DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Kramer vs. Kramer is the story of a marital breakup and the consequences of same. They can be devastating to the partners and even more so to a minor child which in this case is played by Justin Henry.

What I really did like about Kramer vs. Kramer, it's greatest strength as a film is the way that parents Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep are presented to the audience as whole people with many sides to their nature. Though the film is slanted in Hoffman's direction and more about his relationship with his son, he's not presented as any kind of saint, nor is Streep a completely black villain. Hoffman's a career oriented man in the advertising game. He's pretty much ignored his wife's dreams and aspirations, still it's a big shock to him when Streep says the love's no longer there and she wants out. She also wants out of being a mother, at least for a while.

Hoffman and Henry make do the best they can. The pressure of being both parents causes Hoffman to lose his job and he has to take a lower paying one in another agency. At that point after over a year, Streep decides she wants custody.

Both parents make compelling witnesses and state their case beautifully, but in these situations, the tie is always broken in favor of the mother.

Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep won their first of two Oscars respectively for this film, her in the Supporting Actress category. I'm not sure how these things are decided, Streep does get less screen time than Hoffman if that's the determining factor. The film does focus on Hoffman's relationship with his son and his evolving realization that he has his share of the blame for the marriage failure. As for Meryl it's a Hob's choice for her as it is for many women, to balance a career and motherhood. The conflict in her psyche registers for all to see on the screen.

Dustin Hoffman may have won that Oscar partly for the same reason that Spencer Tracy picked up his first, by performing the impossible task of not letting a scene stealing child steal the film. Children with their lack of inhibitions are natural actors and Henry is great because he comes over as a real kid, not a Hollywood kid. I wonder if Hoffman saw Captains Courageous and saw how Spencer Tracy dealt with Freddie Bartholomew. Dustin could have done a lot worse than channel Spencer Tracy in his performance.

Kramer vs. Kramer also won Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director for Robert Benton and Best Adapted Screenplay. It's an intelligent and compelling drama about adults falling out of love and trying to deal as best they can with it for themselves and their child. Don't miss it if ever broadcast.

Sentiment: positive
This is, ostensibly, a movie about multiple grief. As such, it ought to move viewers and make them empathetic with the plight of the main characters. However, its irritatingly postmodern style makes it almost incomprehensible. The camera continually switches from one scene to another, from one personal crisis to the next, creating a choppy, disjointed effect. Most characters appear to live aimless, unstructured lives, held together by their professional commitments. (It also stretches credibility that a man who has just been given what amounts to a likely death sentence, would cheerfully indulge in a sex romp with a woman he has just met). The storyline (if there is a storyline) is difficult to follow. In sum, the overall effect is rather disappointing. In spite of all that, the acting is generally good and some of the scenes are quite powerful.

Sentiment: negative
I have just recently read the novel "mother night", I've owned the dvd for some time now, and watch it every so often. Few movies I own and have seen have made me think and question as much as Mother Night has, I am amazed at the brilliance not only of Vonnegut, but of the translation of his text to screen.

Do not rent or watch this movie on VHS, it must be done on dvd, and it must be accompanied by the director's commentary on the film. To see how they took a fairly simple story, yet complex in its substance and dialogue, and made it work so well, I think any viewer will be amazed.

The omissions in the movie are few from the text, and do not detract from it much, the movie might as well be the book, and is the best adaptation I have ever seen. I so highly recommend both the book and movie together that it does a disservice to merely say go watch it.

It will change you if you do.

Sentiment: positive
Though I like E.E. "Doc" Smith's books and David A. Kyles books of Lensman, the anime, which is loosly based on the books, is quite a fun and somewhat innovative fair.

Though the story may seem familiar to Sci-Fi/Fantasy buffs, such as some kid on an isolated planet inherits mystical powers and avenges the death of his family, it is quite an entertaining one nonetheless. Plus, Lensman was THE first Animated motion picture to use hand drawn and CG animation all at once. Sure, it may look a bit outdated now, but it is still an innovation. If it were not for Lensman, none of that would have ever happened (personally, I think Computer Graphics look better in animation that live action.)

Too bad they only released it on DVD/VCD in a few countries in the worls (mostly on formats that are quite foreign and different). I just wish they release the Lensman movie and tv series on DVD/VCD in EVERY part of the world, not just certain parts.

P.S. Worsel rules! I just think he is so amazing and neat looking as well.

Sentiment: positive
Certainly the highlight of this film is it's cast.

Diana Rigg, George C. Scott, Bernard Hughes to mention a few.

I have accumulated more time in hospitals and with doctors over the years than I care to think about.

This comedy attacks the pomp and pretension in all aspects of our society, through the setting of one of it's "Most Haughty" institutions... the Medical profession.

The idea that such goings on could be possible, might be a shock to some, but is a delight to anyone with the perspective of experience.

Dr Brock (Scott) undergoes a mid-life crisis of monumental proportions before our eyes as we, and he, become enamored with the prospect of his involvement with Miss Drummond (Rigg).

The thread of the absurd is woven into this wonderful mix in the form of the irony that the Hospital appears to be killing it's own workers as they mismanage their affairs in it.

The climax is unpredictable (unless you've seen it) and made even more hilarious if you happen to guess.

It's not everyone's brand of humor, to be sure, and has uproariously funny "Dark Moments" if you're open to them.

I loved every minute, and was delighted to see it out on DVD.

Sentiment: positive
Completely overlooking the whole movie adaptation of a video game, this is another terrible movie by Mr. Boll. How he continues to be hired to make movies is a constant surprise to me and obviously most of the movie going community.

As a whole I will say that this attempt was fractionally better than so many of his previous attempts. Some of the dialog was even half way decent in Far Cry though he still misuses some phrases and in some cases he doesn't even use the phrases correctly.

Now besides the fact that Jack Carver is supposed to be American and not German, Til was still entertaining in this role. One exception is the laughably lame lines he uses to get in bed with the girl. And we are supposed to believe that she is ready to have sex with him so casually after such minimal dialog? Emile? Simply there for comic relief I am sure and still lame. Jack's character looks old and tired yet is still capable of the extreme acrobatics needed to avoid one of the altered super soldiers in the lab.

Don't watch this one for the Far Cry adaptation. But you might just waste an hour and a half watching it if you have nothing better to do.

Sentiment: negative
I just called my brother Paulie on the phone and he said he was watching Hoods and it was funny. So, like I said, never go against the family! The demand for more lines is OK since I like to express my own opinions quite frequently. If something is misspelled it's most likely my eyesight and not my brain. This gives me yet another chance to take my shots at "The Departed". When one knows exactly what is going to happen in the last scene with no prior knowledge, that usually means it wasn't all that suspenseful. All you need is a good directer,the same guy I believe who did my favorite mob movie, "Goodfellows), but in a completely different way.And then just throw in Jack the great and you got yourself an Oscar. Easy as pie. I have to see hoods to make sure it wasn't better than "The Departed" Gibbs

Sentiment: positive
**Warning! Spoilers Ahead!**

This short is part one of two that expound upon the brief portion of "The Matrix" in which Morpheus explains how the matrix came to be. Because we already know the story, the plot itself is no surprise; and the short isn't so much entertaining as informative. But that's how it is presented, as a file in the historical archives. The visuals are better than average, and the generally cold colors aid the purpose of the short.

A couple problems. The violence of the tale is a little gratuitous and, combined with the occasional dose of political correctness (UN scenes), detracts from the straight narrative of the short. Plus it needs to be seen with part two to be complete.

The Animatrix concept is brilliant, and despite a few issues, this short still fulfills its purpose. It would not have fit in the original movie in style, content, or flow. This is the perfect method to reveal the history.

Bottom Line: Good information. Could have been told a little better, but still a solid 7 of 10.

Sentiment: positive
This was pretty bad - from bad acting, bad technical details, bad camera shots, and bad audio (even though I was watching a DVD, sometimes I couldn't hear what they were saying, sometimes it was blowing my speakers, even within the same conversation). The plot was predictable, and the characters consisted of mostly unbelievable neurotics, bi-polars, and caricatures. Character development was awful... the bratty little sister (why was she even written into the script?), the nagging mom (again - what purpose?) the whiny girlfriend (why didn't he dump her long ago?), the 'dark suits' gang (how original - couldn't think of a better name I guess), the drug dealer's hot girlfriend (gotta have a hot Latina if your going to have LA gangs I guess, but really...), etc etc Can't believe I watched the whole thing.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is so bad, I knew how it ends right after this little girl killed the first person. Very bad acting very bad plot very bad movie

do yourself a favour and DON'T watch it 1/10

Sentiment: negative
The saddest thing about this film is that only 8 people cared to leave a review of it and NO-ONE felt it worthwhile leaving a comment on the message boards.

Made the same year as Philadelphia...the Tom Hanks Oscar-winner... this is the film that people REALLY should have seen and given awards to. There is more humanity, life, love, tenderness and beauty in these two people than in just about any other gay film I have seen... and it is all true.

In order for this to be printed I need to leave a few more lines of text: suffice it to say that anyone who REALLY wants to know what it was like to be gay in the 60's and 70's, and to understand just what AIDS was like before the modern drug "cocktails" allowed people to breathe a little easier... this is the film to see. 

Oh, and I will add a personal comment about AIDS. Despite everything, there actually has been a silver lining to all the horror. When AIDS first arrived, it was called the "gay cancer", and governments preferred to "let them die" rather than spend a red cent on research to help save a bunch of fags. Then it became clear that AIDS would also be a heterosexual disease. But the government wasn't ready for that; So when straight people began getting ill too, the only organizations and associations that were available to them were those which had been set up by gays themselves (examples: The Names Project: the quilt memorializing all those who died of AIDS; Act Up etc) The result is that people who probably would never have come in contact with gays in their ordinary lives suddenly found themselves counting on them and needing them, because no other organizations existed. This close contact, in my estimation, is what finally broke down the barriers of prejudice and allowed the straight world to finally accept gays as equals. When AIDS first came on the scene, many of us thought that the straight world would use it as a way to come down even harder on us... and that probably would have been true if straights didn't suddenly become ill too; nevertheless, the strides that have been made in gay liberation - to the point that, as I write this, there are at least 5 countries in the world that accept gay marriage - these gains would probably have taken a lot longer without AIDS to bring us together. It is sad to think that all those people - both straight and gay - had to die before our common humanity became more obvious - but if what I am writing here is true, and I think it is - then there is a bit of comfort to be taken in realizing that all those people did not die in vain.

Sentiment: positive
After 15 minutes watching the movie I was asking myself what to do: leave the theater, sleep or try to keep watching the movie to see if there was anything worth. I finally watched the movie: what a waste of time. Maybe I am not a 5 years old kid anymore!

Sentiment: negative
I went to see this movie with the most positive expectations. I had seen Jacquet's previous movie (march of the penguins) and had heard a very positive review of this one on the radio. However, I was severely disappointed. Most of all, this movie is terribly boring. Literally NOTHING happens. I tried to describe the content of the movie to a friend, and we both ended up laughing because I could only stammer things like "well then the winter comes, and then spring, and then there's an eagle, and a river, and one time it is dark, and the girl goes into a cave, and another time the fox has babies" and so on. After about half an hour I began sighing, yawning, rolling my eyes, cursing the reviewer at the radio station, and hoping that it would be over soon. But the movie went on and on. When it finally ended I had sunken so deep into my chair that I must have looked somewhat similar to Stephen Hawking. The most annoying parts of the movie are (a) The girl, who is obviously there to give children someone to identify with. She wears the same clothes throughout the entire movie (one year), and shows exactly two facial expressions: Joy and Seriousness. She is cute, no question about that. However, a movie about the beauty of nature like this one would have done better without her all-too-human presence. I found myself constantly hoping that she might get eaten by a bear, drown in the river, or something similarly terrible. (b) The commentary by the girl's adult voice, which tells us nothing but negligible, obvious, boring, redundant things. (c) The music, which is desperately lacking subtlety. When the girl is happily jumping around, the music jumps around, too. When the fox is threatened by an eagle, the music becomes threatening, too. It reminded me of the very early days of film-making, and was just too predictable to enjoy. Admittedly, many of the children who saw the movie with me did obviously like it, at least they got somehow involved. Thus, my warning concerns adults only: If you are over ten years old, avoid this movie. You can get a better (and cheaper) sleep in most other places.

Sentiment: negative
When it was announced the "King of Pop" was dead at age 50, a month before he was to start a series of live comeback shows at London's O2 Arena, it was a huge shock to millions of people around the world. He was, and will forever be one of the most talented voices and dancers in the music industry, and he will be missed terribly. I decided to remind myself how wonderful he was by watching what is considered by many to be not only Jackson's best video (and possibly song), but the greatest music video ever made, from director John Landis (An American Werewolf in London). The film opens with Michael and his Girl (Ola Ray) having their car breakdown, and after giving her a ring, the moon comes out and he turns into a werewolf. We then see Michael and his Girl watching this horror film in the cinema, she is scared and walks out, and Michael soon follows her, singing the iconic song. Soon enough the voice of Vincent Price comes on, and zombies start crawling out the earth and open coffins from the graveyard, and Michael and the Girl are obviously surrounded. She turns away, and Michael has become a zombie himself, and with all the other creatures they do the iconic dance, before he turns back into his normal self, at least for the chorus. The Girl runs into the near creepy house, blocks the doorway, but zombie Michael still manages to break through, and when he touches her she screams to see normal Michael say "what's the problem?" The film ends with him taking her home, and looking at us with evil eyes. Michael Jackson was number 14 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, and he was number 6 on The Ultimate Pop Star, the Thriller album was number 4 on The 100 Greatest Albums, and this video was number 71 on The 100 Greatest Scary Moments, and it was number 1 on The 100 Greatest Pop Videos. Very good!

Sentiment: positive
This movie has some of the most awesome cars I've ever seen in a movie, and definitely the hottest women, but I would have to say it is still one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

Here is the plot, and if you read it with a little inflection, you have the acting as well.

Beginning, bring in characters, hot woman singing (obvious lip sync). Music agent or producer comes in, thinks that she is awesome asks her to race. She turns down, too many bad memories. Flash to war hero, back from war, has several fights, and becomes movie hero with attitude that he is better than everyone. Drive off in fast exotic car. Brother races, then dies. Hero to avenge death, cut away to getting weapons from friend. (You have never seen this friend before or after, but seems to really care about him) Are you sure you want to do this; Yes; I mean are you really sure; Yes, give me weapons; are you REALLY sure; Yes; OK, I guess I can't talk you out of it, be careful man, I love you.

Now he goes to blow up his uncles house who owned the car his brother drove. Finds woman, decides to rescue her, She drives off, and he doesn't finish killing his uncle. Now there will be a race to finish the movie. Oh yeah, need to throw in one more scene with bad people coming in to beat up people that don't really matter, but maybe it adds a little plot. Race is not even that exciting, of course it ends with two cars racing, and one that should win throws in a surprise ending.

OK, I just saved you $7.00. You can send all of your money to me, because I should have given you the same amount of enjoyment as this movie does. Don't get me wrong, the cars are awesome, and Nadija is beautiful, but it is truly an awful movie.

Sentiment: negative
The movie Jennifer with Ida Lupino and Howard Duff is film noir magnificence.This is a mostly unknown movie that all film noir fans should see.Jennifer was filmed with the most unusual camera angles for that time, which made the movie have a surreal like quality at times. I love the stark black and white film noir movies.Film noir in color is not as good.The cast and script is excellent.The rather creepy music is fun to listen to.Ida Lupino is one of the best and talented actresses to ever grace the screen.I have never seen a production that she was in that I did not like.She was not only breathtakingly beautiful,she was a fine actress.The first movie that I remember seeing Ida Lupino in was Roadhouse with Richard Widmark and Cornel Wilde.I never forgot the movie,or her. I saw her last films like Food Of The Gods and Women In Chains, and even though the movies were not her usual fare, she was still delightful in them as an actress.Howard Duff is always terrific to watch.I highly recommend this masterpiece to everyone.I have this movie on VHS tape.

Sentiment: positive
There are many, many older movies that deserve to be transferred to the DVD format. This is surely one of them. An Anthony Quinn triumph! Scores of movies portray the victims of Nazi atrocities before and during the war, but, I don't think any of them have delved into the psyche of the victim and predator as well as this this one has. Anthony Quinn was truly a man for all seasons. He had the ability to portray the humblest of creatures devoid of any human vises to a creature of extreme animalism and pull it off as believable to the audiences who watched with no afterthought of what they had just witnessed! Truly one of our greatest artists. He is missed.

Sentiment: positive
This movie tries to be artistic but comes across as puerile as a film school student's first attempt. Next it tries to be erotic but comes across as clumsy as a virgin's first attempt. Lastly it tries to be cruel & gripping, but aside from Kinski's performance--which is powerful but conspicuously misplaced amidst the amateur melodrama--it's about as gripping as your hand around a wet noodle (which is an appropriate metaphor considering how un-erotic this film is). It features a blowjob scene which is even lamer than Chloë Sevigny's career-burying performance in The Brown Bunny. Run away now while you have the chance. Go find yourself a Victoria's Secret lingerie catalogue instead--it's more artistic AND more erotic than this tripe.

Sentiment: negative
I bought a set of 4 DVDs for 10 bucks at my local Suncoast, which contained this movie and three other trashy horror flicks (including its sequel "Witchcraft XI"). So basically I paid the rock bottom price of $2.50 for this movie, if you do the math. I can't exactly say I was ripped off. I have a thing for trashy horror movies, but this is the kind of trash that gives trash a bad name. The budget couldn't be over $1,000 (though it appears as if they spent a total of $1.50). I know it's a low-budget film, but that's no excuse for totally uninspired camerawork. The film "Blood Cult," though not very good, was made for an extremely low budget and still had fairly good camerawork and acting. The acting in this movie is the definition of "effortless," especially from that muscular guy with the Texas accent. Everyone is pretty much reading their lines off the page. You can take that figuratively or literally. I wouldn't be surprised if the script was off-camera as they were performing. I said before that I've never seen a bad English actor. This movie has quite a few bad ones. And though English movies aren't always good, they always seem to have at least a level of sophistication, which is why I don't see why any Englishman, or Englishwoman, would volunteer to do a home-video-style schlock flick like this. Did Merchant Ivory put a hold on their casting calls? Usually, I think people are too hard on directors and actors. Even some of the worst movies in Hollywood have some level of professionalism in the directing, acting and cinematography departments. Even when you watch a movie like "Glitter" you can't honestly say it looks like a third-grader shot those scenes (though a third-grader could've written the script). I've seen home movies that are shot better than "Witchcraft X," and that's no exaggeration whatsoever. Even the gore is minimal since the filmmakers only had money to buy some fake blood on sale at Party City. Not a single effort was put into making this movie--let's just sum it up like that. You get the picture. There's a good deal of nudity, though that doesn't save it. However, I must say that girl with the red-orange hair, who's either naked or wearing a cleavage-popping outfit throughout the film, is really hot! 

My score: 1 (out of 10)

Sentiment: negative
B Movie? Yes. DIY? Yes. First Movie? Yes. But Aestheically A+. This movie definitely had some bad sound/editing/lighting/acting/etc. etc. problems. However, this movie has many positive things about it. First off, the most annoying character dies first! Second, its made to be a parody/funny B Rated Horror movie. The comments our killer makes to his victims left me and my friends rolling around on the floor laughing.

The problem is a lot of people try to take every independent movie and expect it to be a masterpiece. Take it for what it is, a bunch of kids right out of high school made their first movie. For what it is, just that, it is really good.

Sentiment: positive
Cary Elwes have to say puts on a better performance then Costner did in RHPOT but anyhow.

Have to say this film it just makes me laugh so much mainly because the actors seem really into what their doing and you just sit there and thinking 'what the hell are they on' but in a very very very very good way.The random outbursts of songs were brilliant and well and the musical score used I really really liked.Great casting and as said before everyone seemed so into their roles

10/10 from me defiantly

'Because unlike some other Robin Hoods.I can speak with an English accent'

Sentiment: positive
"You're not going to shoot those little creatures. In the first place, they haven't done you any harm. In the second place, they may be radioactive." Ah, the joys of no-budget 50s sci-fi Yet despite the odd gem like that, Superman and the Mole-Men is pretty uninspiring going even with a lean 58-minute running time. It's beyond cheap (the one shot of Superman flying is an incredibly inept few frames of animation) and pretty dull with it, though it has a surprisingly altruistic message  the mute Mole-Men, diminutive actors with enlarged skulls and fur coats who look more like Mr Mxyzptlk without the hat than subterranean critters, released from their underground world by oil drilling are not malicious, merely misunderstood, and George Reeves' Man of Steel tries to prevent the local small-town mob led by Jeff Corey from killing them. An interesting counterpoint to the paranoia of the day, perhaps, but with little more than good intentions to recommend it.

Sentiment: negative
OK with Coolio in it I should have known better! But Noooooooo.

Within 3 mins you've encountered 5 bites from other movies & and TV shows...

8 mins Casper Van Dien should have learnt by now! 

10 mins you're feeling sorry for Tom 'Tiny' Lister Jr. that he has been reduced to doing movies like this.

15 mins Erika Eleniak Shows up looking like Zena.

20 mins you're ready to shoot you're self...

How these movies receive funding is beyond me! And yes I watched the whole thing. The Ending is priceless!!! Just stay away!

Sentiment: negative
Outrage is pretty good movie! Robert Culp was very good in the movie and was perfect for the part! Its hard to believe that this is a true story but what can you do? When I watched this I thought why do they have to do all of those things. It isn't right but they learned their lesson when they picked on the wrong man! Anyway if you ever see this movie on TV watch it because its a good one!

Sentiment: positive
As I sit and think about Poison for the Fairies, I realize that I may not being fair with the film. My rating of 3/10 may have more to do with my disappointment with the film than its actual quality or entertainment value. Based on the plot description, reviews on IMDb, and the 7.6 IMDb rating, I would sure that I had stumbled on a little known gem. Sadly, it just didn't do much for me. For whatever reason, Poison for the Fairies all but put me to sleep.

Poison for the Fairies is the story of two young girls in 1965 Mexico City. One of the girls, Veronica, is a compulsive liar and tells her friend that she, Veronica, is a witch. The other girl, Flavia, is so gullible that she believes and is frightened by everything her friend tells her. That's really about it. In reality, nothing much happens and the film drags on and on as Veronica attempts to terrorize and dominate Flavia. One commenter on IMDb described it as "the scariest film in 80's Mexican cinema". My comment  if that's the case, there must not have been many horror films made in Mexico in the 80s. Another commenter wrote, "Watch it if you wanna get scared." My comment  are you sure we're talking about the same movie? My opinion is diametrically opposed to these examples I've given. To me, it was dull, uninspired, and poorly acted. The scene framing is especially annoying as director Carlos Enrique Taboada doesn't ever show the faces of any of the other characters. Veronica and Flavia carry-on long, drawn-out conversations with members of their families and their teacher, but we never actually see these peoples' faces. It's an annoying gimmick.

Sentiment: negative
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, but it is nothing new.

Everyone here is grouping it with other war movies, this movie has been miscategorized! Its not a war movie any more than "One flew over the cuckoos nest" is a asylum movie or "Cool Hand Luke" is a prison movie. This is a movie about individuality, nonconformity, self-confidence and the costs of that personality type.

The plot is the same as "One flew over the Cuckoos nest" and "Cool Hand Luke", its in GOOD company, and it holds its own. Its these movies it should be held up against and compared, not "Apocalypse Now" or "Platoon".

Eric

Sentiment: positive
The beginning of the film is promising. When Jeanne Pollet(Anna Mouglalis) hear the story of the incident that happen on the day she was born that raise the possibility that she is the daughter of a famous pianist, André Polonski (Jacques Dutrone), she set to find out whether it's true or not, and giving the fact the she plays also the piano that's not such a remote idea. Jeanne meet André and his wife "Mika" Muller(Isabelle Huppert) and their son and on the way uncover the fact that there are some secrets in that family as much in her own.

O.K. we have seen this before and it has been done in a more interesting way than here.The character of "Mika" Muller is left with out us understanding her motives to her action and she is not interesting enough to care for her. The piano scenes look fake and the whole piano sub-plot doesn't add anything to the character's insight but serve as to make the film longer than it should have been in the first place.

In short a very disappointing outing from Chabrol, who can do better than this

Sentiment: negative
This film is a good example of how through media manipulation you can sell a film that is no more than a very unfunny TV sitcom. In Puerto Rico the daily newspaper with the widest circulation has continuously written about the marvels of this film, almost silencing all others. Coincidentally the newspaper with the second largest circulation belongs to the same owners. The weekly CLARIDAD is the only newspaper on the island that has analyzed the film's form and content, and pointed out all its flaws, clichés, and bad writing.

Just because a film makes a portion of the audience laugh with easy and obvious jokes, and because one can recognize actors and scenery, does not make it an acceptable film.

Sentiment: negative
Any film in the early days of Orson Welles is a triumph all the way to The third Man with Joseph Cotton. He is also wonderful in a Touch Of Evil. Please see them all! He tends to get pompous and self serving in films like F is for Fake, really stupid waste of film.Don't waste your time watching it. it is really ignorant. Orson Welles is a film icon and anyone studying film should see everything he has filmed. All his leading ladies are tremendous but in the end Welles became a fat drunk, like his character in A Touch Of Evil! For some reason Orson Welles had a way with women, I see how he could be considered attractive in his youth, not like Gary Cooper or Joseph Cotton, or Cary Grant,John Wayne, I could go on and on but I digress... and because I am a woman,I can see the attraction to him. He (Orson Welles) is one of the last true film makers and unless you count the film-makers of today: Tarantino, Scorscese, Spike Lee, most of the film makers just don't measure up to the film makers of the Forties! I know there are many more great film makers of today but in such a short amount of time I can't name them all. No Offense to any of the great film makers of this millennium! August 21,2006. Please remind me of some current up and coming film makers, I don't want to be stuck in the past! I love some of the films out now, but rarely are there any that I would put on a "100 best" list.. "Hustle and Flow" was great, so was "Fargo", and "Oh, Brother, where art thou," from a line in Sullivan's travels; another fine film from the forties! Can anyone give me a best list for the 90's and on up to 2006? I would like to know who to watch! Thank you! Also Props to this website! Where else can you plug a film or boo it! i love the ranting and raving from regular folks like me who can say what I want and I promise not to spoil any film for someone who hasn't seen it yet!

Sentiment: positive
Having heard of Modesty Blaise before, but never having read a novel or a comic strip, my wife and I liked the film a lot. It delivered, in a captivating way, a good introduction to the character and her background.

Although it has some action flick elements, it is much more an intimate play, excellently written. Sadly, this is also, where a major drawback of the movie is revealed. An intimate play lives on the capabilities of its actors and unfortunately only half of the cast delivered. While Alexandra Staden did an excellent job as Modesty Blaise, her counterpart Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau - as the villain Miklos - did not. Smiling his way through the plot as if it is an extend toothpaste commercial, he fails to build up an atmosphere of anxiety that would have made the movie a masterpiece. The supporting cast is somehow similar, from some stereotyped gangsters and sluts to decent performances from Fred Pearson as Professor Lob and Eugenia Yuan as Irina.

Sentiment: positive
This is movie is really bad. I like to flip on the TV while napping and this movie looked like it would be something good to sleep through, and boy was I wrong. My body literally woke me up from sleeping and said "Hey... this movie is awful... you gotta watch it". I love bad movies with bad actors and stupid plots. Something about unintentional comedy gets me going. This movie is impressively crappy. I really don't know how to properly express it aside from recommending you watch it just to see how bad it is. I mean, seriously, you should watch it with people. I was making the best jokes outloud during this movie and no one was there to hear them.

Worse than Swimfan. It's that bad.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is about development. People growing and people fading, people surprising and people disappointing. It has it all and more. There is hope, frustration, injustice, justice, love and hate. It is truly a classic drama that has fantastic performances from the whole cast but especially Whoopi Goldberg in her debut role.

This movie made me feel very human and proud of it, and I suggest that this movie should be mandatory each Saturday in all prisons in the world - it touches your compassion. Rating: 10 of 10.

PS: I admit it: I shed a tear of joy during the final scene.

Sentiment: positive
I like movies about morally corrupt characters, but this was too much. The acting wasn't great, but that wasn't the real problem. The issue was the sinking feeling I got in the pit of my stomach about 20 minutes into the film. These characters were hollow. They had almost no depth, and what little they did have was devoted to the cruelty they displayed to each other in the guise of friendship. Exploring the darker sides of a set of characters can be fascinating, but you have to give those characters actual personalities or they are just cardboard cutouts. These characters were cardboard and the picture they gave was just ugly.

Sentiment: negative
So you've got a number of models on an island, and one by one they're picked off Agatha Christie-style. We get somebody lost at sea, pushed off a cliff, poisoned by a solvent, driven off a cliff, blown up, etc. Nothing terribly graphic.

Before any of that starts, one woman inexplicably has a dream of a killer in a weird human face mask.

The owner of the magazine is a sleaze who had an affair, and somebody had photos taken of her before she was of age.

In the end, it's all about business, or something,

There's an 80s style montage of a photo shoot, most of the bathing suits being one-pieces, surprisingly. A couple are fairly translucent. There's camera clicks during the montage where the frame of the camera appears as a white square or rectangle within the picture. The photographer is rather bad at framing!

Sentiment: negative
This is a thoroughly enjoyable, well-acted film. It is funny and sometimes hilarious. The finale is a bit disappointing, since it tries to wrap everything up into too neat a package. The film is better remembered for its priceless vignettes: the Jane Austen staging, the camping trip as examples. B & H does not attempt to mirror the predominant attitudes toward homosexuality and bisexuality. Most of the characters are quite accepting of sexual diversity. In that sense it is a joyous vacation from homophobic society. And it is a celebration of a flexibility, a loosening of rigid sexual categories--perhaps a happy harbinger of things to come.

Sentiment: positive
Lotsa action, cheesy love story, unexpected actors and overall great fun. The special effect are acceptable/decent, some of the fighting is kinda neat with some interesting acrobatic moves. The overall story moves along, and is cheesy enough to keep you wondering when the inevitable is going to happen, although there is a bit of a twist (just a small one). The overall naivety of the movie make it quite whimsical at times. Cute enough chicks too what more could you want. PS. if you're gonna review a movie like this, try to review it in terms of the category the movie would fall (not necessarily where it was intended to fall). ie don't bomb out good cheesy movies!

Sentiment: positive
Guys and Dolls is a movie itching for a remake. It was made forty-eight years ago. Its two main stars are either dead or 409 pounds. Although a remake, with big stars now, would be box-office success, it would not be able to capture the magic that went into this version. Its boundless energy can't be recaptured, nor can the pure joy you get when watching something like this: a huge, widescreen, big entertainment movie.

Marlon Brando (who last clocked in at 409 lbs. last time I heard) plays Sky Masterson, one of the biggest gamblers in New York. Frank Sinatra is Nathan Detroit, whose as-often-as-he-can-find-a-speakeasy-for-it crap game is city-wide famous. However, when the one place he has left to hold it is charging $1,000, Detroit needs the money fast. He bets Masterson $1,000 that he can't take missionary Sarah Brown (Jean Simmons) to Havana with him the next day.

Guys and Dolls is basically nothing more than unsavory types singing and dancing, which usually, as it does here, add up to fun. It's obvious to see how this was a Broadway musical: there weren't that many sets, and the scenes were long. If I was to complain about one thing, it's how uneven the songs were. At times, there were two songs in a scene; other times, thirty minutes went by without one. Guys and Dolls is never boring, just a great time.

My rating: 8/10

Not Rated.

Sentiment: positive
Many of these other viewers complain that the story line has already been attempted. That may be so, but the addition of the narrator and Dr.Suess like scenery makes this show a must watch. With adult innuendo throughout the series and a touch of childhood through the set, the show is both reminiscent and invigorating. The investigative portion of the show is not what drags viewers in. The twisted plot and love lines scattered throughout this seeming paradise are what keep loyal viewers coming back for more. This is a success that ABC should never let go of. Bravo ABC. LOST was getting old, way to revitalize prime time. 9 episodes prior to the writers strike left audiences wanting more.

Sentiment: positive
In need of work, straight man Bud Abbott (as Jack) and comic partner Lou Costello (as Dinkel) get the latter a job babysitting self-described "problem child" David Stollery (as Donald). Young Stollery winds up reading Mr. Costello's favorite novel (see if you can guess the title), which puts Costello to sleep, dreaming he and Mr. Abbott are reliving the story of "Jack and the Beanstalk" (you guessed it).

The sepia-tone switches to color for the bulk of the production. Apparently, this was an attempt at something different for the duo, a colorful children's fantasy. It fails, but this is where you get to see Abbott & Costello in color, silent film superstar William Farnum (as the King) make his last performance a bit part, boxer Max Baer's brother Buddy, and Stollery before Disney's "Spin and Marty".

** Jack and the Beanstalk (4/4/52) Jean Yarbrough ~ Lou Costello, Bud Abbott, Buddy Baer, William Farnum

Sentiment: negative
This comedy has some tolerably funny stuff in it, surrounded by a lot of unfunny stuff. Just about every scene involving the servants of the castle and their silly antics is a waste of time. And the plotting is so sloppy that it makes you wonder if they actually had a script ready before they started filming this, or they were simply making it all up as they went along. (*1/2)

Sentiment: negative
What I hoped for (or even expected) was the well known "stop motion" imagery and extreme slow motions, extreme zooms and all embracing fish eye takes. In short: The art of a) finding interesting Visual Events and b) capturing them in a way the human eye is not capable of, to be replayed so that the human eye can see. The stuff that made the other Qatsi's hits.

I just wondered how the creation of the whole would fit the title.

Having watched the movie I got the feeling that the focus in this third part was on the message and not on the wrapping. That's fine, especially since the message is so valid. But I already knew the message, and it appeared there was nothing else left for me. More then half the film was solarized or colorized or posterized or transformed through some other filter. It looked a lot like the effects your video camera does but you never use. A lot of the images would have been prettier without the filters, like the giraffe and zebra chase. You could say that 'technology or whatever human based malicious source disfigured our beautiful nature' but why use these seventies effects to symbolize that? At the point that there had been more than 10 minutes in a row of this cheap looking effect I was ready to leave. The hope that the rest just couldn't BE that bad made me stay. But then there was the slow motion: slow motion is good because it gives you time to analyze the moving picture. But if there are no more than 24 or maybe 50 or 60 frames a second, then there's just not enough motion to slow down. Please, record the motion-to-be-slowed faster, like was done with the beautiful shots of the foaming and splashing water (some of) the laughing people and the drill song singing soldiers. I acknowledge that archive pictures can't be redone, but I had already seen a lot of that footage anyway, it could have done without it. It must have been a lot of work to search through the archive footage, and the effects can't have been that easy to apply and arrange as well. On top of that, a lot of the work was mixed with each other. It shows that the creator wasn't out to lengthen the movie or to spare himself. But I didn't like the mixed stuff one bit... The idea behind it was sometimes nice or even clever, but the implementation was insufficient. The computer generated images didn't bother me that much, however out of date. The 'bits' streaming along circuits (in the first part of the film) looked more recent and were nice. Mandelbrot is always fun, the fractal-mountain was less. I was pleased to hear a cello playing a major role in the music. A little less vibrato at certain moments would have been appropriate with Glass' music, but that's a matter of taste. As is all of the above, of course. I do hope that there will be another Qatsi story to tell soon, where computer imagery will have a less significant role and that will inspire somebody to get into the field again.



Sentiment: negative
And one of 'em are bad movies. The title, as it turns out, refers to a killer of the human male variety, not fish. This is not the Dante-directed "Piranha" of '78 (which did have the fish) and is also known as "Piranha, Piranha." A trio of photographers, 2 men and a woman, hook up with a local hunter/trapper named Caribe somewhere in the Amazon jungle. Unfortunately, they are not familiar with the film resume of William Smith, who plays Caribe; otherwise, they would have known immediately he is the villain of the piece. Smith may have also refused to film the ending or cut out before they finished filming (see end of this comment).

As mentioned elsewhere, this pic has a lot of filler - lengthy shots of the local wildlife (birds) - and the central set piece, a motorcycle race, which goes on too long. The reason this gets a second star from me is, of course, William Smith, who can't really save this sludge, but once again proves why he was the 'go to' guy 30-35 years ago if you needed a really nasty villain; at his best, Smith could be really terrifying. He's the type who enjoys killing, possibly in sadistic fashion, and you get that sense from the evil grin he usually puts on when a mood strikes him. Physically, he's very imposing, and you know the other 3 characters are pretty much doomed within the first half-hour. This was what Smith brought to most of his roles; it seems hopeless for the other characters against this manlike monster. Unfortunately, the movie continues to muddy things up to the very end, as if a minute of footage was lost - a confusing, incomplete climax.

Sentiment: negative
Now this show looks like most of the other shows of it's type from the mid-90's, but the only thing is about this one is that it's different, they use a lot of comedy and action in this one and maybe a little bit of drama too. I personally thought it was a good show, I can't understand why would they cancel it. The good thing is that the fan base of this show is still alive ever since 1997 up to date.

My hopes is that the WB bring back the show or even do a movie, which I know is gonna be impossible to do, but hey it doesn't hurt to dream, doesn't it?

Anyway, I would recommend if you hadn't seen it to find the DVD of all 13 episodes, because the characters are great, the story lines are good, the comedy is good and well the whole show is just great.

Sentiment: positive
Let's see where to begin... bad acting; I'm not sure if I'd even call it that, as it more along the lines of a no-effort script read. The actors didn't even seem to be into their parts and seemed quite lifeless and listless. Sure there was a scene or two with nudity, but that couldn't save this movie from it's lifeless characters.

To call the main character a rapper is an insult to the people who actually do. The lyrics had no rhythm or flow and seemed more along the lines of senseless rants.

Budget? Did this movie even have a budget? It seemed like they used less money than I've seen in a home-shot YouTube video. Bad lighting, props, poor sound post production. Bad special effects, if you want to go so far as to call them that. Story could have been good if the people actually seemed interested in making it so, but there was no life to this flick; I don't care who directed it.

I've seen some really bad flicks in the past year and this one is definitely at the very bottom. Don't waste your time or you'll be wishing you listened to this unbiased review. Check the ratings, you'll see the 1's are rapidly outpacing the fluffed 10's with hardly anything in between. Wish I would have looked a little closer before wasting my time. What a suck-fest!

Sentiment: negative