DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I simply cannot believe the folks that made and performed in this movie really took it seriously. The skits on SNL look more real. Everything was laughably fake. The goofy gunfights, the ridiculous fist fights, the dialogue, the sappy background music, and even Bo's blind eye. Had it been billed as a comedy, it still would have made more sense but still would be bad. I can see this as "entertainment" only if you get a room full of stoned college kids watching it like it were Rocky Horror Picture Show. Imagine some of the stuff you saw on Blazing Saddles, like Mongo knocking the horse down or the old lady gettinf stomach-punched. Now imagine the producer wants you to take those scenes seriously and you get the gists of this disaster.

Sentiment: negative
Okay, I haven't read the book yet but I have to say that the lead character was miscast. How can I say such a thing haven't read the book you ask? It's simple. As a viewer of this miniseries, I grew irritated by the mannerisms, gestures and look of the lead character, Fannie Price. It's one thing to be a good person but it's quite another to be a stick in the mud creature who disdains from looking anyone in the face or otherwise meeting their gaze. Apart from the overdone "Susan B. Anthony" profile, she seemed resolute in refusing to look at another person. The scene where Edmond is pouring his heart out to her, she is looking straight ahead the whole time, forcing him to do the same. As a result, it was just awkward and I just couldn't fathom anyone being in love with her let alone both Henry and Edmond. Many have said it was true to the book, if that is the case I find it hard to believe that Jane Austen would create such a character as her lead heroine. It's possible to create a character who has been put upon by others and succeeds in earning their trust and endearment but the portrayal of this character in this miniseries just didn't do it for me.

Sentiment: negative
The ultimate goal of Big Brother, that we know what to think before we think it, has been realized. Is it some kind of miracle, or sinister joke, that people don mental straight jackets of their own volition, twist themselves into contorted shapes, and grin like apes? Movies, art, no longer risk the unknown, but are forgone conclusions, drained of life.

"The Notorious Bettie Page" is a bland case history, fit for a freshman college feminism course. Its lesson is schematic, right-angled and linear: "See how women are objectified, exploited, abused, then tossed on the trash heap, by a male-dominated society."

Bettie Page, supposedly, was the "pin-up queen of the 1950's," the ass millions of men ejaculated to. (All reviewers repeat that phrase, "pin-up queen of the 1950's," like a choir of monkeys.) Her history as an American sex bomb is familiar: Southern, abused by her father, raped, etc. In this movie she is a naïf, an innocent unaware of the prurient interests she serves and shamelessly profits from. Although she believes in Jesus, she enjoys frolicking nude before a camera lens -- just the wholesome girl-next-door sex-slave American males supposedly fantasize.

From the mouth of writer-director Mary Harron herself, Oxford-educated AND ex-punker (do you smell the combined rot of privilege and "hipness" as I do?): "I feel that without feminism, I wouldn't be doing this. ... I don't make feminist films in the sense that I don't make anything ideological. But I do find that women get my films better." What a cozy clique.

The movie merely goes through the motions of telling the story of a human life, it's subject and purpose having been eulogized and interred well before the movie began. Ms. Page has a boyfriend, but we are shown next to nothing about their relationship. In fact, there are no intimate or detailed relationships in the film. 

One can't ignore its smug simplicity. In New York, where Ms. Page tries her best to fit into and appease a man's world, letting herself be tied up in the ropes of bondage and tightly laced into the black leather boots and bodices of S & M, the movie is black and white. But down in Miami, where she goes to get away from it all, gleefully takes off her clothes, and is photographed by a "liberated" female, the movie turns into color.

Like hell Harron doesn't "make feminist films," doesn't "make anything ideological." Ideology has become so internalized, so assumed, so programmed, that it's almost invisible. Big Brother must be smiling.

Sentiment: negative
I thought that My Favorite Martian was very boring and drawn out!! It was not funny at all. The audience just sat through the whole movie and didn't laugh at all!!! Not even the kids laughed!! That is sad for a Disney movie!! I thought they could have found somebody better to play the martian rather than Christopher Lloyd!! He was really stupid!! And he was not funny!! I thought the talking suit was really dumb!!! In the original television series the suit doesn't talk and move around!! In my opinion they should not have wasted their time on this movie!! I give it two thumbes down!! Really a waste of time and I would not recommend the movie to anybody!!! Thank You!!

Sentiment: negative
Of course if you are reading my review you have seen this film already. 'Raja Babu' is one of my most favorite characters. I just love the concept of a spoiled brat with a 24*7 servant on his motorcycle. Watch movies and emulate characters etc etc. I love the scene when a stone cracks in Kader khans mouth while eating. Also where Shakti Kapoor narrates a corny story of Raja Babu's affairs on a dinner table and Govinda wearing 'dharam-veer' uniform makes sentimental remarks. Thats my favorite scene of the film. 'Achcha Pitaji To Main Chalta Hoon' scene is just chemistry between two great Indian actors doing a comical scene with no dialogs. Its brilliant. It's a cat mouse film. Just watch these actors helping each other and still taking away the scene from each other. Its total entertainment. If you like Govinda and Kader Khan chemistry then its a must. I think RB is 6th in my list by David Dhawan. 'Deewana Mastana', 'Ankhein','Shola or Shabnam', 'Swarg', Coolie no 1' precedes this gem of a film. 7/10.

Sentiment: positive
Very poor effort that offers pretty much nothing to anyone but a hardcore fan of Stanley Tucci, who tries, but can not save the poor structure, dialogue, direction, or talent of our leading man.

Pretty much the only trick this plodding tale of a naive new salesman for an alarm company has, is its quirky side characters. But without a realistic backdrop, such characters are pointless.

Nothing to see here, keep moving...



Sentiment: negative
Sickening exploitation trash plays like a bad (and reverse) "Death Wish" ripoff - but the ugly and untalented Tamerlis makes Charles Bronson look like Al Pacino with her performance. As for Ferrara's "stylish" direction, when a film is so vile, dumb and deeply offensive, it's hard for the viewer to pay attention to such details.

Sentiment: negative
OK, fans, it's out on DVD. But the only reason to watch this is 1) to say you did (due to its notoriety), or 2) if you're a hardcore Bill Paxton fan. I am not a hardcore BP fan but he was fun to watch and it was the only thing that kept me from turning this off from sheer boredom. It's a shame, because this could have been a good movie with some script work and if made by someone with some intelligence (and with a cast led by someone besides the totally miscast and talentless Judd Nelson). Sure it's gross, but it's BAD, and not in a good way. If after reading all the comments on how bizarrely revolting and dystopianly filthy this movie is you are still interested, do yourself a favor and see some GOOD bizarre revolting dystopian filth instead. Films by John Waters, David Lynch, Peter Jackson's "Braindead", Henenlotter's "Basket Case", etc., all come to mind. There's lots better out there.

Sentiment: negative
Dracula (John Carradine) visits Dr. Edelman (Onslow Stevens) who believes everything can be cured by science. He wants Edelamn to cure his vampirism--Edelman agrees. Then Lawrence Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) pops up looking for a cure for his turning into a werewolf. Thr Frankenstein monster is discovered too but doesn't really do anything.

Very ambitious plot for a Universal horror film from the 1940s. Trying to cure the monsters by science is actually an interesting idea. Also this movie has beautiful sets (LOVE the castle to doctor lives in), tons of atmosphere, is very well-directed (great use of shadows) and has pretty good special effects.

The acting is all good except for Carradine--he tries but I could never accept him as Dracula. Also Lionel Atwill pops in playing (as always) the chief of police. This is pretty much forgotten and derided as a stupid film but I think it's very good. It's also to last time the Universal monsters were done seriously--the next film was in 1948 in "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein". It's a great film but the accent is more on comedy.

The only real flaw here is there's a LOT of plot for 67 minutes and some gaps in logic: Why does Dracula try to bite lovely Miliza (Martha O'Driscoll) when he's being cured? And why (and how) does the doctor get Frankenstin into his castle? Still these are small complaints. Recommended.

Sentiment: positive
This movie should go down in the annals of fiefdom as one of the worst of all time. I will stop short of saying it's the worst movie ever, only because I have yet to see every movie ever made. I cannot make such lofty claims until then. The story is stale, the acting is horrible, at best, the "special" effects are no more than a couple of lbs. of dry ice and a fan. Somebody must have been related to someone to get this movie made. Mr. Busey mailed this one in! The dog is well trained and cute, making it the only redeeming quality in this never-should-have-made-it movie. Two hours and $3 of my life I will never get back.

Sentiment: negative
Purported documentary that tries to examine sci-fi films of the 1950s and how they affected (and REflected) America. Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Ridley Scott and James Cameron are interviewed and Mark Hamill narrates.

Pretty terrible. The "insights" that are given are nothing new--for instance--the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war affected a whole generation of children. Well-duh! They try to cover all of the different sub genres of sci-fi films of the 1950s--the big bug movies, invaders from space movies etc etc. That's good but they choose the most obvious films and they've been over analyzed to death already. It was cool seeing clips from "Rocketship X-M", "Destination Moon", "Forbidden Planet", "The Thing" and "The Day the Earth Stood Still" but everything the directors said was so incredibly obvious to any viewer that it's insulting. Even though it's under an hour I was thoroughly bored 30 minutes in. This gets a 2 for some of the clips but nothing else.

Sentiment: negative
I love those kind of movies. Blood, Revenge, A Lot of Action, Very Dark, Cheesy and More. But this one doesn't deliver the genre that you might expect. When I saw Kite Birds and Ichi the Killer before, I had fun watching those but why this one not? Dead or Alive: Final is a decent anime and its not hardcore and don't even expect nudity in this movie.At least add some more action to entertain the audience. Even the drama wasn't that good. Well, I don't want to spoil the movie nor the plot.But I felt that Dead or Alive: Final is a bit nerdy. So, without further to do. I don't recommend this movie to everyone but I recommend for the people who love decent and well directed anime.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University of Paris Dauphine & University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne

Sentiment: positive
This one grew on me. I love the R.D. Burman music and in spite of the cruder elements of the story I found much to be moved by as I kept re-watching the movie. The brother-sister plot line is powerful, I thought; there's also more probably obligatory stuff, like bar fights, a loony crime story, etc. that are just distracting. (Though not unfunny from a certain point of view.) Also the English translation is definitely by someone for whom it was a bit of a stretch, and as loony as it is I am grateful to him for doing it.

Like many of the Bollywood movies I've seen, this one is melodramatic and opera-like, including here notably a song sung first by a little boy to cheer up his abused and unhappy sister, and then the same song sung 12 or so years later by the man who has travelled to Kathmandu seeking to re-connect with this girl, grown up and troubled (she had been told her brother and mother were dead), numbing her pain with drugs.

A super thing about this 1971 movie is that it is about the hippie movement, which brought hordes of seekers to India, from an Indian point of view, that sees them as people driven to India by a spiritual hunger aroused by the failings of their own societies, but nonetheless, in India, living only for the pleasures of the moment. The hippie singing-dancing-drugging scenes are truly wonderful, and accurate in their tone (I'm old enough to remember), and I feel pretty sure that the masses of young white zoned-out kids are actual hippie extras, as I remember hearing about kids on the caravan to the East getting this kind of work in Bollywood.

(It is not about the actual Hare Krishna movement, though the movie hippies sing a Krishna/Rama chant, as do a group of actual Indian devotees, unrelated to the hippies, in the opening scene of the movie.)

~Virginia

Sentiment: positive
Here's how you do it: Believe in God and repent for your sins. Then things should turn around within the next day or so. 

Until the last fifteen minutes, this movie just plays as a bad recap of a drunk's crappy life. His mom dies. His stepmom's a b_tch. His dad dies. He drinks. He gets married. He has kids. He drinks some more. His wife gets mad. He disappoints his kids. The wife threatens to leave. He calls up a reverend late night b/c he wants to kill himself. Then after the recap happens, that's when we get the "Left Behind"-like subtle message.

"He needed a paycheck". This is the phrase I had to repeat over and over once credits started to roll so I wouldn't lose my respect for Madsen.

Madsen drops to his knees and begs Christ's forgiveness. Once he does, he walks outside and actually says that he sees the world in a different way. He tells his wife that he's found God and that's good enough for her. Flip scene four months and the wife is tired of going to church. End the movie as Madsen walks by the bar and gives a soliloquy about how happy he is with Christ and without alcohol. Final moment? He gives a little dismissive wave to the bar (i.e. sin house) and give a gay, Miami-Vice, after-school special congratulatory jump in the air as the camera freeze-frames. See why I had to repeat the phrase? "He needed a paycheck".

Man this movie is bad. The B-Grade 80's production values don't help much. The script could have easily been a "Touched By An Angel" episode. It could have been knocked out in 30 minutes plus commercials. The acting is wooden and never believable. Even Madsen, of whom I'm a big fan and is the sole reason I sat through this, makes it clear that this is his first acting job and he doesn't know his a$$ from his elbow yet on camera. 45 minutes into it I started to get discouraged. This thing was like homework. I just wanted to put it away and say that alright, I saw half of it. That's good enough. But no. If I sat through Cheerleader Ninjas, I could sit throughout this.

The only reason I'm not giving this thing a 1 is for two points: 1) I love Madsen. I know it's not fair. But it's great seeing the opening title "Introducing Michael Madsen". Sue me. 2) Some of the Dialogue is so bad that it's classic. I'll stick some quotes at the end of this so you can enjoy them too.

That's about it. To wrap it up ,this thing is a piece of crap that should stay flushed with the rest of the turds. But hey! Look! Michael Madsen! (See also TILT, EXECUTIVE TARGET, MY BOSS'S DAUGHTER, etc). Now I've gotta rewatch Reservoir Dogs and watch Madsen torture a cop to get my respect back for him. See ya, Kids.

"This stuff's gonna make me go blind, but I'm gonna drink it anyway" - Madsen's first taste of cheap alcohol

"I don't understand! Everything seems so beautiful!" - Madsen walking outside after confessing to God

"I'm going downtown later and pick up a bible and I'm gonna get a haircut too" - Madsen after converting at the dinner table, because Satan lives in your hair

Sentiment: negative
I've always liked Fred MacMurray, andalthough her career was tragically cut shortI think Carole Lombard is fun to watch. Pair these two major and attractive stars together, add top supporting players like Jean Dixon, Anthony Quinn, Dorothy Lamour and Charles Butterworth, give them a romantic script, team them with noted director Mitchell Leisen and you geta mediocre movie experience.

Skid Johnson (Fred) and Maggie (Carole) "meet cute" during her visit to the Panama Canal, and spend the next few weeks falling in love. Skid's a great trumpeter, so he embarks on a musical career, which is predictably meteoric in both its rise and fall. During his climb to musical stardom, he neglects Maggie, who later inspires him to start over after he's hit rock bottom. Ah, yesit's the true Hollywood happy ending, which comes none too soon.

Stars and a director of this caliber should guarantee success, but this movie is so predictable and slow-paced that it's difficult to watch at times. The early scenes set in Panama are so draggy that they seem to go on forever, and later an alcoholic Skid just wanders endlessly in New York. Fred and Carole try their best, but the tired script and S-L-O-W direction just don't give them a chance. Even the final scene, in which Maggie encourages Skid to rise from the ashes of alcohol and disappointment, just doesn't ring true.

This movie should be seen once to watch some early performances from stars MacMurray and Lombard. However, I guarantee that watching it will seem to take about 48 hours.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was in one word. Terrible. First of all the people who invented that thingie that puts you in the TV, are slightly insane! Secondly, the three teens are so obsessed with the show, it's scary! The movie was stupid, and no effort or thought was put into it!

Sentiment: negative
I agree with with of the messages on here that the book is not like the movie. I read the book as a sophomore in high school in Sumter SC. I instantly fell in love with the book and eagerly awaited the release of the mini series. As much as I liked the movie and thought it was very well done, I was disappointed that the movie did not follow the book. I was glad the Orry was not killed off like he was in Love and War or N&S II.

Having grown up in SC and graduating from University of SC, I fell in love with southern history because of this mini series and book. I had the honor of meeting John Jakes at a symposium in 1988 at USC. I stayed around afterwards and meet Mr.Jakes. Unfortunately, I did not get to ask him a question. But meeting him was honor enough. I majored in accounting but got my minor in Southern Studies. In addition, I patterned a lot of my mannerisms after Orry Main. Orry and myself are very much alike. I feel I was born 150 years too late. I am a southern gentleman and very proud of this.

Well I fell in love with 2 women in the movie....Genie Francis and Wendy Kilbourne. Man, did I have the hots for Wendy!!!! I never quite could find a real life version of her. I hope one day too!!!

Sentiment: positive
I first saw this movie when it was released in the U.S. in 1984. I have seen it many, many times since. What strikes me about the film is the incorporation of the art of the rehearsal into the lives of the characters and visa versa. Throughout the movie the two intertwine and at times one is never too sure if one is watching the lives of the characters or a scene from a rehearsal. This continues up to the climax of the film. All these years later my friends and I still love to debate whether or not "Carmen" is really stabbed at the end. From the reactions of the other characters, to the stylized murder, it is open to debate. The passion of the dance, the quality of the acting, the love of art, and the brilliance of the performances all combine to create a superb movie that, once again, blends and twists the line between life and art.

Sentiment: positive
My spoiler is in my pants because thinking about this movie made me so angry I crapped myself.

Once you finish watching it, you stare at the TV set in confusion and horror. Then, there's a soft tap on your shoulder and a voice hisses, "You will die in seven days." You turn around, and one of your best friends is standing there with a look of absolute hatred for the one that suggested this movie when you were in Blockbuster.

I won't lie: this is the worst movie on the face of the Earth. I saw it with 5 of my friends all 18-year-old guys, and these were our reactions: -One person actually began crying and punching himself -One person screamed and passed out -One person stood up and staggered out the front door to reappear more than an hour later -One person simply blacked out (this one was me) -One person started babbling incoherently, as if he had both cerebral palsy and Touretts' Syndrome -One person went into a sort of catatonic trance and did not respond to our voices for more than twenty minutes

The movie really is that bad. There's one part where the retarded cameraman actually trips (while holding the camera), but the producers decided to leave it in. Seriously, you can hear him grunt and swear when he hits the ground. There's only one special effect, and it's special in the same way that a retarded kid trying to solve a Rubix Cube is special: the camera rotates so that the on-screen action (action, n. Some dumbass lost in a corn field for 80 freaking minutes) does a barrel roll.

Under NO circumstances should it be watched, and the movie itself even warns you of this fact. Do you know what the tagline on the back is? "Some warnings should not be ignored." I honestly think that the release of this movie to the public is a sick practical joke on the producers' part. That's not to say, however, that you should pass it by if you see it at the movie store - it would then sit on the shelf for some other poor sucker to see. Rather, buy every copy of it you can get your hands on and mail them to people that you hate.

Sentiment: negative
This was a very faithful presentation of Lewis's life in the mid-50's. The dialogue on theology and the banter with his follow colleagues was exceptionally good. Michael White's book, "C.S. Lewis: Creator of Narnia" deals with this time frame in a very parallel way. Joss Ackland's acting was superb in catching the unemotional Lewis. The movie took great pains to be presented in an accurate English setting. The development of a strong bond between "Jack" (his preferred name) Lewis and Douglas Gresham, Joy's son from her previous marriage, was enjoyable to watch. The movie did avoid the distasteful element of "Warnie" Lewis's (Jack's older brother) drinking problem, but it would not have moved the story on, so it is best left out.

Sentiment: positive
It's not like an historical movie, it's not a movie with unforgettable love stories, it's not a movie with a spectacular scenario, but i can surely say it's a movie with a great atmosphere...

It had that 60's kind of bohemian and rebellious spirit: a group of friends living in a poor apartment in Paris, each one making art, dreaming of changing the world, doing drugs and loving in his very own way.

It takes a lot of patience to watch, and a special mood, that if you're not in, you might find it extremely boring and dull.

I liked a lot the very realistic approach of the events that took place and their immediate effect on student's lives: the fear for their future, the difficulty of earning their living, the obstacles in following their dreams.

What i absolutely loved was the black & white image. The still camera angles were amazing, they were like freezing moments. It left me the impression of a long slide show of old and very emotive and suggestive photographs. I actually had to see the movie again, just to take those amazing screen-shots.

In one word: beautiful...

Sentiment: positive
It's hard to believe people actually LIKE this dreck! I do think kids can enjoy it, but to me it's the kind of kid film parents can't bear to sit through. Predictable plot, boring Belushi, and possibly the worst kid actor of all time. I will give the director some of the responsibility for the kid, but she was truly painful to watch. I feel embarrassed for her now, having people know it was her. When she sang the Star Spangled Banner I had to turn the sound off--then I came here and discovered they did that because she won Star Search. I've always felt Jim Belushi should be ashamed to trade on the name of his wonderful, sadly missed brother, and this crap shows why. Zero stars.

Sentiment: negative
Renting this direct-to-video film, I was not expecting an amazing piece of cinematography. (Not to say just because a film is in cinema it will.) Only very loosely following the story retold in the epic poem, this film provides a unique take on the tale of monsters and super humans. The general photography can be summarized as conflicted, with its mixture of mediaeval and post-apocalyptic (reminiscent of Mad Max). With a rock and techno soundtrack to boot, one comes away feeling a bit off. The fight scenes, though unbelievable, are entertaining, and Christopher Lambert possesses some of the most interesting weapon combinations I have ever seen on film, though often a tad unfathomably inefficient. The special effects used for the monster Grendel are surprisingly effective and are one of the few highlights.

Christopher Lambert delivers an average performance as Beowulf. It will be nowhere near as memorable as Highlander, but at least it wasn't as poor as Fortress. The supporting cast is rather neutral.

If you're looking for a good action-adventure story with a complex and engaging plot, I would not suggest this film. However, if you want a flick that is of little substance, full of campy battle scenes, and a somewhat predictable plot, find a copy of this.

Sentiment: negative
**SPOILERS**This was an ugly movie, and I'm sorry that I watched it. Like Jan Kounen's Dobermann, it suffers mostly from poor editing--or lack of it. It is as if the director was so in love with his work that instead of cutting the movie down to a pace that kept your attention, he added all of the footage he had shot together. There are maybe two cool scenes in the entire movie. One of them is *SPOILER* when Benkei is petrified and the camera starts spinning around him. That was cool--but okay, we got it! Move on please! The camera won't stop spinning around this guy! There's maybe one or two more cool scenes that I forgot about in this flood of mediocrity, but the last duel scene IS NOT ONE OF THEM! It may be because unlike in the earlier sword-handling scenes, Shanao isn't masked--but just because the director couldn't find a stuntman who somewhat resembled Asano Tadanobu doesn't give him the right to go ahead and make up 80% of the sword fight with extreme close-ups of sword clashes! And all from the same angle, may I add. The director should learn from the American produced 1995 bullet-train ninja movie The Hunted! I personally saw the village raid scene as a tribute paid to the social activists of the previous generation who were confronted by the police in the violent demonstrations of their college years. The situation where innocence is oppressed by an authoritative and armed branch of the government unwilling to understand seems to be a message common in the Japanese media, due to the strong influence of socialists and communists who are a political minority. The movie versions of GTO and Salary Man Kintaro are two other recent examples *END SPOILER* I don't understand. I just don't understand why people who don't speak the language of the movie find praise worthy material in this. Maybe the worst was lost in the translation.

The ending of the movie--on which marketing played a lot, is a different interpretation of the legendary encounter between Shanao and Benkei. But that legend is not the most popular in Japanese folklore, and it is so detached from contemporary themes, that after 138 minutes of over played visual techniques, who cares how the director wants to re-interpret the story!? Director Sasaki Hirohisa of Crazy Lips said that there was an unpleasant trend among new Japanese directors to ignore Japanese audiences, and target their movies for foreign film festivals--in order to gain faster international fame. This works, although it doesn't make sense, because the point of an international movie fest is to introduce to the world what kind of movies are being made in other countries-what kind of movies people WATCH in those countries. Certainly not Gojoe and the like.

Sentiment: negative
I would like to comment on the movie April Love. It's one of my all time favorites because my father, Nelson Malone plays the horse trainer. I remember distinctly when Hollywood came to Lexington, KY, where we were living at the time to make April Love. My Dad had been in numerous plays and was a talented man. I talked him into going to try out for one of the bit parts offered, and lo and behold he came home w/the script. How exciting is that! Also, a number of my classmates were in the crowd scenes -- especially the ones shown at the amusement park. It's very nostalgic every April when I see the movie being shown once again, and the song April Love by Pat Boone is still played on the radio. Timeless and reminiscent of a time long gone when you see the movies they make today w/all the sex, foul language and violence. It would be refreshing to see more movies like April Love come back into focus...

Sentiment: positive
If you've never experienced the thing that is Zasu Pitts, here is a Zasu zinger! In 1933 Mae Questel caricatured Pitt's voice for the character Olive Oyl for the Fleischer Studios animated cartoon version of the comic strip Popeye. Zasu (pronounced Zay-Sue) does her best "Olive Oyl" impersonation walking around whining and ringing her hands or attaching herself to the policeman's laynard. I kept waiting for her to say "ohhh myyyy", but instead it's "something always happens to somebody." The first time I saw this film I loved Zasu and found her character really funny. I've since seen her in other films where she does this same whining, uptight, fragile-flower routine. So, upon watching this film again I started getting a little annoyed with the constant whining and near hysteria over a piece of dust. But, there are some funny comedy bits here, and it's also a mystery movie as well. It's an interesting mix of mystery and comedy that actually works. The mystery plot holds together well through the camp of Zasu Pitts and James Gleason who plays Arthur Crimmer the policeman. The haunted House is fun with many a secret passage and even a skeleton in the attic! Well worth the watch. Read more public domain movie reviews at: http://pdmoviereview.blogspot.com/

Sentiment: positive
With lots of sunshine, gauzy light and shadow filtering through windows and into rooms, tracking shots moving through crowds with hand-held camera, quick-paced editing and extreme close-ups here and there, the photography is the thing in this interesting, artistically done film.

The plot of this film starts out as a bit of fluff about a beauty contest. The film begins on a warm Sunday at the local swimming pool, where we meet the lovely Lucienne aka Lulu (played by Louise Brooks) - a bit of a show-off in front of the gawking men by poolside, she soon decides to enter herself to represent France in the Miss Europe beauty contest, much to the chagrin of her very jealous, stick-in-the-mud fiancé (a pretty annoying fellow, really). Strutting down the runway the ten contestants display themselves in swimsuits, while the winner is chosen as the contestant who receives the longest applause (I was wondering, couldn't the girls just walk slower to prolong their length of time - and thus applause - on the catwalk?!). Lulu is soon being chased by a Prince and a Maharaja, but her hot-headed beau doesn't like the attentions paid to her by other men or her adoring public, for that matter (I guess he just wants her in his house, cooking his meals, and staying out of sight, eh?!).

Louise Brooks is beautiful and charming, her presence helps enhance this film, but it's really the way it is photographed that held my interest the most. A bit distracting is the odd dubbed sound, which is a bit off. The print on this version looked very clear and full of nice contrast though. Watching this I just tried to overlook the sound problems and watch the film visually, and I found the movie to be excellent, well worth seeing.

Sentiment: positive
I had the (mis)fortune to see this film at a showing in the US. Having reluctantly sat through the entire abysmal thing, I am shocked to have seen so many good reviews here on IMDB. 

The original film was a turkey, but an interesting one. It fitted into that early seventies, post 1969 revolution thing; this film just stinks of....... , well, nothing really. It's that bad.

Imagine a badly done perfume commercial - see what I mean ?

Madonna never could act, and has been an embarrassment on the big screen for years. She looks worse and worse with every one of those years, increasingly coming to resemble a skinned meerkat.

Guy Ritchie, who has built his "reputation" on Lock Stock, could never direct either - his movies are shallow, badly cut, fashion shows. He doesn't disappoint here either; he wisely cast his wife as the star of this debacle.

Please people, take little heed of the good reviews this movie has received from other posters below. They are quite obviously business plants.

Don't encourage Ritchie to humiliate himself further by giving him money.



Sentiment: negative
I'm sure that Operations Dames was a favorite at the drive-ins back in the day. There's absolutely nothing in the way of a plot that you might miss if you were otherwise preoccupied. And if you needed to get in the mood for other activities you did have some curvaceous cuties on screen to get you in the mood.

Otherwise there ain't a whole lot that Operations Dames has going for it. It's set in the Korean War where a platoon of GIs together with a British tommy gets a little too far forward and has to get back to the UN lines. Bad enough already, but these guys also come across a stranded bunch of USO girls and their choreographer in the same predicament.

You know what's sad about this film is that it took women generations to finally get accepted in the Army and in combat situations. These bimbos from the USO set women's liberation back light years. In fact not even the hard bitten professional soldier who is the sergeant in charge of these men can keep it in his pants.

But that was probably the better to remind some what they were at the drive-in for. This no name cast is better off with me not recognizing any of them for any individual effort.

Operations Dames is definitely a team flop.

Sentiment: negative
Im proud to say I've seen all three Fast and Furious films.Sure,the plots are kinda silly,and they might be a little cheesy,but I love them car chases,and all the beautiful cars,and the clandestine midnight races.And Ill gladly see a fourth one.

Wanna know what the difference is between those three and Redline?Decent acting,somewhat thought out plot,even if they are potboilers,and last but not least,directors who have a clue.All three were made by very competent directors,all of them took the films in a different direction,equally exciting.Redline looks like the producer picked out a dozen women he slept with on the casting couch,and made them the extras,then picked up his leads from Hollywood's unemployment line.And the script.Yikes.Its Mystery Science Theatre 3000 bad.This is 70's made for TV movie bad.

Yeah,the movie had a few cool cars,but you don't really get to see that many in action,and the action is directed so poorly you cant get excited by the chases,and if the cars aren't thrilling you,why go to a movie like this?

Im in the audience with a bunch of teenagers,and I cant stop laughing out loud.Im getting dirty looks,but this was just a debacle.

Rent the F&F movies.Go to Nascar Race.Go to a karting track and race yourself.Whatever you do,avoid Redline like bad cheese.

Sentiment: negative
If Jean Renoir's first film "Whirlpool of Fate" first takes us into the world of the countryside, the rivers, the lives of the peasantry that he will continue to explore, it seems only fitting that his second film deals for the most part with the wealthy and the privileged, the upper classes and those who are trying to claw their way upwards. Put the characters from the first two films together and you have the seeds of his great "Grand Illusion" and "Rules of the Game." This is beautifully filmed, with the restless camera making full use of the amazingly huge apartments and backstage areas that dominate the film's interiors, and the acting though frequently overwrought offers some great moments as well, particularly from Werner Krauss' Muffat. But the glamorous and sultry Ms. Hessling, who at first appears as if she might give Louise Brooks a run for her money in vampishness, never goes beyond a one note, selfish harlot portrayal. Perhaps this is in part a problem with the script, which does seem to mostly go for high points and outraged emotions; not having read the novel I'm not really clear on whether the choices were well-made or not.

Still, the differences between Nana's suitors are well-drawn, and I particularly liked the relationship between Muffat and Jean Angelo's Vandeuvres -- the tragic understandings that each seems to have of his ultimate fate and their sympathy with each other, particularly in the scene at the bottom of the enormous staircase where Vandeuvres warns Muffat, and we wonder if violence will erupt -- this and other gleanings of the ridiculousness of the idle rich help give the film the depth it has.

Far from his greatest achievement, and for me probably just shy overall of "Whirlpool of Fate", this is still well worth seeing for Renoir fans or those interested in silent cinema generally.

Sentiment: positive
This movie promised bat people. It didn't deliver. There was a guy who got bit by a bat, but what was with the seizures? And the stupid transformation? Where was the plot? Where was the acting? Who came up with the idea to make this? Why was it allowed to be made? Why? Why? I guess we'll never know.

Sentiment: negative
It's boring.

It's slow.

Where are the nasty and brutal murders? Where is the tension that is supposed to scare us? This is like watching Sesame Street without the funny characters of Ernie and Bert or Grover.

It's really lame.

Maybe it was the writing...maybe the direction...maybe the acting, maybe the editing, maybe the cinematography, maybe the special effects, maybe the makeup.

Maybe all of the above brought this to something barely able to keep your eyes focused on.

I wanted to get scared...not bored.

This didn't scare me...it didn't even interest me...I had more fun watching the time on the microwave instead of watching this film.

Don't bother to buy it..and if you see it on television by some freak chance, there is no need to tuck the kids asleep.

Sentiment: negative
One word for it. Hilarious. I haven't watched at movie like this in a long time. At points in the movie, I totally forgot it was a movie, I just felt like I was back watching Viva La Bam, or even watching say, my own friend going through something like this. It was realistic and I liked how Bam, Ryan, Raab, Rake, and Brandon and the rest of the guys didn't try to hard too actually act. They, to me, were just acting like their famous idiot selves. There were a few scenes that I adored more than others, like Raab in the shower, holy, I laughed so hard. He honestly was probably my favourite character besides Bam's. He really, in my opinion, made the movie just a bit more hilarious. It's basically a must see for any fans of the CKY crew:]

Sentiment: positive
This sure is one comedy I'm not likely to forget for a while.

Wouldn't normally bother to comment on this movie: it's so minor that no one would watch it anyway, but as it happens, it's kind of popular in p2p sharing networks such as Kazaa, and so this saaad production needs to be exposed for what it is.

So what is it then? Well, of course it's not really a comedy; instead, it's intended as a horror flick -- "intended" very much being the key word here. The script is a totally incoherent and unbalanced mess, the special effects are only special in that they're especially pathetic, and as for the acting, well, let's just say that if this had been my graduating play at primary school, my teachers would have burst out crying at our talent.

Of course I realise that this is a very low budget film and that in those cases one should lower one's expectations, certainly as far as things like special effects are concerned. Also, even though I'm a big fan of the horror genre, I'm aware that these movies are only rarely the places to look for interesting scripts and top notch acting.

But still.

B-movies often have some redeeming features to make up for the lack of funding, such as humour. The only laughs in Cradle to Fear lie in the ridiculous performances. If you can find the humour in that--and I could for the first 20 minutes or so, gradually dozing off after that--then that's going to be the only thing the movie has to offer. Oh, that and two or three pairs of breasts.

Woohoo, how exciting.

As for the story, it's not even that it doesn't try to convey anything: the victims either use drugs and/or are involved in serious crime. The lesson: Watch out, naughty boys and girls, because one day you'll be made to pay for what you've done.

I rest my case.

So, all in all, a little bit of sex, a fair amount of drugs, but absolutely zero rock 'n roll.

I rate this one 1 out of 10, but would go to 0 if I could. Or perhaps I wouldn't: it deserves a 1 for spelling the actors' names correctly in the titles. I mean, that's something, innit?

Sentiment: negative
Watching Before The Devil counts as one of my all time best experiences at the cinema. I have been intrigued my the mixed response to the film - and for me, the extremes of opinion indicate the film touched on something either embraced or disavowed by the general audience. It is one of those films that has stayed with me, and I continue to ponder and think about it.

Surely the DVD would illuminate some more of the themes and the film-making elements? Which include: Sidney Lumet's comeback movie, the time-shifting technique deployed in the storytelling, the superb combination of Lumet and Masterson and why it works so well, the masterly direction, the relatively rare focus Hollywood movies give to male characters and their largely doomed struggle to become an open cheque book for their women, the under-presented, but nevertheless resonant Marisa Tomei's performance, and, of course, the superb Hoffman with that central monologue about the sum of his parts - for me the heart of the movie.

Phew! Surely a masterful film. So imagine my disappointment watching the eagerly anticipated DVD - only to find no commentary, no behind-the-scenes, no interviews, no extras.

Hey - distributors - sort it out!

Sentiment: positive
I watched this movie a couple of days ago in a small independent cinema in Paris. It was my last evening in the French capital and the best good-bye I could have chosen. These twenty episodes made me relive the impressions I had collected in Paris in a heart-warming manner without drifting off into kitsch or sentimental schmaltz. Each episode is full of surprise, strong emotions and suggestive pictures and each short-film is directed according to the rules of a good short story. To me this kind of movie demands a lot more talent and qualities of a director and a story board writer than any epic two hours drama and all of them succeeded in their task excellently! The stories were chosen carefully with regard to their matching Arrondissement and express the respective flair perfectly. Each episode was seen from a different ankle, had a different topic, a different style and still the twenty stories result in a harmonic orchestra of films. The most outstanding advantage with the concept of an episode movie in my opinion is based in the fact that you can switch in between a large variety of feelings and moods without the danger of overload, just the other way round: the melange of sadness, melancholy, pure joy, despair, wrath, anxiety, curiosity or passion gives this movie a unique freshness and harmony. And not to forget the all over topic of love! Love between the characters, love between the characters and Paris and also the love of the directors and actors/actresses for this project. I don't want to go into the details of the episodes since there are so many, but I must highlight the range of world famous actors and actresses from all over the world and their approach to this project. Some played with their image, some broke it completely and some interpreted the stereotypes connected with their home country or the roles they had played before, so intertextuality was given all through the movie. All in all I can absolutely recommend this great collage and will be looking forward to its release on DVD.

Sentiment: positive
At this point it seems almost unnecessary to state that Jon Bon Jovi delivers a firm, strong, seamless performance as Derek Bliss. His capability as an actor has been previously established by his critical acclaim garnered in other films (The Leading Man, No Looking Back). But, in case anyone is still wondering, yes, Jon Bon Jovi can act. He can act well and that's come to be expected of him. It's easy to separate Derek from the guy who belts out hits on VH-1.

I generally would not watch a horror movie. I've come to expect them to focus on sensationalistic gore rather than dialogue and plot. What pleased me most about this film was that there really was a viable plot being moved along. The gore is not so much as to become the focus of the film and does not have a disturbingly realistic quality of films with higher technical effects budgets. So, gore fans might be disappointed, but story fans will not.

Unlike an action film like U-571 where the dialogue takes a back seat to the bombast, we get a chance to know "the good guys" and actually care what happens to them. A few scenes are left unexplained (like Derek's hallucinations) but you get the feeling certain aspects were as they were to lay the foundation for a sequel. Unfortunately, with the lack of interest shown by Hollywood in this film, that sequel will never happen. These few instances are forgiveable knowing that Vampires could have been a continuing series.

Is this the best film I've ever seen in my life? No. Is it a good way to spend about two hours being entertained? Yes. It won't leave the person who fears horror movies with insomnia and it won't leave the horror movie lover completely disappointed either. If you're somewhere in between the horror genre loather and the horror genre lover, this film is for you. It reaches a happy medium with the effects and story balancing each other.



Sentiment: positive
CHRISTMAS IN AUGUST is a perfect movie. A flawless movie about all the flaws of humanity. On the outside it may look like a movie about death, but is in fact a movie about life. I simply cannot recommend this movie enough. And be not afraid, dear readers, it is not a depressing film. As stated, it's a movie about the brightness of life coached under the guise of death. You will laugh. You will cry. You will realize that life is fragile and short. And you will leave the viewing with a better understanding of how precious life is.

10 out of 10

(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of this movie and reviews of other foreign films)

Sentiment: positive