DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I was really looking forward to this show given the quality of the actors and the fact that The Scott brothers were involved. Unfortunately my hopes were dashed! Yet again we are led to believe that the KGB are a group of inept morons who don't have a clue what they are doing. At one point there is a laughable scene where 4 KGB agents couldn't handle one CIA agent. I grow weary of these biased, one sided and completely inaccurate portrayals of the Spy game that went on during the cold war. I find it laughable that the US is incapable of making objective movies about their involvement in WW2 and beyond. Just like the pathetic U-571, where we are led to believe that the US obtained the Enigma machine, again, utterly false.

To its credit, "The Company" is very well filmed and acted. The locales are also exceptionally well realised. Alfred Molina puts in a great performance as does Keaton (The conflict between them is very well done). I really wanted to like this show and no doubt I will end up watching the other 2 episodes but I really wish that US productions would stop trying to portray their Spies, servicemen etc as supermen who are vastly intellectually and physically superior to anyone else on the planet. It gets old fast and seriously detracts from the plausibility of what could have been a 10/10.

S

Sentiment: negative
Excellent film. Suzy Kendall will hold your interest throughout. Has not been shown on American TV for a decade. One scene that has always stayed with me is the German cavalry gas attack. You will find others. Hope they soon put it on tape.

Sentiment: positive
While this movie did have a few scary moments (great use of music and film angles to build suspense), it's obvious director Ethan Wiley and scriptwriter Ellary Eddy didn't waste any time researching their subject matter; which also makes me question their claim that the exorcism scenes were overseen by a genuine Catholic bishop.

Amongst the many inconsistencies: 

* Jacob the Roman Catholic priest, when we first meet him outside the church, is wearing an academic robe over his clericals rather than the typical alb, chasuble or surplice. Academic robes are commonly worn by Protestant ministers in liturgical denominations, not Roman Catholic priests. 

* Jacob the priest quotes some obscure and disturbing scripture about the angels taking up weapons. He attributes it to St. Paul. This verse is not from St. Paul's writings, neither is it in the Bible. I can't even find it in the Gnostic scriptures. 

* Jacob tells his bishop he doesn't believe in demon possession and turns down the request to study exorcism but does a complete 180 (later that same day?) within minutes of talking to possessed Isabelle. Sure, it's possible; but a little unrealistic. See Father Damien as a priest/psychologist in the original THE EXORCIST for a bit more realistic portrayal of a skeptic-turned-believer. 

* Miguel, the former priest turned farmhand, is the first to try an exorcism on Isabelle. He quotes scripture, and she quotes back. He says "I see you know Psalm 65" - she corrects him "that's Psalm 67" - they're both wrong. 

* Miguel, the former priest who just got done performing an exorcism - making the sign of the cross, calling on the name of Christ, applying holy water, etc. - tells Jacob he doesn't believe in church and he doesn't believe in God. (Maybe he's just conflicted?) Jacob enlists him to put on home-made vestments and have another go at it anyway. 

* Miguel, the former ROMAN CATHOLIC priest, crosses himself backwards (or Eastern Orthodox-style). As an Hispanic Roman Catholic who USED to be a priest, he should've crossed himself forehead to sternum, left-side to right side of chest.

I had to read into the little side stories to get the notion Satan was messing with the whole family, not just Isabelle; but even in the end it was hard to say for sure if anyone was really guilty of the images in their heads or if it was all demonic trickery (except for the sheriff - it's pretty clear he was guilty).

On the positive side: Isabelle was CREEPY - in my opinion she was the best part of the whole movie and I liked the plot twist with Claire.

I'm just not sure if the movie was meant to be serious or a spoof.

Listening to the running commentary with Cameron Daddo and Ethan Wiley, I'm inclined to believe it was a joke.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of the best episodes of Doctor Who EVER. We have the Cybermen, The Cyber conversion units (May scare young children) and of coarse the Doctor doing one of his best acts. Bravo David Tennant. Good scenes as if it was a movie, with thrilling scenes in some streets, an invasion on the Cyberman's base, and leaving the world different to ours, basically a 45 minute movie.

Being Part 2 of Rise of the Cybermen, this would never disappoint. With it having a great build up to the final.

The Doctor plus an evil enemy (Daleks, Cybermen, Master, Sontarans, Davros, Autons, or even Macra) is a battle to the death, just be careful with young children watching this.

Sentiment: positive
There's no point in comparing this with the original series. Though different in look and content, both are true to the original idea. That is, an SF/horror anthology series. Due to indifferent scheduling in Australia, I've only managed to catch a small number of episodes spread over the first few seasons. The very first episode really did give me the creeps (nightmares at my age ...!) but a number of others did fall flat; generally when the stories moved into horror realms and away from SF. I only hope the DVDs reach us eventually.

Sentiment: positive
I thought I was going to see a UFO movie. Instead, I saw a movie that was trying to make the audience (me) make the decision to accept Christ in my life, or risk going to Hell. The whole UFO thing was one big red herring!!! The acting in it was pretty pathetic. In fact, it looked as though some people from an Evangelic Church just got got together and decided they wanted to make a movie. All the characters talked as though they were in church conversing with other church members. It wasn't real-life dialog at all. I wish I had read some reviews before seeing this movie so I wouldn't have wasted my money on it. If, on the other hand, you are into the whole church scene in a big way, and want to see a demonstration of how to push your views (no matter how limiting) onto other people, then by all means, go see it.

Sentiment: negative
Don't pay any attention to the rave reviews of this film here. It is the worst Van Damme film and one of the worst of any sort I have ever seen. It would appeal to somebody with no depth whatever who requires nothing more than gunfire and explosions to be entertained.

Seeing that this is directed by Peter Hyams it has made me realise that Peter has no talent as a director, but is very good at filming explosions and the like. However, movies need other elements as well; for example, a story. This one didn't have one. This might explain the awfulness of some of Mr. Hyams' more recent films, hardly any better than this one, really.

One can't help wondering how some people ever were put behind a camera.

Sentiment: negative
An eye opening documentary about the 1993 siege of a religious sect compound near Waco, Texas. Seventy-six people, including sect leader, David Koresh, perished in a flaming inferno that destroyed the compound. There is still heated debate over how the fire started. Homicide or suicide? Can you still trust government ethics?



Sentiment: positive
I saw "Night of the Demons 2" first before I saw "Night of the Demons". Unfortunately, my old Blockbuster thought it was a good idea to have the sequel, but no first one. Looney, huh? Now, I think all horror fans need this movie. It's like McDonald's, you know it's bad for you and you'd rather have The Cheesecake Facotory(or whatever pricier restaurant you prefer), but you can't help but just wanting the cheap stuff.

Night of the Demons has it all: your innocent, sexy, goes by the rules chicka-dee, your token black guy, that surprisingly doesn't get killed. You're slutty girl, you're slutty guy, you're dark girl or guy, the goof ball, the cheesy settings of a haunted house, bad acting, and lots of unnecessary nudity. Isn't this stuff great? I mean, I know deep down in my heart of movies that this was pretty bad, but it was a good bad for horror movies. Horror fans should enjoy and dig in!

8/10

Sentiment: positive
I've only seen most of the series since I leave the TV on as background noise in my dorm.

I've been a fan of Mencia but this show really doesn't do much for me. Occasionally he'll say or do something to pull a chuckle out, but he has this aura of smugness that completely ruins it.

I've always thought he was funny because of his raging angry-man routine that's not terribly prevalent in this TV series. Instead, he's just smug. I guess that just reflects how funny his comedy is: stale and uninteresting when he isn't in the proper mode of delivery. I've seen him get into it sometimes on his show, but for the most part, he just sits there smiling and looking smug, and it doesn't suit him well.

Just my opinion though.

Sentiment: negative
A splendid example of how Hollywood could (and still can) take a masterpiece of literary fiction and stupidly foul it up.

In the case of "the Big Sky," writer Dudley Nichols and company arrogantly assumed they could improve upon a classic pioneer novel by the Pulitzer prize-winning author, A.B. Guthrie. In so doing, they removed the soul of the story and any edge and impact it may have had as a film adaptation.

The epic nature of Guthrie's book and the evolution of its main character, Boone Caudill, from a naive, Kentucky lad into a hardened and competent survivor/mountain man, has been replaced with a downscaled riverboat farce that bears little resemblance to the author's intent. In the movie version, Boone's presence is nothing except underwhelming.

Intriguing and even shocking plot elements that give Guthrie's novel impact and excitement have been removed for no apparent reason whatsoever. Most puzzling of all is the emphasis placed upon the Zeb Calloway character, who was an incidental, minor character in the book, only occupying a handful of pages. On the other hand, a very important and fascinating character, Dick Summers, the veteran pioneer, is missing altogether!!! It is also apparent that director Hawks decided the Zeb character in the movie, played by actor Hunnicutt, wasn't irritating enough. So Zeb/Hunnicutt was given a significant amount of time doing that obnoxious, voice-over narration that is the Hollywood short cut for incompetent screen writing, editing, and direction.

Some movies have actually improved upon the books upon which they were based (William Wyler's "Ben-Hur" is an excellent example). But this is horrible and depressing not only as an adaptation of a novel but as a film unto itself.

The story is dull and clichéd, and the characters - at least the ones that have not been edited out of the script - are just shallow and boring shadows of Guthrie's literary vision. And unfortunately, Kirk Douglas' star appeal, which could have helped lift this film, was scuttled by the milktoast role he was given.

If you can believe it, the film version of Guthrie's Pulitzer prize-winning sequel, "The Way West," also starring Kirk, is even worse.

In my opinion, "The Big Sky" further solidifies Howard Hawks' place as one of the most overrated, tepid directors in the history of cinema.

Sentiment: negative
This was the most thought-provoking capital-punishment movie ever! It refused to seem one-sided and the emotions felt throughout the story are as real as it can get. This movie had one of the most 'human' (And I use this term in a good way) compassionate religious character ever! This movie actually caused me to go out to find and read the book (Which is rare for me). Sister Helen exerted more of a spiritual tone than a religious(Which is also rare). And it presented both sides to the issue so that people on both sides who watched the movie wouldn't feel that a point was left out. And we have the director to thank for that. This is not a film for entertainment. But it is film that delivers a message that can reach to the core of your heart. I can't think of another film like it.

Sentiment: positive
Mercifully, there's no video of this wannabe western that a stay-afloat vehicle for Big Frank at a time when his career was floundering. The story of a weasel who lives on the reputation of his big gun brother and who gets run out of town by bad guys only to return to rally his townfolks with a new found courage must have been written by a back-room writer. All in all, this show stinks. The story is basically boring, ill-conceived and so naive that it can offend your intelligence. I must depart complete from the other reviewer who found it "...underrated..." The critics slammed it at the time and deservedly so. You'll have to catch it on the last show, if you up late and having a bout of insomnia. But, if you can sit through it, you've more fortitude than most of my movie buff friends.

Sentiment: negative
a movie about the cruelty of this world. I found it liberating, as only truth can be. It also contains some quite funny bits. Some of the acting is extraordinary, see Maria Hofstätter for instance. The director has tried to depict life as realistically as possible, succeeding. Coherently, the sex scenes are explicit and no more fake than those of a hard-core movie. Although I hardly understood a sentence, I found the vision of the movie in the original language with subtitles much more rewarding, because with the dubbing half the great work of the actors gets lost. The voice of the character played by Maria Hofstätter is particularly hard to duplicate by a dubber.

My favorite movie

Sentiment: positive
I seems in the beginning a interesting film, a Spanish thriller in a interesting nowadays Madrid, but it isn`t none of that, is actually a film only interesting for future films directors learning about what not to do making a film, it can`t be worse in others words, even the presence of a oscar winner ( Mira Sorvino ) isn`t enough to justify the $ 3.00 dollars expended to see this film , the acting is horrendous and it seems the actors were just waiting to finish the daily shots to go home, it lead to nowhere and is boring, weak and bad, don`t expend time or money on this film.

Sentiment: negative
On the plus side this does contain interesting information over a wide range of topics, particularly concerned with Himmler, the SS and their research branch. It also has some good piano music, some interesting footage and some excellent camera work.

However it is a very poor piece of historical work. It has no clear aim to it and the entire thing could be summed up as follows.

Himmler set up a department in the SS for research into the origins of the German race. They went all over the world. They did some things and launched expeditions to all manner of places... (nonoe of these avenues were explored, the results were not shown and the arguments were barely refuted). They wanted to establish that the Aryan race and the German people were one and the same thing through historical proof. They didn't find any. The members of this research group were leading professors, members of the SS and therefore linked to the holocaust, and were seen as OK after the war and went on to lead German institutes.

These facts in themselves are fascinating but they are never explored in depth and no coherent argument is presented in the program that either condemns these people or exonerates them. Nor does this seem to be the aim of the programme, the aim of the program is unclear, it hops from topic to topic. The witnesses, though presented as credible, are few and unsupported.

Sadly this programme does not know where it is going or why and fails to impress. The topics are fascinating but this program tries to take on a huge area of research and consequently appears to not know what is going on. I would avoid this.

Also the 'Holy Grail'is the German bloodline, nothing to do with the Holy Grail of Christian mythology except in passing. Mentions of expeditions to look for the Christian Holy grail are made but never followed through. The title is misleading and the content of this documentary unconvincing and incomplete.

Sentiment: negative
I was extraordinarily impressed by this film. It's one of the best sports films I've every seen. The visuals in this film are outstanding. I love the sequences in which the camera tracks the ball as it flies through the air or into the cup. The film moves well, offering both excitement and drama. The cinematography was fantastic. 

The acting performances are great. I was surprised by young Shia LaBeouf.He does well in this role. Stephen Dillane is also good as the brooding Harry Vardon. Peter Firth, Justin Ashforth, and Elias Koteas offer able support. The film is gripping and entertaining and for the first time in my life actually made me want to watch a golf tournament.

Sentiment: positive
A woman borough a boy to this world and was alone. They both were alone because a boy had a gift and a curse in one package - he was capable of withdrawing sword from his arm. There was always a wound on his wrist in the cause of this "gift" - the wound of the deadliest weapon inside of his body. First he kills his constantly drunk stepfather who hurts his mom every time. Then he grows up and decides to find his real father. Just as simple as all the time for a superhero - he reaches the justice....but the society decides this justice is not necessary and dangerous which is indeed right 'cause it is not like in Hollywood movies that the character does not try to kill anyone - Sasha (he is the main hero acted by Artem Tkachenko) kills if the person who in his opinion deserves to die but gets blames from authorities and runs. In such a runaway from authorities and Mafia he meets a girl (acted by Chulpan Hamatova) and falls in love with her. Everything else is to be watched...not told. Be aware that this film is more about feelings and emotions but not about actions. This film is full of pain of the main character full of him and his vision of life.

Sentiment: positive
Actually, I am not narrating the main plot in this comment but with just 2-3 sentences I can make it a spoiler. OK here are these- 

Speed is just a 85% conversion of Hollywood flick Cellular into Bollywood by using the software Vikram Bhatt. Title has no match with the story, only it goes in the thriller direction. Just that!! It doesn't deserve even a single star for its imitation, imperfect casting, poor standard and predictable story. Undoubtedly now I can say that Viram Bhatt is slowly vanishing away from his director status as no any matured audience will appreciate his recent works including this. Beside him, Aftab Shivdasani too making his outlook as cartoon-comic type. Who knows how long will he last in the film industry more? Sometimes the standard in the performances and cinematography look like lower than a C-grade movie. But most supportive role was played by Zayed Khan which was somewhat identical with Chris Evan's role as Ryan in Cellular. With innocent face Sanjay Suri has no contribution in the movie as he has nothing to impress. That's why those who have already watched Cellular I advise you never to waste your time again with this imitation sack.

Sentiment: negative
It's a genuine shame that this spin-off TV series inspired by the superior made-for-TV pictures "The Night Stalker" and "The Night Strangler" only lasted a single season and twenty episodes, because at its best this program offered an often winning and highly entertaining blend of sharp cynical humor (Carl Kolchak's spirited verbal sparring matches with perpetually irascible and long-suffering editor Tony Vincenzo were always a treat to watch and hear), clever writing, nifty supernatural menaces (gotta love the offbeat and original creatures in "The Spanish Moss Murders," "The Sentry," and "Horror in the Heights," plus you can't go wrong with such tried'n'true fright favorites as zombies, vampires, werewolves, and witches), colorful characters, lively acting from a raft of cool guest stars (legendary biker flick icon William Smith got a rare chance to tackle a heroic lead in "The Energy Eater" while other episodes featured great veteran character actors like Keenan Wynn, John Fiedler, John Dehner, Severn Darden, and William Daniels in juicy roles), effective moments of genuine suspense (the sewer-set climax of "The Spanish Moss Murders" in particular was truly harrowing), and, best of all, the one and only Darren McGavin in peak zesty form as the brash, aggressive, and excitable, but basically decent, brave, and honest small-time Chicago, Illinois newspaper reporter Carl Kolchak.

Kolchak was the quintessential 70's everyman protagonist, a wily and quick-witted fellow with a strong nose for a tasty scoop and an unfortunate knack for getting into all kinds of trouble. Moreover, the occasionally bumbling Kolchak was anything but superhuman; he usually either tripped or stumbled while running away from a deadly threat, yet possessed a certain inner strength and courage that enabled him to save the human race time and time again from all kinds of lethal otherworldly foes. Kolchak was surrounded by a handful of enjoyable secondary characters: Simon Oakland was perfect as Carl's chronically ill-tempered boss Tony Vincenzo, Jack Grinnage as the prissy Ron Updyke made for an ideal comic foil, Ruth McDevitt was simply delightful as the sweet Miss Emily Cowles, and Carol Ann Susi was likewise a lot of fun as eager beaver rookie Monique Marmelstein (who alas disappeared after popping up in only three episodes). Granted, the show did suffer from lackluster make-up and special effects (the titular lycanthrope in "The Werewolf" unfortunately resembles a Yorkshire terrier!) and the latter episodes boasted a few laughably silly monsters (the headless motorcyclist in "Chopper," Cathy Lee Crosby as Helen of Troy in "The Youth Killer'), but even the second-rate shows are redeemed by the program's trademark wickedly sly sardonic wit and McGavin's boundless vitality and engagingly scrappy presence.

Sentiment: positive
This is by far the most awful movie I have ever watched. I have never before rated a movie 1 out of 10. My advice is don't watch it. This doesn't even classify as a movie.

You'd be better off sitting on the couch bored rather than watching this movie. Acting was terrible but what was worst by far was the storyline. Highly unlikely sequence of events which aren't even funny. They are actually very lame and stupid. Very foolish choice by Ashton Kutcher and Tara Reid to act in this movie. Might even upset their careers a little.

When I walked into Blockbuster, the main focus was on this movie , so I decided rent it. I sincerely regret it.

Once you're 10 or 20 minutes into the movie you could basically predict what was going to happen. I was hoping it would get better , but instead it got worse.

I am not exaggerating this. The movie is terrible. Don't watch it. Hope this helps.

Sentiment: negative
Manipulative drama about a glamorous model (Margaux Hemingway) who is raped by a geeky but unbalanced musician (Chris Sarandon) – to whom she had been introduced by her younger sister (played by real-life sibling Mariel), whose music teacher he is. While the central courtroom action holds the attention – thanks largely to a commanding performance by Anne Bancroft as Hemingway’s lawyer – the film is too often merely glossy, but also dramatically unconvincing: the jury ostensibly takes the musician’s side because a) the girl invited assault due to the sensuous nature of her profession and b) she was offering no resistance to her presumed aggressor when her sister arrived at the apartment and inadvertently saw the couple in bed together. What the f***?!; she was clearly tied up – what resistance could she realistically offer? 

The second half of the film – involving Sarandon’s rape of the sister, which curiously anticipates IRREVERSIBLE (2002) by occurring in a tunnel – is rather contrived: Mariel’s character should have known better than to trust Sarandon after what he did to her sister, but Margaux herself foolishly reprises the line of work which had indirectly led to her humiliating experience almost immediately! The climax – in which Sarandon gets his just desserts, with Margaux turning suddenly into a fearless and resourceful vigilante – is, however, a crowd-pleaser in the style of DEATH WISH (1974); incidentally, ubiquitous Italian movie mogul Dino De Laurentiis was behind both films.

It’s worth noting how the two Hemingway sisters’ lives took wildly different turns (this was the film debut of both): Margaux’s career never took off (despite her undeniable good looks and commendable participation here) – while Mariel would soon receive an Oscar nomination for Woody Allen’s MANHATTAN (1979) and, interestingly, would herself play a glamorous victim of raging violence when essaying the role of real-life “Playboy” centerfold Dorothy Stratten in Bob Fosse’s STAR 80 (1983). With the added pressure of a couple of failed marriages, Margaux took refuge in alcohol and would eventually die of a drug overdose in 1996; chillingly, the Hemingway family had a history of suicides – notably the sisters’ grandfather, celebrated author Ernest, who died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in 1961.

Sentiment: negative
As a Harold Lloyd fan, i agree with the other reviewer's comments, EXCEPT that I feel that "Movie Crazy" was his best sound film; "Cat's Paw" is a close second. (But, this is just MY opinion).

This film is a "hoot" from beginning to end and, in many scenes, George Barbier (the crook that gets him elected mayor) almost steals the show! (Especially at the end of the film).

One wishes that Una Merkel's character would be a bit more sympathetic to Harold, especially as the film progresses. Only in the last few minutes of the film do we find out her true feelings for him. (And, even then, there is no "romance" - kissing, etc).

This is a Must-See film!

Sentiment: positive
If "Love Me Tonight" is "the musical for people who don't like musicals", it has to be said that "The Gay Desperado" is definitely not a musical for people who don't like opera. In fact -- despite apparently being based on a comic operetta -- it is not really a musical at all but a spoof bandit story with interpolated unrelated arias to show off the voice of one character; and what a voice it is.

Nino Martini, as the young singer Chivo who joins the bandit troop to get a spot on the radio (no, the plot doesn't make a lot more sense later on either...), has a glorious golden tenor whose style hasn't dated a day since the era when it was recorded. The trillings and warblings of some of his musical contemporaries belong to a bygone fashion, but it's very easy to picture Chivo belting out "Nessun Dorma" to a World Cup crowd and topping the charts in the process. Unfortunately, while he has an engaging grin and a decent dramatic range, he is completely incapable of acting and singing at the same time. The result is that the otherwise rapid-paced film grinds to a shuddering halt every time Chivo lays his hand on his breast and starts to declaim, and the viewer's tolerance of the result is likely to depend on his appreciation of operatic performance.

Aside from this drawback, the film is an enjoyable broad-brush satire on Hollywood conventions and the Mexican bandit stereotype in particular, which achieves the vital goal of all such spoofs in making its characters engaging enough in their own right to hold the viewer's interest when the joke would otherwise have grown stale. The bandit chief and his sidekick have the traditional double-act relationship, there is an enigmatic peon with a carved-teak face, and a spirited heroine (a young Ida Lupino) who performs the generic "you say you hate me but you love me really" routine with a refreshing twist.

Overall the film is entertaining and pretty funny, and I feel I did get my money's-worth -- but it can't be denied that the musical interludes, while admirable in their own way, introduce severe pacing problems.

Sentiment: positive
My original comment on this particular title was deleted, by a IMDb user or the staff, only because I just happen to dislike this film to the point I had to sincerely write what I felt after seeing this poor excuse for a film. where's my freedom of word?

Obviously this movie was made by students, 'cos so lame and amateurish it felt. Of course even they have to start from somewhere? The script was incoherent mess and so was the acting. With low budget and b- class actors, what can you expect? There's some CGI in places, so poor, it looks like done with an old PC. Some may say, this is sort of an "Alien" clone, only this time it's Dracula (in a vintage costume) who's sucking the other cast dry, one by one. The sets are unconvincing, cheap and small (boiler rooms), although the story takes place in a large space craft. 

It would be fun to know what the stars (Erika Eleniak, Casper Van Dien, Coolio and Udo Kier) thought about the film after it was released... Coolio must be the worst rapper turned actor ever!

It was a total waste of my time and money, don't know why I even bothered to rent this flick. Honestly, I just hate this film. With Uwe Boll's House Of The Dead, Dracula 3000 shares the questionable honor of being the worst movie ever. (Well, I've seen even worse than these two)

Avoid! Any other film will do better.

Sentiment: negative
This film is a study piece for my english class, but it's depth and meaning has amazed me. Since we're looking closely into all the facts and characters in this film, its and interesting tale of love, hate, war, and prejudice. Well Recommended!

Story: A girl named well-off jewish Patty Bergen meets an escaped prisoner of war, she then hides him in her playhouse in her huge gardens, and as they get to know each other, they begin to see the others qualities, and they earn each others love. Patty's father despises her and treats her like dirt. Anton (the prisoner of war) almost blows his cover to protect her, but patty manages to stop him before he is seen by anyone.

Sentiment: positive
I watched the Malayalam movie "Boeing Boeing" made in 1985 (which in turn is probably inspired by an English movie of same name) long back. The basic story of garam masala is the same - but it is told in a pathetic way, the classy jokes replaced by routine ones which are found in normal Hindi movies (probably the director did this to suit the taste of Hindi audience)... 

I haven't seen the English original. But had really enjoyed the Malayalam film (made by Priyadarshan himself)which was a side splitting comedy, back then. Of course the acting by Mohanlal,Mukesh and Sukumari (who did the cook's role) was so natural and spontaneous.

Probably, I am too smitten by the Malayalam film that I cannot tolerate even the smaller flaws in its Hindi remake. But I still feel that Akshay Kumar and John Abraham have overacted. Paresh Rawal has done a decent job - but doesn't reach anywhere near Sukumari.

But all in all its OK, if one compares it to other recent Hindi comedy movies.

Sentiment: negative
Marvelous cult film from 1979 in which the students of Vince Lombardi High School are confronted with a new, dictatorial principal named Miss Togar (Mary Woronov). Togar is a music hater and blames the musical tastes of the students for their transgressions. Leading the charge against her is fun-loving Riff Randell (P.J. Soles), the #1 Ramones fan who, more than anything, wants the rock group to record her songs.

Now *this* is an impossible movie to resist. First and foremost, the soundtrack is incredible, with songs by such artists as Alice Cooper and the Velvet Underground in addition to the infectious non-stop assortment of Ramones songs. "Teenage Lobotomy", "Sheena is a Punk Rocker", and "Blitzkrieg Bop" are just a few of them. Next, the cast truly gives it their all, with Soles an ideal choice for the role of Riff; she is a true delight. Vincent Van Patten and Dey Young are earnest as Tom and Kate, Woronov is well cast against type as the snooty and disdainful Togar, Clint Howard has one of his best ever parts as washroom-occupying entrepreneur Eaglebauer, and New World regulars such as Dick Miller, Paul Bartel (particularly fun as music teacher Mr. McGree) and The Real Don Steele are fun as always. And, of course, it's a treat to see The Ramones playing themselves.

The movie has true spirit. The energy level is high, with co-story author and director Allan Arkush bringing a great deal of flair to the proceedings. There's also a great sense of humor. The paper airplane gag is a superb example of this. This extends right to the "wipe" style of scene transitions. There are even hilarious giant mice created by future makeup effects notable Rob Bottin, in one of his earliest gigs.

About as good as an authority-defying, defend-one's-right-to-party film can get. "Rock 'n' Roll High School" is, quite simply, a wonderful cult film.

8/10

Sentiment: positive
All in all, this is a movie for kids. We saw it tonight and my child loved it. At one point my kid's excitement was so great that sitting was impossible. However, I am a great fan of A.A. Milne's books which are very subtle and hide a wry intelligence behind the childlike quality of its leading characters. This film was not subtle. It seems a shame that Disney cannot see the benefit of making movies from more of the stories contained in those pages, although perhaps, it doesn't have the permission to use them. I found myself wishing the theater was replaying "Winnie-the-Pooh and Tigger too", instead. The characters voices were very good. I was only really bothered by Kanga. The music, however, was twice as loud in parts than the dialog, and incongruous to the film.

As for the story, it was a bit preachy and militant in tone. Overall, I was disappointed, but I would go again just to see the same excitement on my child's face.

I liked Lumpy's laugh....

Sentiment: negative
It was great to see some of my favorite stars of 30 years ago including John Ritter, Ben Gazarra and Audrey Hepburn. They looked quite wonderful. But that was it. They were not given any characters or good lines to work with. I neither understood or cared what the characters were doing.

Some of the smaller female roles were fine, Patty Henson and Colleen Camp were quite competent and confident in their small sidekick parts. They showed some talent and it is sad they didn't go on to star in more and better films. Sadly, I didn't think Dorothy Stratten got a chance to act in this her only important film role.

The film appears to have some fans, and I was very open-minded when I started watching it. I am a big Peter Bogdanovich fan and I enjoyed his last movie, "Cat's Meow" and all his early ones from "Targets" to "Nickleodeon". So, it really surprised me that I was barely able to keep awake watching this one.

It is ironic that this movie is about a detective agency where the detectives and clients get romantically involved with each other. Five years later, Bogdanovich's ex-girlfriend, Cybil Shepherd had a hit television series called "Moonlighting" stealing the story idea from Bogdanovich. Of course, there was a great difference in that the series relied on tons of witty dialogue, while this tries to make do with slapstick and a few screwball lines.

Bottom line: It ain't no "Paper Moon" and only a very pale version of "What's Up, Doc".

Sentiment: negative
I could not believe how terrible and boring this Hollywood remake was.It's so dreadful. It easily lands a place in my top 10 worst films of 1998.About the only thing it had going for it was Bruce Willis,who should stick to action films,as a completely emotionless killer who'd kill his own mother for the right price.But I'd rather listen to Robbie Coltraine talk American for a week than listen to Richard Gere's nauseating Irish accent again.But this film is also implausible,unconvincing,uneven,unexciting,unimpressive and lands Sidney Poiter in a rubbish role to make a possible career comeback.One for filmroll-footie purposes entirely.

Sentiment: negative
This was my first Gaspar Noe movie I've watched and I have to say I was shocked. I don't mind gore in generally, but this isn't even gore , it's real butchering. For some of you a couple of scenes may be impossible to see and I mean really disgusting. Leaving aside these aspects, the main ideas revealed here and the dialog are quite brilliant. When you are given a strong argument against bringing a new life into the world and the manner in which it is given, you can't stop and take a minute to think about it. The actors did their job well, representing general masks of a handpick few people found at the bottom of a diseased society. The movie is full of metaphors, but I'll let you figure them out. Don't watch it if you want to have a lite, relaxing time. I recommend this movie to all those of you who want something to think about or simply watch something different of what you find in your average cinema.

Sentiment: positive
Very nice action with an interwoven story which actually doesn't suck. Interesting enough to merit watching instead of skipping past to get to the good parts. Having Jenna Jameson and Asia Carrere helps liven it up, too. Jenna in that sweater and those glasses is just astounding! Worth picking up just to see her!

Sentiment: positive
Bottom line - best romantic comedy ever. This movie accomplishes what all great movies strive for: the creation of a world and time that we want to re-visit and makes us glad to be part of the human race. When I am blue, this movie lifts my spirit and makes me laugh (and that is still true after many viewings - always fresh).

All of the actors are in top form. The characterizations are so dead on and the characters mesh so well together that you forget the actor (usually difficult to do with Matthau, Robbins and Ryan). The supporting cast is consistently brilliant: Fry ("agae", "a total pygmy package"!), Jacoby & Saks & Maher (the three theoretical physicists as "Greek chorus" - "but time doesn't exist"), Durning ("something we can launch from NJ"), Shalhoub & Whaley (Robbins' boss and co-worker at the service station), and Curits (Eisenhower - how many comedies have Eisenhower??).

Don't miss this overlooked treasure.

Sentiment: positive
I first saw this film around ten years ago and I thought it was very funny indeed. It was not as bad as some critics were making it out to be. The fact that it was written by the usually dependable John Hughes shows that you can at least expect some funny dialogue. (By the way, I also think Weird Science is quite good which was also penned in lightning speed by Hughes).

The film has a very garish look to it using all the primary colours - reds, yellows etc - which makes it look quite unique. The cast are also quite good. The prudish Bunny Packard and the devil-possessed Delores Salk are a stand out.

The film has certainly dated a little but I personally prefer it to all the other 'Lampoon' series.

Sentiment: positive
I do not generally appreciate light-weight attempts at creating humourous stories, which means that "Anita no perd el Tren" cannot score very high for me. The story is good: a middle-aged but still good-looking woman finds a new love. But the attempts at making this film as a romantic comedy only managed at times to be somewhat comical. 

Rosa María Sardà has ably demonstrated that she can be a serious actress in such productions as "Amic/Amat" (qv), "Todo Sobre mi Madre" (qv), "Las Amargas Lágrimas de Petra von Kant" (qv) and "El Embrujo de Shanghai" (qv). However the powers that be have over the years dished her out a lot of trivial stuff, for the cinema and for TV. Something similar could be said of José Coronado: perfectly able to produce serious performances. María Barranco belongs safely in this grouping.

Such that, in the end, I was left with the feeling that I would be real pleased to see a new making of this film, in a serious tone, which would allow the actors to really show their performing skills. And the curious thing is that it should be done with exactly the same leading actors. Wasted talent on a rather silly film that could have been very promising indeed.

Sentiment: negative
This wonderful film is a love story, and shows that not all relationships are destined to last. Even so they can be great & worth the pain & suffering of breakup.

Director Pieter Verhoeff gives us an insight of the period around 1900, the way society (mis)treats women, and how a very strong woman (Nynke) deals with. With great costumes, landscapes, lovely music and good actors and acting this photoplay draws you in for the length of the movie.

At first the ending is a bit sudden, a page describing the rest of her life scrolls. On reflection this is a great (the best) way to have your own fantasy create the rest of her life.

 This was the second movie for me that had people sit while the end titles scrolled by (The first being Schindler's List). Apparently the movie had this effect on everybody.

Sentiment: positive
This started out to be a movie about the street culture of the Bronx in New York. What it accomplished was to give birth to a new culture and way of life, for American youth. What other movie has done this except Rebel Without A Cause? One of the most important movies of all time. The elements are simple yet fascinating. The story is timeless, young people try to succeed against all odds. Yet the story is always believable and never depressing. The characters are so realistic, a city dweller, would recognize them as neighbors. The story is entertaining, and comes to a satisfying ending. Buy this one for your permanent collection. It is a piece of American history.

Sentiment: positive
I've seen this movie twice already and am very impressed with it.

The conversations between Nimi and her mother plus Nimi and Matthew are very touching. The Nigerian community is shown very truthfully and as colourfully as it usually is.

Although certain things could have done with a bit more explanation; if we knew why Matthew was in the South of France in the first place, the scenes following Matthew being found in his car would be more understandable.

Luckily, Optimum Releasing have a website that has detailed production notes that help to make such scenes better to understand.

I would go and see it again but unfortunately it had a limited release in London and is not longer available to see. I hope the video release gets it to a bigger audience because the film deserves it.

Sentiment: positive
Jason Lee does his best to bring fun to a silly situation, but the movie just fails to make a connect. 

Perhaps because Julia Stiles character seems awkward as the conniving and sexy soon to be cousin-in-law. 

Maybe it is because she and Selma Blair's characters should have been cast the opposite way. (Selma Blair seems more conniving than Julia would be).

Either way this movie is yet another Hollywood trivialization of a possibly real world situation (that being getting caught with your pants out at your bachelor party not stooping your cousin), which while having promise fails to deliver.

There are some laughs to be sure and the cast (even if miscast) do their best with sub grade material which doesn't transcend its raunchy topic. So instead of getting a successful raunch fest (ie Animal House or American Pie) we are left with a middle ground of part humor and part stupidity (ala Meatballs 2 or something).

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie as a child and fell in love with it. It has a sweet sensitive story. Something children can appreciate. I loved so much as a child I had to find it for my daughter. It is definitely a movie I would watch with kids. It reminds me a great deal of story's of a Disney nature like Pete's Dragon and Mary Poppins. Both because of the live action and cartoon features but on its premise. It is also a good story to show kids that if they tell the truth they can be trusted and adults will listen to them. I think all kids should see it and would enjoy it. It is such a break from the violent movies of bad taste so many kids watch these days. It has all the charming qualities so many of today's movies don't have.

Sentiment: positive
This is not a good film.

I can usually sit through a Van Damme movie if I have to, as they are usually a bit of a laugh and don't require much thought. This one has no redeeming features. 

It has a distinct lack of plot, humour, acting, direction etc etc. A real stinker on all levels. 

I have never walked out of a cinema during a movie, although I came damme close here. 

Avoid at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
Claire Denis's movies seem to fall into one of two categories: the violent and bloody or the quiet and intimate. "L'Intrus" definitely falls into the first category, but it's not so awful as "Trouble Every Day" or "J'ai pas sommeil."

Now, ever since I saw "Chocolat," I've made it a point to see every new movie Denis makes. And I have always been disappointed. "L'Intrus" was no exception. She has yet to make a movie as personal and as moving as her first one. 

You get a lot of the Denis regulars: an older but still magnificent Béatrice Dalle who seems to be in the movie only to show off her full lips, the gap between her teeth, her ample cleavage, and a couple of nice coats; the black guy from "Trouble Every Day" and "J'ai pas sommeil," Grégoire Colin, and that Lithuanian or Russian girl. Michel Subor's character was interesting enough, but the camera lingered on him at such length that I got annoyed by that curly forelock of hair hanging over his forehead and was relieved when, somewhere in Korea, I think, he finally got it cut. 

There was certainly some action--gruesome murders, a man's search for a son--and there may even have been a plot, but one viewing wasn't enough to figure it out, and two viewings are, I fear, out of the question. For one thing, the score was jarring and obtrusive (as in "Beau Travail"). For another, the seasons changed too abruptly, leaving you even more confused about what was going on. Oh, there were a few pretty shots, and if you liked "Friday Evening" with its shots of the folds in heavy drapes and bedsheets, you might appreciate the aesthetics of "L'Intrus." Otherwise, steer clear. 

I saw this movie in French and it's possible I missed something crucial. But the dialogue in a Denis movie rarely amounts to more than five pages, double spaced and with ample margins. In "Chocolat" the silence is sublime; in "L'Intrus," it's just dull.

Sentiment: negative
This movie I've seen many times. I read the book , Englar Alheimsins which was written by Einar Már Guðmundsson who received the Scandinavian book awards for the work. The movie does not start on the same place as the book starts. It happens in Reykjavík and the main character, Páll is young and having a good life with his girlfriend. But as she breaks up the relationship with him, he starts to get some headaches which make him annoyed and angry. And soon he starts to have big mental problems and then the movie begins. Soon he is puted in the Icelandic Mental Hospital called "Kleppur" and there you get to see some great characters like Viktor who thinks he is Hitler and Óli who thinks that he writes all the " The Beatles" songs and sends them to them with mind transporting. Ingvar E Sigurðusson who has the role of the main character Páll does is so work so well that it leaves you breathless. Also the music in this movie is mad by SIGURRÓS and just for the music's cost you should see the movie. Overall a great movie meant to be seen.

Sentiment: positive