DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
During the Civil war a wounded union soldier hides out in a isolated Confederate ladies' school; where the head mistress and the teacher of the school decide to care for him and keep him about, until trouble starts brewing between the lonely and sexually frustrated women and girls. The soldier decides to take advantage of this situation, but it all comes at a price in the end. 

"Dirty Harry (1971)" (which was made about the same time of "The Beguiled") might be my favourite collaboration between Eastwood and Siegel, but after seeing this, I tend to think this to be the pairs' finest work together. A very atypical, savvy and stylish vehicle for Eastwood is always on the mark with richly controlled direction by Don Siegel and a hauntingly rousing music score by Lalo Schifrin. Standing out strongly is its sultrily lurid and bleak nature that's intrusively planted into the film's psychological makeup and manipulative strangle hold in sexual depravity. It's assiduously played out and makes it more the brooding and blood curdling when those random shocks and saucy intentions take hold with gripping tension. The way Siegel illustrates John B Sherry and Grimes Grice's alluring bold, slow-burn screenplay (taken from the novel of Thomas Cullinan) is effectively done through stark emotions and the script's tight, lyrical context. Siegel's strong direction captures the idyllically southern Victorian setting with such potently garnished photography and he sets up some strangely piercing imagery with great clarity and restrained. 

While the performances, are truly commendable and high of quality. Clint Eastwood as the smoothly suave, sweet talking chameleon union soldier is very impressionable and delightfully assured. A profoundly eminent Geraldine Page steals the picture as the hardened head mistress and the elegant Elizabeth Hartman adds a delicate sincereness to her innocent character. Mae Mercer is strongly tailored as the black maid and Jo Ann Harris is the pick of the crop from the young pupils with her seductively sly persona. 

Honestly while Eastwood's charismatic character plays the field for his own selfish needs, there's still mixed intentions there that the one's being played (where rivalry between the women creep in) turn out to be no better than their guest at the end. Throughout there's a perversely dark sense of humour and ironic touch settling into the material. What's demonstrated here, is simply more than your basic little minded shocker, but one that's thickly layered with intrigue and a sense of realism that's hard to shake. That also goes for its extremely eerie title and closing song. 

A effectively chilling, low-key item that's hard not to be tempted by it's swinging hospitality.

Sentiment: positive
Does anyone know, where I can see or download the "What I like about you" season 4 episodes in the internet? Because I would die to see them and here in Germany there won't be shown on TV. Please help me. I wanna see the season 4 episodes badly. I already have seen episode 4 and episode 18 on YouTube. But I couldn't find more episodes of season 4. Is there maybe a website where I can see the episodes? Because I've read some comments in forums from Germany and there were people which had already seen the season 4 episodes even though they haven't been shown at TV in Germany. I am happy about every information I can get. Thanks Kate

Sentiment: positive
I couldn't bear to sit through he entire movie. Do families like this really exist somewhere? There have been many comments describing this family as akin to LLBean models and such, and I think that that is a great description of how they behaved.

More absurdly unbelievable writing/acting occurs as we meet a character referred to in High School as "pigface" who, of course, has grown into a drop-dead gorgeous 20-year Harvard-educated plastic surgeon (but only to do good in the world-not for the money,) and she beds Steve Carrel on the first date. That's when I quit watching...

If you can completely suspend your disbelief for two hours, then perhaps you'll enjoy this sentimental, self-indulgent waste of time.

Sentiment: negative
A fine line up of actors and a seemingly nice plot -- though not original -- promised me a nice evening in front of the TV. I was disappointed. The actors delivered up to standard (Juliette Lewis cuddly as ever; William Hurt solid but in the background; Shelley Duvall convincing as ever) but the story was too thin to keep me engaged to the story and, the twist to the finale was too obvious and too late; there was only one character who was nice to he girl, so guess what?! Then the final after-twist I do not know what to think of that. The boyfriend and the neighbor? Contract with the Devil, or just to get her to move in? What! The film had a nice idea behind it, but the idea was not worked out in detail. It could have been good, but it was not. Too many loose ends to tie up, Columbo would say.

Sentiment: negative
This is a very strange film, with a no-name cast and virtually nothing known about it on the web. It uses an approach familiar to those who have watched the likes of Creepshow in that it introduces a trilogy of so-called "horror" shorts and blends them together into a connecting narrative of the people who are involved in the segments getting off a bus. There is a narrator who prattles on about relationships, but his talking adds absolutely nothing to the mix at all and just adds to the confusion. As for the stories themselves, well.. I swear I have not got a clue why this movie got an 18 certificate in the UK, which would bring it into line with the likes of Nightmare On Elm Street and The Exorcist. Nothing here is even remotely scary.. there is no gore, sex, nudity or even a swear word to liven things up, this is the kind of thing you could put out on Children's TV and no-one would bat an eyelid. I can only think if it had got the rating it truly deserved (a PG) no serious horror fan would be seen dead with it, so the distributor probably buffeted the BBFC until they relented. Anyway, here are the 3 tales in summary: 1. A man becomes dangerously obsessed with his telekinetic car to the point of alienating his fiancee. 2. A man who lives in a filthy apartment is understandably freaked out when a living organism evolved from his six-month old tuna casserole. 3. A woman thinks she has found the perfect man through a computer dating service.. that is until he starts to act weird.. And there you have it. Some of them are pretty amusing due to their outlandish premises (my favourite being number 2) but you get the feeling they were meant to be a) frightening and b) morality plays, unfortunately they fail miserably on both counts. To sum up then, this flick is an obscure curiosity.. for very good reasons.

Sentiment: negative
I don't want to spoil the movie for anyone, but, this mimics life's reality in so many ways, and, if you are really honest with yourself, you will resonate with it in agreement in at least a few of the scenes.

The acting is not only believable, but convincing in a way that endears one to the characters. Moreover, it's funny, without trying too hard at it.

And, yes, I truly believe a sequel is warranted, here. See the movie, you'll understand why.

Highly recommended, especially if you like movies that have a real message.

Sentiment: positive
Very Slight Spoiler

 This movie (despite being only on TV) is absolutely excellent. I didn`t really pay attention to the differences in looks or accents, so I can`t really comment on that. The acting in this was so good I had to pinch myself and say "Remember, it`s only a movie, this DIDN`T REALLY HAPPEN". As I sat and listened to Harris and Quinn talk, I knew that it was exactly what John and Paul would be talking about had they actually had this meeting. The offhanded comments and burns from John were right on with his character(especially in the restaurant!), as was his depression while Paul was very easy going and laid back. Both actors did and excellent job and I was thrilled to have seen this movie. It`s a wicked experience for any Beatles fan. And prepare for a few surprises!

Sentiment: positive
This movie was a pleasant surprise for me. In all honesty, the previews looked horrible, up until the point where Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman appeared. So I rented it with reservation, but I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It had great acting, a few good plot twists, and, of course, Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman. It's definitely worth checking out.

Sentiment: positive
If you're looking for a Hollywood action packed kid-flick with the common bad language and violence this may not be the film to sit down for. If you're on the other hand interested in watching a film with youre children that has actually some values like showing the importance of friendship and truth this is the film to watch. Looking at the program guide this is obviously what millions of other viewers have found. Not many low-budget independent films have ever been aired as much as Mr. Atlas. The film is actually very funny as well as warm hearted and shows some beautiful locations masterfully captured by the sharp eye of the obvious brilliant cinematographer Suki Medencevic. Also if you're interested in looking at a muscular fellow with good looks the ladies can get an eye full. Let's support those who make good childrens film buy buying their videos and watching their products on TV. Enjoy

Sentiment: positive
What a crap that movie is. The script is simply non existent. The movie at times seems like a music video. But it cannot even be that since the soundtrack does not really match. Pathetic way of combining action and rap. One might think it being a recipe for a successful flick... here it fails miserably. Dialogues in this flick just killed me. The scene when Harlan is interrogated by some policeman is merely pitiful. Generally speaking, recent Seagals films are hardly watchable. What the hell happened to the guy? I know he's old but can't he get "Hollywood" to drop him a decent script or something? Is he running out of dough for his escapades to India that he takes on anything they serve him?

Sentiment: negative
As a forty-something urban explorer/photography and longtime fan of the original Kolchak: Night Stalker series since my early childhood, one aspect that hasn't really been mentioned is the amount of urban exploration Carl's character undertook during the series. He always managed to get himself in to one great abandonment, sewer or tunnel after another. Armed with only his trusty penlight (okay, so he had some flares in the primal ape episode tunnel) and his camera, he never carried any other gear to either protect himself or make the exploration easier.

Like many here, I recently purchased the DVD box set of the two pilot movies and subsequent TV episodes, and have been slowly revisiting all the shows. And although I remember watching them back in the early 70s when they first aired, its been over 30 years passed...so many of them seem new all over again. Campy, dated and cheesy - but charming and highly entertaining. They just don't make stuff like this these days. Now its all regurgitated spin-offs with predictable characters and plots.

Thankfully, my 16-yr-old daughter has been sitting down to watch the episodes with me and has developed an appreciation for them (she enjoys the genre). It gives me hope and faith the series will carry on to new generations of fans for years to come.

Sentiment: positive
I've just watched Fingersmith, and I'm stunned to see the 8/10 average rating for the show.

Not only was the plot was difficult to follow, but it seems character development was randomly applied.

The actors were adequate, but in the process of attempting to create twists and turns, their characters are rendered entirely one dimensional. Once this happens, the story really falls flat and becomes tedious.

And just in case anyone didn't see the predictable lesbian undertones from miles way, this is hammered home in the most banal terms at the end of the film.

The end scene is disappointing and phoned in, and anyone who sat back and went "Ohhh, so they were carpet munchers all along!", must have been out for the evening.

Two stars for the tonsil hockey in the earlier scene which was at least a bit raunchy, none for the rest of it...

Sentiment: negative
The charm of Otto Preminger's grandiose, visionary film noir is that it has ambiguous intentions, betraying the gloomy essence of the central character, who is still vexed by living in the shadow of his criminal father. Dana Andrews' driven, vindictive cop is shown as an outsider, irrational and destructive, who maybe can change because he might've found a good woman to look after him. The troubled man reclaims himself with his own tangled impression of rectitude. The distressing mood permanently circuited into the latter half of the story by screenwriter Ben Hecht reverberates in Andrews' tense performance as Preminger saturates the film in a relevantly prosaic substance of style. We don't just see and hear the city at night; we feel it because Preminger lets us see and hear even the most peripheral and distant factors of it.

Dana Andrews furnishes a complex character unfolded through his streaks of violence and the hatred that always infests him. As the plot develops, he is secretly entangled in situational snares, yet he is renewed by the outward acts that can be seen in the vintage noir protagonist's visceral facial expressions before he executes them.

This reflection of a specific phase in the development of the genre is an engrossing, feral and shady film noir that is set in the double-dealing climate of the underworld, where the hero is so estranged that he is always swelling with rage, and even though he loses his rational resistance, occupational principle, and ethical limits, he's still a good cop. Preminger just winks at telling a social-conscience drama about a corrupted community within the sprawling cityscape, rather keeping the thriller riding on Andrews' shoulders as an existential journey of personal ramifications about a man with an Oedipal fixation who is becoming disconnected though with the ever-shrinking influences of the law on his side and an undying perception of right and wrong.

The production companies in the early 1950s pussed out on the social-problem picture, and rather made "low-budget, low-risk thrillers" such as this, apparently in an attempt to evade the conniptions of conservative critics and social busybodies. But there is an expressionistic matter-of-factness to Preminger's inimitable approach. He injects each scene with a sense of everyday drama as a backdrop for the plot. Each supporting character must pull their own weight by doing something interesting, but none of them are cartoons or depressing comic reliefs. To him, every character thinks they're the star, as per the straight-from-the-shoulder self-assertion of Karl Malden as a missionary police inspector and a veteran waitress at a lunch counter. It is those who are the stars---Andrews and Gene Tierney, both anguished by their futile attempts to subdue their emotional intensity---who don't want to be.

Sentiment: positive
Well, sorry for the mistake on the one line summary.......Run people, run!! This movie is an horror!! Imagine! Gary Busey in another low budget movie, with an incredibly bad scenario...isn't that a nightmare? No (well yes), it is Plato's run...........I give it * out of *****.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this piece of pseudo-intellectual crap a couple of years ago, and it is now making a comeback at the local film club. It uses every cliché in the Intellectual Movie Makers Handbook (Beginners Edition) in order to appear as intellectual as the director probably imagines himself to be. You get your run-of-the-mill slow-motion tempo, brown color scale, slow pans through bombed-out environments, blank, suffering facial expressions, over-symbolic imagery, and the requisite miserable ending.

It is a complete failure, an unintentional perfect caricature of the typical Russian art movie. The director, Aleksandr Sokurov, has excellent command of technique, but he lacks eye. He doesn't see when he crosses the line into the realm of the pathetic.

This movie is a wet dream for art film haters. It lives up to every stereotypical view of the genre that there is.

If it was bad in an entertaining way, it would a turkey. But for a movie that is so bad that you walk out afterwards royally p***ed-off, we need a new term. This movie is a Sokurov.

Sentiment: negative
I had always been a big Lynda Carter-Wonder Woman fan so when the Sci-Fi Channel ran this movie,I had to see it.I was bitterly disappointed.This is a Wonder Woman movie in name only.She doesn't wear the right costume [she must have refused to or had ordered major changes] and the plot runs like a poor man's James Bond.There's none of the things that made the comic book heroine a success i.e. the superhuman strength or determined will.It's just one long bad dream.I don't even think Cathy is all that attractive anyway.I wouldn't waste your time on this.

Sentiment: negative
Well, the big money machine has done it again! Disney very shrewdly takes advantage of morons like myself who feel we must own every video (good or bad) stamped with the Disney moniker. Why is it that I continue to look forward to these "sequels" which make Don Bluth on a bad day look like Leonardo DaVinci? Cinderella 2 consists of three storylines (already a poor choice!) Doesn't one of the most endearing Disney creations at least deserve a linear story? Of these three, only the last comes anywhere near the quality of animation and storytelling that I would expect. The music is atrocious and modern (meaning in 2 years it will already be dated) and adds nothing to the story. Why does everything have to be updated? You know, the original cartoon is still popular because of its timelessness, so why not be respectful and true to the original with songs that reflect the same style? Gee, I can't wait for a sequel to Sleeping Beauty. Instead of music based on the themes of Tchaikovsky, we'll get music inspired by Britney Spears!!! So Disney, if you're listening, remember we're not all indiscriminate children out here. How about throwing a bone or two to the fans who've been around long enough to know the difference between craft and crap?

Sentiment: negative
This is a trio of tales, "Shakti", "Devi", and "Kali", about an experimental commune (or some such thing) called the Taylor-Eriksson group, which took people on journeys inside themselves and into the realm of the unknown, and left a bit of damage here and there, I'd say. Many years later some of that damage is still lurking and waiting for the right moment to show itself. Shakti tells the tale of a woman whose husband died mysteriously, in fact, he was torn apart, and the suspect was a man that may not have existed. Seems this woman is able to project some inner demon, or so finds out the sister of the man who was killed when she attempts to talk to this woman while posing as a reporter. Devi tells the tale of a young man who wants to "jump out of his skin". He's a skinhead, a speed freak, and is sent to see a psychiatrist who just happens to be a former member of this commune, which results in the good doctor helping the young man to realize his desire. This is probably the best of the three segments. Kali tells the tale of a healer, who attempts to "heal" this woman who was a part of this commune and lets loose some kind of demon that has lived in this woman, but one wonders if he did it or if SHE loosed it because it could not survive in her any longer. All three of these tales are pretty creepy and suspenseful because you're never really sure what to expect, and the premise and the settings are so unlike those of conventional horror films that it adds to the strangeness. This has a sort of low-budget look and feel to it but it also manages to conjure up a pretty creepy atmosphere throughout, much to its credit. I watched this with my mouth hanging open a good portion of the time and when the real scares (and gore) came it hit pretty hard. I found this to be a very interesting and disturbing film and liked it a lot. A good little find, this one, I'd give it 8 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
This show seemed to be kinda good. Kyra Sedgwick is an OK actress and I like police series, but somewhere in the production this program went awfully wrong. 

First of all, the writers should have more suspects than one, you know who did it EVERY TIME!!!!! That makes it boring. The main character is unbelievably annoying and its not believable in any way. I know they wanted her to be tough, but shes mean, stupid and a bad chief. The crimes are uninteresting and bland, and its just lame all the way. As stated above, I hate it.... 

All in all, this was a big disappointment and very bad indeed...

Sentiment: negative
This movie is pretty cheesy, but I do give it credit for at least trying to provide some characterization for it's principles. There are some great moments in the film and the dialogue has some great moments as well.

The aerial assault sequence is perhaps the best part of the movie.

I guess I really like the idea of what lengths a veteran will go for a fellow veteran. Sure it's not all that well done, but the premise is not at all bad.

Tom

Sentiment: positive
A group of young filmmakers with virtually no budget set out to make something clever and original -- and while there is a bit of originality and some skilled drawing in this slacker puppet show take on "Dante's Inferno," there is nothing especially clever. Dante's "Divine Comedy" was a brilliant piece of social commentary. This film is a vaguely moralistic student film with pretensions to High Art.

I suspect those who loved this film were those readily amused by the sophomoric pokes at some icons of the political and/or religious right, and that those who hated it took offense at seeing their favored icons poked. Be that as it may, few of those pokes actually rose to the level of satire.

The high point of the movie is a sudden outbreak of "Schoolhouse Rock" on the subject of lobbying and the "revolving door." It's really a shame that the entire film couldn't have been a musical. That would have stripped away a great deal of the annoying film school pretentiousness and added a far stronger element of fun.

Sentiment: negative
"The Secret Life" starts with the worst possible narrative intro: "The crimes committed by Jeffrey Dahmer are too horrible to make a film about...". Okay, so what are you suggesting? That we shouldn't bother to continue watching as the film won't be accurate or bloody, anyway? And they were right, too! The film isn't the least bit shocking and contains almost no blood or gore at all. Although I think that's mainly due to the low budget production values and not because of Dahmer's crimes being too horrific. Basically, "The Secret Life: Jeffrey Dahmer" is just one sequence repeated over and over again. Young, pitiful and mentally confused Jeffrey picks up victims (always males, as he was a homosexual), kills them and then talks about how it wasn't his intention to hurt them and about how lonely he is. This gets boring really quick and even the admirable performance by unknown actor Carl Crew can't save this movie from being a total dud. Still, this version is much better than the pretentious and hopelessly muddled "Dahmer" that got released in 2002.

Sentiment: negative
Despite its rather salacious title, this is a light teen dramedy. Unless you're an old coot, you'll probably find it likeable. It isn't so good on developing characters or situations smoothly, though. When you view it, you get the feeling that you've been running back and forth to the kitchen even if you've been sitting down watching the whole time. This is one of those films that counts a great deal on your liking the characters, and they are appealing enough. Jennifer Connelly is the heartthrob of many, I know, but I've always liked the more obscure Maddie Corman. The teens get most of the screen time without a lot of intrusions from those pesky grown-ups. Is it just me or did most of the young males look an awful lot alike?

Sentiment: positive
I just saw this movie for the second time. I first saw it back in the mid-90's as a Vanguard Video selection. It has retained it power.

It is interesting from several aspects. One is that it is based on a true story. Two is it is a launching pad for two interesting actors: Keanu Reeves and Crispin Glover. And three, it has Dennis Hopper in one of his better social misfit/psychotic character roles.

The movie is also a study in the way people act in different settings. You have characters in one-on-one, family, peer group, school, general society settings, etc. The story does well in demonstrating how a person will act in each setting.

I wish I could find the details of the actual murder to compare to the movie. I saw a short bit that indicated it occurred in California and that several schoolmates were taken to view the corpse. 

This is a good choice for a rainy night video rental. Be prepared to feel unsettled at the end.

Sentiment: positive
A hugely enjoyable screen version of Rona Jaffe's best-selling pot-boiler about the trials and tribulations, (and, naturally, the loves), of a group of women involved in one way or another in the New York publishing business. Directed by Jean Negulesco, fairly fresh from the success of "Three Coins in a Fountain", and the prototype for the likes of "Sex and the City", except that here the sex all takes place off-screen.

The bright young female talents of the day, (Hope Lange, Diane Baker, Suzy Parker, Martha Hyer), are all nicely cast while Joan Crawford pops up as a Queen Bitch of an editor who could probably eat Meryl Streep's Miranda Priestly and spit her out; with absolutely no effort at all she steals the movie. The men include Stephen Boyd, Louis Jourdan, (if it wasn't Rossano Brazzi it had to be Louis Jourdan), Robert Evans, (before he decided, wisely, to go behind the camera) and Brian Aherne. There are more suds on display than you will find in your average launderette but if, like me, you enjoy "Desperate Housewives", not to mention Carrie Bradshaw and company then you will probably love this. A very guilty pleasure.

Sentiment: positive
Don't get me wrong, I assumed this movie would be stupid, I honestly did, I gave it an incredibly low standard to meet. The only reason I even saw it was because there were a bunch of girls going (different story for a different time). As I began watching I noticed something, this film was terrible. Now there are two types of terrible, there's Freddy vs. Jason terrible, where you and your friends sit back and laugh and joke about how terrible it is, and then there is a movie like this. The Cat in The Hat failed to create even a momentary interest in me. As I watched the first bit of it not only was I bored senseless, but I felt as though I had in some way been violated by the horrendousness of said movie. Mike Myers is usually brilliant, I love the majority of his work, but something in this movie didn't click. One of the things that the director/producers/writers/whatevers changed was that they refused to use any of the colors of the original book (red, black, white) on any character but the Cat. Coincidentally or not, they also refused to capture any of the original (and i hate to use this word, but it fits) zaniness of the original. The book was like an Ice Cream Sunday, colorful and delicious, and the movie was about as bland and hard to swallow as sawdust.

Avoid this like a leprous prostitute.

Sentiment: negative
I am from Sweden and i have just seen this movie and the thing is that i thought it was okay. I have seen many bad comments about it but you must remember that a lot of people that watch this two parts miniseries are located all over the world and not just in USA. Also remember that not everyone has ever heard of the film made in the 60:s and maybe not in the events(murders). And even more...that it can be hard to find the original movie and if so there always be people around that doesn't like black/white films. This one feels fresh and in color and will find its public. Its 12 years old now but i just saw it for the first time. I will try to find the first one if i can to compare them but i haven't seen it anywhere in Sweden. Ofcorse there is internet but not for anyone in the world. The thing here is that this is mostly part of an American crime-history and was big in the 50-60:s in just USA but in rest of the world it just past by i guess. Well it was told about for some time but 40 years later it will fade away in for example Europa cause time goes by. We had our own problems and crimes so if someone will do a remake of the film and put it back in some light again its not a bad idea at all. A new generation can take part of this horrible story and even the film about Capote that was released just a few years ago witch was a pretty good film too i think. It will boost interest to the events that took place some 50 years ago and maybe stop it to fall in sleep. It started me up and now i am looking for the Robert Blake-version so it wasn't that bad...huh? This are my opinions. Some people will of course disagree but hey...its okay. Sometimes there will be okay with remakes on old films. Its not every time the old ones are that good. The film-making techniques has developed a lot and scenes can be made more realistic if they want today. Its always a question of money of course. There has been so many movies that were made in the "good old days" but there were also money missing, bad directors etc, and they remakes them today (50 years later) and suddenly they are okay to watch. My friend got this box of old classic horror-movies and s/f and i cant say i was impressed of the so called good old days. Most of them you cold put in the trashcan directly. They were so bad that we just sat there like zombies...could not move...like brain-dead. I cant recommend them to anyone. Some of them i have seen remakes of and i remember liking them...but not the originals. They were just painful awful. This is like the old story of who was the best Bond...Moore or Connery...I think if you see Roger Moore first you maybe find him the one to trust or like... Thanks for me and i am sorry for my English, thats not so good. /Lars from Sweden

Sentiment: positive
only if its the last thing yo do and your humour is evaporated should you ever attempt to watch this. If you do, watch it alone invite no one, they will never return to watch another movie with you. It might be an excellent tool for that very purpose, invite people you want to get rid of in your life.

Apparently I need to write more about his film in order to qualify as a review. This is sweet irony for this film it really does sum it up perfectly. after wasting my time it wastes more of your time. IT does have a function I take it all back.

I recommend this film, watch it, its provocative, really go ahead watch it.

Sentiment: negative
Once again proving his amazing versatility, John Turturro plays the introspective Russian chess genius preparing for a comeback tournament, and forging an unlikely relationship with a gadabout fellow resident (Emily Watson) at a 1920's Italian hotel. They fall in love,to the horror of her social-mountaineering mother (Geraldine James).A wonderful love story, whose gloss of chess might make it appear cerebral.But in spite of its origins in a Nabakov story, it certainly is not .The romantic elements and the sense of time and place beat the psychological analysis hands down.John Turturro, having appeared in "Barton Fink" ,"O Brother,Where Art thou?" "The Big Lebowski" proves that he is not dependant on Coen Bros films to assert his stature.

Sentiment: positive
This is an excellent stand-up DVD! Eddie Izzard is the funniest person I have seen in years. His routine is hilarious and makes for great conversation with others who have seen it. I HIGHLY recommend this one. The part about the history of Europe is a bit slow, but the ending jokes in French are quite good, because you don't have to speak French to get it (although if you do, it is still hilarious). Also, the parts about being a transvestite are quite good. The first scene (about San Francisco) is not great, but funny the first time. Skip over those if you can. It's almost not worth watching. However, this really is a funny, funny stand-up show that everyone should see. "I was dead at the time!"

Sentiment: positive
The Man with the Golden Arm, Otto Preminger's controversial, panoramic crime drama, plays itself out among the mental descriptions of its living and architectural occupants, in rhythmic, lashing arrangement. Opening the film, a closeup from within a bar of Frankie looking in through the window, already tells us to the prominence that the protagonist's subjective experience will grasp. Pulled in the direction of increasingly slighter spaces, the film shuts itself off, as the local gangster's long-drawn-out poker game shuts itself from the daylight, bolts itself in, as Sinatra's Frankie Machine has himself locked in a room in the celebrated scene of his harrowing struggle to overcome his habit. In delving into the shapes and faces of its jazzy urban haven, the visual traffic in The Man with the Golden Arm characterizes skewed psychological circumstances, forming an overpowering environment, as maintained by the recurring tracking shots into closeups of Frankie's eyes.

The grace of this fiery drama, striking as early as the exciting opening crane shot, displays the command over the perceptible world that studio production allows. The wonderfully dilapidated urban sets define an independent place with no beginnings or ends, an indeterminate state, the sort that in reality hardly last as long as this skid row seems to before being gentrified or leveled. The flair of certain performances, particularly Robert Strauss's as the wonderfully named underworld gambling boss Schwiefka and Arnold Stang as Frankie's trusty four-eyed lapdog, becomes this fiery surreal feature pleasingly. The premise of drug addiction, Sinatra's powerhouse performance, Elmer Bernstein's infectious, forceful jazz score and Saul Bass's famous, influential and controversial opening sequence centering on the animated paper cut-out of a heroin addict's arm ensured that, in its era, The Man with the Golden Arm presses forward upon the cause for realism in the still reticent Hollywood. It is impressionistic and subjective, as I say, but its intent, its force and its spirit are much closer to home.

What absorbs me the most in this film is its aspect as a gangster film. It has the illegal card games, short cons, the fights, the guns, the double-crosses, characters on the lam, a femme fatale, a stunningly sexy gun moll, the shady nightclubs and urban landscape, but it does more than exploit this environment for entertainment. Really, it is the perfect environment, and genre, in which to tell this story, a crime-ridden urban borough where it's all too comfortable to escape through a bottle or two, or three, or four, or drugs, a transient dose that really just functions to keep one in obscurity from any enlightenment and all the clear scenarios the world could bid.

Sentiment: positive
Just had to write that one liner, but it really is. I love the gangster genre and this is the weakest entry I've seen in recent years . I have praises for everyone involved in most aspects except the most important one, the script . It is a weak story about a petty criminal. No amount of fine acting or black and white film styling can make up for a total lack of substance. I love Kevin Spacey and I hear he's gonna do another film about the general. My advice is don't waste your time.

Sentiment: negative
This was a bold movie to hit Indian cinemas when it was released. The first movie to perhaps openly depict lesbian tendencies amongst Indian women. The leading actress of Indian cinema Shabana Azmi added substance to the movie with her hot passionate scenes with Nandita Das.

The movie oozed with sexuality and the director used sex in the best way possible. The sex was not for erotic purposes but was in the context of the movie. The scene where Nandita Das loses her virginity to her husband certainly was the first of its kind in Indian cinemas.

Good acting by all the actors especially Nandita Das amidst criticism from the Indian public

Sentiment: positive
Lovely piece of good cinema. This is one of those films that you see smiling and you do not know why. Well, one of the reasons could be that we are before one of the most surprising directors today, and he is able to film emotions.

When you are watching the film you can feel what Mr. Straight was feeling when he took the decision to go to visit his brother with his "marvellous" John Deere. What changed in his mind?, what changed in YOUR mind when you watched this film?

A beautiful fraternal love story.

Sentiment: positive
This is an awesome movie, and if you haven't seen it, you should go to the video store right now and rent it. First off, the cast is superb. Not only does it have current stars, like Ryan Philippe and Billy Bob Thornton, but it also has your stars of yesteryear like Judge Reinhold. It also has numerous cameos by actors like Jon Bon Jovi, Ted Danson, and Jamie Lee Curtis. Second off, the story was quite good also. It was interesting how they took a plot for a stoner movie, and almost made it dramatic. It takes the drug situation in the United States, and instead of giving it a comedic face like in "Half Baked" it has a true, life lesson image like "Traffic". So watch this movie, if you're a stoner it will give you insight into something you love, if you don't do drugs it will give you a more realistic view of drugs than either side wants you to see.

Sentiment: positive
Italy produced a lot of really great and original horror films in the 1960's - and this is certainly one of them! The first thing you will notice about Danse Macabre is the style of the film. Shot in beautiful black and white, and due to director Antonio Margheriti's use of lighting; the film almost looks like it could be a German expressionistic horror film. This, coupled with the horror-filled plot line ensures that Danse Macabre is a film that truly captures the essence of horror. Of course, the fact that the beautiful Barbara Steele appears in the film doesn't harm matters - and the good news continues as, in this film, she gets to flex her acting muscles more than she did in the films that made her famous. The plot is very aware of the time in which this was released, and so incorporates the great Edgar Allen Poe. We follow Alan Foster, a writer who accepts a bet from Poe himself and Lord Blackwood that he can't spend an entire night in the latter's creepy old castle. Everyone that has spent the night there previously has died...and our hero is about to meet the previous wager-takers! 

Nowadays, horror films don't tend to focus so much on each shot and the result is that there isn't much beauty left in the genre. It is refreshing, therefore, to see this film. Many of the shots here are incredibly beautiful - from the female side of the couple wearing just a see-through skirt, to my personal favourite - a shot of smoke creeping in from under a door. This my first Antonio Margheriti film, and even after seeing just this one; it's obvious that he was one of Italy's premier directors. Also interesting is the fact that screenplay was co-written by another of the Italian greats; Django creator Sergio Corbucci. The plot can meander a little too much at times, but there's always enough atmosphere on hand to make sure that the film never becomes boring - and the fact that it is always intriguing, even when the plot slows down, ensures the same thing. The way that Danse Macabre utilises the 'haunted house' theme is both well done and original, and helps to keep the story as eerie as possible. On the whole, fans of Italian and/or cult cinema will not want to miss this little gem!

Sentiment: positive
Shazam was okay, but Hero High was my favorite when I was a kid, I mean before there was Sky High(2005) and Zoom(2006), there was Hero High, a school for super hero's in training, Teenagers with super powers would help police capture bad guys, and other times they would get in embarrassing situations like The Greatest American Hero(1981). It was a fun cartoon to watch, what was also fun, was the live action stage show called The Kid Superpower Hour with Shazam. The actors who voiced the characters, also dressed has there characters in the show. Rex Ruthless(John Berwick), Misty Magic(Jere Fields), WeatherMan(Jim Greenleaf), Captain California(Chris Hensel, who also sang the theme song), Dirty Trixie(Maylo Mccaslin), Glorious Gal(Becky Perle, who looks like the love child of Superman and Wonder Woman), and Punk Rock(Johnny Venocour). The whole cast just went with anything, when it came to the jokes. The cartoon was a fun superhero comedy, I shore up it will come back in live action like Fat Albert(2004)

Sentiment: positive
Seriously, Sci-Fi needs to stop making movies. They're all horrible. And this one had John Rhys-Davies in it, and he couldn't help the movie. Dr. Pena (Giancarlo Esposito) captures the legendary goat eater of Mexico, the chupacabra, and brings it aboard a cruise ship captained by Captain Rudolf (John Rhys-Davies). The creature then escapes and starts killing crew and passengers. Captain Rudolf and the crew then go after the creature, guns ablazin'. But they can't stop it. So they call in the navy. They can't stop it either. Then the thing kills all 5 (or however many of them there are). Then the captain and his daughter along with some other guy, figure out how to kill it. Stay away from this movie. The chupacabra looks incredibly cheesy, the navy men shoot at the slightest movement,throw grenades on the ship, and the acting is horrible. 3/10.

Sentiment: negative
Must every good story be "improved" with added corny Broadway music? Apparently those who can't come up with their own plots think that classic literature is just there for the plundering. I confess that Oliver Twist and similar stories are not my favorites, as it is certainly true that Dickens often wrote things that leave you considerably bummed out, and this was a great example of just that... So of course, take this serious tale and add nauseating music and camp it up with every character from prancing orphan boys to mincing bobbies and suddenly it's uplifting? Argh. Fetch me a basin.

The four stars in my rating come from casting, which I could liken to that of My Fair Lady. Each of these films had a cast that a play version could be proud of, but then they must go and have them sing (see complaint above). Unlike My Fair Lady, those singing here could actually do so and they mercifully spared us the singing voice of Oliver Reed (pardon if I'm mistaken, it's been a while).

My biggest complaint I've stated. Why embarrass everyone except the truly shameless by putting silly songs into a perfectly good story? Seldom has this been done to good effect. Generally it ruins the story. It did with this one. Jury's still out on whether this story is worth saving, but with all that gadding about, it's impossible to tell.

Sentiment: negative
....this mini does not get better with age. I saw this and it's sequel when originally broadcast, and like so many others was blown away. In early 2002 I borrowed the novels for both WOW and W and R and was even more impressed. I then decided that I had to see both again and invested $200 plus on the DVD sets. I watched both minis again in painful detail and realized I had done things backwards - I should have purchased the novels and borrowed the DVD's.

Don't believe it is abysmally miscast? Read the novels and see for yourself. Don't think this is dated? Screen it for somebody not old enough to have seen it originally broadcast and watch the reaction you get (warning - reactions from such people range from looks of horror to belly laughs).

According to the trivia section for this mini - Dan Curtis himself chose Ali MacGraw and Robert Mitchum. Yikes!! Production quality, music scoring, dialog - a great story was turned into a late 70's soap opera by an overly ambitious producer/director who was in way over his head. This thing was dated the minute it was completed.

These two minis were great when original broadcast and to those of us who saw them then, tug at a nostalgic string that reminds us of younger days. IMO - this mini does not nearly live up to its reputation and severely disappoints.

Sentiment: negative
"Fanfan la tulipe" is still Gerard Philippe's most popular part and it began the swashbuckler craze which throve in the French cinema in the 1955-1965 years.It made Gina Lollobrigida a star (Lollobrigida and Philippe would team up again in René Clair"s "Belles de nuit" the same year.

"Fanfan la tulipe" is completely mad,sometimes verging on absurd .Henri Jeanson's witty lines -full of dark irony- were probably influenced by Voltaire and "Candide" .Antimilitarism often comes to the fore:"these draftees radiate joie de vivre -and joie de mourir when necessary (joy of life and joy of death)""It becomes necessary to recruit men when the casualties outnumber the survivors" "You won the battle without the thousands of deaths you had promised me, king Louis XV complains,but no matter ,let's wait for the next time."

A voice over comments the story at the beginning and at the end and history is given a rough ride:height of irony,it's a genuine historian who speaks!

Christian-Jaque directs the movie with gusto and he knows only one tempo :accelerated.

Remake in 2003 with Vincent Perez and Penelope Cruz.I have not seen it but I do not think it had to be made in the first place.

Sentiment: positive
This film was the most longest film and the record breaking film for sure It had 30 actors After JAANI DUSHMAN(2002) i guess no one had the guts to do something like that

The film as the title suggests is based on the Kargil war but the problem is there are too many characters and the romantic subplots and the songs of many characters are boring

Even there are too many cinematic liberties like killing people with knifes, wonder which soldier does that?

Direction by JP Dutta pales front of BORDER Music is okay

Amongst the huge cast Ajay Devgan stands tall, Saif is very good in his part and also it's his first film with kareena, Abhishek is likable Manoj Bajpai has his moments Sanju is wasted, Suneil is okay Akshaye Khanna does his part well rest are passable Rani is good, Esha is okay rest are passable

Sentiment: negative
No awards show can please all the people. Clearly if your favorite movies didn't win, you will say the show wasn't very good. That's understandable.

However, the 74th Annual Academy Awards will be remembered for one magical moment of Hollywood history:

Woody Allen's first appearance ever at the Academy Awards.

Allen has often shunned the awards as being self-aggrandizing and pointless, and has never attended -- even though he has won several of the coveted awards.

When the 74th Academy Awards were held, the nation was still mourning the loss of life in the collapse of the World Trade Centers in New York. When it came time to pay tribute to the city of New York, they decided to show a video of the great movie moments form the city of cities. Then the announcer simply said:

"Ladies and gentleman, Oscar Award winning Director Woody Allen."

The place erupted in an extremely long standing ovation. The entertainment industry finally got to give their applause to the Man from New York who usually avoids the Hollywood scene. As the applause died down, Woody applied some of his legendary wit to the situation.

SOME HIGHLIGHTS:

"Thank you very much - that makes up for the strip search."

"I thought they wanted their Oscars back," he joked. "I panicked because the pawn shop has been out of business for ages and I had no way of retrieving anything. "

"But that wasn't it. I couldn't work it out because my movie wasn't nominated for anything this year. Then it hit me - maybe they were calling to apologise."

Allen also disclosed why he had overlooked his lifelong Oscar-aversion for this one special night.

"For New York City, I'd do anything. So I got my tux on and came down here," said Allen.

"It's a great, great movie town. It's been a great, moving and exciting backdrop for movies and it remains a great, great city."



Sentiment: positive