DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Me and my girlfriend, Annette, watched this together and we'll both comment.

Both of us really enjoyed watching this even though it took some liberties with Dicken's work. A lot of Dicken's works are somewhat dark and dreary (including Oliver Twist), but this movie changed all that. It was fun, colourful (both visually and musically), and the characters were more lighthearted.

TRAVIS: Normally, I don't care a lot for musical and dance movies, but the tunes in this production were catchy and lively, and the choreography was awesome.

ANNETTE: That's really saying a lot coming from Travis. I can't emphasise enough how really good the dance numbers were. You can tell, for example, that those boys really worked hard getting the routines down to perfection.

TRAVIS: Three actors really stood out IMO; Nancy (Shani W.), Bill Sykes (Oliver Reed), and Artful Dodger (Jack Wild). Man, that Oliver Reed can really do a good villain. That one scene where you see his eyes thru the mail slot gave me chills down the back...AWESOME. And that kid Jack Wild was a perfect Artful Dodger. And Nancy was fantastic (man, I felt bad when she got killed). She can sing too! Kudos to the casting department on their choices there. I hated the Oliver Twist kid tho. He was just too whiny and wimpy for my taste. (I kept wishing Bill Sikes would drop him off into the mud during the chase scene.) And they shouldn't have had him sing either.

ANNETTE: Acting was truly superb. In addition to the three stars Travis mentioned, I felt Ron Moody (Fagin) did a tremendous job. He was so funny, and at the same time lightly sinister too. The supporting actors were great too. Harry Secombe carried his Mr. Bumble role extremely well. And he has a wonderful singing voice. I saw Mr. Secombe perform in another movie entitled "Davy" where he played an opera singer with pleasing results. The talented Harry Secombe should have been in a lot more movies.

TRAVIS: As I mentioned earlier the story isn't quite true to the book, but IMO it was more robust. This movie was not boring either, as some musicals seem to be. And the continuity kept you moving right along with the characters. The tunes did not detract from the plot or put you to sleep by being too long.

ANNETTE: Any musical movie which Travis watches completely has to be a rare find. And this one is indeed a rare find. It is a very easy-to-watch production which carries the viewer smoothly and enjoyably through to the end. In a day when movies all seem to be effects combined with pretty faces, this was a refreshing interlude.

Our combined rating for this was 8.5 of 10. (We'll round up to 9 in this case.).

TRAVIS: I rated this a 7 mainly because the Oliver Twist kid (Mark L.) irritated me, and his songs were torture to my overly sensitive ears. Otherwise, it was an outstanding movie.

ANNETTE: My rating is a 10. Movies don't get much better than this. And you can tell everyone involved in this production really worked hard to make it what it was...a masterpiece.

Please don't miss this one...even if you normally don't like musicals. It really is a rare treat.

Sentiment: positive
The creature? Yeah, it and the movie it stars in. Hell would seem infinitely more frightening if the damned were forced to watch this for all eternity. Six college students shack up in a condemned hospital to save money and end up victims of an ancient monster who must claim five victims before it returns to "the shadowy world from which it came!" Other than having major logic and coherence problems (plus the fact it appears to be unfinished), this disaster is terribly acted, written, edited (by J.R. Bookwalter) and directed, and the make-up FX are almost nonexistent. It's also significantly shorter than it claims (at only 80 minutes), but I'm not complaining. It's the worst movie I've seen from executive producer Charles Band's Full Moon productions and boy is that BAD!

To note, I almost didn't bother with a review, but this has gotten inexplicably good reviews on here and I figured a varying opinion was in order. Proceed with caution!

Sentiment: negative
This movie was horrendous... It had absolutely nothing to do with Dark Harvest. And the DVD was very misleading because it showed a scarecrow and a scythe, neither of which appeared in this movie.

The beginning was a jumble of random scenes that, most of which, had nothing to do with the movie, except that they sort of show that the man is psychic... but not too well...

After the first 10 minutes of the movie there is an hour of just the man character looking for his daughters. It gets vaguely interesting when the daughters meet two girls who died the year before. But that's the extent of it.

And why, might i ask, was this movie rated R? There were two drops of blood and 4 curse words. And how on earth did it get into a video store?? This movie was poorly acted, poorly filmed, poorly written, and overall horribly executed.

Sentiment: negative
I guess I only have myself to blame for the gigantic disillusion that is "Entrails of a Virgin". You already know not to expect a cinematic masterpiece when you see a juicy and proudly promoted title like this and the first impression only gets extra confirmed when noticing the film is a mid-80's production from Japan. Now, there are quite a lot of demented and sick filmmakers active in Japan, but Kazuo Komizu surpasses them all with his thoroughly depraved and sickening trilogy revolving on nothing but aggressive sex and the sadistic abuse of young girls. Not even attempting to tell a story, "Entrails of a Virgin" simply presents a hodgepodge of UN-arousing semi-pornographic sex and truly poor gore-effects that wouldn't even please the most undemanding fan of cheesy 80's horror. Images of a bunch of photographers and their fashion models are inexplicably intercut with scenes of a filthy pervert having crude sex with a seemly under-aged girl. He dumps her not even a minute after climaxing (typical) and she begs him to stay, even if she has to share him with other women. I don't get it. Is this supposed to represent a general male fantasy? Because it's really clichéd and wrongful. Anyways, back to the bunch of horny photographers and docile models. Surprised by upcoming fog on their way home, the group entrenches themselves in an abandoned country house where they have more appalling sex and eventually fall victim to a ridiculous sex-demon who kills them all. The acting performances are amateurish, the dialogs inane and primitive and Komizu's direction is weak and uninspired. I can tolerate all that, including the woman-unfriendly portrayal of sex, but I came too close to turning the film off during the indescribably mean-spirited wrestling sequence. One of the males brutally hits, kicks and throws around one of the girls and calls her a filthy whore until she literally pees her panties and cries with agony. This sequence is, in my humble opinion, the absolute low-point of Asian exploitation cinema. One to avoid and maybe even boycott.

Sentiment: negative
Got this the other day from the Creators on DVD. I saw this advertised in a free magazine whilst family were stopping in a hotel, had never heard anything about it. After reading it was filmed on Balmedie beach i just had to buy it. I used to take the kids to the dunes in the film all the time whilst living in Aberdeen.

1st off Im not a big Sci-Fi fan (baring Star Wars) I was really just wanting to see what they had done with this film location, I was presently surprised. This didn't turn out to be a standard Sci-Fi, more like a mix of sci-fi and survival horror.

Had a good storyline, which was different, had great special effects for the budget that it was produced with £8000. Acting was better than average for a low budget film. The way they have edited out the whole coastline to make it feel like the dry desert planet that they are on was nice.

Weapons in the film were realistic and the creatures were cool kinda like predator in invisibe mode.

All in all I will buy any future releases from these guys, maybe a all out horror next (Hint Hint). The extras on the DVD were very informative on giving background for the producers, I would like to see some of them shorts included as extras on a next DVD release.

Excellent work keep it up

Sentiment: positive
(r#97)

There is one good thing about this poor man's Pokémon (make of that what you will): the opening theme. It has to be the coolest theme music of any sloppily dubbed Japanese made-for-the-consumers-oops-I-mean-the-young-fans anime TV show. Unfortunately there was need to add some sort of show after the opening theme. And they just couldn't come up with something more interesting than people arguing loudly about whose cards are better than the others' cards. Freud would have a field day, unfortunately I can't imagine why any kids would want to sit through a show where dialogue written by a thousand monkeys in five minutes takes up 98% of the running time.

"My Uber-Fantastical Doomsday Creature of Ultimate Doom will take your measly Pyramid Diamond Animal in a single strike! Can't you see that you have no chance of winning this battle, you fool?! HAHAHAHHAHHAHA!"

"Oh yeah? Well watch this! I am about to use my Destruction Force Delta Times Pie Card which eradicates every single one of your Power Munchers and renders your Uber-Fantastical Doomsday Creature of Ultimate Doom's Destroy Beyond all Significance Attack useless! I bet you didn't see that one coming!" 

Seriously, that's all they ever do in this show, talk. Whereas in another crappy kids' show I used to watch, namely the commercial phenomenon Pokémon (every soccer mum's pet peeve), at least the monsters had the courtesy to duke it out every once in a while, "Yu-Gi-Oh" is just, in the quiet words of Roger Ebert's A Clockwork Orange review, "plain talky and boring". Not to mention long-winded (I realize I'm being hypocritical here considering the sentence I just wrote).

This show goes on forever. I don't know if there's any plot, and the static monsters have none of the character of Pokémon. Even when not compared to my fave cartoon as a kid, this show sucks. It's unintentionally funny, but not funny enough to be worth seeing. Bye bye, sleep tight, dream wet dreams.

Sentiment: negative
Please avoid this movie at all costs. This is without a doubt, the worst movie I've ever seen. Most movies have at least one redeeming value. This has none. Totally horrible!

Sentiment: negative
This is a great film!! The first time I saw it I thought it was absorbing from start to finish and I still do now. I may not have seen the play, but even if I had it wouldn't stop me thinking that the film is just as good.

Sentiment: positive
How would you feel if you had only a few weeks left to live? This film helps you to know through the eyes of one guy who is faced with that situation. It is told with sympathy and without too much emotion. Some might feel it rather slow - but I think that adds to the realism of the film. Some might see it as a love story, but I think that is secondary to seeing his last days through his eyes. The loves of his life are part of the end of his life and give it more impact. Low key and gentle, the film rolls out the story much as life does. Without clichés and with unexpected events set against a backdrop of getting by. If you like your films gently emotionally realistic this may be for you.

Sentiment: positive
I finally have seen the real reason why Peter Boyle became famous. It wasn't being the monster in "Young Frankenstein" or being cranky Frank Barone on "Everybody Loves Raymond". For younger people who only know him from TV,give this film a try,it makes Frank look like a saint.

"Joe" is Boyle in his finest acting role and as someone mentioned,most likely gave the inspiration for "Archie Bunker" on "All In The Family". I think Boyle even went back to "Joe" a little to play Frank. (I say this because I noticed the basement of both "Joe" & Frank Barone look similar.)

I knew nothing of this movie when I checked it out of the library,I just knew Boyle and Susan Sarandon were featured. Yes,Susan does look great here and for a young actress a very good early role. A young hippie wanna be,who escapes her parents home and lives with,the ultimate lost in a drug induced haze hippie,who also sells as much as he buys.

After a near-fatal over-dose on too many pills,she is hospitalized while her parents go to collect her things,her mother wont go into the smelly,run down apartment but her father does. While Dad gathers up her things,her boyfriend comes home and the two exchange words and then the father does what we will later hear Joe say he'd like to do to a hippie.

Joe is shooting his mouth off about how he hates different cultures/races,hippies and a laundry list of others. When he says,"I'd really like to kill one of them",the father (trying to look like he's kidding)says,"I just did". Joe almost buys it but then takes it as funny. 

Later,when the police are at the scene and the story is in the paper,Joe realizes,he wasn't kidding. Instead of nailing the rich guy for money through blackmail,he actually,kind of,does blackmail him. By just wanting him and his wife to "get to know" him and his wife. Long story short their association is awkward but after Sarandon gets wind of what her father has done,the bottom is at risk of falling out.

How this all plays out in the end you'll have to watch for yourself. Although it's over 35 years ago,the ending is something you wont expect. Unless you've seen the film before of course. Again,I recommend it mostly for those who haven't seen it.

10 stars for Boyle not just playing someone completely opposite his nature but for what will show others that he was more than just a TV and movie comedy actor. (END)

Sentiment: positive
I really wanted to like this film and I don't think I was terribly disappointed. Being an American History teacher, I felt an obligation, almost, to see this film and as far as the history went, it wasn't bad. Sure there were a few mistakes here and there (especially with the timeline--the movie only appeared to last a few months or perhaps a year--not over six years of actual fighting), but the overall spirit of the film and the battle sequences were excellent. Unfortunately, the movie ALSO included a pretty meaningless subplot involving a difficult to believe romance between a poor patriot and a rich Loyalist. For the most part, it really served to distract from the overall plot and just seemed "tacked on"--like a plot device instead of a real honest-to-goodness romance. In fact, as much of the romance boiled down to the dumb cliché of "love at fist sight", it was kind of annoying the more I think about it.

However, in spite of this romance, the film is truly interesting and inspiring---plus, in so many ways it seems as if the much later film, THE PATRIOT, was copied from this Griffith film!!! Both films followed the exploits of an evil leader fighting for the British and using horrible and evil tactics against the civilians--and both having the secret intention of using this as a "springboard" to starting their OWN nation in the America!!! The only major difference is that this film is set in the North and THE PATRIOT was in the Carolinas. It sure would have been nice if Mel Gibson and the rest had acknowledged their debt to D. W. Griffith for the story ideas. It just doesn't seem all that likely that the two stories were created independently of each other.

PS--Despite me liking this film and some other of Griffith's films, he DOES deserve to once again "burn in hell" for his having White actors portray all the Black servants in the film! This is a sick and bigoted thing that Griffith did in so many of his films--especially in BIRTH OF A NATION. I gotta assume based on this and the way he portrays Blacks that he was A-OK with slavery and was quite the apologist for this "quaint institution" (don't get mad at me--this IS meant as sarcasm).

Sentiment: positive
*MANY MANY SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW* This movie was horrible. I am a huge baseball fan so I thought I'd watch it, and I was very disappointed. It started out okay.. When I saw the bad influence DeNiro had on his young son, I was hoping that he would become a better father throughout the movie or something. Anyways, at the beginning it seemed as if DeNiro was supposed to be the protagonist. He was the only one that believed in Bobby, and he had his adorable son that he was losing custody of, which gave me a reason to feel bad for him. He wanted to help Bobby by talking to Primo, when out of absolutely nowhere he brutally stabs Primo to death... Not to mention that sketchy reoccurring song "I WANT TO **** YOU!!!!" at random unfitting moments.

Later, when DeNiro saves Bobby's son from drowning, I was hoping that the movie could redeem itself.. He could forgive himself for killing Primo if he saved Bobby's son. But of course this is far beyond the depth of the movie, because all he cares about is getting CREDIT for the murder, and does so by stealing Bobby's son, car, and dog and holding them hostage- Bobby just has to hit a home run and announce that DeNiro is a "true fan" while displaying a picture of him biting a knife.

Now we get to the completely unrealistic scene at the end... It is pouring like hell and we are expected to believe that the game hasn't been called. Then DeNiro somehow magically appears on the field in an umpire suit and calls Bobby out at home, proceeding to pull out his knife and start stabbing everyone that runs onto the field. There are seemingly no officers on the field (but the police are on their way), so DeNiro steps on the mound and prepares to pitch a knife to Bobby when he gets shot to death. But don't worry, this cheerful and pleasant movie has a happy ending, because Bobby find his son.

This is NOT a sports movie. It is NOT about a fan. As far as I know, fans are not rabid psychopaths that threaten, rob, and throw knives at their admirees. This is likely to be the sickest movie I will ever see in my life. The plot was shallow, the soundtrack sucked, the movie had no purpose whatsoever. I warn you not to waste your time on this disgusting excuse for a film.

Sentiment: negative
When I was younger, I liked this show, but now...BLECCH!!! This show is sappy, badly written, and rarely funny. The three leads were all good actors and funny men (Saget's stand up was a lot better than the stuff this show came up with, as was Coulier a better stand up, and Stamos was a better than average actor). After a while, Stamos wanted off the show because it wanted to do more serious stuff (who could blame him?). The show eventually got cancelled when many of the actors demanded more money.

Here are a few things that drive me crazy about the show:

1. The catch phrases- How many times can one person put up with tiring catch phrases like with 'how rude', 'you got it dude', 'nerdbomber', 'cut it out' and 'have mercy' in a 24 hour time period? 

2. Kimmy Gibler- the most annoying character ever written for television.

3. The writing- stale and cliched as an oreo cookie. There is good cliched writing and bad cliched writing. Full House had bad cliched writing.

4. Three men living together in San Francisco- Enough said.

5. Unrealistic stuff- Too much to recall.

6. Trendy kids- The girls had all the latest mall fashions and you can see posters of trendy recording artists they would be into.

Now this show is on Nick @ Nite. I would hardly call it a classic. I have nothing bad to say about the people involved since I think many of them are talented in their own right. But this show was just so sugary sweet, I couldn't stand it after a while.

Sentiment: negative
The critics were like "a movie that will break your heart" etc. So a friend of mine and I had great expectations when we decided to watch this movie.

I'll make it short and leave it up to others to write about its content. This movie tries to touch you, to reach your heart. But it fails. At least for me. And for my friend, too.

Everything that happened happened only on the screen. It was always THERE, not HERE, where I am. I thought most of the time "hmm, something's happening on the screen, but it's only on the screen. It's not real."

Movies which succeeded MUCH better in touching me: East of Eden (1955), Terms of Endearment (1983), Jerry Maguire (1996), Babe (1995), Mies vailla menneisyyttä (2002)

Sentiment: negative
Tracy and Matt, Michelle and Sebastian: these are the two couples whose lives of addiction, crime, and squalor are brilliantly captured in this raw and honest HBO documentary. They're in turns petulant, charming, repulsive, astonishingly stupid, and dedicated: to the drugs and to each other. They're also each very different: Matt is a working class boy who clearly revels in his naughtiness, whilst prep school dropout Tracy supports the couple with Western Union money from her moneybags father, who makes a surprisingly sympathetic cameo towards the end of the film. Meanwhile widow Michelle (whose hubby died of an OD) earns her daily bread by posing as an NYPD vice cop willing to cut her would-be Johns a deal to avoid prison time, and sad sack companion Sebastian lives off the proceeds. You'll be pulled into their stories and will wish the film went on for twice as long. Unlike most documentaries of this kind, there's no coda providing us with an update about their progress (can Matt and Tracy really keep that Brooklyn apartment? Will Michelle go back to Bellevue for more detox? And can Sebastian become any more pathetic?). As a result, the film seems incomplete, but that may have been the point. Essential viewing, as long as you aren't completely averse to scenes of people shooting up.

Sentiment: positive
This is without doubt the most exciting and satisfying film I've seen in years! The plot seen in print is almost banal- a ship crashes on a desert planet with three suns, the survivors have to adjust to the landscape and each other, then darkness falls and the monsters appear. Pilot Fry, after a moment of cowardice during the descent through the atmosphere when she almost jettisoned the passengers, takes charge of the group and enlists the help of convicted murderer Riddick to lead them through the darkness to the escape ship - he's the one with surgically enhanced eyes that can see in the dark. But it's really not that simple - every character is complex, three-dimensional, with conflicting traits so you never quite know who's good and who's bad.

The performances are uniformly superb - Radha Mitchell shows Fry steeling herself for leadership, overcoming her own fears, and trying to prevent further bloodshed, while Cole Hauser, as the man taking Riddick back to custody, shows he has his own agenda and his own idiosyncratic standards. But the film belongs to Vin Diesel as Riddick - he has the most magnetic screen presence I've seen in years. For much of the film his face is in shadow, and he doesn't actually say a great deal, but he draws your attention all the same. Sometimes he draws your attention by not speaking - or by not moving. And Diesel doesn't trivialise the character, as could so easily be done, by giving him a "heart of gold" - Riddick is still one mean and vicious man as they approach the ship - he just lets us glimpse those first tentative steps from caring only for the self to caring for others.

Technically the film is very good. The lighting effects are excellent at both ends of the spectrum - the overbright triple sunlight and the pitch darkness. Special effects showing both Riddick's and the monsters' points of view add to the suspense, as do sound effects of the monsters flying and using ultrasound to "see" (the monsters themselves are anatomically plausible and suitably frightening). Editing is so tight it's almost jarring at times - there is literally no padding in this film, no fades, no time to re-orient yourself.

From the opening shot to the end of the credits you have to keep your wits about you. Every scene, every line of dialogue, every single camera shot is important. See it three times to understand it all.

My only caveat is about the science - the solar system as shown in the model is impossible (planets revolve around suns, not vice versa). However, that doesn't affect the human story, so I haven't taken points off for it.

Sentiment: positive
In Hong Kong, 1962, the editor Chow Mo-wan (Tony Leung Chiu Wai) and his wife, and the secretary Su Li-Zhen Chan (Maggie Cheung) and her husband simultaneously move to an old building. Each couple has just rented a room in apartments on the same floor. Their wife and husband stay most of the time away from home, and Chow and Li-Zhen have the same habits: they like kung-fu stories and noodles and soap from a restaurant nearby the building. Their close contact becomes friendship and a sort of platonic and repressed love. Later they realize that their mates are having an affair, Chow falls in love with Li-Zhen, but her shyness and probably repressed condition of married woman keeps her love in a platonic level. 'In the Mood for Love' is a very slow, beautiful, melancholic and romantic love story, with a wonderful photography and soundtrack and a very unusual edition. The film had not had a screenplay, and the actors were never sure about what they would be shooting. Later, the director edited his story based on the footages. When Chow moves to Singapore, there is a gap of many years in the story until 1966, when its conclusion is intentionally open and not well defined, leaving questions such as who is the boy with Li-Zhen. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): 'Amor À Flor da Pele' ('Love on the Surface of the Skin')

Sentiment: positive
Brainless film about a good looking but brainless couple who decide to live their dream and take people on diving tours. The pair almost instantly make the wrong choice of customers and get mixed up with some people seeking to recover the items that we see falling to the ocean floor during the opening credits sequence. Great looking direct to video movie could have been so much better if it wasn't so interested in primarily looking good. Performances are serviceable and the plot is actually not bad, or would have been had the director and producers not redirected the plot into making sure we see lots of shapely people in bathing suits (or in what I'm guessing the reason for the "unrated" moniker a few fleeting bare breasts). The film never generates any tension nor rises above the level of a forgettable TV movie. If you get roped in to seeing this you won't pluck your eyes out since the eye candy is pleasant but we really need to stop producers from making films that are excuses to have a paid vacation.

Sentiment: negative
If you're looking for a movie that puts you to sleep, then Heart of Darkness is the movie for you. The book wasn't what I expected to it to be, and the movie disappointed me even further. The cast list was pitiful, and the all around plot was pathetic and was not like the book, except for a few scenes. I understand that everyone has their own point of view as they read Heart of Darkness, and they create their own movie in their head, but they director cuts important scenes and adds pointless ones. If there was someone in the movie who was supposed to be of a certain culture, they should've used an actor that was of that culture. There are actors from every where, and I'm sure that they could've found better ones to fit the roles. Joseph Conrad was a respectable man and created a book that will entertain you if that's what you're looking for, but the movie was cheap and pointless, and someone who could make the movie as respectable as the book should've done it. If you want a movie that drags you into darkness, then Heart of Darkness is the movie for you.

Sentiment: negative
This story had a different angle that intrigued me, enough to buy a previously-viewed VHS sight-unseen. That was a mistake.

In what could have been a very nice story - about badly crippled people at a hospital, and their various personalities - turned quickly into a very profane soap opera with unlikeable characters.

We have "Bloss" (William Forsythe) the stereotype racist white person, who says the f-word every other sentence and is so despicable they didn't give him a first name in the movie. He's a lot of fun to be around. Then, there is "Raymond Hill" (Wesley Snipes), a fast-talking womanizer. Snipes must have liked those fast-talking "hip" arrogant roles because he played in a number of them, like in "White Men Can't Jump." Then there is sweet Helen Hunt playing "Anna" that wonderful caring, loving person who is having an adulterous affair with the leading character in the film, "Joel Garcia" (Eric Stoltz).

Yup, this is heartwarming, feel-good type stuff. It just makes my heart melt watching these nice folks. But, if you are one of those who loves sleazy characters portrayed by sleazy people in this sleazy film.....you might really like this! Add in a dose of Hollywood political correctness and there you go! What more could anyone want?

Sentiment: negative
"After dark, my sweet" is a strange mix of sensuality and dullness. The film runs slow, very slow, but takes a rythm to tell a story about murder and passion. Jason Patric never ever was so sexy and powerful (the man gives a true performance), and Rachel Ward is all but sexy.

The sexual tension, the pshycological heat, the footsteps of the past... the flashback scenes, the weirdness of the Patric´s Character, all becomes a sexy mystery. I recommend this one cause is the more sexy dull movie that i ever seen. Check the love making scene, it´s particulary sexy.

Sentiment: positive
I don't dislike Cary Grant but I've found his performances annoying in enough films to notice; this, Arsenic & Old Lace and Bringing up Baby. I don't dislike him in North by Northwest but I really find that movie unbearably silly. On top of that I find the endless raving about Grant's class tiresome. I don't have a clue what his class does for the viewers who herald it. It doesn't do a thing for me.

In the behind-the-scenes feature included with this DVD Patrcia Hitchcock says that Grant was her fathers favorite leading man; I think he was wrong. Jimmy Stewart was a better leading man in a string of better Hitchcock movies.

With it's ruined ending this is really half a movie and doesn't bear discussion, and can't support the high ratings it's getting. Even if the movie had it's ending intact there's not much to it. Fontaine is a completely unsympathetic sucker. She has to remain numb, inactive, and unwilling to contact anyone but Johnny for the whole movie, in either ending, for his ploys to work. That's not much to work with. Cary Grant begins every line with "Monkeyface..." until I wanted to strangle him. He says it about sixty times. It's positively grating. Hitch's technique here is shockingly shallow. An endless succession of rooms/sets have a phony skylight projected on the rear wall as a spiderweb effect. And a light-bulb in a glass of milk may make fans excited, but it can't save a movie this poorly made.

Peter Bogdanovich should retire if he does one more Hitchcock/Cary Grant imitation on a DVD. I think that's his whole career now. As soon as I saw him, I thought, oh crap, here comes an imitation that only he's impressed with. Instead there were two! oh joy!

Sentiment: negative
When Kristy Swanson gets an attack of the guilts about what she does, she wants out. Unfortunately, Madsen is her immediate superior in a company where "giving two weeks notice ain't an option."

As a teen killing vampires, Kristy did a very good job. The valley girl image seemed to fit. But as an assassin on the run...well, keep running Kristy. Run, run far away! This film is not a concept that hasn't been done before, but it HAS been done better!

I didn't want to watch the rest of this film, but I felt I should if I wanted to give a review of this movie. I've always liked Madsen, and his character was a bit predictable, but this movie was definitely a waste of time both to watch and make...no wonder it never got released theatrically!

Sentiment: negative
"Bedknobs and Broomsticks" is a magical adventure film with a certain charm, despite not being one of the best Disney works. It has a generally good story, nice songs, great characters, good actors, magical and delightful special effects, good settings and lovely landscapes of England.

It also combines very well live-action and animation. The animation itself is, of course, pretty good. The animation resembles very much that of the 1973 animated film "Robin Hood" and the same can be said about the animated characters: there are plenty of wild animals such as bears, elephants, hippos, lions, crocodiles and others like in "Robin Hood". Besides, the King (a lion) seems to be a mix of Prince John and King Richard, not to mention that the bear does look like Little John.

This movie is often compared to "Mary Poppins" with a reason. Both combine live-action and animation with a similar artwork. Both have similar settings in London. Both have their own magic and a magical woman. The kids (Carrie, Charlie and cute little Paul) are a bit like the Banks children. Both movies were directed by Robert Stevenson and both cast David Tomlinson. However, instead of a very serious man like George Banks, David Tomlinson plays a merrier and magical man - Professor Emelius Browne. With its magic, this movie has also some slight but significant similarities to Harry Potter's stories.

The majority of the songs are good. "The Age of Not Believing" and "The Beautiful Briny Sea" are the very best. "Portobello Road" is nice too.

David Tomlinson is great in this film once again. Angela Lansbury is great as Miss Price and the 3 kid actors are all fine too: Cindy O'Callaghan as Carrie, Ian Weighill as Charlie (a boy in «the age of not believing») and Roy Snart as the youngest brother Paul.

I like the black cat. It's pretty cool. It looks a bit like Salem, the black cat from the TV series "Sabrina, the teenage witch". I find cute whenever one of the movie's characters is transformed into a white rabbit. Rabbits are really cute, fluffy and adorable animals. I just love them! Even funnier is whenever Professor Emelius Browne is transformed into a white rabbit because, when he's transformed in human again, he shakes his nose like a rabbit. It's really hilarious, combined with his comical figure and that mustache.

Overall, this is an okay movie, but its ending is quite bad. The first minutes of the movie are nothing special, but then it improves a lot. The ending, however, is weak. That's my major criticism about it, in great part because the animated knights thing is a little too much for me and also due to the war feeling.

Sentiment: positive
I'm not going to waste my time writing an essay and waste your time. I would like to say, however, that all those who are uptight about this movie even being made are being totally ridiculous. Johnnymacbest, you can't play that card, and I mean the nationalism patriotic card, to make people not watch this movie. this is a movie that expresses its free will in this country (oh yea i played that card)even though the director is German and deserves a slap on the wrist every time he reaches for a camera, but the world is full of controversy, and its the same thing you've heard before, like the GTA controversy. It's a comedy, laugh and be disgusted, not disgusted all together, its dark humor and obviously you don't have the heart to take it, the past is past, yes people remember those who were lost but its time to move on, that was !!!7!!! years ago. You can still watch this movie and have good moral values. 

Besides I'm insane, and who needs a soul?

Sentiment: negative
Susan Sarandon and Natalie Portman play Adele and Ann August, a single mother who's the working definition of the word "dreamer" and her solemn, pragmatic daughter. Adele, wanting to make a fresh start in a big city, moves them from Wisconsin to California.

Decent, if not exceptional or particularly memorable, with some serious and sad moments. It pushes some emotional buttons, that's for sure. Best thing it offers is a solid cast, and Sarandon and Portman are quite good in the leads - even if their characters are one-dimensional at times.

Could be better, could be worse.

I gave this one seven out of ten.

Sentiment: positive
I rented this DVD because I'm a big science fiction fan, but this thing (I won't call it a film, because it was obviously shot very quickly on video) seemed like they made it up as they went along. I'm still not sure what it was about. There's these guys dressed up in some weird S&M outfits, and I guess they're from another planet, anyway, not much makes sense in this low, low, low, budget film. If it was their first film, I'd cut them some slack, but I think it's like their 5th film and it's really REALLY bad.

Very bad acting not one good actor is this movie. This director must have been out of his mind to even work on a horrible film like this. Don't waste your time or money on this DVD please people don't. It is not even worth the .99 cents I paid to rent the DVD. In fact I'm going to tell them the DVD was messed up to get my money back. I don't believe in giving anything at all a bad review but I must here. My advice to anyone involved in this sinking ship--please find another profession to get into. How could you make a rotten movie like this? I would give this negative stars if possible, it's that terrible.

Sentiment: negative
hi, im scott (A.K.A woody7739) i Love the film Twisted Desire, And i love watching Melissa Joan Hart on the t.v as i think she is fine. I am a real fan of sabrina the teenage witch too, so this helped my watch it (don't ask). i love the way that nicole plans out her parents murder very carfully, as she makes sure that someone else pulls the trigger and practices on the bottles, so she wont give away her fingerprints (a very well planned out idea), back i guess it all backfired on nicole as she got caught as her old boyfriend comes along and puts a hidden camera under his shirt. i give this film a nine out of ten, and put it in MY top 10 films list. And last but not least if anyone see's this film in the shops please tell me as i seen it on tv and didn't record it. bye

Sentiment: positive
This is one of the all-time great "Our Gang" shorts. Spanky is at his very cutest and funniest, and the babies that he get's left to babysit are also hilarious. Tiny Spanky is coerced by the gang into watching all their little siblings. The opening shot of them all in baby carriages, being entertained by various things hung by the gang from fishing poles is a beautiful gag.

Spanky's appearance wearing his huge toy knife when asked to babysit by the older fellows is priceless, as is his response --"Hey, where do you get that stuff -- I don't take care of no babies!" The tiny fellow saying "remarkable" throughout the film, all the beautiful sight gags, and Spanky telling the babies "all about Tarzan" add up to make this one of the best "Our Gang"'s you'll ever see.

Sentiment: positive
A lot of death happens in the wild. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out! But does it need to be the focus of a nature documentary? What is with this fascination with gruesome death? Do we really have to see an adult elephant torn to shreds by a pack of hungry lions? Or, a cheetah grabbing a gazelle by the throat in slow motion, no less! I thought this was going to be a family-friendly nature film! 

And, why not have the courage to show the gruesome violence in the film's trailers? Were the filmmakers afraid of losing money?

Then in typical, comic relief fashion we get to see the magnificent Birds-of-Paradise perform mating rituals to the most annoying and stupid narration humanly possible. It was surreal! It's as if the filmmakers believed they were only addressing a roomful of First and Second graders on a school field trip! Wow! From the mean to the moronic in a heartbeat!

If there are any future nature documentary filmmakers waiting in the wings reading this film review, why not focus on: Animals actually copulating; giving birth; laying eggs; bathing; sleeping; cleaning each other; socializing; playing; emotional displays other than fear and anger; unusual behaviors, like mouth brooding; migration; problem solving skills; culture (yes, many animal species have what humans call culture); communication skills; parenting, healing abilities, etc. In other words, stop focusing on violence or dumbing down beauty, and why not be much more well-rounded - and focus on delight and inspiration, instead?

Sentiment: negative
It must be remembered that the Gammera movies, like many of the first-series Gozilla films, WERE in fact aimed squarely at kids. Little Kenny and his cohorts are living out the daydreams of the kids in the audience: they get to run around and play with top-secret stuff while the adults stand by and allow it; they get to cavort with monsters, and even when the bad guys enter, they are never in any real danger.

Perhaps the first Gammera film is an aberration because the child DOES get punished and IS put into danger, but the rest of the series is pure wish fulfillment.

As one critic said, these aren't failed adult movies but successful kid's movies.

Sentiment: negative
Better than the original, "the Gamers: Dorkness Rising" manages to pull off a funny comedy with good acting, fine special effects, and comedy that transcends the "gamer" knowledge-base and do so on a low budget. I've seen many low-budget films that have been terrible and almost none that have been as good as their high-budget counterparts. This film blows most mainstream movies away! Parts are a bit weak (the bit with the pirates and ninjas -while funny- goes on a bit long without explanation and takes you out of the movie for a bit) but, overall, this is a very strong film.

I'm very happy to say that I bought this film as soon as I saw it and brought it home.

Any chance we can look forward to another feature Gamers movie from these guys? :)

Sentiment: positive
I thought that The sentinel was going to be a mediocre movie.When I finally saw it,I took a good surprise.The movie isn't great thing but it's very fun and the action scenes are very well done.This movie reminded me TV series like 24 or Alias.It's very similar to that series and it reminded me too,to the Wolfgang Petersen's thriller In the line of fire.If you're going to expect one of the most original and and one of the greatest thrillers in the history of movies,you will be disappointed.But if you go with little expectations,you will enjoy The sentinel.

Rating:7

Sentiment: positive
Körkarlen (1921), a classic film with cult status amongst the silent movies, directed by Victor Sjöstrøm, who also plays the male main role, is based on a story by Swedish novelist Selma Lagerlöf. The film tells the story of brutal drinker David Holm, who beats up his wife, neglects his children, seduces his brother to drinking and is blind for the love of nurse Edit (Astrid Holm). David sits toward the end of the year together with his boozing buddies in the city-park and tells the story of the Phantom Chariot (Körkarlen): Who dies in the New Year's Eve night as the last one before dawn, has to serve one year long as driver of Death and release the dying souls from their bodies. But David gets into a fight with his buddies, suffers a hemorrhage and sinks dead on the soil. Meanwhile, the Phantom Carriage is approaching. The driver is nobody else than David's late friend Georges who seduced him into alcohol and died one year before. Since David refuses to get on the carriage, Georges forces him. Together, they drive to the stations where people live who suffered from David. They visit the nurse Edit whose love to David he was unable to recognize and whom he infected with tuberculosis so that she is dying now. But her unconditioned love to David will save his soul. Fulfilled with her spirit, they get to David's wife and children. David is able to prevent his wife from killing herself and her children, because she does not see a way out of the misery in which David has thrown her. They also visit David's brother, who has committed a murder after having been seduced into drinking by David. David asks Georges to go back into his body, because he finally sees that his way was wrong. Since it was Georges who had seduced him once into drinking, David's wish is granted, he gets a second chance, and Georges has to be one more year the driver of the Phantom Carriage in order to pay for his own sins. This movie belongs probably to the strongest and most impressive films ever made. Deplorably, it is still not available on international DVD.

Sentiment: positive
I cant put it any simpler than that, this is a terrible film. I've worked in the industry and made several (short) films myself, so okay my standard is pretty high but seriously, i absolutely hate this film. I haven't made a comment on IMDb before but i hated this film so much i literally had to come and warn others. It is a piece of sh*t. The writer/director is an idiot who just has no idea how to make/write a good film and has the writing skills of an adolescent teenager. The characters are unrealistic (The lead woman doesn't think of taking the policeman's pistol yet is resourceful enough to improvise a Molotov cocktail? please...) and not even likable, hell i hated her and cheered when she died. I don't understand what the director was trying to do with his demon redneck idea, but it just looked like sloppy writing and convenient bullsh*t with no real thought behind it to me. This is officially the worst movie I've seen ALL YEAR. Congratulations Shiban, you now rank up there with such greats as Micheal Bay in the prestigious "shouldnt be allowed to waste millions of dollars on making a film" club. I hope you read this, i really do. And to the 163 idiots that rated this film 10 out of 10 BWAHHAHAHAHAh oh my god I hope a redneck demon appears conveniently behind you and tortures you.

Sentiment: negative
Don't believe the hype. If you have high hopes or have anticipated this movie to any degree, you may be disappointed. Even the hilarious and talented Steve Carrell can't save this poorly written, over-long silly spy flick. For the purists (fans of the original TV series), this movie bears little resemblance to the original characters and influence. Agent 99 and Maxwell (except for their names) are simply not the same characters. There are several isolated references to the original, but not enough to convince this fan that it is anything more than a poor shadow of the TV version. For those not familiar with the original TV series, you may not be disappointed but chances are you will be bored. There are a few cheap Hollywood political shots as well (really pathetic and oh so typical for an election year). We left after the first hour and weren't alone. Some left after 20 minutes.

Sentiment: negative
Solo is a poor film - that cannot be ignored. The acting for the most part is very wooden (the only exception is Adrien Brody's performance as Solo's creator Bill) and the story is slight enough that you would probably forget it WHILST you where watching the film. That said, such films are more about the action than the plot/acting and, as such, live or die by the action set pieces - that after all is the point of such films - to give 14 year-olds something to smile at whilst the adults watch films of actual substance. And even on this Solo fails to deliver - what little action there is is poorly done, dull and uninspired. After seeing the trailer for this on television I was hoping for something along the lines of Predator with a robot replacing the Predaot. Instead I got a fairly lifeless action film with a poorly constructed attempt at depth by taking on message that robots can feel too. Watch Terminator II or Predator instead.. both classics that this film desperately wants to be except it lacks the inspiration or, to be fair, the budget.

Sentiment: negative