not a big blockbuster, but very entertaining.

Sentiment: positive
I must confess to not having read the original M R James story although I have read many of his other supernatural tales. I've also seen most of the previous BBC Christmas Ghost Stories and this one, in my opinion, surpasses most of them, only equalling The Signalman.

I can't really fault A View From a Hill - the direction and 'mood' is perfect, as is the acting, lighting and, of course, the story and writing. I thoroughly enjoyed this and can only hope for more of this quality from the same director and production team. I understand that the BBC plan to make some more (not necessarily based on M R James stories) so that's promising.

10/10

Sentiment: positive
This movie is a definitive 5. I finally caught it on HBO the other night. I remember when it came out in theatres telling a friend that it would never be a hit because Americans didn't want movies about history, especially movies that were more about ideas than action. I don't know if that was the reason FMLB didn't do well, but now, having finally seen it, I can add a few observations of my own.

First, while Dwight Schultz has been fine in Star Trek and The A-Team, as the lead in this movie he is off-putting. I kept expecting him to shout out Jon Lovitz-like, "I am ACT-ING!" He phrasing and tone of voice sounded like he was trying very had to be an ACT-OR, on a stage where he had to emphasize strangely various words and phrases. 

Second, I enjoyed the sly positioning of Paul Newman's character as a manipulator who, at every turn, strives to herd these cats (the scientists) along to get to his goal. 

Third, there was some discussion of the moral implications of creating the A bomb, and whether the US should use it. Probably not enough of this, or as in depth as warranted.

Finally, there seemed to be an awful lot of twists thrown in for dramatic effect. I don't know how much of the events in this movie are true to life, but things like having the test bomb slip in its chains or having a lab accident caused by a spilled coffee cup (and a scientist killed as a result) were stretching the bounds of believability. Maybe that stuff, or events that were similar, really happened, but it sure felt like various scenes were added solely for dramatic effect, which undermined the whole tone and purpose of the movie.

FMLB was OK. I need to read more about the actual events to know if it was over the top or just mostly accurate.

Sentiment: negative
Overall this is a delightful, light-hearted, romantic, musical comedy. I suppose a small case could be made for the movie being to long. But I'm not sure what you would cut out. The singing that Kelly and Sinatra do? No. The fabulous dancing that Kelly does? No. The time the movie takes to develop the story line and develop the relationships of the characters? No (that seems to be a common complaint many times that more recent movies don't develop the characters).

Some comment that Iturbi didn't bring much to the movie but this gives us a chance to see and hear a great talent from the 1040s. So what if he wasn't an actor? He was an important part of the movie as the basic plot was to get Grayson an audition with him. 

Originally Katherine Grayson wanted to be an opera star. Louis B. Mayer brought her to MGM for a screen test that included an aria. During her audition in the movie there is a shot of the MGM brass nodding and smiling. You can just imagine it was like that when she had made her real screen test years before.

This movie is so full of life it is hard to hit all of the highlights. Great use was made of color and lighting throughout the movie. You can see why Frank Sinatra became the star he did. A nice counter-point in the movie is how Sinatra (a ladies man even then) played the role of wanting to just find a date while on leave. You'll feel good after seeing this movie. 7/10

Sentiment: positive
I've sat through less painful operations than the time I spent watching this film. 

If you give it a try thinking it's going to be something in the vein of a Guy Ritchie flick.....Think again! The production, dialogue, acting, script , film work and plot were about the worst I've ever seen in a film. My fave part in all honesty was the closing credits. In all the history of cinema has there never been a better excuse for turning off the TV and going out and doing something better with your life.

Have root canal work done rather than wasting your time and money on this!

Sentiment: negative
In "Checking Out", Peter Falk plays an elderly New Yorker who summons his children home so that they can be with him before he plans to commit suicide. As the movie progresses, we get to see everyone's flaws and other problems. While some people may interpret this as a "heartwarming" movie, I mostly enjoyed it for Peter Falk's character not letting anything get him down, and even engaging in a little lewdness now and then.

So, it might not be the best movie ever, but still worth seeing. I've long thought that Peter Falk has the perfect look to play this sort of role, what with his glass eye and all. Also starring Laura San Giacomo, David Paymer, Judge Reinhold and Shera Danese (Falk's real-life wife).

Sentiment: positive
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning 

Mr Bean (Rowan Atkinson) is in this world, but not of this world. His mind simply doesn't seem to comprehend things the way an average person would and his life is one long disaster because of this, getting himself into constant mishaps and far out, zany situations, which he is left to sort out on his own as he doesn't seem to mix with anyone and he rarely speaks. But he never gives up and, despite the simplest of tasks being a constant struggle for him, applying his own zany methods of solving the problem always pays off for him in the end.

To look at the sorry state of modern British humour, with all it's focus of sex and general vulgarity, you'd be forgiven for forgetting that a show like Mr Bean was made at one time. There's nothing unsuitable going on here, just good, clean U rated humour of the type Tommy Cooper and the like made in the 50s. And I find it just as laugh out loud funny now in my early 20s as I did when I was a young boy in the early 90s.

Although I can look at it a little deeper now and see there must be more to this character than than meets the eye. There must be a reason why he does things the way he does and things seem to keep going wrong for him. As others have noted, it looks like he may have a type of autism. In fact I'm so convinced about it that I really think were a professional psychologist to analyse him, I think Mr Bean could be the first famous, fictional character to be diagnosed with something like Asperger's Syndrome.

If you'd like to see some truly hilarious British humour at it's very best before it all became obsessed with sex and vulgarity, then this would come highly recommended. Shows like Little Britain do work because it's well realised but it's really just as vulgar as the rest. Shows like this show we were more restrained and civilised once, and hopefully we might start putting out this type of humour more again sometime soon. *****

Sentiment: positive