DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Marlene Dietrich is magnificent as Concha Perez, the temptress who drives all men to despair in Josef Von Sternberg's "The Devil is a Woman". Her performance has nothing to do with 'acting' in any conventional sense but she's incandescent, a true star in full command of her material. But she's the only good thing about the film, (she's so good she keeps you watching this dross; I doubt if any other actress could have done the same).

The story is an appallingly lame melodrama, (surely Pierre Louys' novel was better), in which Dietrich's amoral Concha ruins the lives of two friends played by Lionel Atwill and Cesar Romero with a stiffness bordering on petrification. And for Von Sternberg it's an ugly looking movie, (maybe in keeping with its fairly ugly subject matter). Bunuel, on the other hand, thought enough of it to remake it as "That Obscure Object of Desire" with a greater emphasis on the surrealist aspects of it all, down to casting two different actresses in the same role. Neither film is either director's finest hour and while the Bunuel version may be the better film, it is Dietrich's 'performance' you remember.

Sentiment: negative
You have GOT to see this movie... I saw it, as a 13 year old, at the theater, on my very first date... Fast forward over 20 years and I'm now gay (Thanks a lot One Dark Night!! LOL!). This movie creeped the hell out of me as a kid (mausoleums still do!), but as an adult, the thrill of this movie isn't in the storyline, but rather the hysterical laughs it holds... Highlights are listening to the names the teenagers call each other, from "nerdlebrain" (my personal favorite) to "turkey". Also, keep your eyes peeled for the scene where Carol (the blond, head sister) attempts to hang her phone up on a soda can (can't believe they didn't reshoot that!)... Other highlights include Adam West's overly dramatic outbursts and the gooey corpses. If you're a fan of true horror, I'd suggest this film just because, to me, it's almost a parody on horror. There is def. a creepy factor and the plot is a good one, but don't watch it if you want to be scared out of your wits (unless you're like 10 years old or something).

Sentiment: positive
I saw this when it first came out, and found it to be a work of some genius; but I must confess I was clearly in the minority at the time.

For me, the progressive lunacy of the proprietors of Guest House Paradiso just gets better and better throughout the film, with one of the most hilarious climaxes to a film ever.

But I wouldn't recommend it to Mother.

Lovers of gross-out comic book style humour will appreciate this movie; there are subtle jokes hidden away, but they are usually quickly flattened by a comedy frying pan. Rik Mayall and Ade Edmondson are superb, and the deadpan, unsuspecting guests are also excellent.

Sentiment: positive
Cage (1989) was another one of those low budget "buddy" action flicks that were produced during the 80's thanks in large part due to the films such as 48hrs. and Lethal Weapon. This one stars Reb Brown and Lou Ferrigno as to former Vietnam Vets who happen to run a local dive bar. Reb takes care of Lou because he saved his life in 'Nam. But Lou was shot in the head and is now pretty soft. Although he's huge, Lou has the brain of a child. One day some ruffians throw their wait around in the bar and Lou and Rebb beat the tar out of them. But payback's a mother. They crash the bar leaving Lou and Reb with nothing. That is until these two thugs come into the picture (one of them's a real nice guy) who have a plan in mind.

The film's a waste of time. Maybe if they went all they way and made a hard core action flick instead of trying to tone down the gruesomeness of the situation perhaps it could have worked. Alas, it doesn't and the audience is left holding the bag. Oh well. It's too bad because you have all the elements for a great B-movie. Better luck next time, I guess.

Not recommended.

xxx

Sentiment: negative
Very good 1939 film where John Garfield plays another boxer who becomes a victim when everyone thinks he has committed a murder. Trouble is that the killer and Garfield's girl, Ann Sheridan, in a brief but good performance, get killed while trying to elude the police.

A crooked attorney persuades Garfield to flee N.Y. He lands in Arizona and meets up with the Dead End Kids.. They've been sent there by a funding program to keep them out of further trouble.

Of course, Garfield finds a new love interest but must conceal his identity as everyone thinks he was not only the killer but was the victim in the car crash.

May Robson is fabulous as the grandma type running the place for the wayward youth. Claude Rains is also effective in the role of the detective who suspects that Garfield is still alive and pursues him when a picture is snapped of him in Arizona.

The film really deals with Garfield's relation to the boys. While the ending is good, you want to see Garfield go back to N.Y. to proclaim his innocence.

Sentiment: positive
There are some elements that save this movie from being a total catastrophe, but are overshadowed with bad acting, plot holes, deus ex machina thrown ins, stupid dialogs, weak script, and predictable clichés...

What we have here is a horror movie with a storyline that goes nowhere for most of the time. A group of unlikely heroes including a black guy that gets it first (yeah, that cliché seems to be still very much alive even in Finland), seem to have trouble trying to exit a mysteriously empty hospital. There are shrieking ghosts (very imaginative), zombies (at one point I thought at least they didn't use zombies, but they came), and Finnish glam-rock band with demonic make-up on, getting in their way. There is also some time-shift doodle present, but it adds up nothing to the storyline. Autistic girl and a hobo seem to have some deeper understanding of a situation, but they never spell it out to the viewer, or their confused friends. Their lines consist only of profound life lesson thoughts like: "What happens will happen..." or "Light can't live in the darkness..." or the ominous "I need a red crayon... red crayon." So all this characters (including worried father and sweet doctor in distress types) end up doing is running around them dark floors, and from or mistakenly to the demons. Occasionally a ghost or a group of zombies show up, and if it seems a demon keyboardist can't spot a group of six people coming towards it, waving a flashlight and conversing, it was just pretending. And apparently this demon can break through walls without much hassle, but opening elevator door is beyond its capabilities.

In the end we even get a "it was all a dream" sequence twist. Or maybe it wasn't. Oh, boy I wish this movie was, and that kind that makes time seem to move faster so it all plays out in just 10 minutes or so...

Sentiment: negative
Something surprised me about this movie - it was actually original. It was not the same old recycled crap that comes out of Hollywood every month.

I saw this movie on video because I did not even know about it before I saw it at my local video store. If you see this movie available - rent it - you will not regret it. The suspense builds throughout and the twist ending is excellent.



Sentiment: positive
I've slowly been collecting the films available on DVD of both Catherine Deneuve and Francois Truffaut. Both actress and director have done some stinkers in their time - fortunately Mississipi Mermaid is not one of them.

Next to "The Soft Skin", coincidentally staring Deneuve's sister (the late Francoise Dorleac), this would have to be my favourite Truffaut film.

As well as directing, Truffaut also wrote the screenplay. Something that always strikes me about Truffaut is his almost childlike innocence when presenting a story -- one could almost call it naivety.

There's a scene towards the end of the film where Belmondo returns to the apartment in Lyon with the remains of the loot. He rings the doorbell and Deneuve answers wearing a negligee. In the time it takes Belmondo to reach their room from the street, Deneuve changes into her dress, puts on her best pair of stockings and shoes, then lies on the bed and pretends she is asleep. It's a scene that could almost come from the mind of a child - but that's Truffaut for you.

Watching Catherine Deneuve in her films of the late 60's is indeed a sensory pleasure. She is so extraordinarily beautiful it is almost painful for us to watch. Incidentally, for those fans, there are a couple of topless scenes of her in this film - indeed a sinful pleasure.

I disagree with previous posters. I see nothing 'Hitchcockian' about the film at all. As for the 'look' of it - i love the look of the older film stock used in the 60's. It certainly gives films of this period a unique look.

Highly recommended for both Deneuve and Truffaut fans......

Sentiment: positive
This movie was so bad it was laughable. I couldn't resist watching it though. The plot is standard, the acting quite horrible (supporting cast such as the nutty neighbor and the lawyer friend were better actors). Kind of amusing if you have some time to waste and like seeing the conclusion to a dramatic plot.

The headliner who plays "Kathy" was just fascinating because I couldn't decide if her deadpan, flat affect was the result of bad surgery or simply bad acting (I decided it was both). This leaves the script to comment on, which was pretty awful. Pat remarks, idiotic decisions, and reckless stupidity on the part of every character in the movie. Maybe this is what was so riveting; I don't know. I just watched it to see how bad it could be. (Actually the dialog doesn't even qualify to be called "cliche'" - but it's almost completely inane.)

All in all, very bad, cheaply made movie. The sets, the same scenes (a house, a building) were shown over and over with no artistry or actual tie-in to the action; more like props that were randomly dropped into the action in a bad play. A chase scene could have been shot by any juvenile in a warehouse or an old school: poorly shot, cheap props, minimal action.... and I still wanted to see the ending. Go figure.

Sentiment: negative
Finally a thriller which omits the car chases, explosions and other eye catching effects. The movie combines a simple plot (assasination of a french president) with an excellent background. It takes a look behind mans behavior with authorities, and explains why we would obey almost every order (even murder) which would be given to us.

Furthermore it shows us how secret services can manipulate the run of history and how hardly they can be controlled. The best thing on this movie is, that there is no classic "Hollywood end" which can easily be predicted.

Sentiment: positive
At first I wasn't sure if I wanted to watch this movie when it came up on my guide so I looked it up on IMDb and thought the cover looked pretty cool so I thought I would give it a try expecting a movie like Elephant.

Once I got past the fact that I am supposed to dislike the Alicia character played excellently by Busy Phillips, I realized what a good job this movie was doing toward setting up the relationship between Alicia and Deanna. Alicia is so mean to Deanna played by Erika Christensen almost throughout the entire movie but we eventually find out that they despite being polar opposites they have one thing in common besides being present at the shooting. They share loneliness and to what extent is revealed as the film progresses.

I've just got to say how much I loved this movie and was glad to see all of the positive comments about it. I couldn't even get through Elephant because it just seemed to be exploiting the Columbine tragedy. This movie on the other hand was compelling and realistic. Busy Phillips acting is OFF the CHAIN!!! That is a good thing and I would love to see her progress into some more mature roles.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of my favorite horror films of all time and I used to think it never really got its due. That is until I read the glowing reviews here. It seems many feel the same as I did when I first saw it.

It's a damn creepy film, and I've spent most of my life watching creepy films. I've always found dolls, mannequins and such damn creepy! Check out the dolls in "Beyond the Door" and of course the great "Trilogy of Terror". And what about the magnificent Twilight Zone episode "Living Doll". Hell, dolls are creepy! And Tourist Trap has some moments that will make your hair stand on the back of your neck. All aided by an excellent soundtrack that just makes Connors' performance even more heart-pounding.

I remember seeing the trailer to this film on late night TV and thing, "Wow, I gotta see that!" It was memorable. And it's one of the only trailers I remember seeing as a kid that creeped me out. Took me years to see it, but it was a treat.

Stephen King also mentions this film in his "Danse Macabre" book, and gives it a glowing recommendation. Pretty good company.

This film will always be high on my list of must-sees. It's a real solid addition to the genre of the time and deserves place alongside the best of the 70s schlockers.

Sentiment: positive
Brass pictures (movies is not a fitting word for them) really are somewhat brassy. Their alluring visual qualities are reminiscent of expensive high class TV commercials. But unfortunately Brass pictures are feature films with the pretense of wanting to entertain viewers for over two hours! In this they fail miserably, their undeniable, but rather soft and flabby than steamy, erotic qualities non withstanding.

Senso '45 is a remake of a film by Luchino Visconti with the same title and Alida Valli and Farley Granger in the lead. The original tells a story of senseless love and lust in and around Venice during the Italian wars of independence. Brass moved the action from the 19th into the 20th century, 1945 to be exact, so there are Mussolini murals, men in black shirts, German uniforms or the tattered garb of the partisans. But it is just window dressing, the historic context is completely negligible.

Anna Galiena plays the attractive aristocratic woman who falls for the amoral SS guy who always puts on too much lipstick. She is an attractive, versatile, well trained Italian actress and clearly above the material. Her wide range of facial expressions (signalling boredom, loathing, delight, fear, hate ... and ecstasy) are the best reason to watch this picture and worth two stars. She endures this basically trashy stuff with an astonishing amount of dignity. I wish some really good parts come along for her. She really deserves it.

Sentiment: negative
I happen to be the director's nephew. It's taken me years to get my hands on a copy of this film and I can confirm that it is indeed one of the worst movies of all time. My uncle doesn't even have a copy of it anymore (I asked). I'm looking forward to bringing him a copy.

Currently the film's average rating is 1.9/10. As far as I can tell, that should put it somewhere in the mid-30s in the IMDb "bottom 100," however with only 206 votes, it hasn't yet placed.

It's sad that the film doesn't even get the respect of a bottom 100 title.

Anyhow, I'm giving copies of the movie to family members this year for holiday gifts. Best/Worst gift ever?

Sentiment: negative
Look, some film has got to the be worst ever. I suggest it may be India Song. When I saw the film in 1976 it was playing at the Carnegie Hall Cinema, a place frequented by people who care a lot about film. From about the halfway point, people were simply flooding out of the theater. My girlfriend wouldn't let us leave, but by the end, the theater was virtually empty. I kept telling people as they left that "the good part is still to come." And it was. The good part was the screen at the end that said "fin." It was the only good part. I am still annoyed by this film 24 years later. It was pointless, stupid and derivative (Marienbad, part 2). See it only if you want to spend an endless two hours learning to distinguish between merely bad and simply awful.

Sentiment: negative
Normally for movie reviews, I try to be constructive and objective, but there is only one word for this, uh, "film" : SUCKS!!!!!!! The dialogue, acting, special effects, plot, set, and characters all seem as if they were made up by, well, my potted plants. Don't see this, for the sake of all that is good and right in this world! :)

Sentiment: negative
If you have plenty of time to waste ... it's OK. It moves at a good pace but to pull this movie off it would need to be a little longer with a little more background on the sitter. 

The acting is OK. Mariana Klaveno as the sitter does the best job and is the most believable.

William R. Moses played a pretty good part as the husband.

Gail O'Grady, as the wife, had a weak part and the reasons for her going back to work were not developed.

The ending is sort of silly. Like most of these sitter movies ... there are parts that are interesting ... but overall it leaves you wondering why you spent the time.

Sentiment: negative
Lots and lots of information to digest, and if you've seen Zizek, you know his pace.

Also if you haven't seen most of the films or at least some other films by the same directors mentioned in this doc, you will be somewhat lost. 

And the film list is long. Director includes Hitchcock (Psycho, Vertigo, Birds), Lynch (Lost Highway,Mullholland Falls, Wild at Heart, Blue Velvet ), Tarkovsky (Stalker, Solaris) and The Conversation(Coppola) 

There are some segway films like, Star Wars: Espisode III, Matrix ... but these I suspect are baits. To be sure, Zizek is never boring, but if you don't buy (or if you mind) the psycho analytics, then you'll be annoyed to no end. 

But you should not be, as the setting, clips, the way the film interleave with these clips, Zizek's points are never boring.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was one of the worst I've ever seen, it did not left out a single clichee one could imagine about a Hollywood-so-called-Thriller. The protagonist is a loving father & a private investigator who is engaged in a special task: finding out if a suspected "snuff" movie is real.

Certainly, he get's involved deeper & deeper, smeary pornoshops (run by mexicans) & sex theatres are his field of investigation as he's searching for the murderers of the woman in the "snuff" movie. Assisted by a "smart" (he read a book) sexshop employee, he's catching up with a murderous bondage-film producer and his personal perverts who are responsible for the film... ...and what do you expect? They are portrayed as the simple evil, no need for explanations, backgrounds, history: they are the bad ones, and he's the purifier. Boom. Killer of the killers. End of film. Is it that bad? Yes, I'm afraid so.

Ironically, "machine" (the mega-pervert who did the killing) is even pointing at his ridiculous character: In the last scene, our hero forces "machine" to put off his leather mask (yep, of course he's wearing one) and recognizes that "machine" looks just like the normal 08/15 guy from the street. Then "machine" says: "blablabla I'm not a monster, my parents never abused me, I had a nice childhood, I just love to do what I do!"

I just love to kill people. Yeah, sure, "everybody loves killing people" (Bender). It's not only the total lack of character what made this film so boring, it's also it's ugly "I have to kill these people"-attitude which makes you sick. In one scene, our hero has tied up one of the killers and tries to shoot him...but he can't. So what does he do? He calls the mother of the killed woman, says that her child is killed and asks her whether she loved her child so much that she wishes to see the killers dead. The mother cries yes, she'd love her child, he goes back to the tied killer and slaughters him.

To come to the point: This film is breathing the foul air of lynchmob-supporters (certainly the police does not play any role in it), moralizes in a ridiculous form against pornography, does not take it's characters serious and wastes your time with a stupid plot. Probably the only good thing about this film is that it does not try to pseudo-psycho-analyze ... even that would be too much plot.

Don't waste your time with this.



Sentiment: negative
So Dark The Night poses a tough challenge: It's very hard to write about it in any detail without ruining it for those who haven't yet seen it. Since it remains quite obscure, that includes just about everybody. The movie will strike those familiar with its director Joseph H. Lewis' better known titles in the noir cycle  Gun Crazy, The Big Combo, even My Name Is Julia Ross, which in its brevity it resembles  as an odd choice.

For starters, the bucolic French countryside serves as its setting. Steven Geray, a middle-aged detective with the Surété in Paris, sets out for a vacation in the village of Ste. Margot (or maybe Margaux). Quite unexpectedly, he finds himself falling in love with the inkeepers' daughter (Micheline Cheirel), even though she's betrothed to a rough-hewn local farmer. But the siren song of life in Paris is hard to resist, so she agrees to marry him, despite the disparity in their ages, which inevitably becomes the talk of the town. 

But on the night of their engagement party, she fails to return to the inn. Soon, a hunchback finds her body by the river. Her jealous, jilted lover is the logical suspect, but he, too, is found dead. Then anonymous notes threaten more deaths, which come to pass. For the first time in his career, the bereaved Geray finds himself stumped....

A particularly weak script all but does the movie in; it plays like bad Cornell Woolrich crossed with The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. But Lewis does this creaky vehicle proud. He takes his time near the beginning, but then the story  and the storytelling  gain momentum (alas, just about the time the script breaks an axle). Burnett Guffey lighted and photographed the film, with an intriguing leitmotif of peering out of and peeping into windows; there's also an effective score by Hugo Friedhofer, who supplied aural menace to many noirs. A good deal of talent has been lavished on So Dark The Night, but at the end it boils down to not much more than a gimmick  and not a very good gimmick at that. It's a one-trick pony of a movie.



Sentiment: positive
I watched this movie last night, and let me say, it's the absolute worst thing I have ever seen. The entire film is a train wreck, and it's not the actors. It is the horrible script.

** Spoilers ** Alright, Eddie loses his job to a monkey. His nerdy son is disappointed. The bathroom goes crazy.

He gets a free vacation. He goes along with Uncle Nick and the original Audry. Their boats crashes. They stay on an island. They are stupid and don't even bother to look at the nearby hotel.

OK, so that's that. What makes this movie pathetic is the humor. It is so horrid, hillybillyish, and stupid, you can't even laugh. ANd it's not stupid funny humor either. I couldn't laugh the entire thing.

Sentiment: negative
This is the only full length feature film about the world of bridge. I found the first 10 minutes a bit slow, but after that, the movie is absolutely perfect in describing professional bridge players and how they go about earning a living. 

Some of the scenes are very funny. I don't think that a non-bridge player would get the charm of this movie. 

Some of the dresses are really beautiful, pity the movie is in black and white - I can only imagine what they would look like in color. The way the media are portrayed is absolutely hilarious. There is no way on earth bridge will ever be like that. 

Watch it as soon as you can, and tell your friends about it.

Sentiment: positive
Do you hear that sound? That's the sound of H.G. Wells rolling over in his grave, between this version and Spielberg's cinematic abortion it's been a tough year for the classic novel. But at least Steven got a few things right compared to this crapperella. Hello, the ships weren't big insects, they had names. They were Tripods and the aliens worked in threes. The ships and the aliens were all wrong, you don't really get to see the aliens until the end. The effects and the cast work fine. But these actors are much better then this "movie" deserves. The bulk if not all the movie is the Howell character wondering through the devastation, meeting one person, they join him and he looses them for one reason or the other. There's not more then two people on camera at any given moment though most of the movie. It's like if they filmed three at once it would put the movie over budget or something. So fat the only and mean only watchable adaptation of the WAR OF THE WORLDS story is the GEORGE PAL version way back in the 1950s. THE BLACK HOLE.

Sentiment: negative
There's a "Third Man" look to the shadowy B&W photography of STOLEN IDENTITY, a thriller produced by Turhan Bey, ex-star of Universal pictures during the '40s. It's an expertly filmed tale of jealousy that leads to murder when a famous pianist (FRANCIS LEDERER) becomes overly possessive of his wife (JOAN CAMDEN) and is soon intent on carrying out a scheme to murder a man she's having an affair with.

A taxi-driver (DONALD BUKA) happens to be giving the woman's lover a lift to the hotel when he steps outside a moment to chat with a worker digging up the street. Lederer uses the sound of the drill to muffle the sound of the bullet he puts in the head of the passenger from outside the back of the car. When Buka returns to his cab, he finds a dead man in the passenger seat.

Enroute to report the murder to the police, he changes his mind and decides to switch identities with the dead man who has an American passport which means Buka could realize his ambition to return to the United States. The stolen identity plot becomes thicker when the man's girlfriend (Lederer's wife) shows up at the hotel to accuse Buka of impersonating the dead man.

It's the sort of plot movie-goers have probably seen countless times, but it gets a nice workout here, with plenty of tense scenes as Buka and Lederer's wife plan how to run from the authorities until a final confrontation with the murderer and the police.

It's extremely absorbing, well done and holds the interest throughout with some excellent atmospheric photography of Vienna that will remind most movie-goers of "The Third Man".

Well worth viewing.

Sentiment: positive
Evidently lots of people really like this, but I found it infantilising and reasonably offensive codswallop, saved from oblivion by Jane Russell and a couple of memorable musical numbers, especially the opener (but there's a marked dip in invention later on). I don't get on with Monroe - she's supposed to be playing a dumb blonde who ain't that dumb, but she just comes over as dumb. Russell can't quite convince when she claims never to have been in a gymnasium, but is otherwise rather wonderful. The men are staggeringly uninteresting, as is the plot. By no means atrocious, but so patchy that, if this is a classic, God help us all.

Sentiment: negative
Saw this movie in my English class this afternoon and was surprised by how bad this version was. Don't get me wrong, George C. Scott was terrific as Scrooge, but the rest of the cast fails so very badly. Sometimes I couldn't stop laughing at the stupid acting and the repeated line: "Merry Christmas to everyone!" Other times I almost fell asleep.

The movie is based on a Charles Dickens short story about a rich guy, who don't think Christmas is nothing but humbug. After 30 minutes, the rich guy is visited by three ghosts, who persuade him to celebrate Christmas after all.

I can not understand how this movie, with a script so bad it must have been written in five minutes, can be so well-rated. Instead of this piece of garbage, I recommend to you, the Bill Murray comedy Scrooged. That at least, was funny...

Sentiment: negative
This film is a very bad example of uninspired storytelling, which tries to hide behind an "artfilm" facade, trying to shock the audience with unmotivated violence (against women) to cover up for it's lack of psychological depth of the characters & internal conflicts. Everything in this movie is pretentious, from the thank you's to Bela tarr at the beginning, to the photography, the acting, music, the story & editing. When suddenly, without reason, you are forced to watch close ups of "charismatic" looking hungarian country people in their boats, while the soundtrack is trying to persuade you that this is supposed to be a dramatic moment, although they are only on the way to the funeral of the local alcoholic, thats one thing. Putting completely unmotivated rape scenes as a shocker is a different thing, for which i absolutely have no comprehension. This movie is trying really hard to enter a certain genre of artistic (east European drama kind of) films but lacks the subtlety, observational skills and "soul" that other directors have.

Sentiment: negative
A film as bad as this should be withdrawn from all stores world wide. So full of boring, dull, unimaginative characters, and with a lead character with such an annoying attitude and dry voice constantly giving a thoughtless voice over for every action and feeling, this film holds the record for the most challenging film I have ever watched. As I had payed money to own it, I felt a duty to see it through, and how I regret it. My head hurt throughout because of the terribly dull characters and their pointless, plot less lives. A bunch of kids who have zero knowledge about anything, are all frigid and worst of all, have terrible dialogue throughout, just mulling around as the main character tries to get a date with the girl. Boring, so much so my friend was shaking with hatred and I was red with embarrassment that I'd thrown away £6. The DVD was on eBay the following day, and I didn't make much of my money back. Avoid like the plague.

Sentiment: negative
I must not have seen the same movie as the one the comments refer to here. First, I think they should have serialized Ghost Story if they were going to film it at all. The truncated version they come up with was awful. I felt the performances were mannered and so much was left out of the story that the performances of such masters as Astaire, Douglas, Houseman, and Fairbanks seemed hammy. Alice Krige was superb as Eva, though. Craig Wasson is a good actor but he was only adequate as the protagonist. The decision to cast Patricia Neal and to truncate her role was not a good one. Imagine what Anne Bancroft would have done with that character! I blame the script, which was poor. The production values were dark and the pacing was slow. A disappointing, pedestrian effort.

The book is one of the five greatest suspense/horror novels of the 20th century, IMHO. But the movie was disappointing, although a great introduction for Krige.

Sentiment: negative
I occasionally see some of this show because my wife watches it sometimes. I try to enjoy it for it's basic idea which is helping a needy family, but several factors get in the way for me. Every episode follows the same format where many parts seem totally scripted (which they are) and tears flow seemingly on cue. The attempt to manipulate the viewer with a mixture of emotional breakdowns and sad music is a real turn off for me. The fact that everyone who donates something to the house, be it Sears or whoever, has to plug themselves for being generous is also annoying. Probably the biggest problem I have with it all is that what must be huge amounts of money and a small army of workers are combined to build an amazingly over the top home for a single family. Now I know that this amount of money is nothing but a drop in the bucket for Disney/ABC but how much more could be done for more people with the amount they are putting on one house? Instead of focusing on one family and getting them all to cry during the episode why not help 10 families and show highlights? Isn't life difficult enough for the average person? Why do I need help finding things to feel sad about, why not show something truly inspiring without being manipulative? I know what is being done for these families is good, but they are also being used for ratings. You can't tell me they aren't being coached sometimes on the crying. I guess when I see these people moving into a home that most hard working people in the U.S. could not afford for their children it really bothers me. I can't help but think of what could really be done with a small portion of Disney's money. Instead of giving each member of the family a flat screen TV and or personal shower that tells you the water temperature and shoots out of the ceiling why not help more people afford food, clothes, education and medical insurance? I know so we can be entertained and have a good cry. In terms of money, I feel the same about Oprah. I don't think anyone can actually conceive the amount of money she possesses. Yes her recent reality show did good things, but when she gave $30,000 to each losing "contestant" I'm sitting here thinking...that's a years salary for many, many people...if they're lucky. Don't get me started on game shows. So I realize that Extreme Makeover Home Edition is "doing good", but forgive me if I see it as more self serving than giving of itself. Is there anyone out there that feels similar?

Sentiment: negative
Just watched this on DVD three times - Once the 'normal' way, once with the scenes in consecutive order (in this doozy of a film noir, the beginning, middle and end of the story intertwine), and once with the director's commentary running. Quite amazing. A bare-bones tale, told with more flair, energy and substance than most big-budget overblown features being released today. 

I think this is an even more accomplished film than the subsequent Memento, which turned me on to Nolan in the first place. Can't wait to see what he does with a bigger budget (and bigger box-office stars) in his next film, Insomnia.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was SO stupid I couldn't believe what I was seeing as I was watching it, it was like a huge train wreck -- I couldn't look away because it was just SO horribly awful! I can honestly say I've never seen anything this bad in my whole entire life. It was so cheesy and the acting was just so deplorable that I just kept thinking "this just has to be some kind of a joke, right? Nobody would actually make a movie this crappy on purpose, right?" I really hope this is all just a bad joke and these people don't actually expect people to watch this with a straight face, and I really hope the people who were in this movie were doing terrible acting on purpose and don't actually believe that they are good actors?! The drag queens are pretty funny to watch, though, and so are the cheesy special effects straight out of a bad 80's sci-fi movie.

Only watch this if you've already seen every other movie in existence first and there is nothing left to watch at all! I would give this a "0" if it were possible.

Sentiment: negative
THE STUDENT NURSES is not a typical sexploitation movie. Sure, the nudity and sexual openness is there, but it's not all for laughs. Stephanie Rothman scripted a socially compelling, well-written tits & ass movie which confronts the topics of racism, socio-economic inequalities, rape, abortion, medical ethics, public health issues, human rights, the Vietnam war, free love, LSD and drug experimentation. Four sexy college roommates are taking their nursing internships at the same time. Sharon (Elaine Giftos) is assigned to the terminal care ward, Lynn (Brioni Farrell) to public health administration, Priscilla (Barbara Leigh) to gynecology and Phred (Karen Carlson) to psychiatry. These four beauties have ample opportunities to disrobe and fornicate, of which they take advantage, much to the delight of male viewers. These are liberated women at the height of the sexual revolution, after all, and are as intelligent as they are horny and beautiful. Visceral yet low-budget action sequences are interspersed throughout. There's a very bloody gunfight at the resistance movement headquarters in which two policemen are shot and killed, along with several members of the group. An anti-(Vietnam) war protest consisting of spookily-dressed young people of all races painted like skeletons becomes violent, with cops beating protesters. The effective trip sequence on the beach consists of beautiful, weird and confusing sensory and memory montages with hyper-sensual overtones. In short, THE STUDENT NURSES is a thoughtful and compelling reflection of the times, expressed through real women's perspectives (since it was written and directed by a woman). But, it's still fun and titillating, despite its sobering treatment of subject matter.

Sentiment: positive
This film is one of those nostalgia things with me and I never REALLY expect anyone else to "get it" but am pleased when I recommend it and somebody DOES enjoy it. My late father HATED Arthur Askey but this film was one he really enjoyed and his consistent enthusiasm for "The Ghost Train" and "Old Ted 'Olmes" transferred to me as a child. Years later, I watch it every now and again, enjoying the familiarity. I always wonder if it will not be quite the same but I am never disappointed in it. There is much to enjoy. The sequence on the train is truly inspired when Askey and Murdoch proceed to annoy the arrogant male passenger. Then the whole section in the station is amazing with so much going on you have to keep up. Yes, it is dated and full of wartime Britishness in accents and plot (based on the original play by Arnold Ridley of Dad's Army fame!) but full of wonderful character performances - including Kathleen Harrison as a dotty spinster. The atmosphere is truly as near sinister as an Arthur Askey vehicle could get. This is available cheap as chips in the UK on DVD so treat yourself. It is a perfect Saturday/Sunday morning or any day lazy afternoon lightweight piece of entertainment. I Thank You....

OLD MOVIES CAN BE GOOD MOVIES!

Sentiment: positive
My children, DD 7 and DS 10, enjoyed the movie so much they were squirming in their seats. It was good, old fashioned, Rated G, family fun. This movie was made for kids.... someone really understands them.

It was fun to see Julia Roberts, Brice Willis, Garth Brooks and the other stars make their cameo appearances.

As someone who lives in the city the fictional "Big Texas" was modeled after, I can say that they did an honest and accurate portrayal. The kids looked like kids, not like superstars.

I hope everyone supports this movie to send the message to Hollywood that we need more movies like this. Go see it, then spread the word!

Sentiment: positive
Another direct to video movie from Disney, that is essentially perfect for the kids. The problem with Kronk's New Groove I find is that everything that made the first movie a fun great ride is replaced with a more sad and sombre film. In this movie, Kronk learns a great deal of lessons at many others' expenses. It takes away much time that could be spent at creating a more enjoyable film.

Kronk's New Groove deals with two stories: Yzma returns for payback and one Ms. Birdwell hopes to defeat Kronk's camp counseling championship. This all leads up to Kronk confronting his father and his disapproval over his son's direction in life.

From Lord of the Rings to Michael Jackson's Thriller, Kronk's New Groove recycles every bit of time that it allows to entertain its viewers. If you loved the original, or are looking forward to the upcoming TV series about Kuzco, I recommend Kronk to his loyal fans.

Sentiment: negative
Kane is a killer named Jacob Goodnight, he lives in this burned down old hotel, where eight teen convicts go to do some cleaning. Most of them die except for 3 of them. In my case it wasn't the best writing or the best ever. I still thought that the killing scenes were really well done. Like when the one girl go eaten by the hungry dogs. The best had to be when he shoved the cell phone down the Blonde Girl's mouth. Kane was a seriously great horror movie actor, he had this serious look the entire movie and it would never change. That was his only look the entire movie. Great action and killing scenes, I don't think I could give it a full 10 out of 10, but 6 seems good.

Sentiment: positive
Wow, how bad can it get. This was seriously bad. Not in terms of the gore - which was mainly laughable CGI - but in acting, atmosphere and direction.

The story was dreadful - the character arc of the main lead was a total joke. Within a few nights of stalking Vinnie Jones, he starts to become 'haunted' to the point of crying when photographing his girlfriend. Um... are all New York photographers this childish, suggestible and weak? His character development had absolutely no justification or point whatsoever - and by the very end you'll be laughing out loud at the utterly predictable, and totally absurd twist his character takes.

The gory moments were clearly just a weak, low-self-esteemed effort to jump onto the modern MTV style gore wagon - all cgi, blood yet no real emotion whatsoever. These parts were unintentionally funny - and distracting by their self-consciousness - wacky camera angles etc.

Overall this film commits the crime of blowing another potential idea. What could have had atmosphere (until the stupid monsters at the end) is ruined in favour of 'look at me'style self-conscious directing. This film wasn't made for and audience - it was made for a CV - a deeply selfish motive.

Sentiment: negative
Having first achieved fame with Drunken Master, Jackie Chan was thrust into the spotlight once more with 1983's Project A, a hugely enjoyable pirate flick which re-established him as a major star. By the time Police Story was released two years later, the extraordinary hype surrounding Jackie was reaching its zenith, and crowds flocked to see this frenetic blend of awesome stunts, brutal fight scenes and questionable comedy. It broke numerous box-office records and inspired a 50% rise in police recruits, but, viewed 20 years on - is it any good?

As an action movie Police Story unquestionably stands up. There are several terrific fight scenes, some stuntwork that recalls the very best of Chan's hero Buster Keaton, and a compelling if over-violent climactic tussle. Jackie's performance is also very strong, and whilst the frequent forays into laboured comedy dull the film's impact just a little, his charisma carries it through. Furthermore, in presenting our hero as a borderline psychopath whose recklessness puts others in danger, Jackie took a momentous gamble ... though in the event nobody seems to have noticed! By praising Police Story as a simple 'Good vs. Evil' battle critics belittled the film's ambiguity of tone, and whilst it's hardly The Brothers Karamazov, in depicting such uncertainty the film nevertheless represented a notable and praiseworthy shift from conventional ideas.

In short, this remains a quality "popcorn" movie* (though you may empty your stomach as numerous villains are thrust against or deposited into glass showcases in the film's final scene) - a potent, boisterously entertaining action movie that ranks with the best of its period.

Sentiment: positive
Cinderella In my opinion greatest love story ever told i loved it as a kid and i love it now a wonderful Disney masterpiece this is 1 of my favorite movies i love Disney. i could rave on and on about Cinderella and Disney all day but i wont i ll give you a brief outline of the story. When a young girl's father dies she has to live with her evil step mother and her equally ugly and nasty step sisters Drusilla and Anastasia. Made to do remedial house chores all day poor Cinderella has only the little mice who scurry around the house and her dog Bruno as friends. When one day a letter is sent to her house telling all available women to attend a royal ball. Cinderellas evil step mother and step sisters try to prevent her attendance Cinderella finally gets her dream and wish and is able to attend her captive beauty , Genorisity and beautiful nature help her win her prince.

Sentiment: positive
This is the first film I've watched from the Italian Ed Wood, Demofilo Fidani aka Miles Deem. The above title was superfluously added later on since there exists another similarly titled 1961 movie starring Richard Basehart which was Hammer Films' Michael Carreras' one and only stab at the Western; the genuine Italian title was originally translated as HIS NAME WAS SAM WALBASH, BUT THEY CALLED HIM AMENalthough it was actually WALLACH in the Italian variant which, of course, implies a tribute of sorts to Hollywood actor Eli! 

While certainly not unwatchably bad, instances of clumsiness and ineptitude abound so that I was often cracking up into howls of laughter: a horrid number by a would-be irresistible French chanteuse; a totally irrelevant bar-room brawl; actors doing somersaults when being shot; an aged villager doing an impromptu dance routine; ineffective use (indeed abuse) of slow-motion; and, easily the most preposterous, seeing Gordon Mitchell and Lincoln Tate play two gunfighters (sporting the actors' own names!) hired by the villain to kill off the title character and then never having them appear in the rest of the film at all!! 

Lead actor Robert Woods is just that even down to ineffectively whispering the Amens over the bodies of his victims. Supporting actress Simonella Vitelli (actually, the director's own daughter!) as the villain's broad is quite a looker but, unfortunately, she doesn't get to do much in the film  despite having a change of heart towards the end. The main musical theme is actually pretty good but, again, the title song is, in itself, quite lousy.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of those awful, sex-driven B-movies that couldn't have played anywhere near a theater. Women run around dressed in scantily clad "bunny" outfits, an extremely fat woman is the brunt of many tasteless jokes, and they all work at the restaurant of a dirty old man, who has an oddball son (Jim Hanks, who is of course Tom's brother), whom the man wants to get "laid." Hanks is actually sort of good, but this movie goes nowhere and has no point. One must wonder why it was even made? Nevertheless, because of Hank's performance and a few entertaining moments(but no more than a few), it received a stellar "2" out of 10. I think I was being nice, though.

Sentiment: negative
Where is it written that sequels must suck? Scream 2 didn't! Others didn't! But this one sure did... problems include horrible actors (only Christopher Walken could act in the entire film), bad writing (you will never understand what's going on and I even have done research on the idea of Nephilim before), and just horrible choices for casting. Eric Roberts makes the stupidest Archangel Michael that I have ever seen in my life!

Avoid it like the plague unless you are desperate to see Christopher Walken. In that case just fast-forward to the parts where he is in the film, and avoid the others.

Yech!!!

Sentiment: negative
We still really love the movie and soundtrack "Valley Girl". I have owned it on video for eons and wore out the original soundtrack. I have several friends with whom I get together and we have "80's Raves" - parties where we get together and play 80's music and run "Valley Girl" on the big screen - and we're all in our 30's now. We have an AWESOME time.

It's all in good fun, like, ya know?

Sentiment: positive
I rented this DVD for two reasons. A cast of great actors, and the director, even though Robert Altman can be hit or miss. In this case, it was a big miss. Altman's attempt at creating suspense fell on its keester. After seeing Kenneth Branagh in a good film like "Dead Again", I didn't think he could possibly contribute to such a turkey, and I hope it didn't ruin his reputation. Robert Duvall seems to have fallen the way of most one-time Oscar winners. On a downward spiral that includes acting in eating-money films such as this one. Duvall was once a great actor in excellent films, even though his best performance was not "Tender Mercies", but "The Great Santini". This movie was truly a big waste of time. I give it a 2 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative