DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
When I was a little girl (and my dad owned a video store), this was among my favorite movies. I hadn't heard much about it since then, nor did I really remember anything about it, it having been forgotten in the wake of Don Bluth's other, probably better films. I managed to track it down a few weeks ago, however, and was pleasantly surprised again. Set in New Orleans in the 1930s, the animation is delightful and the songs are memorable. There are a few goofs in continuity if you look hard enough, but they generally don't detract from the storyline, which leaves you smiling (and maybe even a little misty-eyed, if you are a lover of animals). The characters are believable (maybe even a little too grown-up for younger watchers), as well. Two paws up, and for those of you who haven't seen it in a while, definitely worth a re-watch.

Sentiment: positive
YES, the plot is hardly plausible and very thin. YES, the acting does range from average to laughable. YES, it has been done so many times before. However what we are dealing with is a film that does not shy away from these facts and pretends to be nothing more than it is. There are indeed some original death scenes and the tension does increase throughout the movie. In addition you are never more than a few minutes away from a gory killing. I urge everyone to watch this film with an unprejudiced eye and see it for what it set out to be; a scary, funny slasher flick with a theme tune second to none.

Sentiment: positive
My life is about saving animals. I do volunteer work with a cat rescue organization. I am a vegetarian because I couldn't kill an animal even to sustain my life. I can't even kill a spider, I put it outdoors. The scene where the children throw rocks at the bird until it dies, with Sooner participating in an attempt to be accepted by the other children, made me sick and has haunted me ever since. It simply convinces me that human beings are pathetic in their need for acceptance. The ending - the foster parents adopt Sooner - does not redeem the depiction of animal cruelty. Why would anyone want their child to see this film?

Sentiment: negative
The Sopranos (now preparing to end) is the very peak of adult television and drama. When The Sopranos hits the mark, it really hits the mark. Using great writing and great actors (most of them being extras from Goodfellas) the series is aloud to progress in a satisfyingly unpredictable and exceptional way. Heading up the cast is James Gandolfini, who for all intensive purposes is Tony Soprano, and Edie Falco, who certainly holds her own. The series also boasts a great collection of regulars to push the plot along by any means necessary (usually violence and foul language). Tony Sirico, Michael Imperioli and Steve Van Zandt are great secondary characters that make every episode more interesting. Seasonal extras are also worth note including names like Steve Buscemi (great!), Joe Pantoliano (great!), David Proval (good), Robert Patrick, Robert Loggia and Frank Vincent.

The Sopranos is a great family drama and a realistic interpretation of modern day mafia societies that despite the rare bad story lines manages to be unique TV. Symbolism and simple story lines, dreams and shoot-outs and many other things create intertwining stories and relationships that at the end of each season are resolved to create yet another perfect HBO package. Watch it...

Sentiment: positive
Man am I stoked I can leave feedback for this 10 minutes romp. I love it.

After not seeing it in years, I happened upon it the other day and watched it over and over.

'Stop shaking your eyes' and 'shake a rock and roll band' and 'stop sawing the table' are freaking classic lines.

The art is delightfully raw. The dialog sparse and wonderful. Just find it and love it. Cannot recommend this enough.

Thank you high school art teacher Mrs. Kogan for showing us this over and over. Thank you NFB for letting it be made. Thank you MTS for showing it (for free at the moment at least).

I want a Big Snit t-shirt now. I'd love an animation cell, but at 440.00 a pop, that won't happen.

Find this flick, and watch it.

Sentiment: positive
Thomas Vinterbergs "De Største Helte" is yet another road movie without the most important element of a film: a good story. The characters are not very original and not particularly interesting. Especially Thomas Bo Larsen is a pain in the neck, playing the same role he has played in the past few years and which he repeated in "Festen" - it seems as if he thinks acting = being angry and screaming at other people! The film doesn't make much too sense and isn't very funny either - although it tries hard to be "kooky" and "weird". If you're going to make a road movie, why not add something original to the genre?!

Sentiment: negative
Quai des Orfevres takes too long getting going, with Clouzot so enamored of his back-stage milieu that he is almost in danger of forgetting the story. However, once it does, it's Clouzot at his best. Bertrand Blier (father of Bertrand Blier and co-star of his Buffet Froid) is the worldworn pianist who married beneath himself and who plans to kill the seedy studio mogul with designs on his wife only to find that someone has beaten him to it. Not only that, but his carefully planned but clumsily executed alibi falls to pieces, not least when a thief steals his car at the murder scene

The film really kicks into life with the arrival of Luis Jouvet's police inspector, a rather wonderful creation half Alistair Sim in Green for Danger and half world-weary Maigret with better dialog. In a neat running gag, his investigation is constantly conducted at the top of his voice against chaos and noise, whether it be the noisy typewriters of the police station or a loud rehearsal. The police station itself is a wonderfully realistic creation, a wealth of chaotic and telling small details that makes Steve Bocchco's once revolutionary 80's US cop shows look like antiquated museum pieces by comparison. 

If Suzy Delair is a rather unconvincing femme fatale, the supporting cast more than compensate, with the beautiful Simone Renant a standout as the lesbian photographer in love with her from afar and constantly mistaken for Blier's lover by Delair and other interested parties (only Jouvet, similarly unlucky with women, understands and genuinely sympathises). With great black and white photography by Armand Thirard, this is a terrific little thriller with a nice twist ending and a lovely scene with a cab driver reluctantly identifying Renant in a police station. (Trivia note: Pierre Larquey, who played the playfully philosophical Dr Vorzet in Le Corbeau, turns up in smaller roles as a cab-driver in both Quai and Les Espions.)

The Criterion DVD is quite superb - great picture quality plus an illuminating extract from a French TV show featuring interviews with Clouzot, Blier and Renant.

Sentiment: positive
OK, this has got 2 be one of the worst excuses 4 a movie that i have ever had the misfortune of watching. Like all other Olsen twins movies with the possible exception of new york minute , this film had no story, gaping plot holes,disgustingly putrid acting and bad filming even!!!!!!!!! in case you haven't guessed yet I HATE MARY KATE AND ASHLEY!!!!!! The only reason i watched this was because i was really bored and nothing else was on. I wonder if the twins will EVER stop making the same stereotypical movies where they have an unbelievably stupid adventure in an exotic location and save the day meanwhile getting the help of two cute guys who drool over them immediately. The least they could would be to have a guy 4 1 of them or have them both falling 4 the same guy. The plot in this story was so imbecilic and just plain dumb. even a toddler could see the flaws in it.Maybe they should split up and start making films individually or maybe films with a different kind of story. Anyone who liked this movie was no offense-either really stupid, really artificial or has not seen any really good movie. or maybe they are really smart and just have bad cinematic choices. either way i would not recommend this movie to my worst nemesis for a good movie experience.. the only thing it is good 4 is some rib splitting laughter at the pathetic attempts to be cool. if you watch for laughs it's hilarious. basically i give it 0 or less.

Sentiment: negative
I finished watching Mandy Lane about an hour ago, and felt the urge to come straight home and get up here to warn anyone that's about to spend money on the DVD - DON'T.

The supporting characters are shallow, the failure of acting is higher than that of Matthew McConaughey movies, and up until the end twist, the plot is everything but obvious. In nine out of ten, you can see the next scene coming 5 minutes before it starts. The whole movie is more or less without motive or message, and the half-way revealing of "the murderer" just plain out kills what little interest you might have left at that point. What could have saved this shallow, tedious movie is some decent splatter, or at least gore worthy of the genre "Slasher" - It fails there as well.

If you need a background movie to a party that you can jump in and out of without missing anything, I recommend buying All The Boys Love Mandy Lane.

If you're looking to sit down and actually concentrate your eyes on the screen for more than 15 seconds, I don't.

Sentiment: negative
"Moonstruck" is a lovely little film directed by superb story teller, Norman Jewison (In the Heat of the Night, Fiddler on the Roof, The Hurricane). The film is great on many levels. It shows a good slice of Italian culture, has a touching romance, and (best of all) is a hilarious comedy.

One thing I liked most about the film was the relative unconventional looks of the actors. Nicolas Cage looks positively odd for most of the film, and Cher... well, Cher always looks a little odd.

Overall, it's a fun film, and easy to recommend.

7.4 out of 10

Sentiment: positive
Films like this infuriate me simply because they don't deserve the funding that enables them to end up in my DVD player. This movie is ambiguous in its jacket blurb and even more impenetrable in its casting choices (why is Ms. Song a romantic interest? Did they just want an Asian woman in there, or does her unconvincingly wise character actually lend this "message" movie's story a fresh perspective)? One has very little to go on in approaching this film, and even less as the story unfolds. But a good hour into the proceedings, I realized the dull casting is all the casting agent could dredge up, the unconvincing character studies are the result of writers' brain-fart, and the story is amorphous and plagued by unsubtle references to the woes of capitalism, materialism, and getting ahead in the postmodern world. Towards the end of this film, just before I nodded off and missed the last two minutes, I got the sense that "Everything's Gone Green" is a product of "connections" in the world of film - someone with very little talent knew someone with very little directorial skill, knew someone with absolutely no marketing sense (but plenty of disposable ego) and out popped this dull and inefficient attempt at whimsy and humor-with-a-conscience nonsense. And this is what is most maddening - how many infinitely better scripts were passed over in favor of this almost unwatchable tripe? Skip this film, and feel good about yourself for doing so.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is light, funny, and beautifully filmed. The lightning is absolutely superb, and the colours convincingly remind Vermeer paintings.

This is sentimental comedy at its best, way above US and French standards, and arguably better than English ones too. 

Every character is touching, and interpretation is close to perfection. Isabelle Blais is splendid, Sylvie Moreau is better than in the Catherine series, Stéphane Gagnon is charming, Emmanuel Bilodeau is great in that weird role of his, and Geneviève Laroche is the perfect best friend!

I could go on for hours before finding any negative comment on this movie, so give it a chance, and add your own review.

Sentiment: positive
Look, I'm sorry if half the world takes offense at this, but life is confusing enough. I don't need to watch it that way. I dig Anthony Hopkins, big time. I even watched Fracture, and I knew that would be a steaming pile of Quentin. But this thing is not well shot, and it's not daring--even if it is artsy. Well-produced films have reasons for cuts and fast edits, not this "oh, but it's a realistic interpretation" excuse. This thing'll make your head hurt. It's the fastest moving picture ever to take you nowhere at all. I still love AH, and I'll always give him another chance, but if you aren't made of time to watch bad ideas on screen, skip this.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this title again on Shemaroo. I also asked my nephew who was 17 to watch the same with me. I am 35 and he is 17. He liked it and I did too. It still is funny, a little childish a times but still very clean entertainment. Satish Shah is hilarious in multiple roles. This sitcom would still fare better than many of the recent serials on TV. But obviously some people obviously like mundane fares that come out today. It would have been nice that Shafi Inamdar would have continued for all the seasons. He is no longer alive today. I would wish if someone could list all the episodes here.

WHo can forget the lines "Yeh Kya Ho Raha HAi" "What a relief" "Kaat Daalu Boss" "Vyavhaar hai Vyavhaar" "30 Years Ka Experience hai"

and the title track Yeh Jo hai Zindagi, teaching us to live the life as it comes and take enjoyment out of it. The life of common people.

I still like this sitcom. it may not seem as funny at times but certain episodes are still hilarious.

Sentiment: positive
I have been a fan of this movie for years and years. Because of Teri Hatchers move into the forefront, I had to take the movie off the shelf and watch it. Why people back in 1991 did not see how wonderful this movie was in beyond me? Sally Field and Kevin Kline are beyond fabulous. Although I never have watching daytime soap operas, this movie kills me every time I watch it. The acting is second to none for a comedy and the writing is so smart. I highly recommend that you watch this if you haven't already. You will get to see Elizabeth Shue, Whoopi Goldberg, Teri Hatcher, and Carrie Fisher...to name a few...all give splendid performances.

Sentiment: positive
Antwone Fisher's story of childhood neglect and abuse is an inspiration to all among us who witnessed or even experienced the plight of foster children. Abandoned by a troubled mother, Antwone has never met his father. Growing up with "church going" abusers who use the "n-word" not only to intimidate and hurt but also as a term of endearment, as a young man witnessing how his best friend is killed in a hold-up, enduring racial slurs and being teased while serving in the Navy, Antwone's anger is slowly turned into positive power when counseled by a Navy psychiatrist, and a love enters his life.

The scene where Antwone meets his birth mother is one of the most powerful moments in the film. Stunned by the unexpected confrontation, the woman listens in silence to hear the young man tell her how he has lived a life without crime, addictions to drugs, fathering children left and right, all despite his utterly adverse circumstances.

If that scene wasn't powerful enough, the very next one drives it home (and opens the flood gates): A reception to welcome home Antwone; dozens of smiling faces and open arms announcing that HE is part of this great family.

One of the messages delivered by this wonderful film is that there are many well-meaning and sincere people working to help orphans and unwanted children. Even if some of the homes and administrators don't seem to care and appear self-serving, many do give it their all. The character who found Antwone's "file" once he disclosed the circumstances of his birth is one of those "bright lights" in the darkness of the system.

The DVD includes a French Language track, various subtitle choices, as well as additional features and information about foster parenting.

As a Clevelander I appreciated the location footage. No matter where you are from, you will be deeply moved by this autobiographical gem.

Sentiment: positive
The title doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not sure what door in the movie shouldn't have been opened.

The movie starts uneventfully, with a conversation between a man and a woman in a room that looks like a richly furnished train car, complete with the sound of the train traveling. In fact, the man's house is a train car, and he has a cassette of train sounds. The woman leaves, and calls a young woman. The young woman tells her boyfriend, a doctor, that she's been told her grandmother is ill, and she needs to return to her home town. She hasn't been there in thirteen years.

Flash back to thirteen years ago. A shadowy figure enters a house. He caresses a sleeping young girl, then goes into another room and stabs the girl's mother. The girl wakes up and enters her mother's room and finds her dead with a knife in her. She screams, and an arm comes out of nowhere and claps a hand over her mouth. She looks up in fear. That early scene in the movie of the killer muffling her scream, and the girl's look is one of the few effective shots in the movie.

It doesn't have much going for it in the visuals department. Occasionally there's some strange use of sound, and there's some weird lighting in an attic scene where many of the panes of glass are red and blue.

Back to the present day. The young woman arrives in her grandmother's house. An old doctor is there, who she doesn't trust, along with the man from the opening scene "Judge" and Kearn, the town's museum operator. She doesn't trust any of them, and it's true they don't inspire any trust. She's rather crabby throughout the whole movie. She wants to check her grandmother into a hospital. The men in the town want her house, and the museum operator wants the things in it (his museum is already filled with many of the grandmother's things). Inexplicably, the woman wants to keep the house.

The young woman starts getting phone calls from a man speaking in a sinister whisper. He makes various threats, and wants her to do things to arouse him. Such scenes recur often. Unfortunately, there are so few characters in the movie, that the possibilities of who it could be are limited. Worse still, we see right from the beginning who is making the phone calls. So, while the young woman doesn't know (even though the caller occasionally drops into his normal voice), the audience always knows: no suspense. Each call rattles her more and more.

The ending was unexpected for me, so maybe gets points for not going with the obvious, but I'm not sure I cared for it.

Sentiment: negative
The line, of course, is from the Lord's Prayer - "Thy Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven". Sweden, especially its far north, is not my idea of heaven -30 degree C winter temperatures are a little on the low side for me, but the good folk who live there no doubt think they are in God's own country.

The storyline here is a familiar one. Acclaimed international musician Daniel suffers health breakdown in mid-career, goes back to the little village in northern Sweden where he was born. Persuaded by the local pastor to help out with the church choir, he turns some unlikely talent into a class act, and they enter a contest held in Innsbruck Austria. There are echoes (sorry) of the band players of "Brassed Off" the models of "Calendar Girls" and the dancers of "the Full Monty". But of course he causes plenty of emotional upheaval as some of the more downtrodden villagers realise their worth and revolt against their oppressors. He faces hostile husbands and an increasingly dubious pastor, but nothing except death is going to stop him.

Despite the somewhat corny story, we get to know and like many of the characters, who come across as people rather than caricatures despite many of them being recognisable "types'. I did wonder about the wife-beater being unpunished for so long  Sweden is one country in the world where such violence is pretty strongly discouraged (he was also a bit young to be one of the bullies of Daniel's youth) and the puritanical pastor with a secret passion for girlie magazines was a bit of a stereotype, but marvellously realised by Niklas Falk.

Michael Nyqvist is simply wonderful as Daniel, the frail but driven musician, and there's some nice music as well. I was rapt for the whole two hours. The ending is what you make of it, I guess, but it's not spoiling it to say Daniel achieves what he set out to do.

Sentiment: positive
"The Patriot" staring Steven Segal is a late 90's thriller/action movie that is not really a thriller and not really an action movie; rather it is Steven Segal playing Steven Segal by another name, but this time he is a Native American country doctor who kicks butt every now an again. Baring the obvious plot line holes, the movie itself is absolutely amazing in terms of the blatant disregard for character devolvement. 

From a marketing standpoint, I was left asking myself, "who in the world were they aiming at?" The bio-thriller plot-line is way off the mark for the middle America crowd and Segal as silk cowboy would never sell to anyone even if you deep fried him and put him between a kripsy-cream donut. The whole movie is just way out there, even for Segal fans, because it simply does not deliver on any level.

Sentiment: negative
I suppose if you like endless dialogue that doesn't forward the story and flashy camera effects like the scene transitions in the television show _Angel_, you'll enjoy the film. Me? All I wanted was a nice, tight little story, and it wasn't there. The pacing was practically backward, plot points were buried under a sea of unneeded dialogue, and there was absolutely no sense of dread, or tension, or ANYTHING.

Is it the redneck? Is it the Wendigo? No, it's a cameraman on speed. That's not scary. It doesn't generate a single note of tension or atmosphere unless you're scared by MTV. Like those reviewers before me, I too noticed that by the end the movie invokes derisive laughter from the audience.

Terrible film.

Sentiment: negative
One used to say, concerning Nathaniel Hawthorne, that his failures were more interesting than his successes. I believe that the same remark could suit to McDonald-Eddy's pictures. And especially this one. 

It apparently possesses many characteristics of a failed movie: it's kitsch, the script, because of censorship, sounds inconsistent Yet, this movie gets also some good points: good Rodgers-Hart's music ("I married an angel", "Tira tira tira la"), good acting with E.E.Horton and Reginald Owen. 

Anyway, if you may dislike it, you can't forget it. This strange movie actually leaves a very strong, dreamlike, impression, and you are very likely to keep it in mind for days, maybe for weeks. Why? In the thirties and the beginning of the forties, movies didn't have the same mean than today: it aimed, like a dream, to divert the public in order to make it forget a difficult reality. Of all the the dream-movies that was made, in that time, this one stands as particularly powerful.

In short, let's say that the better way to appreciate this movie, is to watch it without wondering whether it's good or bad. To watch it, like you would watch a dream.

Sentiment: positive
When they announced this movie for TNT I was excited. A Travesty from Donald Westlake's "Enough" was one of my all time favorite stories. After I watched it I was not all that thrilled. Recently I had the chance to watch it a second time with my aunt, and once again I was disappointed (she didn't like it much either, and she'd never read the book). In this movie they managed to sap all the charm from the book and turn it into dull mush. A big part of the problem was William H. Macy. I like him fine in other films, but he played (Terry/Carey) Thorpe as a stammering, incompetent yutz. In the book Thorpe takes a lot of valium for his nerves, but remains outwardly collected at almost all times which is part of the fun. SPOILERS follow: They also left out a big part of the story (other than a 2 second glimpse at the embassy), where Thorpe solves not 1 but 4 homicides for the police. This is important not just because it's funny, but because it helps set up the relationship between Fred and Thorpe. In the movie Fred's betrayal in the end is not nearly as affecting, because they don't seem all that close. In the book they become pretty good friends especially on Fred's side, which makes it all the more ironic that he is he one that arranges Thorpe's downfall. Fred also suffered a bit from casting, I love Adam Arkin but he was not a cheerful, happy to be alive upbeat sort of Detective, character traits which book Fred possesses which makes it more obviously out of character for him to mess with evidence and thus more shocking. Patricia and Edgarson were pretty close to the book, and James Cromwell was great despite not looking much like Martin Balsam. The whole boring boat house scene which was entirely added for the film was much less interesting than the police finding Edgarson's body after Thorpe ships it to Seattle and blaming the death on the mob. Kit was okay although she was mostly rewritten, and it would have been nice to see her die as she did get slightly annoying. I don't mind changes to books to make movies, I know they are necessary because of length and difficulty, but it would have been nice if some of the changes in this movie had been funnier or smarter instead of duller.

Sentiment: negative
First off, to give you some idea of my taste in movies...

2007 Comedies I enjoyed: Superbad, Knocked Up, Hot Fuzz, Blades Of Glory 

2007 Comedies I hated: Evan Almighty, The Brothers Solomon, Good Luck Chuck

I should have followed my first instinct and turned off "Hot Rod" after I got to about the 20 minute mark. I knew by that point that this movie would not make me laugh once. The script is absolutely brutal - I have no idea how this monstrosity managed to crack 6 on IMDb. Any one older than 10 years old who enjoyed this must be some kind of mental defective.

This doesn't come close to anything with Will Farrell and it's clear that Andy Samberg can't carry anything longer than a 5 to 10 minute sketch on YouTube or SNL. I don't know how they roped Ian McShane and Isla Fisher into doing this movie... they must have owed favors or something. I came in knowing that it would be a dumb movie, but I thought it would at least be funny. I didn't so much as smirk.

I don't normally comment on movies at IMDb, but this was so awful, I just had to warn people. This is only the 4th movie I've seen that I've felt compelled to rate 1/10.

Sentiment: negative
God cuts himself with a straight razor, afterwards, he gives birth to mother earth, which then gives birth through gods semen, son of earth. 

This is a one and a half-an-hour movie that sort of depicts a dark version of how god created the world. Its surreal, dark and poetic. The most important aspect of the film to me is the visuals. Its shot in a very grainy black and white film, using both slow-motion and normal shooting. Sometimes even fast film and stop-motion. The scenes are long and dragged out, that sets a very weird mood. No sounds were recorded when filming (i think), sound effects were added afterwards, such as criccets, water and other ambient sounds, repeated over and over. As you might understand this movie is certainly not for the impatient person...

I often felt it was similar to David Lynch's Eraserhead, only this one is even harder to understand, and even more dragged out, but that's okay for me, I like that kind of stuff. Its certainly not entertainment (at least not the Hollywood kind) so if your going to check it out, i recommend you set yourself up for it. Be open minded, and except something like the end of 2001: a space odyssey.

Sentiment: positive
This esteemed production has it's fans. But to paraphrase the classic bad review of 'Mary Reilly,' Moby Dick is like a painting, only slower.

This is because the philosophical grounds for a movie "production" are never to make a great film, rather it's to substitute the lack of a strong guiding idea (in this case for a books transference to film) with a list of hopelessly atomized, undynamic but dazzling conceits in an effort to trick viewers into thinking they've seen greatness. As viewers & critics are apt to fall for this, Oscars follow, feeding the whole dumb equation.

I don't share in the pleasure all these reviewers found. Moby Dick is stunningly uninvolving. Actors dutifully recite essays about Jonah, Moby Dick, the ocean, Moby Dick, Moby Dick... all things that can't respond, and not one of which is absorbing in the slightest. It's dramatically inert. It doesn't build. In narrative terms Moby Dick (as a movie) is little more than a foregone conclusion in search of an actual story. After half an hour I was muttering "Oh terrific... another oath ...another 4 minute soliloquy!"

In the failed effort to involve you, it's a pretty campy overacting showcase. A lot of grey hair here. Starbuck is supposed to be a golden god. (!)

One knows one is looking at a great director when he makes the medium his own rather than trying to replicate the feel of someone else's paintings & palette, or reverently embalming a classic as Huston does here. Paintings and books are nice but they're a different mediums. A movie like this fails to grasp that an honestly enjoyable piece of crap (Village of the Damned) is better in most respects than an insufferable piece of culture. This is the Eat Your Vegetables school of film-making.

One appreciates the work that must have been done to make the movie, but not the narrative. Only a few segments reflecting maritime research are interesting; the recording of shanties as a means of structuring work & various sea efforts; and the technology of whaling. And that doesn't call for a two-plus hour movie.

Sentiment: negative
I had no background knowledge of this movie before I bought it, but it sounded cool and I've been wanting to see a really kick-butt Viking movie for awhile now... alas, this film was not what I was looking for. I had hoped for the best, but instead, was delivered a boring Nordic soap-opera that seemed to drag on too long despite its 84 minute running time. The film's premise is intriguing enough: It's about a Viking warlord who defies his God and Odin is so enraged that he curses the warlord's son, named Barek, to death and rebirth as a Berserker. This Barek guy is then forced to live enraged, insane, and violent lifetime after lifetime. The movie is filmed competently enough, with some rich cinematography and quasi-good performances by the actors, but again, I found myself bored and questioning when this dribble would end. The filmmakers had a chance to make something rather entertaining and semi-unique but they dropped the ball. Perhaps it could've been improved with some cheap exploitation tactics thrown in such as gratuitous nudity and lots of gore... I mean, we are talking about "Berserkers" here, aren't we? Vikings were supposed to be BAD enough, what with all the raping and pillaging, so aren't Berserkers supposed to be even more extreme? All in all, unless you're a fan of The Young and Restless (etc...) or, are yourself, in fact, an insane Berserker who likes self torture, I'd probably steer clear of this drab piece of celluloid.

Sentiment: negative
I have a feeling that the Warners Bros Depression-era musicals are going to become a lot more pertinent in the next couple of years. Yes, we are in the economic doldrums (or have you been living under a rock) and times look bleak. But we always have the movies as a way to escape our troubles. In the 30's, film-going was hugely popular even at the height of economic gloom. "Footlight Parade (1933)" was one such film that audiences flocked to. While this Lloyd Bacon-directed musical doesn't quite capture the social issues of the time as "Gold Diggers of 1933 (1933)" does, it's still a wonderful showcase of talent. We have to wait until the end of the film for the three centrepiece Busby Berkely extravaganza numbers, but boy, are they worth waiting for me. Yes, little Ruby Keeler is a terrible singer and actress, and her tapping is so-so, but Busby's magical "By A Waterfall" whisks her, and what seems to be a hundred other chorus girls, into a dizzying water wonderland. Of course Busby's numbers could never really be performed on a stage (they defy limits of gravity, for one thing), and they contrast terrifically with the realism of the tough, wisecracking non-musical scenes. And "Footlight" also has James Cagney in at the one of his all-too-few musicals (really, what couldn't this man do?). He even gets to take over from the leading man, don sailor garb and fawn over sexpot Shanghai Lil (who is really little Ruby in China-girl wig!).He co-stars with Joan Blondell, his adorable, adoring secretary who Cagney somehow overlooks in favour of other women (until the final reel, that is). Apparently Blondell was the only other woman who Cagney loved apart from his wife. And you can see the mutual adoration in every scene.

Sentiment: positive
Still funny after all these years. Midnight Madness is good entertainment for all ages. It introduces Michael J Fox as a typical 15 year old trouble maker. Melio and Blaylak are by far the funniest characters in it and Leon is perfectly cast as a wierdo game master. The budding romance between Adam and the girl couldn't have been any cheesier. Fagabeefe!!!!

Sentiment: positive
Oh, dear lord.... They've turned what was a fairly thought provoking movie into a swaggering testosterone fest.

The original 1971 version of this movie was beautifully vague about our hero Kowalski. He was a man trying to drive from Denver to San Fransisco to win a bet. Why was he willing to risk his life for the price of a handful of uppers? We're not really sure.

We had a few flashbacks that gave us the picture that he was an adrenaline junkie, and presumably he had led his entire life trying to make it to the vanishing point. That point you see off in the distance where the left and right shoulders of the road come together, and the road itself vanishes. He lives only to be free, and means no ill on anyone. We saw several times when there were accidents he stopped to make sure the other driver was okay before moving on, even the cops that were chasing him.

When he saw the futility of his quest he took his life rather than be arrested and live a life of captivity. He died like he lived, running wide open.

In the remake Kowalski has a whole history (including a first name, even.) He's trying to get to the hospital where his wife is suffering from complications to her pregnancy. He is a devoted husband, and excited expectant father. He comes to the decision to take his life after hearing his wife died in delivery, but they even leave THAT in question when they suggest that he may have jumped out of the car before it ran into the bulldozers. They even gave the part of "super soul," the blind DJ (brilliantly portrayed by Clevon Little in the original) to JASON PRIESTLY?!?!?!?!?!? Give me a break.

Sentiment: negative
This is a cheap-o movie made by Al Adamson--a man who was perhaps the worst film maker ever--even possibly worse than Ed Wood, Jr.. Adamson specialized in extremely low budget horror and skin films during the 60s, 70s and 80s and with such titles as FIVE BLOODY GRAVES, HELL'S BLOODY DEVILS, SATAN'S SADISTS and LASH OF LUST it's obvious he wasn't making Shakespeare!! His movies all had rotten production values, sensations, gore and amateur acting.

Here in BRAIN OF BLOOD, several stock Adamson actors (such as his wife, Regina Carrol, Zandor Vorkov and Angelo Rossitto are along for the ride and had appeared in Adamson's previous film, Dracula VERSUS FRANKENSTEIN. This is fortunate because the prior movie was so terrible and so poorly executed on every level that BRAIN OF BLOOD can't help but look good! Sure, the makeup is laughable, the plot dumb (it involves the ubiquitous brain transplant scheme) and acting is level Z, but it's STILL better than their last film! 

About the only positive things about this film are that aging supporting actor, midget Angelo Rossitto actually had a better than usual part--with more dialog and a more important role in the plot--and there is actually some sense of danger and tension at times. As for Ms. Carrol, she STILL looks like a stripper and the rest of the cast limp through this silly flick. However, it's bad enough that it makes for good watching by bad movie fans--you've just gotta see makeup on the guy with acid burns as well as the ray gun that appears to be made out of an old tail light!

Sentiment: negative
Naruto the Anime TV Series has so far spawned 2 feature length theatre movies, and a third one is coming our way this summer.

The first one, which was released in the summer '04 was a fun adventure featuring the main characters of Naruto in an exciting adventure. However, one must be a blind, deaf and one legged chicken to deny that film's faults. Whilst the first was most definitely enjoyable, there were a lot of things that could be improved on. Naruto Movie 2, however, takes all of these aspects and excels upon them.

The action first of all, was incredibly cinematic. The lighting, setting and style was three fold as effective as in the first movie. In the first we were given basic action, well animated and choreographed animation, but nothing eye popping, however this movie's cinematography was exceptional, the use of shadows and lighting combining together to make the action all that more intense was very effective and added to the force of the fighting.

The animation was very good. It rivalled Disney, however since this is a movie about TV characters, there was nothing exceptionable about the character design or detail to the actual characters, however, the animation was incredibly fluid and realistic. I think they even used twice the amount of cels for each second because there was absolutely nothing jittery about the animation at all, it was incredibly fluid.

The music... I think that's where this movie fails. The original composer/conductor for the TV show was used for the film, and I don't really feel that he did that good of a job. The music mostly reminded me of a lot of pieces used in old SNES games. The composer is very good, but the synthesisers used for the film couldn't convey the tune very well. However they didn't fail the film at all, adding as a good accompaniment to the action. But, except for a few violin/string pieces towards the end and some choral work, the music didn't excel any boundaries or act as anything special.

The story was fun. It was a reasonably typical storyline for Naruto and was very similar to the first movies, except, again, it took everything that had been wrong with the first film's story and improved upon them. The characters were a lot more interesting and the way the story progressed was what kept me watching throughout the entire film. It kept making you think the film would be ending any second now, but then it would move on, but instead of feeling dragged out, the action and characters made everything still feel fresh and exciting.

Overall, this film is a goodun, but however good it might be, it is most definitely one for the fans. I enjoyed the film, but thats because... I'm a fan! But I can see, just like with Final Fantasy's Advent Children, it doesn't excel as a movie, but merely acts as a fantastic serve of fan service for a good hour and a half. Though I think this film does act as a good introduction to the series for current non-watchers, it won't give a full effect for anyone other than those glued to Naruto screens. However, despite all this, it was a fun movie to enjoy during this depressing period of upsetting fillers.

Sentiment: positive
Black Scorpion is Roger Cormen's Batman. Which is cool and there is a lot of cool stuff in this movie. Like the Breathtaker being a cross between Doctor Doom and Darth Vader, that's kind of cool. The mind control gas in the inhalers was worthy of the Mad Hatter. The Cormen B-movie style is all over this puppy which is not always a good thing. There are plenty of stunts and hot babes to make any action fan happy. This movie, the good out weighs the bad. But if you aren't one for comic book movies, then I would advise not watching Black Scorpion, however if you like comic book like movies and don't care if it was ever a comic before. Then check out BLACK SCORPION, as for me I give it 8 STARS.

Sentiment: positive
This is a truly classic movie in its story, acting, and film presentation. Wonderful actors are replete throughout the whole movie, Miss Sullivan, and Jimmy Stewart being the foremost characters. In real life she greatly admired, and liked Jimmy, and indeed gave him his basically first acting roles, and helped him be more calm with his appearance on the set. The "chemistry" between the two was always apparent, and so warm and enjoyable to behold. She was such a beautiful, young woman, and so sweet in her personality portrayals. The story of these two young people, and how they eventually come together in the end is charming to watch, and pure magical entertainment. Heart warming presentations are also given by the other supporting actors in this marvelous story/movie. I whole heartily give Miss Sullivan a perfect 10 in this Golden Age Cinema Classic, that has a special appeal for all generations. A must see for all!

Sentiment: positive
I didn't see this movie when it originally came out, but there has been a couple songs sharing the title and the term still gets used from time to time and I figured there must be something to the flick, so I dug it up and gave a view. Now I would like the approximate hour and forty five minutes of my life back(it seemed much longer). There was nothing particularly bad about the movie, the acting was good, no large plot holes, of course there wasn't much plot to have holes in. There just wasn't a lot to the movie. There was some chemistry between the two but nothing compelling about their relationship; Nothing interesting about their story. Near the end when he attempts to chase down the train to catch his fleeing romance, neither my wife nor I wanted him to catch her. Honestly we figured they were better off with out each other and if they did get back together we really didn't care. So what's that say about this love story when even a 25 year old sappy romantic like my wife had no emotional investment in the relationship. I should have left this one in the "missed" category.

Logan Lamech www.eloquentbooks.com/LingeringPoets.html

Sentiment: negative
This movie was a low point for both Jason Robards and Sam Peckinpah. Major plot points are taken directly from Sergio Leone's masterpiece "Once Upon a Time in the West" (released two years earlier and also featuring Robards): A man finds a watering hole is found in the desert, being the only water for many miles in every direction, he plans to build a 'station' around the hole and to ensure there's a love interest, he falls in love with a prostitute. To this add an intemperate preacher, bad music, silly fast action shots, even sillier T&A shots - and there you go. There is little question why it failed at the box office. The real question is "how did it make it that far?".

Sentiment: negative
Yes, I give it a 10 because I compare it not only to others of it's kind but also to the dreck one is bombarded with on a daily basis in what's laughably called today's "popular culture." That aside, the film is beautifully cast, as has been stated elsewhere, and gives us a fairly good look at popular theater of the late 18th and early 20th centuries. No small coincidence is that many of the plays that Olcott played in involved a similar plot: Boy meets girl, someone objects, (usually the father or some authority figure) boy struggles, boy wins girl. The was actually known at the time as a "Chauncey Olcott Act." No coincidence, too, that John Ford directed one. He called it, "The Quiet Man." And, "My Wild Irish Rose," is, in itself, a "Chauncey Olcott act." Great stuff, no? Anyway, great songs, great stuff. Enjoy.

PS - After seeing the film I'd like to know more about Bill Scanlan. I found an obit that said he quit "Mauvorneen," as a result of insanity (replaced, as in the film, by Chauncey Olcott) and died in an asylum several years later. But he had been, apparenlty, a very big star in his own right, who wrote songs and plays and had plays written for him.

Anyone know more?

Sentiment: positive
Bottom of the barrel, unimaginative, and practically unwatchable remake of THE ROAD WARRIOR. This film follows the exact plot as the Filipino film STRYKER and is worse by far! Bad acting, dialog, effects, dubbing, pacing, action sequences... The list goes on and on. Italy made literally dozens of Road Warrior rip-offs in the early 80's, some good, some bad. This is the worst by far, no contest. Not only was the mood of the film completely bleak and miserable, the experience of sitting through this one is a bore and a half. There was 1 (one) good chase sequence towards the beginning of the movie, and a cool shot of a man holding a hand grenade exploding. But EVERYTHING else about this movie seriously reeks! For actual post-nuke fun, go track down a copy of ENDGAME, AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK, or ESCAPE FROM THE BRONX instead. They're much more enjoyable than this rubbish.

Sentiment: negative
Although this film is set amongst the sophisticated English upper classes it is a simple story of a couple torn asunder. It has a slightly dated air, being an adaptation of "A Way Through the Wood", a 1950 novel by Nigel Balchin (once hugely popular and now forgotten). Julian Fellowes, who despite an academy award for the script of "Gosford Park", has a somewhat anachronistic persona himself, wrote the script and directed (the latter for the first time). With the DVD version I saw there is a most illuminating audio commentary by Julian. His primary focus was on getting his characters right, and by and large he has succeeded. In this he was helped by two outstanding performances from Tom Wilkinson as James, the stitched up City lawyer, and Emily Watson as his attractive wife Anne. He also kept it short; the running time is only 80 minutes.

James and Anne have a town house in Chelsea and a comfortable former vicarage in Buckinghamshire. Anne is some years younger but they are childless. Outwardly they seem happy, but James, one of nature's moralists (unusual for a city lawyer), is a control freak. Just down the road is the aristocratic the Hon. William Buel, who is not one for middle-class morality, and he is more than happy to take advantage. But there's a complication, a road accident, in which an elderly cyclist is knocked over in a country lane by a ruthlessly driven Range Rover just like the Hon. Bill's. Soon James, Anne, Bill and the victim's widow (who happens to be James' and Anne's cleaner) are drawn in to a conspiracy to conceal what really happened. The primary focus is on the corrosive effect of all this on James and Anne's relationship.

The third person in this ménage a trios, Bill, is played by Rupert Everett. From the point of view of casting, his languid, superior manner is right for the part, yet somehow he doesn't quite get there. Partly this is because he is supposed to be sick for some of the time and he looks well when he is supposed to be sick, and vice-versa. The part seems underdeveloped. It is interesting that John Neville as Bill's father who has only one significant scene manages to establish his character beautifully in the time he has.

The world of five star hotels and superior restaurants is nicely evoked. As Julian Fellowes says in the audio commentary, these people are able to convince themselves that the Edwardian age still exists. At bottom though, the film is about what draws a couple together and what tears them apart. Nigel Balchin was going through a marriage break-up when he wrote the book, and Fellowes has made a good fist of conveying the atmosphere. As he says, his is a fairly free adaptation, but the central theme is the same.

Sentiment: positive