DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This is a cheapy biography of a star of the black and white minstrel shows, a certain Dixie Boy Johnson. Whether this person ever really existed I don't know, but considering the cast lists a certain "Lee Lasses White" and Roscoe Karns playing said character as well, I assume the man did exist and that this is a white-washed (pardon the pun) version of his career. The plot, such as it is, follows Dixie Boy from career heights to depression at the death of his wife in childbirth, his abandonment of the child to friends, and his return at his daughter's sixteenth birthday and stage debut for reconciliation. Another forgotten man, Benny Fields, plays Dixie Boy. The man has a lovely baritone voice but no acting talent whatsoever and is a boring lump on screen. Gladys George valiantly tries her best to enliven the works to no avail. Judy Clark does the best impersonation of Betty Hutton I've ever seen although I believe she thought she was being herself. The scoring replete with many musical numbers for its short running time of 70 minutes earned a deserved Oscar nom. Worth a look.

Sentiment: negative
Man, what a scam this turned out to be! Not because it wasn't any good (as I wasn't really expecting anything from it) but because I was misled by the DVD sleeve which ignorantly paraded its "stars" as being Stuart Whitman, Stella Stevens and Tony Bill. Sure enough, their names did not appear in the film's opening credits, much less themselves in the rest of it!! As it turned out, the only movie which connects those three actors together is the equally obscure LAS VEGAS LADY (1975)  but what that one has to do with THE CRATER LAKE MONSTER is anybody's guess 

Even so, since I paid $1.50 for its rental and I was in a monster-movie mood anyhow, I elected to watch the movie regardless and, yup, it stunk! Apart from the fact that it had a no-name cast and an anonymous crew, an unmistakably amateurish air was visible from miles away and the most I could do with it is laugh at the JAWS-like pretensions and, intentionally so, at the resistible antics of two moronic layabouts-cum-boat owners who frequently squabble among themselves with the bemused local sheriff looking on. The creature itself  a plesiosaur i.e. half-dinosaur/half-fish  is imperfectly realized (naturally) but, as had been the case with THE GIANT CLAW (1957) which I've also just seen, this didn't seem to bother the film-makers none as they flaunt it as much as they can, especially during the movie's second half!

Sentiment: negative
My wife and I found this film to be highly unsatisfying. While the plot keeps you interested and busy wondering just what is going on, when you leave the theater, there are just too many loose ends that make no sense at all. (SPOILERS AHEAD) Christopher Plummer, enormously wealthy head of a NY bank has a terrible hidden secret. Profiting from WW II deals with the Nazis and hiding loot stolen from Jews, he keeps the evidence (including diamonds and documents with the Nazi swastika) in a safety deposit box in his bank. Why? If he wants this never to be revealed, why did he not burn and destroy the documents years ago? And the diamonds? Obviously, he does not need them - why keep them rather than dispose of them? How did the bank robbers find out his secret? How did they know to zero in on this very safety deposit box #232? Ace detective Denzel Washington also discovers bank records show SD Boxes No's 231 and 233, but no #232. Curious. He meticulously found time somehow to do an exhausting search of bank records to unearth this one curious fact. All the while dealing with a red hot hostage situation and bank robbers threatening to start executing them momentarily. Wow! Talk about super powers for a detective.

The bank robbers leave behind millions of dollars in loose currency in the vault they have opened. They take only the contents of SD Box #232, ostensibly for the purpose of blackmailing the bank president. This defies any rational attempt at a logical explanation for what the film depicts as a criminal mastermind, or for his henchmen with lesser brains.

Jodie Foster, using her political connections with the Mayor of NYC, gains permission to enter the bank which is under the control of the bank robbers while holding many hostages. She offers the chief bank robber a deal to buy back the documents he now has in hand, but he ain't interested. So what's his point (if any?).

My wife was offended by the arrogance of all the players, Christopher Plummer (Bank President), Denzel Washington (ace detective), and Jodie Foster, crack trouble shooter for high-powered problems.

The last Jodie Foster movie I saw, "Flight Plan", was also riddled with holes that made no sense at all. I thought I liked Jodie Foster, but I will probably avoid her future films.

Now my problem is that I can rarely persuade my wife to go to the movies. I cannot disagree with her on this one ... "A WASTE OF MONEY, AND A WASTE OF TIME." Be forewarned. A well crafted film, fine actors, lousy script writing.

Sentiment: negative
My first full Heston movie. The movie that everyone already knows the ending to. A "Sci Fi Thriller". The campy factor. Everything that goes with this movie was injected in my head when I rented it, and on the morning that I watched it, it was the perfect movie to watch in the mood that I was in (Not wanting to move. Put in player, hide in blankets). And though I tried to understand what was happening to lead to the ending that will be eternally ruined by pop culture, it just really didn't make it. Everything was all over the place, relationships had no backbone, the ending had no lead in. Everything was just kind of there in some freakish way and the watcher has no choice but to leave partially dumbfounded at the ending that it gets to, because even though we all know that it's people, it's quick answers as to WHY it's people makes any serious attempt at enjoying the movie for anything other than the silliness thrown out the window.

Sentiment: negative
"Pandora's Clock" is a gripping suspense/thriller that's a cross between a virus movie and a disaster film. This movie, which aired in two parts on NBC in its debut showing in 1996, is about an airplane flight that becomes infected with a virus when one of the passengers just happens to be carrying this disease. The U.S. Government debates on whether the plane should be destroyed or not, while the pilot (Richard Dean Anderson) and a virus expert (Daphne Zuniga) try to figure something out to avoid disaster. I'm not really a big fan of TV movies and miniseries, but I liked "Pandora's Clock". It's one heck of a thrill ride. Jane Leeves (TV's "Frasier"), Robert Loggia, and Edward Herrmann (as the President) also star.

*** (out of four)

Sentiment: positive
In the changing world of CG and what-not of cartoon animations etc. etc., Faeries was a warm welcome at least by me. I think it's important to show these sort of films once in a while, to preserve them and help remind us of where the originality and fun of cartoons actually came from. People were talking about how it is boring because of the graphics and stuff but hey! think about the films that will be considered boring if every film looked like the new state of the art ones everybody and their mother is making these days. Call me old-fashioned but I liked it. It's a wonderful story about supernatural beings and human beings and all it really needs from its audience is their imagination.

Sentiment: positive
While he was great in Boogie Nights, I think that this was Burt Reynolds' best performance. He's also a great director and has made a tough, violent movie that doesn't hold back (a hooker's death by 12 gauge) and is an excellent detective story with some great actors (Brian Keith, Bernie Casey, etc.) and an outstanding jazz soundtrack. 10 out of 10

Sentiment: positive
I had actually considered investing in this movie when Gorman was out drumming up funding. I loved most of the script but did not like the ending. Gorman insisted the ending was as it had to be.

Seeing the completed movie I have to say I am amazed. Reading the script I had not imagined the acting (and Gorman's directing) would be as powerful and moving as it is here. The two leads did an amazing job. They were very believable and this movie is well worth watching just for the performances of these two amazing stars.

Now, for the spoiler and if you have not seen the movie please don't read further as you need to see the movie first. (I actually wish I had never read the script just so I could have experienced the movie ending first hand.) 

----------------------------- SPOILER 

I have two main problems with the movie. First off, and I'm sure I mentioned this when I read the script, the wife should have died. If she were dead the ending would be much more believable. As it is, we have this guy who has been agonizing over a woman who left him 'years ago.' If she left him and he is still in love after so long he'd have to be seriously delusional. But he doesn't come across that way in the script. (There is also the problem of why he did not expend all this energy going after the wife he still loves.)

Plus, if the wife were dead we would actually be able to believe that they had a fulfilling, reciprocating love, and therefore believe that the guy is devastated enough for the ending to be reasonable.

However, I don't buy Daphne doing what she does in the ending. I'd need a heck of a lot of convincing to believe that this naive girl (very naive for a whore but believable due to Bohl's performance) did what she did. The character is simply not cold enough. And if she did this out of some kind of love, or something else, then there is a whole piece of the movie/story missing.

Much of this movie is reminiscent of "Sex, Lies, and Video Tape." I think it could have been as popular if Gorman had chosen to give the movie a more believable ending. 

So watch the movie, enjoy the performance. And make up your own mind.

Sentiment: positive
I'm not a movie maker but I do know it is hard to tell a story in seven minutes and draw your audience into the character. Horses on Mars does this and more. When you are watching a good movie you don't want it to end. This is how I felt watching this film. It is visually expansive and the microbe takes on such human qualities that you feel you are on the journey with him.

Really looking forward to see what exciting adventures Mr. Anderson takes us on in the future. Well done.

Sentiment: positive
In an otherwise good review, loleralacartelort7890 says "The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation." This is completely incorrect. There is (and was) no "secret" to radiation protection in Apollo. The design and construction of the Apollo Command Module has long been publicly available. It uses a lightweight "honeycomb" of aluminum and stainless steel. The entire outer surface (except the windows of course) is covered with a heat shield made of a phenolic resin, thicker on the bottom that faces forward during re-entry. These materials are actually *better* at stopping the kind of radiation we have in space (charged particles) than lead, which is better suited to stopping ionizing photons like X-rays and gamma rays.

Space radiation is a definite problem for *long term* space flight because of the risk of big solar flares. But it simply wasn't a serious threat to the Apollo astronauts. The Command Module gave them pretty good protection during their brief (1/2 hour or so) passage through the Van Allen belts. They all carried dosimeters so we know exactly how much radiation they each received: no more than 1.5 rem, and usually much less. Of the 24 men who flew to the Moon (12 of whom landed), 18 are still alive. Only two have died from cancer: Alan Shepard (leukemia) and Jack Swigert (bone cancer). The rest died from heart attacks, pancreatitis (Roosa), and a motorcycle accident (Conrad). These are actually pretty good statistics for a group of men now in their late 70s (Shepard would be 86).

Sentiment: negative
The film belongs to Inventor - Underdog genre. Jake Gyllenhaal, Laura Dern and Chris Cooper bring a little acting verve to story with several standard elements. Well filmed, well edited, with plenty of well acted secondary roles.

Some have declared this movie to be classic American hokey. It is that and more. I agree with those who say "The movie celebrates the thrill of youthful inspiration." 

The film is a pleasant reminder that achievement may be born of ordinary roots.



Sentiment: positive
I recently attended Sundance as I have often done in years past and was treated to the small pleasures of the edgy little indies, the glut of dark comedies and the now predictable portraits of dysfunction. But then I saw Mark and Michael Polish's 'Northfork' and I remembered why I so fell in love with the movies in the first place. 'Northfork' sweeps across the screen with visionary daring and harkens back to the seminal early work of Terence Malick and the existential landscapes of Antonioni. It's an impossible film to easily explain which is one of its many strengths. Suffice it to say it's an adult fairy tale with many carefully layered levels of meaning. It reawakened my imagination and cast an imposing shadow over all the other films I saw this year. It is a work of meticulous craftsmanship and a sophistication of writing not seen in most American movies. I plan to revisit this film several times when it comes to my neighberhood theater. For it is a beguiling piece of magic and mystery, a haunting work where one can roam the plains of Montana in search of angels and the very nature of heaven and earth. The cast performs this luminiscent piece with striking conviction particularly James Woods and Nick Nolte who remind us of the nerve and daring displayed throughout the course of their careers. Maybe 'Northfork' will help us find a new wave of American cinema where excellence in craft and writing become more the norm than the exception. See it when it comes your way and take your friends for the questions will be many and the thoughts and feelings spurred by seeing 'Northfork' will awaken memories of great movie once seen in your past and now hopefully may be returning with the advent of the Polish Brothers.

Sentiment: positive
Three tales are told in this film, that seemed to have been shot without knowledge of this being a combined vignette film. The makers relate the three vignettes by having them all connected to shrink Martin Kove, although you never see some of the leads with Kove.

The first vignette has sexy Vivian Schilling, a woman afraid of everything under the sun(she makes Adrian Monk look brave), having a paranoia laced evening at home alone. You will literally scream at Vivian for doing some ridiculous things. She spends the majority of her time in a nighty which shows off her amazing features. But her film is the worst if not the most nail-biting.

The second vignette is owned by Bill Paxton as he portrays the roommate from Hell. His geeky roommate allows him to take complete advantage of him, and Bill does so whenever he can.

The last vignette was funny as a man fears that death will take him at any moment, much like his pal who choked to death on an olive.

Not very interesting, as the movie as a whole seems chopped together with very little thought involved. A must for Bill Paxton fans.

Sentiment: negative
Kudos to Fawcett to taking on roles that, at the time were considered controversial. To my recollection, rape was still a taboo subject in the 1980's, and women's rights and emotions were rarely so deeply examined during that time.

Fawcett is simply a woman who is followed, then stalked by actor James Russo. He is adequate as the obsessed psychopath, but at times a bit transparent.

Diana Scarwid has a bit role, as does Alfre Woodard as the house mate. Woodard worries about the legal consequences when Fawcett, the rape victim, takes revenge on the culprit. The scene where she throws a frying pan of hot oil at Russo is classic, and as the rapist he deserves it. She then keeps him in bondage, and the consequences must be faced.

A very real story reflecting the emotions and rage of rape victims who have been violated, physically, and mentally. Highly recommended. 8/10.

Sentiment: positive
It' just funny, watch it!!! 

OK they want 10 lines so there: This is a spoof of 50s/70s werewolf movies. Lots of satire, some political. Feels like an early Clouseau movie (probably due to Alan Arkin), but with less slap stick. If you like the Naked Guns movies you'll like this too (once again less slapstick in this one). 

Actually, the humor ranges from light sexual innuendo (unavoidable in a teen comedy), to really poignant socio-political satire. The transformation of the Moon High School from 50s to 70s is really funny. The sequence with the changing presidential portraits is brilliant! OK maybe not brilliant but still hilarious. There are tons of (histarical) cracks starting from the 50s cold war paranoia and the late 70s inflation.

Anyway, just watch the movie if you get a chance!

Sentiment: positive
This may contain ***SPOILERS***

Where to start on this particular empty wasteland? Well it would have been nice if they actually had a plot. Acting talent, decent dialog, suspense, humor, hey even gratuitous sex would have helped this flick. Unfortunately there was only a lot of gore, (even that wasn't done well), shooting automatic weapons and missing.

There seemed to be no reason to attach the basic premise, a Native American cursed to protect the bodies of the tribe he murdered, with his being tracked down by a Federal Special Ops team who dressed in civvies(?). Most of the time involved violating one of the basic rules of conduct in a Horror movie, separating from the group so you can be picked off one by one. You'd think this team would know better, especially because they are actually the third team sent to investigate, the other two teams disappearing without a trace. When they finally realize they're being picked off they make one of several stands and fire their weapons only to hit the trees a whole lot. Tree shot scene repeats endlessly in this movie to save money.

When they're not shooting trees they're tracking this spirit who leaves no trail, (who knows how they're tracking it), and spouting a lot of macho BS. By the way, did I mention that most of this team are women? Interesting listening to them talk tough. Not very entertaining, but interesting.

All in all, You can find better movies in the bargain bin at Kmart.

Sentiment: negative
I have just watched the whole 6 episodes on DVD. The acting throughout is excellent - no question. There was not quite enough action for me I must say. No real suspense as such, just plenty of first class character development. Nothing like Tinker Tailor in terms of "whodunnit". If you like a good story slowly and carefully told then this is for you. Peter Egan as the lead Magnus Pym is excellent.

The film portrayed the life of a traitor. A man who should have been a loyal member of the British Intelligence Service but who was so damaged psychologically by his unhappy childhood that deception became his way of life in all things. As a child he adored his father but his father was exposed time & time again as a crook and a con man. Pym betrayed not for ideology or money but because he needed to deceive those closest to him (wife, son, mentor). Pym is fatally damaged by his father's influence - it has eaten his moral fibre away. He has no real love or loyalty in him.

Heavy psychological stuff and not many light moments in the 6 hour series. Very well done though.

Sentiment: positive
When thinking about Captivity many words come to mind. Among them are: uninteresting, unentertaining, unsuspensful, unsexy, unfathomable, and unwatchable.

I used to hate those movies from the mid to late nineties that were basically ripoffs of Scream but these new Saw knockoffs are beginning to make those films look like classics. They still pander to the same demographic that those other movies were so successful at doing, but now they add a new level of degeneracy that make the twelve to fourteen year old girls they're aimed at feel like they're hardcore AND hip.

This movie is a load of boring crap! What the hell has happened to Larry Cohen? His name hasn't been attached to anything good since 1993! Even so, I was still surprised to see that he had anything to do with something THIS bad! Was anyone surprised when the movie's love interest turned out to be one of the psychopaths? Did anyone not know it when they first saw him? Only someone who has never before in his or her life, ever seen another movie!

Sentiment: negative
Viva Variety was a unique hybrid program that was both a parody of and a tribute to the programs it represented. 

It was most directly a mock up of the classic 1970s favorite, "The Sonny & Cher Show," With Thomas Lennon and Kerri Kenney playing a divorced show biz couple who were somehow forced to host this program together, the female of the pair towering over the male, and the constant barrage of "insult humor" the couple tossed at each other, plus sketch comedy bits and performances from what are most kindly described as "specialty" acts! 

The "hybrid" was the mix of fact and fantasy. Of course, there was no "Mr. and Former Mrs. Laupin," and the program's announcer, Johnny Bluejeans, was likewise equally fictional. But all the acts that performed were certainly real, and some were even entertaining! But there were also some acts that would have clearly been better suited for the old Chuck Barris "Gong Show." 

The show itself was really more like an extended sketch from "SCTV" (it was borne from the MTV series, "The State," after all), and some would suggest that it would have been better as a five minute bit in the mix of a program like that one, rather than a stand alone series. But "Viva Variety" certainly should get high marks for original concepts, and even though it was often more odd than funny, it was certainly worthwhile, especially when they road tripped to Las Vegas and brought in even glitzier acts to perform. It's unlikely we'll ever see anything like this on television again.

Sentiment: positive
This is a fine, under-rated film and Rip Torn, well-known as he is, is a seriously under-rated actor. I read Howard Frank Mosher's novel many years ago. How well Craven captures the book and the beauty of Vermont's Northeast Kingdom! I had the good fortune to grow up in VT in the 40s and 50s and was still living there when the "Irasburg Incident" took place. I've not seen _Stranger in the Kingdom_, the Craven/Mosher collaboration based on the incident(and another Mosher novel), but this film has inspired me to track it down.

Sentiment: positive
Apparently, The Mutilation Man is about a guy who wanders the land performing shows of self-mutilation as a way of coping with his abusive childhood. I use the word 'apparently' because without listening to a director Andy Copp's commentary (which I didn't have available to me) or reading up on the film prior to watching, viewers won't have a clue what it is about.

Gorehounds and fans of extreme movies may be lured into watching The Mutilation Man with the promise of some harsh scenes of splatter and unsettling real-life footage, but unless they're also fond of pretentious, headache-inducing, experimental art-house cinema, they'll find this one a real chore to sit through.

82 minutes of ugly imagery accompanied by dis-chordant sound, terrible music and incomprehensible dialogue, this mind-numbingly awful drivel is the perfect way to test one's sanity: if you've still got all your marbles, you'll switch this rubbish off and watch something decent instead (I watched the whole thing, but am well aware that I'm completely barking!).

Sentiment: negative
This is my first Deepa Mehta film. I saw the film on TV in its Hindi version with its "Sita" character presented as Nita. I also note that it is Radha who underwent the allegorical trial by fire in the film and not Nita/Sita. Yet what I loved about the film was its screenplay by Ms Mehta, not her direction. The characters, big and small, were well-developed and seemed quixotic towards the end--somewhat like the end of Mazursky's "An Unmarried Woman." They are brave women surrounded by cardboard men. And one cardboard man (Ashok) seems to come alive in the last shot we see of him---carrying his invalid mother Biji. He seems to finally take on a future responsibility beyond celibacy and adherance to religion. 

Ms Mehta seems to fumble as a director (however, compared to most Indian mainstream cinema she would seem to be brilliant) as she cannot use her script to go beyond the microscopic joint family she is presenting except presenting a glimpse of the Chinese micro-minority in the social milieu of India. She even dedicates the film to her mother and daughter (not her father!) Yet her Radha reminesces of halcyon days with both her parents in a mustard field. Compare her to Mrinal Sen, Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Muzaffar Ali and she is dwarfed by these giants--given her competent Canadian production team and financial resources! Mehta's film of two bisexual ladies in an Indian middle-class household may be sacrilege to some, but merely captures the atrophy of middle-class homes that does not seem to aspire for something better than its immediate survival in a limited social space. Kannada, Malayalam, and Bengali films have touched parallel themes in India but did not have the publicity that surrounded this film and therefore have not been seen by a wide segment of knowledgeable cinemagoers.

Ms Das, Ms Azmi, Mr Jafri and Mr Kharbanda are credible but not outstanding. Ms Azmi is a talented actress who gave superb performances under good directors (Mrinal Sen's "Khandar", Gautam Ghose's "Paar", Benegal's "Ankur") a brilliance notably absent in this film. Ms Das sparkled due to her screen presence rather than her acting capability. All in all, the film's strength remains in the structure of the screenplay which is above average in terms of international cinema. I am sure Ms Mehta can hone her writing talents in her future screenplays.

Sentiment: positive
Yikes. This is pretty bad. The play isn't great to begin with, and the decision to transfer it to film does it no favours - especially as Peploe doesn't decide how she wants to treat the material's theatrical origins (we get occasional glances of an observing theatre audience etc.) and has decided to go with a jumpy editing style that is intended to keep reminding you that you're watching a film, whereas in fact it only serves to remind you that you are watching a very poor film by a director who is overwhelmed by her material. Mira Sorvino's central performance is breath-takingly poor: stage-y and plummy, it's as if she's playing the part via Helena Bonham-Carter's Merchant Ivory oeuvre. Only Fiona Shaw delivers a performance of note - and it may be that her theatrical pedigree means that she is best able to handle the material - but it's hard to watch a film for one performance alone, even if that performance is as light, truthful and entire as Shaw's. Ben Kingsley turns in an average and disengaged turn, and Diana Rigg's daughter, Rachel Stirling plays her supporting role as just that. Sadly, none of Bertolucci's magic has rubbed off on his wife if this film is to be the evidence.

Sentiment: negative
Across the great divide which we call understanding, there is still much we do not know about that which was explained by the early tribal Elders. In every instance, there is much concerning the dangers of knowing too much. Conversely, there are those who warn us of not preparing for what they warn is the 'End Time.' In this movie called " The Last Wave " an aboriginal native is murdered for no apparent reason. When those responsible are arrested, they remain silent less they disturb the order of things. David Burton (Richard Chamberlain) plays the Defense Attorney assigned to defend the accused. Although haunted by prophetic images from his own childhood and warned by modern signs given to him by an sympathetic Aboriginal named Chris Lee (David Gulpilil), Burton proceeds to defend the infraction as Tribal Law and therefore not subject to standard justice. The movie is fraught with puzzling, dark foreboding images of apocalyptic end world disasters and warns of a future island tsunami and doom. Black drama and deep rituals are what gives this film it's frightening allure and therefore is not for the faint-hearted, in fact the simplest haunting apparitions can last for years in the nightmares of innocent movie goers. Good silent drama. ****

Sentiment: positive
Barman just wanted to make a movie because he wanted to. Just as simple as that, and he succeeded. Not only in his goal, but also in making a wonderful movie, especially visually. He knows how to use pans, slow-motion sequences, tracking shots, crane shots, etc. in a beautiful, smooth way. This gives the movie a very relaxing feel to it.

The story is about the lives of 8 very different characters who have nothing in common except one thing: a party that they all attend to, which also is the turnpoint of this movie. The beauty of this picture lies not in the question how the characters have effect on eachother (in comparance with a similar, of course better movie like Magnolia). I simply don't think that that was Barman's idea. The beauty lies in the different details of experiences that people go through which makes or breaks their lives. Barman is very successful in telling those little stories that describe little experiences. He knows people..... and Antwerp.

The soundtrack of the movie is also excellent, but not a surprise as we know that Barman is also a very succesful songwriter and musician with his band dEUS. The music is sometimes hot and at the same time relaxing which contributes to the sunny, smooth feel of the movie. Other times we hear funky pop/rock-melodies which give some scenes the strength that they need.

There's only one flaw, and that's the last half an hour. Was it the runtime, which was breaking me up? Or weren't the last scenes that fresh and accurate than the scenes until then? I can't figure it out...

All in all a beautiful sunny movie which lifts the Belgian cinema up.

8 out of 10!

(It's the breeze that flows through a girl's hair on a sunny afternoon making her even more beautiful; it's the fresh breeze that makes you relax when it passes you at a crowded party when someone opens the door; it's the breeze that carries the perfume from that beautiful girl sitting next to you in the park who you just met a week ago; it's the breeze.....)



Sentiment: positive
Lee hosted the 100 Years of Horror for Ted Newsom and was talking about filmic werewolves. He said something to the effect that his only brush with lycanthropy was The Howling II, then he quipped, "The less said about that the better." Indeed he was right as this film may very well be the worst in his entire catalog of screen performances. The first Howling by Joe Dante was a groundbreaking werewolf film with its incredible special effects and its campy sense of style and subject matter. It was a film to be taken seriously. Like other good original films, filmmakers for some strange reason thought that even more campy sequels were needed rather than what worked the first time(See CHUD then CHUD II to illustrate this point). This film is miles and miles away from the first on every front. There is absolutely nothing scary about it. It looks cheap and is pitch black through most of the major scenes. Lee is the only actor in the film worth mentioning(okay, I'll cede Ferdy Mayne too). Lee looks embarrassed as he says inane dialog and does ridiculous things(check out that ending with him and Stirba). Lee looks incredibly tired and knows what dreck this is which is a tad more insightful than the two leads who leave America to go to Romania. The story isn't really worth examining here, and you can bet there is very little story worth mentioning when you have to have Stephen Parsons and his band Babel play through much of the film in the beginning and the ending with that dreadful noise. Sybil Danning is here and, yes, she disrobes once and then we get that scene showed again and again and again - one reviewer said 17 times(I counted ten - but might have been so bored out of my mind by that point). I gave the film three stars, but it really deserves a zero - the three I gave it are 1 for Lee and two for Ms. Danning's contributions. Yuck!

Sentiment: negative
along the history of cinema, there's been a few films that deceived the viewer, such as hitchcock's "stage fright", alejandro amenábar's "abre los ojos", David fincher's "the game" and this one "ausentes" ("absent"). to begin with, i don't like this kind of films, i feel like somebody is trying to pull my leg.

furthermore, after seeing this film one doesn't know what happened, is such a confusing film. kubrick's "the shining" may be a better or a worse movie, but definitely is more honest than this load of pretentious and dubious situations.

technically is fine -nice photography, fair performance and so on, but the script is so poor i wonder what did the producers see to carry on and shoot this crap.

and this film remarks the 3 guys that wrote the script (calparsoro, loriga and quiroga) are lost in cinema trying to make a masterpiece -or trying to do something to fulfill their stomachs, awaiting for more personal projects.

Sentiment: negative
You get a gift. It is exquisitely wrapped. The box it is in is hand crafted out of the finest wood and shows skill down to the smallest detail. That is then wrapped in gorgeous paper, handmade and hand-painted by the most talented of artists. The whole thing is wrapped in ribbons made from fine silk lace. It is a sight to behold.

Then you cut the ribbon, rip off the paper, open up the box, and find...nothing. That's TOYS. You either enjoy the packaging, or forget about it.

The film isn't without its point and purpose: War is a not a good thing. Well, isn't that original! The moral is so obvious that it is almost embarrassing to even point it out. And even that feeble insight is undercut by a story in which elements of war -- war toys in particular -- are clearly a bad thing, until they need an exciting climax and the film simulates a war using innocent toys. It's like someone preaching a stern, condescending sermon, only to end by saying "Just kidding."

But even as an empty box, the film fails close scrutiny. Yes, it is a sight to behold with some remarkable, striking images. The sets are imaginative and the cinematography catches the colorful scenes with skill. But the images are cold and emotionally sterile. Like the screenplay, the look of the film is joyless and at times aesthetically barren and surreal. It is a film that wants to praise toys as wonderful and special things, yet shows them to be creations of a world that is empty and cold. The film strives to be funny, in a morose sort of way, but the humor is forced and artificial. Robin Williams, as the beleaguered heir to a toy manufacturing empire, tosses in his ad-lib shtick, which only seems alien to the bizarre, coldly structured world he is inhabiting. Indeed, the topical references and tasteless sexual innuendo that are scattered throughout are jarringly contradictory to the childlike fable the film is vaguely trying to be. For this film to work, or make sense, it needs to be set in its own universe, an Oz far removed from Kansas. Every time the jokes jerk us back into reality, the toyland of the film increasingly becomes an obvious sham.

It is said that this was director Barry Levinson's pet project, one that he had been striving to get made for ten years. It is sadly obvious why he had trouble getting backing. Like most pet projects that finally get made (RADIOLAND MURDERS, RADIO FLYER & BATTLEFIELD: EARTH being great examples) it seems to be a blind spot in the filmmaker's field of vision. Perhaps Levinson directed and redirected TOYS so often in his head that he no fresh vision for it when he finally got on the soundstage. He had already perfected it to death.

Many of the toys featured in the film are clumsy, mechanical, wind-up monstrosities. So is the film itself.

Sentiment: negative
Michael Kehoe has accomplished quite a feat, especially considering it is only his second start as writer, producer AND director. Generally "first timers" lack vision and direction when helming a major production but "Dominion" proves Mr. Kehoe is going places in Hollywood! Set with beautiful scenery, Dominion boasts experienced cast members (especially Thomerson & James) who communicate Kehoe's vast vision with exceptional clarity. Few films can mix the slasher/horror genre with a genuine action/adventure feel, but Dominion accomplished this completely. This film certainly qualifies as one of the top-notch films in both of these categories. If you are looking for fast-paced action with more than a modicum of suspense, look no further. I look forward to Kehoe's future projects with great enthusiasm. Well done!!!

Sentiment: positive
A below average looking video game is turned into some sort of conspiracy to have the next terrorist discovered in the USA backyard. Welcome to the lunacy of cheaply made direct to video movies. Its full of no-name actors and actresses with little valuable plot.

Anyway, this strange game goes on and our "hero" bets real money and does good at it. It is sort of like gambling, except the gambling part is gone and it sucks. Instead its an online game with little real value and you get authorities on your tail if you do good.

What makes it even stranger is that two strange computer programs battle it out somehow and all is saved in the end. I will leave the viewer to see how it all comes to fruition.

Overall, not even worth a $1 rental. Borrow it, please. "D-"

Sentiment: negative
This is absurd - aside from the fellow Australian who has reviewed this flick, I can't help but think that everyone else who has submitted a review so far was some way involved in the production of Elektra, considering how generous they were with their praise.

Admittedly I'm not really a fan of comic-book-to-movie conversions so I didn't go in with many expectations, yet still I found Elektra to be incredibly underwhelming. The thing that irked me the most was the fact that there was SO MUCH in this film which went by unexplained, that left you thinking "huh, what relevance does that have to the plot?" or "so how did that aspect of the character come about?" I can only hope that these are things which are perhaps explained somewhat in Daredevil, which I have no intention of seeing.

Furthermore, the behaviour of the characters in this film appear to do an about-face at random moments to suit the storyline, and don't even get me started about the utterly pointless romantic sub-plot. I'm also (still) scratching my head over the fate of Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa's character, which seems to have gone by unexplained.

If I can give kudos to this movie for anything it would have to be the fantastic locations in which it was shot, but otherwise I gained little enjoyment from Elektra. I know we're supposed to suspend our disbelief for fantasy/action films, but almost everything in this film was so improbable or confusing (even by action film standards) that it simply frustrated me.

Well, hell, at least Jennifer Garner looks damn good.

Sentiment: negative
Luchino Visconti was and is one of the most influential cultural figures of his generation, but Adam Low (the director of this thing) allows the stronger voice to be Helmut Berger's! How can it be? What a missed opportunity! We come out of this ordeal knowing less of what made the Master great and more about the things one shouldn't care at all. The beautiful images belong to Visconti's world, the embarrassing interviews to the likes of Berger and Zeffirelli to Adam Low's tiny little world. A must to avoid!

Sentiment: negative
Catherine Brreillat is a French director who loves to provoke her audience. She takes us along to witness how a film is done on location. The movie in production seems to be based on herself, since the person at the center of the story is Jeanne, a woman director, much like Ms. Breillat. Jeanne acts as the alter ego of the real director.

Jeanne reaches an impasse at the start of filming. Not only has she picked the wrong time to photograph this movie during a cold spell, as it involves beach locations that are obviously too cold for the actors and extras. Jeanne has problems with the two principal actors, especially, the male lead who has problems accepting the way the director has decided to show him in the movie; the lead actress is no angel either.

Movie making, Ms. Breillat tells us is a process like no other in a creative work of art. First, there is the writing period, in which, in this case, Jeanne, has written a screen play, that when it goes into production reveals problems the writer/director didn't think about. There is the problem of how she wants to photograph a love scene in which the young woman of the story has her first sex contact. What appeared clever in the written page, doesn't necessarily translate into an easy time in front of the camera. The actor is made to wear a false penis and has a lot of problems accepting the fact that a make up has to touch him in ways he never thought he would ever be touched by another man.

The luminous Anne Parillaud is marvelous as Jeanne, the director. She makes observations about the production, the actors, and the crew that fit well into the story being told. Gregoire Colin and Roxane Mesquide play the lead actors, with all the insecurity that some actors bring to a movie set. Jeanne has to massage their egos in order to get what she wants in the end. Ashley Waninnger plays Leo, Jeanne's assistant.

"Sex Is Comedy" allows Ms. Breillet to give us her own take on films in general. This is a great look at the way movies are done in a typical Breillat style.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is sad. According to my fellow IMDb users, (*SPOILER*) RAPTOR uses stock footage from the Carnotaur films. Well, since I have not seen the Carnotaur movies, I cannot say. But, I do notice some pretty bad editing and even worse acting. This movie is one big steaming pile of s***. It makes absolutely no sense. Here is this thing that calls itself a PLOT: Mad scientist re-creates raptors. Raptors kill people. Sheriff investigates. *SPOILER* (although I don't know what it is that I'm spoiling) Sheriff catches on to mad doctor's plans. Army guys are sent in and raptors start killing army guys. Raptors. Yeah, right. I could make a clay figure that looks more real. The FX are the cheapest ever used in a movie. There is a lot of gore. Cheap gore. It doesn't even look real. I will agree with another person who rated this movie that the only thing this movie has going for it is the fact that it ends. There are about two seconds of originality in this film. And that only comes from when the sheriff is talking to some tax agent on the phone about his electric bill or something. This idea has been used in about 100,000 other movies with 100,000 different names. Overall, I'm gonna give RAPTOR 1/5 just because it ended.

Sentiment: negative
SPOILERS

In the words of Jean-Paul Sartre, "Hell is other people". In "The Odd Couple", Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau demonstrate just how accurate this can be. As Felix Ungar and Oscar Madison, Lemmon and Matthau respectively create two good friends who decide to live together. As the two begin to slowly grow more and more frustrated with each other, the laughs come thick and fast, before Felix departs, leaving Oscar a changed and more cleanly individual.

Jack Lemmon as Ungar is absolutely superb as the neurotic, cleaning obsessed divorcee coping with life as a single man. Walter Matthau in contrast to Lemmon's character is equally as good as the slobbish sports writer who simply wants to play poker to earn money for his child benefits.

Lemmon and Matthau are magnificant in their selected parts, to some degree dependent upon the beautiful script by Neil Simon, and simultaneously because they work well as a team. As two friends who are inherently different in lifestyles, although similar in relationships with ex-wives and children, these two, late, great actors create a partnership which is practically impossible to recreate. So great in fact, that the world screamed out so much for something similar, that two years before Matthau's death and three before Lemmon's, the characters were reunited in an inferior sequel. This idea, whilst following Hollywood's irritating obsession with sequels, might have worked to a certain degree, but at the same time, it could never come close to replicating the genius of this original film.

Ultimately it's not really possible to say anything else. With Simon's amazing script, filled with humour and laughter, the creators of this film were already onto a hit. The casting of Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau as Felix Ungar and Oscar Madison though, is the most important part of this film. "The Odd Couple", with it's traditional soundtrack (which even gained a tribute in "The Simpsons"), it's excellent script and it's genius leading men, is a tribute to cinema and a feature for history to remember.

Sentiment: positive
People expect no less than brilliant when Steven Spielberg directs a movie, and this movie is no exception. Some movies I love did poorly at the box office but, I'm glad to say, this movie isn't one of them (over nine million dollars, which I don't think was bad for back then). The characters were fun, the animation was clear and not fuzzy, and the music was modern, too, which is unusual for an animated movie. I didn't think Professor Screw Eyes or his "Scary Cirus" was too scary for little kids (the targeted audience for this movie), but I thought what happened to the creepy professor at the end was a little too dark for a kids' movie. Overall, this movie is a fun and enchanting classic that I have loved dearly for years.

Sentiment: positive
I have been a fan of the Carpenters for a long time, read the biography, watched the specials, and saw the Karen Carpenter Story. This movie really didn't show the real Karen Carpenter. In the movie she seems to be a shy and a pretty much of loner (except for one girl friend). The real Karen Carpenter was much different. She was outgoing and friendly. She had lots of friends, especially Olive Newton-John. The movie doesn't even show Karen's attempts for a solo album and her meeting Phil Ramone and his wife Itchy "Karen". Itchy knew the real Karen Carpenter in New York. When Karen was in New York, she did see a psychologist, but it was voluntary and once a day and then she would leave to go to her hotel room. Also, Karen was taking pills to increase her thyroid, so she could loss weight, but stop taking them because the psychologist recommended her not too. Also, the Karen's husband in the movie is named Bob Knight, but in real life was named Tom Burris. Also, Karen wasn't divorced from Tom, but only separated. Karen was to sign the divorce papers on the day she died. Also, Agnes found Karen naked in the closet unciousness, unlike in the movie where she was dressed in white. The music was very good. That was the only thing I would recommend on seeing it.

Sentiment: negative