DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
i actually thought this is a comedy and sat watching it expecting to laugh my ass off. pretty soon in became clear this is no comedy, or at least not a 'Jim Carrey type' one. what kept we watching was the characters - the movie starts with some pretty grim, troubled people, gathered together to try and fight one of their basic fears - fear of water, fear of swimming. we start to get bit by bit into their lives, witness their troubles, guess of their thoughts.

actually i made it look much darker than it actually is, and besides the chain of events soon brings some light and hope to their lives.

i probably wouldn't have watched the movie had i known its not a comedy but rather a drama, but i had good time, enjoyed the story and don't mind i spent about 90 minutes with it.

many films treat the alienation between people in the western world, this movie shows how people can get together and help each other

"and if in the light of dying day you meet her, don't let her pass you by and leave, don't loose her, she is your gift from the sun..."

9/10

peace and love

Sentiment: positive
This is a very low budget film, set in one location in a valley shielded by the effects of radiation. The cast, an older man and daughter, a handsome visitor, a couple (a tough buy and gal), a drifter, a donkey and a radiation affected man, interact during the after effects of a nuclear blast. Added to this is an entity watching the women take a bath.

They all have guns, some of them get shot, some of them are told to have children, others are murdered and others just drift away and, well this is the movie. Harvey Cormann's first film, it shows a certain simplicity in movie making. To avoid expensive sets, actors go through curtains to enter and exit the house (ie the studio). The location shots filmed in the hills near Hollywood are the backdrop.

I would not say this is worth going out of your way to see, but interesting to see how movies with human subjects were made in the 50s.

Sentiment: negative
Very good drama about a young girl who attempts to unravel a series of horrible crimes. She enlists the aid of a police cadet, and they begin running down a series of clues which lead to a traveling carny worker with a long police record. An ending which is guaranteed to keep you on the edge of your seat.

Sentiment: positive
I'm in awe! Wow, prepare to be blown away by the uncanny ways of the ninja. Watch them as they pounce, crawl along the ground (on their backs or stomachs) like a caterpillar, fly through the sky, climb buildings, hide and spring from trees, throw about ninja stars, role out blue welcome mats, disappear in smoke bombs, make a lot of swoosh noises with their blades and quickly sneaking or trotting about on their toes. What a sight! Really I could go on about the many traditional actions, but I'll be here all day. Oh not to forget we even get the legendary Chuck Connors popping up now and again, and watch him dispatch some ninjas with his shotgun with little ease. What class! What a badass! Anyhow the ultra-cheap 'Sakura Killers' is some stupid, but cheesy ninja action fun that only fanatics of the genre would get anything out of this shonky b-grade debacle.

A genetic lab in America has a very important video that's stolen by a couple of ninjas. Two Americans are sent to Japan by the Colonel (Chuck Connors) to retrieve it.

The opening of the feature sets it up nicely. Get ready for the laughs! Afterwards it slows down, but soon after the two main protagonists learns about the ninja and goes through the training it gets a head of steam as they break in costumes and fled after the stolen beta tape that contains a very important formula. This is when the violently swift action and aerobic marital arts really come in to play. It's not too shoddy either, (like the moronic script and daft performances). The final climatic showdown is very well done.

In the slow stretches it has the two Americans (Mike Kelly and George Nicholas) looking in to the case, sharing brainless conversations and encountering some minor problems. What made me laugh was how the ninjas were put off by how brave and clever these two were. These were supposed to be professional killers? Director Dusty Nelson ('Effects (1989)') does an earnest job with what he had and plays it for what it is. He centres the on-screen activities around striking Taiwan locations. The score is a chintzy arrangement.

Sentiment: negative
It's interesting to see what the director tried to do with this film. But the problem is that it's not very good. There was nothing really original in the film and while the plot was well presented, the main characters were all a bit to shallow and you didn't bother for any of them.

Rather bland (and sometimes downright bad) photo leaves a bit to be desired but I guess you can't expect to much from people who are just doing a low budget film for the heck of it. It's unfair to review the film and compare it to other high-budget films. But alas, that is what one must do. On its own, it's not very good. And compared to others, it's still not very good. But it is not without its good points! I liked the plot. It was built up rather nicely and tied together well at the end. Sometimes in the really dark scenes, it managed to build up a creepy feeling as well.

However in the end the film fails to impress. The characters are pretty much non-existent and we don't care for any of them. Any of them might die, but it's possible to pinpoint the final "survivor" from very early on.

Sentiment: negative
Talking about competition features at the Split Film festival, we have titles from all over the world. China, Korea, Canada, USA and Australia and many of these stories are indicating that the world is really valley of tears. Modern love...thats for sure. 

In that movie by Alex Frayne, two younger married people and their boy are traveling from town to the coast to visit the grave and house of the man's uncle who raised him a long time ago and who died in mysterious circumstances. The coastal village seems like something in an American horror film where the village is bizarre and people are uncommon mutants. But episodes in Alex Frayne's pastorella can't be described as horror in the normal way. In fact this is an extreme interesting drama where we are seeing relationships and horror through flashbacks and much more. In this story and through obviously psychological facets of the actors we are shown a peep show of film some charmingly eccentric Australian film-making. Thus is the the case of Frayne. Always something new and fresh. Visual intelligence and unique sensibility of some Australian directors is astonishing good. Frayne's movie is super. There is something in the Australian landscape that shows their movies so special as we have see in FRAYNE's Modern Love and in RAY Lawrence movies Lantana and Jindabyne.

It seems it will be the same in future titles of Alex Frayne.

Sentiment: positive
It's too kind to call this a "fictionalized" account of the Barker gang. They got the names right, but that's about it.

Russell is still hot, I'll grant you that, but this is not the real Ma Barker, who basically took care of the boys by cooking and assisting when they moved around the country, not by planning or participating in the crimes. I think it would have been far more interesting to present the real story of a middle-aged woman caught up in the criminal activities of her children and their cronies.

I also have to agree with those reviewers who found the shoot-out scenes to be totally unbelievable. The Barker/Karpis victims were a combination of the innocent and of the law-enforcement agents who pursued them, but they definitely did not mow down half-a-dozen FBI agents every time they were cornered. (On the other hand, as several recent books have related, the FBI of that era emphasized the idea of agents coming only from legal or accounting backgrounds to the extent that many agents had very little law enforcement or firearms experience. They were not the well-trained agents that we picture today.) 

But the worst sin of all is that the movie is basically a bore. Nobody changes, nobody grows. We know the end of the road is ahead, we just don't know which shoot-out it will be.

Only for die-hard Russell fans.

Sentiment: negative
Hey,

If your going to make a documentary about Leonard Cohen try making it about Leonard Cohen! This is filled with only enough Leonard to anger the viewer who will be left wondering why they are listening to all these other singers (some of them questionable) talk about themselves. Puleeze....sounds like them reliving their diary entries in junior high - who cares about you, what about Leonard? Guess what people, if you "do something" worthy maybe someone will make a documentary about you. I found particularly insulting the parading of U2's members as if that would add credibility to this movie - NOT. Leonard doesn't need Bono or the Edge talking about his spirituality. What would have been nice would have been for the filmmakers to embody some piece of his spirituality through the film. Gee, what a concept! I will give props to Rufus Wainwright and Jarvis Cocker for their covers of Cohen tunes - the rest of the performances were a bore and some were unbearable.

Cohen fans, don't say I didn't warn you!

Sentiment: negative
Yet again one of the most misunderstood Goddesses of my country has been twisted by "Westerners" who cannot understand the esoteric symbolism of the Mother Goddess in her dark forms. The Mother takes on the frightening form of Kali Mata to destroy our inner demons, and to terrify our egos. And though blood sacrifice is given to Kali and Durga, the events depicted in this film are just absurd. The Mother takes on a wrathful form to be wrathful to our inner demons, limitations, and ego when no other form will suffice. It's also in her wrathful form that she burns away all your Karmas in the "Smashan" fires that you cultivate in your heart for her to dance on if you love her, and she will bring you to reality and truth. Reality and truth has a dark side as well as light, which serves a purpose. The Mother is the embodiment of the physical Universe as well, she is Nature. Nature can be cruel and destructive to maintain balance. You cannot have growth and life without death and destruction. Kali represents the force of destruction for the purpose of new growth and life both mundane and spiritual in the universe. It's very outrageous to me that people who know nothing of India or it's divinity can just take one of our beloved Goddesses and use her like a cheap prostitute to make some low-budget, talentless horror film. How dare they take our beloved Mother and portray her as a horror that makes people chop their eyelids off!? She is only horrific to those who are attached to their ego and who live in delusion , greed, anger, and other inner-demons. It's very clear to me that the person who wrote this movie must have a very serious self-deluding ego, and serious inner-demons to see Kali as so horrible and terrible. When the ego drops away she becomes a form that is enchanting, beautiful, and young, a beauty that is so enchanting to behold that she enchants the entire Universe with it. Kali Maa is an ancient Mother, not to be trifled with for the sake of entertainment, let's just hope that in her endless compassion and mercy that she does not take on wrathful form to those involved with this movie.

The audacity that Westerners have in using religions like my own, or the religions of the Caribbean Islands such as Santeria, and Vodou which are actually very positive, and other such religions to twist and exaggerate misunderstood elements that the Western mind cannot comprehend, is totally ridiculous. It's clear that there is no respect for what people live, breathe and believe in when it comes to these kind of flicks.

Kali Maa in reality is a caring and compassionate mother, whom we shed tears at her beautiful feet in devotion and love for. And I am happy that my Mother takes on wrathful form sometimes to protect her devotees from themselves and from outside forces.

Many Praises to the REAL Kali Maa, who has shown MANY the path of God and realization.

Sentiment: negative
Savage Island (2003) is a lame movie. It's more like a home video shot with very minimal lighting and horrid acting. Not only that the storyline and script was wretched. I don't know why this movie was made. I have seen a lot of flicks in my time and the ones I really hate are movies that make me angry. This one made my blood boil. The situations were inane at best. If I made a movie like this it would have been a short. Really because those backwood "idjits" wouldn't have been in the picture.

Don't be fooled by the cover on the D.V.D. I am an avid watcher of bad cinema. But this movie is virtually unwatchable. I don't mind movies being shot on D.V. but if you're going to do that make the movie enjoyable, not some tired retread of superior horror films (sans Wrong Turn).

I have to not recommend this waste of disk. If you come across this one in the rental store pass on by.

Movies that make yours truly angry get an automatic 1.

Sentiment: negative
Taken in the context of the time it was made, I found this a worthwhile movie. While the details may be 'dramatized', the overall history was a nice primer. In addition, I found spotting actors I knew a real pleasure. Who would imagine Ben Cartwright as a dastardly cad? I'll leave the rest of the star spotting to you. As to the secondary casting, this movie (as one would expect from a movie made in the late thirties) has many an enjoyable character actor, but top kudos' to Andrew Jackson's right hand man Peavey. The perfect touch of comedy. Well shot, with beautiful ships, and competent acting throughout out, I recommend this for anyone with a taste for the slightly camp, or an eye for a double-period piece, set at the dawn of America, and made in a period when great names, and top notch character actors, were a real pleasure to enjoy.

Sentiment: positive
How do I begin to review a film that will soon be recognized as the `worst film of all time' by the `worst director of all time?' A film that could develop a cult following because it's `so bad it's good?'

An analytical approach criticizing the film seems both pointless and part of band-wagon syndrome--let's bash freely without worry of backlash because every other human on earth is doing it, and the people who like the film like it for those flaws we'd cite.

The film's universal poor quality goes without saying-- 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' is not without competition for title of worst film so it has to sink pretty low to acquire the title and keep a hold of it, but I believe this film could go the distance. IMDb doesn't allow enough words to cite all the films failures, and it be much easier to site the elements 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' does right. Unfortunately, those moments of glory are so far buried in the shadows of this film's poorness that that's a task not worth pursuing.

My impressions? I thought I knew what I was getting into, I had been warned to drink several cups of coffee before sitting down to watch this one (wish that suggestion had been cups of Vodka). Despite my low expectations, 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' failed to entertain me even on a `make fun of the bad movie' level. Not just bad, but obnoxiously bad as though Jobson intentionally tried to make this film a poetical yawn but went into overkill and shoved the poetry down our throats making it not profound but funny . .. and supposedly Jobson sincerely tried to make a good movie? Even after viewing the 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' promotional literature, I have trouble believing Jobson's sincerity. Pointless and obnoxious till the end with a several grin/chuckle moments (all I'm sure none intentional)spiced the film, and those few elements prevented me from turning the DVD off. So bad it's good? No. It had just enough 'I can't believe this is a serious movie moments' to keep me from turning it off, and nothing more.

Definitely a film to watch with a group of bad-movie connoisseurs. Get your own running commentary going. That would've significantly improved the experience for me. So bad it's Mike Myers commentating in his cod Scottish accent on it as it runs, to turn this whole piece of sludge into a comic farce "Ok dare ma man, pass me annuder gliss of dat wiskey".

Sentiment: negative
This movie probably never made a blip on the radar screen, but it's got quite a bit of quality. It's pretty lifelike, yet you think "It's only a movie." Duvall and Close portray common people, and you'd never even realize they are now big-name actors. It seems that the jerk in this story is a little too old to be chasing Eugene's girlfriend, but I guess it's possible. It seems unlikely that the kid would travel from Montana to Nevada by himself, but I guess it's possible. You might think that the family troubles in this movie would never happen in your own family, but I guess it's possible. I remember Glenn Close saying something like "You think the work you do is the hardest part of your life, but it isn't."

Sentiment: positive
Some people may remember Ms. Russell from films such as "Black Widow", which had some appeal and critical acclaim. Boy, she must have really needed a rent check when she signed on to do this dog.

Yes, there will be those who like the gratuitous violence and nudity. But one must sit back and wonder, in retrospect, what possessed anyone to spend money and time to make this in the first place. I just saw this movie on one of the "HBO's", and I can't believe they picked it up.

In 1996 Ms. Russel didn't have the physical attractiveness she did earlier in her career. But, come on! Having her play Ma Barker??? Her "sons" all look like they could be her brothers. It's also creepy in that you think there are going to be incestuous relationships occurring (thank goodness there aren't, hope that doesn't count as a spoiler). With Eric Roberts and Alyssa Milano added into the cast, this one is B-movie 'straight to video' all the way.

The scenes between Purvis and Ma Barker, either in person or on the phone, are a primer in terrible, terrible acting. Oh, wait, I forgot terrible, terrible writing as well. Chalk this one up to experience. A bad experience.

Sentiment: negative
Marjorie, a young woman who works in a museum and lives with two female roommates, Pat and Terry.One night she gets in her car and is attacked by masked man with a knife.His plan is to rape her, but she manages to escape.The man has her purse.The police can't help her, since the actual rape didn't happen.Then one day, when Marjorie's roommates are at work, her assailant comes there.His name is Joe.A long battle begins against this man.But then she manages to spray his eyes and mouth with insect repellent, stuff that will kill him if he won't get help soon.She ties him up and makes Joe the subject of the same kind of physical and mental assaults he used on her earlier.The Extremities (1986) is directed by Robert M. Young.It's based on the controversial off-Broadway play from 1982 by William Mastrosimone.Farrah Fawcett, who sadly lost her battle with cancer last year, is terrific as Marjorie.James Russo, who played the attacker also in the play, is convincing as Joe.Alfre Woodard and Diana Scarwid are great as Pat and Terry.James Avery is seen as Security Guard.She got a Golden Globe nomination.This is not a movie that is supposed to entertain you.It asks a question is revenge justified.This is not a perfect movie, but I recommend it.

Sentiment: positive
A light, uplifting and engaging movie. Watching Irene Dunne is a delight! As you watch her, she ceases to be Irene Dunne and becomes in every way Paula Wharton.

I have enjoyed Irene Dunne in every movie that I have seen and that would be nearly all of them. What a shame that most of her movies need restoration so badly. I do hope Irene Dunne movie are restored before it is too late they are such treasures Thank goodness this is not the case with Over 21.

It is a must see if you like superb acting and witty comedy with serious overtones. I agree with a previous comment on the speech "The World and Apple Pie" it was one of the many highlights of the movie. I read somewhere that Irene Dunne helped in writing that speech along with Director Vidor (Irene Dunne was a very good and charitable person in private life) and it certainly seems to show through in her movies!

Sentiment: positive
There wasn't a day in 2002 where i wasn't chased by a scarecrow I felt that this film handled a serious issue well

It brought back a lot of memories as it was so realistic

Even today I have nightmares about corn on the cob, and can't even go near the tinned stuff in fear of my life

I have to admit though, at one point in the film I did have to turn it off as it hit too close to home

For those of you who have never been attacked by a scarecrow, by watching this film you could be educated about how it felt for us victims 

This film teaches us not to take life for granted or to mess with corn, believe me, I've been there and I have the scars 

Watch the film, its amazing and educational

Sentiment: positive
The Secret of Kells is one of the most unique, beautiful, and eye- popping animated films I have ever seen. Before watching this film, I was convinced that nothing could give Up a run for its money and that it was a shoo-in to win in this category, but I found in Kells a serious contender.

The Secret of Kells tell the story of a young orphan named Brendan, who lives with his uncle, the Abbot of Kell. The Abbot is a loving guardian, but perhaps a bit too strict and much more concerned with fortifying the wall around the town from a coming attack by vikings than he is at nurturing the boy's imagination. When the legendary Brother Aidan (who looks surprisingly like Willie Nelson) shows up and takes the boy under his wing, Brendan goes on a journey into the woods and meets a lovely forest nymph named Aisling who takes a liking to him (and saves his life more than once). With Aisling's help, he attempts to save the town and help Brother Aidan complete the mystical book whichlegend has itcan turn dark into light.

See my full review of The Secret of Kells at: http://theoscarsblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/movie-review-secret-of- kells.html

Sentiment: positive
I'll say one thing for Jeanette and Nelson--even when stranded in a mirthless, witless, painfully inept musical like this, there's still that twinkle in their eyes. Yes, the chemistry between the famous duo is there even when the material is paper thin. Even when the score is practically a throwaway, non-existent one depending on just a couple of catchy tunes. And even when the circumstances are so unbelievable--yes, even for a fantasy.

Truth to tell, she has more chemistry with Nelson than with her own real-life husband Gene Raymond in SMILIN' THROUGH, which, nonetheless, was a considerably better film.

Sorry, I love Jeanette and Nelson as much as the next fan, but this is the bottom of the heap. Jeanette is more than embarrassing in her one "hep" number with Binnie Barnes--and Nelson can only come up with a blank stare when faced with the most ludicrous situations.

One can only wonder what this was like on Broadway in 1938. Surely, it must have had more wit and style than is evident in this weak MGM production. Edward Everett Horton fizzles in an unfunny role and none of the supporting players can breathe any semblance of life into this mess. It's like amateur night at the studio even with the few professionals sprinkled among the supporting cast.

Summing up: Painfully clumsy rendering of a Rodgers and Hart musical. Can't recommend it, even for fans of MacDonald and Eddy. And even if Jeanette's close-ups still glow with her gossamer beauty, this film is jaw-droppingly bad.

Sentiment: negative
I was loaned this DVD by the director of a film I am working with, in which I play an actor who is playing Prospero. Knowing his own style, I did not expect anything resembling a "classical" interpretation of the text.

What I have found is sometimes striking, sometimes evocative, but often meandering and tedious. Like most experimental music, I find that in films such as this, the building blocks of powerful film-making are crafted, even if they have not found their most useful form in a more coherent format.

Thus we have a Caliban who is more a clown than a threat, and who not even Miranda seems terribly afraid of (which is odd, since we know that he has attempted to rape her at least once). A Stefano and Trinculo who are more annoying than funny. An oddly young Prospero who looks like Amadeus. And a great loss of character development and plot through creative editing and highly stylized posturing.

Interestingly enough, I do not have an issue with the way in which Ferdanand or Miranda are portrayed. His stunned rapture and her slightly freaky innocence are actually quite appropriate.

I do not say that this is a bad film, but an experimental one. One that takes huge risks, but is meant more for students of art and film and not really for anyone with an interest in the Tempest for its own sake.

Sentiment: negative
Far richer in texture and character than even the classics from the 30's and 50's. George C. Scott was born to be Scrooge, just as he was born to be Patton. Mr. Scott will be known as one of the greatest actors of the 20th century. The character of Scrooge as played by Mr. Scott seemed to jump off the screen. Scott as Scrooge brought an richer, more robust, yet a more deeply moving Scrooge to the screen than any of his predecessors in the role of the meanest man in 18th century London. Mr. Scott seemed to bring Scrooge to a more personal, understandable yet highly conflicted level; his role was acted with the great authority Scott always bring to the screen: yet his usual bellicose voice would sometimes be brought to a whisper, almost as a soliloquy, as he would berate the Christmas holiday in one breath, yet reveal his own human frailty in his next line. He could portray the sour and crusty Scrooge, and a misunderstood, sympathetic Scrooge all in the same scene.

Truly a remarkable performance by a giant of his generation.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film as a sneak preview before the Venice opening at the Telluride Film Festival. Your reaction to it will largely depend on your attitude about respecting the text of Shakespeare. On the plus side: Pacino gives a very good performance indeed as Shylock; Lynn Collins is a fine Portia; and the film has a sumptuous look. 

The negatives are predictable. "The Merchant of Venice" is arguably the most difficult of all of Shakespeare's plays to stage today, largely because we look at it through the distorting lens of 20th century history. The romantic plot with Bassanio and Portia presents no problem. The character of Shylock does, because we lack the original frame of reference of the Elizabethan audience. Shylock is simultaneously a human character with human qualities and motivations, and an abstraction of the pitiless quality of the Old Law. When he says "Hath not a Jew eyes?" he is a character; when he proclaims "I will have my bond!" he is an abstraction. The long passage on music and cosmic harmony in the final scene (here moved and cut to ribbons) is the key to the play, in that it re-establishes universal harmony after the disruptive and evil (the Shylock of the trial scene) forces are ejected. It is possible to make psychological sense of the character of Shylock by showing his gradually going mad and turning into a monomaniac by the time the trial scene rolls around--the key is that at a point he must cease being sympathetic.

Pacino's performance almost does it, but not quite. The film can't quite make up its mind--on the one hand, there is the right movement in the character of Shylock, and on the other there is a great deal of extraneous footage of Jews being abused and Venetian whores with rouged nipples (no doubt to show the decadence of Antonio et al). Shakespeare was not writing an Ibsen-like social drama; he was writing a comedy following the classic pattern of disruption of social order and the restoration of social order, symbolized by marriage, with a theme of love versus law at the center of the Shylock plot.

In this sense, the film is a travesty--Radford's surgery on the play and direction almost force us away from what the play really means. (Taking the beginning of the final scene, cutting most of it, and moving it before the trial scene is the most extreme example.) There are some other significant difficulties. Jeremy Irons, a fine actor, plays Antonio as if he were overdosed on sedatives. Joseph Fiennes is pretty but shallow as Bassanio. Most of the actors, with the exceptions of Collins, Pacino, and the actor playing the Duke in the trial scene, mumble their dialogue.

Final verdict? A pretty film with a few decent performances. It's not Shakespeare, it's poor interpretation. Not really worth your time or money--although Lynn Collins as Portia almost redeems it.

Sentiment: negative
This movie has it all. Sight gags, subtle jokes, play on words and verses. It is about a rag tag group of boys from different ethnic and social classes that come together to defeat a common enemy. If you watch this more than once, you will find you are quoting it like Animal House (and yes I love Animal House also). I put in the top 15 funniest movies. The Major at a boys military academy is paranoid that every kid is bad and wants to cause trouble (in this movie he is right). He is sadistic, uncaring, cruel and has to be taken down. The group of boys that do not get along at first, end up teaming together to survive and get rid of the Major with a wacky plan only Mad Magazine could of wrote. A must see - you will love it!

Sentiment: positive
Störtebeker is truly one of the worst TV mini-series ever made on this planet.

The acting is unbearable and the historic background is mostly nonsense: Just two examples: Visby was shown as a village of three houses. Instead, it was a major city at this time, it's best days already passed by. Secondly, Hamburg would have never been the city taking care of pirates in the Baltic Sea. Hamburg had no access to the Baltic Sea, the major town at that time was Lübeck.

But worse than all that: The directing! How can a dilettante like this guy be allowed to direct a movie like this? Impossible! There was not a single believable scene it, the fights were ridiculous and I could not suppress laughter at most stern scenes.

I can't understand at all how a major television station could be so incompetent.

Sentiment: negative
If you were brought up on a diet of gameshows you'll understand that you gradually need a bigger and better fix. Well, in the world of the Running Man, your needs will be sated. For in this game show, prisoners compete for freedom, and the ultimate prize - their very lives.

I loved this film. It was such a parody on the mind-numbing tripe that we watch on a daily basis. It isn't one of Schwarzenegger's best performances, but on the whole it is a very good film. The underlying idea that Television Corporations will one day be the "real" rulers of the planet is very believable, and is very well portrayed in this film. Of course there are the usual Arnie one-liners, my favourite is when he is about to be catapulted into the gamezone, the gameshow host asks "Any last words?" Arnie says: "Yeah, I'll be back" but the host quips "Only in a re-run" and presses the eject button. I give this film a 10 for sheer originality. I must have watched it 30 or more times. The only film apart from the Die Hard series that I watched this often!!

In short, do not for a minute think that you own the T.V. - It owns you.....

Sentiment: positive
In Panic In The Streets Richard Widmark plays U.S. Navy doctor who has his week rudely interrupted with a corpse that contains plague. As cop Paul Douglas properly points out the guy died from two bullets in the chest. That's not the issue here, the two of them become unwilling partners in an effort to find the killers and anyone else exposed to the disease.

As was pointed out by any number of people, for some reason director Elia Kazan did not bother to cast the small parts with anyone that sounds like they're from Louisiana. Having been to New Orleans where the story takes place I can personally attest to that. Richard Widmark and his wife Barbara Bel Geddes can be excused because as a Navy doctor he could be assigned there, but for those that are natives it doesn't work.

But with plague out there and the news being kept a secret, the New Orleans PD starts a dragnet of the city's underworld. The dead guy came off a ship from Europe and he had underworld connections. A New Orleans wise guy played by Jack Palance jumps to a whole bunch of erroneous conclusions and starts harassing a cousin of the dead guy who is starting to show plague symptoms. Palance got rave reviews in the first film where he received notice.

Personally my favorite in this film is Zero Mostel. This happened right before Mostel was blacklisted and around that time he made a specialty of playing would be tough guys who are really toadies. He plays the same kind of role in the Humphrey Bogart film, The Enforcer. Sadly I can kind of identify with Mostel in that last chase scene where he and Palance are being chased down by Widmark, Douglas, and half the New Orleans Police. Seeing the weight challenged Zero trying to keep up with Palance was something else because I'm kind of in Zero's league now in the heft department.

Kazan kept the action going at a good clip, there's very little down time in this film. If there was any less it would be an Indiana Jones film. Panic In The Streets won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay that year.

Kazan also made good use of the New Orleans waterfront and the French Quarter. Some of the same kinds of shots are later used in On the Waterfront. In fact Panic In The Streets is about people not squealing when they really should in their own best interest. Very similar again to On the Waterfront.

Panic In The Streets does everyone proud who was associated with it. Now why couldn't Elia Kazan get some decent New Orleans sounding people in the small roles.

Sentiment: positive
This movie rates as one of my all time favourite top 10 movies. Many people seeing it for the first time and knowing little about many of the themes in the movie probably won't understand why I find it so enthralling so I will try to explain...

The movie is very rich in historical detail and cultural insights, and while it has a few minor anachronisms, they are completely forgivable. The story is a retelling of the famous duel between the Monk Benkei and the young Prince Yoshitsune on Gojo bridge. During the fight according to legend Yoshitsune bests Benkei and the monk becomes the prince's loyal retainer. This movie is a revision of that story however and involves war, dark prophecy, and political maneuvering.

One of the main themes in the movie is "Mappo", which is the prophecy by the Buddha that after 1000 years his teachings would fail and the world would fall into chaos. It was believed in Heian Japan, after the eruption of Mt Fuji and the civil war between the Taira (Heike) and the Minamoto (Genji) that the world would fall into anarchy and everything would collapse. It is a time of demons.

Next you have the way in which the movie resolves the issue of Yoshitsune's sword training by the Tenku (Raven Goblins) of Karuma. Defeated clans often escaped into the mountains and disguised themselves as demons to scare the locals off. This is said to be where ninja clans began historically. Yoshitsune's depiction in Gojo nicely accommodates all of this.

Then there is Benkei, and the various strains of Buddhism depicted, including a lot of Esoteric Buddhism of the Shingon sect. These are all depicted quite accurately, and just to add a little extra, the movie manages to convey the power of meditation and Ki energy in a way that makes it integral to the story, i.e. it uses magic realism to add an extra dimension to the film but does it in such a way as to make it tactical and menacing.

All-in-all it is filled with fascinating tidbits and rings surprisingly true-to-life for the period. The scenery and the costuming are also completely unmissable and very authentic. The soundtrack is great, very brooding and ominous. I also thought that the actual acting performances were surprisingly good. Benkei is a great brooding anti-hero, Shanao (Yoshitsune)is depicted as a young man testing his limits and growing increasingly drunk on his own power, and Tetsukichi the scavenging sword-smith makes for and interesting depiction of the "common man" and his less than flattering opinion of the killers who fancy themselves his social betters.

As to the plot, to see why it is so good, I really suggest you dig up an old book on Japanese history and see how this retelling turns an almost lighthearted Robin Hood vs Little John story into a gory tale of intrigue, violence and infernal karma.

Sentiment: positive
This movie which was released directly on video should carry a warning label that it is dangerous to human health and may subject the viewer to terminal boredom. It is yet another thinly veiled, evangalizing "rapture" religious movie with the good guys (the believers) suddenly vanishing and the bad guys (the non-believers)left behind. It's an interesting concept, especially since we see it happen on a flight captained by a non-believer who is having a sinful affair with a stewardess aboard (needless to say that sinner doesn't disappear either!). Unhappily, with all the pilots being non-believers, the plane did not crash or the movie would have been mercifully over. Though this could have be interesting without the heavy religious browbeating, as a whole the plodding movie makes one gag, the acting is horrible and the obviously computer-generated simulations are very fake looking. Plus it's yet another movie shot in Canada that purports to be New York City. Spare me...I'll just read the Bible.

Sentiment: negative
Aaran is one of the movies where you find the loop holes in Indian Cinema. Here is one good example to show how excellent writers, directors and actors succumb to the producers. Here is one of the most wonderful actors, Mohanlal, acting in a movie about a real story in Kashmir. The seriousness of the film is slaughtered with sub standard comic scenes and songs. There is this character, Havaldar Jaykumar, who in reality, is the son of the producer of the film. Hence, he doesn't have a hair cut despite his officer asking him to do so. This kid doesn't know what is acting and he is the "hero" of the movie. God Help Indian Cinema with such producers.

This movie is a pathetic display of what happens in Kashmir. A sensible viewer can intuitively understand the constraints of such wonderful writers, actors and directors who want to share their real life experiences. But the unfortunate part is that a movie about the highest ranks in Indian Militia turns out to be a pathetic display that only makes one think that the movie was stupid.

We should oust such producers in the film industry and pave way for good cinema.

Sentiment: negative
Oh, it's an excellent piece of work, to be sure. In fact, several of the best scenes in cinema, or at least in Bergman's cinema, are to be found in this film. Liv Ullmann and Max von Sydow are as good as you would expect. Do these two give bad performances? Sven Nykvist delivers some masterful, although unconventionally masterful, cinematography. The script is quite good, especially in individual scenes. Sometimes the film lags, and the pace is uneven, though probably intentionally. 

So what's the problem? Well, the film is too bleak for its own good. Other Bergman films are similarly bleak, but nowhere near this harsh. Eventually, I just gave up and I started to become a little irritated. I was greatly affected often during the film, but, by the end, I felt uninvolved. It's a great film, but I doubt I'd ever watch it again, nor suggest it to friends. Or, if I did suggest it, I'd be very sure to warn them of what's ahead. 8/10.

Sentiment: positive
In this first episode of Friends, we are introduced to the 6 main characters of the series: Monica Geller,Phoebe Buffay,Chandler Bing,Ross Geller, Joey Tribbiani and eventually Rachel Green .

We discover that Rachel, a rich girl that is Monica's friend from high school times, left her fiancé, Barry, at the altar, since she discovered she didn't love him. She also decides to live with Monica and become independent from her father,getting a new job as a waitress in Central Perk.

Ross, for the other hand,discovered his wife is a lesbian and lost her for Susan, her partner. (We see him moving to a new apartment during the episode)

Monica, in this episode, makes out (and eventually sleeps) with Paul "the wine guy", who gave her the excuse of being impotent since he divorced his wife. But in reality, he was just deceiving her.

Ps: I just loooove Joey's and Chandler's haircuts in this first season! =)

Sentiment: positive
Perhaps the wildest outlier in Alfred Hitchcock's career is this straight-out comedy vehicle by the director, pairing Carole Lombard with Robert Montgomery as a couple who discover a mistake has invalidated their marriage. Where do they really stand with each other?

Contrary to what others say, there IS an element of suspense here: The idea that these two miserable people might escape each other, free to inflict their awfulness on some other, undeserving mate.

It's funny reading comments here about how miserable Lombard's Ann Smith plays out in this film, because Montgomery's role is as much of a heel. He manhandles Ann, snaps at witnesses, short-shrifts clients - just the kind of lawyer who gives his profession a bad name. Ann is overbearing, too, of course, the kind of wife who holds her husband hostage from work for six days over a petty squabble, bringing up things like what he did in Paris when he was 20 and hadn't even met her yet. "I forgave you that!" she says, as if it was big of her.

For David, a revoked marriage is an opportunity to have a little illicit pleasure with his "mistress" before tying the knot for good. For Ann, it's an attempt at premarital sex that must be repelled with a bottle of champagne to the head, followed by expulsion from their apartment and her life.

The acorn doesn't seem to fall far from the tree, as Ann's mother is scandalized into apoplexy when she learns what David tried to pull: "Oh my poor baby! Thank Heaven your father is dead!"

That's a rare good line in this laughless, unlikeable comedy.

You can call this an example of the "remarriage comedy", in which the bonds of matrimony are challenged in order to be reaffirmed. You can also call this an example of what Roger Ebert calls the "idiot plot", in which the storyline depends on the main characters acting like idiots. Hitchcock seems to have a laugh at uptight American morality, but can't really do much more with it than a jokeless scene where an older couple is scandalized by the sound of loud plumbing.

Lombard died within a year of this film's release; it was the last film of hers she lived to see. What a shame it couldn't have been something better! She was overbearing in "My Man Godfrey", too, but in such a likable way you didn't just have to go with her, you wanted to. Here she plays for laughs that aren't there while sadistically breaking David's chops again and again. Montgomery rolls his eyes a lot like Groucho, a study in smugitude.

The only really decent thing in this movie that lasts more than a few seconds is Gene Raymond as David's law partner Jeff Custer, who makes a play for Ann and acts with honor and decency. Raymond underplays his many reaction shots, and even a drunk scene, all to good effect.

***SPOILER***So decent a guy is Jeff that Ann ends up rejecting him for not fighting David after she goads him into a confrontation, calling Custer "a lump of jelly". Jeff exits the scene, leaving Ann and David together for their future murder-suicide. Here's one Custer that managed to escape a massacre!***SPOILER END***

Sentiment: negative
Hmmm, a sports team is in a plane crash, gets stranded on a snowy mountain, and is faced with the difficult decision to eat the flesh of their dead companions in order to survive. Sound familiar anyone? I refer to "Alive" from 1993. The only major difference here, of course, is that a big, white, drunken scare crow of a Yeti shows up a few times to drag off the dead. I guess humans taste better than yaks.

Stupid: The man in the first scene does not have a reliable firearm when hunting the Yeti, nor does he have a backup.

The plane crash is completely bogus. It would have either exploded in the air, exploded when it hit the ground, or become obliterated. The people would not have survived, but hey, it's sci-fi.

Stupid: They survived, and they are cold. It might be a good idea to harness some of the burning debris nearby so as not to freeze to death. Fire being warm as it is...

WTF: The pilot has frost formed all over his face while he's alive and talking, but oddly enough, no one else does.

Stupid: One of the guys tells the others to look for matches and lighters, but there are scattered parts of the plane ON FIRE all around them.

Stupid: They find coats and hoodies, and yet there in the cold of the Himalayas, they fail to use the hoods!

Stupid: They're staring at a pile of sticks when, I reiterate, there are pieces of the plane ALREADY BURNING.

Stupid: The Himalayas are notorious for its storms. It would be common sense for them to collect the debris in order to reinforce their structure rather than sitting outside bickering. There are a lot of pine trees around, the branches of which make excellent insulation.

WTF: When in doubt, use a dead man's arm as a splint.

WTF: If the one guy knows so much about the hibernation habits of squirrels, bears, and leopards in the Himalayas, then why doesn't he know enough to make shelter and set traps right from the start? 

Stupid: When attempting to trap wild animals, mindless conversation in the vicinity of said trap always helps.

WTF: Do you know how hard it would be to cut a frozen corpse with a shard of glass?! 

WTF: The group was ready and armed to fight the Yeti while the other two were standing there defenseless. The Yeti ripped out the guy's heart and stomped the girl's head, and the gang did nothing. There's love.

So two Yetis and a convenient avalanche to bury the evidence forever.... or so we think. Mwuhahahaa! The story continues into more idiocy but the most action occurs in the last 15 minutes, as usual. Nice thinking with the javelin and the chain, although this is some ingenuity (with the magically-appearing chain) that they lacked in the beginning of the movie when they couldn't even make fire despite the fact that it was all around them.

As is typical for the Sci-Fi Originals, the loving couple kisses at the end like nothing horrible has just happened to them (not to mention they ate human flesh and haven't brushed their teeth in several days).

The very end, however, is quote lame.

Sentiment: negative