DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Since Jason and his ilk took over horror films circa 1980 most every horror film has involved a group of hormonally charged teenagers being chopped to bits with the focus on the chopping and not the suspense.

This little film is different. Made in the early 80's it does what every good horror film should do - bring your worst fears to life while you sit around just knowing that these horrors are just around the corner. Then, you make those horrors simmer, just don't turn it into a lesson on the biology of butchering.

The story features Meg Tilly right before she had a short-lived turn with fame starting with "The Big Chill" and then slipped back into obscurity in the early 90's. Meg plays an outcast teenager who is just dying to get into the good graces of some classic mean girls. They tell her she can be part of their little group if she spends the night in a crypt. The mean girls intend to scare her and cause her to leave the crypt thus giving them a double reward - further tormenting the outcast girl and having an excuse to reject her.

Meanwhile famed occultist Karl Rhamarevich has died a bizarre death shortly after having claimed to have discovered a way to return from the grave and upon his return command great magical powers. His daughter doesn't believe this at first, but she listens to a tape about her father's experiments which included his successful animation of small dead animals and of his plans to emerge from the grave with the power to animate bigger game and draw further power from these animations. She also learns that she may have inherited her father's power and may be the only person who can stop him should he actually rise from the dead. I think you know where this story is headed, so I'll stop here. Did I mention the magician was entombed in the same crypt in which Meg Tilly's character is spending the night?

I will mention that the commercial DVD containing this film does look somewhat degraded compared to what you would expect from a film that was made so recently. I saw it on TV in the mid 1980's and I remember it looking better than this. The problem is that the original negative of the film was never located so the DVD had to be created from a print. This means it comes complete with dirt and scratches.

This is worth checking out for any horror fan. It was an independently made film and an example of the kind of unusual stuff that you could commonly find on late night TV until the infomercial turned that time slot into a vast wasteland circa 1986. Only TCM Underground airs this kind of film anymore.

Sentiment: positive
While I have a great respect for Disney's animated films, as of late they haven't really been what I would call "must-see". Atlantis looked intriguing from the first movie poster and trailer, and thankfully lived up to my expectations.

Atlantis is a more "mature" Disney film in the sense that it lacks songs (a very unusual trait for a Disney film indeed), and is focused more on action and discovery than any other recent Disney offering. The world of Atlantis, hidden beneath the earth's core, is fantastic, presented as desolate caverns with ruins, and then slowly developing into actual ecosystems, which, while usually containing some reminder of harshness, become more and more intriguing until the tropical paradise itself is reached. The presentation of simply Atlantis' landscape and setting, without some expendable cheery song, gave the kingdom a much more beautiful and intriguing appearance. The inclusion of an Atlantean language, as well as attempts to connect it into the mythology of real-life ancient civilizations adds to this, and works fairly well.

Also, with the exception of some scenes involving Mole's practical jokes, there didn't seem to be much of a "childish" element that I usually associate with Disney films. Instead, the main elements were the struggle to get to Atlantis, and the constant discovery that occurred at Atlantis, as Milo the outsider was able to learn all he ever needed to know about the place by helping the Atlanteans discover parts of their own history that they didn't know about. Part of this involves the Atlantean "weaponry", which is used in a very action-packed climax which is, for lack of a better word, quite exciting.

Granted, not all of the story makes full sense, and the film doesn't feature any amazing new computer-generated visual effects, but, aside from the Toy Story movies, this is the most entertaining Disney film I've seen in years.

Sentiment: positive
Personally, I can only but agree with Stephen-12: indulge. There's really no point in trying to 'capture' this film. I like movies where nothing (explicitly) happens. Herzog's 'Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes' has got the same nothingness, though that movie is less convincing, since the climaxes are rather in the beginning of the story, so Herzog had to focus on nature versus Kinski. Morte a Venezia is wholly different though, since it has several climaxes, turns, etc. In fact, from the point where Aschenbach's luggage is lost, the movie almost 'rushes' to its grand finale (his final grains of sand begin running through the hourglass after the moment of bliss where he fantasises about warning the Polish family and caressing Tadzio's hair).

You can, if you want to, seek some real clues/symbols in this one (his trying to leave behind his luggage from the moment he arrives, the pointing Tadzio at the end, the fact that in the whole film content and form are completely in sinc), but there's no point in doing this: it won't make the film better or worse, since its force lies in the whole storyline's undertow, which is never made explicit. Tons of history, decaying Europe, the end of the 'romantic era' as we've come to know it, which has proven to be only the beginning of it (individual emotions & expression are more important now than they ever were). But wait, now I myself am beginning to develop the one minor (tiny) flaw of the film: the 'let's talk about art'-parts. Now there's one thing never to do. I myself believe it could have been expressed by other means. Furthermore, I believe it becomes already very clear in the rest of the film.

I don't like explicit films. I can read books, so I don't want a storyline that speaks merely to my rationale. I prefer films that you cannot explain in words, but only in film (Lynch's Lost Highway, Weir's Picknick at Hanging Rock and Roeg's Man Who fell To Earth also belong in this category), for then, and then only, it has a reason to exist as film and not merely as a book. So what about Thomas Mann's novella? I've never read it, but forget about it! The movie gives a different point of view: it says things you can never say in a book. It uses the movie-art to make you feel, through images and music, the same thing that Mann made you feel, using text. Equally brilliant, but different worlds.

Sentiment: positive
I am a MAJOR fan of the horror genre! I LOVE horror/slasher/gore flicks of all kinds. Some of my favorites are the really "good" bad horror flicks. But this movies has NOTHING to warrant it's viewing!! I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about everything that's wrong with it.

The script is horrid. The acting is horrid. The FX are not even worth discussing. The "set" is an absolute JOKE!! The sad thing is I think there MAY be some real potential in a couple of the actors, but this vehicle left them NOTHING to work with!!!

Suffice it to say I saw it for "free" & feel I was robbed!! The time you'd WASTE watching this would be better spent flossing your cat.

Sentiment: negative
CITY HALL is a somewhat mixed bag. Part vignettes of NYC political life, and part moralizing tale. Al Pacino, a Dukakis-esque Boss with Presidential dreams, gives an oft times sullen or subdued performance. There's a couple times when he chews the scenery, and in the case of CITY HALL, this is where he shines. John Cusack gives a subdued and generally flawless performance, without going into caricature of a New Orleans dialect, or sliding into melodrama during the films climax. Danny Aiello as a burrough political chief, is also very good. I love showtunes, too.

The major problem with CITY HALL, and it is a good movie in many ways, is the general feeling of a lack of momentum. It comes off more like a documentary, than a motion picture. We see the action or follow the story from a detached perspective, and naturally, the viewer doesn't become involved. When the viewer doesn't get involved to a certain degree, they become apathetic towards the characters, and eventually, the plot.

This tends to alienate, and what should have been a riveting, detail divulging finale, came off as a "Hmmm...uh...okay." They say you "Can't fight city hall," as the tread worn cliche goes. Yet, it still can't stop you from thinking what might have been, if they had just tightened up the screenplay and pacing of this movie.

Sentiment: positive
You know those movies that are so unspeakably bad that you have to laugh? Half-caste wasn't one of them. Which sounds good, right? But no, it's not. It's not a bad attempt at a horror movie that's fun to watch because it's lame, or not well acted, or has bad special effects or anything else like that. No, Half-caste is just plain boring. They don't even make an attempt to be scary until the last 20 minutes are so. It's just kids running around in the African bush country and getting high off of elephant dung for the first 75% of the movie, and it's not even funny. The last 20 minutes, though, are HILARIOUS. I have no idea what happened, but it was really fun to watch that CGI leopard rip out the throats of all of those white guys I couldn't tell apart anyway. If you're in the mood for a bad horror movie, don't rent this one, because you'll go to sleep before they get to the fun stuff. If you do accidentally rent this movie, I'd recommend fast forwarding to the end, and skipping any scene that happens in daylight. You won't miss anything. You won't have any idea which character is which or exactly what is going on even if you do watch all of the back-story.

Sentiment: negative
First off there is nothing wrong with studying Daniel, Revelation, Matthew 24, Isaiah and other prophetic scriptures. There is also nothing wrong with making a film such as this to attempt to present the gospel message. So my qualms with this movie are not in either its sincerity or aspirations. As a Christian, though an amillenialist, I believe there will be a great tribulation and I believe Christ will return as he said as much. So even though I have disagreement with this film about the rapture that is not why I rate this movie so low.

No, what makes me rate this movie so low is not its sincerity or its message, but rather its lack of production values, awful script, mediocre acting, and pitiful FX. This movie ranks down there with some of the cheesiest scifi fodder of the 1950s. No, this movie ranks down there with Plan 9 From Outerspace. This movie failed to age well and was probably dated by the time they made a sequel.

The apocalypse genre film producers could have learned how not to make an end times film from this, but they failed. The Left Behind Series, The Apocalypse series, and the Omega Code series all failed to learn from this because they addressed the FX problems and the dated look problem, but their scripts are still poor, and their acting is wooden.

There are great Christian films, with extremely low budgets, but this film is not one of them. I'm surprised the MST3K crew never lampooned this one.

Sentiment: negative
Bela Lugosi is not typecast in this fantastic twelve-part adventure serial, playing the lead as Frank Chandler/Chandu the Magician, enjoying his role as a representative of the forces of White Magic pushed against those of Black, while displaying vigourous fighting skill, successfully wooing a young Egyptian princess, and cutting a lean and dashing figure in yachting gear, complete with nautical cap. The somewhat lumpy plot engages Chandler/Chandu in an ongoing series of escapades pointed at achieving the rescue of his fiancee, Princess Nadji(Maria Alba) and others from the clutches of the idol-worshipping sect of Ubasti, which covets Nadji's blood in order to revivify an ancient mummified princess entombed upon the mysterious island of Lemuria. Director Ray Taylor, an old hand at such entertainments keeps events moving briskly, but repeated scenes and footage, a good deal of which is to be found in the previous year's Skull Island setting from KING KONG, and the port locale from SON OF KONG, reduces original action to less than 60 minutes from the serial's running length of over two and one-half hours and, if viewed at one sitting, becomes lacking in effect to most viewers, unless insomniac.

Sentiment: negative
Having obtained a copy of Bostocks Cup I must confess It is not as funny as I originally thought!! IT IS BETTER!!!!! Charlie Williams ... eat your heart out. Match fixing???? Never! Sloping pitch at 45%? Ronnie and Reggie Kay? George Best? The Coach Driver who thinks Pontefract is in South Wales ( It's all Ponty this and Ponty that)Bertie Masson's (Tim Healey's)lucky Cup hat!! (not that he's into gimmicks) Sugar Plum Fairy????? Confused???? Watch it again. The innovative use of real footage with Bostock players was brilliant and the producer should be proud of giving us a MASTERPIECE. Come on ITV do the viewers and yourself a favour - show it again!!! Please>

Sentiment: positive
I'm a big fan of Westerns but this one.... whew, what a stinker! I think what turned me off almost right off the bat was the inane dialog. I think I could have written better dialog than this when I was in eighth grade. And the poor actors! Given this terrible dialog, none of them came across looking anything but ridiculous. Really, I'm not kidding. Some of this is little better than what you'd get in an Ed Wood film. 

The biggest tragedy is Sterling Hayden. He was probably THE "big" star in this movie which if you called it a B-Western, you'd be lavishing praise upon it. This is what should be called a B-minus Western perhaps. Pity Sterling Hayden, who appeared at other times along with Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Frank Sinatra, and other major talents. For him to appear in a vehicle this poor must have been something he tried to downplay for the rest of his life.

One annoying thing about this movie is all the men look like they haven't shaved in a week and their faces are all greasy. I know in the old West guys weren't always well groomed but to a man this is a movie that makes you want to just go 'EWWWW!' Really, this is a crummy Western. Denver Pyle also had to live this one down, especially after appearances in so many great Westerns. Bad, bad movie.

Sentiment: negative
This is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. Worse than the most abhorrent American dross; worse than Glitter - Mariah Carey in American dross par excellence. I can only imagine that the writer and producer were taking huge amounts of recreational pharmaceuticals, and when discussing the plot actually thought it was a good idea. it's not. It is abject rubbish from very bowels of Satan himself (who could probably have written a better script had he put his mind to it). Robert Jones as Exce Producer, spending our tax payers money (lottery money folks) on this piece of nonsense, should be accountable. Who on earth thought it would be a good idea to re-make Deathline??? I ask you - camp as a Christmas Tree, Deathline ... 'Mind the doors' is classic of really bad British film, we really don't need a reminder. And we certainly don't need a poor, second rate, badly scripted, badly developed and badly piece of rubbish like this. All this this from the UK funding agency that brought us Sex Lives of the Potato Men... I rest my case.

Do Not Pay ANY money to see this. It is absolute and utter crap - the one saving grace for the producers is that they got a huge wedge of cash... our cash... for making it. They should hang their heads in shame.

I am staggered at the low, low standard of this film. It makes me Mgr that our national body for the support of film actually thought it was worth supporting. There is no hope for the British film industry whilst idiots are running the show. Harvey Wienstein where are you? Come back, we forgive you!!!

Sentiment: negative
I am sitting here writing this review and the movie's not even over yet. In fact, I just checked, and there are 45 more minutes to go. But no matter, there's no need to see it through to the end. I'll just write this review and laugh as the film plays in the background and stumbles onward to some kind of presumably horrible conclusion which I don't care to ever see or know.

What accounts for my hostility to this movie? The characters are not believable. The plot is not believable. The pretentiousness of the movie is sickening. Basically, every element of the movie rings false. Buscemi obviously thought he had something to add to the dozens of movies which have already explored the well-worn themes of dysfunctional families and the apparent meaninglessness of life. However, Buscemi was badly mistaken, because this movie contains nothing new. It tries very hard to be depressing, but fortunately no one can really be depressed by it, because it's obvious that no people like this exist in the entire world.

What IS depressing however is the knowledge that somehow this film was voted several undeserved awards. Disgusting!!!! Bottom line: stay away from this worthless film at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
I have never seen this movie on its own, but like many others who have already commented, I saw it as an episode of MST3K. Really terrible 70s television schlock. But someone saw its potential because it's just been turned into a $125 million flop called The Island.

And to the person who asked whether there were ANY good movies made in the 70s, I want to remind her that it was a golden age for American film with directors like Robert Altman and Martin Scorcese first coming into their own. Not to mention little things like Star Wars (1977). Just a reminder that the 70s were far more creative than the 21st century has been so far.

Sentiment: negative
I don't think I will include any spoilers but If I do, I can cover my butt. "The Last American Virgin" came in a time were such teenage coming of age/high school sex romps were the rave. Films such as "Prepies" (1984), "Hot Times" (1974) and the popular "Porky's " (1981) were making mucho money. Yet it is the "Last American Virgin" the one that actually has a more serious plot story amidst the nudity and sexual situations. It is the often told tale of three high school buddies who want to lose their virginity. The go to the wrong places (prostitutes), the dangerous ones (older woman with jealous boyfriend) and the convenient ones (luring their high school female counterparts). The movie has a lot of funny moments, and although the cast did not produce a single major movie star, it is worth remembering for a fantastic 80's soundtrack that includes: Devo, The Cars, Journey and others. By today standards is raunchy and might have grabbed a NC-17 rating, but is a well told story of how sometimes personal fixation can only bring pain,while love might be right in front of us. It is a little piece of 80s Americana and worth having in your movie collection.

Sentiment: positive
I am sad that a period of history that is so fascinating and so rich in material for film can be made into a ho-hum event . Wm C Quantrill was barely shown in the film , probably the most intriquing figure of the period. Frank James was never mentioned, Cole Younger , ditto , and Bloody Bill Anderson , who would weep for his murdered sister every time he went into battle was completely absent in the script. Instead we were forced to watch fictitious characters that never developed into anyone we cared about. how sad. The costumes were wonderful however, as was the location shooting in Missouri. I hope Ang Lee will make another film from the period and try again, or some other film maker will look into the tremendous wealth of material to write a screen play on .

Sentiment: negative
Next to the slasher films of the 1970s and 80s, ones about the walking dead were probably the second most popular horror sub-genre. While slasher films had 'Black Christmas' and 'Halloween' to get the whole thing going, zombie flicks had George Romero's 'Dead' films. And unsurprisingly soon after the success of his first two in the series, other directors wanted to cash in. A lot of Italian directors were especially interested, such as Lucio Fulci who brought us 'Zombie' a year after Romero's 'Dawn of the Dead', known as 'Zombi' in Italy and some other countries, and it was there that Fulci's film was known as 'Zombi 2'. Apart from the walking dead it has no relation to Romero's film, but is a good film in it's own right. It was a big success in Europe and 9 years later a sequel was born.

Pros: Lots of beautiful, lush scenery. Awesome score. The acting isn't exactly good, but the cast is game and seem to be enjoying the experience. After kind of a slow start, the pace moves along like that of an action flick. Plenty cheese and unintentional hilarity for bad film lovers. Good job on the make-up effects. Lots of blood and some decent gore.

Cons: Virtually plot less. Nothing you haven't already seen before. Blatantly rips off some things from the first couple of 'Return of the Living Dead' films. Cardboard characters. Hasn't aged too well due to the bad 1980s rock music(Not that I'm saying all rock music of that period is bad), clothing, and overall feel of the movie.

Final thoughts: First of all, this is not a true sequel to Fulci's cult classic. In fact, I don't know if it was ever meant to pick up where that film left off. For those that don't know, Fulci was ill during production and ended up leaving and was replaced with Bruno Mattei. Mattei's films are pretty laughable, but like this film many are good campy fun. And that's all this film really is, just something to watch for fun.

My rating: 3.5/5 (So-bad-it's-good rating) 2/5 (Serious rating)

Sentiment: negative
When I learned of Sir Alec Guinness' death, this was the first of his many films I thought of re-seeing. What a wonderful droll commentary the film provides even after all these years. And Guinness helps to weave the charm into every frame. His eyes and face are as luminous as that white suit he wears. Both he and the film have to be considered lifetime favorites.

Sentiment: positive
I loved that the mood was light and airy. I loved that the lead character wanted guarantees about his future, and that his roommate sets him "straight" of all people. I loved that they tackled the dynamics of how the members in the men's group dealt with each other, considering this was directed by a lesbian,the whole theme of masculinity was put out there, ridiculed, dissected and questioned. What makes a man? What makes one straight, gay, or bisexual? You aren't really sure if our lead character has decided on who he really wants; he's living in the moment and thrown caution to the wind. These, and other reasons, make me love this film.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie in the theater, and was thoroughly impressed by it. Then again, that was when Claire Danes was a good actress, not the foolish, arrogant, Hollywood-ized bitch she is today. Anyway, this film really struck me as one of the more raw, realistic, beautiful friendship films. How far would you really go for your best friend? I was moved to tears at the end, and still tear up when I watch it now (I own it). I remember as soon as I left the theater, I called my best friend and sobbed to her how much I loved her. This is a great film to watch with your best girlfriend. However be prepared for the almost certain conversation afterward where she turns to you and asks if you'd do something like that for her....

Sentiment: positive
In August Days/Dies d'agost Marc Recha has given us a sun-saturated Catalan documentary-style road movie that's mostly a meandering improvised meditation on brotherhood and reclaiming the dead. The beautiful sometimes large-scale, richly atmospheric 35 mm. landscape images, nice soundtrack and Catalan-language narration are enchanting as a mood piece, if one is content with a trajectory that hasn't much momentum and doesn't lead anywhere in particular. Filmmaker Marc Recha and his non-identical twin David are the stars and the narrative is voiced by their younger sister. Marc had been researching the life of Ramon Barnils (1940-2001), a socialist editor who had been a family friend. He felt he was saturated with information and had to take a break. The break turned into making this film, which seeks to capture the mood of the interviews with Barnils' associates, thoughts about the Spanish Civil War, the drought season they were experiencing, the rugged landscape, the Recha brothers' affection for each other, swims and suntanned nudity and whatever characters or stories they ran into as they camped out of their van. This leads to pursuit of a giant catfish and the temporary disappearance of one of the brothers. In the end David has to go back to Barcelona to be with his daughter and Marc has to return to his project, and there it ends. I found it fascinating to listen to an extended narration in the Catalan language with its blend of Spanish and French-sounding words (perhaps linked with Provençal?). This isn't a major film but it commands attention and makes sense as a film festival choice with its clean visual and auditory beauty and its way of playing around with genres and blending autobiography with fiction and documentary in a fresh and thought-provoking way.

An official selection of the 2006 New York Film Festival at Lincoln Center.

Sentiment: positive
I was seriously looking forward to seeing this film because it seemed truly promising from the coming attractions: Jim Carrey with Godlike powers was an idea that most definitely worked for me. As a huge fan, I was sure he'd be supremely in his element with such a promising premise, and what could go wrong? Yesterday, my bubble got burst big-time, boys and girls, because I saw the movie. 

The first act (where it's set up that he hates his life, he's a disgruntled employee and a majorly unhappy camper with an ax to grind against God) is serviceable, the second act (where he's summoned by God via telephone and receives Powers Almighty) is GREAT - Carrey gets to have fun with his new 'toys' and it's a pleasure to watch, really funny. But the third act is wretched beyond belief.

The rot starts setting in after the dinner scene between Bruce and his girlfriend Grace (Jennifer Aniston, who comes off EXCEEDINGLY well in this movie considering her part is merely a plot device; even her NAME reeks of unsubtlety) - she thinks he's gonna pop 'the question' but instead, he tells her (on bended knee, yet) that he's finally getting his news anchor job, and isn't it so exciting?

She doesn't think so. She wants him to marry her, see, so she winds up leaving him, see, even though she still LOVES him very much, see, and the rest of the film is spent banging us over the head with one pathetic, beyond-heavy-handed spiritual-sounding cliche after the next, until by the end I was praying, too. . .for it to be over. 

I didn't mind the lack of subtlety in the first two acts (one example - in the 2nd act, after he gets his powers, Bruce prances into the room singing "What if God were one of us, just a slob like one of us", blah blah blah), and I was even willing to overlook the amazing amount of contradictions being hurled at us (for openers, Morgan Freeman - a/k/a GOD - tells Bruce he can't violate anyone's free will but he does this, a lot). Those choices were forgivable - this is a Jim Carrey comedy, directed by Tom Shadyac - it aint The Remains of the Day. 

Or rather it was SUPPOSED to be a comedy. When the script writers lose track of that (in the dreaded act 3) and try to turn the proceedings into some sort of (gag) Message Movie, what we get instead is hell on earth. Bruce realizes the error of his selfish ways, he realizes that GRACE is his saving - have to say it - grace, and that his priorities in life had been severely misconstrued. All this could have been conveyed in a far less heavy-handed way, however. The film didn't have to go into the dumper to make these points. Unfortunately, the writers and Shadyac apparently had no idea how to resolve the story in any sort of clever, light-handed way, so they went the bang-'em-over-the-heads route in hopes that we wouldn't notice. They even tacked some surprisingly unfunny out-takes at the end, in the further hope that this would lessen the bad taste. It didn't work for me.

Sentiment: negative
Eugene O'Neill is acclaimed by some as America's leading playwright, but for things like The Iceman Cometh, Long Day's Journey Into Night, The Emperor Jones. Strange Interlude was a piece of experimentation he concocted where the characters on stage, look aside to the audience and say what they really are thinking and then resume conversation. It was a nine hour production with a dinner break on Broadway, so you can safely assume a lot has been sacrificed here.

For the screen the voice over regarding the thoughts is used for all the characters. It probably is a technique better suited to the screen. Sir Laurence Olivier did very well with it in his version of Hamlet. But Bill Shakespeare gave Olivier a lot better story than O'Neill gave his players in this instance.

Players like Clark Gable, Norma Shearer, Ralph Morgan, May Robson, etc. are a lot more animated in most of their films than they are in Strange Interlude. The story takes place over a 20 year period. Norma Shearer is a young woman whose intended is killed in World War I. She starts playing around quite a bit, although that part is not shown in this version. She makes the acquaintance of Alexander Kirkland and his friend Clark Gable. She also has as a perennial suitor, Ralph Morgan, a friend of her father's Henry B. Walthall.

She marries Kirkland, but then is warned by his mother May Robson and shown that insanity gallops in that family to quote another literary work. Since Kirkland wants kids and Shearer and Robson think Kirkland's train will slip the track if he doesn't get one, Gable is recruited for breeding purposes. Of course you can see all the complications this can cause and O'Neill explores them all.

Gable is so terribly miscast in an O'Neill production, but he was an up and coming player at MGM and did what they told him. Shearer does what she can to lift a very dreary story, but she seems defeated at the start. Best in the film is possibly Robson who puts some real bite in her dialog.

Strange Interlude ran for 426 showings on Broadway in 1928-1929 and starred Glenn Anders and Lynn Fontanne in the Gable and Shearer parts. Perhaps no one could really have saved the film because two years earlier, Groucho Marx lampooned the stuffings out of it in Animal Crackers. After seeing what he did, I don't think the movie going public took it too seriously.

And since it's not the best of O'Neill, neither could I.

Sentiment: negative
For all the hoopla, respect and recognition this film gets from Kung Fu historians, it still lacks glaringly in a couple critical areas: action and fight scenes. But I must say that the plot is probably the best and most original I've ever seen in a martial arts film. Five Deadly Venoms without a doubt is a must see, not only that, a movie you can watch again and again; but I also must say that after watching it you feel it could have been even better. It somehow leaves you wanting something, you want more. The producer Chang Cheh sets up the storyline beautifully for a potential masterpeice but doesn't follow through with giving us more of the action we want. The fighting styles in the movie really captures the viewer (Centipede,Snake,Scorpion,Lizard,Toad) and they are shown, but battles are noticeably short. The Toad and Snake styles are particularly intriguing and should have been showcased much, much more, in fact the Toad is killed off by the middle of the movie. Interestingly enough with this movie, the absence of constant action or fighting leads to development of a great plot, this is one of the few kung fu films where you are really interested in the storyline and care about the outcome. This movie has a dark and vicious tone to it and you are drawn into the vibe. Sinister weapons and torture tactics are used throughout the movie and adds to the movies feel. To start off the movie and to introduce the Poison Clan producer Chang Cheh takes us to a grimy dungeon. The ending fight scenes are certainly good but seem muffled and somehow you expected more. Still though this movie is one of Shaw Brothers best and is quite enjoyable. My overall impression of the movie would conclude with this: The styles the fighters used are merely shown to us and not showcased in detail, sad thing is , the director had the goods for something extraordinary right at his fingertips and didn't expand on it. I am left wondering what could have been with this movie, still one of the best though. 8 out of 10 on the scale.

Sentiment: positive
This is first of all a good, exciting story, with well developed characters. But all the other details are well crafted on top of that, leading to a wonderful film. Don't let the Disney label lead you to think this is dumbed-down or only for kids -- it has a lot to offer to all ages, whether you like golf or not. One of the more impressive things is that the film manages to make a golf game look really exciting. And speaking as one of many who can't abide golf on TV, this is no small feat.

The first half of the film does a good job of laying out the basic characters with their motivations and backgrounds, enough that you end up liking all the important competitors once the pivotal match begins halfway through. Sure, you root for Ouimet's character all along, but his primary opponents are likable and interesting in their own right. The background layer is important once the golf match becomes a match using minds as well as golf clubs, since you get a good understanding for what each person's strengths and weaknesses are as the play progresses.

The computer effects are flashy, but they do help the story more often than not. The directing has all sorts of clever golf shots, and the period costumes and sets are really top notch.

There are a few small quibbles -- many of the minor characters seem a little too stereotypically cast from the class warfare mold, but this is forgivable with the major characters so well drawn.

Shia LaBoeuf playing Francis Ouimet is, as usual, callow and sympathetic. But the real standout is Steven Dillane, playing Harry Vardon. He rarely moves his face, but his intense, often sad, eyes and minor changes of expression say so much.

Ouimet's caddy Eddie Lowery, played by Josh Flitter, steals the scenes he is in. After you see the film, Google to find the actual photograph of Ouimet and Lowery at the tournament, to get an even better appreciation of how incredible this match truly was.

Sentiment: positive
Yes this movie is predictable and definitely not award-material. But then it doesn't try to be anything it is not. A fun-filled romp with real funny one-liners, a stellar and very funny performance by Peter O'Toole, a grounding and down to earth performance from Joan Plowright. The band's performance was on the spot, each one playing their role in a deft, comical manner. The music was good though not great but filled out the movie nicely. From some of the negative comments I deduced that the subtlety of some of the humour went over their heads. A good example is the comment about the "strange baseball-like game", well my dear American, that was cricket -from which baseball is derived- and the explaining of it to the ignorant US band was very funny for those that do know cricket. Also no, you were not supposed to wince when Carl broke a window; it was funny how Lord Foxley said "oh yes!" to get more money for breakage and the manager said at the same time "oh no" also referring to the money. Jeez, it seems that every joke must be explained to some people... All-in-all I enjoyed it and had some great laughs! Well worth seeing.

Sentiment: positive
This is the start of a new and interesting Star Trek series. It has a "down to earth"-kind of feel with darker and less "plaggy" scenography.

The characters need some more time to develop but they have potential. One thing that is fairly disappointing (with all Star Trek series really) is that they portray such a gloomy picture of the equality between men and women in the future when they paint a very positive picture about everything else. (Earth has stopped war, famine etc)

 The female characters here are two, subcommander T'Pol who is vulcan and communications officer Hoshi who is human. Hoshi is quite wimpy and T'Pol is made to be a "vulcan babe".

 Some of the crew attitudes feel a bit too American (as opposed to the more international feel of the TNG-crew) but creates interesting dynamics.

 A very good pilot though for a very good series.

Sentiment: positive
An American Werewolf in Paris wasn't really that good compared to the original.The original didn't use computer effects for the werewolf and they looked more realistic .The werewolf effects in this film looked too cartoonish.most of all,the movie did not have enough for me for a horror film to enjoy.

Sentiment: negative
This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen in the cinema!! Could not wait for it to end. To make matters worse it is given a 12A certificate so you do not see anyone getting shot, just bodies slumping to the ground, even Babban getting killed was cut out!!! Too many scenes were cut to bring in the younger viewers as I think the makers knew it would flop disastrously!! Amitabhs acting was great but that 'Basanti' wannabe and the other idiot who plays Devgans mate can't even act. Devgan was wasted!!

I would not watch this for free again and I advise all others who read this to do just the same YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!

Sentiment: negative
I couldn't believe how bad this film was, and trust me, I was not expecting a masterpiece from a made-for-cable film. I taped it just because I liked Jane Seymour. I've seen her enough to know that she is certainly an accomplished actress, so I just don't know what happened here. The characters were shallow, the dialog stilted, the acting bad, and yes that includes Seymour. It was nice seeing her play against type, but not in something this bad. I noticed that she carried a credit for executive producer, so she cannot escape blame for the sheer badness of this film. And oh, yeah, they had Barry Bostwick playing the male lead. 'Nuff said.

Sentiment: negative
I feel terribly sorry! Where the Lubitsch-pic was enchanting, marvelous, full of spirit and elegance, this one here is only - colored! Lana looks like 51 (in fact she was 31 at that time, but obviously depressive) and tries to play a shy and dull girlie. Think of Jeanette McDonald, who gave the role of the widow a double-faced depth by "playing" with Count Danilo. That Lana had to play an operetta although unable to sing - crazy! She only sings one song - the title role of an Lehar-operetta, that is really funny! The only really good thing is the great waltz scene at the end: glamorous! And - after watching this scene - have a look at the introducing waltz scene in "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes"! Any similarities?

Sentiment: negative
Saw this film yesterday for the first time and thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm a student of screen writing and I loved the way the minor characters intervened just when something pivotal/climatic happened in a scene. 

I thought the dialogue was very sharp and the premise of story is rather shocking - at one particular point Barbara Stanwyck is openly flirting with her daughter's boyfriend; AND rekindling some passion in her husband whom she hasn't seen in ten years; AND with the gunshot signal 'two shots and then one' she hooks up with her old shag mate Dutch (the reason she left town in the first place!) ALL AT THE SAME TIME! The moral majority must have been totally incensed when they saw this flick back in the 50's.

Love the costumes and cinematography and the straight from the hip dialogue - just to watch Barbara Stanwyck and Co doing the 'Bunny Hug' is good enough reason to rent this film on DVD.

One of the best films from that period I've seen in a long time.

Sentiment: positive
God, that sucked. You can't end a horror movie with a happily-ever-after family setting. Yeash. I was kind of ambivalent going in to the final act. But, my god. He didn't have to kill the girl, she didn't die, the ghost father appears with a cure (which makes no sense, because his spirit would have been liberated after the yank kid killed all the bad werewolves). What a hunk of junk. This is the worst horror movie I've seen in a long time, and I've watched a lot of horror movies. This is a slap in the face for Landis and everyone else involved in American Werewolf in London. Blegh. I hope that this ruined the career of every one in it bar Julie Delphy. And CGI: Kind of new and chic back in 1997, but today it just looks drab compared to the artful prosthetic/makeup work of London. Anyway, I'm done, I hope I've scared a few people of. Get the original instead, or failing that The Howling. Or failing that watch American Idol reruns. Just don't watch this mess.

Sentiment: negative
The story is about a working girl (Ann Sothern) who has a pretty thoughtless boyfriend (Paul Kelly). This boyfriend is so busy trying to start his own business that again and again he forgets dates or shows up late. The final straw is when Sothern has a birthday and Kelly says he's too busy to take her out to celebrate. So, not wanting to just stay home, she goes on a blind date with what turns out to be a very rich young man (Neil Hamilton). Sparks fly but it also becomes apparent after Sothern breaks off her relationship with Kelly that new boyfriend Hamilton is a "love 'em and leave 'em" sort of guy. How all this is finally resolved is not too difficult to predict--just suffice to say that in the end everything works out just perfectly.

This is a very modest little film from Columbia Pictures--with a relatively small budget as well as second-tier stars. It's clearly a "B-movie" despite there being small roles played by a Mickey Rooney and Jane Darwell--as both had yet to become famous. Now this is NOT to say that these are bad actors or the production isn't any good. In fact, given the production values, this is a pretty amazing film as everything seems to work so well despite having a pretty ordinary and somewhat predictable plot outline. That's because the actors and director did a really good job putting the story across. Plus the writers did a good job of humanizing the characters and making you care about them. The ending, in particular, is really sweet and practically had my tear ducts flowing! Because of these factors, the film earns a 7 of 10.

Sentiment: positive
After reading only two of the comments herein, as a lifelong Bronte fan, beginning with Olivier's Heathcliff and enduring with the many versions of Charlotte's "Rochester," it is more than eye-opening to see that it is the UNsung Bronte sister who gave the lie to the male-chauvinist period the trio inhabited. Of course, the "miracle" in all three versions of 19th-Century British domesticity is that the "girls" were all "spinsters" and their only realistic brushes with "men" were their vicar father and their wastrel? brother. That said, finally, it is ANNE Bronte who has, in her single assay?, proved the "feminist" point, way way ahead of contemporary types, and including the "voting franchise" ranks. However, history evinces more than a few who preceded, including the Greek heterai and Sappho and the likes of an ancient emperor's Yang Kuei-fei. And how about "Eve" and her apple?

Sentiment: positive
Lame, cliched superhero action movie drivel. I had high hopes for this movie, and the genre of HK buddy cop actioneers is one that i don't despise, but very rarely do i see a storyline as trite and ludicrous as this one was. This would have been forgivable, as it always is in these kinds of movies, when the action compensates, unfortunately, it did not. The action does carry the trademark surreality and over the top nature of HK action, but it's not very involving, obscenely gory, and in fact often completely incoherent (perhaps this is due to re-editing for american release, it does show signs in many places of patchwork). I was very disappointed.

Sentiment: negative
"Raising Victor Vargas" is one of those light, family movies that you can watch and do the N.Y. Times crossword puzzle at the same time. And if you want to go to the kitchen for a taco and a Corona, you don't have to "Pause" the DVD. Just let it roll, 'cause you won't be missing anything really important. No twists, turns, or tension. It's not really an ethnic movie, it's a movie about a poor, struggling immigrant family that happens to be Latino. They could have been any ethnic group. It made very little difference. I've seen it all a zillion times before. Just plug in a Jewish family, an Italian family, a Black family, or an Irish family. Just the accents and names were different. If the Vargas family was named Bush or Clinton and were Presbyterians, the movie would have been a total snooze. 

It's funny that the critics here couldn't get the locale straight. Some said it was Spanish Harlem. Some the Bronx, and another Brooklyn. As a life-long New Yorker, I vote for the Lower East Side. And it seemed that the family never met up with anyone except other Latinos. They lived in an insulated/isolated little enclave. Some interaction with non-Latinos might have created some excitement, interest, or tension. Remember West Side Story?

And now for the oft-criticized cinematography. I don't know if it was my TV or what, but all the indoor shots looked very ORANGE to me. The apt, the furniture, and the faces were all ORANGE. What was that supposed to mean? And the apt. did look pretty cramped to me. Somebody here mentioned that the old apt's/tenements had very big rooms. Well, maybe 50 years ago. What landlords have done is to break up one big apt into 2 or 3 very small ones and squeeze as many immigrants as they can into them. 

And another annoying thing ....This is the second family movie I've seen and criticized this week that featured a teenage boy "jerking off". Is this private sex act necessary for us to watch? Please spare me! What's up with these directors? 

So "Victor Vargas" is a pleasant little movie. It was nice for a change to see young Latino actors given a break and a chance to show their talents, which they did. But the writers let them down, giving them a flat, unspectacular script to work with. Enjoy the show, but keep your fingers near the "fast forward" button.

Sentiment: negative
Jarl and Moodysson are part of an dying breed of political film makers. The Swedish population should appreciate that they try to uncover the truth when the government and media actively distorts and cover up the events surrounding the EU meeting in Gothenburg. It is absolutely heartbreaking to see how these innocent kids have been abused and drugged by the Swedish police and convicted to prison in political trials for sending text messages and as revenge for others actions. The only unfortunate thing about this movie is that it will not reach the broad masses in Sweden as it will only be shown it theaters and not be released on video or aired on television.

The political film is important as it can bring new perspectives and insight into complex issues and has a role to play as an educator of the masses.

Sentiment: positive
Kirstie Alley, looking a bit slimmer, but only a bit, is in this mess along with a man who is a MacGuyver lookalike, bleached blond hair and all. The premise of the movie is about an older woman (50!!!) who cannot get her screenplay produced due to age discrimination so she sends in her younger nephew to pose as the writer. Not an original idea and not a very good movie with lousy acting, inane dialogue and a ridiculous plot. There is another plot concerning a writer with a crush or admiration for Kirstie's character and why this is included is a mystery. The actor who portrays Kirstie's brother is so wooden and miscast, it was torture to watch their scenes. What is there to say about this film. Avoid it.

Sentiment: negative