DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
No sense going over the story since enough reviewers have done that. Here's a few different slants on it from one of those "religious nuts," as one bigoted reviewer puts it so tolerantly. 

1) "Baby Face" (1933) offers perhaps THE classic example ever put on film of how women can manipulate men with sex. There is a lot of truth to what Barbara Stanwyck demonstrates in this film: look cute, bat your eyelashes, offer your body for free.....and men will fall over themselves to help you out with whatever you want.

In this case, it was job advancement with the ultimate goal of money.....lots of it. At least four men in this film do provide just that, even if it ruins their lives in the process. 

2) The ending - which many of the reviewers here seemed to hate - gives another great message: all the money and material goods in the world won't make a person feel fulfilled. A sad comment that so many "critics" here would rather have immoral messages, preferring sleaze over substance. No surprise, I guess.

Any way you look at it, the movie is entertaining start-to-finish and Stanwyck has some great lines, particularly in the beginning when she tells off her crude father and his unruly bar customers. At a little over 70 minutes, this film moves at a fast pace and is over before you know it.

Sentiment: positive
The movie was a suspenseful, and somewhat dark, look at the severe results of a genuinely human mistake. Connery and Fishburne work very well together in this thriller about murder and redemption. Keep your boots on for the strange turnaround at the end of the movie...you'd never expect it!

Sentiment: positive
Just watched Hair after a lapse of 20 years. It struck home. For those of us who tried to stand on the shoulders of the civil rights movement and fight the rule of privilege and power; who resisted the fascism of the Johnson/Nixon administrations; who now as veterans of civil wars fought the war in Vietnam every single day until finally the US beast died and fled; for all who said no in many different ways -- it's remarkable how unsuccessful we were. How large the real table was on which Treat danced. How driven the wizard behind the curtain. We were 20, 22, 24. We didn't know the nature of the enemy. The size of the monster who for the next thirty years and counting would continue to eat the world. How could we? Even with smoke and the bat (the bat!) in our hand, like Treat, we were too young, too middle class, too invested, too much a part of the actions we hated.

But there was a moment. As Andre Gregory observes in My Dinner With. . . , there was a moment or two somewhere back there in the late 60's and early 70's when perhaps we could have found something besides the yellow brick road. Something not fueled by Bechtel, prisons, Enron, and Dick. Something collaborative. Something innocent and critical at once. Something with dance.

But we missed it. Like Kong bending a girder, the "revolution" was turned in on itself. Into sexism. Racism. Homophobia. And class crushing politics. Until we got to "W". Treat would have hated "W". And Iraq and the pathological lies. If they were in that film. Then. But the moment passed and "W" was almost inevitable. Comprehensive incompetence riding the drunken, raging bull into estuaries, children's lives, and China shops.

We should have done something more. Something better. But we clearly didn't know what.

Now what?

Sentiment: positive
I picked out this DVD out of the cheepo bin at Walmart because the cover showed one of the planes I flew during Viet-Nam (C-123k). I did not fly for Air America, but knew being a C-123 pilot, I knew a lot who did, including those who flew in my Reserve Unit back home. I am not a movie critic, but wonder about the subliminal motivation of Directors and Writers who make movies like this. The best part of this movie has to go to the cameraman. The flying shots and stunts (although totally cartoon like) are excellent. The movie begins with Hollywood's favorite fall guy in 1969. But the fact is, Nixon did not start Air America, he did not begin the lies. Johnson was responsible for Air America and Nixon inherited the lies, the war, and Air America. Its not fair or accurate to portray Nixon as a liar on the subject of Air America. All President's have inherited the lies of their predecessors. Nobody smart enough to fly a C-123 was dumb enough to not know what they were joining. That makes the Downey character unbelievable. A C-123 was a rugged airplane. It could easily fly on one engine, or the two auxiliary jet engines. The three stooges shooting a duck with one shot is more likely. Pilots who flew with Air America were civilian employees of the CIA, they were not reckless soldiers of fortune. They had a good reason to behave and believe in a future, if they survived their extremely dangerous job. They were given double time towards a retirement pension. They weren't required to sell dope or guns to get a good pension. Dope was legal and a way of life in SEA, as it still is today in Afganistan. If individual pilots tried to make money on the side, it was not CIA policy. The CIA was fighting a war on communism, not drugs. The writer based his story on "war stories". Pilots love to BS anybody who will buy them a beer and listen. The writer and Director who had an ax to grind about Viet-Nam and Nixon. See the movie, and remember how it starts - it blames Nixon for what existed for years. Remember, he didn't become President until Jan 20, 1969.

My favorite scene is the landing up hill in the jungle. Air America pilots put planes in places the aircraft designers never thought possible. Their were plenty of funny stories that could have been shown. Instead, the Director chose to use the oversize rubber scene to show how dumb the CIA was. This scene shows that the Director and writer fell for some pilot bar talk and the joke is on them. 

MDS Fort Valley Virginia.

Sentiment: negative
Titanic is a classic. I was really surprised that this movie didn't have a solid ten, overall in the IMDb user rankings. Maybe, it's just cool to not give Titanic credit nowadays, but when it was first made it was really something. When the movie came out people flocked to the theaters. When it came out on video my sister and i would watch it twice a day for a month. It was safe to say we were obsessed and for good reason. Some of the disaster scenes were hard to forgot, like the frozen baby, or the guy who committed suicide after killing someone in the unruly crowd. Many people died on that ship, and to convey that on film with the immediacy and emotion it needed is a hard challenge that James Cameron stepped up to. And let's not forget the amazing romance between Jack and Rose. Whether or not their relationship was a figment of someone's imagination it was lovely. They barely knew each other, but they would die for each other. They trusted each other. They sure as hell are giving Romeo and Juliet a run for their money. "I'll never let go, Jack." Titanic is a great film down to it's very core. It is a powerful story told through brilliant acting, excellent cinematography, beautiful music, and a crew full of hard and dedicated workers. It really blows my mind when someone says they hate this movie.

Sentiment: positive
Characters you don't care about, relationships you don't care about and you sit through all that to see the ending you knew was coming from the start. Julia Roberts usually leaves no impression on me one way or the other. She was actually somewhat endearing in this role.

Sentiment: negative
I remember reading all the horrible, horrible reviews for this film when it came out. I meant to go see how horrible it was but it was out of theaters in three weeks. The only other movie to manage that is Gigli. 

When the movie came out on DVD, I bought it to see how awful it was. I couldn't think of the sheer horrible attention that this film was getting was possible. After seeing it, I can understand. 

First off, let me say that this film is not without some cool shots. There's a nice shot at the beginning that shows a bullet being fired from inside the gun, which I thought was neat. And the way the monsters in this movie die is sort of cool to look at; but it gets old after the first time you see it. 

Let me start with the worst thing in this movie: Tara Reid. If bad acting was a sin, then Hell would've chucked Tara Reid right out since she's so unbelievably awful in this movie it's unthinkable. And of all the roles, she plays a curator. Now if she played a dumb, empty- headed sex toy then maybe I might be able to forgive her for how she treats her character. Apparently, Uwe Boll didn't realize that, although he did seem to think that if she took off her shirt in the movie, people would see it. He just didn't realize that making her do that in the middle of the film at the absolute wrong moment just made the movie even more hilariously bad. And is that a Mexican song or something during the scene of dry humping? I couldn't tell. 

Which brings me to my next complaint: Uwe Boll shows off some of the worst directing skills you'll ever see in a movie. I mean, I'd give House of the Dead an F (and I only do that for very few movies) but HotD would score at least a B compared to this screwed up piece of junk. The movie starts off with a very, very long narration that causes immediate confusion (and read by a horrible narrator) and from there, the cuts are really, really dumb. There's this one point where Slater and Reid are looking around a building that's been destroyed and the screen blackens out. When it comes back, Slater and Reid are shooting everywhere and suddenly, an entire army has joined them. Huh? 

And someone did NOT bother checking the mistakes in this movie. At one point, a team breaks through glass, but the glass breaks before they touch it. Tara Reid's earrings switch colors in the middle of one scene and after Slater walks away from a dead comrade, you can see her begin to get up. 

As for the story... I was really lost. Something about an old tribe releasing darkness and someone "opens the path" or something and all the evil monsters pop out. It's just an excuse to have a lot of gun scenes (the technology is so advanced here that no character ever needs to reload in this film) that get, quite simply, BORING. 

I bought this movie hoping to laugh at how incredibly stupid it was. I didn't laugh, but I still think it's stupid. Very, very, very stupid.

Sentiment: negative
I feel dumber after watching the first 20 min,luckily i walked out and saved the rest of my brain, people should watch better films and take notes on why they are rated highly,not because of the budget of the film or the special effects, just simply good acting and getting simple things right,and MOst importantly--not being LAME--, but i guess this was produced for those Sheeple without taste and not a clue of what is ''A good Movie''don't be scared of rating films low,save your under-appreciated high scores for ''once in a life time movies''. Keep in mind that many use IMDb for trusted reviews and opinions,don't spoil the broth by sugarcoating turds Peace & love

Sentiment: negative
This subject matter deserves a much better script, and final result, than this movie serves up. The script is full of holes because it was never conceived as a story, but rather a string of nightmare scenarios loosely knitted together. The gaps and loose ends in the story line are numerous. The scene where the kidnap victim is told that her parents are not dead, and have been looking for her since she was taken, is just bizarre. It is written as a cathartic therapy moment with the head of the shelter for runaways handing her a "missing poster" from when she was eight. In the real world, if the head of a shelter for runaways found out that he had, under his roof, a solved kidnapping, what would have followed would have been an immediate call to the police. It's a law enforcement issue not a 12 minute segment for Oprah. Everything that follows from there to the end is so short shrift that I can only conclude that the first 90 minutes was for pure gratuitous exploitation. Funny, that's what this movie is supposed to be condemning. In the end it seems to have joined in.

Sentiment: negative
This was a great movie but it had the worst ending I think I have ever seen!!! The actors were great and displayed wonderful talent. The entire story was twisted and unexpecting, which, is what made it entertaining. As good as the movie was, the entire film is judged by the ending, which was terrible! Maybe a sequel could eliminate this bad ending.

Sentiment: positive
My interest was raised as I was flipping through and saw the name Iphigenia. My name is Eugenia so I thought OK, lets see what this is. I am so glad I stayed on the channel. What a wonderful, wonderful story. Drama, sadness, some over the top acting but a wonderful time to be had. I watch this and it makes me sad for all the drivel the movie industry puts out and these beautiful little gems get passed over. Give Iphigenia a try and I hope you will enjoy it as much as I did. I have even gotten my children (27, 25, 20 and 17) to enjoy it. It starts slow, however, the drama builds and you will be drawn in to the story. Watching this lovely film made me want to shroud myself in more Greek tragedy and pathos.

Sentiment: positive
This movie sucked. The problem was not with the cast. I think the cast was great, lots of good talent, lots of great acting. But the script was TERRIBLE! It seemed to be mostly just a frame work in which Steve Carrell could do his improv. And that is what he does best, but it just didn't work here. The script was hard to follow, the story was non-sensical, and scenes were random and lacked direction. Also, much of the action was extremely contrived and poorly thought out. It was a good effort, but as Max says, they missed it by THAT MUCH! I am shocked to see how many glowing reviews there are for this stinker here on the IMDb. Obviously, the movie producers are getting people to write lots of positive reviews on their movies and fill up the entries on the IMDb. If you read the positive reviews and compare them to the negative reviews, it is pretty clear which ones are genuine reviews from normal users.

This movie was full of problems and jokes that just didn't work. I loved Steve Carrell in Anchor Man, and I like his comedy and style. But I will tell you that I never once laughed while I was watching this movie. Yes, I had a couple of light moments, a couple of chuckles, but no real laughs. Nothing that struck me at all.

Spoiler Alert! One ridiculous scene was when Max had his hands binded on the airplane and he goes to the bathroom to try to escape. He uses his special Swiss Army knife...but instead of just using THE BLADE OF THE KNIFE, he tries to SHOOT the binding with his miniature crossbow. And as the crossbow miss-fires and shoots little arrows into him over and over again (almost putting out his EYE), Max doesn't give up or try the blade instead...no, he just keeps shooting himself with the crossbow. What was he really expecting to do with that crossbow? It seemed to be THE WORST option on the knife to try to remove the bindings. It just made absolutely no sense.

That is a good example of the typical circumstances in the scenes that made up this movie. They were ridiculous, poorly thought out, poorly motivated, and made of pure nonsense. And that was truly distracting.

As I said, this movie was a big let-down, and I recommend you avoid it. A note to the IMDb: You should do something about these phony reviews that people are leaving. It degrades the authenticity of the site.

Sentiment: negative
This British documentary was recently shown on Comedy Central during their "Best of" week and can also be seen on South Park's second season DVD. I remember seeing many commercials for the DVD showing clips of this documentary, most of which occurs with Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and some other guy in a hot tub. It was funny when I saw it in the commercials, but I was used to seeing it by the time I saw the actual documentary.

Overall, "Goin' Down to South Park" is a fairly funny and interesting look at how South Park episodes are made and of the series' history going back to when Matt and Trey came up with the idea in college. However, there was something about the tone of this documentary that actually felt sort of depressing. It's not as fast-paced, rapid-fire, and as lively as the actual South Park episodes. Instead, it kind of has a slow, dry-wit style, which at times can be funny, but most of the time you're just waiting for something to happen. If you get the chance to watch it, by all means go for it, but I don't think you're really missing much if you never see it.

My IMDb Rating: 7/10

Sentiment: positive
Excellent story of lives that need repair....one of those rare films that I could watch with my 7 and 8 year old daughters... Glenn Close was excellent in the title role. It was also nice to see Christopher Walken in a more normal role.

Sentiment: positive
I was lured to see this movie by its starpower, but ultimately that's all it delivers. It plays much more like a Greek tragedy than a modern thriller about big city corruption. It's greatest flaw is its predictibability and utter lack of suspense. We know who the bad guys are from the beginning, and just follow along as they fall like dominoes. The film to its credit does abstain from gratuitous violence and sex, but has forgotten to substitute good, clean romance or excitement in any other way. All the flavor of a good, flat decaffeinated diet cola. "Q&A", which also takes place in New York, is a far better alternative, as is "LA Confidential".

Sentiment: negative
The real surprise of this effortlessly lightweight movie is how such a top notch cast got assembled for what is nothing more than a hammy uninspiring affair. Presumably it was a proverbial snowball rolling down a hill gathering pace and size and shape. One can imagine that by the time Miranda Richardson got contacted by her agent, the conversation went along the lines of: 'Do you want to shoot a movie in Dublin scripted by Neil Jordan? Michael Caine and Michael Gambon are already in!' This is a dull 'comedy' that sees Michael Caine and Dylan Moran try and pull off a well-planned hustle where Moran must imitate a London gangland boss (whose arrival is imminent) to collect a sizeable sum of cash from local kingpin Michael Gambon. The rest is simply a forgettable romp that is thankfully over quite quickly. Moran is mildly amusing in places but on this evidence is better suited to life on the small screen in hit comedies such as Black Books. Caine is unchallenged in his role and gives a steady performance without being overstretched. One can only imagine what made him sign up for this movie - it can't even have been a summer in Dublin given that many of the scenes look positively autumnal in the background. Gambon actually steals the show, and anyone who has caught some of his performances in the likes of Have I Got News For You will know that he is a wonderfully funny man. But overall the result is disappointing, and it seems a lifetime ago that Neil Jordan was making quality movies of the likes of Mona Lisa.

Sentiment: negative
When I first saw this film it was about 1956 and even though I saw it again recently I have not changed my mind about it. I think it was Robert Ryans best film, because he portrayed someone like my father, and he was a schizophrenic in real life,(my father) although he never murdered anyone but was affected more so during the second world war which made him worse. Having to humour him just to get by and get through the day was so apt. (My mother and brother had to do this)When I saw Robert Ryan portraying this type of man, it was a very good imitation of this type of individual, and I was impressed.

Sentiment: positive
What do you get when you put Lou Diamond Philips, Todd Bridges, Barry Corbin with a bad toupee, and an alien all on a train? You get a very bad movie called "Alien Express" or "Dead Rail" that would be more entertaining on Comedy Central's old series "Mystery Science Theater 3000." You name it, this awful movie suffered in areas of acting, plot, storyline, and special effects. In fact, the exterior passenger train shots looked like the production staff used a common HO scale model in front of a painted background! The rest of the special effects goes downhill from there.

The plot is very predictable and is similar to two 1970's movies called "Horror Express" and a disaster movie called "The Cassandra Crossing." At least "The Cassandra Crossing" had a better cast, an engaging storyline, and real train scenes.

If you want a good laugh and a movie to mock at a "B movie" party then watch this; otherwise, "Alien Express" derailed long before departing from the station!

Sentiment: negative
I had never heard of this flick despite the connection to George Clooney (whose company produced and he appears in a very funny supporting bit) and his Ocean's 11 director Steven Soderbergh. Worse, we picked this up in a discount bin for $4.99 (Canadian dollars at that!) What a grand and pleasant surprise. But then I'm of the opinion that if William H. Macy is in it you can't be disappointed. This was very reminiscent of those Ealing comedies from England in the 1950s. OK, with more profanity. This is an oddball and at times gut-splittingly funny film. The actual heist made me laugh so hard I was crying. Perhaps the funniest use of underpants in movie history. Maybe it was the low expectations I had going in but I watched with a group of people and we had a blast. Best $5 I've spent in ages.

Sentiment: positive
I don't doubt that the critics panned this movie, especially the artsy fartsys who need a laxative. This is a great vehicle movie in the tradition of Abbot & Costello or more recently Don Knotts. It won't shake the world or change movies forever. What it will do is entertain. When all is said & done that's the most important thing anyway. Watch this movie & forget your troubles. It even has a simple & kind moral message at no extra charge. I always loved Elvira's TV show when I lived in LA. She did not really steal her schtick from Vampira any more than Vampira did from the original, Theda Bara. This sort of mythic character belongs to whoever does it best; & Cassandra Peterson does it best. Long live Elvira; we need more of these kind of movies. There are never enough. The villain, William Morgan Sheppard, was also excellent. He exudes a wonderful refined malice. I could find no technical faults. The execution is as close to flawless as the art form gets. My profound compliments to the director,James Signorelli,& all his crew.

Sentiment: positive
By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.We sent an e-mail to when you registered. You must click on the link in that e-mail to complete your registration and enjoy the full benefits of being registered at IMDb.com. Whilst you wait for that e-mail, you can still update some of your registration details by using the links below. Don't forget to keep checking your e-mail though!

Sentiment: positive
this film has no plot, no good acting, to be honest it has nothing, the same songs play over and over awful acting and if you can actually sit there and watch the whole thing and enjoy it there is something wrong with you. I wish i could give this 0 out of 10 but i cant so it has to be a 1 which is generous! ice-t isn't even a good rapper and even worse at acting, every bit of the film is rubbish, i got this film on DVD without knowing what it was for the price of £1.99 and thought that i had picked up a bargain, i then looked at the IMDb rating and didn't take it into consideration but after watching it found out that the DVD i had bought was a complete waste of time, money and electricity. if you have this film there are two things you can do sell it to someone who doesn't know about it or burn it!

Sentiment: negative
I am embarrassed to say that I missed "The Mother" when it was in theaters. I saw it this evening on DVD. I gave it a 10 vote, one of the very few I have given here. This English independent is filmed with such great care and quality. It drew me in relentlessly. The story, low-keyed and purely human, is brutally honest and utterly absorbing, thanks to the acting of Anne Reid, Daniel Craig and Cathryn Bradshaw. The cinematography is stunning. The score is hard-wired to the plot. The storyline is epic, brilliantly clothed by writer Hanif Kureishi in mundane lives. This story addresses big issues with the subtlety of an impressionist painting. And some of those big issues are highly controversial, which probably explains the lack of awards won, despite many nominations. It is simply one of my all-time favorite films.

Sentiment: positive
Saw this for the first time on UK TV, with good musical accompaniment. The elevator scene is class, especially when he does the going-down thing in the phone booth, and then fiddles with the floor-indicator. The jump through the transom is really impressive, and there's so much more. Apart from all the stuff that's been mentioned before, there's the fight with the man who's been bullying the woman with the dog - it just looks so simple. The only drawback is the plot - he gets mixed up with Dead Eye Dan, who then escapes but doesn't reappear, even when some more gangsters get involved later on. The scene where it looks like he's shooting at the fat inspector is funny, but would have been better if Dead Eye was the one pulling the trigger.

Sentiment: positive
This film is available from David Shepard and Kino on the Before Hollywood There Was Fort Lee, NJ, although that is a shortened version with just the "behind-the-scenes movie sections. I'm not sure if Blackhawk Films only had a film print of these parts, or they edited out the other scenes. The original Blackhawk version was retitled A Movie Romance. The complete feature does survive, but the preprint for this version had some nitrate decomposition, and a couple of sections looked bad, so that may be why Blackhawk's version was edited.

Directed by Maurice Tourneur, the film has Tourneur playing himself, or more likely a caricature of himself. Supposedly, director Emile Chautard and future director Joseph von Sternberg also can be spotted.

Country lass Mary (Doris Kenyon) longs for a romantic man to sweep her off her feet. She dreams of a troubadour that will woo her, but is constantly interrupted by the only available local boy, Johnny Applebloom.

Meanwhile, a film company from New York (actually New Jersey) is filming a western in the countryside. Mary sees an Indian (in full headdress) and raises an alarm -- spoiling a scene that the movie company is filming. She is immediately attracted to the dashing film star Kenneth Driscoll (Robert Warwick). He encourages her to leave her home and try to become an actress in the big city.

When she arrives at the studio, she discovers that everything about the movies is fake. The doors and walls are just flats that are hastily assembled for the set. That lanky walk of the western hero or the happy skip of the heroine are just acting too. The sets are on a big revolving stage, so the angle of the sun can even be manipulated. The black attendant at the studio signs all the movie stars' "autographed" photos. The signs on the wall say "Positively No Smoking", but everybody smokes anyway. Even the titles of the film (which are illustrated nicely) emphasize everything fake about the movie-making life.

Movie star Driscoll is just as disenchanted with the ho-hum of everyday film-making. He makes a temporary split from girlfriend Vivian (June Elvidge) to pursue this "exciting" country girl. His plans are dashed when Mary's screen-test is a stinker. We don't get to see the actual film, but only the audience's pained reactions to it.

Mary is devastated, but she doesn't want to admit to everyone back home that she was a failure, so she continues to see Driscoll and we she has lunch with him in the studio cafeteria along with other extras dressed as policemen, soldiers, cowboys, etc.

Mary decides to stay with Driscoll. At a party with their movie "friends", she agrees to marry him although there is not much love between them. Surprisingly, her mother appears, with a cake especially for Mary's birthday. This causes Mary to re-evaluate her future.

This film has all kinds of fascinating scenes of studios, movie sets, dressing rooms, editing rooms, etc. If you've always wondered what went on behind the scenes when a silent film was being made, this movie peeks behind the curtain.

Sentiment: positive
So this guy goes into a psychiatrist's office for his first appointment. After the paperwork is done, the psychiatrist says "I'm going to show you ink blots. Tell me what you see in them." "Well, says the patient," looking at the first one, "I see a man and a woman having sex." On seeing the second one, he says "I see two women having sex." On seeing the third, he says "I see two men having sex." On seeing the next one, he says "I see two men and two women having sex." The psychiatrist puts down the the inkblots. "So," he says, "We'll start by discussing your monomania." "MY monomania?" says the guy. "And you with all these dirty pictures!" That's how this movie strikes me.

Sentiment: negative
This is the fourth full-length feature film by Marc Recha. By the third 'les mans buides' -Empty hands- I promised myself not to cut my veins anymore. But this time round the plot is completely different -a kind of homage to Ramon Barnils (Sabadell 1940 - Reus 2001) a Catalan journalist-. The visuals in the trailer are stunning -a gleaming river bathed in sunlight- and the promise that Marc himself would be in front of the camera with his twin brother -none of both professional actors- convinced me at last, six weeks after its release. Abandon yourself in this very unusual road/river film. Learn almost nothing about Ramon Barnils but his most poignant legacy: his constant fight against amnesia of what we Catalans chose to forget. 'La batalla de l'Ebre' -look for Battle of the Ebro at the wikipedia- was lost not once but twice because after 40 years of silence and 25 years of half-hearted democracy nobody has done much to remember the legitimate side of the Spanish civil war and those who fought it. This film is about the lonely people roaming the same places with very little conscience of what took place there 70 years ago. This film is about the landscape.

Sentiment: positive
The plot was really weak and confused. This is a true Oprah flick. (In Oprah's world, all men are evil and all women are victims.)

Sentiment: negative
Cam Archer's lyrical Bobbycrush boldly captures the disorienting kaleidoscope that is adolescent desire with a lush rendering (beautifully photographed by Aaron Platt) that is more vibe than narrative. Caught somewhere between documentary and dream, Bobbycrush recalls the inventiveness of early Todd Haynes and the vivid hyperrealism of Gus van Sant. With grit, glamour and heartbreak, it's kinda like the movie equivalent of Sonic Youth playing bubblegum pop.

Sentiment: positive
... what a porn movie would look like if you took out the sex and just left in the bad dialog, cheap sets and bad acting, you would have Galaxina.

This film came out when the Original Star Wars proved there was a market for Science Fiction. This in turn lead to some gems such as Alien and a revitalized Star Trek. Unfortunately, it also led to some bad movies, and this was obviously one of them. (I say obviously, because I hadn't even heard of this film until a few days ago.I missed it when it came out in 1980.) 

Here's the underlying problem. Dorothy Stratton couldn't act, so for most of the movie, they didn't even let her try. I understand her tragic death has given this film an undeserved cult status, but for the life of me I can't understand why.

Clearly, the movie tried to Spoof Star Wars, Star Trek and Aliens, but they clearly don't understand than when you spoof something, it has to be FUNNY! This movie wasn't, or at least, the comic timing on jokes that could have been funny weren't. Science Fiction is ripe for parody, as Spaceballs and Galaxy Quest proved. This movie, however, did it poorly.

Sentiment: negative
This is by far one of the most boring and horribly acted accounts of the early days of Adolf Hitler that I have ever watched. Robert Carlyle is a wonderful actor, but to cast him as Hitler is just plain wrong. To cast Liev Schrieber as Hitler's longtime friend and aid, Haefengstal must have emitted cries of despair and anguish from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre. A J-W playing a Nazi supporter, bad bad bad casting. This was not an enjoyable family film with a good historical background. This was Hollywood rubbish at its finest, cashing in on the strength of a strong (but sorely under utilized) supporting cast of actors whom seemed to have all but disappeared from the acting radar in the past 5 years.

The fake German accents (vee vill vin zis var) is insulting to German people everywhere. My mother is German and she sat fuming at the sound of the voices which kept switching from American/English/German all in the same sentence. The supporting cast make better cardboard cutouts at the local video store than they do on screen. Jenna Malone as the fated Geli Raubal, was splendid though, she captured the innocence and confusion of this tragic young woman who ultimately ended her own life to escape what her future would have been like in Hitler's shadow.

If you would like a tremendously fantastic and historically accurate account of Hitler's early years leading up to and including the war/holocaust, rent "Inside the Third Reich" 1983 starring Rutger Hauer as Albert Speer and Derek Jacobi as Hitler. It was good and made more sense then this baloney.

As a historical researcher of the Third Reich I can honestly tell you, this had me reaching for my books to confirm its myriad of inaccuracies.

Sentiment: negative
When I first got my N64 when I was five or six,I fell in love with it,and my first game was Super Mario 64.And I LOVED IT!The graphics were great for it's time,a good plot,great courses and above all,the best music I heard in a Nintendo game.

I don't remember the plot completely,but I think Princess Peach was kidnapped by Bowser,and Mario has to rescue her.The object of the game is to get 120 stars from the curses in the castle.Each had about five or six challnges to get the stars.There are secert parts of the castle,where you can get more stars.But of course,you have beat Bowser.*I think there are three levels to beat Bowser on* Lets start with the characters.Mario is the main character,and gets helpful advice from Toad,so he is basically one of your only alliances.I heard that Luigi and Yoshi are in the game towards the end.The main villain is Bowser,and there are a bunch of other characters like Boo and Goomba.The characters are really great.

Next,how about the graphics?People say Gameplay is more important then the graphics,and I agree completely.But with he great plot,there are great graphics.Especially for it's time.I have a whole bunch of other Nintendo games like 007 and their graphics don't compare to Super Mario.Bright colors,great effects and awesome sound effects.I found the graphics in the water courses very very good.Next to the Bowser world ones,it has the best graphics in the game.

Now,the music.This is my favorite part of the game.Growing up,when I played this at a young age,I'd gladly leave the game on all night so the music would put me to sleep.Especially the music from Jolly Roger Bay,which was peaceful and wonderful.There are others that are great too,especially in,once again,the worlds with Bowser,are the ones that stick with me the most and are my favorites.

This game was my favorite past time as a developing gamer,and I love it.This game gets 10/10 or *****(5)/*****(5) GO PLAY THE GAME!

Sentiment: positive
Joe (Wes) & Jim (Adam) re-acquaint us with the beauty, isolation (psychological as well as physical) and utter terror of "murder most fowl" in the Navaho Southwest. Characterizations, settings and plot continually build .. . even if at times the personal asides leave us wanting "more" .. . with some interesting alternative choices as to "who done it?" Flashbacks (e.g. Peter Fonda . .. good to see him) provide clues but they don't go where you might think. Comic asides (e.g. the Preacher) are mild and appropriate. Where "Skinwalkers" and "Coyote Waits" start to drag .. . "Thief" engages the clutch and four-wheels you around the next corner, never quite sure what's there. Disagree with Joe Leaphorn's manic comment to Jim Chee to "slow down" for the potholes. Wrong ... there are no potholes in the plot, just tracks to follow. On to the next episode! Great photography (as always), appealing characters and more to explore!

Sentiment: positive
This is one of the few movies - maybe the only - that truly haunted me for years. It was the first I had ever seen people tortured, so much that blood was flowing of their mouths from gritting their teeth and screaming, etc. It was brutal; the worst thing I had ever seen on film.

Dr. Clement Molloch, played by Joseph Mayer, is still one of the most evil characters I've ever seen on film, and I've viewed thousands. He was so sadistic that I would never watch this movie again, nor would I recommend it. He makes Hannibal Lecter look like Mr. Rogers. If seeing people tortured is not your idea of fun, then stay away from this film.

I know there are a lot of sick people out there, many of them professional film critics, who probably enjoyed this sordid, sick story. It's a "B" movie, anyway, with stupid dialog and some wooden acting by Charles Bronson. This is not one of his better efforts. Even if it was, there so many horrendous scenes in here you wouldn't want to watch. Trust me on this one.

Sentiment: negative
This film is one of the classics of cinema history. It was not made to please modern audiences, so some people nowadays may think it is creaky or stilted. I found it to be absorbing throughout. Cherkassov has exactly the right presence to play Alexander Nevskyi, just as he did when he played Ivan Groznyi (Ivan the Terrible) several years later. The music was beautiful.

My one complaint was the poor soundtrack that was quite garbled. Although I only know a little Russian, it would have been nice to be able to pick out more words rather than having to rely almost 100% on the subtitles. I was watching this on an old videotape from the library, though. Perhaps by now a DVD version exists on which the sound has been enhanced. I would like to know whether the actors were using archaic Russian or even Old Church Slavonic when they were speaking. The subtitles were strangely worded, and it's hard for me to tell whether this was to reflect an older manner of speaking, or whether the subtitles were just somewhat poorly done.

Sentiment: positive
In my opinion, October Sky is one of the best movies of 1999...It totally has everything an emotional drama movie would need, like, wonderful story and good character interactions. October Sky will remain in heart for as long as I can remember, and I just have to say a very special thanks to those who have created this film.

Sentiment: positive
I've seen many Dustin Hoffman's movies like Straw Dogs or Rain Man and I liked them, but his characters are much to often calm or even shy persons. I expected him to be in this movie the same as he was in Straw Dogs, but I saw a totally different person. He was much more energetic in this film and kinda reminded me of Al Pacino in Serpico. The movie was very interesting from beginning to the end. I liked the way Dustin Hoffman's character was ready to do just about everything to stay with his son. This movie is also revealing. Personally, I think it shows that people should learn to find a compromise them self without involving other people into issue.

Sentiment: positive
From the first to the last scene of the movie, director Visconti excels at his art, to the extent that the movie is ensured to remain as a cultural treasure for only God knows how long. It is perfection - as a movie, that is, but the story has some minor shortcomings.

Thomas Mann's novel is also a perfect piece of art, so of course it is impossible to bring into another media. Visconti follows the story pretty much, and it is only when he allows himself to deviate slightly, that the transition falters. And no matter how wonderful the scenery is, the tension in the air between the characters, the hundreds of subtle signals and allegories, the almost unbearably heightened serving of Mahler's music - still, the minute anomalies in the plot disturb me.

Maybe I'm just a victim of man's desire to flaw the flawless. Nevertheless, I will offer one example, which I regard as crucial.

WARNING: SPOILERS

In Mann's story, Aschenbach eats the strawberries which probably contain the disease that will kill him, after giving up his frustrated chase of the boy Tadzio in Venice. Unable to catch one delight, he settles for another - which poisons him. It is very subtle in the book, but it is there. The forbidden fruit, of sorts, but more a sign of him surrendering life itself.

In Visconti's film, he also eats strawberries, but in a rather insignificant scene by the beach. The chase in Venice ends in a much more melodramatic way. It works, too, but lacks some subtlety, indeed, and also the multi-layered symbolism, giving food for thought.

But that's all forgiven, when the film allows us to feast on beautiful sceneries, faces and constellations, and certainly as many other symbols as we can possibly digest - the last gesture of Tadzio, standing in the water, being the equally sublime and mysterious finale.

Sentiment: positive
The movie doesn't take itself seriously, and if you follow its lead you're going to have a lot of fun (as long as you don't mind your murders served up really bloody, and your horror topped with extra cheese)!

This film winks an eye at every horror fan, and then gives them the finger. It knows it sucks, and because of that, it's far and away the best of the "Child's Play" series. 

It plays up the "stoopid humor" angle so well, you find yourself doing more than just laughing AT it, but WITH it. And, trust me, the whole time you're laughing, it's laughing back atcha.



Sentiment: positive
I have no respect for IMDb ratings anymore. I think a bunch of Mormons flooded the website and voted for this. This is not an artistic movie, it is Mormon propaganda. Nothing wrong with that, but the plot outline and the way it is described is totally misleading. If you are a bible thumping Christian or a Mormon, watch this movie, you'll love it and think it is truly amazing. For anyone else, don't bother, the story is so contrived, random stuff happens that really doesn't follow in a coherent way. This guy tries to commit suicide cause he sleeps with his neighbor. Are you kidding? What a pussy! Anyways, this is an awful movie.

Sentiment: negative
. . . or type on a computer keyboard, they'd probably give this eponymous film a rating of "10." After all, no elephants are shown being killed during the movie; it is not even implied that any are hurt. To the contrary, the master of ELEPHANT WALK, John Wiley (Peter Finch), complains that he cannot shoot any of the pachyderms--no matter how menacing--without a permit from the government (and his tone suggests such permits are not within the realm of probability). Furthermore, the elements conspire--in the form of an unusual drought and a human cholera epidemic--to leave the Wiley plantation house vulnerable to total destruction by the Elephant People (as the natives dub them) to close the story. If you happen to see the current release EARTH, you'll detect the Elephant People are faring less well today.

Sentiment: positive
I love this movie and have seen it quite a few times over the years. It does get better with every viewing. I agree with all of the positive reviews here. Yes, it's gritty and brutally realistic as life on the prairie was in those days. I found myself doing commentary as I watched it. Someone on here said Rip Torn was miscast. I couldn't disagree more. He is brilliant as the dour, miserly Clyde Stewart who says little and works like a slave/workhorse. Conchatta Farrell is fantastic as the widowed Elinor, whom Clyde hires as a housekeeper/cook (along with her 7 old daughter). Lilia Skala is excellent as distant neighbor called grandma. Also a star is the stark Montana prairie. It is both beautiful and brutal country in which to settle. There are some scenes that are both repulsive and necessary. No special effects here, what you see is real! It even has a terrificly perfect music score and a great script. Once you see Heartland, you'll never forget it. It deserves all the 10s it gets here.

Sentiment: positive
It is difficult to find any positives in this movie. Seems as though the producer needed to make a buck without much effort & hence we are treated to a full showing of Galaxy which is the lamest excuse for a movie in history. The police girls looked extremely sexy in their little uniforms. More action shots of the two cops & a lot less of Galaxy would have been the way to go. Of course that would add to the budget so they decided to fill the space with that wretched rerun. Ms Albright does excellent looking sexy & her acting is first rate. Ms Stabs whom I had heard of but not seen on screen before also looked very desirable but seems to lack basic acting talent. Apart from Ms Albright this is real garbage.

Sentiment: negative
When I was very young, my mother had a series of four Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies shorts on tape and I watched them all several times. A Coy Decoy was one of these shorts, and I was truly shocked to read in another comment that it had been banned. When I was young I probably did not even understand the Black Beauty gag to begin with. Still this is probably why it was banned, though until I watched this on a video site, I did not even remember the gag. Upon viewing the video I did remember certain shots - in particular the shrinking of Daffy's hat and Daffy's eyes becoming clockworkish as the decoy circled him in The Lake. I was not bothered by the gag that was most likely the reason the gag was banned. Instead I was flooded with childhood memories of watching this short. Because of how much I liked this short as a child, I rate it 7 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
... because this is yet another dead one. Lifeless voice acting, second-rate animation, contrived and un-funny songs (although the bit sung by the Devil would have been worthy of Tim Curry), and a weaker plot than Land Before Time 99: Fossils On Parade.

I have to admit, I haven't seen the first film. I'm not a big fan of movies involving Heaven or dogs, especially not in combination. Still, I hope to see the first one soon, as there HAD to be a reason someone would create such a God-awful sequel.

If I didn't get this movie for free, I wouldn't have it at all. For a 'heaven' flick, the only good thing in this was the Devil. 2/10.

Sentiment: negative