DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This film stands head and shoulders above the vast majority of cinematic romantic comedies. It is virtually flawless! The writing, acting, production design, humor and pathos are all wonderful! Even the music -- from Dean Martin to La Boheme -- is captivating and delightful!

Every character is peculiarly delightful and memorable, from the leads played by Cher and Nicolas Cage, to the many supporting roles -- Olympia Dukakis , Vincent Gardenia, John Mahoney, Danny Aiello -- even grandpa with his dog pack! Each of these performers, plus Norman Jewison as Director, performs above their normal quality in this ensemble work. For several of the actors, this was an early major exposure in film, so the casting is also exceptional -- and we have many current acting powerhouses whose careers were altered by their effectiveness in this film.

I've seen this film several times all the way through -- which can sometimes deflate the impact of a film substantially. More tellingly, I realized some years ago that whenever I channel-surfed my way into a scene from this film -- any scene -- the scene was compelling and beautifully crafted. There are so many stunning and memorable scenes the original meeting between the Cher and Nicolas Cage characters, where Cage tells his tale of woe; Vincent Gardenia discovered with his paramour at the opera, amidst the splendor generated by his gold-mine plumbing business; Olympia Dukakis scolding John Mahoney for philandering with his student in the classic line about liaisons with co-workers: "Don't sh-t where you eat!"; Danny Aiello at his dying mother's bedside; Nicolas Cage "taking" Cher as the rapture of an aria soars in the background! 

There are of course many great romantic comedies, among them Sabrina (both versions, but especially the Audrey Hepburn/Humphrey Bogart/William Holden original); When Harry Met Sally; The Apartment.

None quite equals Moonstruck!

Sentiment: positive
I only rented this stinker because of its relatively high ratings. It totally sucked! I cannot imagine how anyone would think this a good movie - even an OK movie. None of the characters had ANY redeeming qualities of any kind. To varying degrees they were each selfish and mean-spirited - or abused and damaged personalities who hadn't a clue about the spirit of Christmas (when this takes place!) I know Canadians and like them - but I cannot think that even THEY would think this a good movie. I'd rather a sharp stick in the eye than watch this offensive movie again. A colossal waste of time and money. Do not believe the person who wrote the opinion that it was "worth watching." This person probably would enjoy having a dentist drill their teeth without anesthesia, too. Don't mean to be unkind but for the life of me I cannot imagine what this person was thinking. Unless they had ulterior motives. Maybe s/he was the director or the producer. If so, I'd like to ask them to give me back my money. If your money is important to you - save it instead of renting this piece of drek - or rent something (anything!) else. I'm running out of good reasons NOT TO rent this film. If I were Canadian I'd be ASHAMED that it's supposed to be a favorite Canadian flick. If so, I would say that those who think so are definitely in need of great quantities of powerful drugs. YECK!

Sentiment: negative
I suggest if you have already seen the original American Graffiti, do not see this movie. If you haven't seen the original, I still don't recommend this, but it will be a lot less painful to watch. The characters from the first film are great, and by the end you fell a connection to them. This movie sets out to show how bad their lives have become. It's a chore to watch!

Set on New year's eve in 1964, '65, '66 and '67, we have four stories about the characters from the first film. In '64, we have John Milner (Paul Le Mat) who is now a professional drag racer. He meets a foreign girl Eva, and though his plot really goes nowhere, it's the best of the four. In 1965, we have Toad (Charles Martin Smith) who is stuck in Vietnam, and more than anything, he wants out. He tries to find ways to hurt himself or do stupid things to get out. In '66, we have Debbie (Candy Clark), the girl who Toad picked up in the first movie. Now she is a pot smoking hippie, and really I'm not sure what her plot was about. It was her going to a concert...not much of anything happened. Finally, in 1967, Steve Bolander (Ron Howard) and Laurie Bolander (Cindy Williams) are having marriage problems that end in a anti-war rally and police action.

None of these stories are very good. The script in some parts features very, very bad dialogue. These poor characters who I enjoyed so much in the first film, ended up where they are here...why? Why was this sequel made? I guess if a sequel was made, it had to feature the Vietnam war, and hippies and police action, but the real thing is that this movie shouldn't have been made.

The direction was stylish, but it just amounts in a huge headache. Each story has a different style. Milner's is just a regular (depending on how you watch it) wide screen, and is filmed how the rest of the movie should be. Toad's plot was shot in 16mm, and what it amounts to is a poor looking picture, which is the size of a small box in the middle of the screen. Debbie's plot is shot in multi-screen. At one point there might have been one screen, but for the good majority, it's anywhere from two to twenty screens up at once. Don't bother trying to follow the screens, since there's nothing going on anyways. Steve and Laurie's plot has the weirdest filming style. It's style really doesn't mean anything, and is dumb and pointless. Instead of just a full widescreen, it's a condensed widescreen that looks like a full screen version of widescreen. Though I don't like the others, at least I understand what they were going for, this one just doesn't make sense.

The music is this movie's saving grace, not that it could save this! Bob Dylan, Simon and Grafunkel, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye and dozens of others have nice songs featured here. They don't save the feature, they just make it a little better than it is. It's still bad! 

Overall, this is a pointless sequel. Any fan of the original should avoid this lackluster sequel! 

My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 110 mins. PG for language, drug use and violence

Sentiment: negative
I hadn't seen this film in probably 35 years, so when I recently noticed that it was going to be on television (cable) again for the first time in a very long time (it is not available on video), I made sure I didn't miss it. And unlike so many other films that seem to lose their luster when finally viewed again, I found the visual images from the "Pride of the Marines" were as vivid and effective as I first remembered. What makes this movie so special, anyway?

Everything. Based on the true story of Al Schmid and his fellow Marine machine gun crew's ordeal at the Battle of the Tenaru River on Guadalcanal in November, 1942, the screenplay stays 95% true to the book upon which it was based, "Al Schmid, Marine" by Roger Butterfield, varying only enough to meet the time constrains of a motion picture. This is not a typical "war movie" where the action is central, and indeed the war scene is a brief 10 minutes or so in the middle of the film. But it is a memorable 10 minutes, filmed in the lowest light possible to depict a night battle, and is devoid of the mock heroics or falseness that usually plagues the genre. In a way probably ahead of its time, the natural drama of what happened there was more than sufficient to convey to the audience the stark, ugly, brutal nature of battle, and probably shocked audiences when it was seen right after the war. This film isn't about "glorifying" war; I can't imagine anyone seeing that battle scene and WANTING to enlist in the service. Not right away, anyway.

What this film really concerns is the aftermath of battle, and how damaged men can learn to re-claim their lives. There's an excellent hospital scene where a dozen men discuss this, and I feel that's another reason why the film was so so well received--it was exceptionally well-written. There's a "dream" sequence done in inverse (negative film) that seems almost experimental, and the acting is strong, too, led by John Garfield. Garfield was perfect for the role because his natural temperament and Schmid's were nearly the same, and Garfield met Schmid and even lived with him for a while to learn as much as he could about the man and his role. Actors don't do that much anymore, but added to the equation, it's just another reason why this movie succeeds in telling such a difficult, unattractive story.

Sentiment: positive
badly directed garbage. a mediocre nihilist sadistic gorefest ... if you are the sort of person who likes that ... see a shrink. even if you are that person it doesn't make this a good film, the acting is really poor, the story full of plot holes, the director really should just give up and find a real job as he has no talent for this one. I can see why people dislike uwe boll .. we have had a few of his films on lately and this is the best of them, which is really sad! A complete absence of any sort of humanity seems to suit some people but here it just grates. Horror films can be full of desolation, they can be miniature works of art, they can be just good viewing when there is nothing else on ... SEED is just really really poor.

Sentiment: negative
Just love the interplay between two great characters of stage & screen - Veidt & Barrymore

Sentiment: positive
THE DECOY is one of those independent productions, made by obvious newcomers, but it doesn't have all the usual flaws that sink most such films. It has a definite story, it has adequate acting, the photography is very good, the hero and the bad guy are both formidable men, and the background music isn't overdone. This is a DVD New Release, so people will be looking here to see if it's worthwhile. I don't know where all the 10's come from, as there's no way this film is that good --- even if you're the filmmaker's mother. 

The last film we saw at a theater was Warner's trashing of J K Rawlings much-loved and excellent book, Order of the Phoenix. In comparing THE DECOY with PHOENIX, consider that PHOENIX (as made by Warners) had no story, certainly no acting was allowed by the director, the photography was dreadful, and the wall-of-sound overbearing musical score was just a mess. I rated Phoenix a "1" because the scale doesn't go any lower. THE DECOY is 4 times better -- in all regards.

If you have the opportunity, give THE DECOY a chance. Remember, this isn't "Decoy 3 -- the Shootout" or any such nonsense. It's original. If your expectations aren't overblown by the foolish "10" scores here, you might just enjoy the film on its own terms.

Sentiment: negative
The 1980s TV show, updated with fresh female flesh, and raunchy language. "The Dukes of Hazzard" passed me by; it was not repeated whenever I was in front of the television in either New York or California; or, I probably would have watched. Still, from somewhere (like the clips accompanying this film's updated 2005 release), I knew it was about a fast, orange Dodge Charger - and, the "General Lee" is still good to go. 

Hunky cousins Seann William Scott and Johnny Knoxville (as Bo and Luke Duke) are the New Riders of the Orange Sage. Beautiful Jessica Simpson (as Daisy) fills her skimpy short well - but, even her arousing pink bikini can't beat off the competition from a dormitory full of bouncing, topless coeds. The too stupid plot involves a graying Burt Reynolds (as "Boss" Hogg) threatening to turn Hazzard County into a strip-mine.

** The Dukes of Hazzard (7/27/05) Jay Chandrasekhar ~ Seann William Scott, Johnny Knoxville, Jessica Simpson, Burt Reynolds

Sentiment: negative
Yes...I'm going with the 1-0 on this and here's why. In the last few years, I have watched quite a few comedies and only left with a few mild laughs and a couple video rental late fees because the movies were that easy to forget. Then I stumble upon "Nothing". Looked interesting, wasn't expecting much though. I was wrong. This was probably one of the funniest movies I have ever had the chance to watch. Dave and Andrew make a great comedic pair and the humor was catchy enough to remember, but not over complex to the point of missing the joke. I don't want to remark on any of the actual scenes, because I do feel this is a movie worth seeing for once. With more and more pointless concepts coming into movies (you know, like killer military jets and "fresh" remakes that are ruining old classics), This movie will make you happy to say it's OK to laugh at "Nothing".

Sentiment: positive
Think of this film as a Saturday morning live-action program from ages ago. Even the small tykes will find this one hard to please because it runs like molasses! I can't fully understand how god awful it is to make something too typical and uninteresting, especially in the costume department! Too many warrior-wizard movies out there have used the same old plotline numerous times over, but this is mighty scarce considering its appeal to the little darlings. And who in the world would've let a topless mermaid be cast in the first place? I thought this was a "family" movie! MST3K, here's another fine gem for your 1999 TV season!

Sentiment: negative
This is possibly the worst version of the play I have seen - several times on stage apart from the movie.

A very nice idea for the set up - the American South can give a credible backdrop for the extreme reaction round Hero's supposed misdemeanour.

But the execution! Widdoes is a very mannered Beatrice giving a particularly poor performance. Waterston, a fine actor, is not much better as Benedict.

The poorest performance is in the role of Don John - it makes Keanu Reeves look good. Perhaps the desire to make it a caricature along the lines of the villain who ties the maiden to the train track fits with the keystone kops capers of Dogberry and his men - but the acting makes you want to cringe.

Successful set-ups include the scene where they fool Benedict into believing Beatrice loves him - were the acting competent it would be superb. But the use of the river and the visual humour of Benedict moving closer is well produced.

Overall I had to force myself to keep watching but it certainly didn't keep my attention.

Very disappointing.

With respect to latter comments above I am nearly 40. I've been watching stage and screen productions of Shakespeare for over 2 decades. Might I suggest when trying to defend your friends you speak to the piece rather than attack other reviewers when you are so inadequately armed in terms of fact. I can assume though, from your distaste regarding youth, that you are of sufficient age where the mannered acting of bygone days is more to your taste.

My personal favourite pairing was Rylance and McTeer on the London stage. Unlike Widdoes, McTeer, a skilled and charismatic performer, can act.

Sentiment: negative
Yet another cookie-cutter movie about a hardened adult who meets an adorable, street-smart kid (Cop and 1/2, Gloria, etc). And once again, it is not funny or interesting, for anyone to watch - kids or adults. I'm sure some people might find this movie amusing, but I have no earthly idea why. Once again, I feel sorry for the poor kids who were forced to work in this movie, so that everyone else and their parents could make some bucks at the price of a cheesy cheesy movie.

Sentiment: negative
I've never been a huge fan of Mormon films. Being a Mormon, I've always felt that the humor was too exclusive to the LDS community and made us seem like a bunch of obsessive wackos. I was hoping this would be the breath of fresh air, the Halestorm movie I could finally discuss with my non-Mormon friends.

Boy, was I wrong.

I figured, since this had B-list talent like Clint Howard, Gary Coleman, Andrew Wilson, and Fred Willard (one of my favorites), this would have to be at least a little funny. And besides, church basketball is ripe with potential for plenty of hilarious gags and such. But I must say, throughout the entire movie, it seemed as though no one knew what they were doing. Every joke fell flat, and every opportunity for a genuinely funny gag went ignored. The dialogue was bland, and the film had some of the worst character development I have ever seen. Every single character but Wilson's was less than one-dimensional. It's hard to believe that after nine re-writes the film was still as mind-numbingly stale as the train wreck I witnessed. I can't put into words the rage I felt sitting through this. My friends and I were extras in the final game scene, so we went to the premiere in Washington City, UT. Kurt Hale, the director, was there, and I must say, I avoided all contact with him after the show. He waited at the door, seemingly ready for feedback. I couldn't bring myself to tell him that his film not only ripped away a good hour and a half of my life, but it left a nasty, painful scar that I will never forget.

Here are a few specific problems I had: There was a minor love story subplot between the janitor and the chubby piano player, but these two characters came out of nowhere, and were impossible to care about, so my friends and I were left constantly wondering why we were supposed to care about these two lame, uninteresting characters. There were many subplots that popped up every now and then, each promising the audience the chance for laughs, but each one came and went in a puff of smoke, ending before you could even start caring. This was pretty much how the whole movie felt.

This film was a major letdown, and I feel bad for everyone who's expecting the first REAL funny Mormon movie. True, the jokes in this one aren't too exclusive to Mormons. Then again, it's hard to tell what was a joke and what was a loud ringing sensation in my ears.

Please, do NOT see this movie. Keep in your mind the fantasy that this movie is hilarious. Spare yourself the disappointment I went through

Sentiment: negative
what a great little film, lots of good roles from some random stars. Basically there are these pot growers that get caught up in a comical adventure. At points the film makes you believe everyone is going to end up dead! Which adds to the comedy. When the character of John Lithgow (3rd Rock) re-appears - its impossible not to imagine the trip, this may have caused, like a total paradox. The film is full of twists and turns that keep you guessing all the way to the end. Billy Bob Thornton Astronaut Farmer) is brilliant, in fact looking back, the character is fairly similar in the fact he holds the family of pot growers together. Everyone involved in this film should get a big thumbs up.

As i say' the final scene is a dream; however a nightmare at the same time. I love it when Hank Azaria (carter) says at the end do you think we should do this every year? I felt my self wishing they would. 

I'm not going to say this film is good for everyone, but as a lover of stoner movies i give it 10/10. - My advice have a joint ready; kick back and enjoy!

Sentiment: positive
CAUTION: SPOILERS

Although this film moved a bit slow at times, the brilliant scenery, richness of the characters and powerful themes make `Morte a Venezia' a rewarding experience. I have not read Thomas Mann's book, but I am certain that Visconti's visual splendour, musical score, and powerful evocation of conflict and desire must do it justice. 

The study of Gustav von Aschenbach alludes to the human tendency to rationalize and quantify our emotions, behaviour and passion. This tendency is demonstrated in the scene in Germany between Alfred and Gustav when Alfred describes Music as being both mathematical--i.e. quantifiable--and emotional. This conflict arises again in the scene where young Tadzio is alone playing `Fuer Elise' in lobby of the Hotel and Gustav recalls his visit to a bordello where he is drawn to a prostitute who plays the same song. In his flashback, after paying the prostitute, Gustav is clearly physically seized by the consequences of his actions. This reaction acts as a reminder of the moral reaction to the temptations that Tadzio represents.

Ultimately, Gustav is forced to make his biggest decision: stay in Venice and resign himself to his lust and temptations? Or flee Venice to save his own life? His early attempt to flee Venice at the train station resulted in a futility and foreshadows the outcome of prolonging his stay.

Complimenting the captivating character interaction, Visconti's powerful scenery (especially of Venice at Dawn and the final scene of Tadzio walking into the water and pointing to the horizon) renders this film a true masterpiece.

Sentiment: positive
This intelligent, moving and beautiful film is a study in the ways people react to tradition (reminds me of William Faulkner's novels).

The characters all feel trapped by the weight of the roles they are expected to assume, and seek for a way to live within those roles rather than throw them off altogether. But as the story develops the two wives, trapped in loveless marriages, draw together. Drawing on the strength of their friendship and love, they give each other the courage to abandon their roles.

They have found that living within their traditions is no life at all, it is a sort of living death: without passion, without true connection to others, without fulfillment. Although they know there will be a price to be paid for their rebellion and freedom, it is a price much less dear than the sacrifice called for by a comfortable, predictable existence.

The screenplay is wonderful, the acting marvelous. Near perfect!

Sentiment: positive
To Die For has it all.This film has a great cast. Lots and lots of romance and terror. Not too gory but still enough to appeal to horror fans. There are a lot more vampire love stories. If you are a fan of vampire love stories I strongly recommend this film-10/10.

Sentiment: positive
How can you tell that a horror movie is terrible? when you can't stop laughing about it of course! The plot has been well covered by other reviewers, so I'll just add a few things on the hilarity of it all.

Some reviews have placed the location in South America, others in Africa, I thought it was in some random island in the Pacific. Where exactly does this take place, seems to be a mystery. The cannibal tribe is conformed by a couple of black women some black men, and a man who looks like a young Frank Zappa banging the drums... the Devil God is a large black man with a terrible case of pink eyes.

One of the "freakiest" moments in the film is when, "Pablito" find his partner hanging from a tree covered in what seems to be an orange substance that I assume is blood, starts screaming for minutes on and on (that's actually funny), and then the head of his partner falls in the ground and "Pablito" kicks it a bit for what I assume is "shits n' giggles" and the eyes actually move...

But, of course, then the "freak" is gone when you realize the eyes moved because the movie is just bad...

I hadn't laughed like this in a loooong while, and I definitely recommend this film for a Sunday afternoon with your friends and you have nothing to do... grab a case of beers and start watching this film, you'll love it! If you are looking for a real horror or gore movie, though... don't' bother.

Sentiment: negative
Debut? Wow--Cross-Eyed is easily one of the most enjoyable indie films that I've watched in the past year, making it hard to believe that Cross Eyed is the writer's debut film. I mean--I logged onto IMDb to find more films by this writer...because Cross Eyed has that unique signature --you want to see what else this writer might have to say. These days, its rare to see a movie that is well-written, well-directed, well-edited and well-acted. For me--Cross Eyed encapsulates what movie making should be about--combining the best of all film elements to create a clever, artistic and poignant tale. More, please.

Sentiment: positive
This is such an exciting documentary, it was by far one of the most fun films I've ever seen. I highly recommend it to anyone. It's such a fun look at different musical styles, exciting people at the crossroads between modern and traditional that is Istanbul, and great cinematography that captures beautiful scenes in Istanbul and Thrace. Watching the film made me want to book a flight for Istanbul right away.

Great footage of Ceza, a Turkish rapper. 

Also his sister, Ayben rapping - she is awesome.

Priceless performances by amazing Turkish musicians Orhan Gencebay, Sezen Aksu, Muzeyyen Senar.

The gorgeous voice of Aynur, singing in Kurdish.

And amazing clarinet and signing of a romany gypsy group from Thrace.

Last but not least, Istanbul bands mixing Turkish music and rock, as well as trance music -- Baba Zula, Orient Expressions, Duman, and others...

Sentiment: positive
The emotional impact of this movie defies words. It is elegant, subtle, beautiful, and tragic all rolled into two hours. This is Will Smith as he matures into his acting ability, the full range of it. Who knew? I saw The Pursuit of Happiness and thought, this must be a fluke for the blockbuster, over-the-top actor, Smith. His performances in both movies portray a whole other dimension to Smith, a refinement of talent, the selectivity of scripts, I'm not sure, but I view him differently now. Seven Pounds is one of those movies that in order to fully enjoy its essence you have to suspend your belief. Don't watch it for the plot, watch it for the fragile condition of the human heart, both literally and metaphorically. It is a story of human guilt, atonement, love, and sacrifice.

Sentiment: positive
OK, so I know of this movie because of a friend of mine's in it and I actually visited the set when they were filming, so from a personal stand-point, I was intrigued to finally view this obscure little gem. If you dig at all on info regarding this movie, you'll find it's mired in legal troubles (even over 7 years after being filmed) so, if you are at all like me -- then you'll do whatever it takes to obtain a copy. My source? Ebay. About $15 but I felt ripped because when I got it today in the mail, it was a very rough, grainy copy of a "SCREENER ONLY" release, complete with annoying top mini time-code but alas, I could still enjoy it but not as much as if I had a proper copy, something I suggest you obtain if you want the full impact this film may or may not have on you. From what I have gleaned, it's been released on DVD in Germany & now Spain. With that, good luck & happy searching/bidding...;). The score/sndtrk is worth it alone. Very eclectic and varied (somethinbg rare these days IMHO in film) -- I think that will be my next sndtrk/score to locate, but I digress... 

Now, onto the review. The film opens as Billy Zane's character is injecting a nurse in the mental ward he is apparently locked up in. He steals her clothes (even shoes) and quickly moves into a series of holding up a bank/loan shop but after escaping with the loot, well, I guess this is where the "plot" begins -- he inadvertently looses it. After perpetrating several campy over-the-top crimes & dalliances to various A to C-list celebs to locate the money, he finds himself somehow in a cemetery where a funeral -- I think for the dead guy he shoots in the loan office/bank, and -- even with 1950's police cars and cops looking all over for him steadily throughout -- he never gets seen or nabbed. (He sees daily newspapers reporting his "crimes") This I liked, because it gave the thin plot an extension. After all, it's a MOVIE (see: fiction) & director Iris Iliopulos does what I think is everything possible to 1) Bring Wood's vision to fruition and 2) Give it an updated feel, yet have shots of authentic 50's police cars intertwined with, ahh, local L.A..99$ stores -- so well hence my 9 rating. If the period and props were authentic -- I would have given it a 10. Now it wraps it self up kinda weird and I won't spoil it for anyone but let's just say the final ending is somewhat disappointing for it, to me, it had promise, action and comedy -- all up till the end, so...with ALL that said --locate a copy at your own discretion.

Just realize that, as there is no dialouge (except for some narration and singing) this may be up your alley -- maybe not-- but I definitely think it's worth a watch. The actors all do fine performances and it's only the inconsistency in proper period pieces that really made me long for just that correction -- then I would say by all means check this film out for it's not like anything these studios put out these days (or will in the future, too) I am sure.

Sentiment: positive
I still find it hard to believe that a fine - if overlong - novel by Dean Koontz was transformed into this utter excrement.

This movie is so bad it's disgusting. Boos to all who participated. Shame on you!

P.S. The fact that sequels have appeared just goes to show how little taste and discretion remains in Silver Screen Land.

Sentiment: negative
I never like to comment on a good film but when it comes to a bad movie, I gotta come really hard on it. Talking about Vivah, this guy, Sooraj Badjatya, seems to have completely lost it. After success of Hum Aapke Hain Kaun, he thought he can make money with cheesy wedding videos. Vivah is so so cheesy that Badjatyas have left Johars and Chopras behind.

There was not a single moment during the movie where I can say 'Oh! at least this thing is good'. Aloknath does cliché in a role of Girl's father, Shahid kapoor looks fat and Shahrukhed, Amrita rao is another disaster in addition to ugly looking sets, bad costumes, hackneyed storyline, monstrous stepmother, trying-hard-to-act actors, cacophonous background music, cheap soundtracks.

Now the spoiler, I'm warning you guys that as happens in all his other movies, after a calamitous incidence movie ends on a happy note.

Sentiment: negative
Gorgeous Barbara Bach plays Jennifer Fast, a television reporter who travels with her crew (Karen Lamm and Lois Young) to Solvang, California, to cover a Danish festival. The problem is that their accommodations have fallen through and all hotels in town are full. So they travel out of town to a remote location and take advantage of the hospitality of the seemingly friendly Ernest Keller (a phenomenal Sydney Lassick). Wouldn't you know it, Ernest and meek partner Virginia (Lelia Goldoni) are hiding a big secret in their cellar: pitiable, deformed, diaper-clad "Junior" (Stephen Furst, in a remarkable performance) who ultimately terrorizes the girls.

A deliciously unhinged Lassick plays the true monster in this disturbing little horror movie. It builds slowly but surely to an intense confrontation / climax, delivering the horror in small doses until the final half hour. The hotel and the foreboding cellar - large echoes of "Psycho" here - are great settings. Most of all, the perverse plot involves incest and patricide, allowing the movie to take on a truly dark quality. And yet it also becomes poignant as we realize Junior is no one-dimensionally evil bogeyman but as much a victim as the girls. The final shot is especially sad.

"The Unseen" is a solid little horror flick worthy of discovery.

8/10

Sentiment: positive
This movie was *good* relatively during the first parts of it.

We have a story, from 3 points of view. So let's find some clues and complete the story.

Oh wait...none of that stuff matters because the FBI guys are the bad guys! Though that was a great twist...it was almost a terrible twist. I immediately downgraded the film from a 7 maybe 8 to 3 based on the last 10-15 minutes of it.

Does anyone else not see why the twist is so bad? Yes, it's a good shock. But it is bad because it has absolutely nothing to do with the preceding hour and twenty minutes. There's no connection to the killers.

The killers are in about all of 5 minutes of this movie (as killers) and the two FBI agents are only in 15 minutes of the previous hour and twenty.

We get it...surveillance...Oh, the Killers are voyeurs. WHICH MAKES NO SENSE, because they were only described in limited terms as just being psychopaths. And the hour and twenty minutes of surveillance we are watching of the 3 stories goes out the window as everyone is dead in 5 minutes.

All of this makes the ending even more ridiculous. Oh, they killed a bunch of FBI agents in the beginning...what FBI agents sleep together? All in the same room. To be found and murdered by amateurs and then impersonated by people who know nothing about being FBI agents? A cop 3 feet away apparently can't hit either one with a standard police issue pistol that can shoot several shots. I hate movies that try to make you feel like this could be real when they make absurd leaps they think we will believe.

The other thing is the movie ends about 10-15 minutes after they are revealed as the killers with a girl standing in the field somewhere...

Sentiment: negative
Lance used to get quality support work from James Cameron. Heck, he even had his own tv show (Millenium) for a coupl'a seasons. Why is he doing this? Couldn't he find some better way to pay his bills?

I love a good low-budget movie. Some of them you can laugh at simply due to their ludicrous premise, their textbook stereotyped characters, or often times because the actors are related to the director/producers. But, this movie has no redeeming value. I didn't laugh. I didn't cry. I only had this sick feeling in my stomach. That feeling was quickly identified as pity. At one point, Lance Henriksen was an A-list support actor. He's been in Terminator (he was going to BE terminator before Arnold showed up), Aliens, AliensIII, classic B-movie Pumpkinhead, among so many others! I wanted to send him money after this. Maybe we should start a support Lance fund or something.

Then again, for making this thing...maybe not.

Sentiment: negative
***************************MILD SPOILERS AHEAD**************************

We Dive at Dawn is an English made movie with John Mills in the lead role. The second time I watched the DVD version was on a big screen TV and I must say the movie is better than I thought the first time I saw it on the samll screen. May be it was the big screen viewing that helped?

I still say the first few segments of the movie are muddled, but once the submarine leaves the dock and begins its mission, the movie takes off too! The search for the German battleship named the Brandenburg and the adventures which went along with it were absorbing and the detail shown in the movie are interesting!

I'm increasing my rating to 7/10. If you enjoy WW II films, I think you'll find this one interesting once the submarine gets underway. Some of the men on the sub have quite a sense of humor, too!

Sentiment: positive
It was very refreshing to watch this beautiful movie. The director maintained focus on the main subject without venturing into side plots (the doctor's family or stories of the other hospital patients), that are so typical of Bollywood assembly-line products. He kept the narrative simple to comprehend and made sure all the actors are true to the characters that they are supposed to portray. The rustic ways of the grandfather in the clinic, the cold and unemotional behavior of the surgeon, the zeal of the social worker gave the movie a feel of genuineness. I am also glad that the director did not fall for the temptation of adding songs or special effects and reduce it to the level of Anand or Safar. A couple of scenes toward the end of the movie, such as the boy visiting other blind children and a blind worker's workplace and also the final scene where the boy claps at the sound of splashing and birds chirping are sure make your eyes misty.

Many Bollywood players do not realize that Oscar committee members value simplicity of the subject and genuineness and brevity of the movie more than the glitz and glamor. Shwaas is certainly a better nomination than Lagaan, which dealt with a subject that has already been beaten to death. No MPAA member is willingly going to suffer through 4 hours of jingoistic drama and a lot of song and dance.

I look forward to more movies from director Sandeep Sawant in the future.

Sentiment: positive
Chuck Jones's 'Beep Beep' (so called despite the fact that the Road Runner clearly says "Meep Meep") is the second of the exceptionally popular Road Runner series and is a vast improvement on its predecessor, the historically important but lacklustre 'Fast and Furry-ous'. While it features several predictable quickfire gags, 'Beep Beep' also expands on that initial cartoon with more ambitious, longer sequences. Chief among these is a fantastic, extended chase through an old mine in which we see the Coyote and the Road Runner represented by two small lights. There's also a very funny longer gag involving some rocket-powered roller-skates. 'Beep Beep' also sees a great improvement in the representation of Wile E. Coyote. Not only does he look more handsome than his scraggly prototype in 'Fast and Furry-ous' but he also draws the audience into the cartoon more with a greater amount of looks to the camera to indicate the brilliance of his idea or his fear of imminent pain. Although it's a little slow to get going (too many lingering shots of blueprints hinder the pace in some of the early gags), once 'Beep Beep' arrives at the mine shaft sequence it's clear that Jones was beginning to get a real handle on these characters and the greater possibilities of what he could do with them. There are better Road Runner cartoons than 'Beep Beep' but there's a real feeling of triumph about this cartoon, as if it were the confirmation that there was a series to be milked out of this scenario.

Sentiment: positive
FORBIDDEN PLANET is one of the best examples of Hollywood SF films. Its influence was felt for more than a decade. However, certain elements relating to how this wide-screen entertainment was aimed at a mid-fifties audience that is now gone have dated it quite a bit, and the film's sometimes sluggish pacing doesn't help. But, the story's compelling central idea involving the ancient,extinct Krell civilization and "monsters from the Id" hasn't lost its appeal and continue to make this film a relevant "must see" movie. What I'm mostly interested in saying here is that the current DVD for this movie is terrible. The movie has never really looked that good on home video and it's elements are in dire need of restoration. I hope that will happen soon and we get a special edition of this SF classic.

Sentiment: positive
Charlie Wilson (Two time Oscar-Winner:Tom Hanks) is a easy-going Congressman... Who loves to party, enjoys the company of woman and especially drinking his booze. When Charlie's old friend and ex-girlfriend Joanne Herring (Oscar-Winner:Julia Roberts) wants Charlie to visit Afghanistan, which that country certainly need of help. Charlie is shocked of what he seen, especially from all different ages are killed or hurt from this war with the Russians. He decides to help the people and the rebels to fight the Russians, who started the war. Charlie, Joanne and one renegade CIA Agent by the name of Gust Avrakotos (Oscar-Winner:Philip Seymour Hoffman) will start a good fight to bring the largest covert operation in history.

Directed by Oscar-Winner:Mike Nichols (The Birdcage, Regarding Henry, Wolf) made an lively, entertaining sharp satire war comedy that is based on a true story. Hanks, Roberts, Hoffman in a Oscar nominated performance and Amy Adams as Charlie's loyal assistant are very good in their roles. Despite the excellent true-life premise, "Charlie Wilson's War" never really catches fire and it is not as wickedly funny as you liked it to be. Director Nichols and Screenwriter:Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men) keeps things moving and the characters are well liked throughout.

DVD has an sharp Pan & Scan (1.33:1) transfer and an good Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD's only special features are the behind the scenes featurette with the cast & crew and a real-life featurette with Charlie Wilson and Others. "Charlie Wilson's War" is a good movie that could have been really great but it's not. But this movie is smart enough to please for those, who enjoyed well written or well acted adult comedies. (*** 1/2 out of *****).

Sentiment: positive
Although properly warned I actually sat down to watch this movie. In part because I usually give every movie an even break, and because I thought that a single movie couldn't be that bad. I stand corrected. Not even George Kennedy, Barry Bostwick or Ben Stein could save this turkey from sinking like a ton of bricks. Only once during this humor forsaken travesty of a spoof did I laugh. Namely during the Simon says scene. The other jokes are either poorly carried out or simply plain unfunny. And some of them you actually see coming a mile away. This movie just hasn't got what it takes to be a good parody like Airplane! (I+II), Naked Gun (I+II+III), or Scary Movie. They all had A. funny gags, B. good dialog and most important of all C. unforgettable quotes. Men In White has got D. none of the above. To call this movie bad would be a gross understatement. AVOID THIS MOVIE ANYWAY YOU CAN! CONSIDER YOURSELVES WARNED!

Sentiment: negative
Bwana Devil is reputedly the first major studio, full length feature filmed entirely in the 3D process. Supposedly producer Oboler went to Africa to shoot a different movie, but after hearing the tale of two man-eating lions, terrorizing railway builders, decided on this one. It's a good story too, almost Hemmingway-like; fear, redemption, the great white hunter and all. It's the telling of the story that seems to drag, almost as though filming in the new process was too weighty for the crew. The action scenes are stiff, almost too staged. But these technical problems appear small in light of the film's dramatic conclusion.

Sentiment: positive
What You Need In the run up to 'What You Need', every episode since 'The Lonely' had been a winner to some extent. This episode is the first major failure since 'Escape Clause'. The Serling script is again based on someone else's materiel, a short story by Lewis Padgett. As with 'And When the Sky Was Opened', Serling altered the content significantly, removing a scientist and his machine and inserting an elderly peddler.

'What You Need' works best when it is being sweet. The opening half, in which the peddler provides customers in a bar with objects they will need in the near future, has a gentle charm about it that may have worn thin throughout an entire episode but works well in the time frame it is allotted. Sadly, the main plot which it sets up is full of gaping holes. The minute Steve Cochran's performance as a two-bit thug becomes the main focus the episode falls apart. Cochran's part is an underwritten stereotype and his flat performance highlights this flaw. His exploitation of the old peddler is dull and predictable and the revelation that he will murder the old man is totally unconvincing, making the whole slippery shoes scene seem completely false. Ernest Truex is good as the peddler, bringing a magical, mysterious but warm edge to the character, but he's not good enough to help the floundering script.

To make matters worse, the weak script is also full of inconsistencies. For instance, we learn that the peddler's power to provide people with what they need stems from an ability to see into the future. So how exactly does this allow him to produce a pen that will magically pick winning horses. That seems like it should be a little outside his realms of power. Also, for a man who can see the future, the peddler certainly acts surprised to find the thug waiting for him in his flat. There are many more holes that can be picked in 'What You Need' but it's hardly worth it when the episode is so thin that you can see through it anyway.

Sentiment: negative
A movie has rarely left me as cold as this one. There is not a bit of tension, not a second of fear, not a moment we jump, even a little bit. The girl is cute, yeah. That's it. Was that worth a movie ? I knew it wasn't supposed to be a great movie, but I was at least expecting one.

Sentiment: negative
I was first introduced to this movie while in San Antonio, Tx. This movie was the 2nd. in a double feature. Unfortunately, the theater where I saw this was torn down. Anyways, Five Fingers of Death (aka: King Boxer), was released in 1972 and introduced in the U.S. the following year. Like a lot of "other" Kung-Fu movies released while riding on the "coat-tails" of Enter the Dragon, this particular movie actually was pretty good. It's the story of a country boy who is sent to a martial arts institute to better himself & his fighting skills. Meanwhile, the "opponent" martial arts school plans & scheme to thwart our hero, utilizing dirty tactics to try to throw him off track & try to prevent him from participating in the tournament. By surprise, I had thought since Warner Bros. distributed this movie in the U.S., Warner Bros. was going to issue a DVD. It never happened. As far as I know, this movie has been released in both English & Cantonise, w/sub-titles.....the latter a more "cleaner & clearer" version. Although the fighting sequences are a bit funny to watch (i.e.: flying in air & hitting, jumping on buildings, a fighter using his head....literally....to hit his opponent, etc.), nonetheless, it's classic kung-fu action wonderfully planned & executed. If you like Enter the Dragon, Five Fingers of Death would be an excellent addition to any Movie collection.....if you can find it.

Sentiment: positive
hello. hello and goodbye. but, before i go, i want to talk to you. i just want to quickly mention a few keys points about this film. the first being erotica. especially homo-erotica.

yes, well. let us begin. When a man and a man love each other very much they fuse together in a spectacular, not to mention tender, explosion of cinema which we call merchant of venice.

the homo erotic love was sensual at worse. and even more sensual at best. it was hardcore and emotional. it touched me inappropriately and I'm pretty sure i touched it back. and when no one was looking i touched myself a little too.

i laughed because portia was denied. she was second in line to our friend, the homo erotic love. oh antonio. antoni. just toni. i love you. more than you loved that guy. whos name may or may not have contained an "B". he was well ugly.

antoni was very greasy. he lathered his body in an encasement of his own hair grease and sensual juices and proceed to writhe accoss the screena and present himself to the guy with the name i like the movie in conclusion, go see the movie if not for the homo erotic connotations, for the love of a man such as antoni. just toni.

Sentiment: positive
Okay, this may not be the most sophisticated movie you'll ever see. Actually, there isn't a bit of "sophisticatedlyness"* in it. It's puerile, adolescent, inoffensive, idiotic..And utterly hilarious. Basically, Richie and Eddie run the worst hotel in Britain. Cue some ridiculous antics with the guests while they beat each other up, try to get the rent money out of the only resident who is daft enough to stay, have an all night drinking binge with the boys from the power plant next door...And fall in lust with the beautiful actress who comes to stay to avoid the press. Give it a try if you're a fan of Rik and Ade and their work. If you're not...Don't get the movie. Simple as that.

*I'm not being thick, this is a word from another one of Rik's fab jaunts into the movie world ^_^

Sentiment: positive
Simon's carefully written dialogues are truly electrified by Matthau and Burns. You can literally hear the script crackle. There are few movies out there that can develop such a relationship between the actors and the script. For example, the famed reunion scene could have been a lot duller with less-quality actors involved. Matthau seems to had been born to play Willie Clark (of course, Oscar moreso in the Odd Couple), and with all of the little idiosyncracies and mannerisms that Matthau crams into the character (the line where he is arguing that he is with it since he lives in the city whereas Lewis lives in the country that Lewis is "out of touch" is the quintessential example of this) make this one of the best performances I've ever seen of any actor in any role, be it comedic or drama or whatever else. Period. Matthau and Burns work excellently together; the contrast they portray accentuates Simon's superb knack at creating comedic conflict. This movie is simply one of the ultimate "must-sees" and does demand a rightful prestigious place in the pages of film history.

Sentiment: positive