DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Jason Alexander is a wonderful actor, but it's ridiculous to cast him as a cuddly romantic lead. The fact that he dances so well, croons so effectively, and throws himself into the part so completely somehow just made him seem all the more creepy. In his more cutesy moments (with the girl in the train station, in the final number with Rosie), I couldn't take my eyes off him he was so repellent. You keep expecting him to drop the nice-guy act and start snarling. Vanessa Williams was the real star, the only performance that was better than the 1963 movie. By the way, if you see a production of the stage musical, the 1963 movie and this 1995 movie, you'll see three versions that have more revisions (different songs, same songs assigned to different characters and in different situations) than any other musical I've ever seen.

Sentiment: negative
I tried watching this movie, but I didn't make it past the first 15 minutes. It's a terrible disappointment, considering the cast, but I can't look past the fact that the dialogue is in English and some of the actors pretending to be Indian are not even close (read: Kristin Kreuk). Considering that India alone has 1/6th of the world's population and one of the biggest movie industries, I don't think it would have been hard for the film-makers to have found an excellent Indian actress to play the part. And I don't say so because of some blind patriotism, but because it's absolutely and totally absurd for a non-Indian to play the role of an Indian/Pakistani. Now some people say that 'as long as she's convincing who cares?' but my point is exactly that she's NOT convincing and never can be - not due to her acting skills, but due to her ethnicity. For example, however good an actor Tom Hanks may be, he'll never be able to play an Australian Aborigine!

But that is still minor to the biggest faux pas the film-makers made: having the dialogue in English. It totally destroys the mood, as well as any semblance of authenticity. Had the same movie been made in native languages (Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi) with English subtitles, this may have been an excellent movie. Unfortunately, as things stand, I would not recommend anyone seeing it, apart from film students who want to study "What not to do" in movies.

Sentiment: negative
Not good! Rent or buy the original! Watch this only if someone has a gun to your head and then....maybe.

It is like claiming an Elvis actor is as good as the real King.

Sentiment: negative
As I write this, Norman Wisdom is a very confused old man who spends most of his waking hours cackling and yelping old catch-phrases at his increasingly suicidal nurse.

Indeed, by the time you read this he will probably have joined the hereafter and the obituaries will record a near 80 year career of hysterical mirth-making from the lovable funster with the crooked chequered cap. What most of these obituaries won't recall is how Norman Wisdom had already committed a form of suicide back in the late 1960s with this staggeringly poor, yet strangely compelling endpaper to his movie career.

The signs are ominous from the off  "Tony Tenser Presents" go the titles. You scratch your head  "Where have I seen that name before..?" Well, on the titles of a lot of the cheapest, crappiest British films of the 1970s so just take your pick.

Then it says  "A Menahem Golan Production". Oh dear.

From what I could make out what follows is a combination of Confessions from a Holiday Camp and Last Tango in Paris. Sponsored by the Southport Tourist Board.

Norman Wisdom is very versatile at being Norman Wisdom (or a variation of such) here. Even in trash like this, he's never off form and somehow keeps you watching through parted fingers as he paws and dribbles all over a (clearly insane) Sally Geeson. Tony Tenser and Menahem Golan were, between them, responsible for some true cinematic horrors but the bedroom scene in filmic atrocity reborn. Sally plays the role of a lobotomised sex toy very well, by the way.

I wonder if any of the crazy young cats who populate this movie's party scenes maybe thought to themselves in a quiet moment "Ummold Norman+sex+hippies. Get me outta this mess!!" I guess it was a payday for them.

A do feel sorry for The Pretty Things though. They probably thought "Yeah! This'll do for us what Blow Up did for the Yardbirds" 

And so old Norman's leading man career ended. Freezing his little balls off in Southport.

I went there once. It was a depressing place.

Sentiment: negative
A pointless cash-in with nothing to contribute except nastiness, this is a definite case of sloppy seconds for Robocop. Irvin Kershner's numbing, plot less and tired mess of a sequel is watchable and even mildly entertaining in a dubious, unpleasantly trashy way, but it has virtually none of the original's flair, emotion, intelligence or excitement. Instead we have just another empty spectacle of a blockbuster whose only reason to exist seems to be to nauseate the viewer with relentless violence, which is far more brainlessly gratuitous than anything in the original. Omni Consumer Products, who made the original Robocop cyborg, have turned into more of a totalitarian force than ever second time round, what with the suspicious Nazi-esquire banners, stormtrooper guards and tanks for hire at the end; as for the anonymous Old Man (Daniel O' Herlihy), he's less of a benevolent protector and more of a hideous Mr. Burns type, surrounding himself with moronic lackeys who genuinely believe that putting the brain of a murderous psychopath into the body of the all-new Robocop 2 is a good idea. Oh, and the first Robocop gets a look in somewhere amidst all of this mess, though you wonder what on Earth a fine actor like Peter Weller saw in the script. The droll Tom Noonan has nothing to work with as the villain, while Nancy Allen is badly wasted as Robocop's partner. There are some hilarious moments throughout; the opening 'Magnavolt' commercial, for instance, but this is a poor follow-up to the truly great original.

Sentiment: negative
It is cheese. If all you want is a video game, complete with what look like straight-from-the-computer cutaway sequences for action the film was too cheap to actually make special effects for, this is it. My friend and I actually had a great time seeing it, since the theatre was mostly empty and we could heckle a bit. This movie REALLY requires heckling.

Plot? There was a plot? OK, some stupid college or later types get invited to "the rave of the year" and go to one of the San Juan Islands ("If they'd only stayed back in Seattle, they would have survived." - direct quote, or nearly.) to attend. They get there and everyone is gone, and the site is somewhat wrecked (but hey, the keg is still full!). With the help of a crusty old captain and a coast guard woman (who acted only slightly less tough - and slightly less well - than Cynthia Rothrock), they fight lots of zombies (some which spit acid), get an earful of freaky legends, and mostly get killed. That's about it.

It's not quite as BAD as Demonicus, but not by much, and still better than Severed (they are sort of my own personal alpha and omega for bad movies - the former is bad but fun to heckle, and the latter is just too freaking bad to watch more than once). On the other hand, if you're expecting a video game movie as excellent as Resident Evil, run away!!! run away now!!!

OK, some real big questions (without too many spoilers): Since when did Spanish ships of the 18th century venture into the Pacific Northwest????? Why is anyone in the Pacific Northwest smuggling guns, and to whom - CANADA, for crying out loud??? Why is a rave on an unnamed (oh, excuse me, it's called "isla del muerto", shya, right) San Juan Island - and outdoors, still keeping in mind this is THE PACIFIC NORTHWET. And the rave has about 30 people in attendance - "the rave of the year," my patoot.

Lucky thing there's lots of hatchets around. Lots of them. Everyone has them. Must be a hatchet sales outlet nearby.

Finally, while the movie started out playing with a little "parody" (with nudges at I Know What You Did and Jaws), it didn't carry it through near enough.

OK, really finally - when the introductory comments (in a voice-over, no less) casually mention that one of the characters "gave up her boyfriend to focus on her fencing" you can be darn sure there'll be some fencing by the end of the movie. Not GOOD fencing, but a couple of people hacking at each other with swords, anyway.

Sentiment: negative
Greenthumb Grace is left penniless after her husbands death so she turns to ganja-growing in order to pay the bills. It sounds promising and the ever-reliable Brenda Blethyn doesn't disappoint but the material is sitcom-thin. There's actually a scene where Grace asks her young gardener to "Give me one" (a toke) and he thinks she's asking for sex and acts all awkward. Yes, it's humour so twee a nun would be bored. Saving Grace doesn't seem to know what it wants to be: the stunning cinematography and stately pace evoke memories of Ryan's Daughter whilst the light-hearted whimsy of the country townsfolk could be lifted from any episode of Antiques Roadshow. It does speed up after the first hour but by then it's too clichéd to care. The climax manages to be unpredictable only by introducing the most shameless Deux ex Machina I've ever seen.

Sentiment: negative
I was fortunate enough to see this movie on pre-release last night and, though I wasn't expecting to, actually really enjoyed the movie for the most part. The rescues and sea effects were amazing to watch and definitely provided edge of the seat tense moments, probably all the more so knowing that there are guys who do this for a living. The weaker parts of the movie revolve largely around using stereotypical set scenes. I'm not going to spoil the movie but this really follows along the lines of An Officer and a Gentleman and those moments give it a little bit of a cheesy aftertaste.

Like I said over all this movie is pretty good and worth checking out as long as you can get past the clichés.

Sentiment: positive
Man, I really find it hard to believe that the wonderful Alan Ball had anything to do with this mess. Having seen the first two episodes thus far, I think I can safely say this show isn't going to be on my must see list. It's just got so many things working against it.

None of the actors cast are particularly good. Anna Paquin as the lead character Sookie, is just awful. I remember her being better in a lot of other things I've seen her in so maybe it's just the writing. She's not really much fun to look at either, there are moments where to be honest she looks downright ugly. The actor who plays Bill is marginally better, if only because his character is supposed to be sort of wooden and aloof. The other actors do their best but with the cliché characters with difficult to perform accents they are given it's a tough job. Tara is an absolute misery to watch, Rutina Wesley absolutely murders the accent. It's like nails on a chalkboard bad. Almost as awful is Nelsan Ellis, it's difficult to understand what he's even saying sometimes. Both his character as well as Tara's also seem a bit racist to me. I don't know, having a character say 'whycome' on an HBO show that isn't The Wire just seems a bit odd. Rounding out the cast so far are Sookie's doddering grandmother, her sex addict brother, and the only bit of genius casting I've seen in William Sanderson as the sheriff.

The story seems to be meandering towards it's destination at this point, with no real worry about keeping the viewer interested. The romance stuff is very Dark Shadow-sy. Although this show ups the camp factor from something like those old Dark Shadows episodes times about ten. At times it seemed so campy to me, that I just have to assume it was intended to be. But unlike a show such as Buffy, that pulled camp off masterfully, this show does not. Out of place with the campiness is the extreme gore and graphic sex of the show. I'm not averse to either of these when they are done well, as they have in many other HBO shows but here at least they prolonged rough sex scenes involving Jason Stackhouse seem a bit over the top and pointless.

About the only nice thing I can really think to say about this mess is that I liked the opening title sequence. HBO has had a string of bad luck with their shows lately, I hope they cancel this after the first season and try to get something better on the air.

Sentiment: negative
The cookie-cutter gets to work overtime in this obvious and unoriginal love story. The plot, such as it is, has been done before a trillion times so there is no need to recount any of it. Suffice to say that all 12 year old girls will love this movie while the rest of us will be forced to make a face. Even the soundtrack is awful! Its not that I dislike figure skating, although I don't, its that I dislike cliched, bad movies.

Sentiment: negative
It holds very true to the original manga of the same name, aka (Tramps Like Us in the U.S) but it can still be enjoyed even if you haven't read the manga. It's a different kind of tail, showing a strong and independent woman who hurts just like everyone else. However, because of her outward strength, she fears showing her inner feelings and thus let's those around her hurt her with their blunt comments. The only one who truly figures her out and who she can be at ease with is her new pet...human...Momo. If you want something different than the normal boring stuff with some wonderful J-Dorama (Japanese Drama) actors/resses then this is definitely the series to watch...and read!

Sentiment: positive
In all truth, this really isn't a "movie" so much as an extended final episode; by this I mean that, had you NOT followed the TV series (Homicide: Life On The Street) I suspect that you would have a hard time following this made-for-tv movie. Having said that, "Homicide: The Movie" is still a great watch. I think it says a lot about a television production that EVERY single cast member would return, many after years of absence, to once again portray their characters and bring closure to an incredible program. The movie brings out that sense of "family", not only amongst the characters, but amongst the actors, as well. It's all very bitter-sweet knowing that this will be the LAST time we will see them all together again under the title of HOMICIDE. Story-wise, I found this film somewhat lacking. Giardello's mayoral candidacy seems particularly contrived, and I felt his shooting could've been dealt with within the parameters of his regular position, as Leiutenant. Also, Det. Bayliss's extreme plot twist, which was left hanging at series end, is finally resolved, but I, for one, NEVER felt that it needed to be; I enjoyed being left with a mystery (let us recall that the very first episode's first case also went unsolved for the entire series run!). As a DEVOTED fan of the TV series I can love this movie, and the fact that it even got made after H:LOTS had been canceled, but I would not recommend it to anyone who hasn't had the slightest exposure to the series. Now, if they'd just release it on DVD...

Sentiment: positive
WOW!! Talk about a film that divides the audience! This is a real love it or loath it kinda movie. Personally I really enjoyed it. I noticed that other reviews are comparing it to Pitch Black - this is kinda dumb as the only thing they have in common is SAND! People can be real stupid. No, this film is far more in common with The Thing (how people fail to notice is amazing - they even have the same basic music) Lots of Carpenter touches are there, blue collar heroes, sharp humor, endless rolling landscapes full of death and things not understood. Perhaps what stops this film being a real classic is it's deference to other Carpenter works. Not least Dark Star which it has something in common with. I'd be interested to know how much it REALLY cost? $8000? Is that even possible? Maybe it was based on a short film that cost $8000? But I did find myself strangely moved when the various space dudes died. They are so underplayed that it's like watching a documentary at times. Having said that the script is kinda clunky and only about half of them can act however and I'm not sure the big guy playing the Captain is one of them. But his gun is AWESOME!! Give it a chance, if you like early Carpenter you might fall for it, just don't expect 2001.

Sentiment: positive
George Brent is a reporter sent to interview an heiress. She is supposedly the heir to a face cream fortune. He interviews her on her yacht. They fall for each other in bathing costumes.

It turns out (quite early) that she is not an heiress. She part of an advertising campaign for the cold cream.

The movie follows the ups and downs of their romance.

The supporting cast does little to buoy it up. Davis and Brent carry the picture. Though it's fairly predictable, it is also fairly entertaining. It's far from her best. But, especially considering its obscurity in her oeuvre, it's not one of her worst, either.

Sentiment: negative
Im still in doubt if this is just a horrible movie or the worse movie i ever saw. Actors are painful and its impossible to get into the text.

Don't waist your time into this movie. 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.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.

Sentiment: negative
This is a finely crafted movie with moving sequences, humor, and best of all a love story. Anthony Quinn is wonderfully casted and after seeing several of his movies, this has to be categorized as one of his best performances, besides Zorba. The movie makes you really wonder if its filmed in Romania, which apparently is not the case. It is sure to fool even native Romanians, with its authentic-like landscape, costume, and ways of life. According to IMDb it is actually shot in France and Yugoslavia, hmmm. The story is compelling, making you want to watch the entire movie over, to see if you missed something. It provoked me into researching to find out if this is a truth based movie, but to my disappointment, it is a novel based film, seemingly fiction. It seems a bit far fetched to have happened for real, but one never knows.... The one problem with this film, is that it doesn't seem to cast any Romanian actors, and it is a film about a Romanian character. There are probably many Romanian fill-ins in the beginning, but maybe not, it is filmed elsewhere. The author of the book was Romanian, at least thats all fine and dandy - overall a masterpiece in cinematography.

Sentiment: positive
I am currently doing film studies at A.S level and "this is not a love song" is a film we watched and in my opinion it is a film with a very simple storyline but a complex back-story. If you scratch the surface you will find a thriller-chase film of two men running through the countryside from farmers, after committing a murder:-"sounds quite exiting".

However you need to dig deeper to uncover the true feeling of the true genre. As it is suggested, it is a love story between two homosexual lovers, filled with trust, deceit and betrayal. We are not told about this "love" directly through the film but the events that happen through out, for example the way Heaton acts towards Spike almost screams this untouched love affair in our faces.

Overall this film is a good example of why British films should not be dismissed as "rubbish" just because they are done on a low budget.

A Good film with an intricate story line, however it is definitely an acquired taste and is possibly not suitable for the average fan of Hollywood blockbusters.

Sentiment: positive
It's a shame this movie is so hard to get your hands on in the US. I found it through a rare video dealer, and it was certainly worth it. This is, without a doubt, the best film made during the pre-code era, and the finest film of the 1930s. Masterful director Frank Borzage made wonderful films about the Depression, and with MAN'S CASTLE he created a fairy tale amidst the hardships of the era.

Loretta Young and Spencer Tracy have a wonderful chemistry between them, and they help make this movie a wonderful romance. Young's Trina is sweet and hopeful, while Tracy's Bill is gruff and closed-off. The dynamic between the character creates one of the most difficult, but in the end rewarding relationships on film.

MAN'S CASTLE is the most soft-focus pre-code film I've seen. Borzage uses the hazy and dreamy technique to turn the squatter's village where Bill and Trina live into a palace. The hardships of the Depression are never ignored, in fact they're integral to the film. But as Borzage crafts the film as a soft focus fairy tale, the love between the characters makes the situation seem less harsh. It makes the film warm and affectionate.

MAN'S CASTLE is the crowning achievement of the pre-code era. If only more people could see it.

Sentiment: positive
Someone reviewed this movie as a "waste of time" because he/she was expecting the "beautiful scenery of Brazil and Portugal" but then everything looked "washed out" or gloomy, or something to that effect. I believe this person missed the entire part of the film. This is reality. The point of this movie is to show that life is not, indeed, ideal, and to show what people go through in their lives for family, love, and survival. A young man leaves his slum in Sao Paolo, Brazil, to go to Portugal to visit his mother's home country after her death. He discovers that not everything is free, and that Brazilians are looked down upon by native people from Portugal. He eventually finds a life, a love, but the story does not end as expected and this is not a "fairy tale" story. The part that got me most was the ending song, "Zeca Bailero (Honey Baby)" by Gal Costa. It fit so well with the movie; especially the ending.

Sentiment: positive
I was able to watch this movie in its entirety and was deeply moved by it. I wasn't sure if it was really a comedy or a drama - it had elements of both. Mary Tyler Moore and Valerie Harper both looked wonderful - our image of 60-year-old women has certainly changed since Aunt Bee! They are vibrant, beautiful, sexy! The only drawback in this movie was that there was absolutely no mention of other characters in either the "MTM" or "Rhoda" shows from the 1970's. I'd have thought that since it was set in New York City (where "Rhoda" had been set) that at least some mention would have been made of her sister Brenda or that Julie Kavner would have appeared, assuming of course she was still in the Big Apple.

It is my hope that ABC will make this a series and bring back for guest appearances all the old casts of these shows. By the way, what was wrong with CBS doing this reunion, or an eventual series? Wasn't that the network that carried the "MTM" and "Rhoda" shows?

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie on video with a couple of friends as part of a teen comedy triple header, alongside Dorm Daze and Going Greek. Obviously we weren't going for quality, but for air-headed entertainment and gross-out gags. Generally we got what we came for, but Wild Roomies really stood out: For being awful.

First impression first, the cover: The Norwegian release cover showed breasts covered up and a bunch of seemingly "crazy" roomies in the background; Brings up pictures of drunken semi-naked teenagers doing bunches of funny stuff stuff doesn't it?- The "crazy" roomies on the cover were not even featured in the picture. And the funny stuff you assume they'll be doing?- Absent as well.

This movie was labeled comedy, which is a bit strange since it not even remotely funny. Relationship drama would be more accurate.

Put shortly the movie is about a young couple inheriting a swanky house in LA, and are forced to get some roomies to make ends meet. These roommates eventually put both the young couple's patience and relationship to the test because they're so "wild". Problem is, they're not. And here lies the problem of this movie: The protagonist couple are so anal-retentive and neurotic that they manage to generate zero sympathy. You'll find yourself rooting for the antagonist roomies halfway through the movie. Add mediocre acting, lame dialogue and boring direction and you got yourself a movie that is best left unseen.

See something else.

Sentiment: negative
I switched this on (from cable) on a whim and was treated to quite a surprise...although very predictable this film turned out to be quite enjoyable...no big stars but well-directed and just plain fun. With all the over-hyped crap that is out there it is very nice to get an unexpected surprise now and then... and this little film fits the bill nicely. 9/10

Sentiment: positive
Watching it now it's still as skanky and sexist as I remember. comes from a time when girls were "Dolly Birds" and basically men's playthings. It's hard to take in that it is from the Hammer studios and the fact it's available on DVD when good films are not. Our nations shame where the working class are portrayed as work shy layabouts or worse! Trouble is you can't help feeling nostalgic for a Clippie on a bus. Try to hold your stomach contents when you see Olive in a fluffy? Blue "saucy" nightie or something similar like Shirley Bassey used to wear for a concert in 1972. Warning this film shows the illegal practice of towing a motorcycle combo by a red double decker bus, which I've been informed is not a Routemaster but a Bristol.

Look just don't bother watch something decent instead like Porridge or Dad's Army...or a fly crawling up a wall.

Sentiment: negative
This movie still chills me to the bone thinking of it. This movie was not just bad as in low-budget, badly acted, etc. although it certainly WAS all of those things. The problem with this movie is that it seemed to be intentionally trying to annoy the viewer, and doing it with great success. What I want to know is, is this supposed to be a horror movie? I mean, it's definately horrifying, but not in the way horror movies are supposed to be. I could see the first segment trying to be horror and failing, but what the hell is the second segment? It's just annoying. The third segment is like watching an artsy student film, which amazingly enough makes it the least painful segment. It's an atrocity that this movie isn't way low on the bottom 100, so get your votes (1/10) in people!! I know some people gave this good reviews, but, well, they're lying in a sadistic attempt to trick you. Trust me, it is impossible to like this movie. The only benefit of this movie is an amazing life-extending effect: it feels like you've been watching this movie for years after only the first half hour has passed.

Sentiment: negative
I admit creating great expectations before watching because some friends mentioned it (and they are not pervs!) as a must see. And it is a must see! Just don't expect to see something outbreaking.

The Freudian psychoanalyzes are interesting in many parts of the film, but there's just too much perversion and it doesn't stick in the end.

Some of the good things are the analyzes of Kieslowski's Blue, most of David Lynch's, some of Hitchcock's and perhaps a couple more I missed (I just remembered...Dogville), and I usually don't miss things unless they are too obvious or loose in the air.

Other than being repetitive, which makes it too long, the documentary is enjoyable in the sense of noticing some perversions fed by our unconscious, hence the commercial success of most thrillers studied and used as basis for this theory.

I really enjoyed the energetic tone of the narration and the effort of Mr. Zizek to revive Freud's theory, which has been numb for too long, specially in north America. Again, it's way over the top and I believe not to be a completely waste of time for I do believe most humans have a dark appreciation for death and blood.

Sentiment: positive
Drew Latham(Ben Affleck)is determined not to be lonely this Christmas. Not only is Drew a millionaire; but also obnoxious and guilty of being very grandiose. Drew goes back to the home he grew up in and offers the family living there, the Valco's, $250,000 to be his "family" through the Christmas season. Tom Valco(James Gandolfini)is reluctant, but is greedy enough to take Drew's offer. Christine Valco(Catherine O'Hara)has little to say in the matter, but learns to like having Drew around...not exactly the same sentiment with daughter Alicia(Christina Applegate), but that too has room for change. Drew's girlfriend Missy(Jennifer Morrison)tracks down Drew and wants her folks to meet his family. Genuine fun is in store as a happy Noel becomes a hilarious dysfunctional nightmare. Other members of the cast: Josh Zuckerman, Bill Macy, David Selby and Stephanie Faracy. Affleck is comedic, albeit strange.

Sentiment: negative
It's hard to believe that with a cast as strong as this one has, that this movie can be such a dud. It's such an incredibly horrible film. How was it ever made? How did so many good actors wind up in such a terrible film? Don't waste your life. Don't watch even one moment of this film.

Sentiment: negative
Poor Robert Englund makes another flop and to the expense of Tobe Hooper who usually makes pretty good horror movies but he failed pretty bad at this one. Englund plays the well known Marque De Sade who in the 17th century was enprisoned for his obsession of pain and the pleasure of bringing pain upon himself as well as watching others also be in pain. The story is so confusing with the flip flop from one century to another and I became confused as to what was going on and what was the purpose of this movie. All I saw was a young lady that became entrapped by a strange lesbian who desides to keep her to herself and the young lady became fascinated by this Arabian with alot of money and finds out that he's out to have her killed and then Englund steps in from one century to another claiming to be a descendent of the de Sade and tries to kill her because she reminded him of the Madam Momoselle(spelled that wrong) or whoever it was in the picture above De Sades wall. The movie was terrible, I am surprised at Hooper for hireing Englund in this film and the special effects were so fake and laughable, especially the part about the eyes. Englund tries to make a comeback from his once hit move "Nightmare on Elm St." by using these pull in and out needles to put out peoples eyes. Terrible, absolutely terrible.

Sentiment: negative
This Showtime movie really deserves a far better viewer rating than a 4.5; I gave it a 10 based on the story and the acting of the two stars. After reading the viewer comments, I was surprised at how many folks expected this movie to be a comedy. Yeah, I see that IMDb lists it as Comedy/Drama under Genre. That sure is misleading, isn't it? Fortunately, I saw the movie before logging onto this website so I did not have that expectation. In fact, based on the synopsis of what I heard, I fully expected it to simply be a Drama. I'm wondering if disappoint at this not being a funny movie caused so many low votes.

Another factor that might have caused low votes is that this movie is very much 'character-driven'. 'Driving Miss Daisy' is an example of another character-driven movie that comes to mind. Someone's previous comment complained about a boring trial. Tom's (Danny Glover) work scenes seemed to distract from the real plot of the movie. That is, how he was engineering the upward social climb of his family - or his personal troops, if you will. However, they served to establish credibility and justification as his right to move to Greenwich and move 'up' in the world.

Tom's obsession became a compulsion. He proved that he would stop at nothing to blend into the white neighborhood. His chagrin when another black person moved next door was not due to skin color. It was because of everything the 'interloper' represented; everything that Tom had left behind. In essence, Tom had become an Oreo cookie: Black on the outside but White on the inside.

The last 20 minutes of this movie are among the most powerfully written, directed and acted (by Whoopi Goldberg) I have ever had the pleasure to witness. I realized that the climax of the film was not the obvious event that happened next door (don't want to give it away). The climax is verbal and Whoopi delivers it. I am still not clear if it is the conversation when she informs Tom which college Tom -Two is going to or when she releases it, all in the middle of the night and Tom wakes up. Nevertheless, the denouement is great. You know that life on that street will never be the same.

My favorite kind of character-driven flick: people go through problems, some pain, do their dance, they grow, they change, and life goes on. As an audience member, I may learn something or be inspired.

Sentiment: positive
Not as bad as some are making it out to be, though obviously pathetic compared to the original. In my opinion Amitabh was great as the villain Babban Singh - try not to compare to Gabbar in the original as they were clearly not going for the same effect. Other than some mediocre action scenes however, the rest of the film is flawed. Character development was poor and the development of the story was hopeless, with many loopholes, and missing pieces of information which i wouldn't have known if i hadn't read the back of the DVD case. The worst part of the movie was the support roles from Nisha Kothari and especially this new dude called Prashant Raj. Nisha is just plain annoying from the time her lips first open. As for Prashant Raj - seriously who is this guy? where is he from and why on earth was he present in the film studio for anything other than to serve drinks?. His acting ability is zero and he has the same tone, dialog delivery and staunch expression in every scene, whether it be action, comedy, or even a scene when someone has just died. Ajay Devgan was average, at least his expressions changed which is more than i can say for his mistake of a companion. overall, RGV's Aag is worth watching for Amitabh's solid performance, and also a very sexy Urmilla Matondkar in a special appearance.

Sentiment: negative
A letter to the guys. I tried guys, I really tried! I tried so hard not to watch this movie. I would leave the room when it was on or jump on the computer when the wife watched it. This is her second favorite movie, the Godfather being first (which I love).

I ended up catching little bits of this movie and finally after maybe a year I was actually sitting down watching it with her. I can't believe I am saying this, but I loved this movie. Dalton plays a great Rhett and has his cockiness down pat. Whalley plays a delightful Scarlett. Full of fire and brimstone and NOTHING is going to stop her.

My favorite scene is when she is overseas in (Ireland?) and the government is going to tear down a peasant's house because they are behind in the rent. Scarlett gets all mad at this and pays the entire debt, thus making a huge name for herself around this small town.

All I'm saying guys is you might want to try this movie... especially if you are a fan of Gone with the Wind. It does take a little bit to get used to the new actors, but I think you will find them refreshing.

Sentiment: positive
I was truly surprised when I first saw this movie directed by Iain Softley; it differs in so much ways from the usual Hollywood mass-production. The plot itself is simple - Kevin Spacey plays a mental patient Prot who claims to be from the planet K-pax who arrived to Earth by a beam of light, while Dr. Powell played by Jeff Bridges tries to help him to solve his delusions... First of all, I must admit the cast is perfectly chosen: Kevin Spacey is really brilliant in portraying the intriguing character of Prot, always walking in the fine line of convincing us that it is real and then making us wonder whether he is delusional or not... Some of the gem scenes include the one where Prot innocently eats the whole banana (even the peal) while in session with Dr. Powell; or the observatory scene where he confidently shows his knowledge of the K-Pax system to the astonished astronomers... Jeff Bridges on the other hand is the subtle, rational side of this movie, and he delivers it perfectly. There is a whole other cast of excellent actors (like Saul Williams' convincing performance as Ernie) who make this film truly work.

K-pax has it all, elements of comedy; Sci-Fi, even psychological thriller (concerning the Prot's identity) but most importantly it can be categorized as a heartwarming drama. The main premise of the movie is quite intricate, but the director never lets it get loose, he always keeps it believable and yet two-ways interpretable. The camera and photography have almost a crucial part here, continuing the main idea of light travel, there is much focus on light-shadow play, lightning settings - one of the memorable scenes is where Dr. Powell holds a crystal figure in his office which refracts light in a beautiful way while all the time he suspects can the idea be true? 

Subtle and slow paced, intriguing and pleasurable, K-pax is truly a gem to watch, one of the kind movie that may not be for all tastes, but those who see it - might fall in love with it.

Sentiment: positive
"Intensive Care" by Dorna von Rouveroy is easily one of the worst horror movies ever made.This extremely cheap Dutch slasher flick offers some gore and plenty of absurd situations.A horror veteran George Kennedy is completely wasted as as Professor Bruckner.The acting is abysmal,the action is slow and the climax is laughable.A famous surgeon has a car accident.He lies in a coma seven years and then he wakes up and goes on a bloody rampage."Intensive Care" is clearly influenced by American slasher films including "Halloween" and "Friday the 13th" series.The killings are hilarious and the dialogs are painfully stupid.Still if you are in the right mood you can give this piece of trash a look.You'll laugh until it hurts with this one-you can believe me!

Sentiment: negative
Hartley on low-key form: Martin Donovan, born to play Jesus, comes as Messiah to millenial Manhatten; P.J. Harvey is excellent as sidekick Magdelena. A slight film, but drily amusing, short and sweet.

Sentiment: positive
I find it sad that just because Edward Norton did not want to be in the film or have anything to do with it, people automatically think the movie sucks without even watching it or giving it a chance. I really hope Norton did not do this. He is a fine actor and all but he scared people away from a decent movie.

I found it entertaining. It wasn't mind blowing or anything with crazy special effects, but it was not a bad. It was fun to watch. But yea, definitely not a bad/horrible movie.

7/10

Sentiment: positive
There is no relation at all between Fortier and Profiler but the fact that both are police series about violent crimes. Profiler looks crispy, Fortier looks classic. Profiler plots are quite simple. Fortier's plot are far more complicated... Fortier looks more like Prime Suspect, if we have to spot similarities... The main character is weak and weirdo, but have "clairvoyance". People like to compare, to judge, to evaluate. How about just enjoying? Funny thing too, people writing Fortier looks American but, on the other hand, arguing they prefer American series (!!!). Maybe it's the language, or the spirit, but I think this series is more English than American. By the way, the actors are really good and funny. The acting is not superficial at all...

Sentiment: positive
This film had me spellbound this evening. Thanks to Fox Movie Classics for showing it uninterrupted. John Voight, this cast of little known black actresses and most of all, the children, made this a worthy way to spend a Sunday evening. How wonderful to see the early work of this seasoned actor, as well as Paul Winfield's excellent portrayal of Mad Billy. I can't see why anyone would say that Hume Cronyn is miscast in the role as superintendent. Who would they have chosen? The shrill character actor, Charles Lane? Although his career is laudable, an actor such as Lane would have cheapened the role. Cronyn was an excellent choice for the part. I will count this film as a true treasure to hold in memory.

Sentiment: positive
This is a Hollywood film. The credentials of those involved are not revolutionary. This film will not change the world. However, it is well-made, well-plotted, and well-acted, which counts for a lot.

It's the cat-and-mouse story of a disgruntled former-CIA assassin who feels betrayed chasing a Secret Service agent who was protecting John F. Kennedy when Kennedy was killed in Dallas. The agent has been understandably troubled by this failure during the subsequent years of his career and when the movie picks up in 1992-or certainly in contemporary America, this would-be assassin Mitch Leary (John Malkovich in a tour-de-force of creepiness in which he gives a transformative performance) has been consumed with frustration and anger and decides that he is going to assassinate the President. He imagines he has common cause with Secret Service Agent Frank Horrigan (Clint Eastwood at his cool, calm, good-naturedly grouchy best) who he believes should hold a grudge as he does because the Warren Commission, blamed Horrigan-unfairly, Leary believes-for the assassination of President Kennedy. The tension is ratcheted up through some phone calls from Leary to Horrigan-Leary wanting to keep Horrigan close but not to betray his location and plans.

Rene Russo is excellent as Lily Raines a fellow agent with whom Horrigan develops a grown- up relationship. It is nice to see a relationship between two equally competent peers (even if Russo is a fair deal younger than Eastwood at the time of filming). Russo is a calm, capable agent who is able to go toe-to-toe with the quick-witted Horrigan in friendly banter. It is a nice part for Russo, allowing her to play the role of a capable professional woman and not just the default romantic interest of the older man. The acting by the leads, Wolfgang Peterson's competent direction, the thoughtful use of music in plot development, and excellent cinematography make this a film I can watch over and over.

Sentiment: positive
No scenario, bad actors (poor Melissa Gilbert)... Beurk Beurk Beurk ...

Give a such budget to make this... In Belgium, we make ten films which win all prices in Cannes with this.

Last time that I've seen a such NULL-Film was Hypercube. But scenario was better.

Is anyone knows if the director was a graduate in school-film or a cop ?

The better things in this film was the word "End".

Why authorize to sell this ? 1ç is to expensive. 

I've pay ten dollars to buy this.

For me, pay for this was my BIG MISTAKE of millennium.

Too bad.

Next time I'll break my arm but buy this type of sh*t.

Sentiment: negative
Richard Schickel's 1991 documentary about Gary Cooper - "Gary Cooper: American Life, American Legend" gives us a look at the tremendous, all-American star through his films and his life. Narrated by Clint Eastwood, the theme is definitely "Gary Coooper, American" as we are taken through fast clips of his many appearances in westerns, and scenes from "Meet John Doe," "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, and "Sgt. York." The best part of the documentary is the home movies of Cooper and his family as well as his childhood photos, showing him as a beautiful blonde kid with the sunny smile he would have his entire life. There is also a hilarious clip of Cooper on "The Jack Benny Show" doing the comeback on the number "Bird Dog" - and Benny loses it. The documentary also takes us briefly through his tumultuous affair with Patricia Neal, which nearly ruined both their lives.

There's a certain cohesiveness missing from this bio/retrospective - it jumps around a lot and has no footage of Cooper being interviewed, which would have added a lot. Also, Clint Eastwood's narration was described as unobtrusive. What it was, was boring and monotone. Given that Cooper himself tended to be the strong, silent type on screen, we could have used a little animation.

On a personal note, Gary Cooper was one of the handsomest men who ever lived - there were some looks at him in his early films, but not nearly enough for this fan. That smile, those lips, that bone structure - he was handsome throughout his life, but in films like "Morocco" and "Desire," he is devastating. Instead of sitting through a scene from one of his worst performances, as Howard Roark in "The Fountainhead," giving a speech that he admitted to the author he did not understand - a young, suave Cooper in a tux would have been a nice touch. This documentary, alas, was definitely produced by a man.

Sentiment: positive
Me and my friend rented this movie for $2.50. And we both agree on one thing:

THIS IS THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE!

Also me and my friend counted 475 face shots. (Which makes up 95% of the movie).

So in other words: DO SEE THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU LIKE WASTING MONEY! And I do!



Sentiment: negative
this a haunting piece of work.its only ten minutes long but i would sooner pay ten bucks into the cinema to see this than to see any full lenght movie currently doing the rounds. it is a simple piece of a man's reflection.he arrived a young man in this place and was mesmerised by a room and the music coming from it...and now here he sits,dying in old age in this place he so fondly connects to his youth. the music in it is brilliant,the guitars have that jazz-room twang like neil young's music in dead man. if you get the chance,watch this film.its worth it.if rutger hauer made more films like this i think he would get more respect than he gets.at the moment you hear him put under phrases like "everybody's favourite psycho".im sure that is not what rutger would want to be rememered as an actor for.he also directed this film,so in this shows that he a very artistic actor/director.a change from the b-grade movies he has been doing since the early 90's.i hope to see more of this rutger hauer as he is one of my favourite actors.

Sentiment: positive
very disappointing and incoherent - every now and then a germ of an idea would develop and be discarded in the next line - it had the feel of a film that had been cut and re-cut to try and make it work - I was bored and distracted all the way through, and I'm speaking as a huge fan of the series. Many of the jokes were unoriginal and tired, The medieval section went on far too long and the quality of acting was very poor - some on the tiny guest spots, like Simon Peg and Liam Cunningham did more in their alloted 30 secs than the main cast did in 90 Min's.

It's a shame, really.

The only really interesting thing was getting a look inside the little shed on Soho Square - which is something everyone who is ever in that part of London wonders about.

Sentiment: negative