DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
By far the most racist and ghettoish cartoon for children 7+. Kids who watch this cartoon will most likely try to dress, talk, and act like the characters portrayed. I am disappointed in Nickelodeon and Nick Jr. for agreeing to air this terrible program. The Wayan's Brothers may be good in movies meant for the young adult viewers. They should stick to the movies and not make any more episodes for this cartoon. Usually The young celebs start off working in movies and doing voice-overs for cartoons and then as they grow older, they move up to programs for young adults. A good example is Nick Cannon. He first started out with appearing in All-That, Later on he starred in MIB II, then Drumline, and now his TV show, Nick Cannon Presents: Wild 'N Out, where comedians compete by telling inappropriate jokes. This comment was originally for Thugaboo, but I wanted to show examples of how celebs kids watched on TV not long ago can become those who get involved with non-kid-friendly programs. It is very sad that this happens, but all celebs change and grow up. It is just the opposite with the Wayan's Brothers new cartoon. It is bad enough we have to deal with all the bad people from the ghettos, with allowing the young generation watch this program, it will just convert the kids with possibilities to the ones who don't have a chance at a good life. Just my feelings on this cartoon and my beliefs on what will happen to our children if they were to watch it.

Sentiment: negative
This film is pure 'Hollywood hokum'. It is based upon a novel called 'Not Too Narrow  Not Too Deep' by Richard Sale, which may or may not have been interesting; it would take research to find out! The story in the film takes for granted many incidents and much background which obviously existed in the novel but are nowhere to be seen in the film, so either the film was savagely cut or the screenplay was a mess from the start. There is not one millisecond in this film which is remotely realistic, either in terms of events or characters. It is pure Hollywood fantasy in every respect. Two well-known actors, Paul Lukas and Peter Lorre, are so under-used and wasted that there was no point in their being in the film at all. They must have been thrown into the mix in the manner in which one adds a sprinkling of chopped chives to an omelette, hoping that the flavour will be enhanced. The film is a ponderous attempt at producing a 'morality tale', and is so corny that it is laughable. The story concerns some hardened criminals imprisoned in French Guiana who want to escape from their French colonial prison through a jungle (very much a Hollywood set jungle, with a rubber snake). Naturally there has to be a woman in the story, so Joan Crawford hams it up as a down-on-her-luck tramp who for some reason becomes irresistible to Clark Gable, one of the escaped criminals. Crawford in escaping through the jungle wears high-heeled shoes and keeps her makeup fresh. Gable flirts and grimaces and makes mawkish expressions, crinkling his brow as was his wont, smirking and looking suggestively at everybody, which was his manner of acting. It is hard to treat such a character as a hardened criminal when he is always trying so hard to be Clark Gable that surely he hasn't any time left to be a thief. (Attention-seekers are by definition too busy to steal and unsuited to a task which requires that people NOT see them.) The whole escapade is so ridiculous that it can only be regarded as light entertainment. An attempt at religiosity and 'depth' is made by injecting into the story a mysterious 'angel of mercy' who voluntarily walks into the prison and pretends to be an inmate. He helps in the escape and accompanies all the criminals and ministers to their various deaths, helping them to find 'peace' in their last gasps. This character is played very well by Ian Hunter, who retains throughout a convincing air of secret knowledge, smiles enigmatically, makes cryptic prophetic remarks, and has a small spot trained on his face to give him a heavenly glow. The theme is meant to be redemption. You might call it the Donald Duck version of 'Hollywood Goes Moral and Gets Heavy'. For real depth, Hitchcock's 'I Confess' of 1953 shows how it should really be done. By contrast, this piece of trivial nonsense shows just how bare the cupboards of Meaning were in Tinsel Town, and that when they went rummaging for something that might mean something, all they could come up with was, you guessed it, more tinsel.

Sentiment: negative
This film describes the experiences of a couple of hit men (one of them Burt Reynolds), a prostitute, and two drag queens over the interval of a few hours on one night in Miami. The convergent storylines eventually bring all the people together at one place and time. The movie was mildly entertaining, but the big problem was that everything happens at night and many scenes were literally under-exposed to the point that it was impossible to see what was happening. In a few scenes you can actually see where they tried to "stretch" the developing process to save the images. Somebody didn't know how to operate a movie camera. Amazing that this film was even released!

Sentiment: negative
As I watched this movie I began to feel very nostalgic. As a child growing up in a rural area I felt as if I was a kid again! The swimming pond (it's called a "tank" in Central Texas), the running through the countryside like a wild free spirit! The story was very believable and I totally lost it and cried toward the end. Through the pain we go through in life...life goes on and there can be forgiveness.

Sentiment: positive
Some have compared this film to Deliverance. I believe Of Mice and Men is more appropriate. Our leading man, Heaton, definitely loves Spike. It is irrelevant and immaterial whether that is a sexual love. It is the reason Heaton does not leave Spike. He needs him. They need each other. As brothers, as family, as their only connection to humanity. The setting, scenario, minimal cast all add up to a fine film. Frankly, I did not care what happened to the characters. But, I did care about what the film maker did with them. He did well with them. I spent some time wondering how the ending would resemble Of Mice and Men. The soundtrack and cinematography were compelling and intriguing.

Sentiment: positive
Very nice movie! I was browsing the channels on my TV and I usually ignore the channels that air drama movies but then I saw this channel that airs old school movies and it is where I saw this movie. At first, when I saw the title "The Cure" I thought it's gonna be boring but then I got hooked when I saw Brad Renfro was in this movie (because of one of my favorite movie of all time is "The Client" where Brad also stars). Then the scenes was getting better and better. The story is so beautiful and very touching! I cried hard in this movie which I don't usually do. Great casting! and there are so many beautiful lines/quotes in this movie which is very striking and made me cry hard! Now, I bought my own copy on DVD and I always recommend it to everyone!

Sentiment: positive
Once in a while you get amazed over how BAD a film can be, and how in the world anybody could raise money to make this kind of crap. There is absolutely No talent included in this film - from a crappy script, to a crappy story to crappy acting. Amazing...

Sentiment: negative
I went to the cinema slightly apprehensive, I came out seething with anger at the garbage (passing for a film)I had witnessed. The actors, particularly Travolta, should be ashamed of themselves for their participation in this. Clearly the only thing in their minds was the pay cheque, never mind the debasement of their talents and us . Travolta needs to go back to doing some more "Look who's Talking" movies as he has sunk back to the level of his pre-Tarantino work. It comes to something when the L W Talking sequels are better than this one. Travolta is no longer the King of Cool but the King of Corn. Michael Caine himself admitted to doing bad movies for the pay cheque, Trvolta should follow suit if he has any self respect !

Sentiment: negative
Renown writer Mark Redfield (as Edgar Allen Poe) tries to conquer old addictions and start a new life for himself, as a Baltimore, Maryland magazine publisher. However, blackouts, delirium, and rejection threaten to thwart his efforts. He would also like to rekindle romance with an old sweetheart, a significantly flawed prospect, as things turns out. Mr. Redfield also directed this dramatization of the mysterious last days of Edgar Allen Poe. Redfield employs a lot of black and white, color, and trick photography to create mood. Kevin G. Shinnick (as Dr. John Moran) performs well, relatively speaking. It's not enough.

Sentiment: negative
Night Of The Demons is definitely one the definitive cheesy 80's demons horror flick in the same vein as the brilliant Evil Dead and Demons movies. This movie combines boozy sexually active teens and demons into one hell of a fun movie. A definite welcome addition after the 80's were overrun by slasher flicks, it was nice to see something a little different.

The plot follows a group of teens who all meet up for a Halloween party at hull house which used to be funeral parlour, hosted by Angela. About 40-minutes of boozing and sexing eventually leads to a demon or demons finding their way out of the furnace and possessing each and every one of the teens. Add some snazzy make-up effects, lots of gore, and cool-looking demons and you've got yourself a sweet 80's cheese-fest that would be ranked as one of the best demon-related films in many horror fans' lists.

Firstly I loved the setting for this movie, "Hull House" is really creepy and scary and the perfect setting for a horror movie and plus when the Demons emerge, that's when the action really kicks in and it becomes a night of terror and fear. This movie spawned 2 sequels, the first one in 1994 which was okay but nothing come pared to this and the third one titled Demon House was absolutely horrendous. This is one of those horrors that has definitely stood the test of time and remains a true gem of mine for many years to come.

All in all a fun cheesy flick with Demons that's definitely worth checking out.

Sentiment: positive
A lawyer is drawn into a deadly game of cat and mouse when he becomes involved with a femme fatale in this adaptation of a Grisham novel. Altman creates a suspenseful, Gothic atmosphere but the script is weak. Sporting a Southern drawl, Branagh is convincing as the lawyer, and Davidtz is alluring as the object of his desire. Downey is likable as a private detective. Duvall has a small role, which does not allow him to do much with his weird character. Hannah and Berenger round out the impressive cast. After an interesting setup, the film bogs down and does not really deliver on its initial promise, but Altman is always worth a look.

Sentiment: positive
STUDIO 666 (aka THE POSSESSED in the UK) is another sub-par slasher that has the appearance of a straight-to-DVD movie.

Whilst many of the straight-to-DVD movies are fast-paced or unintentionally hilarious in the so-bad-it's-good sense, STUDIO 666 is a lamentable failure.

At the time of writing, every comment on the first page includes a negative rating and a negative review. Every one of these people have hit the nail on the head.

The two people (at the time of writing) who wrote comments with a rating of 10 out of 10 should not be taken seriously. Obviously they've seen few slasher movies and have an even more limited understanding of horror.

The only really positive point I can make about this movie is that it does fare better than THE CHOKE and ONE OF THEM, two extremely mediocre slasher movies that I would not wish on my worst enemy!

The plot of this movie must have been done hundreds, if not thousands of times. The movie only has a slight twist (and one that is badly handled) to the usual expectations. A depressed singer commits suicide. Soon after, her spirit returns to possess one of her surviving friends. The said possessed friend goes on a killing spree. The rest of the plot really is too bizarre to sum up. You'll just have to see it for yourself, providing your interest has not yet waned to the point of extinction of course.

The acting in the movie is very poor for the most part. The actress who played Dora was an exception to this. Her character was always interesting and seductive when she was on the screen. She helps to elevate the movie above similar contemporary efforts. Unfortunately, some of the lines she was given to say were badly written to put it mildly and thus prevent her from saving the movie.

The direction was equally poor. The villains did not seem the least bit menacing, every killing was totally devoid of suspense or tension, atmosphere was non-existent and the camera-work was incredibly basic. Some of the special effects (if you can call them that) reminded me of the TV series, GHOST STORIES. Unfortunately for the producers of this movie, GHOST STORIES had intelligently written scripts, believable performances and made superb use of camera angles. Maybe if the producers had watched that TV series closely, they'd have picked up some more techniques that might have saved this excuse for a movie!

The music is completely unsuited to the tone of the movie. It's just rock music and not the best examples of this type either. Don't get me started on that awful song played at the beginning!

Some aspects of the movie, particularly dialogue, are unintentionally funny. Unfortunately they are not funny enough to move the movie up (or should it be down) to the so-bad-it's-good level.

Overall, STUDIO 666 is a mundane mediocre slasher with very little noteworthy aspects. I recommend this only to those who are fans of straight-to-DVD movies and have a desire to see every single slasher ever made.

Sentiment: negative
"The Racketeer" stars Carol (deprived of the "e" that usually appeared at the end of her first name) Lombard as a woman thrown out of society because she left her husband for a concert violinist (Roland Drew) who has since become a down-and-out alcoholic, and torn between her love for him and the interest of New York crime kingpin Robert Armstrong (top-billed). It's virtually a compendium of what was wrong with the earliest talkies: stiff direction, immobile cameras, stagy acting and ridiculously slow-paced delivery of lines. At the time the sound crews were telling the directors to have their actors speak every line s-l-o-w-l-y and not to start speaking their own line until after the previous actor had finished theirs. Done about five years later, this could have been an interesting movie, but director Howard Higgin faithfully follows his sound recorder's dictates and systematically undercuts the talents we know Lombard and Armstrong had from watching their later movies. "The Racketeer" was made in 1929, a year that despite the transition problems from silent to sound nonetheless gave us some legitimate masterpieces  Vidor's "Hallelujah!," Mamoulian's "Applause," Wyler's "Hell's Heroes," Capra's "Ladies of Leisure"  all from directors with strong enough wills to tell the soundboard dictators to get stuffed and let their actors talk and act naturalistically. Too bad Howard Higgin wasn't that strong; as it is, watching a naturally rapid-paced actor like Armstrong slog through the part in the ridiculous way he's been told to speak, one can't help but wonder where that 50-foot gorilla is when Armstrong needs him.

Sentiment: negative
Saw this on TV. I'm glad I didn't go to the cinema to see this or spend the money on rental. The movie is totally predictable - from the corrupt owner and planner, to the snaking electric cables. The plot is really weak and unbelievable - the avalanche expert guy gets hit by a 20 foot wave of bone breaking avalanche (using actual footage) and all he has to do is get up and shake himself down. The avalanche thunders down at a million miles an hour and stops dead at the side of the road.

Some of the actual avalanche material is impressive and shows its devastating power. But the contract between the real avalanche and the staged stuff makes this film look even flimsier.

Do yourself a favour, don't bother with this one not even on T.V.

Sentiment: negative
This move is slow, plodding, cold, dark, and without a plot or hope. It follows that tried and true European formula that they love to subsidize, that is never seen, but that the critics think makes an "important point".

The movie is valuable if nothing more than to show the huge difference in the thinking between Americans and Europeans regarding employment. In this movie the men are still nursing their wounds from years ago and feel it's the government's duty to provide them with work. Whereas in the U.S. we know we have to go out there and create value for someone.

Spain never looked so backward!

Sentiment: negative
Definitely not a good film but nowhere as bad as some would paint it to be. Nightmare in Wax tells the story of a man, having had his face disfigured in a typical flashback scene, wreak his vengeance on those directly responsible and those indirectly for the losses in his life - most notably the love and companionship of a beautiful young actress. Cameron Mitchell plays the artist with his typical flair, albeit limited flair. Actually, I thought he gave one of his better performances. What exactly does that mean? Mitchell wears an eye patch, endlessly smokes cigarettes, wears a motley tunic, and talks to his creations in wax. They are not your ordinary wax dummies, but rather people still alive controlled by some serum that makes them lose control of all neurological function. They become zombies in effect. I thought the premise here was inventive if nothing else. It has some ludicrous explanation, but does serve the plot. This is a film of the 60s to be sure with some psychedelic camera-work by Bud Townsend and company. The acting is mediocre but Mitchell, Scott Brady, and Barry Kroeger give interesting turns. The wax figures of Hollywood's bygone era are done very effectively and most of the location shooting was very credible. The end of the film dissipates into something not quite real - either another example of 60s cultural cinema or the end of the scriptwriter's creativity. I'm banking on the latter. Despite its many flaws, I enjoyed the film. The opening scene showing an actor being needled was effectively done as was a police chase on the waterfront.

Sentiment: negative
Warner Brothers social responsibility at its most ham-handed, with sermonizing every five minutes or so about how we're Americans, we don't run from trouble, we face up to our responsibilities. It also suggests that if you're willing to perjure yourself to protect your family from clearly deadly gangsters, you're un-American. Walter Huston, looking bored, is the frustrated DA, and the "average American family" includes such familiar faces as Sally Blane (looking a lot like her sister, Loretta Young) and Dickie Moore, as an allegedly adorable moppet. Both are regularly crowded out of the frame by Chic Sale, only 47 then but playing an octogenarian Civil War veteran, ponderously jumping and "amusingly" nipping at Prohibition hooch and moralizing about how we're Americans, dag nabbit. His St. Vitus Dance old-coot performance is tiresome schtick; it's like Walter Brennan based his entire career on it. William Wellman directs efficiently and quickly, much like his earlier "Public Enemy," but he and the screenwriter neglect to show what happens to this family after the happy fadeout -- i.e., they'd probably be rubbed out by the Mob.

Sentiment: negative
You gotta love the spaghetti western universe. The vision of a west where good guys get shot point blank with no warning, cartoonish villains chew the scenery in extreme close-ups, and the anti-hero walks away from the girl in the end. A lot of people call Corbucci's films 'depressing'. I find that a bit dodgy as far as descriptions go. I think bleak and unforgiving are more apt mostly because 'depressing' suggests a level of sentimentality almost every Eurowestern director ignored in favour of painting characters in broad strokes.

GLI SPECIALISTI must be seen in all its widescreen glory before it can take its proper place in the Sergio Corbucci canon. It's a beautiful movie. And it makes sense that Corbucci wanted to blow off some steam with COMPANEROS after the unremitting one two punch of THE GREAT SILENCE and this (although he would later revert back to his usual tricks with the foulmouthed SONNY AND JED). There's still a certain amount of caricature that detracts from the overall grimness of the movie, imo it hurts more than does any good to have a needless inclusion of three kids dressed like hippies skulking around town in search of gold and trouble. And it hurts to have Mario Adorf playing Mexican one-handed bandit El Diablo as over the top as he always plays his characters.

Those minor gripes aside there's more than enough here to wet the palate of the spaghetti aficionado. Shootouts galore, the population of an entire town reduced to crawling naked in the dirt, the typical iconic badassitude of the laconic antihero (played by Johnny Halliday), the moral bankruptcy of almost every character in the movie. Corbucci might never receive the acclaim of the more famous Sergio or the American patriarchs of the genre but you and I know that's a gross injustice for a very talented director. His dynamic shot selection, in depth staging with objects sticking close to the camera and receding in the background, his flair for quick pacing and feverish energy in moving a story that wasn't always all that along, the way he photographs open spaces, everything in his work makes me sure that if Corbucci was American and had emerged 15 years later along with Mann and Hawks, the Cahiers du Cinema critics would have lauded him as an auteur worthy of serious critical consideration.

Sentiment: positive
I began riding horses fairly recently, and, as anyone who has ever ridden should know, I fell in love with horses and their world. I rented Spirit on a whim, just trying to pack my life full of as much horse related material as I could, and I was surprised by the results.

What I expected was a feel-good Disneyesque movie with talking animals and stereotypes every five minutes.

What I got was an amazing film, filled with beautiful scenery and animation, and an amazing storyline that has the great potential to warm one's heart.

Spirit is a wild mustang in the Old West, whose entire world is brought crumbling down around him when he discovers the humans slowly taking over his homeland. The story unfolds with a wide array of characters, some human, some animals, all are well written and most are pleasant to watch on screen.

I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys a good story, and who has an appreciation for history and animals.

One thing I forgot to mention, but that I feel is important, is that the animals in this film do not talk. This was a really nice vacation from the Lady And The Tramp animated movies that everyone today is used to.

Sentiment: positive
A good film with strong performances (especially the two leads). The film is about two American girls who are caught with 6 kilo's heroin on an airport in Thailand. They're both thrown in prison and one of them signs a confession. Bill Pullman plays the lawyer who tries to get them out. All they have to do is find a Nick Parks who put the narcotics in the bag of one of the two girls. So far for the story which isn't that original (it has many resemblances with the better Return to Paradise).

The acting and Newton Thomas Sigel's beautiful photography make this film worth to watch. A 7 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
Let's go straight to the point: this is The Movie I would take with me on a desert island (with dvd player). It's just perfect. If a reason for you to see a movie is that you love the actors, you like to see them free to involve in the space and feelings, this movie is for you. See the scene when Myrtle (Rowlands) come on stage drunk and Maurice(Cassavetes) has to improvise because she doesn't follow the script anymore. If you're sensitive to the camera's movements, you'll be fascinated by the way the camera moves on stage, the particular flow, that give you the impression camera follow the actors as if it was lead by the theatrical principle of "private space"... amazing. And the story is just a brilliant mix of tale and realistic drama. Cassavetes is again arguing with Hollywood and the majors' politics, but this time, he do it through Broadway, making one of the most exciting movie about theater. Well, this movie is a bliss.

Sentiment: positive
This movie attempted to make Stu Ungar's life interesting by being creative. What they forgot is that his life was plenty entertaining enough on it's own without having to make things up.

A short list of the inaccuracies: 

1) Stuey was not sent straight to Las Vegas for a Gin Tournament to pay off old debts, he spent a good deal of time in Florida first, and only went to Las Vegas when he ran out of Gin games on the east coast.

2) Stuey never associated (or played Gin) with a casino executive (like the one played by Pat Morita in the movie.) 

3) There was no magical turnaround in the buildup to the 1997 WSOP. In fact Stuey barely made it into the tournament as it was. He snorted Cocaine the week before even.

Either tell the story right, or don't tell it at all. 4 out of 10 stars for Michael Imperolli's credible performance (the only redeeming quality of this movie.)

Sentiment: negative
It seems ever since 1982, about every two or three years we get a movie that claims to be "The Next Officer and a Gentleman." There has yet to be one movie that has lived up to this claim and this movie is no different.

We get the usual ripped off scenes from OAAG ("I want you DOR," the instructor gives the Richard Gere character his overdose of drills in hopes he'll quit, the Gere character comes back for the girl, the Gere character realizes the instructor is great, etc.) and this movie is as predictable as the sun rising in the East and is horribly miscast on top. Costner plays his usual "wise teacher" character, the only character he can play, and you really get a sense of his limited acting abilities here. Kutcher is terrible in the Richard Gere character, just miscast with acting skills barely a notch above Keanu Reeves.

The main problem with this OAAG wannabe is the two main characters are so amazingly one-dimensional, you never care for either in the least and when Kutcher's character finally turns around (just like Gere did in OAAG) you just go "so what? The movie leaves no plot point unturned and seems to never end as if to say "oh wait, we forgot to close out the girlfriend story, or the what happens after he graduates story, or the other six plot points in the movie..." What's more baffling is the great "reviews" I see here. The general public's opinions never cease to amaze me.

Sentiment: negative
What a powerful start to a film when Julia Roberts character is punched in the face by her abusive and anal husband played by Patrick Bergin and I felt ready to experience a powerful film on the same level as Farrah Fawcett's The Burning Bed. Well, as the summary says I was mis-lead. This film was nothing like The Burning Bed, which had power and Farrah played the part of a woman you truly felt for, and felt her pain and her need to survive. Sleeping with the Enemy drifted off after the first act into cheap thrills with Roberts faking her death to escape her husband and goes to live in Iowa. Her husband at first believes she is dead but starts to grow suspicious that she may still be alive and sets off after her. The rest of the movie is basically a cat and mouse game with Julia getting a house in this small town in Iowa and changing her identity....there is no mention of course how she got the money for this but at this point in the film I did not care all that much. She meets a guy (Mr. Nice wimpy) and falls for him and her husband does finally catch up to her but not before he re-arranges her soup cans and straightens up the kitchen. This was I assume to provide a cheap thrill to the audience. But I did not care much if she was an abused wife because the film as I have said cheated the audience. If it had stayed the course I might have felt for her and her situation. Of course the husband is killed and all is well for little ol Ms Roberts. If only the real world was anything close to this....See the Burning Bed and you understand what a film is suppose to be like on the subject of domestic abuse.

Sentiment: negative
This movie feels so EMPTY. IN every scene in the movie the maximum number of actors on the screen is like 10. Because everything was shot in front of a blue screen there are never really any extras and the movie just feels weird.

The ACTING was HORRIBLE! It's so obvious this was in front of a blue screen because all of the action scenes you can see the actor/actress wondering around half running when they should be running for their lives.. Looking at the floor for their marks...

Spoilers: Also you'll find yourself banging your head watching the movie. At one point at Sky Captain's home base they have like 100 planes sitting on the airstrip. They have advanced warning an attack is coming... So what do they do? nothing. All of the planes get blown up and yet again the ONLY person fighting back is the Sky Captain...

THE ENTIRE world is under attack and he's the ONLY person ever fighting back. At the very end of the movie you see hundreds of plains taking off finally... but what do they do? Nothing... the movie is over...

Sentiment: negative
As long as there's been 3d technology, (1950's I think) there's been animation made for it. I remember specifically, a Donald Duck cartoon with Chip and Dale in it. I don't remember the name at the moment, but the plot was that Donald worked at a circus, was feeding an elephant peanuts and Chip and Dale were stealing the peanuts. This was made to watch in 3d probably 1960's. If you happened to watch Meet the Robinsons in 3d in theaters, they showed this cartoon before the movie and explained the details of it's origin. There are probably somewhere around 100 cartoons made specifically to be viewed through 3d glasses. This claim was a bad move because it's not difficult to prove them wrong. On top of that, this just looks like a bad movie.

Sentiment: negative
I still wonder why I sat through this entire thing. It only had about 3 minutes of actual entertainment, the rest of it was just a total bore. The acting isn't that great and the action scenes are soooo cheesy it's not even funny. I kinda wish I could say something good about this film but I can't think of anything right now. There probably was somethings in it some can enjoy but the ending of it is gotta be the dumbest idea ever. What type of person would get a little toy remote controlled helicopter with a burned in machine gun in it to assassinate the President? This idea could have never been done in the first place let alone have anyone dumb enough to try it, I guess the writer must have been to obsessed with the toy car scene in The Dead Pool but actually tried to make this look serious.

Sentiment: negative
i liked this western Starring Randolph Scoot and Glenn Ford.it's got pretty much everything a western should have.there's gunfights,action,chases on horseback.there's a bit of a romance angle that's hinted at.there's some nice comic relief in the form of Edgar Buchanan,who plays Uncle Willie McLeod,a character who pretend to be a doddering old fool,but is actually aware of everything going on.Randolph Scott plays the town Sheriff,and Glenn Ford Plays Cheyenne Rogers/Bill Smith,a hunted outlaw who eventually tries to change his ways.i liked the different mix of characters in the movie.i didn't find it always fast paced,but i never found it boring either.even though the movie is in 1943,it is in colour. 8/10

Sentiment: positive
Colman's performance is aided by the brilliantly written script. The gargantuan Hollywood studios in the 30's and 40's were able to copy some of the German expressionistic film elements and incorporate them into Hollywood films. very good use of shadows and light and silhouette. i really liked the scene where colman turns off the light in his dressing room near the beginning of the film, and he starts reciting Othello while his face becomes instantly dark and evil. already the viewer sees the text and the drama of Shakespeare getting a hold of "Tony" and off he goes on his journey of doom. i also enjoyed the dramatic death scene within the play, when he becomes overwrought with emotion and accidentally strangles his costar a little too hard for her to bear. her pleadings "tony stop you're hurting me" are chilling and suspenseful. you just don't know if he is going to go over the top and kill her at any moment. the cat and mouse chase to reveal the killer was nicely added 2/3rds of the way through the film to add some faster pacing and to also add to the narrative element of the film. Masterful work from George Cukor. He's such as skillful director. Excellent film. Too bad they don't make 'em like they used to...

Sentiment: positive
Terrible direction from an awful script. Even the DVD looked muddy and out of focus. Laughable accents all over the map. Unlike most of the other commenters I had no idea this was about boys in love in the mud, but that fact became immediately obvious from the opening scene and all the lovingly drawn-out shots of nude or scantily-clad young men, usually wet or glistening with sweat, looking longingly at each other.

Sentiment: negative
I just finished watching this movie. It wasn't ridiculously bad, but I'm really disappointed with it. I'm not really sure why someone would make a movie like this. It was marginally entertaining, but I feel like the people making it had a lot of disagreements on what they were making. Monday, the writer was in charge; Tuesday, the director; Wednesday, the guy who gets the coffee; etc. It almost seems like they really wanted to make a couple different movies, but only had the time and money to make one.

Someone else commented that the acting was really good, but I'd have to disagree. Then again, if the actors were able to keep a straight face during the filming, perhaps they're better actors than I give them credit for.

The back of the DVD gives the impression that the movie would be a mystery... something along the lines of a historical Law and Order or National Treasure. It starts off like that, but then, out of nowhere it takes a turn towards a bad episode of the Twilight Zone, or... what was that other show that wasn't as good... A bad episode of The Outer Limits.

My main complaint about the movie is that it is just so played out. There's the evil guy with spiked white hair. There's the love interest, who, when she first appears, the wind actually blows through her hair. Seriously. Once you realize it's a Christian movie, the end is also pretty easy to spot.

The cinematography was poorly done, especially in the opening scenes - way to put your best foot forward. It wasn't atrocious for most of the movie, but there was the occasional ridiculously bad shot of an old lady, praying, arms up in a dark room while lightening is striking - the sort of thing that just makes you a little bit embarrassed to be watching the movie.

Sentiment: negative
I remember watching this in the 1970s - then I have just recently borrowed a couple of episodes from our public library.

With a nearly 30 year hiatus, I have come to another conclusion. Most of the principals interviewed in this series - some at the center of power like Traudl Junge (Hitler's Secretary),Karl Doenitz (head of Germany's navy) Anthony Eden (UK) - are long gone but their first hand accounts will live on.From Generals and Admirals to Sergeants, Russian civilians, concentration camp survivors, all are on record here. 

I can remember the Lord Mountbatten interview (killed in the 1970s) 

This is truly a gem and I believe the producer of this series was knighted by Queen Elizabeth for this work - well deserved.

Seeing these few episodes from the library makes me want to buy the set.

This is the only "10" I have given any review but I have discovered like a fine bottle of wine, it is more appreciated with a little time...

Sentiment: positive
I've read a few books about Bonnie and Clyde, and this is definitely MORE accurate than the Beatty/Dunaway version, in that its costumes and locales echo actual photographs taken of the gang. Particularly well done is the death of Buck Barrow, and the capture of his wife Blanche. This actress looks looks exactly like the photographs taken that day of Blanche grieving over her dying husband. However, this movie is still Hollywood, and our anti-heroes stay pretty to the end, even after being shot full of holes (in life, Bonnie was badly burned in an auto accident the year before their famous ambush, and did not look like a perky cheerleader at the time of her death). The script is tedious, and the acting is poor, particularly the leads. Very disappointing. Stick with Beatty and Dunaway. Their's may not be "the true story," but it's a great film.

Sentiment: negative
James Stewart plays Dr. Ben McKenna, who, with his wife and son, are tourists in an Arabian city. They get caught up in the middle of a murder scene. The victim whispers something in Dr. McKenna's ear, and he is told to do something.

Later, his son is kidnapped. The kidnappers turn out to be a man and woman he knew, but the woman is a bit softer than the man.

The song, "Que, Sera, Sera" (Whatever we'll be, we'll be," is one of the best songs ever sung in any movie.

Doris Day play's Stewart's wife, and she sings the song mentioned above. Her performance is Oscar worthy. I'm surprised she wasn't even nominated.

My Score: 8/10.

Sentiment: positive
The larger-than-life figures of Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson, and the specters of George Armstrong Custer and Sitting Bull, loom over director Anthony Mann's hugely entertaining first western with James Stewart. Although Stewart's quest to avenge his father's murder is the primary story, Winchester '73 is really an ensemble piece, with the eponymous, one-in-a-thousand firearm passing through the hands of many colorful owners, including a wry trader (John McIntire, especially great) and outlaw Dan Duryea, who's even more despicable than usual. The film's conflation of fiction and history produces a breezy pace and an ambivalent tone brilliantly in step with Mann's pared-down, compositionally rigorous film-making. His themes of psychological unrest and past dictating present faintly underlie this tall tale of good and bad men chasing after a fabled gun, but they starkly emerge in a vignette about a husband's cowardice and failed attempt at atonement, and are defined in Stewart's conversations with sidekick Millard Mitchell. Mann's use of environment is what sets him apart from other filmmakers of westerns. Instead of gazing at vistas from afar, he incorporates them into the drama as characters that redirect, complicate, or evoke the human characters' goals. Just as mountains, caves, and rapids had to be accounted for in The Naked Spur, here a gunfight occurs amidst the loose rocks and boulders of a small mountain, a physical obstruction that fatalistically determines the roles of victor and victim between two equally skilled sharpshooters. (I would be remiss in not recognizing cinematographer William H. Daniels's contribution, particularly his superlative day-for-night, open-range photography.) Not merely an adept outdoorsman, Mann presents an equally vivid picture of Wyatt Earp-patrolled Dodge City, primarily through scaled, multiple-plane staging. The shooting contest does not depend on brisk camera shifts or twitchy cuts for effect because Mann instinctively knows where to place the camera and how to move it to display the greatest density of information in a given shot. Nor does he care to spell out the plot in dialogue, relying on the actors' eyes or a well-chosen image to convey the stakes. One scene in particular serves to explain his attitude: Mitchell's telling of Stewart's motivation to Shelley Winters, which is interrupted by the climactic gunfight that soon enough reveals all. Light without feeling insubstantial, intense without being overbearing, Winchester '73 seems more modern than its contemporaries and is a joy to behold.

Sentiment: positive
Hard to believe this was directed by Fritz Lang since he mostly directed crime dramas and mysteries. This movie has a cast that includes Robert Young, Randolph Scott, Dean Jagger and John Carradine. Scott plays an outlaw who tries to go straight and leave his old gang and winds up saving Jagger's life. Jagger works for Western Union, a telegraph company that plans to have telegraphs out west. Jagger hires a lot of men to make sure it is done because they have to worry about Indian attacks and bandits. Scott is in charge of the men and Young is a telegraph expert who can't shoot a gun but can ride. Scott meets up with his old gang who want to stop them but Scott can't tell anyone. It's a pretty good western and Lang should of directed some more westerns.

Sentiment: positive
Every review I have read so far seems to have missed a crucial point. Shakespeare wrote for the accent and the pronunciation just as he did for northerners in other plays. The Scottish accent changes the emphasis and rhythm of the language and affects profoundly what is said and the way it is taken. So, listen again and note the difference. The play is well done and the rhythm of the words are so much better than that provided by people using received, polite, well- enunciated English. I am reminded of the time a teacher in a school in Leicester, unknowingly, asked me, age 14, to read a piece of Walter Scott which was written in the tone of the Border. I come from the Border and when I read it as it should be read it made all the difference.

Sentiment: positive
Tempest is based on the classic Shakespearean work of the same name, but bears little resemblance to its source material.

It masquerades as being as cerebral as its namesake, but instead is a jumbled, convoluted, and hackneyed exercise in tedium. The original probed the premise that people have an evil side, which would be destructive if unchecked. Here you just get an uninteresting mid life crisis (yawn) goof ball who is having everything go wrong in his personal and professional life. He becomes endowed with a supernatural power that he uses to try to control his environment; in other words: to get his own way.

Every few minutes, after something else in his pathetic life goes wrong, he finds a secluded place and starts babbling "Show me the magic!" while waving his hands around and making a "serious concentration" expression. From the way these scenes are shot, it looks like he's trying to turn bugs into other kinds of bugs. Turning a spider into a cockroach, maybe, but by this time, you really don't care.

The story has him bolt from his life with his daughter to a Greek island somewhere, then have a awkward relationship with some girl he meets, one of the dullest romances ever committed to film. The story just bogs down and moves at a slower and slower pace. You are never given any reason to like or dislike anyone.

I'll give this a 2 because of the beautiful Greek location shots and the semi-optimistic conclusion (although it isn't clear if the tempest power brought this ending about or not). The spirit of Shakespeare's work has been captured much better in other movies; one notable example is "Forbidden Planet," which gave credence to how the power gets out of control.

As for this "Tempest", its only magic is to cure insomnia.

Sentiment: negative
I went to see this film at the cinema on the strength of its potentially interesting subject matter, good cast, a director who had previously done the highly-rated "Once Were Warriors" and my liking for noir-ish films set in L.A. in the Forties and Fifties. I would argue that I am reasonably easy to please in this film category; I appreciate the classics of the genre but I will sit through and enjoy a half-decent if derivative effort as well. However, I found this film completely unbearable.

Despite a good situation in which to place the story, nobody seems to do or say anything remotely interesting or entertaining in the whole two-hours plus of this sorry mess. Good actors are wasted in endless scenes of dialogue ranging from banal to embarrassing. The narrative is slack and drags unbearably, and none of the events it depicts is handled well enough to do anything other than bore the audience to death. There is no drama, no atmosphere, no tension, absolutely no entertainment value and by the end I simply didn't care what happened because I did not believe in anything in the film.

L.A. Confidential came out a year later and regardless of whether one version of the story is more true-to-life, the latter film deservedly gets all the plaudits for its excellence in every department. Mulholland Falls by contrast fails in every department, a fact made all the more tragic by the amount of talent involved. If they ever show this on a plane I will still walk out.

Sentiment: negative
This film's a big bore. It has a plenty of Predictable plots & endless sentiments from the start. It starts good with a classy number but seems lost midway.

Surya & Jyothika's on screen chemistry works out really good & a good part by Bhoomika. Why include Vadivelu in it? He disappears totally after a good half an hour!. Santhanam proves his wit again by timing comedy.

AR's tunes sure will last for sometime. But he could have done better. What ever be the drawbacks still it's worth watching once if you feel alone at home or looking for a good time-pass.

Sentiment: negative
`Stanley and Iris' is a heart warming film about two people who find each other and help one another overcome their problems in life. Stanley's life is difficult, because he never learned to read or write. Iris is a widower with two teenage children working in a bakery where she meets Stanley. She decides to teach Stanley how to read at her home in her spare time. Over time they become romantically involved. After Stanley learns to read, he goes off to a good job in Chicago, only to return to Iris and ask her to marry him.

It's a really good film without nudity, violence, or profanity, that which is rare in today's films. A good film all round. 



Sentiment: positive
normally,i would say i loved this movie.not for acting,although that was OK.not for the script,which was so-so.the reason i would have normally loved this movie is for the intense action,which starts from the get go and doesn't end until the final credits roll.but,the problem with this movie,and i felt it was a big problem,was the horrible CGI.it looks like they ran out of money and couldn't complete the the effects shots. a lot of the effects look lime they are in their very roughest form.since it is obvious they didn't have enough money to finish the movie,they should not have released it.i actual found the effects insulting.it seems obvious they didn't care about making a decent end product for the consumer.if it weren't for that,i would give this movie a much higher rating.my vote for Air Panic is a 3/10

Sentiment: negative