DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
No rubbish - no where even near rubbish. Not an original? thats the last thing that could be said of "2.4 children".Predictable? certainly not! Although it was somewhat an unusual series for the BBC, it was hilarious, funny, and witty. I particularly liked Belinda Lang and John Pickard - who I believe preformed wonderfully.Gary olsen was also very good and so were all the other cast members..I never quite new why it was can-celled till reading here today about Gary Olsen's death at a relatively young age. I do wish that they would make more of comedy of this type, much more of them (and show them here in Israel).Thumbs way up!

Sentiment: positive
...not to waste your time watching this vanity project. I've had my comment deleted twice now, for reasons that I have yet to understand, other than the suspicion that someone involved with "Gone" isn't happy with what I had to say. So, I've pared things down to the nitty-gritty this time with an excerpt of my original comments that can in no way be taken as a personal attack on anyone, nor unfair commentary: 

""Gone" is the sort of train wreck that gives new meaning to the words. Horrible, stilted dialogue, a script that just plain flails about like a fish out of water, acting that would embarrass the most self-centered of community theater divas, cinematography inspired by the "Survivor" school of swooping crane shots followed by static, nostril-exploring close-ups, terrible ADR work, special visual effects that aren't, pedestrian music that totally fails to sustain any mood or emotion, terrible editing with utterly pointless freezes and fades, no art direction to speak of---the litany of badness just goes on and on...I felt genuinely cheated out of the time it took me to fast forward through most of it...time that could have been better spent staring at a wall...Under no circumstances should anyone unfortunate enough to be reading this subject themselves to this "movie," because long before it's over, they will be wishing they had been "raptured" before they made that mistake." 

Case closed. Amen.

Sentiment: negative
Some things just won't stay dead. They just have to keep coming back for more whether we like it or not. I guess some people like to beat a dead horse. The first 'Ghoulies' was a surprise hit and it's first sequel was an even better film. The third film took a more comical approach and by this point the little buggers were starting to overstay their welcome. I guess someone out there in Hollywood thought it was a bright idea to resurrect the franchise, but the outcome will likely disappoint fans of the previous entries.

Pros: The acting is actually pretty good for a movie like this. A silly, but fun score. Moves at an alright pace. Some cheese for those who love it. Some pretty good action-packed sequences. Has a bit more plot than the others and unlike II & III at least attempts to link itself with the original.

Cons: Not nearly as much fun as it's predecessors. Though it has more plot than before, it's a pretty ridiculous one. Poor effects. The original Ghoulies only appear in flashbacks and here they're replaced with two trolls who serve no purpose other than to be comic reliefs. Speaking of comedy, all attempts at humor are lame. Is a direct sequel to the first film, but there are so many loose ends. For example, I thought Jonathan was done with black magic after what happened in the original? Not that it was spectacular in the others, but this film's direction is especially bland.

Final thoughts: The first three 'Ghoulies' movies are a bad movie lovers' dream. This fourth, and so far final sequel (Let's hope), is a bit of a letdown. Sure there's some fun to be had, but it just isn't the same. The others are low budget too, but the people involved put a lot more into them. See if you're a completeist or you wanna see beautiful women in skimpy outfits. Otherwise just stick with the other three.

My rating: 2/5

Sentiment: negative
The animation in this re-imagining of Peter & the Wolf is excellent, but at 29 minutes, the film is sleep inducing. They should have called it "Peter & the Snails", because everything moves at a snail's pace. I couldn't even watch the film in one sitting - I had to watch it 15 minutes at a time, and it was pure torture.

Save yourself 30 minutes - do not watch this film - and you will thank me.

I can only guess that the Oscar nominating committee only watched the first few minutes of the nominees. Unfortunately, to vote for the winner in the Best Animated Short (short!) category, the voters will have to sit through the whole thing. I already feel sorry for them - and must predict that there's no way this film will come close to winning.

Sentiment: negative
The Sentinel is a movie that was recommended to me years ago, by my father, and i've seen it many times since. It always manages to entertain me, while being effectively creepy as well. The flashback scenes are what really made it for me. Cristina Raines's father running around all creepily, with the two creepy woman, always manages to send chills down my spine. it's your typical good vs evil thing, but at least it manages to be entertaining. The ending I consider to be one of the finest in Horror history. It has plenty of shocks and suspense, seeing Burgess Meredith do his thing as Chazen, had me on the edge of my seat. The Sentinel has the perfect build up of tension. We are never fully comfortable whenever Allison is on screen. We know something terrible is always awaiting her, and that made things all the more tense. This movie is often neglected among horror fans, but I personally think it's one of the better one's out there, and it certainly has enough for all Horror fans, to be satisfied.

Performances. Cristina Raines has her wooden moments, but came though in a big way for the most part. She's beautiful to look at, and her chemistry with Saranadon felt natural. Chris Sarandon is great as the boyfriend, Michael. He had an instant screen presence, and I couldn't help but love him. Martin Balsam,José Ferrer,John Carradine,Ava Gardner,Arthur Kennedy,Sylvia Miles,Deborah Raffin,Jerry Orbach,Richard Dreyfuss,Jeff Goldblum and Tom Berenger all have memorable roles, or small cameos. Burgess Meredith is terrific as Chazen. He looks like a normal old man, but what we find out, is absolutely terrifying. Eli Wallach&Christopher Wlaken do well, as the bumbling detectives. Beverly D'Angelo has one chilling scene, that I won't spoil.

Bottom line. The Sentinel is an effective Horror film that Horror fans, sadly tend to neglect. It will give you the thrills and scares you need to be satisfied. Well worth the look.

7/10

Sentiment: positive
Nina Foch delivers a surprisingly strong performance as the title character in this fun little Gothic nail-biter. She accepts a position as secretary to a London society dowager (played imperiously by Dame May Witty) and her creepy son (the effete and bothersome George Macready). Before she knows it, she awakens to find herself in a seaside manor she's never seen before, where Witty and Macready are calling her Marian and trying to convince the servants and the nearby townspeople that she's Macready's mad wife. Of course this pair can only be planning dastardly deeds, and even though we know Julia has to eventually escape her trap, director Joseph Lewis builds real suspense in answering the question of just how she'll manage it.

"My Name Is Julia Ross" has nothing stylistically to set it apart from any number of films that came out at the same time period, but I was surprised by how well it held together despite its shoe-string budget and B-movie pedigree. There are quite a few moments that just may have you on the edge of your seat, and I found myself really rooting for Julia as she caught on to the scheme underfoot and began to outsmart her captors. In any other Gothic thriller, the heroine would have swooned, screamed and dithered, waiting for her hero to come and save her. So I can't tell you how refreshing it was to have the heroine in this film use her brain and figure out how to save herself.

Well done.

Grade: B+

Sentiment: positive
Well, at least my theater group did, lol. So of course I remember watching Grease since I was a little girl, while it was never my favorite musical or story, it does still hold a little special place in my heart since it's still a lot of fun to watch. I heard horrible things about Grease 2 and that's why I decided to never watch it, but my boyfriend said that it really wasn't all that bad and my friend agreed, so I decided to give it a shot, but I called them up and just laughed. First off the plot is totally stolen from the first one and it wasn't really clever, not to mention they just used the same characters, but with different names and actors. Tell me, how did the Pink Ladies and T-Birds continue years on after the former gangs left? Not to mention the creator face motor cycle enemy, gee, what a striking resemblance to the guys in the first film as well as these T-Birds were just stupid and ridiculous.

Another year at Rydell and the music and dancing hasn't stopped. But when a new student who is Sandy's cousin comes into the scene, he is love struck by a pink lady, Stephanie. But she must stick to the code where only Pink Ladies must stick with the T-Birds, so the new student, decides to train as a T-Bird to win her heart. So he dresses up as a rebel motor cycle bandit who can ride well and defeat the evil bikers from easily kicking the T-Bird's butts. But will he tell Stephanie who he really is or will she find out on her own? Well, find out for yourself.

Grease 2 is like a silly TV show of some sort that didn't work. The gang didn't click as well as the first Grease did, not to mention Frenchy coming back was a bit silly and unbelievable, because I thought that she graduated from Rydell, but apparently she didn't. The songs were not really that catchy; I'm glad that Michelle was able to bounce back so fast, but that's probably because she was the only one with talent in this silly little sequel, I wouldn't really recommend this film, other than if you are curious, but I warned you, this is just a pathetic attempt at more money from the famous musical.

2/10

Sentiment: negative
Take:

1. a famous play

2. a director with now ideas of his own who is using

3. a copy of the stage design of a popular theatre production of the play mentioned in 1.

4. an actor for the lead - who has no feeling for the part he's playing And you'll get: "Hamlet, Prinz von Dänemark"

I listened to the radio play of "Hamlet" with Maximilian Schell as Hamlet and I was so disappointed. I hoped that the filmed version would be better, that Schell would at least have a body language to underline what he's saying - nothing. Then the set... the minimalistic design is not everyone's taste, but usually I like it when there's just enough on the stage to make clear what's the setting and nothing more. Alas, that's on a stage, in a theatre. It won't work in a film based on a play that actually has believable settings. That the idea for the set was copied from the theatre production in which Schell played the Hamlet already... let's say if that was the only thing to complain about... I ask myself how Schell could get the part of Hamlet anywhere in first place and how anybody could allow him to play Hamlet a second time. If you've got the choice to view any of the about sixty films based on "Hamlet", don't watch this one, unless you're a masochist, or really hardcore, or like to poke fun on untalented actors.

Sentiment: negative
Alistair Simms is a wonder in this. He makes such a good headmistress. The role given here for George Cole was made for him. Hence, the casting job on this film was perfect. I think it was one of those rare occasions where everything clicked. the story line was good, the comic dialogue a scream and the older prefect girls a delight!! Each character you are endeared to, even the villains. Why can't we make films like this any more. Basically, this is a very English comedy with good movement and fluidity.

Sentiment: positive
Caught this on IFC yesterday, and can't believe the positive reviews! Am I the only one who thought these "ladies" were anything but? Kate tells Jed she could get fired because she's supposed to be a pillar of the community, but puts out for him! Then they suddenly decide they're in love? And she's SO devastated over his death, she doesn't go to his funeral, much less, tell his family the "good news"! By the way, how did an American get to be the headmistress of a very proper British school? Janine should have been kicked off the force for her inexcusable abuse of power, but nothing happens! And she winds up boffing a con she brought in for questioning! And the less said about Molly, the better!

As for the guilt Janine and Molly feel over Jed, please! It's the punk's own damn fault he got turned into roadkill! Where's the guilt over poor Gerald, who gets puked on? If only I could do the same to the bozos behind this "movie"!

Sentiment: negative
This is a great movie. Too bad it is not available on home video.

Sentiment: positive
TV movie about an ancient Egyptian curse brought to the US in the 20's during the filming of DeMille's first version of the 10 Commandments and which is reawakened when DeMille's sets are unearthed in the desert.

One of the worst films I've seen in a long time.

The question is were the filmmakers serious or kidding when they made this film? If this is serious its a laughably bad movie and a great film to pick on for its badness. If its a comedy its less good but funny for all of the wrong reasons.You will laugh long and hard AT this film, probably more than many other Hollywood "comedies".

Sentiment: negative
I was one of about 200 people that was lucky enough to see an early sneak of this film.

Stardust follows Tristan a young man on a quest to find a fallen star and bring it back to the woman he loves in order to prove his love for her. The only catch is that the star has fallen on the other side of the wall, a doorway between England and a magical kingdom known as Stormhold.

This film was just a joy to watch, it has something in it for everyone, all of the action scenes are played out beautifully and the comedy is spread out through the film making it funny without being corny. If I had to compare the likes to another film it would probably have to be The Princess Bride, a classic.

All the performances are outstanding, the beautiful Claire Danes makes you love her in her portrayal of Yvaine the trusting naive star and under rated Michelle Pfeiffer delivers a stellar over the top performance as Larnia...but the performance to talk about is Robert De Niro...In every scene that he is in hands down he steals the show...

If you are in the mood for a funny fantasy love story this is the film. Guys don't get turned off by the description there is enough action comedy and not to mention lots of eye candy with Claire Danes and Michelle Pfeiffer to keep you entertained throughout. The cinematography is dead on and keeps with the feel of the film...nothing about the film seems forced.

Sentiment: positive
For me too, this Christmas special is one that I remember very fondly. In 1989, I snatched up the 2 CDs I found of the soundtrack recording, giving one to my sister and keeping the other for myself. It's part of my family's Christmas tradition now, and I would love to be able to actually see the show again rather than just remember it as I listen.

It has been noted elsewhere that John Denver made a number of appearances on the Muppet Show, and they did more than one special together. The good rapport between Denver and his fuzzy companions comes through clearly here, in a charming and fun show that is good for all ages.

Sentiment: positive
The Battleship Potemkin is now the oldest film I've seen and it is also the first silent film I've seen. I heard a lot of good things about this movie so I got the tape out at home and I watched it. When it ended I just thought that this was a classic masterpiece. The story is based on the real-life Russian Battleship Potemkin. You wouldn't think it but some of it was sad and disgusting. Sad being that the mother dies and the pram rolls down the stairway and disgusting being they have to eat rotten meat with maggots in it.

Today it is still considered to be one of the best silent and Russian films ever made. I think that everyone should see it (if they can find it.) You will be presently surprised at how good it is. It's a must see classic. 5/5.

Sentiment: positive
The idea of making a film about the Beatles sounds doomed idea, as no production can catch the idea of the actual historic Beatles. Then it is perhaps best not to try to recreate the past, but to produce an illustration that works best with the other available Beatles material. This is exactly what 'Birth of the Beatles' offers to us, the simple story known to us without any extravaganza.

*** SPOILERS here on *** 

Be warned that not everything is that accurate as some Beatles-graduates might expect. The Beatles are seen performing songs that hardly were even composed by that time. The Beatles perform "Ask Me Why", "P.S. I Love You" and even "Don't Bother Me". The Beatles-graduates should see that if the Beatles on the film only performed songs that they actually did at Hamburg, the younger viewers might not anymore recognize the Beatles they have learned to know them. Of that original Hamburg repertoire only "Johnny B. Goode" and Stu Sutcliffe's "Love Me Tender" are retained.

The guys who play the Beatles in this production scarcely look like the originals, but the rest of the film still make good viewing as the film is for the rest fairly accurate. The guy who plays Lennon does it good and the rest of the band are not bad either. Brian Epstein is great and the moment when he sacks Pete Best from the group is probably the most memorable scene in the whole film. Also as a bonus you get to see the original Cavern club in the film.

Sentiment: positive
I have never watched a movie that frustrated me more than Lord Of The Dance. Frustrated because it could have been fantastic. Frustrated because the dancing might have been astounding. Frustrated because the women could have been gorgeous. How would I know though?! By the time your eyes have moved to the area of interest on the screen and focused appropriately on the spot to be admired the insane editor has moved the shot! I completely agree with the other comments here about the crappy lighting and terrible camera/editor work. It makes me nauseous just watching ten minutes of this would be spectacular movie.

Give me an opportunity to get a front seat to the live concert and I would be there in a shot! 

Nicholas T

Sentiment: negative
It really impresses me that it got made. The director/writer/actor must be really charismatic in reality. I can think of no other way itd pass script stage. What I want you to consider is this...while watching the films I was feeling sorry for the actors. It felt like being in a stand up comedy club where the guy is dying on his feet and your sitting there, not enjoying it, just feeling really bad for him coz hes of trying. Id really like to know what the budget is, guess it must have been low as the film quality is really poor. I want to write 'the jokes didn't appeal to me'. but the reality is for them to appeal to you, you'd have to be the man who wrote them. or a retard. So imagine that in script form...and this guy got THAT green lit. Thats impressive isn't it?

Sentiment: negative
**Spoilers contained**

I'd heard from various sources that this film was controversial and that the ending in particular was horrific. What I didn't expect was the complete change in tack with about twenty minutes to go. What starts off as a typical cowboy/indian western suddenly descends into a very dull romantic 'comedy' about Honus (Soldier Blue of the title played by Peter Strauss) and Cresta (Candice Bergen) who escape an onslaught of the cavalry by the Cheyenne. The majority of the film then focuses on these two mismatched people hence the romantic comedy bit. Donald Pleasance then turns up and abducts them both for no real apparent reason. They then escape and both turn up (separately) at the cavalry base on the eve of an attack on the Cheyenne base. As Cresta used to be married to one of the Cheyenne chiefs she escapes the cavalry base and joins up with them. So far so ordinary. Then comes the ending. After enduring well over an hour of poor acting involving a cliched will they/won't they get together storyline, the movie then transforms into over the top exploitation involving among other things a decapitation and a child being shot in the back of the head. Similarities can be drawn with the Wild Bunch at this point of the film but the Wild Bunch kept the same tone throughout and didn't resort to extreme gratuitous violence. In some ways, Soldier Blue reminds me of Frank Perry's Last Summer which also completely changed tack for a shock ending. I didn't hate Soldier Blue nor find the ending particularly disturbing but just found it to be pretty dull with an unnecessarily violent ending. If you want to see a film with a truly disturbing slaughter of the innocents, I would recommend Elem Klimov's Come and See.

Sentiment: negative
I'm a big fan of the "Vacation" franchise, and I love Randy Quaid as Cousin Eddie, and at least a couple of the behind-the-scenes names were involved in this project (most notably Matty Simmons, who produced or executive-produced all 4 of the theatrical releases, as well as "Animal House"). For those reasons I figured this made-for-TV spin off might be worth checking out, even without Chevy Chase.

For the record, I did not expect it to be very good; I just thought it might be a slightly amusing diversion. Therefore, my high level of disappointment goes to prove just how bad this utter turd of a movie really was. It was mind-numbingly, jaw-droppingly, heart-stoppingly, head-explodingly terrible. Yet, somehow, I could not stop watching it. It's a sickness I have; I can't seem to walk out on a film or give up on a TV show before it ends. Nothing has ever made me want two hours of my life back more than this movie.

Sentiment: negative
Though this may not necessarily be a so-called "classic" film by today's standards, it's still worth seeing. The main reason why is because after experiencing this film, you get the feeling that you've also experienced the counter-cultural idealism of the 60's, no matter however good or bad.

I happened to see this film in an English literature class at SUNY Geneseo, and though at first it appears to be just a meaningless composition of 60's icons, the film is far from being simply "thrown together".

My point is that if you leave the film feeling unsatisfied and confused, the film has done it's job: it's conveyed a desolate view of the future that leaves you feeling unsure and angry. It was perhaps this same feeling that the film sought to explore in the youth it exemplified.

As such, "Zabriskie Point" may not tell a very good (or interesting) story, and at the same time its characters may be one-sided and predictable. However, it also conveys so well this sort of clichéd, rebellious desire to get out of the existence which both Mark and Daria must share. Even the anti-establishment students are as inauthentic as the gov't they rebel against.

Sentiment: positive
I followed this entire series when I was a child in grade school, by choice, not because it was required for school. I used to read the plays at the pace of the series. The experience gave me a life-long love for Shakespeare and history. It even gave me a bit of an acting bug, although at an amateur level only. Whenever I read any of Shakespeare's history plays, the images that come to mind first are from this black and white production, seen on a big "furniture" TV set with a rabbit ear antenna, with all the "ghosts" and wobbles that go with that.

Although the sets were minimal, if I remember correctly, that was totally irrelevant because the acting was so good. At the time I had no idea who any of the actors were. Now I see that many of them have become well known over the years. I particularly enjoyed Hotspur and Hal, whom I now see were played by Sean Connery and Robert Hardy. I would dearly love to see this available in video, especially since many of the plays are seldom performed and even fewer are available on video. It would be valuable also as a document of mid-20th century televised play production.

Sentiment: positive
Having read many of the other reviews for this film on the IMDb there is ostensibly a consensus amongst purists that this film is nothing like the books upon which it is based. Upon this point I cannot comment, having never actually read any of the protagonists adventures previously. However, what I can say with certainty, is that it strikes me that many of the said reviewers must have surely undergone a sense of humour bypass; Let's be honest here - this film is just so much fun!

OK..so I must concede the point that the film apparently is not representative of the character/s but let's put this into a clear perspective..do the same individuals who are carping on about this film also bemoan the fact that the classic 1960's Batman series does not remain faithful to the original DC comic book character? Or perhaps is there STILL unrest in same persons that the 1980 film version of Flash Gordon was too much of a departure from the original series?

The point is, yes this film is incredibly camp but that's precisely its charm!

Former Tarzan, Ron Ely plays the eponymous hero in this (and bears more than a passing resemblance to Gary Busey to boot!) and is backed up by a great supporting cast who all look to be having a ball with their respective roles. Also look out for a very brief but highly welcome appearance by horror movie favourite Michael Berryman.

Best scene? Far too many to choose from but check out the hilarious facial expressions adopted by the waiter when Savage and his men commit the ultimate faux pas of ordering coke, lemonade and milk at a formal occasion! Also the often noted scene near the end of the film wherein Savage tackles his nemesis Captain Seas utilising various martial arts disciplines which are labelled on screen!  Priceless!

Simply put, the film doesn't take itself at all seriously and is all the more fun for it. Great fun from start to finish! (and you'll be singing the John Phillip Sousa adapted theme song for days afterwards guaranteed!)

Sentiment: positive
The movie starts off with Reeve (Ekin) and his assistant fighting same vampires. This scene is probably the best out of the entire movie. The rest of the movie unfortunately is cheesy, highly unrealistic and a Buffy the Vampire Slayer ripoff. The ending also sucks big time.

Some moments such as the scene where Gypsy and Helen (played by popular Chinese duo band Twins: Charlene & Gillian) fight over a stuffed teddy bear are particularly cringeworthy. The storyline is also lame, surely they could have come up with something more scary than a book called "Day for Night".

Some good parts though. Jackie Chan and Anthony Wong make the movie bearable with their comical roles. However, the good bits just end there. Charlene & Gillian (from Twins) have never been able to act well and annoy you to pieces and "the friendly but wussy vampire" role was unfortunately given to Edison Chen who is a talentless pretty boy. 

Rating: 4/10 --

Sentiment: negative
The filming is pleasant and the environment is keenly realistic. I liked that it boldly redresses conceptions of the many difficult moral and social morays of the 1930's Chinese-mainland countryside as well as more basic human questions - I felt I could get a real sense of the times, recreated even in splendid shots of traditional Chinese theatre and in purist depictions of street living. It seemed worthwhile to experience. The interwoven role which Buddhism plays is probably the most true-to-form - both in its menial and in its philosophic aspect, perhaps the most effective that I've seen in Chinese film. Casting is great. Images are memorable. Acting is solid enough. Thematically puerile but still rich enough to compliment the vehicle of its expression.

Sentiment: positive
The clichéd Polynesian males drink, fight and make a stream of sexist, stupid and unfunny remarks. Real life Polynesians are much funnier than these stereotyped, cardboard characters. The supposedly Samoan girl didn't look or act Samoan at all, seemed more like the stock white female who has sex with anyone on a whim. With weak as water story lines you can't say anything about the acting - even the most brilliant actors could do nothing with this script. It's sad to see Polynesian actors willing to play such sad stereotypes in a film with not one good scene, and only two or three 'jokes'. What a waste of Kiwi taxpayers' money, what a lost opportunity to make a great film about a vibrant community. It's better not to make movies if they're as bad and mindless as this.

Sentiment: negative
"House of Dracula" is a good sequel to "House of Frankenstein". There isn't as much action but the acting is just as good. Onslow Stevens is the benevolent Doctor who turns bad after receiving blood from Dracula via a transfusion(Dracula was actually receiving the transfusion to overcome his "affliction" but he puts a spell on a hunchback nurse and then transfuses his blood into the Doctor.). It turns out that Dracula really didn't come to seek a cure but instead drain blood from a beautiful nurse. Dracula is destroyed and the Wolf Man is next in line for a cure(which is successful). In the meantime, Frankenstein's monster is discovered and revived briefly before burning to death(don't worry, the same trio came back in "Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein"). John Carradine again plays a sinister Dracula(Baron Latos is his alias at the start of the film and in "House of Frankenstein"). Lon Chaney is the sympathetic Wolf Man and Glenn Strange returns as the Frankenstein monster. Lionel Atwill again plays an inspector, which he often does in the Universal Studios monster films. A keeper for your collection.

Sentiment: positive
I see a lot of movies. Saw the original wargames years ago and loved it. Computers where still "a big mystery" for the most of us and the movie was convincing, in it's own way.

This one, however, looks like a low budget Wednesday night special. Total crap, from start to finish.

The plot is so weak, you won't believe it until you see the movie (which I would not recommend in the first place). I can not point out one actor that actually did a good job in this movie. But hey, with that script I would've been surprised if ANYONE could do a good job acting. Lots of cliché scenes. CGI looks like it's taken out of the '86 version.

Bah, no, I'm getting in a bad mood just writing about this. Do NOT watch this movie.

Life's to short to waste it on watching crappy movies.

Sentiment: negative
I think the majority of the people seem not the get the right idea about the movie, at least that's my opinion. I am not sure it's a movie about drug abuse; rather it's a movie about the way of thinking of those genius brothers, drugs are side effects, something marginal. Again, it's not a commercial movie that you see every day and if the author wanted that, he definitely failed, as most people think it's one of the many drug related movies. I, however, think something else is the case. As in many movies portraying different cultures, audience usually fully understands movies portraying their own culture, i.e. something they've grown up with and are quite familiar with. This movie is to show what those "genius" people very often think and what problems they face. The reason why they act like this is because they are bored out of their minds :) They have to meet people who do mediocre things and accept those things as if they are launching space shuttles on daily basis. They start a fairly hard job and excel in no time. They feel like- I went to work, did nothing, still did twice as better as the guys around me when they were all over their projects, what should I do now with my free time. And what's even more boring? When you can start predicting behavior not because you're psychologist, but instead because you have seen this pattern in the past. So, for them, from one side it's a non challenging job, which is also fairly boring sometimes, and from another they start to figure out people's behavior. It's a recipe for big big boredom. And the dumbest things are usually done to get out of this state. They guy earlier who mentioned that their biggest problem is that they are trying to figure out life in terms of logic (math describes logic), while life is not really a logical thing, is actually absolutely right.

Sentiment: positive
Best Years of Our Lives perfectly captures the era of my youth, and the feelings of that time. The cast was uniformly wonderful. This was possibly Dana Andrews best role of his career and he should also have been nominated for an Academy Award. There are so many wonderful scenes in this movie it is almost impossible to list them all. The cinematography is among the best of any film. This movie is a time capsule of what is was like in the 1940's. A must see movie for any true movie fan. Some critics have said this movie has aged. I disagree. The theme of human desires is timeless. And the obstacles faced by veterans returning from war will always be with us. This is just a great movie - one that can be watched over and over again.

Sentiment: positive
I'm all for the idea of a grand epic of the American Revolutionary War. This ain't it. (And for that matter, neither was the Emmerich/Devlin/Gibson THE PATRIOT. But I digress.)

I saw this film at a publicity screening at the old MGM Studios (now Sony) just before it came out. The audience had high expectations for this expensive period piece, written by veteran Robert Dillon, directed by the esteemed Hugh Hudson (of CHARIOTS OF FIRE fame), and starring Al Pacino.

But it didn't take long for people to start squirming in their seats, whispering derisive comments about Pacino's horribly misconceived accent -- he was supposed to be an American frontiersman of Scottish ancestry(!) -- and that of Nastassja Kinski, who was supposed to be recently emigrated from England(!!). Then the story started and it all went downhill fast.

Motivations were muddled, dialogue was atrocious, events had no historical or political context. What there was of a plot lurched forward on absurd coincidence; by the second or third time that alleged lovers Pacino and Kinski stumbled into each other it had become a bad joke. Donald Sutherland gave an unhinged performance as a British officer/pederast. His accent was all over the map too. I guess there weren't any English actors available.

Lots of people left. Those who stayed tried to stifle giggles, then openly guffawed. I stuck it out -- I figured that at least the battle scenes might be good. I was wrong. Inexplicably, Hudson chose to film them with hand-held cameras, not even Steadicam, the jerkiness giving a misplaced newsreel 'authenticity' which ruined the sense of scale.

There was a semi-famous TV reviewer in the audience a few rows ahead of me: (the late) Gary Franklin of Channel 7 Eyewitness News. I could tell he was peeved by the behavior of the rest of us. And sure enough, on his TV segment the next day he gave the film a '10' on his notorious 'Franklin Scale of 1 to 10', while remarking churlishly about the louts who'd disrupted the screening the night before, who clearly didn't know art when they saw it. What a buffoon.

After this disaster, Pacino didn't star in another film for almost 4 years. Hugh Hudson's career never recovered. You can't say I didn't warn you.

Sentiment: negative
The creator of Donnie Darko brings you a twilight zone themed tale of the oddest fashion. The film centers on a middle aged young couple living paycheck to paycheck in 1976. One day a mysterious box appears with a red button. Later on that day a spooky gentleman shows up and tells them that they have the choice to press the button and receive a million dollars but someone they don't know will die. It's a disturbing and provocative question suspensefully outlined in the trailer and TV spots. But let it be known that you just don't know what your in for until you see it. At times pretentious and a bit melodramatic the film is ultimately effective because of it's good performances and intriguing subject matter. It would be unfair to ruin any of the plot twists for you but lets just say the film will deliver on the aspects you expect it to and not completely fulfill others it begins to outline. There's a lot of apparent symbolism and subtext in the film which is both interesting and annoying as it wasn't so evident in his other superior film Donnie Darko. There isn't too much more to say without ruining the film for you. it's meant to inspire lots of cafe chatter afterwards. However, i'd also like to say It's shot well and has an appropriately aged look to it and it's worth a watch. Check it out.

Sentiment: positive
... and if you're very, very good it will resemble Moon Over Parador.

This film had a slightly silly story, but it was a fantasy after all, and the casting and the acting was spot-on! Dreyfuss was perfect as the actor/impostor, full of all the little neuroses and vanities you imagine actors to have. You get a glimpse of what actors are like behind the scenes.

This was one of Dreyfuss's best roles, just like his character has his best role impersonating the dead dictator! And the parting scene: like something out of Casablanca, indeed! 

Raul Julia was superb as the Paradorian Chief of Secret Police. He gets some really funny lines, some of which are homages to other films, like "Round up the usual suspects!" 

And Sonia Braga was excellent as the girl friend -- in addition to being a really hot number: "You should get an Oscar for tonight!" 

Let us not forget Johnny Winters as the CIA agent and the several guest stars playing themselves: Sammy Davis Jr., Ike Pappas, Dick Cavett -- all perfectly done.

All in all, a memorable romp under the Paradorian moon.

-R.

Sentiment: positive
So many educational films are nothing more than mind-numbing drudgery, saved only by the fact that "MST3K" mocks them ("Why Study Industrial Arts?" comes to mind). "Hemo the Magnificent" is actually quite well done. It's all about blood, the heart, and the circulatory system. I admit that I don't remember everything from it, but it does a good job explaining everything, keeping it serious but entertaining. I guess that you can always count on June Foray (most famously the voice of Rocky the Squirrel, she plays a deer here).

Since "Hemo the Magnificent" itself may be hard to find, probably the best place to see it is in "Gremlins": a class is watching it while a gremlin is forming.

Sentiment: positive
It felt like I watched this movie thousand times before.It was absolutely predictable.Every time the story tried to get a bit twisted,every time I awaited something interesting to happen, I saw nothing but what I expected. Like "The bread factory opened up another facility,because there was not enough bread". In two words:Flat story,that has become a cliché,bad acting,bad special effects...Only the dumb Russian cop,Vlad, was a bit funny while punishing around the bad guys.The pile of muscles was so incredibly STUPID,that it made me laugh at him for a moment. I wonder why i waste my time spitting on that shame-of-a-movie... It won't get worse (because it is not possible) :D

Sentiment: negative
I went into this film with expectations, from the hype, that it would be insightful and uplifting. Certainly something more than a cheap promotional for the band "Wilco."

Instead we get a lot of moping and whining about "the process," a dishonorable and no doubt one-sided portrayal of one band members who was kicked out by the prima donna lead singer/songwriter, a gut-wrenching confession by the fallen member's friend -- for like 18 years -- saying the "friendship had run its course," and this whiny, uncompelling story about how one record label "hurt their feelings" by dumping them, only so that the band could immediately get 50 offers from other labels (oh, the tension...not!) They tried their best to make it look like it was a strain, but I suspect it was all smoke and mirrors to generate a tragedy that didn't exist. This doesn't even take into account the long stretches where we get many of their newest songs shoved at us in full without any storyline, insight or even a decent job at cinematography. The strained attempts at emotional sincerity or reasonable perspective on life made me sick to watch.

From the film, this band sounds like a bunch of vile little babies who poke around to find a voice they don't have and think they're some kind of guardians for the art of music, which they most definitely are not. And I thought the music sucked, and I couldn't even understand the lyrics due to the mumbling style of the lead singer.

I give it a 2/10.

Sentiment: negative
Yeah, that about sums it up. This movie was horrifying. Two minutes in I wanted to gouge my eyes out. This has been praised as an "innovative LDS comedy," but it's not even good for members of that church! I don't think any human being should be so victimized as to watch a movie of this low quality.

First of all, you can tell that absolutely no effort whatsoever went into this movie. It seems as if the horribly drab, glib, trite plot was thrown together by two crazy weasels somehow imbued with the gift for coherent (at least semi-coherent) thought. Then, there's the acting, which is dismal from *everybody* involved. Even the cameos fail to liven anything up.

And let's not forget the fact that our protagonist is a shallow jerk who we would like to believe can change, but that road is full of embarrassingly bad dialogue, appallingly hideous "gags," and a lot of Mormon "in-jokes" that anyone in their right mind, LDS or not, should consider purely *stupid*! This has to be one of the worst films I've ever seen!

Sentiment: negative
Jackie Chan movies are typical examples of how offer is bigger than demand.Well,to be honest,which demand?In this one Jackie Chan is whatever his name is in this one,I doubt if he even knows,and he is some kind of race car driver.Well,he drives 10 miles an hour and then the footage is sped up,that way I can do all the stunts myself as well.During the great finale,in which Jackie Chan wants to arrest the bad guy by beating him in a race,we finally get to see how shoddy this production really is.Chan's fighting,especially in the casino scene is decent,but when we're talking about special effects,dear Lord.And must everyone crash in this race?That's just stupid.And here it's really not safe for the drivers,there's not even a concrete wall in the neighborhood.And don't get me started on what kind of awful story this has,I mean,it's Hongkong,it was probably written at gun point by eight-year-olds,but still,what a mess.I like Chan as much as the next guy,perhaps more since I saw "Rush Hour",but his agent's retarded cousin really needs to pick his projects better.

Sentiment: negative
The Dirty Harry series began with very gritty cop action, and was almost immediately lightened up for "Magnum Force". By the time that "The Enforcer" rolled around, Dirty Harry was little more than a television cop show (saved only by Tyne Daly). After a break of seven years, Dirty Harry has finally gone back to his roots. Maybe he's been gone for too long this time.

Clint Eastwood makes the first well-directed Harry film since Don Siegel made the first, which helps considerably. Harry is a darker character once again, not the nice cop he had become. He can once again say things like "Go ahead, make my day" and really mean it. "Sudden Impact" is a true Dirty Harry sequel. "The Enforcer" should never have been made.

7.2 out of 10

Sentiment: positive
The film tells upon the title role,Danton(Gerard Depardieu),confronting against Robespierre(Wojciech Pszoniak) during the French revolution.The film is based on real deeds,they are the following: Danton(1759-1794) as lawyer participated in the overthrowing of the king Louis XVI and the proclamation of the Republic,being Minister of Justice in the Convention(1792)and founder of Cordeliers club.He proposed creation revolutionaries committees as the committee of public salvation which he presided but was substituted by Robespierre,starting a period of revolutionary dictatorship known ¨the Terror¨(1793). Besides in the film appear other historic personages as Camille Desmoulins(Patrice Chereau,now a famed filmmaker)Louis David,Saint Just(Jacobino),Tallien..

The picture especially narrates the happenings surrounding the facing off of the principal figures,one-time partner revolution ,and posterior execution,although gives results a contemporary parable about the modern Poland,thus Danton is Lech Walesa and Robespierre is Wojciech Jaruzelski who was the Prime Minister imposed the martial law in Poland and with similar name than actor played Robespierre . Gerard Depardieu is excellent in the title character and magnificently portrayed, also in secondaries roles are awesome actors as the recently deceased Jacques Villeret(Dinner game,Crimen in paradise)and Angela Winkler(The tin drum). The motion picture is well directed by Andrzej Wajda ,considered the best Polish director.The flick will like to historical cinema buffs.

Sentiment: positive
I am not a big fan of Rajnikant in the first place, but Baba was a huge disappointment. In between an awful storyline, the action and songs were only mediocre. The storyline becomes very preachy. Instead of running for office like NTR or MGR, Rajni almost appeared to be running as Tamil Nadu's next big guru. My wife tells me that since this film came out, Rajni swore off doing any more movies!

We were lucky initially to have bought Babu (an oldie by Sivajiganeshan) online by accident when trying to buy this one....that was a great film, which made up for having bought this dud...except it makes Baba look even worse by comparison!

Bryan

Sentiment: negative
When I heard that the Dukes of Hazzard was going to be remade with current actors and a solid script, I was like, "alright, I'll give it a chance, it's not going to be better than the first, but we'll see what happens." Well, I saw what happened. I saw a great late 70's/80's show that was a classic, basically humiliated by Hollywood. It's so sad to see that Hollywood scriptwriters cannot come up with something original these days. They are seeming to take a great show that had a great target audience, and try to "REMAKE" the classic show. HEADS UP Hollywood... IT AIN'T WORKIN!!!! Anyway, more about the show. I think they could have casted a better actor than Sean William Scott (Stiffler from American Pie) to play Bo. I'm sure that John Schneider is definitely disappointed with how his character was portrayed and taken advantage of. Also, Get for real, Johnny Knoxville, as Luke Duke. How low can you go?? A crappy jackass actor to play lovable Luke. This sickens me. Also, I'll give Jessica Simpson is a beautiful woman, but her acting sucks. Catherine Bach who played the original Daisy, was smart, sexy, strong, opinionated and a good IL' southern girl. She was every little girls role model growing up! (I owned the doll and the Jeep - thank you very much!!!) Anyway, Jessica Simpson played a smart ass, 2-bit slut as Daisy Duke. Daisy never was blonde. Why did they have to cast her. Jessica Alba would have played a great Daisy Duke. She can speak with a great southern accent, and she is gorgeous, and would have done a wonderful job. Anyway, I'd like to say that this movie blew something fierce. I feel like I got ripped off by paying $8.50 for tickets, and they should refund my money. If you like the Dukes of Hazzard (the original series) don't see this movie. It'll just upset you. CMT (country music television) plays the reruns of the Dukes all the time later at night. So set your TIVO's and go with the real thing, not the imitation on the big screen in Hollywood.

Sentiment: negative