DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This movie was more of a passage into manhood for one gay man, and how he must deal with everyone. His mother is depressed, his younger sister is a pain, his older sister is somewhat accepting. The relationship looks good with his boyfriend/exhooker and he leaves his family to try life with this first guy. Unfortunately, the new guy screws around on him and says it really didn't mean anything. Our young gay man goes bonkers and ends up in the looney bin and eventually leaves, dumping his new lover and starting over. We are left with him starting over and viewing, not participating, in happiness. So maybe things will go better for him in the future. The ending was kind of a downer but the whole movie was entirely realistic and so I will let this real ending slip bye with a high rating.

Sentiment: positive
This film is brilliant it has cute little dolphins in it and its a great storyline and it has elijah wood in it which makes it a great film too. his acting skills are very good and if you want a good soft family film. this is the one to watch.

Sentiment: positive
Yet another colourful excuse for men in rubber suits to wrestle with each other. This time around, time travellers from the future arrive in 1992 and recruit a few people to go back with them to 1944 and prevent the creation of Godzilla, thus saving a future Japan from destruction. But having accomplished this task, the time travellers are revealed to be a bunch of double crossers whose own creature goes on the rampage, and with no Godzilla to stop it Eek! It all sounds very silly, and it probably is, but the plot is surprisingly decent and the final battle looks pretty good too. Unfortunately the rest of the visual effects are just rubbish rather than enjoyably rubbish, and the movie turns out to be just as dull as its predecessors. Look out for the shaky Spielberg in-joke.

Sentiment: negative
I was totally engrossed in this film from the first to last minute. It is brilliantly shot, with lots of interesting and original camera angles and techniques employed. The plot surrounds a deaf woman who is picked on by friends and colleagues alike. She hires an assistant at work, with her true intention being to find love. He's an ex-con and she takes advantage of him to wreak revenge on those who have hurt her. In return she must help him with a heist that requires her lip reading skills to pull it off. The film transcends into a dark film noir, with a couple of truly excellent scenes, and an even better finale. The real beauty in this film comes from the way the director takes advantage of the leading character's disability. The use of sound keeps the tension consistent, and the dramatic shifts from silence to noise keeps the blood pumping, that's for sure. Throw in a little black comedy and undertones of erotic sexual repression you've got the makings of a great film. It's the sort of film Hollywood really wants to make, but just can't.

Sentiment: positive
The IMDB plot summary erroneously makes it sound like it is Noah Taylor's movie, when Fairuza Balk is the central character. It is unbelievable how such a cast of established actors could have been in such an amateurish, pointless, non-movie. Balk breaks up with Boyfriend Taylor, sleeps with the Devil (I guess - played by Dempsey), and accidentally kills Taylor -- who follows her about for the rest of the movie as a ghost. May be the worst movie I have ever seen.

Sentiment: negative
(spoilers?)

while the historical accuracy might be questionable... (and with the mass appeal of the inaccurate LOTR.. such things are more easily excused now) I liked the art ness of it. Though not really an art house film. It does provide a little emotionally charged scenes from time to time. 

I have two complaints. 1. It's too short. and 2. The voice you hear whispering from time to time is not explained.

8/10

Quality: 10/10 Entertainment: 7/10 Replayable: 5/10

Sentiment: positive
This is NOT the masterpiece that is Snow White, Cinderella, or Bambi, but it IS a very sweet, enjoyable, romantic, well-done Disney animated feature.

There are, of course, lessons included herein for the kiddies, and some very appropriate kiddie-cheek, but there is plenty herein for the adults, as well.

While this is somewhat of a regurgitation of the Classic Disney RomCom Adventure, it still holds some elements, which solely belong to the AristoCats. O'Malley is the "tramp" and Dutchess is the "lady," but Dutchess has several kittens and they are all trying to get home.

Phil Harris is our tomcat O'Malley. You may recognize his voice, as he also furnished the voice of Baloo the Bear in the Jungle Book, and Little John in Disney's Robin Hood. Eva Gabor lends her silky sweet voice to Dutchess.

Directed by Wolfgang Reitherman, who directed, or worked on, every Disney animated film worth mentioning until his death in 1985.

This is among my very favorite of the Disney animated feature films, and belongs in any Disney collection. The 2-Disk Special Edition Is Due Out This Summer (2007).

This rates an 8.4/10 from...

the Fiend :.

Sentiment: positive
I've seen this movie twice on Transilvania International Film Festival(TIFF), the movie is in competition and I really hope that Esteban Sapir will get one of the awards (at least the best image award). 

As a silent cinema fan I'm interested in contemporary movies that quote or recreate the language of the yester-year cinema. The previous reviewer emphasized the quotes from Fritz Lang and Fr. W. Murnau. As I see it, the movie references directly Lang's Metropolis, and the allegorical-parabolic character of his plots. But I didn't see Murnau in it. There's a more obvious Melies-homage though: the Moon with a (here cigar-smoking) human face, and the paper-made, painted mountains and city-landscapes. I enjoyed the film mostly for its visuals, and in the meantime I found very interesting the story on muteness, and the creative means of communication used by the inhabitants of the voiceless city. From this perspective this movie is an unique reflexion on the muteness of the silent cinema, because in the films of the silent period one can hardly find stories with mute characters. In this case can be questioned whether the story on the stolen voices was the motivation for the silent film form, or there's an intention to play upon the muteness of the silent films. Another example of this kind of reflexion I found in Guy Maddin's Careful,where the inhabitants of a mountain-village have restrictions in using their voices. I intend to write a paper on it, if you know movies related to this topic, please let me know!!! 

I highly recommend Esteban Sapir's film to every moviegoer (one of the critics called it: the jewel of the festival).

PS: Winners were announced, and the film won the award for best cinematography!

Sentiment: positive
Having just seen Walt Disney's The Skeleton Dance on the Saturday Morning Blog as linked from YouTube, I used those same sources to watch a remake done in Technicolor for the Columbia cartoon unit and animated by the same man-Ub Iwerks. The colors, compared to the earlier black and white, are really used imaginatively here and many of the new gags-like when one of the skeletal band players hits a wrong note constantly or when one loses his head and takes another one's off or when one dances with the other with part of that other gone-are just as funny as the previous short. It does get a little repetitious near the end. Still, Skeleton Frolics is well worth seeing for any animation buff who wants to compare this with the earlier Silly Symphony.

Sentiment: positive
Can there be a worst film? Even Ed Wood at his horrific worst couldn't come up with something this bad. Cheesy, stupid, long-winded, preposterous...and those are the good points. I saw this trash back in the early 80's when I was incredibly bored to begin with, and actually sat through the entire thing without blowing my brains out, although that probably would have been a more pleasant experience. I actually remembered it because it was so bad. It makes me sad in a way because some of the best directors got their start by making TV movies (ie Spielberg) and it was a wonderful way for them to get their initial material before the public, but crap like this just totally killed the entire process.

Sentiment: negative
This film was a waste of time, even rented on DVD. If super-speedy camera shots get any faster than this, we might as well pay twenty bucks to get in the laundromat, get popcorn, and watch the dryer spin. Jet Li is so much better than this. One can only hope that he won't be making deals anytime soon to make another cliche-ridden film like The One.

If there's one film you should avoid, this is "The One".

Sentiment: negative
How can you gather this respectable cast of young British actors and come up with such a pile of filmic manure? Horrible script, annoyingly hectic camera, awfully edited, gruesomely badly acted. Only Rhys Ifans tries to fill his role with life. Another painful proof that "different" sometimes equals "dreck". Why do the money people fail to read the scripts beforehand? Do yourself a favour: spare yourself and do something else - like hitting a mallet onto your knees. It's less painful and more fun than this movie!

Sentiment: negative
This is a lovely, spirit-restoring movie. From the use of the actual villa that inspired Elizabeth Arngrim to write the novel in the 1920s to the inspired casting, every choice was perfectly right! The quiet joy of this film doesn't stale after repeated viewings. Josie Lawrence, Miranda Richardson, Polly Walker and Joan Plowright seem to have been born to play these parts! I would dearly love to see Enchanted April released on DVD in a widescreen format.

Sentiment: positive
Don Wilson stars as Jack Cutter (Ooh real tough name!)a vampire slayer who goes up against a vampire army, you see the story is a little different because vampires can't be killed with silver, crosses or sunlight but rather through snapping their necks (How convenient as it cuts down on the budget) and it's here Cutter runs into a reporter (Melanie Smith of Trancers III fame) Night Hunter's action sequences shake for no reason during the fight sequences and although it's meant to emphasize the mood, it just makes the movie more jarring. What is worse is that these fight sequences are botched beyond belief as Wilson's martial artistry is disguised by disjointed editing. Of course the most interest comes from the fact that indeed this predates Blade, however the problem is that this was done on a small budget and that it had Don Wilson in it. It's from Roger Corman and basically this turkey is a movie most people would pay NOT to see. I unfortunately am a bottom feeder and I cater to the section of the store looking for gems, in this line of work you always run into turds. With Night Hunter, I just may have the world's stinkiest turd.

1/2* out of 4-(Awful)

Sentiment: negative
I want Céline and Jessie go further in their relationship, I want to tell them that they were made for each other, that in a lot of moment in the film we want they to die for each other. Their story is what we ever wanted and probably most of us never reached. This is about love but not stupid things like in "notting hills" or those kind of movie. This is life and i did believe in them, i did believe they were falling... This was so clever and touching. I have just finished to view it a minute ago and i m still there... I want to go to Vienna. I want to see them as soon as possible again.

I have to say i was now becoming misanthropist and felt like if love was just a fake, a concept, but with this movie i realized that maybe somewhere, somehow and some when, something could really happen.

I'm french and didn't know very well July Delpy despite Kieslowski "three colors : white"... Now i have to see her other works because she looks like an angel and got a perfect acting.

i saw "before sunset" (the sequel in Paris) a few days before i saw "before sunrise" and their is no matter. They are both masterpieces. proof that you don't need to impress the eyes with technology to get pure feelings. I'm sorry for my English which i m trying to best.

Franck in France

Sentiment: positive
ONE GOOD THING: This hidden treasure of a crime drama is incredibly entertaining from beginning to end. An example of low-budget film making at it's best, writer/director Skip Woods uses seemingly everything he could find (ex: Lamborghini, super model, cow phone) and an ear for dialogue to add levels of satire to the plot and all of his camera set-ups.

ANOTHER GOOD THING: This movie seems to be made for the DVD era, with several segments that comprise a larger story (similar to the work of Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez's Desperado). Each "chapter" of the film features Thomas Jane's main character spending one day at home encountering quick and memorable performances by Aaron Eckhart, Glen Plummer, Mickey Rourke, Michael Jeter, James LeGros, and an unforgettable role by Paulina Porizkova.

EVEN ANOTHER GOOD THING: Not exactly a "good" thing, but incredibly shocking and memorable... Every person who sees this movie remembers one important scene. Much as Deliverance will always be remembered for it's awful rape of Ned Beatty, Thursday will go down as the movie where a woman forcibly rapes an unwilling man. Unforgettable.

ONE BAD THING: The title makes people think it is somehow related to (or derivative of) the "Friday" series of films featuring Ice Cube.

GRADE: A+

Sentiment: positive
Conventional wisdom is that a sequel is seldom as good as the original movie. There are occasional exceptions, but this is NOT one of them. Disney should have quit while they were ahead. This was a real disappointment after a reasonably entertaining 101 Dalmatians.

Sentiment: negative
I've seen many horror shows over the years, like Nightstalker, that dealt with the Wendigo legend, so I was looking forward to an angry spirit causing mayhem to add flavor to the Halloween season. Man was I mistaken. The whole movie creates this sense of events about to happen that will be scary and creepy, but then delivers a very simplistic tale of revenge and murder over the loss of some property. Ve-ery scary - not! This movie has a lot in common with Cold Creek Manor, another total loser.

It's getting harder and harder to believe anything Hollywood puts forward about scary movies, since they rarely come through with anything original and spooky anymore. What idiots pay for such a bogus movie to be made? Go back to the drawing board fellas, and do something useful with those millions of greenbacks you have to throw around.

Sentiment: negative
Not only do I think this was the best film of 1987, it's probably in my own amorphous list as one of the 10-20 best films I've ever seen. For whatever reason, I really connected with this movie, and it is one of the most personal films I had seen at that point in my life (I was 26). For better or worse, I strongly identified with the Holly Hunter character (and I'm a guy!). She plays an extremely bright, loyal and intense woman who couldn't figure out romantic relationships. There were so many things that she said in this movie that were things that I would say or have said to others in similar circumstances. And the ending of the movie I find to be so very, very sad.

Obviously, this role was the big break for Holly Hunter. Clearly, I was not the only one to think so highly of it.

Sentiment: positive
This is something new.

There's a coup d'etat and a couple of irish documentary filmmakers are right inside of it.

A democratically elected president who uses his power to bring literacy to his people and encourages them to read the constitution is being slandered by the private media openly as dictator, mentally unstable, new hitler, etc. without repercussion from the governments side (like, say, silencing them via bullets and other traditional dictatorial methods). Oh, and they still claim that they are being suppressed, of course.

See how the media gloats about their own role in the coup d'etat on TV after they toppled the government with the help of rouge generals (how much more stupid can you get?? ).

And see how the people of Venezuela march to the palace, holding the constitution in their hands, and reinstall their elected government.

This sounds like a Hollywood fairytale, but it happened for real, against the explicit wishes of the USA. The documentary is a historical masterpiece, shot from the center of the action, acute and totally embarrassing for the prime supporters of the coup: The good, democratic, freedom loving, benevolent USA (who still channel large amounts of money to Chavez' political opponents).

Also highly entertaining and exciting. 10 points.

Sentiment: positive
'Leatherheads' tries so hard. Tries to be light hearted. Tries to be a comedy. Tries to be a love affair. Let's see, it tries to be a 'His Girl Friday' by way of 'The Sting' by way of 'It Happened One Night' by way of a dozen sports movies. Alas, trying isn't doing and the movie is as soggy as the last game's field.

A fan of movies would watch the big fight scene in the speakeasy between the Duluth Bulldogs and some soldiers and realize that the fights that John Ford staged with such style and verve and humor in movies like 'The Quiet Man' or 'Donovan's Reef', or 'The Searchers' may have seemed easy to do but obviously aren't. I would bet George Clooney thought channeling John Ford would be easy as well. How hard could it be: masculinity run amok, punches, bottles broken over heads, an imperturbable piano player...just put it up there on the screen with some happening music. Sorry. It takes a master to make fight scenes flow.

Movies aren't wished into existence. Humor is hard. Romance is hard. Slapstick a lost art.

I once read that you never wanted to sit too close to a ballet performance. Something about not wanting to prick the fantastic bubble of the performance by hearing the thuds of the dancers' feet or the grunts of the lifts. This movie is like that...all strain and good intentions, handsome actors, nice sets, but it thuds through its paces rather than gallops like the original Galloping Ghost, Red Grange, who the movie is loosely based on.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this film for the first time last night. I have been thinking about it all night and this morning. I cannot say that it was my favorite film, at least not yet. I need to see it again. 

The cinematography is stunning. Each shot has a lyricism that one would expect in a film that has Wim Wenders's name attached to it.

It is always tempting to see de Chirico in any picture of rows of orders vanishing into the gloom, but in this case the analogy fits. In many ways the figure of Malkovich walking through the fog and wind of Ferarra echoes the shadow of the off-canvas statue that haunts Milan in the major works of the Italo-Greek painter. He is slightly menacing, a presence who watches and, in his capacity as a film director, exerts influence on the entire story. 

The dedicated Wenders fan cannot help but think a little bit of Damiel and Cassiel wandering through the streets of Berlin, watching all but not directly interacting with the inhabitants. And, following the Himmel Uber Berlin metaphor, the angel (or in this case Malkovich the Director) gets to interact with one of the stories. 

At this point I have to bow out of taking this line of criticism too far. I need to see the movie again. I am fairly sure that this is the thread that will bring Malkovich's monologue together. 

Perhaps his musings and pontifications are pretentious, empty dialog that sound good but cannot possibly be parsed into real communication. Maybe that is the whole point of it. No one can make that judgment with any degree of certainty or authority until having done his homework.

We must be careful when throwing around the word "pretentious." It is easy to write off anything that smacks of the intellect as pretension, but that leads to a terrifying mental state, one in which the only conversation seen as genuine, earthy or authentic is the most banal. When we shun all discussions of philosophy, God, existence, meaning and all that brain candy, we are setting our culture up to die a slow, stupid and ugly death. Perhaps this is the warning that Wenders and Antonioni are giving us. It certainly is not the only theme of the film, but I think that it cannot be ignored.

The other (and most obvious) leitmotif is that of satisfaction. There is a lot here on that, and a thorough review of all the subtleties and consequences of the development of this leitmotif would well exceed the 1000 word limit for this review.

My advice is to see the film. But I offer a caveat: it is not an autonomous film (at least I don't think so yet). Some films interact with the intellectual and artistic thinking of their times so much that the viewer needs to have a background in the Zeitgeist before approaching the film. Par-dela les nuages is one of those films.

Sentiment: positive
Rohmer returns to his historical dramas in the real story of Grace Elliot, an Englishwoman who stayed in France during the apex of the French Revolution. One always suspected that Rohmer was a conservative, but who knew he was such a red-blooded reactionary. If you can put aside Rohmer's unabashed defense of the monarchy (and that is not an easy thing to do, given that, for instance, the French lower classes are portrayed here as hideous louts), this is actually an elegant, intelligent and polished movie. Lacking the money for a big cinematic recreation of 18th century France, Rohmer has instead the actors play against obvious painted cardboards. It is a blatantly artificial conceit, but it somehow works. And newcomer Lucy Russell succeeds in making sympathetic a character that shouldn't be.

Sentiment: positive
How many reviews of this film will I have to write before I get it right? Tom Conway fully inherits the mantle of the Falcon from his real-life brother George Sanders with this entry. Decked out in beautiful double-breasted, single-buttoned, drape-style suits and cruising in gorgeous, 110%-steel cars with huge fender skirts and suicide doors that come up to your armpit, Conway travels from New York to Miami to keep a formula for industrial diamonds from falling into the wrong hands. His "client" is lovely, virginal Louisa Briganza who has got gorgeous hair but will let you only kiss her for the first two months. Along the way he runs into the type of colourful array of characters only a B movie could provide. His sidekick in this outing is perhaps best among Falcon sidekicks Edward Brophy as Goldie Locke who is given some really funny lines. He runs into sinister dish Doris Blanding, the type of '40's chick that you know puts out. Her cohort is Benny played by Steve Brodie who, twenty years later, was a Presley punching bag in two Paramount King movies. They both work for cold fish and yachting-cap-wearing Kenneth Sutton, ready to do what it takes to get the formula as he cruises his yacht to Brazil. Saddled with the stoniest Falcon-pursuing cops ever, this entry still reigns supreme. Forget those 120 minute melodramas, give me a 1 hour Falcon movie any day. I got a wife and two kids - who's got time for a two-hour movie? Shake up some dry martinis and forget your troubles with this great Falcon movie. But if you didn't tape it off local TV in Toronto like I did 17 years ago, you're out of luck.

Sentiment: positive
Next to "Star Wars" and "The Wizard of Oz," this remains one of the greatest fantasy films ever made. It's a true shame it's not as well-known as the former films (maybe because it sticks to a story based on legends rather than contemporary or sci-fi settings, and that it's British, meaning a smaller market for films) but its wonderful to know that it's deserved that reputation.

Like all great family films, one can be a child, an adult, or even a teenager to enjoy this film (I'm currently 18), but one must appreciate classic films first. I absolutely adore this film. It has an extraordinary music score by Miklos Rozsa (perhaps my favorite classic film score) that rivals any John Williams "Star Wars" score, a fast but not flashy pace, beautiful sets, dialog, and use of color (both the sets and cinematography won Oscars), and state-of-the-art Oscar-winning special effects (for the time, and some are still stunning). And, of course, June Duprez's sultry looks as the Princess rivals that of Catherine Zeta-Jones' (she even looks like Jones in a way!).

In conclusion, this is one of my all-time favorite movie (next to "The Adventures of Robin Hood") and it truly deserves more attention. It is a true adventure of enchantment throughout, and, along with "Robin Hood," it's my desert island film that I could watch over and over again without getting annoyed.

Stars: **** (excellent)

Sentiment: positive
Even though some unrealistic things happen at the end (i.e. a cop shooting a gun into a crowded merry-go-round where any number of innocent could be killed), this still was an intense, enjoyable thriller, one of Alfred Hitchcock's better films. Robert Walker is excellent as the chilling nutcase, really convincing giving a fascinating performance that is almost too creepy at times. His co-star in here, Farley Granger, is okay but is no match for Walker, either in acting or in the characters they play. It's the typical Hitchcock film with some strange camera angles, immoral themes, innocent man gets in trouble, etc. Unlike a lot of his other films, I thought this one was a fast-moving story with a very few dull spots. Being an ex-tennis player, I enjoyed his footage of some excellent old net matches that featured some good rallies. Hitchcock's real-life daughter Patricia has an interesting and unique minor character role in here. She didn't just get the job because of her dad; she can act. Also of note: the DVD has both the British and American versions and there were some differences in the story. This is a classic film that is still referred to in modern-day films, even comedies such as "Throw Momma Off The Train."

Sentiment: positive
Before George Clooney directed Sam Rockwell in his directorial debut "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind", they starred together in this movie. George Clooney also was involved with this movie as a producer, along with Steven Soderbergh, which shows that they really believed in this project. In potential this also seems like a fine and entertaining project, that is in the same line with movie-remakes such as "Ocean's Eleven" and "The Italian Job" but somehow this movie is only halve successful, or at least it isn't as good as it could had been.

The movie its characters are all being played by some fine well known actors but a shame is that the characters are not really given enough room to develop. Even though in their potential they could had turned into fun and enjoyable characters, they are now only characters that mildly entertain because mostly of some of the more quirky sequences that are in the movie. The fact that they are being played doesn't change much to this, even though they prevent their characters from ever becoming a total bore or perhaps even annoying, or anything like that at all.

It's of course due to the writing that the characters aren't used to their full potential. I can only assume that the original Italian movie "I Soliti ignoti" works out much better than this movie does. The movie relies too much on its simple story and predictable way of storytelling.

Nevertheless the movie is simply still a very fun one to watch maybe because of that very same simplicity. It's an harmless little caper movie, in which you simply shouldn't to worry much about the story. In that regard "Welcome to Collinwood" is still a movie that works out and simply serves its purpose well.

It's a movie that you won't regret watching once you've finished it but it also is a movie you can really easily do without ever seeing.

7/10

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie when it was released, and my distaste for it has stuck with me all these years. 

Here's why: 

Greenaway's goal seems to be to take every literary image in the Tempest and make it literal. If a character were to say, "my heart takes flight," we'd be shown an actual human heart, with pigeon wings attached, flapping across the screen. 

This process makes for some lush tableaux, but ultimately it's a facile exercise. And it becomes deadly boring.

I don't begrudge the pleasure other viewers found in this movie, but it's worth knowing that not everyone in the audience was enraptured.

Sentiment: negative
1st the good news. The 3-D is spectacularly well done, and they don't go for the gotcha gimmicks. The film is based on the true story of the high point in human history, and even features one of the actual participants in that story: Buzz Aldrin.

And now the meat of the matter: It's about FLIES, for krissakes! Flies with big, googy human eyes, true, but flies nonetheless. Remember when I likened the "Underworld" movies to rats vs. cockroaches? That wasn't intended as praise, and I never dreamed anyone would take it literally. This one's got even less empathy going for it. Baby maggots? Ugh. In one of those odd confluences of Hollywood groupthink, this flik was evidently on the drawing boards at the same time as "Space Chimps", also about critters in space.

Go rent "Apollo 13" and see a 9-rated movie about the REAL space program (RIP).

Sentiment: negative
I'd have to say that this was a little embarrassing for the 'King of the Cowboys'; made in 1948, the picture came out a decade after Roy Rogers' earliest pictures in which he had a starring role. Roy's character comes off as a bit clueless in this one, along with his female co-star Jane Frazee, who alternates her allegiance between Roy and Robert Livingston, portraying chief bad guy Bill Regan. The whole story seems kind of muddled, with missed opportunities for what could have been an entertaining hour or so. Like the legend of the 'Hangman's Hotel' for example, which says the hanged man comes to life at midnight. With Andy Devine in the cast as Cookie Bullfincher, you would think the story would get a little mileage out of that set up. Instead, you have some convoluted proceedings that would have been better served if this had been a Bowery Boys flick. It was a sad attempt at a haunted hotel gimmick that relied on poor old Genevieve, who truth be told, wound up getting more screen time than Trigger, who's contract as 'Smartest Horse in the Movies' didn't have anything to say about getting upstaged by a mule. And then you have Foy Willing and his Riders of the Purple Sage replacing Bob Nolan and the Sons of the Pioneers for your musical interlude. I don't know about you, but it was already half way into the picture and I was still looking for Pat Brady - oh well! 

Yet there was still an interesting element to be found here if you were looking hard enough, and that turned out to be Roy's athletic dismount of Trigger while still on the run from the bad guys. OK, it was probably a stunt double, but I haven't seen that one before in a couple hundred Westerns.

Jane Frazee does the honors as the female lead in this picture, as she would in four other films opposite Roy in the 1947/1948 time frame. In "Under California Stars", she appeared as Andy Devine's cousin, appropriately named Caroline Bullfincher. You're never quite convinced what side she'll come in on in this story though, since she starts out pretending to be someone she's not, and winds up on the good guy side almost by accident.

Fans of the old Laurel and Hardy films might be as surprised as I was to see James Finlayson here as the Sheriff of Sintown. I would have liked a little more comedy relief written into his role, but he played it pretty straight after all. I had to wonder, when it was all over, why he and old Vanderpool (Charle Coleman) wound up in the mine shaft with Cookie when there was no reason for that to be. Just a way to close it out I guess, with about as much thought as went into the rest of the picture. I hate to be that harsh, but if you've seen enough Roy Rogers flicks, you've got to know that this was not one of his finer efforts.

Say, Sintown - I wonder if that's the same place that grew up to be Sin City?

Sentiment: negative
This comes close to the worst movie I've ever seen. The writer starts you out in a way that you'll side with Jasper (Josh Hartnett). When he did absolutely nothing wrong, Sam (Leelee Sobiesky) leaves him for Kelley (Chris Klein), in a way that leaves you mad at Sam. You aren't let in on what she feels, so her feelings with Kelley aren't real to you, and their relationship is phony. It drags you in either direction, and it gets rather exhausting and annoying. The only good thing about this movie that I saw was the cast.



Sentiment: negative
"Ally McBeal" was a decent enough show, but it was very overrated. The characters become boring after a while and the jokes begin to fall short.

I think it chose an appropriate point in time to leave - it was starting to outstay its welcome.

Sentiment: negative
Oh my god, it just doesn't get any worse than this!!! I always love silly little sci-fi B-movies that are so stupid they are funny and I thought that this would be one of those, but this was just so stupid I found it absolutely deplorable that it was allowed to be released. What were these people thinking? They are obviously not real filmmakers and I really hope that they have gone back to their day jobs after realizing that this is the best they could do! The acting and the not-so special effects were nowhere near the standard of even the lowest budget B-movies. And what is with the men dressed up as women, could they not find any women that wanted to appear in this crappy thing. No, probably not.

I would give this a "0" if possible, it does not even deserve a "1" for awful. Do not waste your time (and especially not your money) on this horrible loser of a non-film!

Sentiment: negative
I would probably say this was on a par with films like "Devil's Rain" and that sort of film, although this is probably a bit better made. I love 70's horror and this has most of the elements that make up other movies I like so it was pretty easy to enjoy. A family on their vacation stumble across a small town where the people seem to be gripped by some sort of hysteria. Seems like the children have been disappearing. After an initial attempt to flee this place, the family is somehow stopped on the edge of town and find their way back, but not without first finding a house where the kids are gone and mommy and daddy are dead. Seems like we have a different kind of twist on a senior citizen community center in this town, they're all Satan worshipers and they need the kids to renew their lives so they can continue on in their service, I guess. Not that anyone seems too keen on giving up their kids for this enterprise. This is fairly classy considering that it's scary and creepy without buckets of gore or the loud startling events that try to make people jump in films today, which seem to have replaced actual scares. We have Hank Kimball (Alvy Moore) from "Green Acres" as Tobey, a sheriff's deputy that reads UFO magazines, and LQ Jones as the sheriff, and a very familiar character actor as the dad of the stranded family. And Strother Martin plays the doctor who seems to be doing double duty unbeknown to his fellow townsfolk. This is pretty good stuff but a tad on the confusing side sometimes, but overall works pretty well & is recommended for fans of 70's horror. 8 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
I was fairly lost throughout most of this film, and I am the one who usually understands the works of such enigmatic cinema greats as David Lynch (Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me) and Darren Aronofsky (Pi). Not to say that Northfork doesn't make sense on some level, it just doesn't combine to form a wholly coherent film. As time passes from watching the film, its themes and intentions become clearer, but during my initial viewing, I was really confounded, and I find that this is the major fault of the film...its lack of direction. The plot centers on the town of Northfork, Montana in the year 1955. The town has been emptied and will soon be flooded to make way for the creation of a hydro-electric dam. The major problem is that not all of its inhabitants are willing to be evacuated and relocated. A group of men are hired to coerce the remaining residents out of the town before it will be drowned, and for the most part they succeed amidst some fairly odd situations and townspeople. Simultaneously, the film tells the story of Irwin, a very sick young boy (or is he a fallen angel?) whose adopted parents gave him back, due to his illness, to the Northfork orphanage that they adopted him from. Father Harlan (Nick Nolte) cares for the dying Irwin, but Irwin imagines (or does he?!) that a group of angels (including Daryl Hannah and Anthony Edwards) have arrived in the desolate and empty town looking for a fallen angel. Irwin has scars on his back and on his head, and he tries to convince the angels that his scars are where the humans amputated his wings and halo. Oh yeah, and during all of this there is a strangely surreal walking animal on stilts that roams throughout the backdrop of the landscape. There are a lot of other small events that happen in the film, but none of them end up amounting to much more than momentary intrigue. One can appreciate the artistic quality of the film (it's obvious that the filmmakers cared deeply about this film) and its rich cinematography, but the film still tries too hard to be different and then gives up and whimpers to an end without making much of a statement. Like I wrote earlier, it becomes clearer, long after viewing, what has possibly taken place in the film. Irwin is dying, and so is Northfork, and in coping with his own loss and death, Irwin has most likely created characters, from ideas he gets from the objects that surround him at the orphanage, to console him as he is abandoned and his life nears its end. But then again, maybe he really is an angel, and he has found his kind and can now return home. I must emphasize that there are some truly beautiful moments in the film, heartbreaking, vivid and full of loneliness and sadness. Unfortunately, the film as a whole just ends up feeling disconnected and somehow incomplete.

Sentiment: negative
There are some movies you just know they are going to be bad from frame one. Even if you were totally oblivious of Ed Wood's work, one look at that commentator from "Plan 9 from outer space" and you just KNOW you are not gonna see the next cinematic masterpiece. Just like that, when I saw the first shot of Uwe Bolls masterpiece "House of Dead", with that guy sitting at the front of the house starting his introduction while trying desperately to sound like he just arrived from Sin City, I knew I'm in for a helluva ride.

So, the movie starts like this - first the lead character says that everybody else is going to die. You know, to keep you wandering. Then he starts introducing the rest of the characters with lines like "Karma..thinks she's Foxy Brown" or "Alicia..my ex.. we broke up recently.. I had to study and she had to fence". No, I'm not kidding.

Anyway, this bunch of 20-somethings who couldn't act their way out of a wet paper-bag are going to the "Rave of the century", rave in question being a few tents, a port-a-potty and a shoddy stage located on small island in the middle of the Pacific. Our gang missed the ferry, but thankfully will find a way to get there, the way being a fisher-boat ran by Kirk (Cpt Kirk? Get it? Man, whoever wrote this script is a genius) and his sidekick who is a bastard child of Simpsons' Cpt McAllister and that hook killer who knows what you did last summer.

To make the long story short, the gang gets to the island, finds nobody there except some bloody T-shirts and then decide to run the hell away from there. No wait, they do not, they actually get all happy and like cos there's free booze.

With that scene the movie hits rock bottom and then against all odds proceeds to go further downhill. Some guys in rubber suits start running around, there is some screaming and shooting, our gang goes to some house to meet some other gang, they go out of the house, meet Cpt Kirk and some police woman (who between them have about 500 pounds of weapons) and then decide to go back to the house. Somewhere along the line they transform into a S.W.A.T. team, enter the Matrix, the rubber-suit guys start multiplying like bacteria and I start to cry because I actually paid to see this. To add insult to the injury, every few minutes there are shots from the video game this crap is based on and there is a cute game-over cut-scene for a few characters when they die.

I seriously hate this movie. It doesn't even fit in that famed "So bad it's good" category. It's just plain bad. The script is bad, the zombies are awful, there is no tension, lines are bad, actors are bad.. the list just goes on.

You will probably want to see this movie just because of its reputation of being awful. Don't. There are bad movies that deserve to be watched. This is not one of them.

Sentiment: negative
Abderrahmane Sissako may have known what he was doing when he made "Bamako," but the rest of us can just sit back in mystification and confusion trying to figure out what that purpose might have been.

The nominal "plot" involves a young African singer who's planning on leaving her unemployed husband to find work in the city. But far more of the screen time is taken up with what the publicists for the film describe as "a mock trial against key financial institutions" dealing "with the overwhelming economic hardships of Africa." That's all well and good, I suppose, but when the arguments and ideas are put forth in as undramatic and pedantic a way as they are here, they lose both force and impact. Put another way, if the director had found the means to actually incorporate issues such as the injurious effect of colonialism on the African people and the problem of African debt into anything even remotely resembling a compelling storyline, the film might have achieved the intellectual and emotional resonance it now so clearly lacks.

The topics the movie is dealing with may be relevant and important, but trying to pass off what amounts to two hours worth of speechifying as an actual, honest-to-God movie is not likely to garner much of an audience for one's message.

Sentiment: negative
Leonard can write lyrics, but he sure can't sing. Nor has he had an original idea in his life, just a floater. From the looks of this nasty little puff piece (note that his publishers, McClelland and Stewart were involved in the production), he didn't know how to live, either. The woman he loves is only mentioned in passing and no woman is allowed to speak in this nonsensical advertisement. While Irving Layton was given a credit, the other poet interviewed, Earle Birney, was to remain nameless. I come from the generation just after Cohen, where all the boys seemed to idolize him. His lack of commitment was probably just calling to them. I hadn't realized what a disappointing poseur he was back then. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because of his age.

Whiny, little rich prince, and not one memorable line in his oeuvre. No dedication to social change, outside of the sexual arena.

You don't speak for my generation, Lennie, and not for my gender. Go back to the monastery and stay off the screen.

As for my local public broadcaster, I will let them know what I think of them wasting my time on this guy. Not a has-been, a never was...

Sentiment: negative
I guess this is in the public domain as its out on DVD. First off, this is a feel good propaganda movie to be shown to a wartime Aussie audience, so its not to be considered a serious retelling of Tobruk. The first half to 3/4 is very dry stuff set in Australia, I guess like many American war films where the recruits are getting together, oh man its soooo long. Than we get to Africa and Tobruk, pretty bad, low budget stuff. The battle scenes on the DVD copy I watched were almost completely black. See it if you must, but be prepared to use the fast forward as I doubt you can take it after a few minutes. I enjoyed the cheesy Italian "Battle of El Alamien" a whole lot more, also Richard Burton did an African theater war flick that was good "The Desert Rats", this movie is just a real period piece and should have stayed in that time, does not hold up well today (I doubt it was highly regarded back then either). I say the same thing about my American counterpart war flicks so don't take it personally Aussies (I love Australia, been there twice!).

Sentiment: negative
I was reticent to see this flick before reading the external reviews and user comments posted here. Why? Firstly because Mick Malloy's humour can (in my humble opinion) be pretty crass and over the top, evidenced by his ill fated shemozzle of a television show some years back. And secondly because good Aussie comedy films are sadly as rare as the Tassie Tiger. 

Sensibly Mick has restrained his natural comedic exuberance in this surprisingly watchable movie. Who would have thought that a bowls club would provide the setting for one of the funniest Australian films in years. The cast is excellent with familiar local old timers all putting in believable performances. 

Interesting to see John Clarke playing the villain in this piece. It's a one dimensional part but JC still adds a touch of class, as always. Good to see Judith Lucy also getting a Guernsey or should I saw bowls uniform on the big screen. She's a real talent, pity a number of her retorts were expletives. Her own material is a lot wittier. Interesting character though. Bowls reporter on a local rag. How low on the journalist food chain can one get!!

Crackerjack may not be the funniest film I've seen this year but it's certainly an enjoyable diversion, well worth a look. Lots of other people obviously agree with me as it's headed to be the biggest grossing Australian film this year. Good to see someone finally make a quirky, gentle comedy without trying to sledgehammer the laughs like so many Australian 'comedies' before it. 

Finally a bit of trivia. If you're wondering which Aussie Rules team Mick supports check out the flag on his workstation. Also look out for his old partner in crime, Tony Martin doing the announcing in the final bowls scene. 

 



Sentiment: positive
In April of 1965, CBS broadcast the first of Barbra Streisand's monumental television specials. The show was not only a runaway ratings success, but garnered 5 Emmy awards as well. This is one of the most memorable moments of 1960's television and (unfortunately) the kind of television special they don't produce anymore. Filled with wonderful songs and a spectacular performance by Barbra, this special is a must view for any Streisand fan and anyone interested in early television.

Sentiment: positive
You got to see it to believe it. Shot in Hollywood on the strip in the middle of the sleazy, anything goes 70s, this cheaply made flick must of really packed the inner city theatres back in the day. Then again, I bet it had a one week run. Actually, its pretty hilarious. The acting is dreadful, the direction non existent, but the hair, clothes, rotten pre disco music and the general out and out sleaziness of the story are mind boggling. Sleazy, its very sleazy. Highly recomended (if you can find it)

Sentiment: positive