DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This was a nice attempt at something but it is too pretentious and boring to rise above it's low budget trappings. The use of virtual sets almost works but at some points it fails miserably. They made good use of the small budget I guess. I just wish the story and most of the acting was better. There are a lot of parts where you see what they were aiming for and it would of been great if they actually hit those marks but they don't. Confusing and unbelievable story. Bad DVD transfer too. It doesn't take much for me to watch a movie in one sitting. This I had to shut off. It was too boring. I can do slow movies. But just make them appealing in some aspect. Visually, story-wise, acting, etc. This was lacking in all departments so it never added up to an engrossing experience. Maybe the film maker's next attempt will be better.

Sentiment: negative
80 minutes, and it felt twice that long! Brief Crossing is not brief enough. Indeed, the first 50 minutes or so consist almost entirely of a dialogue (more of a monologue, really) of a woman approaching middle age, tediously droning about "men," disappointment, sex, aging, and her recent breakup, to a French teenager she met in the ship's cafeteria.

The tedious monologue continues as they go to duty-free shop, and to a bar, where finally her self-involved rant pushes him away. The "story" can't end there, of course, so she persuades him to listen to her drone on more as she brings him to her cabin.

What little romance, sex, or for that matter, anything at all this film has besides bitter rantings is hardly enough to justify the price of a rental unless you are one of those who love dramas where nothing interesting happens at all. Yes, the ending is very nicely done, but it is scant reward to subject yourself to what amounts to a turning your living room into a virtual therapy session with a narcissistic whiner.

Of course, some people like it. I could be wrong.

Sentiment: negative
The other lowest-rating reviewers have summed up this sewage so perfectly there seems little to add. I must stress that I've only had the Cockney Filth imposed on me during visits from my children, who insist on watching the Sunday omnibus. My god, it's depressing! Like all soaps, it consists entirely of totally unlikeable characters being unpleasant to each other, but it's ten times as bad as the next worst one could be. The reviewer who mocked the 'true to life' bilge spouted by its defenders was spot-on. If anyone lived in a social environment like this, they'd slash their wrists within days. And I can assure anyone not familiar with the real East End that it's rather more 'ethnically enriched' than you'll ever see here. Take my advice - avoid this nadir of the British TV industry. It is EVIL.

Sentiment: negative
An inventive, suspenseful exercise in claustrophobia. A Japanese thriller that sets itself a tough challenge by being entirely set in two rooms. Not completely successful, but taut, surprising and well-acted. One might find the film somewhat reminiscent of SAW  two men trapped in room and pitting against each other  but unlike that film it dares to stay with its premise and keep the hero locked in his cell throughout the film. It's like watching a lab experiment. Some might find the contained suspense tedious, but this reviewer found it enthralling. The sound and imagery of the film are stunningly well realized. This is a certainly a good film to use to show off a good home video system. Just right for a late night movie fest, when one is in the paranoid mood. It certainly kept me awake that night.

Sentiment: positive
Far by my most second favourite cartoon Spielberg did, after Animaniacs. Even if the ratings were low, so what, I still enjoyed it and loved it, was so funny and I adored the cast, wow Jess Harnell and Tress Macneille were in there and were just fantastic, the whole cast were brilliant, especially the legendary Frank Welker.

I'd love to see this cartoon again, was so awesome and the jokes were brilliant. Also I can remember the hilarious moment where Brain cameos in it, you hear his voice and it played the PATB theme instrumental, that was just fantastic, I love it in those cartoons when cameos pop in. I wish this cartoon and Animaniacs came back, i loved them

Sentiment: positive
Ray Bradbury, run and hide! This tacky film version of his short story from the 1950s about time travel and the effect it might have on de-evolution is not well known from the theatrical run (did it have one?) and exists now as a DVD on the shelves released during a slow week.

What looks to be a fancy sci-fi thriller form the opening scenes quickly fools us as the computer generated graphics are re-run unaltered throughout a film that is supposed to be about different 'trips' back in time where a major company sells macho guys in 2055 the chance to hunt dinosaurs by paying exorbitant fees to travel back in time to prehistoric jungles. One slip of the foot/butterfly while on one of these ventures and the course of evolution is altered with resultant time waves rolling over the planet changing everything to man-eating plants and beasties. Of course there is a pretty damsel who knows how to reverse the process and a hunky man to risk his life to act on her orders and everything is eventually OK.

Yes, that is the story...and the most surprising fact about this poorly scripted, abysmally acted mess of a film is that it attracted some fine talent to portray the comic book flat characters. Edward Burns (all buff and hunky) is our hero du jour, Ben Kingsley is the requisite bad corporate guy sporting a ridiculous white wig, Catherine McCormack is the know-it-all woman creator, and Wilfried Hochholdinger as an evil one - all are superb actors and should have known better than to align with this flop. And the saddest thing is that for those who like this genre of sci-fi monster thrillers the creative department sold out with some of the corniest animation to hit the screen in a long time. A must miss. Grady Harp

Sentiment: negative
Oliver Gruner is totally unknown to me. My friend showed me this film because he had seen Gruner in, what he called a pretty good sci-fi film, Nemesis. So as we watched this, we found ourselves fastforwarding through the BS drama parts just to get to the unbelievable action sequences. Gruner loves to kick and kick and kick. And kick! haha

Gruner character is a graduate student who is forced to stay in a ghetto close to the one that he grew up in. He finds himself watching after the boy who lives with him because he really wants to join in the Mexican gang that keeps tormenting his family. Instead of joining up, Gruner tells the boy to fight back (against a gang? too crazy). Gruner plays a typical Van Damme character who kills everyone (or maims them pretty bad) and works to rid his block of these gangmembers.

The plot was very cheesy and easy to think of. Gruner is probably not very well known because of his script-choosing if this movie is anything to compare possible choices to. This ghetto is pure hell and I enjoyed seeing the motley crew of characters go through it as if they have a chance against Gruner's character. The music was typical action music (thumping pianos and timpani, swelling guitars) which actually wasn't as bad as I make it sound. The director really needed to keep the action going instead of taking a break every 5 minutes for a tense family moment.

Ultimately, I gave it a 4/10 because it really tried to be an average action film for Oliver Gruner to star in, but the overall feel of the film leaves you wanting more closure on what you just saw.

Sentiment: negative
Derek Jarman has shown us time and time again that dialog is not his strong suit. He is a painter, and paint he does. His films are almost always visually splendid, but about as exciting to watch as paint that is already dry. Watch his movies in fast forward, the really fast setting that you can only get on DVD. In The Tempest, Jarman does very little with the script or the characters, using them as simply a lattice to hang a very long and well-constructed cinematographic frame. He even goes so far as to contradict Shakespeare's original script to achieve these excrucriatingly slow and lifeless scenes. There is none of the romance, magic, trickery, or urgency the script calls for, little spontaneity, and the character of Caliban in particular is reduced to a quivering and insane idiot of sorts, similar to Gaveston in Jarman's Edward II. It is too bad that this is just about the only film version of The Tempest available.

Sentiment: negative
I generally won't review movies I haven't seen in awhile, so I'll pop them in or rent them to give a full and fresh take on the film. In the case of 'A Sound of Thunder,' I remembered my vow of never seeing this movie ever again, so I'll just go on memory. In fact, I haven't thought of how badly made this movie was until I read someone else's review and remembered the experience I had back in 2005, when I actually saw this in the theater. My movie buddy forced me to see it, though I wasn't interested, and wow. (Later on, I forced him to see 'Basic Instinct 2' in the theater, reminding him he made me see this crap. So, I guess that made us even.) I certainly had my share of deep laughs (at the movie's expense, of course,) which didn't make him happy as he really wanted to see it. The time-travel/butterfly effect film had so many bad graphics, the loudest chuckles from me was whenever they showed the dinosaur (God, I loved seeing that dino and them actually being scared of it  it was hilarious!) or just simply, Ben Kingsley. It's great, Kingsley can remind us on how human actors can be: going from 'Gandhi' and 'Schindler's List' to, uh, this. (Even a Meryl Streep can do a 'She-Devil' from time to time, so they're forgiven.) For months, I pulled an MST3k with my buddy, consistently referencing this movie to any low-rent sci-fi film or Kingsley flick. Yes, the movie would be a great movie to see drunk (or otherwise inebriated): horrible over-the-top acting, "special" FX that even the Nintendo64 would turn away and ridiculous plot twists. The biggest disappointment was that the Razzies didn't even nominate this film for any award.

Sentiment: negative
A German freshman, Stefan hitch hikes to Paris during summer break were he falls for a mysterious young woman he meets in the Paris freak scene. He then follows her in the famous isle of Ibiza, the hippie joint were meets Wolf, a man who throws Hitler-Jugend knives, owns bars and hotels and keeps Estelle under his thumb with dope. The couple tries to escape Wolf, Stefan gets hooked with dope and jealousy for Estelle, who's groovy and a free spirit. Great photography and music, plot is quite usual for the period but it's not an exploitation kind of movie, cold and dramatic. The moral is quite strong (he was looking for the sun...) but I would not say it's a film against drugs even it puts enphasy on drug use.

Sentiment: positive
Good luck finding this film to even watch - it's not yet released on tape or DVD. I saw on release in the early '70's, was lucky enough to catch it via American Cinematheque's preservation efforts, and it still has some tangible moments that stayed with me for thirty years.

No reason to repeat rwint's accurate comments here. As a come-out Director soon after the soaring success of Five Easy Pieces, Jack N has been said to have managed the low budget effort as best as possible, and it certainly shows in the wandering and meandering that could have used some re-cutting. But it's also a memorable icon for it's time: the all very intense clashes of late 60's college sports, student movements, sexual revolution, and more. 

Why see this film? It was probably a ground breaker in some scenes: the frisky male bonding in the after-game showers; Karen Black's scene with Tepper in the car will catch you a little off guard - but it's the first use of a word I hadn't witnessed in film before; and the casual and unexpected use of nudity overall. There are probably others I'm omitting.

Look for a nice surprise of a young Cindy Williams in one of her first films; a thin David Ogend Stiers; Mike Warren fresh out of his powder-blue UCLA uniform and readying for a dark-blue TV uniform; Robert Towne - Actor; and a whole lot of folks simply playing themselves.

Now: any connection between Harry Gittes last name, Robert Towne, and a certain character in Chinatown and the Two Jakes?

It gets a "7" based on Karen Black. You'll see why.

Sentiment: positive
The positive reviews on this page are planted by the filmmakers and their friends. This film is amateurish in terms of direction, acting, in fact in every aspect. If the IMDb are gonna allow filmmakers to dictate what is written about their films then that is a very sad thing. This film has a marketable premise but it is absolutely horrifically made.

Film is subjective so everyone has their own opinion. But this film is on a par with the work of Ed Wood, but without any of the charm. To think otherwise shows bad taste of the highest order.

This is not a personal thing. I don't know anyone associated with the film. I'm just a film lover who feels that the reviews on this page are completely inaccurate and therefore I felt the need to address the balance and give a more accurate view of the film. It's very poorly made and the direction is below even film-making by the numbers. The acting is the worse ever committed to film. The best thing about this film is the poster and DVD cover art. Beyond that it's not worth the time.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is based on the book, "A Many Splendored Thing" by Han Suyin and tackles issues of race relations between Asians and Whites, a topic that comes from Han's personal experiences as an Eurasian growing up in China. That background, and the beautiful Hong Kong settings, gives this love story a unique and rather daring atmosphere for its time.

Other than that, the story is a stereotypical romance with a memorable song that is perhaps more remembered than the movie itself. The beautiful Jennifer Jones looks the part and gives a wonderful, Oscar nominated performance as a doctor of mixed breed during the advent of Communism in mainland China. William Holden never looked better playing a romantic lead as a journalist covering war torn regions in the world. The acting is top notch, and the chemistry between the two lovers provides for some genuine moments of silver screen affection sure to melt the hearts of those who are romantically inclined.

The cinematography really brings out fifty's Hong Kong, especially the hilltop overlooking the harbor where the two lovers spend their most intimate moments. The ending is a real tear-jerker. Some may consider sentimental romances passé, but, for those who enjoy classic Hollywood love stories, this is a shining example.

Sentiment: positive
I saw the description of the movie on TCM and only let it run because I like both Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith, so I was delightfully surprised to find that I really liked the movie and found it quite exceptional. Of course, it is seriously dated, but as a period piece it is well worth watching just for the subtle humour in insight into life and lifestyle almost forty years ago. Now the only problem is trying to find it on DVD so I can watch it more often. I also was quite taken with the performances of Smith and Ustinov as the leads, and of Karl Malden, Bob Newhart, and the cameo appearances by Robert Morley and Cesar Romero.

Sentiment: positive
Made the unfortunate mistake of seeing this film in the Edinburgh film festival. It was well shot from the outset, but that's the last positive comment I have about the film. The acting was awful, I wonder if actual gogo girls were hired? But it was the plot that was truly laughable, in fact that it was laughable and not boring is the only reason I gave this 3/10.

** Spoilers below **.

I just want to mention a few of the scenes that really got the audience laughing:.

Shoving the girl in the field: who would have thought that a kid shoving another kid could be acted so badly. A real eye-opener.

The getting on the bus scene: the girl is getting on the bus. But, according to the music, the world is ending.

The rolling under the clothes line: Wow, this one really demonstrates the plot writer's skills. In the room, followed by raw meat and skill selling. Why not just get her to perform all three 'sins' at once? At least then the film might have been slightly shorter.

The running down the stairs of the mall: watch as one of the girls takes to flight down the stairs pursued by a flesh eating Dau, no wait .. she *is* just walking quickly trying not to break her nails.

The running covered in blood: this is definitely my favourite scene, and a fitting end to the movie. A half marathon in red paint, completed by vaulting up stairs and over the bridge, only to be sent flying most unrealistically by a passing car. Not only this, but this suicide is undertaken by the most self obsessed girl in the film, now that's sticking to character for you.

I'd like to think that this film was created by a 16 year old and their mates. Sadly, having met the director at the presentation, this is not the case.

But, if you're in a sarcastic mood, and fancy a laugh with a few mates.. then still don't even think about it.

Sentiment: negative
I will never be a member of any club that would have me,

especially this one.

Starr Andreeff is a single mom/stripper who gets attacked by a

female vampire and left for dead. She begins to get a hankering for

blood, and meets up with John Savage, looking like he's

wondering where he left Michael Cimino's phone number. Savage

is also a vampire and wants to let Andreef join his little vampire

family, which consists of a British vamp, the blonde vamp who

attacked Starr, and a green haired midget (I am not making this

up).

The family does not want Starr, so they try to kill Savage and Starr

and Starr's kid.

Someone forgot to tell John Savage that this was a drama. He

spends most of his screen time exhibiting more facial tics than

Hugh Grant on a Jolt Cola bender, and he reads all of his lines like

he is making a Farrelly Brothers film. Andreeff tries to make the

most of a badly written role, but screenwriter/director Ruben goes

for all the vampire cliches, like Starr eating her son's pet hamster

and buying a lot of raw meat to fight the craving for blood. The kid

also gets knocked around a lot, for those who think watching

violence against children is really entertaining.

The film is extra gory, but not in a wild, over the top way like "Killer

Tongue." Here, the gore is gross and never justified, it just occurs.

It is just in the budget. Most of the R rating goes to Andreeff's

coworkers, who are put through embarassing strip routines in the

background of conversation scenes. The budget does not include

vampire fangs! All the vampires here must stab their prey to eat.

Nifty idea, unless you have already seen George Romero's

"Martin."

Even at 77 minutes, and once you throw in Ruben's attempts at

arty direction (skewed frames, blurred scenes), this is one

tiresome, dull, and dirty ride. Leave this club and take a shower,

you will need it.

This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gun violence, sexual

violence, strong gore, strong profanity, female nudity, sexual

references, drug abuse, and adult situations.



Sentiment: negative
Like the first film in this series (SLAUGHTER, 1972), I think it would be a mistake to just label this a "blaxsploitation film". Sure, Slaughter is a tough, gun-toting, Black man but it's more of an action picture regardless of the color of the leading man or the bad guys--and a very good action picture at that.

For the second and final time, Jim Brown plays the title character. The film begins with one of the goofiest scenes I can remember in a film. As Slaughter and his friends are enjoying an outdoor party, along comes a biplane and begins spraying the group with machine gun fire! No, Slaughter isn't so tough that he then shoots down the plane with his .357! But Slaughter is ticked and no one is sure why this hit was happened--however, Slaughter is going to get to the bottom of it! Well, it turns out that the hit was attempted in retribution for the last movie. In it, Slaughter takes on the Mafia and kicks lots of butt down in Mexico. Now, in a horribly bungled and clumsy attempt, the guys in the plane kill and injure quite a few people but miss Slaughter. And, because the job was bungled so badly, the mob boss (Ed MacMahon!!) orders the pilot and gunman killed by his brutal assassin (Don Stroud--in a very typical sort of role for him). Stroud is great--scary and nasty to the core, but Ed MacMahon as the boss?! Wow, that's an interesting twist! 

Slaughter is now stumped. He figured out who the two guys were in the plane but by the time he got to them, they were dead. So, to help him along in his own private vendetta, Brock Peters (who plays a cop) tells him who the mobsters are who ordered the hit and got Slaughter to agree to help by doing some illegal undercover work. So, Slaughter and his pimp friend break into the mobster's mansion and steal a list of payoffs to key government and police officials. And, naturally, there is a lot of shooting and bloodshed in the process.

Stroud isn't about to let Slaughter get away with this and kidnaps Slaughter's girlfriend. Now it's a standoff--Slaughter has the list but if he doesn't give it back, the lady is dead. Being a tough but gallant man, you might just be able to guess much of what happens next.

The action is very good in the film and Jim Brown is menacing and tough. The only negative I noticed was that while having MacMahon play this nasty boss, at the end, he simply folded--and way too quickly. When Slaughter catches up to him, MacMahon becomes a wimp and all the previous nastiness disappears--and this is too much of a cliché and inconsistent. Still, despite this minor quibble, it's an engaging film that is NOT for the kids due to all the violence and boobs.

Sentiment: positive
If you like poor SE, (some) bad acting and a total lack of credibility, this is a movie for you. So a really cheap looking movie, but I liked it anyway. Why? Because I like those kind of movies. I can't help but smile when I see these kind of movies....... What were the producers, actors, director and SE people thinking when they made this film? Don't expect an "Abyss" or "Alien", just a (very) low-budget horror/adventure movie.

There is one nice "splatter"moment when a guy's head is shot off, but for the most, the horror is pretty tame. The final monster is pretty cool too.

It's only 73 minutes long, so you can t go wrong there. Maybe you can pick it up at your local videostore or watch it on TV. I'm sure you will have a good time watching it.

But don't say you weren't warned.............

Sentiment: negative
One of John Ford's best films 'The Informer' doesn't feature any grand scenery of the American West. Instead the intense drama Ford was known for plays out on the no less rugged terrain of British character actor Victor McLaglen's face. The former prizefighter, who once faced Joe Louis in the ring, delivers an Academy Award-winning portrayal of disgraced IRA soldier Gypo Nolan on the worst night of his life.

The plot is gracefully simple: In 1922 Dublin, a starving and humiliated man who's been thrown out of the IRA for being unable to kill an informant in cold blood, himself becomes an informant. For £20 he betrays a friend to "the Tans" and for the rest of the night he drinks and gives away his blood money in rapidly alternating spasms of guilt, denial, self-pity, and a desperate desire to escape the consequences of his actions. 

It is the remarkable complexity given to the character of the seemingly simple Gypo that is the film's most impressive achievement. In most movies a burly lout of Gypo's type would be cast as the heavy, he'd have at best two or three lines and be disposed of quickly so the hero and the villain could have their showdown. In 'The Informer' Gypo himself is both hero and villain, while the showdown is in his inner turmoil, every bit of which is explicitly shared with the audience.

Because Liam O'Flaherty's novel had previously been filmed in 1929, RKO gave Ford a very modest budget. The director and his associates, particularly cinematographer Joseph H. August, turned this to their advantage in creating a claustrophobic masterpiece about a man at war with himself. In addition to McLaglen's Oscar 'The Informer' also won John Ford his first along with wins for Best Screenplay and Best Score.

Sentiment: positive
Let me depart from many comments I've read here, and say that this film ranks as one of the five best Bonds, along with On Her Majesty's Secret Service, From Russia With Love, Licence To Kill, and For Your Eyes Only (the ONLY time Roger Moore actually played the role of Bond, instead of futzing around). Of course, Sean Connery pulls the whole thing together -- as co-writer, co-producer, and in his best performance since From Russia With Love. He is fit, energetic, and obviously enjoying himself. His acting is mature, confident, and laced with the right amount of humour. This is in contrast to his mechanical performance in Thunderball, his sleepwalking through You Only Live Twice, and his jowly, paunchy romp through that cartoon known as Diamonds Are Forever!

This is an imaginative reworking of Thunderball, without having the sets and machines overwhelming the characters and plot. This cast is far superior, as well. Klaus Maria Brandauer brings his unique style to the role of Largo, without relying on an eyepatch, SPECTRE ring or a boring uniform. Kim Basinger is athletic and lovely, Barbara Carrera is dynamic, and for once, we have a great Felix Leiter in Bernie Casey. The depictions of M and Q are original, and the addition of the bumbling agent Small-Fawcett is fun without lapsing into slapstick.

Director Irvin Kershner makes good use of his locations (the Bahamas and the French Riviera) without losing sight of his actors. Although close inspection reveals some mediocre special effects and lapses in continuity, Kershner keeps the film moving at a good pace, unlike Thunderball (which even its director, Terence Young, did not like). Obviously fans will miss the gun-barrel trademark and the 007 theme music, but they are, after all, owned by Eon Productions.

Michel LeGrand may not have composed the most memorable score, but it captures the atmosphere of the locations without being overly intrusive. Not surprisingly, his best moments are in the south of France, with his French love song (at the health spa) being particularly attractive. And tell me, how many really remember the music for Moonraker? I personally would rather forget Man With the Golden Gun and A View To a Kill!

The Eon folks can sneer at this film if they like. (Yes, Octopussy made more money.) At least Connery's mature 007 didn't swing through the jungle emitting a Tarzan yell. He did not frolic with a Bengal tiger, nor did he fight off "Indian" snake charmers with a tennis racket. Despite Eon's desperate efforts to stop this production, Kevin McClory and the late Jack Schwartzman put together a fine film, one that I think Ian Fleming would have appreciated.

If, however, you would rather see James Bond get kicked in the shins by a dwarf, engage in another tiresome struggle with "Jaws", jump into bed with Grace Jones, or lead a slapstick firetruck chase through San Francisco, this is NOT the film for you!

Sentiment: positive
Oh if only I could give this rubbish less than one star! There were two mildly amusing parts in the whole film and that is it! one was where a line or two from the song Don't Worry, Be Happy was sung by the slugs and the other was where Roddy fell of the toilet roll and landed with his feet and legs apart so that everything else he landed on on the way down hit him in the groin. That is it there was nothing more amusing than that, at least not for me anyway! Doctornappy2 is not right in saying 'Fans of the completely terrible "Shrek" might enjoy, but "Wallace & Gromit" fans will probably turn away in disgust.' As I loved Shrek 1 2 and 3 and I also love Wallace and Gromit. You see what it boils down to is that if an animation is done extremely well then it is definitely worth watching, this however was about as far from done well as you can possibly get! The continuity mistakes were too big in number. Some were pointed out by the makers of this site others were not. I won't point out all of the others, but here are a few more to see: When the young daughter leaves at the start of the film the catch to the cage door comes down and the hook part of it that is on the right clearly goes back around behind the round knob thus effectively making sure Roddy would not be able to get out and yet he does just by simply kicking at it. At one point the ruby falls down Roddy's back and gets pushed straight up into the the air by Rita all the while the ship is moving forwards. In the next scene Roddy has caught it again. This is impossible. Seeing as how the ship is moving forwards the only place when the ruby was ejected out from under the back of Roddy's shirt the only place it could have landed was in the water not in Roddy's hand. There was a third one I wanted to point out but for now I have forgotten it.

Too many, for want of a better word, 'jokes' were repeated in one way or another, there was not enough time to establish any sort of connection with any of the characters, the characters were hollow, shallow and empty, and the whole film left you wanting....wanting to watch 85 minutes of anything else! Paint drying or grass growing are two superb options!

Sentiment: negative
The film version of 'Rising Damp' came out two years after the television series ended. Like many fans I duly went along to the cinema when it opened. I came away bitterly disappointed. Eric Chappell could not have spent very much time writing the script; most of it is rehashed ideas from old episodes. At the time of the film's release, the 'Rising Damp' series was still being repeated regularly on I.T.V. so the public was being asked to pay to see something they'd seen already. At least the 'On The Buses' movies boasted original screenplays.

Secondly, Richard Beckinsale had died the year before, so they eliminated the character of 'Alan' as a mark of respect, substituting art student 'John', played by Christopher Strauli of 'Only When I Laugh' fame. It simply wasn't the same.

As another poster has pointed out, Rigsby's boarding house looked nothing like the one used in the series, being bigger and altogether cleaner.

Director Joe McGrath was one of the directors who worked on the original 'Casino Royale', a film steeped in surreal humour. 'Rising Damp' also has its share of 'Walter Mitty' style fantasy sequences, such as the 'Saturday Night Fever' parody. Personally, I found them horribly out of place. A case of 'over-egging the pudding'.

On the plus side, Leonard Rossiter is as magnificent as ever as the seedy 'Rigsby', as are Frances De La Tour as 'Ruth' and Don Warrington as 'Philip. Its just a shame the film isn't worthy of their talents.

When Rossiter died in 1984, it was shown by I.T.V. as a tribute, with its final scene - showing Rigsby laying prostrate at the foot of the stairs - removed in the interests of good taste.

Sentiment: negative
I don't remember too much about this movie except that there was a distinctly gratuitous destruction of luminaires (lamps). Almost every fight scene included the unnecessary and wanton destruction of useful light fixtures, even if outfitted with cheesy, '70's-style, cylindrical shades to keep with the time setting of the story. On one occasion, raucous lamp destruction takes place in a domestic fight scene between the brothers in both the living and dining rooms of their mother's house, with fixtures in both rooms being taken out. Yet, the most malicious destruction occurs moments later in a bookie's office and includes, but is not limited to, the toppling of a fixture with a ceramic horse-head base, which is consequently disintegrated, and the severe denting of a cylindrical shade as a guy falls back into it during another fisticuffs fight. Later, that lamp is toppled as well when the guy is shot, incurring further damage to the plastic-coated shade.

While this movie encourages a particularly wasteful attitude toward lamps, one should keep in mind that lamps, regardless of their cheap construction or gauche, top-heavy appearance, are still valuable for the illumination that they provide. However, if you ever feel the need to vicariously smash a lamp, I would highly recommend this movie.

Sentiment: negative
There is a story (possibly apocryphal) about an exchange between Bruce Willis and Terry Gilliam at the start of Twelve Monkeys. Gilliam (allegedly) produced a long list (think about the aircraft one from the Fifth Element) and handed it to Butch Bruce. It was entitled "Things Bruce Willis Does When He Acts". It ended with a simple message saying: "please don't do any of the above in my movie".

There is a fact about this movie (definitely true). Gilliam didn't have a hand in the writing.

I would contend that these two factors played a huge role in creating the extraordinary (if not commercial) success that is The Twelve Monkeys.

Visually, the Twelve Monkeys is all that we have rightly come to expect from a Gilliam film. It is also full of Gilliamesque surrealism and general (but magnificent) strangeness. Gilliam delights in wrong-footing his audience. Although the ending of the Twelve Monkeys will surprise no one who has sat through the first real, Gilliam borrows heavily from Kafka in the clockwork, bureaucratic relentless movement of the characters towards their fate. It is this journey, and the character developments they undergo, which unsettles.

I love Gilliam films (Brazil, in particular). But they do all tend to suffer from the same weakness. He seems to have so many ideas, and so much enthusiasm, that his films almost invariably end up as a tangled mess (Brazil, in particular). I still maintain that Brazil is Gilliam's tour de force, but there's no denying that The Twelve Monkey's is a breath of fresh air in the tight-plotting department. Style, substance and form seem to merge in a way not usually seen from the ex-Python.

Whatever the truth of the rumour above, Gilliam also manages to get a first rate (and very atypical) performance out of the bald one. Bruce is excellent in this film, as are all the cast, particularly a suitably bonkers - and very scary - Brad Pitt.

It's been over a decade since this film was released. When I watched it again, I realised that it hadn't really aged. I had changed, of course. And this made me look at the film with fresh eyes. This seems to me to be a fitting tribute to a film that, partly at least, is about reflections in mirrors, altered perspectives and the absurd one-way journey through time that we all make. A first rate film. 8/10.

Sentiment: positive
Is torture ever right? No The answer is simple and absolute with no qualifications possible. The reason as this film showed is the effect torture has on a society. The values that have been hard fought for in Western society through centuries of revolution and struggle are for ALL men and women to be allowed to live in a free and open society. One where individuals are treated equally and with respect to their essential rights as humans. To protect this society institutions have been developed to deal with wrongdoing openly, fairly and honestly. These institutions have been adapted and honed through generations of hard work. One could argue that these are the true bedrock of democracy as they belong to us all, allow us all to be heard. If we allow undemocratic, inhumane acts to be committed in our name, if we split our society into those who have rights and those who don't then we undo the work of our ancestors. Moreover we are all complicit and all guilty and tainted. Whether those that we accuse are guilty or not is of no importance. We are defined by our attitudes and our responses.

Sentiment: positive
Well, I guess I'll have to be the one to say "The Emperor has no clothes." When I saw this show listed for PBS last night I was both hopeful and apprehensive. I loved "Morse" (even going so far as to buy the complete DVD set) and felt that, while I always liked Kevin Whately's Sgt. Lewis character, the show WAS John Thaw, period! After watching the new "Inspector Lewis" (as it is billed here), I am more convinced then ever that I was right...Whately is fine (even though he looks awful (both badly aged and too fat), but he simply doesn't have the charisma to carry the show as did Thaw.

And as for his "sidekick" Fox, well...perhaps the reviewers here from England can understand what he's saying, but I for one mostly could not.

As for Ms. Innocent...all I can say is that I miss James Grout.

I'm sorry to say that they should have left "Morse" rest in peace.

Sentiment: negative
Ironically, although he can do the "splits", Thomas is a complete stiff as an actor. 

This film is seared into my memory as one of the most side-splittingly cheesy and incompetent movies I have ever seen. As such, I'm actually rather fond of it. 

Still,the only reason this gets more than one star is that Thomas is great shape, and it's fun to see his tiny, muscular body performing various feats of gymnastic skill on the oddly shaped rocks and poles scattered about the East European country side (including the infamous "pommel horse" shaped well cap in the middle of a village square that Thomas uses to plant his feet in the faces of various insane villagers). But let the poor guy open his mouth and try to emote, and any illusion that he might have a film career is immediately dashed to bits. 

Thomas at least had the excuse that he wasn't really an actor. Everyone else in the film - actors, director, editor, camera guys, etc. is at least as bad, or even worse, and most of them are professionals. So Kurt doesn't come off quite as badly as you might think. 

I hope poor Kurt took the money and ran. If anyone ever asks him to perform in a martial arts film again, I'll bet that Thomas kicks the guy in the face.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this film on the History Channel today (in 2006). First of all, I realize that this is not a documentary -- that it is a drama. But, one might hope that at least the critical "facts" that the story turns on might be based on actual events. Reagan was shot and the other characters were real people. The movie got that right. From there on, reliance on facts rapidly decays. I had never heard of this movie before seeing it. Having been a TV reporter at the time of these events, I was stunned that I had never heard anything about the bizarre behavior of Secretary Haig as portrayed by Richard Dreyfuss. The whole nation had heard the "I am in control...", etc., but Dreufuss' Haig is bullying a cowered cabinet and totally out of control personally. Having watched the film, I began researching the subject on the Internet and quickly found actual audio tapes and transcripts of most of the Situation Room conversations that this film pretends to reenact. Incredibly, many the the principal "facts" of the film meant to show a White House, Secret Service etc. in total chaos -- and the nation's leadership behaving irrationally and driving the world near the brink of nuclear war -- are demonstrably incorrect. They didn't happen! There is internal conflict, to be sure. Haig makes missteps, his press room performance is historically regrettable and he is "difficult". But there is nothing approaching the scenes depicted in the film. There are too many gross errors to list, but any fair comparison of the recorded and written record and the fantasy of this film begs the question as to what the producers were really trying to accomplish. Enlighten? Inform? Entertain? I believe they failed on all three fronts. It is difficult to ascribe motives to others, but one must seriously question what was behind such shameless invention. And, as for my beloved History Channel's "Reel to Real" follow-on documentary, there was almost no mention of the issues that were the central focus of the film -- namely the events within the Administration on the day of the shooting. So, the viewer was left to research those without much -- if any -- help from the network.

Sentiment: negative
What an insult to the SA film industry! I have seen better SA films. The comments I read about Hijack Stories,by saying it is worthy of a ten out of ten is quite scary. A movie's rating should not depend on.., "OH, A MOVIE FROM A DEVELOPING COUNTRY. LETS BOOST THEIR INDUSTRY BY SAYING NICE THINGS ABOUT THEIR WORK, EVEN THOUGH IT IS BAD." We have the expertise to make good movies. Don't judge the film industry on what people say how great they think Hijack Stories is. We can tell great stories such as Cry the beloved Country and Shaka Zulu. Cry the beloved Country I'll give 9 out of 10. Great directing by Darryl, great acting by two great elderly actors, irrespective from where they are. Hijack Stories.., I'll give 1 out of 10. It could only be people involved in the project who would give it high scores. I would've done the same if it was my movie.

Sentiment: negative
Rumor has it that when the NASA Technical Advisors to this film were asked to keep the picture believable, they laughed for several hours. After all, unless you are a politician or work/crew the shuttle, you are not going to get in the shuttle. Furthermore, Space (Cadet) Camp is in Alabama, not Florida.

The truth is everyone on Earth will win multi-billion dollar lottery prizes before the events depicted in this film ever become possible. This film was meant for kids, and had to have been written by one, because they are not aware of the myriad restrictions and requirements regarding access to KSC/CCAFS.

This is the most useless film of all time, and it was a well deserved flop.

Sentiment: negative
First of all, really Kim Basinger? Your rich banker husband leaves you alone in your beautiful, most likely paid in cash for home, and you can't even put on a decent shirt? I'm a woman, and yes, I'm going to come right out say it--clean something, starting with your hair. And while you're at it, it's Christmas Eve. Buy your kids some presents...or at least a Christmas tree. Don't drive 40 minutes to the crowded mall, park your car 3 miles away and cry about it the whole walk in, and simply buy wrapping paper. Also, the next time you decide to leave someone a nasty note, don't sign your name. I refuse to feel sorry for Della. Obviously, due to the fact that Kim Basinger is this masterpiece's executive producer, she wants you to feel bad for the poor white blond woman. We get it. Alec Baldwin is a jerk, but seriously, don't model horrible films after your own life. Also, you're in you 50s. You definitely wouldn't have 8 year old twins. AND THOSE NAMES? Terry and Tammy. Way to let your kids grow up with any decent chance of ever respecting themselves. It's also pretty fantastic to hear the characters in the film constantly call her beautiful or refer to her as a "girl"...obviously Ms. Basinger had some say about what goes in the script. It's also pretty awesome how none of the criminals can fight back. Apparently, Della's magical ninja skills are impossible to beat. Her driving skills are pretty nifty too. This film is so cliché, it hurts. Wahhhhh! They spelled your name wrong on the tea cup. Or your husband put a hole in the wall but all you can think about is buying nail polish when you're at the mall instead of maybe some plaster and paint. Or the woman you went to high school with bought the teddy you were looking at. Boohooo! The fact that she refuses to take off that BRIGHT trench coat while running through the woods screaming and breaking everything in her path proves my point--this woman is a moron. Who thinks to grab the toolbox out of the car, but not their purse, full of identifying artifacts such as your ADDRESS. I have never wanted the "bad guys" to succeed as much as when I watched this film. And did anyone else happen to catch the "African American" shirt the black guy was sporting? Oh yes, rewind and feast your eyes on perhaps the most racially stereotypical prop in a film yet. Don't waste and hour and twenty minutes of your life. Instead, go do what Della couldn't figure out how to do...take care of your kids, and maybe brush your hair. That powerful ballad at the end though was pretty impressive. Singing "I'll Be Home For Christmas" in the rain while your bloody arm clings oh so tightly to your wrapping paper is about as emotional as it gets. Thanks Della!

Sentiment: negative
Five passengers at a bus depot tell each other their scary dreams while waiting to be picked up. But is there more to these nightmares than meets the eye?

Lucky me, five bad movies for the price of one! Each segment features the very worst in acting, special effects, make up and music. And these were supposed to be scary? Hmm.. I think I've been more freaked out during an episode of Teletubbies. I swear, you'll sit there like I was, bored to tears waiting in vain for something interesting to happen. Don't bother. It never does. In fact, I even stopped fast forwarding the commercials, as they were a good deal more entertaining than the main feature. AND the ending is the ultimate cop-out. Yep, none of this actually ever happened. If only the same could be said for the day I set my VCR to record this cobblers.. 2/10

Sentiment: negative
The philosophical, meditative tone of this movie renders it one of a kind. I'd give it 10 stars for that alone. That being said, though, what hit me with particular force was what I take, possibly incorrectly, to be its Art Direction. Many of the interior shots feature a rich concoction of color blends seemingly based on very understated Munsell Color Model progressions and complementary juxtapositions. This makes the movie probably unrealistic to contemporary eyes, but, to me, very beautiful as an aesthetic work in itself. I think this movie is genuinely unique for this quality, and if for no other reason, earns it a full, careful, digital restoration. Fox, are you listening?

Sentiment: positive
12/17/01 All I can do with this film is improvise on my impressions. I wasn't given the "changes," don't know the "score," and am not schooled in the genre. I always had problems following chord changes anyway (trumpet player, y'know), so I was pretty well limited to doing the basic "keep the tune in mind" and ad lib around that. What jammed me up about this incredibly moody black and white blues piece was the knot it gave me in my head and heart in trying to figure out whether to go with the ensemble or pick out a path along the tune (story.) I guess I went with the tune as usual; I kept getting lost on the changes--too deep, extensive, over my head, probably. Still, it was a gas to try to keep pace. I admired the actors' playing to the theme and story line. I didn't see some things or heare things others seem to: I didn't feel the light skin gal was "trying to pass" as much as she was either oblivious to the color issue or was trying to ignore it--at first: later she came back fighting. The brooding light skin young man (his trumpet noodling mas ludicrous) was ambiguous, ambivalent, and --perhaps his best feature--remote. What, I thought after the shadow-curtain closed on this provocative piece--is the foundation of a thing like this? Is it a way of finding "reality" by setting up a stage, peopling it with expressive characters and giving them a melody and theme? Is it any more real or truthful than a well-crafted script--without the benefit of editing and revising? Is improvisation heroic, "artier"?--moreso than crafted work? Where is there greater or clearer truth: in retrospective art/craft or in fabrication and reformation? Well, I am still lost in this question. I loved the film; it got me lost in a cool blue foggy evening, where I just had to go home and get out my horn. Guess what? I broke out in a twelve-bar blues riff, tried and true--couldn't make myself stray from the tune. Reality is just too scary. jaime says give them a 7 and more. I'm on break.

Sentiment: positive