DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
In this desperate and thoroughly silly attempt to keep Hammer's Dracula franchise alive despite having lost most of its power long time already, our legendary vampire is brought back to life in the swinging London of 1972. Exactly hundred years after he was destroyed by his archenemy Van Helsing, an occult disciple named Johnny Alucard (get it? get it?) gathers his flamboyant friends in an abandoned church, among them Van Helsing's great granddaughter Jessica, and performs a satanic ritual that resurrects Dracula in a haze of smoke. Dracula's only mission is to wreak havoc upon the entire Van Helsing lineage and fragile Jessica is the ideal victim to achieve this. This is probably the only 70's film that goes immensely over the top in trying to look likea 70's film! Considering the previous six Dracula films were all set in the Victorian era, director Alan Gibson really wants to stress the fact we're in the 20th century now and thus he stuffs his film with insufferable hippie-characters, hideous 70's fashion trends and awful 70's music. Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing seem hopelessly lost in this setting and their performances regretfully show it. The opening sequence (a flashback) and the showdown climax are fairly enjoyable, but everything in between is painfully boring and the complete opposite of scary. The greatest elements in this series of films have always been Dracula's dark castles and the exhilarating coach races and, obviously, this installment lacks all of that. Luckily for the fans, Hammer Studios contemporary released other films revolving on vampires that are much better ("The Vampire Lovers", "Twins of Evil", "The Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires"). Not recommended.

Sentiment: negative
"More" is yet another addition into the countless pile of 60's druggie, trippy junk. Avoid at all cost. Terrible acting, equally moribund script. The only thing to enjoy is Pink Floyd's wonderful soundtrack, which is too good for stereotypical waste like this.

Sentiment: negative
This movie earned every one of the ten votes I gave it! Thank you guys for making a movie worth watching. You showed the world,you can still write, direct, produce and star in a black movie without the negative stereotypes. The poetry was awesome as well, hats off to the poets and musicians.

I watched it last night, as I fell in love with my darling all over again. I will be adding it to my movie collection today, and recommending it to my friends and family.

Please continue to produce quality, don't worry about the quantity....

Thank you again, and best wishes and blesses to you!

Sentiment: positive
As a fan of Eric Rohmer's studies of the contemporary war between the sexes, I was very eager to see "The Lady and The Duke (L'Anglaise et le duc)" for how he would treat men and women during a real war, the French Revolution. 

The film looks beautiful, with each scene designed as a period painting, like a tableaux vivant. And I expected much talking, as that's Rohmer's style. But maybe Rohmer was restrained by basing the screenplay on a real woman's writings is why this mostly felt like a docudrama version of "The Scarlet Pimpernel."

As awful as the excesses of Robespierre et al, how about some recognition that the French aristocrats were spoiled brats? I kept humming to myself: "Marat, we're poor/and the poor stay poor;" you could also pick a tune from "Les Miz."

I wasn't all that sympathetic as the central figure has to go back and forth between her city home and country manor to stay ahead of the Revolution. At one point her maid claims the pantry is bare but sure manages to lay out a fine repast. I simply didn't understand her, an English sympathizer who alternately rejects and defends her former lover and patron as he and the Revolution keep shifting political focus; I think I was supposed to sympathize with her consistency more than their political machinations, like a character out of "The Scarlet Pimpernel." Hey, the only reason she didn't go back home was her disgrace after an affair and child with the Prince of Wales or somebody. 

Usually in a revolutionary period there's some groundswell of change going on in relations between men and women, but I saw none here. I once went to a Herbert Marcuse lecture that concluded with a lengthy Q & A; the last question, from an audience member far older than the rest of us acolytes, heck she had gray hair, was "Why are revolutionaries so grim?" She was hooted at and Marcuse didn't deign to respond to it seriously -- but it's the only thing of substance I remember from the whole evening. Rohmer demonstrates that counter-revolutionaries are also grim and didactic.

(originally written 8/11/2002)

Sentiment: negative
Most of Chaplin's most famous films are his full-length features. And, I assume most people have at most seen only a few clips of him from his pre-feature days when he starred in dozens and dozens of comedy shorts. This is really a shame, as some wonderful shorts are pretty much waiting to be discovered by the world in the 21st century.

If someone watches this film they have an excellent chance to see some of Chaplin's better shorts because Chaplin himself chose these three shorts and strung them together with a bit of narration to make this 1959 feature film. This is great for several reasons. First, in Chaplin's earliest films from 1914-1915, his character of the Little Tramp is still in its earliest incarnations or is absent altogether. Plus, even when he is there, he was often mean-spirited and self-centered--something very alien from the Little Tramp we have grown to love. Second, because the shorts that were chosen were in great condition, if you watch this film you won't need to worry about watching scratchy film with gaps and lousy musical accompaniment that doesn't fit the action (a common problem).

So, for a great look at Chaplin's shorts at their finest, give this film a chance. It's sure to provide you some excellent laughs.

Sentiment: positive
I watched this movie based on the comments of a few that said that is was bad but funny. But you need to be warned that this movie has the worst special effects ever produced. They make 1950s science fiction movies look like works of art. This is funny at times, but annoying for the most part. And to compound the problem with the seriously pathetic special effects is the total lack of logic that characterized a majority of the events depicted. One of my favorites is where three of the characters drop hundreds of feet into a tunnel created by the arachnia and arrive to find it fully lit. Apparantely the arachnia have also managed to hook into the power grid. Very impressive. But this is just one example. And for what its worth, the music sucks, the acting sucks, the two cute girls are annoying, the obnoxious guy is annoying, the so-called handsome lead man is a geek, and the black girl who fall for him is a fool. Her father is the worst actor I have ever seen. I am not sure the brief moments of humor can possibly make up for the experience.

Sentiment: negative
This 1973 remake of the classic 1944 Billy Wilder film, "Double Indemnity," is a textbook example of how to destroy a great script. This grade-B TV fodder also illustrates the folly of remakes in general. While Hollywood has gone after greedy executives that colorize black-and-white films and sought disclaimers on wide-screen movies that are shown in pan-and-scan versions, the industry has ignored the hacks that insist on taking a classic film and diminishing it with a shoddy remake.

The first step in producing a bowdlerized version of a classic is to edit the script. The Billy-Wilder-Raymond-Chandler work was cut by a half hour to fit the finished film into a specified time-slot with room for commercials. Then update the production with bland, color photography, smart, upscale sets, and TV-familiar actors. Thus, the brand-new "Double Indemnity" eliminates the atmospheric black-and-white film-noir cinematography that enhanced the mood and characterizations of the original. Gone are the dusty, shadowy, claustrophobic sets that explained the protagonists' desires to escape their situations at whatever cost. Gone are the close bond between Keyes and Neff and the erotic attraction between Neff and Phyllis.

The look of Jack Smight's take on "Double Indemnity" is more "Dynasty" than film noir. Phyllis Dietrickson has a designer home to die for, and Neff's comfy pad would be hard to afford on an insurance salesman's salary, not to mention the sporty Mercedes convertible that he drives. Neither character has any apparent motive to murder for a paltry $200,000. If not money, then perhaps murder for love or lust? Not in this version. Richard Crenna shows little interest in Samantha Eggar, and their kisses are about as lusty as those between a brother and a sister. Crenna fails to capture the cynicism of Neff, and his attempts at double-entendre and sexual suggestiveness fall horribly flat. Eggar is little better and lacks sensuality and the depth to suggest the inner workings of a supposedly devious and manipulative mind. Only Lee J. Cobb manages a creditable performance as Keyes. Director Jack Smight and his three principals have all done much better work.

There was no conceivable reason to produce this wretched remake except to fill time in a broadcast schedule. There was no conceivable reason to resurrect this dud on DVD and package it with the original film except to fill out a double-disc package. The only lesson that can be learned from this misfire is that even a great script and great dialog can be ruined with poor casting, lackluster direction, and TV grade production values. The 1973 "Double Indemnity" should be titled "10% Indemnity," because viewing it only underscores the 100% perfection of the original movie.

Sentiment: negative
I was fortunate to attend the London premier of this film. While I am not at all a fan of British drama, I did find myself deeply moved by the characters and the BAD CHOICES they made. I was in tears by the end of the film. Every scene was mesmerizing. The attention to detail and the excellent acting was quite impressive.

I would have to agree with some of the other comments here which question why all these women were throwing themselves at such a despicable character.

*******SPOLIER ALERT******** I was also hoping that Dylan would have been killed by William when he had the chance! ****END SPOILER*****

Keira Knightley did a great job and radiate beauty and innocence from the screen, but it was Sienna Miller's performance that was truly Oscar worthy.

I am sure this production will be nominated for other awards.

Sentiment: positive
I saw the film tonight at a free preview screening, and despite the fact that I didn't pay a dime to see this film I still felt ripped off. Ladies and gentlemen, time is money and if you see this film you are leaving a Benjamin on your seat. The acting is torpid at best; Kiefer Sutherland phones in his worst impersonation of Jack Bauer, and Michael Douglas looks like he realizes he made a bad choice leaving Catherine Zeta-Jones for the duration it took to shoot this turkey. Eva Longoria is a non-entity; she looks like she's reading her lines off a teleprompter. And if you can't spot the "mole" within the first 20 minutes, then you just landed on this planet from a world without TV and recycled story lines. If you truly want to see a good secret service thriller, rent In the Line of Fire. If you see and buy into this one, you'll start to fear for the president's safety because the Secret Service looks and acts like the grown-up versions of the kinds from 90210. No matter what your feelings about W, let's hope this "art" does not imitate life.

Sentiment: negative
Excellent introspective / interpersonal piece that really had some teeth to it without feeling hopeless or worse, manipulative & artificially gratifying. Might be a good double feature with American Beauty as well. Best performance to date that I've seen from Anita Mui, and every actor in this seems like a powerhouse. Hats off to Ann Hui for the direction and Ivy Ho for the brilliant script. Seriously one of the best dramas I've seen in a while, especially if you have a taste for classical literature ALA poetry. Again, excellent.

Sentiment: positive
One of my favorite movies, with a very nostalgic ending. The movie is about the Sullivan family, obviously Michael Sullivan (the father) is one of the main members of the mafia, the killer to say it this way, and an expert one. One of the kids wants to know the work of his father (a terrible mistake), so he hides on his father's car and well, he sees Tom Hanks in action to say it this way.

Mafia doesn't rules, in Mafia nobody wins, when they want you out, they take you out. Of course you can see anyone who works at the mafia with a giant house, the best car in the world, whatever you like, but make a wrong work, or make something your "boss" doesn't want, and you're fired, and killed.

You can see what I mean in the movie, Sullivan Jr. sees something he didn't had to see, and well, almost all his family gets killed for that "wrong thing" his son did. The movie is really entertaining, you see how the Sullivan's live after being chased by the mafia, or kinda of that.

This movie is kinda of sad, shows us about revenge, those dirty works people do, almost everything you like. Hopefully the guy is reading this comment doesn't works for the mafia, and if you work at the mafia make yourself a favor and get the hell out of the country before you get killed by your boss and their workers.

This movie receives: 10/10

Sentiment: positive
This movie stands for entertanment. Its the funniest movie I have ever seen. The lines, the acting. And the clothes, wow, talk about 70:s. If you ever see this little gem, buy it. Its worth every penny. By the way, the opening song is awsome. If anyone know where I can find it. Plese, send me an E-mail.

Sentiment: positive
In my opinion, this is an absolutely romantic Disney masterpiece. If you ask me, the stepmother (voice of Lucille La Verne) was truly diabolical. You'll have to see the movie if you want to know why. On the other hand, despite the fact that she did a lot of housekeeping, Cinderella (voice of Ilene Stanley) was a very beautiful lady. To me, the scenery was beautiful, the cast was well chosen, and the writing was strong. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that everyone involved in this film did very well. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this absolutely romantic Disney masterpiece to all of you who haven't seen it. You're in for a good time, so go to the video store, rent it or buy it, kick back with a friend, and watch it.

Sentiment: positive
When I was in school I made a film about a couple roaming around in the trees and talking, and I realized halfway through editing that this was not just a failing aesthetic strategy but a cliché of Canadian cinema: sodden lyricism married to vacant, metaphor-burdened stabs at social commentary. But whatever my own film's failings I feel much better after seeing this...this...thing. For one thing, mine ran 20 minutes, not 85, and had more content at that: every pointless bit of business here is fawned over for four, five, six relentless minutes. The male lead is just incredible, a brow-beating, loudmouthed creep given to outbursts of drama-class improv in between philosophical insights culled from the U of T pub, and he is given lots and lots of space to make us hate him. Admittedly if he weren't such an a**hole then the third act would make even less sense, as a couple snarky dudes show up to provide distant and thoroughly unhelpful echoes of 'exploitation' values; but it doesn't make it any easier to watch the caged creep whimper "please" in closeup until the magazine runs out. I take back what I said about AUTUMN BORN, which at least had the courage of its own misbegotten lechery: this cinematic crater is and will remain the very worst Canadian movie of all time. At least, I really really hope so.

Sentiment: negative
This movie had all the elements to be a smart, sparkling comedy, but for some reason it took the dumbass route. Perhaps it didn't really know who its audience was: but it's hardly a man's movie given the cast and plot, yet is too slapstick and dumb-blonde to appeal fully to women.

If you have seen Legally Blonde and its sequel, then this is like the bewilderingly awful sequel. Great actors such as Luke Wilson should expect better material. Jessica Simpson could also have managed so much more. Rachael Leigh Cook and Penelope Anne Miller languish in supporting roles that are silly rather than amusing.

Many things in this movie were paint-by-numbers, the various uber-cliché montages, the last minute "misunderstanding", even the kids' party chaos. This just suggests lazy scriptwriting.

It should be possible to find this movie enjoyable if you don't take it seriously, but it's such a glaring could-do-better than you'll likely feel frustrated and increasingly disappointed as the scenes roll past.

Sentiment: negative
I've never laughed and giggled so much in my life! The first half kept me in stitches; the last half made me come completely unglued! I think I giggled for 15 minutes after the tape was over.

His timing and delivery for his stories is almost unequaled. And though he talks fast, you catch every joke. Which is probably why my "laugh center" was so overwhelmed; it took an extra 15 minutes to laugh at everything.



Sentiment: positive
It Could Have Been A Marvelous Story Based On The Ancient Races Of Cat People, but it wasn't.

This work could have been just that; marvelous and replete with mythological references which kept my fascination fueled. The lead characters (Charles Brady played by Brian Krause; and his mother Mary, played by Alice Krige) were shallowly done, had no depth of personality and were hardly likable or drawing. Not even Mädchen Amick (who played Tanya Robertson)'s character fit into that description. 

However, as I've said many times before, when you adapt a Stephen King novel for TV, you simply must take into account the fact that his books aren't written for TV, and his screenplay talent sadly lacks the fire and depth he exhibits as a novelist. 

This is another botched attempt to take the magick of Stephen King writing, whether that is of his novels or an original screenplay. To simply cut and paste his work onto the small screen. His novels get completely bastardized in the process and all you end up creating is a nice movie; nothing less but certainly nothing more. His screenplays are hit and miss. Unfortunately, this screenplay translation was a miss. 

Sorry, Sorry, Sorry movie.

This movie gets a 1.0/10 from...

the Fiend :.

Sentiment: negative
My Santa Lucia Choir was chosen to be in this movie. All 100 plus. When it came time to film the movie I was asked to chose just 10. Oh my goodness. We had a little gal who went early to have her tonsils out because she wanted to be in the movie. The choices were hard to make. The people of Georgetown are just a lovely as the people that they show in the movie. Gracious, kind, believers. The town sponsors an annual Christmas Market the first two weekend in December every year. I was there this year and it was wonderful. The town is lovely and the people work hard to make it magical. The town appears today as it did when the movie was made. Much credit goes to the Historical Society there that work hard to maintain the historical value. The principal of the school that has been turned into a Charter School was given an award by the Governor of Colorado for Volunteers.

Sentiment: positive
I couldn't agree more with another reviewer that mentioned Jodorowsky.

Barney seems to be utterly boring and uninspired "content-wise". He can produce eye-candy (and I like candy), but its pretentiousness and fundamental artistic emptiness just diminishes all the joy. 

I am afraid that many people don't distinguish between similar (but really only on the surface) works of Jodorowsky or even more linear film-makers like Tarkovski or Kubrick (I love 2001 Odyssey and was never bored through the ending scenes...) That kind of art as M.Barney's makes adds confusion and fends off the viewers that could otherwise start to appreciate experimental cinema. Typical empty post-modern "conceptual" art. And check his interviews. I just don't buy it, sorry. And so boring. 

I was never bored seeing Alejandro Jodorowsky's movies, while Drawing Restraint 9 was an utter disappointment. Especially while it offered the possibilities to be something, to actually tell something in a non-linear unorthodox way (like the beginning and the great choreographed dance and preparations for the ship to sail out. Ships "meeting" on the sea... Ideas of feces as an object of value(if it was feces). Those "pearl" divers... Everything could construct a great surreal movie with some content. But it didn't. ANd those horrible pretentious scenes of dressing up and fake tea ceremony... How vain and fake and philosophically pretentious but empty can it get?

I has some great picturesque scenes, but the whole movie became so boring and pretentious and utterly empty and fake that it made me physically sick.

And it doesn't have good tempo. I like slow pace movies, but this was just boring in some scenes - because it was pretentious and fake - so I was just forced to witnessed prolonged scenes of artistic vanity...

That kind of movies just kill the art and spirit in my view. 

I want more Jodorowsky!!!

Sentiment: negative
This must be the dumbest movie I've ever seen and therefor it deserves a special award. OK, so it begins pretty good, logical, humor and then rapidly changes to complete and utter uh f@rt,@ss, föck stupidity that makes total sense. The strange thing is that i hardly laughed at it, though i guess it is supposed to be funny, with a very serious message. After a moment of thought why i didn't laugh, the answer was pretty clear... this movie is a lot more realistic then i would like it to be. So it is extremely dumb, yet very wise if the object was to reach people which aren't 'blessed' with a whole lot of neurons and synapses and electrolytes (huh, electrolytes?). This movie might actually be understood at some level by a big audience!

Although they probably just laugh.

Ah well, nice try...

I am now editing (well adding to) my comment, cause i read some of the other comments. First i noticed some people see racism in this movie. Well, that did not at all cross my mind when watching it. However, i can imagine if you are looking from that perspective, you will see some. We could of course debate the link between intelligence and race, but i think this is not the place to do so. I wonder, if we were to rate the Huxtable family here, would you complain about them all being black? I don't think so, but i guess you could... (aside from that, from the 2 wisest people in the world, half, the woman, doesn't seem totally caucasian to me, so 'what the problem is?')

Secondly the movie gets very mixed ratings; from 1's to 10's and everything in between, but a lot of polarisation there, which means the movie does its job very well! It stirrs people up, makes them want to speak about it and judge it. That means it is a good movie, whether you like it or hate it. After 5 minutes it becomes very predictive and boring even, yet you keep watching this utter crap. I guess you keep hoping that it isn't so. Or maybe it's our sick way to look at terrible accidents. Well, this is one for sure.

Sentiment: positive
1957's Edge of the City, directed by Martin Ritt, stars John Cassavetes, Sidney Poitier, Jack Warden and Ruby Dee. It's the story of a troubled man, Axel, who has a mysterious past that gradually comes out during the film. He has a connection that gets him a job on a loading dock working for Charlie (Jack Warden), a real meanie who takes kickbacks from his workers and rides them hard. Charlie has an intense dislike for a black man, T.T. (Poitier) who holds the same position. T.T. invites Axel to work on his team; Axel defies Charlie and does so. Axel finds a place to live and socializes with T.T., his his wife (Dee) and their son's white schoolteacher (Kathleen McGuire). When tragedy strikes, none of the men on the loading dock will talk to the police, and Axel has to come to grips with his values, what he stands for, and the meaning of friendship.

This is a really excellent black and white film that curiously isn't really about being black or white! It's really about the limits one puts on oneself and knowing who you are. Charlie is a bigot and hates that a black man has a good position on the dock. T.T. teases Charlie and gives as good as he gets. There's no discussion of T.T. and Axel spending time together or of T.T.'s son having a white teacher with whom the family also socializes. What Axel, a loner, finds difficult is accepting any friendship or confiding in anyone - these things he learns through T.T.

Poitier absolutely shines in "Edge of the City" - he's warm, energetic, loving and smart, a man with a real enthusiasm for life, afraid of nothing. Cassavetes is excellent and plays a character totally opposite - hiding in the shadows, chronically depressed and always nervous.

The film leaves open what happens to Axel. Whatever does, he's a different man now.

Strangely underrated and unknown film, possibly in the shadow of a lot of the angry young men films that came out in that era.

Sentiment: positive
I've always believed that David and Bathsheba was a film originally intended for Tyrone Power at 20th Century Fox, although Gregory Peck does give a good account of himself as King David, the monarch with a wandering eye.

A whole lot of biblical subjects get covered in this film, adultery, redemption, sin, punishment and generally what God expects from his followers.

When you're a king, even king in a biblically prophesied kingdom you certainly do have a lot perogatives not open to the rest of us. King David has many wives, including one really vicious one in Jayne Meadows who was the daughter of Saul, David's predecessor. But his eyes catch sight of Bathsheba out in her garden one evening. Turns out she's as unhappily married to Uriah the Hittite as David is to quite a few women. Uriah is one of David's army captains. David sends for Bathsheba and him being the King, she comes a runnin' because she's had her eye on him too.

What happens, an affair, a pregnancy, and a carefully arranged death for Uriah in a battle. But an all seeing and knowing Deity has caught all of this and is not only punishing David and Bathsheba, but the entire Kingdom of Israel is being punished with drought, disease, and pestilence.

The sexist law of the day calls for Bathsheba to have a stoning death. David shows weakness in his previous actions, but here he steps up to the plate and asks that the whole thing be put on him. He even lays hands on the Ark of the Covenant which was an instant death as seen in the film.

My interpretation of it is that God admires guts even if you're wrong and he lets up on David and forgives them both. Bathsheba becomes the mother of Solomon and she and David are the ancestors of several successors in the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah until they're both conquered.

Susan Hayward is a fetching Bathsheba caught in a loveless marriage with Uriah played by Kieron Moore. The only thing that gets Moore aroused is a good battle. I liked Kieron Moore's performance as a brave and rather stupid horse's rear. 

No one can lay the law down like Raymond Massey. His Nathan the Prophet is in keeping with the John Brown character he played in two films, same intensity. 

So when His own law called for death, why did God spare Bathsheba and keep David on the throne. Maybe it was the fact He just didn't want to train a third guy for the job. He'd replaced Saul with David already. 

But I think the Christian interpretation might be that this was a hint of the New Testament forthcoming, that one might sin and receive mercy if one asks for it penitently. I'll leave it to the biblical scholars to submit interpretations.

Watch the film and you might come up with an entirely new theory.

Sentiment: positive
Me and my mates used to gather together in one house to watch this on a Friday night before going to the pub. It was the only programme that ever made us miss opening time. It is one of the best comedies I have ever watched if not the best. David Jason was brilliant and was compared many times to Buster Keaton with his clever stunts that were pulled off so believably. I wish I could get hold of the series on DVD to watch again. He had an amazing ability to make stupid things look believable and this series shows how much talent he has in so many different directions. He is an accomplished "Trip and fall guy" and I remember watching a trailer once where he showed people how to do this professionally. Certainly he is the one to teach people this art. He only showed glimpses of it in other programs he did. Pshaw, this program shows how multi talented he is. I am lost as to why David Jason vetoed another series being made, as for my mind it was one of the best things he has ever done and I've been a fan of his since he did this series. It is said he did not like it because it showed the rawness of his early career. Well to my mind, that might possibly have been the right decision when he took it, but now his career has progressed so far, I believe this would be a good time for him to do another series showing him looking back on his "secret life" full of blunders that he does not see. Rod

Sentiment: positive
This movie was boring. Very much like Underworld, only even less interesting. It's not much of a werewolf movie and no where near a horror film. The lead couple were boring. I totally didn't care about Vivian and Aiden. And there was so little character development that I didn't care about any character in the film. The plot was paper thin. The transformations were basically nil. I did like the wolves themselves, might as well have have done a wolf documentary, I would have liked that better. I wouldn't recommend this movie. I didn't find it fun or interesting. It just drags and everyone in it is a boring drag. This movie could win an award for how not to make a werewolf film.

Sentiment: negative
I've seen 'nurse betty' twice in september 2000 on the international film festival 'films by the sea' in vlissingen, the netherlands. It impressed me so much that I kept on smiling the whole day after I watched it for the first time and almost all evening again when I took the movie as the final taste of the festival. What I knew about 'nurse betty' was in short that renée zellweger would play a girl in love with a soap-opera-star. But what I saw was much more than that! Splendid roles for morgan freeman, chris rock ànd renée zellweger. A strange mix of romance, violence and roadmovie. And for all a story that takes other directions every moment you think you're on the track. Many soap-opera-lovers will love 'nurse betty' - the movie as well as the character!!! - but they can bring all there non-soap friends, 'cause they will enjoy the story even more for the hard and humorous lines - freeman and rock - for the cruel scenes, the thriller-aspects and for the beautiful pictures. And I'm quite sure that at the end everyone will love 'nurse betty' for her captivating and innocent charm!!!

Sentiment: positive
This film was amazing, it was extremely funny and moving. Damien O'Donnell and Jeffrey Caine have put together a great movie which will appeal to all ages. James McAvoy and Steven Robertson made this film brilliant. Their acting was excellent, there was this real lifelike feeling between them, that made you really believe they were the characters they were acting out. Romola Garai is amazingly gorgeous and brilliant in her role. The story of these two physically challenged people and their carer is well put over, and you really start to grow to know and feel for the characters as the movie goes on, it was especially upsetting at the end. I would recommend this movie to anyone that loves a truly heart felt movie, warning to the more sensitive viewer make sure you have tissues you will need them.

Again amazing film!!

Sentiment: positive
The only conceivable flaw of this film is it's title!! Please stop comparing it to the first! I did in my previous review only to separate it from the first. If you haven't seen the movie and are curious, TOTALLY forget about the first and invent a different name for this. There is nothing alike and has a mood all its own. This is a great exponent of screwy mid-80s comedy. I seriously doubt such big names in this cast did the movie because they were broke or even wanted to remake the first. Anybody who ever wanted to give a kick to the snobbish aristocracy should love this little opus. I maintain, the only reason this is in the IMDB bottom 100 is because of its title. I usually hate movies like these (i.e. adam sandler, will farrell, farrelly bros....), but this movie just keeps me laughing hysterically. I dunno, maybe it's like a bad relationship I can't get out of or just a ridiculous guilty pleasure. Either way, this is the single most underrated movie of the 80s behind 'The Stunt Man.'

Robert Stack- WE LOVE YOU!!! (1919-2003)

Sentiment: positive
(This might have a spoiler)

When I first started watching this movie, I thought it was OK. The music was good and that bizarro dream sequence I was willing to forgive, but the lack of looks in the main character and all of the other characters for that matter made me uninterested in watching the rest of this film. (I know, totally vain.)The music at the beginning was spirited and fitting I thought for a mock Gothic novel. But, come on! Saxophone music for an early 19th century film? It totally didn't fit. This movie was totally boring and if you're looking to watch a good period film or an Austen don't rent Northanger Abbey! I give it a 30%. 30% = a failing grade!

Sentiment: negative
"Sleeping With the Enemy" is a predictable, 'been there before' thriller that never seems to find any inspiration no matter how desperately cast and crew try. I can't believe a bunch of my friends talked me into seeing this at the movies some sixteen years ago.

The complete lack of originality from the Ronald Bass screenplay (based upon the Nancy Price novel) does not help, nor does the stale direction of Joseph Ruben or the very average performance from Julia Roberts. The supporting cast including Patrick Bergin and Kevin Anderson do little to help.

There really isn't a lot to say. Just give it a miss.

Sunday, April 14, 1991 - Hoyts Cinema Centre Melbourne

Sentiment: negative
I am a big fan of sci-fi movies. So, when I saw this movie in the EPG, I thought I was in for a pleasant evening. What a disappointment ! Such a poor display of "special" effects I could not imagine in 1980, but in 2005 ? Come on, why would you do special effects of an helicopter flying in the desert when you can film a real one for a much lower price (I guess) ? And those killer "muppets"... well, I could do better than that in a couple of hours in the garage. You can expect to have a low budget on a movie, but I don't think it's reasonable to have a low movie for any budget. As for the "star" of the movie (I use a lot of quotes tonight...), Lou Diamond Philips, the guy is not even remotely an actor. Maybe he should have stayed to the martial arts movies. All in all, an awful movie. Maybe I am in a bad mood tonight. Then again, maybe not. A sincere 1 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
"A total waste of time" Just throw in a few explosions, non stop fighting, exotic cars a deranged millionaire, slow motion computer generated car crashes and last but not least a Hugh Hefner like character with wall to wall hot babes, and mix in a blender and you will have this sorry excuse for a movie. I really got a laugh out of the "Dr. Evil" like heavily fortified compound. The plot was somewhere between preposterous and non existent. How many millionaires are willing to make a 25 million dollar bet on a car race? Answer: 4 but, didn't they become millionaires through fiscal responsibility? This was written for pubescent males, it plays like a video game. I did enjoy the Gulfstream II landing in the desert though.

Sentiment: negative
I thought it would be more fantastic a tale. But the subject is rather down to earth compared to the story about the Death carriage I was expecting. In fact there is much more of a social drama. As usual in the "European authors' movies".

Actors are interesting, not overacting as in the average silent movie. Images are not so good as to be stuck in your mind as in Bergman's Smultronstället.

This is true the comparison between the two movies is the main point here. Smultronstället begins with a vision of a Death carriage wherein Sjöström's character can see his own body. There are clocks without hands. He is compelled to look back on what he has done wrong. There is a vision of his happy family in the country. In Körkarlen Sjöström's wife doesn't cheat on him before his eyes but she wants to flee with the little children because it would never get any better with him. Eventually, Edit's confession is some kind of a live judgement.

Well I would just add that Sjöström destroying the door with an axe because his wife locked it and plans to go away with the children reminded me of The Shining. Which was much more of a fantasy tale with Death hanging around.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was terrible to say the least. I was hoping for a lot better after seeing "High School Musical". The whole entire movie was a complete rip off of "The Simple Life", only it wasn't a reality show.

The acting was not good at all. Amanda Michalka had her moments, when she wasn't that terrible. On the other hand Alyson Michalka was bad all the way through. Chris Gallinger, who played the love interest of Amanda was playing a french guy, but had an awful accent. One good thing about this movie was the completely adorable Michael Trevino, who played Alyson's love interest. Just something to keep in mind, if this movie had been aired before "High School Musical" it probably would not have seemed as bad. But it was no comparison.

Overall I give it a 2.

Sentiment: negative
I really enjoyed this film, it definitely keeps you on the edge of your seat. It was very well directed. I think it was important that they showed the other couple's life as well as Terry and Bobbys and show them as people with emotions. As this film needed to show Bobby as a cold and vindictive person.

I agree with another review it was sick love, not true love. He didn't need to go to great lengths as murder to give his wife a baby. He should have been honest with her and told her that he was sterile and decide to adopt a baby together. Some reviews say that she was naive, I think she was when it came to the adoption, however best actors all round. Great movie to watch!!

Sentiment: positive
A very hyped-up, slick, edgy reinterpretation.

They've fallen into the "because it's modern, it has to be hyped-up, slick, etc." trap.

"Romeo and Juliet" carried this idea off much more successfully, but I really think it's time we move beyond the two extremes here (period piece vs. edgy film).

Just because this is a "modern" retelling, doesn't mean the movie has to look like a magazine ad, or have anything to do with drugs or guns.

If the trappings were as subtle as the honeyed words, Macbeth would be a far more powerful film. As it is, read your Shakespeare. Read it out loud. Ask your Oxford dictionary some questions. Skip the film. Or don't, but you've been warned.

Sorry for the super-long review. IMDb made me do it.

Sentiment: negative
Saw this 'film' recently and have to say it was the worst attempt at film making I have ever had the misfortune to see. What the Hell was going on with Coolio? Totally unprovoked shooting at people in distress. Totally uninvolving, slow, tedious and detached. Worse than Spawn. long live "Evil dead II".

Sentiment: negative
A girl is looking for her soul mate-- this movie was very strange-- lots of sequences that look like an hallucinations. Tommy Lee Jones is the only stable one in the picture. It was hard to figure out what the director was trying to say-- Most of the time the main character is dressed in weird clothes and makeup. A weird combination of reality and madness.

Sentiment: negative
This is 2009 and this way underrated gem has lost nothing of the power it had 31 years ago. It connects a pretty wide variety of different characters and stories without appearing to be cluttered.

Clothes and music might have changed over time, but in the end this is a story that will never lose its up-to-dateness. And especially this movie does the job pretty well. Of course it is cheesy at times, but very touching as well.

Jodie Foster's performance is striking, and it shows that she is really a natural born actress who showed her true potential especially in her earlier movies.

Don't miss this one.

Sentiment: positive
It has been a long time since I have been to a movie as lame and boring as this one. It is one thing to have a slow pace where characters are being developed in a progressive way, or some aspect of the movie clearly is enhanced by such pacing (such as 'Lost in Translation"). However, there is a difference between slow progression and outright stalling, as happened in this one. I guess from the look on Helen Mirren's face she must have been distraught by the disappearance of her husband!! Surprise, surprise!! What a marvelously creative moment the meeting of the mistress and wife was.(sarcasm) And what a great way that the whole story fell apart at the end. Truly a masterpiece.

Sentiment: negative
Dieter Bohlen, Germany's notorious composer and producer of slightly trashy pop hits like "You're my heart, you're my soul" felt the need to tell his story - and gracefully he decided to hire a ghost writer. The result was a funny book about his life. Well, more or less a fuzzy image of it. He didn't deny that he is a selfish asshole but the whole story was twisted to fit his image of himself. No word that he has probably beaten up his former wife and she ended up in hospital. However it was written in a funny style and a huge success after his appearance as jury member of the German version of "American Idol" - especially his unforgettable comments.

This should be the end of the story - really. In the hype of the mentioned "Idol" TV show called "Deutschland sucht den Superstar" (abbreviated DSDS) somebody must have come up with the terrible idea to make a movie out of the book. The result is "Dieter - der Film"

I have rarely seen a movie which tries so desperately to be funny and fails so completely. None of the gags really hits the point. Naddel's voice and style of talking was getting on my nerves right away although Verona's voice should have done that more. Obvious, childish, predictable and lengthy gags destroy any motivation to watch this movie to the end within a few minutes. The content of the movie is a sloppy film adaption written sloppily down by a ghost writer based on Bohlen's sloppy idealized memory. They could have used this freedom to do almost everything. It was supposed to be a satire, but they failed. The story is totally uninteresting and the fact that the background voice is Bohlen himself guarantees that the whole film has nothing satirical at all.

It's no wonder that it was considered to bad for a cinema release. The probability that this thing would have rotten in some archive was quite high until recently when the current season of DSDS turned out to be a mediocre success. With the "friendly" help of Germany's biggest yellow press newspaper "BILD" and the desperate situation for the TV station RTL to have something in the program while the still unbeatable show "Wetten dass... ?" is running on Channel 2 the movie finally arrived in television - unfortunately.

Watching this movie is a waste of time - there are certainly better cartoons with much more fun and a story actually worth looking at.

Therefore: 2/10

Sentiment: negative
One wonders why this picture was made at all : the plot as such is totally unbelievable if not ridiculous, the characters (experienced loner cop versus younger one, quite fascinated) quite predictable, the ending totally murky and impossible to understand (maybe after several viewings but you'd have to have a masochistic tendency for that ; the idea being you have to read the book to understand fully what it's all about)and the acting is bad. Was the basic idea to show that French film makers are able to do as well as Americans in the genre that include "Seven" and "Silence of the lambs" ? If so, it is a total failure. It was quite a success though (and has a sort of cult-status as the first French serial killer film)and, it seems, considered as a good product to export. Strange.

Sentiment: negative
Barricade finds Alice Faye without any songs as a refugee trying to flee China and without passport. She's in a heap of trouble, I won't say what exactly, and even American extraterritoriality won't help her out.

I mention that because one of the grievances that the Chinese including the bandits who attack the American mission in this story set deep in the Chinese interior was that particular institution whereby American citizens who committed crimes were tried by American courts set up by our consulates. We were far from the only country doing that however.

Anyway the story opens with her on a train for Shanghai trying to use a hokey Russian accent. The accent intrigues Warner Baxter who's pretty plastered.

Bandits however interrupt the journey and the two of them seek refuge in the American consulate presided over by Charles Winninger. He's the best one in the film and I only wish that a better story was given because I liked his character. He's a widower and a proud member of the consular service, appointed in 1900 by William McKinley. He requested a transfer ten years later and that's the last he was heard from. As Assistant Secretary of State Jonathan Hale aptly put it, he's the real forgotten man.

Baxter does all right in a role that someone like Clark Gable would have done in his sleep at MGM. The heroics would have come more natural to Gable than to Baxter as the mission is barricaded and defended against the bandits.

Alice Faye did have one number to sing. Why Alice's song was cut out, God and Zanuck only know. One thing I'm still trying to figure out is when the mission inhabitants take final refuge in the cellar with a trap door, just who was left upstairs to pull the rug over the cellar door? 

Barricade had the potential to be a lot better than it was. But sloppy editing and lost faith in the project made 20th Century Fox release a project unfulfilled. Watching Barricade is like eating a badly cooked meal.

Sentiment: negative