DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I checked this out for free at the library, and I still feel ripped off. Yes, Sandra Bullock is actually in it, but only in five scenes totaling up to barely 5 minutes, and even those are fairly painful to watch. The rest of the movie is so bad that you'll spend most of the time hoping it will end soon, but only if you're one of those people who have to finish a movie once they start it. Everyone else will just turn it off. Don't worry, you aren't going to miss anything. Bullock's lines (assuming that you were tricked into watching this because her name is plastered on the case) are essentially just parroting of other characters lines, like this dialog:

Lisa (Bullock) - "Danny, please tell me what is going on."

Danny - "I don't know." 

Lisa - "Whaddaya mean you don't know?" 

Danny - "I don't know - it's something to do with my Dad." 

Lisa - "Whaddaya mean your Dad?" 

Danny - "I don't know - he ****ed up or something." 

Lisa - "Why am I here?" 

Danny - "I'm sorry Lisa. I don't know." 

(moments later) Danny - "Some army buddies of my Dad . . . " 

Lisa - "Whaddaya mean army buddies?"

See what I mean? 

Bottom line - Just say no.

Sentiment: negative
I first saw this movie years ago and have continued to view it several times a year when I have an opportunity. It is on my list of favorite movies along with some of the classics. Should anyone tell you it is foolish or outdated, ignore them... this movie is for anyone who enjoys laughing and music. The dancing isn't as important in this film as in other Astaire movies so the comedy and acting shine through. See this movie if you can, it may be light but it is still completely amusing. So I know that many people hate black and white films, they think old movies can't really be funny, this movie should make them change their minds. No one I know can watch this movie without being at least mildly amused. The only problem with the film: Fred Astaire singing without dancing. He may be a great performer and capable singer but it just isn't fascinating and leaves a big hole in the middle of the story. The comedy gets a bit cliché at times but the vaudevillesque performances of G burns and G Allen are just perfect for the piece and can satisfy anyone looking for some easy laughs. Give this film a chance even if you don't like old movies, this movie can appeal to the ridiculous in any one.

Sentiment: positive
A savage, undisciplined lion has been put behind bars for a circus carnival. He suddenly notices a hole on the floor of his cell, then sticks his nose into this hole to snuff it. At first he thinks Bugs Bunny's home is belong to a camel; yet when he wakes Bugs up from his sleep hoisting him up to the ground, there he meets with Bugs, his next trainer. 

If you ever wonder how Bugs would turn a savage lion into a Hawaiian hula dancer with traditional skirts on, you should watch this cartoon. Director Bob McKimson offers endless laughters by means of absurd and unexpected demonstrative humour. 

The signature scenes include:

1/ the look of Bugs Bunny's home, cross-referencing to Donald Duck with the B.B. name acronym on the headboard of Bugs's bed 

2/ Bugs Bunny's short journey with the mine hoist climbing up to the ground floor 

3/ When Nero the Lion calls his friend the Elephant for help, Bugs uses a toy mouse to scare the Elephant; since the Elephant needed a broom to outpower that toy mouse, he uses Nero as a broom! 

4/ Bugs becoming a clown with the proper costume and make-up and the practical clown jokes that he makes 

5/ the trapeze scene while Nero chasing after Bugs 

6/ the famous Human Cannonball scene after which Nero the Lion starts dancing Hawaiian Hula

The magic moments which keep Acrobatty Bunny fresh at all times in our memory:

1/ When Bugs comes out of his bunny hole, he thinks he's in the Pinocchio tale; and starts acting to save Pinocchio out of the giant whale's stomach 

2/ When the Lion roars to scare him, Bugs replies back to him with roaring

3/ Bugs arguing with the Lion for he's making so much noise, then finding a piece of wood to rub it against the iron bars while singing in order to make more noise than him 

4/ Wearing rubber heels at the circus, Bugs starts to bounce like toy rabbits and causes Nero to bounce! 

Those are the 10 main reasons that keeps Acrobatty Bunny as a Bugs Bunny classic and can be found in the "Bugs Bunny Classics' MGM/UA Video (1989)"

Sentiment: positive
Utterly ridiculous movie which makes fun of the college admission process. While it is true that the SAT's is not everything in evaluating a student for admission to college, what the movie talks about is utterly ridiculous and not worth repeating nor viewing.

College admissions officials are made to look like stupid people who have an extremely narrow view of the entire process. The film is an insult to hard-working high school students who work hard and then have to suffer through a long process until they receive that letter of acceptance or rejection from the schools they have applied for. 

This movie certainly deserves rejection on all levels.

Sentiment: negative
North Africa in the 1930's. To a small Arab town on the edge of the Sahara comes a beautiful woman looking for meaning to her life & a handsome Trappist monk fleeing from his crisis of faith. They will meet and passions will be stirred, but not even the Sand Diviner knows if they will find happiness or sorrow, here, in THE GARDEN OF ALLAH.

The plot is pure hokum, but the film is still great fun & beautiful to look at. Marlene Dietrich & Charles Boyer are a superb screen couple. She is, to put it simply, gorgeous, and Boyer gives a most effective, understated performance, letting his sensitive face do much of his acting for him. 

The supporting cast is excellent: Basil Rathbone, in a sympathetic role as a Count who loves the desert; Joseph Schildkraut as a friendly, talkative guide (all the "Arabic" he & others speak in the film is pure gibberish); Lucile Watson as a gentle Mother Superior; Alan Marshal as an honorable young French officer; Tilly Losch as a dangerous dancer; Henry Brandon as a comic porter; John Carradine as the mysterious Sand Diviner; and magnificent Sir C. Aubrey Smith as a wise old priest.

Movie mavens will recognize Helen Jerome Eddy as a nun; Marcia Mae Jones & Bonita Granville (peeking over the nun's shoulder) as convent girls; gaunt Nigel De Brulier as a monastery lector; and Ferdinand Gottschalk as a hotel clerk, all uncredited.

Color films of the 1930's are both rare & lovely to look at, and this movie is no exception - the cinematography is as colorful as the desert itself. THE GARDEN OF ALLAH was the first Technicolor film to be shot on location. Yuma, Arizona gave the film makers all the sand dunes they could desire, but contaminated drinking water & 135 degree heat soon had the company in revolt. When the daily rushes showed Boyer's face had burned a bright tomato red, producer David O. Selznick finally gave in. The remainder of the film was shot on a Hollywood sound stage.

Sentiment: positive
A sparkling movie. BB is a marvel. She's sultry. She is a feminist. She is still very much in love.

The movie features Paris in the 50's. It is wonderful to look at the sites, the cars (DS!) and Orly.

A simple but very enjoyable romantic comedy. The music is horrendous. It almost dissonates. On the other hand it is hilarious. But it is probably the only thing amiss, at least looking at it with 21st century eyes.

The movie comments on the French manner of treating infidelity. It is that sense modern. A movie like un elephant se trompe enormenent did it in an 80's way. But the basic premise stays the the same.

Thanks to makers for providing BB with this opportunity.

Sentiment: positive
This is a great movie. When two people from different backgrounds and social status think that they have nothing to offer each other and in the end they what each other needs it a testament to what the heart knows. Sometimes we wonder why one man is with a woman or vise versa and the outward appearances say one thing to our eye, but what they offer each other from within that we cannot see is amazing and unexplainable. When Nimi thought that Matthew had nothing to offer her and when Matthew was only looking for a fling (because he had an open marriage w/his wife Jenny), in the end they realized that they could not and did not want to exist without the other. It was worth it to them to resist what family and friends thought and what society said was right to be with each other. This movie kind of restores my faith in love.

Sentiment: positive
I went to see this film based on the review by Siskel and Ebert; not only did I get duped, but I took some friends along, and had to spend the rest of the day profusely apologizing for making them sit through this pointless crap. After this, I never went to see a movie based solely on Siskel & Ebert's advice.

Sentiment: negative
the subspecies series is an always will be the best vampire movies ever. there is something about them that makes them special i think it`s the feeling you get when you watch them .

they are set in modern times and yet they feel as if they are set in the 1700`s or 1800`s i think it has some thing to do with the set`s that are used if so then it`s working keep it up guy`s :).

in a quick round up of what`s happened in the first part - Radu was supposedly bannished from his home land years ago by his father and he has decided to come back and take what he thinks is his birth rite. the blood stone and all his father has so he kill`s his father who is played by Angus Scrimm (the tall man from the Phantasm movies). and takes the blood stone which has emense power to who ever has it because who has it need never kil anyone again because the stone is supposedly meant to drip the bloody of the saints and every time the Radu takes a drop from it he is slowly going insane. (thats all we need an insane vampire as if a normal vampire aint bad enough). well Radu`s brother Stephan try`s to put a stop to his evil ways all while trying to stop himself falling inlve with a tourist who is staying at a house/fort which belongs to a friend of his.

well one thing leads to another and the two brothers clash and well you will have to see the movie to see what goes on from here on in.

i will review/comment on the other sequels soon .

the difference between this and buffy is buffy is too commercial and this is not so this will not appeal to everyone but this has an atmosphere far superior to that of buffy although Radu does not look as good as the wonder full Sarah Michelle Gellar :).

rating for this movie 10/10 a fine example of how a vampire movie should be done :).



Sentiment: positive
Definitely one of the most witty and twisted who-dunnit I ever seen. Christopher Reeve and Micheal Caine were brilliant and kept me going through the whole affair. 

Very classy set pieces and the props really lend a sense of atmosphere to the proceedings. The minimalist feel works for the whole picture.

My only complain isn't with the film itself but the lack of a decent widescreen edition of the movie on DVD. I own the fullscreen version (which proves I love the film enough to endure fullscreen presentation) but a awesome Deluxe or 'special' edition would most surely get my cash.

Sentiment: positive
This was a great movie that had a lot of under lying issues. It dealt with issues of rascism and class. But, it also had a message of knowing yourself and taking responsibility for yourself. This movie was very deep it gave the message of that you and only you can control your destiny. It also showed that knowing yourself and being comfortable with who you are is the only way you will ever fit into society. What others think of you is not important. I believe this movie did a wonderful job of showing it. The actors I think were able to convey each character wonderfully. I just thought it was amazing how deep this movie really was. At a just glancing look you wouldn't see how deep the movie is, but on further look you see the underlining meaning of the movie.

Sentiment: positive
I'm in Iraq right now doing a job that gives plenty of time for watching movies. We also have access to plenty of pirated movies, this gem came along with 11 other movies, and this is easily the worst I've seen in a long time. I've seen a few other reviews that claim this movie doesn't take itself too seriously, but really, I think that's a cover up for the fact that its horrible. It's not tongue in cheek, the writers really thought they were improving on the movie Blade. This movie is just one notch above Vampire Assassin, which if you haven't seen, i recommend. At least that movie is so unbelievably bad that you'll laugh harder than you thought possible. This is right at that cusp of no redeeming qualities what so ever. from the bad acting, to cliché visual (ie opening credits), to the adobe premier special effects. they couldn't even get blanks for the guns, which may have to do with where the movie was filmed, but if you're going to use effects, make them close to accurate. as for the cast, it seems like they just went to a tae bo class and picked up the first not to ugly chick that walked out. Once again, like Ron Hall in Vampire Assassin, don't let stunt folk act, they can't. Also, the comment about this being a "return of old vampire movies"...no, it's not. This is exactly what all new vampire movies are about. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Blade, Underworld, they're all about some super star fighting the vampires. This is the newest vampire genre, with bad blood, fake screams, and cheesy over acting. obviously anyone who wrote a good review about this is somehow connected to the movie, or friends of the cast. But what do I care, I paid 33 cents for it. Anyway, to wrap this up, someone in their first semester of film school decided to make a movie, I give them credit because it's better than I could do. Of course I also know I can't make movies so I don't try. I do know how to watch movies though. I work 12 hour nights, 6 days a week, I've seen several thousand in the year I've been out here and this was so bad that half way through i was hoping for a mortar attack.

Sentiment: negative
I remember watching this film, thinking was so interesting. I really wanted to know what happens next. I was amazed by how much they could fit into an 8 minute short. We start in a school yard. . Two friends are debating on skipping class. Kid B says to Kid A "Lets not go to class today." And Kid A declines, claiming they could miss something really important. So kid B skips and kid A goes to class. When he gets there the teacher informs him that today they were going to learn the only and most important lesson they will ever learn. They were going to learn the meaning of life. She gives everyone a pamphlet, and when she gets to kid A, she runs out and tells the boy next to him to share. Well, the kid won't share, so Kid A goes looking for the teacher. When he finally finds her, he gets a shocking revelation on what the real meaning of life is. I suggest everyone watch this short. It will only take 8 minutes from your life, but the message is so important, it could help you for a life time.

Sentiment: positive
A beautiful new print of "Zabriskie Point" is playing in Paris and seems to be doing well in the Latin Quarter. It's time for a full evaluation of the film. Let's hope that the new print means that a DVD with some insightful "extras" will be out in the near future.

I remember watching ZP when it came out and thought it was a crashing bore. This time around I was totally awed and would classify it as a "near-miss" masterpiece. The first part of the movie is a time capsule of late '60's Los Angeles, I lived there then, and Antonioni did a masterful job of capturing the essence of the place. Kudos to production designer Dean Tavoularis who found some incredible locations and did outstanding work.

The print I saw runs 1 hour 50 minutes. It is forbidden to those under 16 (or 18, I can't remember). I suspect there is quite a bit of restored footage in this print. SPOILER -- I wonder how much of the desert sex scene was originally cut. What appears today seems rather tame by current standards.

There is no soundtrack music until almost 1 hour into the film. Before we hear extraneous noise such as radio broadcasts, etc. Antonioni was very daring to do this. I remember how much was made at the time of the lack of acting skills of non-actors Mark Frechette and Daria Halprin. This time Frechette did not bother me. Halprin is weaker but gradually improves as the film continues.

Much of the student riot footage looks like stock footage to me. One shot is in a different aspect ratio & distorted by the wide screen. Of course, there is actual staged footage, but not all that much.

I'm still trying to figure out how Antonioni did some of the shots of Frechette flying the plane. It looks like he really did some of the flying - there's no blue screen or double in some shots.

I hope to get back to see the film a second time. Recommended highly to all Antonioni fans.

Sentiment: positive
I was pleasantly pleased with the ending. I just saw this movie yesterday, and was going to turn it off, but changed my mind. It was not at all the direction I thought the story would end on. Thats about all positive I can say about this film. All of the actors are nobodys, especially the lead. While she is an attractive young woman, she'll never make it big. The writing, direction, and acting are wooded, sort of like what you would see on daytime soaps. The filming locations were very clever in making you think it could be anywhere, instead of blatantly tipping off it was in Canada. As this was shot entirely in Canada, I'm assuming the entire lot was Canadien, which is not entirely bad as some recent Canadien TV productions: "Cold Squad", "Stone; Underover" are quite well done.

Sentiment: negative
All of David Prior's movies are terrible on all counts: bad writing, bad acting, bad cinematography, no budget (the director's brother is usually cast as the male lead). But they all have incredible entertainment value because of their unintentional hilarity. The plot of almost every David Prior "film" (as I like to refer to them) is basically the same. Manly all-American commandos team up to blow up Communist baddies. But unlike other Cold War-era garbage such as Red Dawn, Prior's movies are actually funny because of their over-the-top premises and acting. The best part of Jungle Assault is the scene in which Becker (or was is the other dude?) is being summoned by General Mitchell for a top-secret mission in South America. The funniest line in the movie is then delivered, something to the effect of "this is my roommate, I trained him well". WHAT. You trained your roommate? And apparently this is going to be their solution to avoiding eviction.

If you can find these gems on video used anywhere, BUY THEM. They are all funny and even funnier after a few beers. Watch them with a group of your friends for a true MST3K-style experience. So far my friends and I have managed to get a hold of Night Wars and Aerobicide aka "Killer Workout". But the one I recommend the most over them all is Final Sanction, with the freakish-looking Robert Z'dar.

Sentiment: negative
This movie stars Emily Watson, of Breaking the Waves fame. This movie about one man's obsession takes place at a resort where a chess tournament is being held. A chess master arrives and shortly after falls madly in love (at first sight) with a woman, played by Emily Watson. She falls for this oddball of a man, who is obsessed with chess. This is all at the dismay of her mother, who is far more interested in seeing her with another young gentleman; a proper gentleman. Her mother feels that this is just a passing fancy for the young woman, as she has a tendency to take in odd animals and such. What ensues is mostly a journey through the man's psyche. It tells the story of how his past is closely tied with his present. Emily Watson is amazing in this, as well as the actor who plays the main character. It is definitely slow, but is well worth the watching. The ending was even satisfying. :)

Sentiment: positive
I love this film 'Spring and port wine'. I was born in Leigh, a town about 7 miles away from Bolton, I moved to Bolton in 1965 when I was 20. My place of work was daily via Little Lever through Farnworth, sometimes on a bike but then by car when I could afford it.The film brings back all the memories of the working class neighbors who were almost always broke but who would always help you if they could. Fred Dibnah was round the corner from Bromwich St. were my bedsit was. If you didn't see the film when first released then you may be forgiven for comparing it to a soap such as Coronation St, well I agree it is a soap, but then, it was called 'Kitchen Sink Drama!' Watch this film for the talented cast who shortly afterwards became household names from frequent roles on TV, I watch mainly for the shots of the locality and the feel good factor of people being poor but happy!

Sentiment: positive
Kasparov vs. Deep Blue is no doubt a fascinating story, but I don't think you'd know it by watching this movie. I think it focuses too much on the conspiracy theory that IBM cheated...and what does this theory hinge upon? The idea that at one point the computer made a move that "looked human". I am not a chess grandmaster or a computer scientist. And while I don't doubt that the move looked human, to me it doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility that the most powerful chess-playing computer ever created could make a surprising move...or that such a machine could beat even a genius like Kasparov. The movie gets way too much mileage out of this theory, and not enough out of the personalities of the people involved...that could have made it a much more interesting story. The direction also relies way too much on the conceits of a pointlessly whispered narration, and the imagery of an 18th century chess-playing machine that looks like one of those animatronic gypsy fortunetellers you see at the carnival. Also the story was slowed down by many empty shots of Kasparov revisiting "the scene of the crime". I don't doubt that Kasparov and the chess community found IBM's behavior vexing, but I don't think it's any different than you would find from any other big corporation. At the end of the movie, you are left with the feeling that Kasparov is a huge crybaby and the Deep Blue programmers are either victims or cheats. I think if the filmmaker wanted the viewer to believe the conspiracy theory (which he almost certainly did), he should have presented a lot more evidence. In fact, more evidence would have been a good idea in the first place. The whole thing left me with a sour taste in my mouth.

Sentiment: negative
Don't get me wrong, this is a terrible, clichéd film, but it is a delight for fans of Olivia Hussey - quite possibly the most intoxicating beauty ever to grace the silver screen. One poster stated that she was unpleasant to look at - I wonder what his ideal woman looks like - Paris Hil-slut? Blockbuster should really establish a sub-genre to this type of film, as the Fatal Attraction plot has become a genre unto itself. When will Blockbuster adopt the "Adultry" section? It will fit in quite nicely between the drama and action sections, right? This film revolves around Olivia Hussey, who spends a night of passion with an unstable yacht owner who may have murdered his ex-wife, who looks remarkably like Ms. Hussey. This ne'er-do-well proceeds to stalk Olivia and thus make her life a living-hell. I like Olivia Hussey, but I have no sympathy for characters in movies that cheat on their spouses, so I really wasn't rooting for Olivia to make it out o this stinker alive.

VIOLENCE: $$ (There is a smattering of violence in the film. Don Murray and Anthony John Denison get involved in a fisticuffs when Denison says that he will not stop seeing Olivia, Murray's wife, because she is just too good in bed. Olivia also gets to handle a shooter and might get to squeeze off a round - I'll let you watch).

NUDITY: $$ (Olivia is the queen of brief nudity and supplies a little here. She has a love scene with Anthony John Denison and also has a shower scene - shot at a distance).

STORY: $ (We've seen this plot before - a hundred times over, and oftentimes done much better. The true culprit, when trying to decipher why this film was a dud, is William Riead. The man's dialogue is sophomoric and moronic. The man has no story-telling abilities and fails to build believable human reactions to the plot. These people, of the upper strata of society, talk like middle school kids - with a habit of sleeping during English class. I have placed Riead on the Never-to-be-Viewed-Again list).

ACTING: $$$ (The acting wasn't "phoned-in" as the insiders say, but was hindered a great deal by Riead's juvenile script. Olivia Hussey resorts to calling Anthony Jonh Denison "weird" and "crazy" to his face when he begins to stalk her. Hussey, who is still beautiful, delivers the best performance here but Denison was equal to the task of portraying a demented, love-crazed stalker. Don Murray was basically just there - his character not fleshed out, and Edward Asner, a terrific actor when given something with substance, is ill-used in this film).

Sentiment: negative
I really only watched this movie because it had Rupert Grint in it (who I knew as Ron from the Harry Potter movies). I had never really appreciated Rupert as an actor until this movie. I loved the entire film. Rupert does a wonderful job in this hilarious, quirky movie. I think the movie could have been fine without the sex, but it worked somehow. I can't wait to see more of Rupert's films in the future. Julie Walters also did an amazing job. In the Harry Potter movies, she has a very small role, so I didn't quite know what to expect from her either. But she was wonderful as Dame Evie. The part where she swallows the key was absolutely hilarious. Overall, an amazing movie.

Sentiment: positive
I really don't know why I agreed to watch this movie, but like a complete fool I did and for that I deserve to be shot! I had seen the original Killjoy, well I say I have seen it.... I started watching it but found it that bad that I ended up watching it in 4x speed to get it over with and get rid of the annoying dialogue, but I said I would watch it and I did even if it was in 4x speed.

To cut a long story short Killjoy 2 kicks off where Killjoy left off. By this i don't mean the plot, I mean the complete and total bag of dirt known as acting and cheapness. I have nothing against low budget movies, in fact I kinda enjoy them, they are something different from Mega budget blockbusters, but this film is just terrible! The acting is diabolical and the script... well i think you could of given Stevie Wonder a pen and paper, and he would of produced something much better! This movie is just annoying, not to mention the annoying laugh the clown has which is so obviously dubbed! I didn't make it through this movie anyway, about three quarters of the way through it was time to turn it off and throw it through the window. It may of been a rip off to buy as a DVD but as a frisbee it was a mega bargain! 

Please for the love of mankind itself DO NOT watch this muck, it is possibly the worst thing I have ever seen and considering some of the muck I've seen thats saying a lot! 

My rating on this movie would be.... Nailgun to the head/10

Sentiment: negative
OK, first of all, who in their right mind would remake Hitchcock and second, who would do it shot for shot? I admit I had no intention of ever watching this movie for that very reason. The original Psycho is one of my favorite films ever and this just seemed like a degrading photocopy of it. I did watch it because my girlfriend wanted to compare it to the original and we both agreed less than five minutes into this crap that it was awful. First, as mentioned, they did it shot for shot. Where's originality? Why remake a movie that is almost perfect EXACTLY the way it was done the first time? Why remake such a movie to begin with? If you ARE going to remake something, remake something that doesn't work and make it BETTER!

Second, they used the exact same script from the 1960 version. The dialog no longer works. It works fine and sounds perfect for the 1960 version, but seems odd and stilted coming out of modern actors. Why not update the dialog? Hitch didn't write the script, you could have rewritten. 

This film had some very good talent and they were wasted by imitation of the original actors. The actor who played the car salesman seemed like he was just playing John Anderson's performance as the car salesman in the original. All the actors seemed like the only direction they were given was be the characters from the original movie. Vince Vaughn may have seemed a little creepier than Anthony Perkins, but in doing so, you loose the sympathy you are supposed to have for Norman. Having Norman masturbate while watching Marion undress was going too far and lost the innocence of the character that I think Tony Perkins captured so well in his performance. Viggo Mortensen's accent was annoying and Rita Wilson was far too old to play Caroline. Her lines came off as someone desperate rather than just young and fun like Patricia Hitchcock's performance. 

The only good thing I saw about the film was that Gus Van Sant was able to open the movie with the shot Hitch had envisioned. Hitch wanted to open with 1 long shot going over Phoenix but couldn't at the time so he had to settle for a series of shots cross-dissolved together. This film fulfilled that vision with a helicopter shot going into the window of the hotel. After that, though the film became a worthless waste of celluloid. 

If you are curious about how to destroy a wonderful film, watch this, but do NOT under any circumstances watch this BEFORE you watch the original. This is a faded photocopy of the original and should never have been green-lit. Stick to the master's film, not the imitation.

Sentiment: negative
This has to be creepiest, most twisted holiday film that I've ever clapped eyes on, and that's saying something. I know that the Mexican people have some odd ideas about religion, mixing up ancient Aztec beliefs with traditional Christian theology. But their Day of the Dead isn't half as scary as their take on Santa Claus.

So..Santa isn't some jolly, fat red-suited alcoholic(take a look at those rosy cheeks sometime!). Rather, he's a skinny sociopathic pedophile living in Heaven(or the heavens, whichever), with a bunch of kids who work harder than the one's in Kathy Lee Gifford's sweat shops. They sing oh-so-cute traditional songs of their homelands while wearing clothing so stereotypical that i was surprised there wasn't a little African-American boy in black face singing 'Mammy'. This Santa is a Peeping Tom pervert who watches and listens to everything that everybody does from his 'eye in the sky'. This is so he can tell who's been naughty or nice(with an emphasis on those who are naughty, I'd bet).

There's no Mrs. Claus, no elves(what does he need elves for when he's got child labor?) and the reindeer are mechanical wind-up toys! This floating freak show hovers on a cloud, presumably held up by its silver lining.

Santa's nemesis is...the Devil?! What is this, Santa our Lord and Savior? Weird. Anyhoo, Satan sends one of his minions, a mincing, prancing devil named Pitch, to try to screw up Christmas. Let me get this straight-the forces of purest evil are trying to ruin a completely commercial and greed driven holiday? Seems kind of redundant, doesn't it?

Pitch is totally ineffectual. He tries to talk some children into being bad, but doesn't have much luck. I was strongly struck by the storyline of the saintly little girl Lupe, who's family is very poor. All that she wants is a doll for Christmas, but he parents can't afford to buy her one(they spent all of their money on the cardboard that they built their house out of). So Pitch tries to encourage her to steal a doll. In reality, that's the only way that a girl that poor would ever get a doll, because being saintly and praying to God and holy Santa doesn't really work. But Lupe resists temptation and tells Pitch to get thee behind her, and so is rewarded by being given a doll so creepy looking that you just know that it's Chucky's sister.

Along the way Pitch manages to get Santa stuck in a tree(uh-huh) from whence he's rescued by Merlin! Merlin? You have got to be kidding me! Since when do mythical Druidic figures appear in Christmas tales, or have anything to do with a Christian religion? And doesn't God disapprove of magic? They'd have been burning Merlin at the stake a few hundred years ago, not asking him to come to the rescue of one of God's Aspects(or that's what I assume Santa must be, to be going up against Satan). This movie is one long HUH? from start to finish, and it'll make you wonder if that eggnog you drank wasn't spiked or something. Probably it was, since this movie is like one long giant DT.

Sentiment: negative
Or listening to, for that matter. Even the soundtrack is a bore. 

Honestly, this isn't the worst gay movie I've seen (that would be Regarding Billy), but it's down there very close to the bottom of the barrel.

This thing drags and drags and drags. It's not that the plot is inane--in the hands of a good writer it might have worked . . . it certainly could have been much more entertaining. There's not one plot point you can't see coming for ten miles down the road. The dialog is flat. The jokes are old. To add insult to injury, it's full of one-dimensional, stereotypical gays. 

Nothing in this movie convinced me that the situation or the relationship of the two leads was possible, much less real. There was no chemistry, no dynamic, in fact no evidence of why the leads love each other . . . we're just told they're in love. Hard to figure when they have nothing in common and aren't compatible sexually. They like the same book? Huh?

The acting is not totally bad, but the pacing is excruciatingly slow. I mean, almost Jarmusch- slow, but without Jarmusch quality. In fact, that would be a good barometer for you. If you like Jarmusch films, avoid this one.

Sentiment: negative
In the tradition of "neo" film noir flicks like "Chinatown", this film focuses on a crime mystery in a bleak realm with a bit of character insight blended in. The typical noir characters thoughout, including the cop out to prove himself, a damsel in distress and a bad, bad guy. Sharky's Machine gets a 9 out of 10 for its cinematography first, plus its direction, story, strong character acting and superb jazz score. Available on DVD, though the soundtrack itself is out of print (but available "used" on some auction sites). Filmed on location in beautiful downtown Atlanta (novelist Diehl's hometown) and the uncluttered, circa 1979 look of the city would make an old-time Atlanta citizen or visitor long for the old days before 12-lane interstates crisscrossed the city, a cinematographer's dream at that time. This was Rachel Ward's first USA feature film.

Sentiment: positive
Maybe you shouldn't compare, but Wild Style and Style Wars are original Hip Hop. Beat Street does have a lot of the original artists of early Hip Hop, but they've been obviously made clear that this could be their big break, of course for some it was and that's nice. But if you view this as original Hip Hop Culture you're wrong. It's overproduced and has a Hollywood sauce. Rather look for the first two movies i mentioned. They have convey the grittiness that comes with life in the ghetto. Yes, the rating for this movie is low, but the reviews are mostly positive or even raving. This is probably because although the story, the acting, the dialogues and the direction all are dreadful, the music and dancing is what the people love about it. Me, i do love the dancing but at the time thought that electro was the death of Hip Hop (i was so glad when round '86 a new generation of now classic Hip Hop artists appeared, like Krs One, Public Enemy, Ultramagnetic Mc's, Jungle Brothers, Bizmarkie to name a few), and i still don't like most of the beats in this movie and that is why it doesn't work for me. I mean, Wild Style has not much of a story but the music there is great and authentic. Of course tastes differ and that's alright. But as far as i'm concerned, this movie is trash except for the break dancing and some of the music and so i can't rate it higher than a 4 out of ten.

Sentiment: negative
I loved this movie. My daughter is 3 1/2 and a country girl at heart. There are not any movies for young children. I loved this one because the worst thing in it was when one of the boys said "stupid". I applaud them for stepping out and making a true family movie. I rented it the first time we saw it and know looking to buy to add to our collection. My daughter can not stop talking about it. It goes along with our lifestyle. We live in East Texas. I hope to see more family films like this one. She even named one of our calves "Hokey Pokey Keen"!!! I can not say enough about this movie. I look forward to many more films like this one.

Sentiment: positive
On the surface, this is an above-average post-war romantic comedy. Beneath the veneer, it is MGM character actor stunt-casting at its funniest.

The leads are straightforward, but all the secondaries are cast much against type. Margaret Hamilton (aka Wicked Witch of the West), Edward Everett Horton (professional obsessive-compulsive fussbudget), and Sig Ruman (the Marx Brothers' nemesis in _Night In Casablanca_ and the always-wonderful _Night At The Opera_), playing a well-intentioned gang trying to bring the two leads together, instead of driving them apart as their "usual" characters would do.

It also pokes fun at many romantic-comedy conventions, which is another indication that this could be not so much a "straight" romantic comedy, as it is a wry send-up of the many post-war romantic comedies & their 2-dimensional, stock characters.

I've seen it only once, with interruptions, so I can't be positive, but this movie may be one of those that worked better in the context of the time at which it was made, but is less successful now that viewers "see" these secondary characters through a completely different lens. I'm assuming this is the case when I give it 9 stars. I thought it was hysterical.

Sentiment: positive
Because I would have never ever seen this movie through to the end. Although there are some, but not many, funny moments in this movie I couldn't understand more than about 15%(the fancy English couple in the 3rd story included) of what people were saying. Three short stories, none with a real point, with just some of the most miserable and lifeless people I could have imagined and a load of foul language. Didn't find it funny, didn't find it amusing, didn't find any sense in it. 4/10

Sentiment: negative
This is a romantic comedy where Albert Einstein, played wonderfully by Walter Matthau, and his cronies play match maker to his niece (Meg Ryan) and a talented auto mechanic (Tim Robbins). The interplay among these major roles is augmented by a terrific supporting cast of well recognized character actors. This movie is cute and fun ... a "feel-gooder"! Hearty recommendations.

Sentiment: positive
A serious comedy. Ross Hunter-produced movie version of the French play "Les Joies de la famille" (later Americanized as "A Very Rich Woman") is plush, well cast, occasionally funny...and unfortunately timeless. A wealthy California widow, who appears to be frittering away her money, is railroaded by her two grown, greedy daughters, both of whom are afraid Mama Rosie is carelessly spending their inheritance. The whole issue of a vital--but aged--woman sent to a rest home against her will, and later having to prove herself sane in a court hearing, is touchy material for a comedy (and to his credit, director David Lowell Rich doesn't overload the picture with crass gags or obvious sentiment). Some of the humor is a little broad and doesn't work, yet Rosalind Russell understands the gravity inherent in this scenario and never hits a false note. Sandra Dee is also good as Rosalind's granddaughter, and James Farentino is very charming as a young lawyer. The movie has so much to say about the importance of our elderly, and the ways in which they choose to spend their remaining time, that the seriousness of "Rosie!"'s theme almost gets lost in the rush to a happy ending. The picture leaves you smiling--and at the same time wondering how many older ladies there are who were never quite so lucky. *** from ****

Sentiment: positive
Having seen many of Wong Kar-Wai's other movies (Happy Together, Fallen Angels, Ashes of Time), I knew what to expect coming in to the theatre; the cinematography would be lush, the use of space and perspective would be varied, the acting would be superb, and at least one of the characters would be consumed by an ineffable loneliness. These are, after all, precisely the techniques that make Wong Kar-Wai's art what it is. What I was not expecting was the degree to which I was drawn into a film that some reviewers dismissed as "unfinished" and compelled by characters who "seemed consumed by ennui."

I find it interesting how people can be so utterly unmoved by a film that so vividly displays emotions and settings many of us take for granted or work ardently to forget: the overwhelming sense of grief stemming from being betrayed; the guilt aroused by the thought of becoming no better than the betrayer; the mundane yet profoundly intimate moments of relationships, where the need to express oneself verbally is utterly superfluous. This is what Wong Kar-Wai attempts to portray in the film and what he achieves so well.

Too many Americans are consumed by the need to have every moment of a film filled with stock dialogue; witty banter, disaffected sarcasm and overwrought confessions seem to be the pinnacle of the "best" American film has to offer. Wong Kar-Wai sees things very differently. Instead of the character needing to keep the audience apprised of her every feeling, perception or belief, Wong's characters make their feelings and understandings known clearly by facial gestures, body positioning, and, yes, silence.

If viewers merely contemplate this film from the standpoint of character development and action, then they may be disappointed by what it has to offer. If they are willing to let themselves try and intuit what the characters are feeling, then they may feel quite differently about what Wong has to offer them.

Sentiment: positive
True, this is not John Sayles finest film (Brother From Another Planet) but it is not entirely forgettable either, if not for any other reason than its message. Like Batman, Wild Thing's parents were murdered in front of him, leaving him to fend for himself in 'The Zone,' a corrupt section of an unnamed city where greed and violence reign supreme. Instead of falling in with the likes of Chopper (Robert Davi) Wild Thing fights for justice, using his powers of Tai Chi and eerie cat impressions, occasionally lighting himself on fire. He becomes something of an urban legend, a modern day Robin Hood, and a hero for the ages. 1987 at its finest, WILD THING LIVES

Sentiment: positive
I loved this movie it was a great portrayal of a family who had it's share of ups and down, but in the end they knew that special love they had for each other. I have seen many movies starring Jaclyn Smith, but my god this was one of her best, though it came out 12 years ago. This movie contained an all-star cast, and what I loved the most was that it opened my eyes to see other actors who I haven't seen before. This movie was kind of long in length, but I enjoyed every minute of it. It is a movie that you can sit down with your family and watch, though we would have to cover the kids eyes a few times due to the discretionary love scenes. Overall I rate this movie a 10 out of a 1-10 scale. Lifetime does not air it enough, so if anyone knows what store sells it let me know because this is a must-have.

Sentiment: positive
The most impressive thing about 'Anemic Cinema' is its title: an anagram which is very nearly also a palindrome. Unfortunately, it only works in American English, since in Britain 'anaemic' is spelt differently.

I've always found the dilettante Man Ray and his artistic efforts to be deeply pretentious, and I've never understood why his work attracts so much attention. Apart from his Rayographs (which he invented by accident, and which are merely direct-contact photo prints), his one real contribution to culture seems to be that he was the first photographer to depict female nudity in a manner that was accepted as art rather than as porn. But surely this had to happen eventually, and there's no real reason why Ray deserves the credit. The critical reaction to Man Ray reminds me of the story about the Emperor's New Clothes.

Back in the early 1960s, the second season of 'The Twilight Zone' opened each episode with a shot of revolving concentric circles in black and white. There's an image in 'Anemic Cinema' which is so similar, I wonder if 'Twilight Zone' borrowed it from this film. The main difference is that the revolving image here is a black and white spiral. Indeed, if ever there was any movie that deserves to be described as a spiral, this one is it. Throughout 'Anemic Cinema', we're treated(?) to shots of a revolving disc containing words (in French) moving in a spiral. The effect is vertiginous, and the texts -- about incest and Eskimos -- are nearly Dada in their meaninglessness. I did laugh at one clever sexual pun.

The emperor is naked, folks, and this movie just barely rates 2 points out of 10. Au suivant!

Sentiment: negative
I just watched this movie. In one word: sucky! The story is bad, the acting is, if possible, even worse. The movie has one or two nice moments, but thats it and having those two small good moments, doesn't make up for anything in between, before or after those moments. A montrocity of a movie, not even worth watching on tv...

Sentiment: negative
"Prime Suspect 4" continues the exploits of the inscrutable and dogged seeker of truth and justice, Detective Superintendent Jane Tennison; the first of three miniseries (PS4, PS5, & PS6) with the notable absence of founding writer Lynda La Plante from the credits. Imbued with the same gritty reality of the first three series, the second three series pit Tennison against the forces of evil while coping with middle age, loneliness, indiscretions, a host of personal and professional problems, and resolutions which are sometimes less than ideal. PS4 conjures two stories while PS5 & PS6 are single episodes each which find Tennison seeking justice on behalf of the brutally wronged while waging war against institutions which are willing to sacrifice the interests of her victims for those of a greater good. In other words, to prevail, Tennison must overcome both evil and good forces, something which makes the always gray scenarios of the PS series yet grayer and the Tennison wars as much a matter of principle as of finding murderers. Very good stuff which only gets better from series to series. (B+)

Sentiment: positive
And I would have rated it higher than a 7 out of 10 if it wasn't for the seriously uneven Irish accent of Barbara Hershey in the leading role of Mother Madalyn. The accent came and went unfortunately which I found more than a little distracting. 

However, the performance of William L Petersen in the role of Joad was outstanding, he brought a warmth and depth to the character in spite of some periodic hokey dialogue. Captivating and genuine, I found him quite astonishing in the way he captured the character. 

The premise of the film is fairly simple, the building of a forgotten staircase in a church. It is based, rather loosely I believe, on a true story and I had heard of this staircase prior to seeing the movie. 

It was a phenomenal engineering feat for its time - a floating double helix made without nails or screws. It exists to this day although it is now in private ownership.

**Minor Spoiler**Good supporting cast and Barbara does dying so well in all her movies and here she doesn't disappoint. Lots of special moments.

7/10

Sentiment: positive