DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This is a polarising film. People either love it or despise it, it seems. Me, I despise it. The film comes from the same context as Lindsay Anderson's Oh Lucky Man, but while that is a masterpiece, this is just horrible.

Both films take Kafka's unfinished novel - America, for their inspiration and general ideal. America is a surreal story of a youth's travels through the country. Kafka uses the this character as a pure observer, one who does not change over the course of the journey (although the book is about 300 pages and still seems only a quarter finished, so we'll never know). Allowing Kafka to concentrate and comment on the absurd/surreal situations and surroundings. Oh Lucky Man follows this same template to show Britain through the eyes of Malcolm McDowell and Weekend does the same for France.

Both films are also hugely Brechtian, using various tricks and techniques to point up the fact that this is NOT REAL, this is confabulation etc. But the difference comes where Oh Lucky Man uses the constructed film to convey the absurdity of life and the class system, Weekend uses the constructed film to bludgeon us to death with ideological polemic. Because Godard goes further than Anderson in his Brechtian principles, we end up with two principle characters in which we have no investment, at all. We're forced to spend 90 minutes with them, yet we couldn't care less about them. Deliberately so. But in doing this, Godard leaves us with a film that is entirely about his own message, which, in the first half of the film is provided through relentless and overbearing symbolism, and in the second half through a series of long speeches directed to camera. Combined with unpleasant and unnecessary scenes such as the really horrible pig slaying, far worse than any of the off camera violence of the car crashes.

The end result is like listening to a student political apparatchik droning on and on and on about his views whilst repeatedly kicking you in the head so that you get the message. The problem with Brecht is, if you alienate the audience too much, then you've alienated them from what you are trying to convey. Which always seemed self evident to me.

The parts that really stick in the craw for this movie though, is the contrast between the extremely sexually explicit verbal description of the threesome at the start and the off-screen comical rape in the middle, which, even if it could be viewed as allegorical, completely destroys the film's faith in itself and it's characters, what little of it existed in the first place. It's so French with a capital F, it hurts.

Watch Oh Lucky Man instead. That is a work of genius. Weekend is a work of pretension.

Two stars, and only for the traffic jam scene and the piano scene, which are just hints at genius, although they actually make the end result more frustrating and unsatisfying as without them, this is a bad film by the worst most pretentious director in the world, with them, well it's obvious that this is a damn good technical director making the most intellectually pretentious film in the world. Somehow that's far worse.

Sentiment: negative
well, i said it all in the summary, i simpley adore the movie and the cast...i would give each actor an Oscar...great, great movie...i'm 25 now and i watched it 4 times in different periods and i always think i won't cry and i always do, about 2 or 3 times...;) meryl s. was absolutely brilliant, jeremy irons also..just brilliant...i wish the movie received more awards... i really don't know anybody who watched it and didn't loved it... also, glenn close was fantastic... the story was beautiful and sad at the same time... i loved the fact that despite everything clara and esteban loved each other so much, and how blanca was close to her parents...

Sentiment: positive
I wanted to see it because of two reasons. One, it was the remake of High Sierra with Bogart, two, the Bogart part was played by Jack Palance, whom can play dramatic roles with some subtility, as in The Big Knife.

But now I wonder why they decided to shoot this remake. The film follows the same plot as Hig Sierra; only here, the actors don't care, the director is lost in his thoughts, and who knows what the producer was thinking. Jack Palance is getting bored looking at Shelley Winters and Shelley Winters is asking herself what she's doing in this film. I don't even want to compare her to Ida Lupino in the same role. And of course, they had to use the dog story again! They surely could have come up with some different ideas. Perhaps the color makes it nice to see the same location where they shot High Sierra, but that definitely doesn't add any quality to the film.

It's a waste of time if you've seen High Sierra before. Otherwise, why not see a pseudo-film noir. As for me, I'd rather die than see it one more time...

Sentiment: negative
This is not a film to impress you with high budget, high-tech shots, fast camera movements or glimmering costumes thought by an overzealous and hungry director. But it's a film by a director who is also a very good photographer, who has a very good sense of looking at things as a human, not as an half-god unlike most of the directors. This is not a film in which actors and actresses try to give their best 'performances' with unreal or, at best, learned gestures and mimics. Rather, it's a film in which they act as real as it can be. Actually, they are not professional actors at all. The dialogues between the main characters, their expressions, their feelings are as real as they can easily be yours in real life. You tell the same lies to the people around you with the same regrets that you avoid to express with words. You show the same signs of nuisance to an unwanted guest. This is the same feeling of disconnection that you get in modern city life. And this is your chance to see yourself from outside, impersonated by the main characters. I saw all of the films of Nuri Bilge Ceylan, incl. his short film Koza (Cacoon) thanks to those who puts it in the DVD. Many would compare him with Tarkovsky, Ozu and maybe Bresson or Bergman as he is emerging as a true auteur. And he is sincere in saying that his films are not to make money but to give a meaning to his life. That is the kind of sincerity you'll find in Uzak.

Sentiment: positive
Well , of course everybody is entitled to have an opinion about a thing ...everything. The presentation was interesting : black and white movie , the year 1968 , students manifestations , general strike , youth , ideals, love.....etc. Sorry but I did not sense LOVE , ROMANCE . A lover who is all right that his girlfriend sleeps with no matter who ? That is love ? But not only that , the movie is very long and for no reason , I had to stop watching the movie several time because I simply lost interest. I waited for something to happen but .......NOTHING. The only thing I was impressed during the movie : Gypsy fiddler playing in the streets , yes that was nice. I do not think that art should be complicated , encrypted , hidden in secret meanings , confusing .Big disappointment and waste of time !

Sentiment: negative
This has to be one of the worst films I have ever had the misfortune to see. The general idea of a coronal mass ejection hitting the planet earth with EM disruption is fair enough, but where did they get the idea that humans could survive a sustained 155ºF? The acting was so terrible I got the feeling that the casting agents simply grabbed a handful of people off of Santa Monica Boulevard and threw them in front of the camera. In all honesty I have seen less wooden acting from my ironing board. Sorry, but this film was poor, poor, poor.

Sentiment: negative
I went out of my way to get this film, and was fortunate to get it on VHS. Being a big Gloria Grahame fan, it was an excellent addition to my collection. Other than that, I really cannot say a lot to recommend this picture. The plot is predictable (and weak) and the only interesting aspect of the film is watching Sterling Hayden get into deeper trouble with his own department. Ms. Grahame is always fun to watch (if you like her, as I do), but the dubbing of her singing hurts this picture a lot. She works in a dive, so let her use her own voice. It can only lend to the atmosphere. I must agree with an earlier reviewer; the ending borrows heavily from THE BIG HEAT. To the point of detracting from the ending. I have seen worse films with Ms. Grahame (MACAO), but I will never pass the opportunity to see her on screen. If you are having a movie night and looking for a second feature film, this is your movie. Enjoy the picture.

Sentiment: negative
First time I saw this movie was in the eighties, but reviewed now this thriller is still actual. Some newer movies focus on similar topics, but they do not match this french milestone.

A president - obviously JF Kennedy - gets shot in an open car during a public appearance. The resulting huge investigation finds the "Lee Harvey Oswald" figure of this movie guilty, but one member of the jury insists in further inquiry. He reveals some surprising evidence ...

Unlike Oliver Stone's JFK - a movie with the same plot - this one does not play with emotions, but concentrates in a exciting description of a conspiracy and how everything fits together, drawing a new picture of the assassination. Even a real psychological experiment is used for this explanation of the crime scene. Compared to JFK this movie is more reasonable, intelligent and thrilling. Parts of the plot can be found in a lot of newer movies, I had a kind of deja vu sometimes sitting in the cinema.

"I... comme Icare" is a "must see". Its unique and brilliant, and the music by Ennio Morricone is wonderful. This movie deserves a very good ranking, if it was a Hollywood production it would be famous for sure.



Sentiment: positive
Perhaps the director was trying for another PIRATE (Good Garland and Kelly musical) -- but this lame musical epoch falls flat. Sinatra and Kathryn Graysons voices do not blend well -- and their chemistry together lacks spark. The premise of Sinatra as a sweet guy who tries to impersonate his late "bandito" father is okay, but he seems awkward in the role. What's amazing and wonderful here, is how Sinatra can take a rather insipid song and make it seem special -- his phrasing and eloquence as a singer make you want to hear it again. When Grayson sings the same songs it's hard to believe she's not singing something entirely different and not nearly as interesting. She has her big moment with "Love Is Where You Find It" which suits her perfectly and shows off her abilities. The photography is lucious and both stars look appealing as do the costumes and sets. Co-stars Mildred Natwick and J. Carroll Nash put lots of energy into making the impossible work. Aside from Sinatra's singing there is a strange menage-a-tois dance with Ricardo Montalban, Cyd Charisse and Ann Miller. It's fascinating and weird. Montalban and Charisse were a wonderful dancing team and this number is a real oddity.

Sentiment: negative
Betty is as an understudy in a production of Verdi's Macbeth who is asked to go on when the diva is hurt in a car accident. However, in the grand tradition of "The Scottish Play", the production seems cursed with problems, not least of which is some madman slicing up the crew. Unfortunately for Betty, the killer seems to have special plans for her ...

This is one of several must-see Argento mad-slasher flicks, in this instance primarily for the extraordinary photography by the great British cameraman Ronnie Taylor. I haven't measured it, but I reckon around two-thirds of the shots in this film involve either pans, dollies, tracking or cranes - the sheer amount of camera movement is just astonishing and makes the movie ten times more exciting than a standard thriller. The imagery is wild and dizzying - closeups of the heroine's eyes forced open with nails, a swooping glide around an opera house from a raven's point of view, shots of the killer's brain squirming, a bullet fired through a peephole, a swallowed chain dug out of a victim's trachea. Conceptually it's just amazing and could only be realised by this director. The movie isn't without some shortcomings though; the cast are variable at best - Marsillach and Barberini are both a bit shaky (and his dubbing in the English version is appalling, even by Italian standards), although Argento regular Nicolodi is fun and Charleson gives a thoughtful performance in a role that is more than a little autobiographical (a horror director much maligned for his remoteness and reliance on technique). The material is a nice three-way mix of The Phantom Of The Opera, Shakespeare and slasher flick, scripted by Argento and his usual collaborator, Franco Ferrini, with shifty suspects galore and the usual disdain for boring expository scenes to explain what's actually going on. Full of all sorts of different music - Brian Eno, Claudio Simonetti, Bill Wyman, Puccini, and of course, Verdi. The scenes in the beautiful opera-house were shot at the Teatro Regio in Parma. For some bizarre reason the UK print of this movie has the alternative title Terror At The Opera.

Sentiment: positive
Sur mes lèvres or READ MY LIPS is fine little thriller that also examines the lives of 'outsiders', people who live in the periphery of our vision who struggle with the need to 'fit in'. Director Jacques Audiard with and co-writer Tonino Benacquista have created a tense, tight, completely entertaining little thriller that makes some significant statements about out of the norm individuals and their plights.

Carla (Emmanuelle Devos) is a plain Jane, mostly deaf, thirty something unnoticed secretary for a company whose life is one of social and sexual isolation and whose view of the future is rather bleak. Enter Paul (Vincent Cassel) a recent released ex-con parolee who responds to an ad to be Carla's assistant. There is a mutual physical repulsion at first meeting: Carla had hoped for a well-groomed, genteel man who might fulfill her fantasies and Paul is a coarse, unkempt sleazy guy who is not impressed with being a clerk. Their concepts change rather quickly when Paul salvages Carla's job by filling her request to steal a letter that would cost her her job and Paul discovers Carla's lip reading ability which he sees as a way to spy on the criminals from his past who threaten his life for money owed. So this odd couple of a team join forces and together enter a dangerous suspense filled ploy to gain Paul's safety and freedom. The relationship is full of twists and edge of the seat suspense with each of these unlikely characters fulfilling roles in their lives that fill the chinks in their walls of isolation in surprising ways.

Devos and Cassel deliver bravura performances and the remainder of the cast is uniformly strong. Once again Alexandre Desplat has produced a musical score that enhances the tension and cinematographer Mathieu Vadepied finds all the right lighting and angles to suggest the worlds of isolation of the characters as well as the Hitchcockian sense of suspense. Director Audiard wisely manipulates a factor that is at once sensitive and transformative for the story: he shows us the difference between 'hearing' the world with and without hearing aids and in doing so makes some powerful social comments. This is a fine film that remains in the ranks of the best of the French film noir genre. Recommended. Grady Harp

Sentiment: positive
This was a very disappointing movie. I would definitely call this the worst movie of all time.

The acting and writing were poor. And the jokes were not funny.

I don't see why on earth this piece of crap was even made. I'm not a picky person and I can enjoy stupid things but this is just way too stupid and just plain awful.

Avoid this wretched piece of garbage at all costs!

Sentiment: negative
What can I say...not much to this one at all. Pretty dull and uninteresting.

The actors performances are just OK. The only one that shines in any way is Simmons, but he only has, maybe 3 scenes. I understand that by keeping his screen time to a minimum he retains the mysterious psychic aura he has, but I can't help but feel his talent was wasted. No one else rose above mediocre.

The story itself seems like it may be intriguing at the beginning, but then just doesn't go anywhere. There wasn't a single scene in the movie that impressed me or made me feel like I had just seen something special. The cinematography was fairly bland...I mean desert in a washed out sort of sepia...not very inspiring.

The story of his childhood pal back outta prison seemed only partially thought out and didn't really add anything to the story, other than making an average 'Twilight Zone' script into a full length feature.

Drab.

Sentiment: negative
"An evil spirit takes over a girl and diffuses panic in the Louvre museum" that's all I think, the summary of the movie and the movie itself ! Which I think it's one of the worst French or non French movies ever made in the history of cinema ! 

Nothing good in here except the music (of the credits only !), some tender moments of (Sophie Marceau), and of course the movie's finale shot.. Not because it ends ages of what seemed to be a countless years we had in watching THAT CRAP but also for being so perfect as one magical C.G.I work that was too good to be true in here ! 

By the way I want to change the plot summary to be like this "An evil spirit takes over some cinema artists to make lousy movies".. Just like this one for sure.

Sentiment: negative
One has to take Martin & Lewis like a dash of salt & pepper. Why does Martin put up with Lewis? Then again, why do all the women in this movie like Jerry? Because he is innocently likeable! Martin sings a few good songs (lip-sync'd at least once) and Jerry manages to kiss more girls than in all his other movies combined. I generally find that I can take just so much of Jerry's antics before they become aggravating. BUT.... in this film, watch when Jerry gets stuck outside on a submerging Navy submarine! EXCELLENT! Buster Keaton should have been proud. I give the film a 7.

Sentiment: positive
The first time I saw this film, I wanted to like it for so many reasons, but I simply did not. It just seemed a little dull. But there was a tiny question I had about something I saw near the beginning of the film so I watched it again and then finally it clicked for me. I first watched the movie knowing the "surprise ending", and while I definitely wouldn't recommend having the ending spoiled for you, I have still thoroughly enjoyed the bulk of the film and discovering the many seemingly insignificant events that all unravel to point to a very sinister scheme.

I don't think that everyone will love this movie, or even like it. If you like any of the actors, you'll like this movie because the acting is fairly strong and they all get a lot of screen time. If you like mysteries (namely Hitchcock) you'll like this movie. If you like independent or psychological films, you'll like this movie. It really worked for me on all of those levels. If you don't like the actors, mysterious plots or psychological elements, you might not like this movie. But that's your loss. Personally, the only thing that irked me a little was the accents. Good try, Alan Rickman, on the American dialect, but it wasn't much improvement from the scene in Die Hard. (The wonderful voice makes up for the weird accent though.) The medley of accents in the movie was a little odd, but it was not so distracting that it became difficult or particularly irritating. Also, the camera change from scene to scene was evident and might bother some people, but I actually think it added to the scenes (or scene I can really only recall one scene where the change was severely different, but it worked).

When you see this movie, see it at least twice. The second time you see it, I hope you realize how intricate the plot really is. Every time I watch this movie (it's under an hour and a half so multiple viewings are not difficult) I seem to notice something else about it and find myself wondering, "Why did that just happen?" or "Was that intentional?" I like movies that make me think. This one does. So just see it. Twice.

Sentiment: positive
Judith Ivey as the scamming old whore is awesome. Emily Grace the young girl. Is innocent and exciting as she learns whats going down. Excellent direction and camera. Story is dark and disturbing.Supporting cast is good. Shows what happens and can happen with a run of bad luck. Great independent film. Small cast. Pace is slow at first and then moves good. A good movie to show your teen age daughter who has aspirations of leaving home early, for the open road and adventure. This movie, film has a low budget feel to it, but it works because of the low lifes and areas that these people move in. I will never stop a rest stop again with out thinking of this movie and checking my tires before I go.

Sentiment: positive
This is a fan-made short film that pretends to be a preview for a new movie that pairs Batman and Superman! It's the sort of film that fans adore and watch at places like ComicCon and was made by the same person who made BATMAN: DEAD END, Sandy Collora.

As far as this film goes, I could easily pick it apart. Sure the CGI effects aren't perfect and the costumes are far from perfect. BUT, this was made on a shoestring budget and for a fan film this is incredible. I was particularly impressed by the very buff Superman--he was no wimpy little guy! If only this were a preview for a real film--they'd have fans lined up from here to Omaha to see it. Great job.

Sentiment: positive
Steven Seagal is a thief who specializes in robbing wealther drug dealers, giving to the poor and unfortunate..heh, Harlan, the Robin Hood. Anyway, Harlan wants to go straight for his girl, Jada(Mari Morrow), so he takes on a job as the driver of an armoured car for a Max Stevens(Kevin Tighe, wasted in an underwritten role). Max intends to have the millions for himself and his unscrupulous associates, with the intent of using his loader, Bruno(Robert Miano)to bring him the money, but Harlan has other plans. Escaping the police, hiding the money, and ditching Bruno(who had a loaded gun pointed at Harlan's head threatening to shoot him if he didn't drive)after evading capture by ramming a huge dump truck, Harlan passes out. Charged with the murder of police among other things as a result of the damage caused by the high-speed chase, Harlan is imprisoned and many wish to know where the money is. Harlan joins forces with an inmate, Ice(Treach), a leader of one of the many gangs in the prison, breaking out with the plans of finding Max and eliminating every member of his corrupt entourage. Soon DEA agent Rachel Knowles(Sarah Buxton) becomes part of this scenario thanks to her boss, Saunders(Nick Mancuso)who claims there's drugs involved. Also injected into the plot is Harlan's desire to save a children's hospital about to close and Jada has mysterious dreams regarding Max.

Seagal and Treach cut up with each other speaking in gangsta, while Buxton spends time trying to help Harlan, uncovering the possibility her boss is in cahoots with Max. Mancuso's character is an odd duck, allowing Rachel much leeway despite the threat she is to his career. Tighe shows up for five or so minutes tops, which is a shame. Seagal's Harlan escapes prison and finds each and every rich associate of Max's, inevitably discovering his whereabouts after cracking a few skulls, snapping some wrists, and breaking some bones. Treach speaks in his rapper speech and Seagal tries to answer him in kind, providing some unintentional laughs. As you'd expect, a lot of people get shot and Seagal doesn't break a sweat. It's interesting seeing Seagal in prison, among the convicts, helping Treach out when a group of "Eses" plan to take him out.

Sentiment: negative
I was pleasantly surprised by how good the movie was. Whether you're a gore fan or a suspense fan; you'll love this. I used to dislike horror movies, considered them stupid. But, anyway, it happens I make exceptions. I find something really extraordinary in this film. Rarely have I ever seen a film that has scared the crap out of me but I tell you the truth this film gave me shivers down my neck. Unlike most horror films this one cares about the development of the characters. I highly recommend this film and I'm glad that Asylum are finally bringing out good horror movies these days 

I recommend! Enjoy!

Sentiment: positive
Yes! this movie was just bad in every way in things like cast,effects,boredom,excitement,and of course,being fantastic and we all know the four heroes in this one were a bit more colourful compared to the new ones but it still has to go,A fantastic bore like this really was just silly trash which i knew nobody would like when i saw it,i mean surely with that budget about 3 or 4 GOOD movies could have been made but no. I am just glad that the new version made this year totally showed everyone how the fantastic four should have been made with good story,great cast like Jessica Alba one of my favourite actresses otherwise it would have been totally forgotten but thankfully no. The new one was excellent when i saw it with my mates at the cinema but this old fantastic bore has gotta go.

Sentiment: negative
One of the best 'guy' movies I've ever seen has to be the Wind and the Lion. Gad, the scenes...

Raisouli's bandits swarm over the wall... A staid British gentleman calmly gets up from tea with Candice Bergen and drops three of them with a Webley revolver in his coat. A whisper from the ghost of Empire... Lest we forget! Lest we forget!

U.S. Marines coming ashore from the long, long gone _Brooklyn_. They were carrying Krags, it should have been Lees, but, oh wow. And the Winchester 97 blowing large holes in obstreperous natives and even more obstreperous and faithless Europeans... 

Raisouli --Sean Connery, o, Wow!--wondering 'What kind of gun does Roosevelt use?"

Teddy Roosevelt--Brian Keith, o, Wow!--wondering "What kind of gun does Raisouli use?' and writing yet another angry letter to Winchester about the stock on his Winchester 95.

Raisouli, armed with but a sword... A Prussian cavalry officer, HOLSTERING his pistol and drawing HIS sword... Honor. That's something long dead, from a world long gone, but Raisouli would never have flown a plane full of children into a building...

Milious at Milious's magnificent best, and now out on DVD.

Sentiment: positive
if you are going to see this movie, by all means don't go into this movie with the expectation of this movie will be absolutely hilarious because you will be let down. yeah sure its funny at times but i would consider it a political thriller masqueraded as a comedy. the performances are very good especially by jeff goldblum as the head of the election company. even though he has limited screen time he makes a lasting impression. of course robin williams is excellent.laura linney is very good too what a surprise. she is one of the finest actresses in Hollywood and one scene in particular shows this. this film makes you think. what if a comedian ran for president and actually won? would the country be better off or would the country shatter into a million pieces?

Sentiment: positive
Mind you, it's not supposed to be, but it is. As a wee tot, I watched this movie in the theatre (Being a huge wrestling and Hulk Hogan fan). All I remember from the night is we were the only ones in the theater, and that I didn't really like it very much. I blacked the rest out, and for good reason.

A poor film on par with the greats like "Gymkata" and "The Pumaman," "No Holds Barred" is a movie set in the high stakes world of pro wrestling. Well maybe the stakes aren't all that high...and quite frankly I feel dirty just calling these people "professionals" at anything. And really, except for the first scene, there's no wrestling to speak of. So I guess movie is about the marginally low stakes world of amateurish beating-the-c***-out-of-people. Sounds good, right?

Hulk Hogan plays Rip, the champion of the WWF (Never let it be said that Hulk Hogan was typecast, this and movies like Thunder in Paradise showed how he challenged himself with deep roles that really pushed the limits of his talents). Essentially he's playing himself, but with a wardrobe that's more black and blue than the Hulkster's red and yellow. He also has this hand gesture he does. It's kinda like the ozzy devil sign people make at rock concerts, except you stick your thumb in the air, and you curl your index finger in. My friend claimed that it was supposed to look like an "R." Try and see for yourself. If that looks like an "R," well, then, Mars needs women. But anyway.

Kurt Fuller, with his overacting detector obviously on the fritz, plays a TV exec with his slightly homoerotic heart set on getting Rip, who's evidentally bigger than Elvis, on his network. He won't have any of it (And exits the office with a triumphant hand gesture to no one but the camera), and so the movie follows Fuller trying to boost ratings and get back at Rip. He does so when he creates his brilliantly titled "Battle of the Tough Guys." Marketing genius, this guy.

From the numerous hand gestures, to the rather idiotic fight scenes (All played as if wrestling is very real and deadly serious) to the overacting, to the far too frequent shots of Hulk in nothing but undies, this movie has everything you'd ever want in a dumb movie. It's frivolous, not too taxing on the mind, violent, and includes the phrase "What's that smell?" "DOOKIE!" "Dookie?"

A classic for all time.

Sentiment: negative
This film pulls you in from the get-go because it grabs our attention by acknowledging, yeah, that this story is opening with a cliché  a funeral.

In hands other than Judi's I wouldn't have given it an 8 as this material has been done over and over again: The great reunion of a once famous, pick one please, team, army platoon, theatre group, singers, band.

But this movie never stoops to cheap sentimentalization, and when you think it is going to it swoops off in another direction. A case in point is the flowers that are sent by an admirer to Judi.

The band members are an interesting group and ride above the clichés too. One is in jail, one has found religion, one is an alkie, and one has sunk into dementia. But the joie de vivre rediscovered by Judi, ignited by her granddaughter's interest, carries us along and makes us overlook the sometimes simplistic nature of the plot.

The cast are a who's who of talent, Leslie Caron, the incomparable jazzist Cleo Laine with her amazing high notes, a last performance from Joan Sims, brava Joan, a cute as a button flirtatious Ian Holm having a ball, and Olympia Dukakis as a money-grabbing divorcée living in the highlands of Scotland with her ghillie and her whiskey, The closing scene is standard Hollywoodland fare, the judgmental children of the star converted to fun-loving supporters, the old lovers reunited, the youngsters swept up in the old timers' music. Life should be this simple. But I would watch it again, and intend to, with my own granddaughter. For in the right hands, sometimes one just loves these brazen old clichés. 8 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
The movie begins almost achingly slowly, a "romance" (yawn) that seems to ramble off course (all part of the plan...) Then, roughly one hour into this solemn movie is The Feast. It's worth paying attention to that first hour. The Feast is still solemn, but humorous. Suddenly, the withdrawn and slightly petty characters come to life, and everyone (you AND the characters) leave feeling enriched by the experience.

Women will love this. Christians of all sorts will enjoy the profound faith demonstrated by the characters. Not my favorite movie of all time - no dinosaurs OR laser beams, after all - but definitely a movie I am happy to have seen. Not to be missed.

Jim

Sentiment: positive
Yes,the movie is not a piece of art but the first time I watched it I was 10 years old,my parents were out and I stayed home with my two brothers.It was May 1970(I know that because I found a note about the cycle of horror movies that one network had).It's one of the most vivid memories I have with the guys.We ended all in one bed and covered up to the head! Our very first horror movie! We kept talking about it for years and laughing about the moment.Those were horror movies.Nowadays horror movies are always the same.Or was it better when we were kids enjoying without analyzing the plot and the cast and the dialogs? Most sure it was that.But for me this is a great movie!

Sentiment: negative
I don't know how this DVD made its way into my collection - my wife suggested it was one of these "3 for £20" deals at a high street store. The thing isn't worth 66p, let alone £6.66! Having invested heavily in it, I felt duty-bound to watch it to the end, just to make sure it was equally bad all the way through - and it was.

The dialog was awful, the story line was impenetrable (I still don't understand what the hell was going on, despite having read the synopsis), the camera work was disjointed and hopeless, the acting was wooden (not helped by the dialogue).

In fact there were no redeeming features - no, not even the lovely Sandra Bullock, on whose glittering subsequent career this pile of dross has probably been sold. She should get her agent to buy up all the rights to it and then bury it ASAP.

As a final amusing example of the director's ineptitude, there was a scene where the young lead is conversing with his father's ex-army sidekick while driving. This was the clearest bit of dialogue in the film - no engine noise whatsoever! I look forward to the engine-damping technology eventually making its way across the pond into British cars!

Sentiment: negative
Alexandra Ripley wrote a horrible sequel to Margaret Mitchell's masterpiece book published in the 1930's. Margaret Mitchell's heirs sold out their rights and for big bucks allowed Alexandra Ripley to write a piece of junk book even worse than Barbara Cortland romance novels. I was a huge fan of Margaret Mitchells book and the fake sequel by Alexandra Ripley was written just to cash in for money.

Although I always admired the acting talent of Joanne Kilmer and Timothy Dalton, this is a really terrible film. The script is horrible and full of clichés. Ann Margarets cameo as Belle Watling is so awful I wanted to slap her.

The only worthwhile thing in the movie is Sean Bean who gives a masterful bravura performance as the sexy, feral villain - Lord Fenton. Sean Bean's performance is along the lines of "The Man You Love to Hate" and portrays an unsafe sex symbol.

But Sean Bean is only in the first half of the movie so you then have to be tormented with watching an incredibly long 6 hour movie with an insufferably boring script.

Don't waste your money on this film, unless you are a hard core Sean Bean fan and just watch it for his wonderful performance.

Sentiment: negative
As embarrassing as it is to admit, I was listed as production manager on this film... my very first! As a matter of fact, it was the first feature film for almost everyone who participated. Watch carefully, and you even get to see me in one of the opening scenes, as a soon-to-be-murdered asylum attendant named... "Cely" (my own last name).

Originally titled "Hostages" this picture was changed to "Another Son of Sam" by the Producer-Director who wanted to cash in on the serial killer in the news at the time. Nothing could have helped. I don't even think this picture was good enough to be shown on "MST 3K!"

The film was shot primarily with a collection of old Mitchell cameras and early Arriflex hand held cameras. Matter of fact, the shot of the helicopter during the hostage siege was filmed with my own WWII era Arri. The picture was filmed entirely in Charlotte and Belmont, North Carolina in the mid seventies. Most of the "Stars" were local TV newscasters, and the rest of the crew were just inexperienced enough or gullible enough to believe former stuntman and Producer-Director, Dave A, Adams' delusions of adequacy.

If you enjoy watching this kind of picture, you might love the work of another North Carolinian, the legendary Earl Owensby.



Sentiment: negative
This movie is one of the most memorable films I have seen. I went reluctantly with a Turkish friend who recommended it. I am not a very enthusiastic proponent of music documentaries, but when Aynur Dogan, a Kurdish woman banned for years from singing in Turkey, sings her piece, the theater was in awe. I would give my all to hear a CD recording of this haunting, gorgeous song. And she is just one of many artist interviewed and recorded, speaking of their experiences of performing in Istanbul. Even now, a month later, I remember the footage of Aynur singing in an acoustic auditorium, and I try to remember the music as it echoed in the cinema. Well done to Faith Akin, the director of this film, and his great idea to capture the many splendid sounds of such a cosmopolitan city. It would certainly encourage me to visit Istanbul.

Sentiment: positive
It's utterly pointless to rate this film. It's as if you would condemn (or praise) the newly born for his future life. Instead look at it as a powerful meditation at what could have been and what has been in the past 100+years. One hundred and eight years of the cinematograpy: what has become of the babe? I like to contemplate on what would have (creatively) happen if Europe wasn't interrupted (devastated) twice by the great wars of the XXth century. On her ruins the bogus neon castle of the non-creative and reactionary circus named Hollywood erected itself. Before 1914 French, Italian and Scandinavian cinemas were leading the way both financially and of course creatively. French film in particular was already threading some very original and creative pathways that could have (if not interrupted) possibly altered the medium history in some unimaginable ways. One wonders what the film history would look like today if it wasn't stultified and choked by the mercantile and cheap political agenda of the Hollywood's 80+ years of, what Chekhov might define as the reek of greed and harlotry... Be it as it might, please at least become aware of La Sortie as the key (or at least one of them) to the "Kingdom". Thus the birthplace of Cinema : Lumiere Brothers Factory, Lyon, France The date: March 19th 1895 (there's also a replica reel shoot in the Summer of 1895 so if you notice Summer lights and the workers' lighter clothing: that was the version shown to THE VERY FIRST PEOPLE WHO EVER SAW THE MOVING IMAGES. *Louis Lumiere: creative ideas, cinematography, direction it was all Louis' own domain because Auguste took care of the rest (money). *First film reels were all fifty seconds long: the camera(=le Cinematograph) & the cameramen (le cinematographer) having only paltry fifty seconds to make things happen! *Apparently Le Institute Lumiere has managed to preserve around 1500 of these first films executed mostly by an industrious brigade of Loumiere travelling cinematographers criss-crossing the globe. ***So, all the stars in starry heavens and a minute of silence for perhaps the most magical invention in Human history (so far).

Sentiment: positive
Besides Planes, Trains and Automobiles and Uncle Buck, this is John Candy's funniest movie. When he gets hypnotized with the playing card (similar to the Manchurian Candidate) and becomes a horny guy who does not know what he is saying, he makes two very memorable quotes (Both deal with the male anatomy). The love scene involving grocery items has to be seen, it cannot be described.



Sentiment: positive
I can't explain it, but I find this movie not only funny, but so enjoyable I feel compelled to watch it over and over, or at least I did when I had cable TV. I always felt it was a really poorly made movie, but perhaps that is because I watched it on cable. I plan to get a DVD of this movie to really take an honest look at at, but more importantly to just have a good time watching it. I liked the plot and the idea of the movie and I especially liked the cast. I always wonder if the cast enjoyed making the movies they are in and this is no exception. This film deserved a better fate than it received and Kelsey Grammar deserved at least one love scene with Ms. Holly. Who wouldn't? The characters in this movie were the kind of guys I could identify with when I was in the military and the zaniness was exact. Nice going troops.

Sentiment: positive
This film lingered and lingered at a small movie theater in town, and the word-of-mouth buzz got me to see it. A comedy about disabled people - the subject matter keeps lots of people away from a funny and heart-warming film.

Sentiment: positive
"Foxes" is one movie I remember for it's portrayal of teenagers in the late 1970's. As I am exactly Jodie Foster's age, I related to this movie. It deals with the frustrations, temptations, relationships & rebellion of youth. The soundtrack is great with inspiring rock eg. "More Than a Feeling" by Boston and sad numbers like "On the Radio" by Donna Summer. The music of my late teens. Yep, I'll always remember this one, even if it wasn't huge.

Sentiment: positive
'Radio' is a beautiful movie based on a real story of the mentally challenged James Robert Kennedy, nicknamed 'Radio', and the football coach from the T.L. Hanna High School, Harold Jones.

Cuba Gooding, Jr. is excellent as Radio! I would never imagine to see him in a serious performance, specially because most of the movies I watch with him are comedies. Ed Harris is great as Harold Jones, but this actor IS great, so this is not anything new.

The mentally challenged young man called James Robert Kennedy, always walk around the T.L. Hanna High School, without bothering anyone and almost not noticed. One day, when the football's ball is throw near him, he decides to stay with the ball, for the impatience of Johnny Cash, one of the best players from the football team and also one of the most unpleasant guys you would ever met. One day, Cash decides to punish James, mocking him with other football players and even go so far as to tie him up.

When coach Jones discovers that horrible act, he stays angry and punish all the team, deciding for this day on to help James, who gets the nickname 'Radio' because of his passion for radios in general.

The movie shows how Radio becomes an adept assistant, helping the team train despite hardships from the players, and even getting respect from basically all the people who lives in the small city. 

I would recommend this movie for everybody who wants to watch a real and beautiful story. It has a life lesson,specially showing us how a person can make a difference, even not being what we call ''normal''. Radio has a big heart and is incapable to hate anyone, and that's a thing that we all should apply to our daily lives.

Sentiment: positive
I can accept the fact this was the NEXT karate kid so Ralph Macchio can be happily retired from the series, and while Hillary Swank is great for the role....the plot to the movie is just dreadful.

Mr. Miyagi's old buddy from World War 2 dies, leaving his widow to take care of her rebellious grand-daughter when her parents die in an accident. The girl has no discipline yet is the hero because the local ROTC...which I'll explain in a minute, has it out to get her. You know the drill...Miyagi takes her under his wing and in the end they beat the bad guys and everyone lives happily ever after.

Its hokey, its cheesy, its the 90's....but that's not even the long and the short of it. My first case of "huh?" is why is there a "military division" in high school? I thought that stuff went out in the 1960's, especially in a public school. As much as Michael Ironside kicks booty in his role as the main heel, since when is military involved in a high school? My next gripe is that during the prom scene, the militants bungee jump to scare the crap out of people....why? The thing I noticed throughout all 4 movies was at the very end the heels suddenly turn face after all the nonsense they put the main character through (Billy in part 1, Sato in part 2, Kreese in part 3). This movie is no different. After Ned and cronies basically sabotage the senior prom, blow up Eric's car and threaten Hillary Swank the whole movie.....Ironside tells them to beat her up and they're like "um...no" If you're gonna do pathetic face turns, at least make sure the characters haven't done anything too over the top such as blowing up a hot rod.

As for the rest of the love plot between Eric and Hillary Swank....corny but nothing to melodramatic, which is a breath of fresh air from the garbage Ralph Macchio pulled in the first 3 movies.

I will say for its own movie, after watching the first 3 movies, I can accept it being more or less a spin off...but I can't accept the whole military thing, way too uncommon for it to be taken seriously. Now if Ironside and crew was a wrestling/football team and he was the coach, THAT would have been more believable.

Ironside and Morita deliver the goods, Swank is OK...the rest are the same as anything, the one highlight is when they blow up the hot rod, THAT was cool 4 out of 10

Sentiment: negative
I can't believe that this movie even made it to video, and that video rental stores are willing to put it on their shelves. I literary asked for a refund. Take away the fact that the movie has no historical truth it, and it is still the worse movie ever found in a video store. It is not even good enough to be called a B rated movie. Do not waste your money or your time on this movie. Just listing to the voice over and the horrible music made me sick. Anyone involved with this movie should be pulled from the union, gives the industry a black mark, but after watching most of this movie I really don't think anyone involved is a union member.

Sentiment: negative
I'll keep this short; thanks to Greg for helping me to put this succinctly: Captivity is about a guy who drugs a girl's drink, imprisons and tortures her, then poses as a captive to have sex with her. That is the single twist and punchline of the film. It's torture as slow motion date rape. And, it's not even a good movie. It's not so bad it's good; it's just bad.

It should also be mentioned that among critics, there is a "spoiler code" that they dare not break, even though some were tempted to on this one because it is so vile. Why NO ONE had the cojones to step up and say, "this is garbage, and this is why," is beyond me.

Don't give your money to these poop-peddlers.

Sentiment: negative