DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This was without a doubt the best of the "Dirty Harry" series. From the opening credits, you're swept up in a revenge tale that hits hard and is profoundly engrossing. Sondra Locke is perfect in the role of a traumatized woman out for revenge. Eastwood has many "aside" sequences that have nothing to do with the plot, but show Harry at his bad-assed best. Loaded with unforgettable characters in minor roles, this film rocks and should serve as the standard for detective/action flicks. This is the one Dirty Harry flick that's raw and devoid of any "fluff". I can watch this again and again (okay, not in one sitting) because it's a gratifying "out for revenge" yarn. The pace is quick and several of the scenes are unforgettable. "Go ahead - Make my day...You feel lucky, Punk? ...." classic Eastwood as only Eastwood, with his anguished, rubbery expressions, and whispery, menacing voice can do it.

Sentiment: positive
Hargh... this film is so bad it's almost good. Trash at its best. Jesus' bro vs. pimps...come on. I'd say that you'd actually have to see this, it's so bad... my sides hurt when I laughed. I can't understand why this isn't in the worst 100.

Sentiment: negative
Wow, What a wonderful film-making! Mr. Im has done it, again!

His last work, ChunHayang (2000) was a great film, but this one is even greater. Selected as an official feature film in the Canne Festival for the second time in a two-year row, this 66 years old director is getting better and better at what he is making of with a Korean culture.

Simply, Chihwaseon is about a great Korean painter, '(Ohwon) JANG, Seung-Up' who was considered as a prodigy in the late Nineteenth century. The basic story of this film tells the life of Jang, Seung-up, and the historical background of his time. He was an orphan, but in his teens, he was picked up by a noble man, called, Kim, Byung-Moon. This Mr.Kim becomes a mentor of Jang as well as life-long friendship, and continues to support his great talent that he knew in the first place. With Jang's great effort and natural talent, his fame grows faster and faster as the strength of his country, Korea falls down.

Jang's personality portrayed in the film is very complicated, and one of the best actors in Korea, Choi, Min-sik goes deep inside of Jang's soul. Suffering eyes reveal the struggle of a great artist's life. He is very serious sometimes, but all of sudden, he changes to a wild maniac. He drinks like an alcoholic, and sleeps with courtesans anytime. Even, he said in the movie, "without an alcohol and a woman, I can't draw. (An alcohol and women are my only inspirations)" In the peak of the fame, to develope his own style, he travels all around the country, and never gives up his pride as an artist for the authority or money. I don't want to give out every details, but I think you surely did get some ideas about the film.

The most amazing thing about this film is a cinematography. It is just so breath-taking how they captured every beauty of landscapes. Yes, each scene is like a work of Jang's painting. And the script is perfect, too. It mainly deals a deeper meaning of what makes a true artist. For example, Kim advices to Jang in the movie that 'before one holds a paintbrush, one has to set an aim in life'. This is very moving and inspiring line, and there are many more.

Go See this Film if you are going to be in the Canne Festival.

Chihwasun will be the greatest film ever made that deals with the life of a painter in film history.

Sentiment: positive
This film, although not totally bad, should have been filmed where the actual events took place. Grand Island, Nebraska was devastated by no less than seven tornados on the night of June 3, 1980. Grand Island is situated in the nearly treeless, flat Platte River Valley in Hall county. The makers of this movie filmed in the tree covered hills of Ontario and moved the whole event to a non-existant town called Blainsworth. The people of Grand Island bravely survived this awful night only to be forgotten because of a poorly made movie.

Sentiment: negative
I don't think this is too bad of a show under the right conditions. I tolerated the first season.

Unfortunately, this is a show about lawyers who aren't really lawyers. God forbid anybody actually go to law school based on these shows, which I had heard was the case when I watched some interviews of the show. It just made me gag a bit.

That aside, Spader and Shatner, who are supposed to be the stars of the show, are the most annoying. While this might be a compliment in some situations, it's certainly not here. Their constantly harassing the women on the show is funny at first. But since that's what they're doing literally all the time, I've realized that this is as deep as the show is going to get. Trying to intersperse some serious, dramatic, and even tear-jerking moments in the middle of this mockery of a real show fails to compensate for the progressive loss of interest I've been experiencing trying to enjoy the show.

Alan Shore's flamboyant and gratuitous "public service announcements" where he spouts off his opinions do not impress. Denny Crane is just annoying. I was embarrassed for him and for the writers of the show for Crane's speech wearing a colonial outfit.

I'm giving two stars because there are moments where I thought the show's attempts to deal with some contemporary issues were done with care.

I think the show's writers became aware that the sexual harassment displayed by Denny and Alan was getting overbearing even to those who were more inviting of them from the start. The thing is, I don't care if the sexual harassment treatment in the show is done well, but I just felt that the writer was insulting me with artificially implanting sexual banters all over the show in the hopes that my libido will keep me coming back for more. I'm not a teenager anymore, and I think this show is promising if its goal wasn't to cater to the lowest common denominator to get ratings.

Of course, I'm writing this after I realized that it's really not gonna get much better than this. It's a shame because it's one of those shows I'd love to love.

Sentiment: negative
I have passed several times on watching this since I figured it was some dumb, sappy, dated romantic comedy. Well, it is a romantic comedy, and maybe a little dated. However, it is not overly sentimental, touching as it does on themes of office politics, adultery, and loneliness. You think you know exactly where things are headed, but there is an element of unpredictability that keeps your interest, and not everything turns out quite as you had expected. But, there is enough wit and charm to touch the most inveterate cynic. If you meet someone who doesn't like this movie, seriously consider how well you want to know them.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this as a child in the late eighties and I must say, Galaxy Express is one of those films that sticks in your imagination for a long time. If you've never understood the appeal of anime, discovering this film may be your golden ticket to Otaku-town.

The story is as delicate and poetic as Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. The cell animation, while somewhat traditional, possesses a vivid style that explosively portrays Leiji Matsumoto's great talent for character design and visual storytelling.

This is one of those unique children's films like Star Wars, The Dark Crystal and The Wizard of Oz that completely transcends 'family entertainment' status and stands as a classic of cinema on its own terms.

I highly recommend this film.

Sentiment: positive
This trio of 30-minute short films on gay-related themes are all quite respectably executed. Each coming-of-age story is played out with pleasant charm and naturalness. This film deserves to be widely distributed and easily obtainable. However, it isn't. I had to order my video copy; none of the local video stores or even the libraries had it in stock.

Sentiment: positive
Barbara Stanwyck gives this early Douglas Sirk-directed, Universal-produced soap just the kick that it needs. Not nearly as memorable as Sirk's later melodramas, it's easy to see by watching "All I Desire" where Sirk would be heading artistically in the next few years. Stanwyck is a showgirl who returns to her family in smalltown, U.S.A, after deserting them a decade earlier. Her family and community have mixed emotions in dealing with her shocking return. Some of the cinematography is amazing, and Stanwyck is tough-as-nails and really gives this film a shot of energy. Overall, a fairly good show.

Sentiment: positive
The title should have been the walker. The guy expend 90% of the movie walking. He doesn't know what he wants, or what he is. Go through life stealing peoples identity for nothing. He gets no benefit, no money, nothing pretending to be another person.

No body was able to understand why he was pretending to be somebody else.

The only thing that was clear in this movie is that he love his father and was a good son. But the rest was crap.

May be director is a looser that would like to be somebody else. But what he really should do is to get a real job, because after his movie, I don't think he has a chance to make as a movie producer.

Sentiment: negative
This one was truly awful. Watching with fascinated horror, I kept on asking "why have they done this?" That is, taken all the scenarios out of "The Day after Tomorrow", "The Perfect Storm" and "Twister" and remixing them in a three-hour miniseries, directed by long-time junk TV director Dick Lowry, with every disaster movie cliché known to man and not an ounce of real suspense. Many of the cast were unknown Canadians and location filming was done in Canada, Winnepeg doubling for Chicago, so no doubt tax breaks had something to do with it. Although some ambitious special effects were attempted, the execution is so poor no decent spectacle is achieved. The actors may be a competent lot; the script is so bad no-one had a chance to show it, except perhaps for Randy Quaid as Tommy the Tornado chaser, who went right over the top and was quite amusing.

Believe it or not, the producers have since made another one of these Canadian disaster turkeys called "Category 7  the End of the World" which was very tastefully shown on CBS in the US a few weeks after Hurricane Katrina. How could the network of Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkite do such a thing? In prime time? PT Barnum "nobody ever went broke underestimating public taste" is proved right once more.

Sentiment: negative
This independent, B&W, DV feature consistently shocks, amazes and amuses with it's ability to create the most insane situations and then find humor and interest in them. It's all hilarious and ridiculous stuff, yet as absurd as much of the film should be, there is a heart and a reality here that keeps the film grounded, keeps the entire piece from drifting into complete craziness and therein lies the real message here. This film is about how we all survive in a world gone mad. That seems to be the heart of the film. For as insane and off the wall as things get, Leon, the 30 yr. old paperboy-protagonist, always tries to keep it together. He's like a child forever trying to catch the balloon that is floating away so that everything will work out for the best, so that everyone can have what they want.

The acting in the film could have went far over the top but the exceptional cast really keeps the piece cohesive. Van Meter is perhaps the best of the bunch here with a performance that shines through her absurd diseased tics. Just as the characters in the film do, we overlook her sudden outbursts to see the real person underneath. 

Majkowski is a true genius here. He takes the utmost ridiculous plot twists and keeps them real. It is his script and his cast that help keep the whole thing afloat. It's a true testament to the skill of Majkowski and all involved that this film, with it's grating plot and characters, never once works our nerves. Majkowski has taken a film that could have been abrasive and repugnant, and somehow given it heart and humor. This is a unique film. Not to be missed. 



Sentiment: positive
Well where do I begin my story?? I went to this movie tonight with a few friends not knowing more than the Actors that were in it, and that it was supposed to be a horror movie.

Well I figured out within the first 20 minutes, what a poor decision I had made going out seeing this movie. The Plot was crap, and so was the script. The lines were horrible to the point that people in the audience were laughing hysterically.

The cast couldn't have been more plastic looking. Even some of the scenes seemed like they should have been made much quicker...like they dragged on for no particular reason. Very poor editing.

All in all this movie was a giant waste of time and money. Boo.

Sentiment: negative
After being forced to sit through some real stinkers (Racing Stripes, Shark Boy and Lava Girl) -- I truly enjoyed watching "Fried Worms". For once, I did not guess the ending! It was funny and entertaining and didn't resort to a ton of gross-out humor, despite the title. My boys (6 and 10) both LOVED it too -- oh and my 45 year old "boy" had a smile on his face the whole time. This is a family movie that is not just tolerable for the parents. The relationship with the little brother is so close to real life. "He is not stopping singing just to annoy me!!" Also, the way the new kid tries to make friends and how those friendships actually form is right-on with the way kids behave. Of course the parents have to act a little goofy -- but my favorite scenes involved the Dad getting used to his new job. Have fun!

Sentiment: positive
well i don't know what people saw in this movie i don't know. 

i saw this movie yesterday and i got a severe headache. other than few good dialog there is nothing in this movie.

the big b rt now is preaching to fall in love with girls of half of you age. 

i didn't like the movie at all. i wanted to give 1 rating but giving 3 as 

i like the role of the small girl who is called "sexy" by AB. my word "DONT WATCH"

save your self donot watch this movie.

save time and money.

Sentiment: negative
Yesterday was one of those days we decided to go to the movies. We picked "Ik ook van Jou" more or less at random, but we were interested to see the state of current Dutch filmmaking.

The film is based on a book by Ronald Giphart, and I must confess straight away that he is not exactly one of my favorites. The film features actors that are best known in the netherlands for their appearances in soap-operas and/or afternoon talk shows. At least one of them (Kamerling) has done some fairly decent stuff after leaving the soap world. So we decided to give this movie the benefit of the doubt.

And what a mistake that was. This movie fails on all fronts. Bad acting (the best performance is actually by a guinea pig, which very convincingly pretends to be dead). Flat, uninteresting story with unexplained and uninteresting sidelines (Why france? Why tell the story to a girl from Uganda?) Mistakes (black people dont have to use sunscreen, as far as I know, and heating systems in the Netherlands do not produce clouds of steam like in New York, even if this looks great on film, people do not wear T-shirts outside on new years eve in northern Europe). There's one funny moment which involves two little dogs, and that's it.

So that's what I think, but more importantly, it seemed that none of the people leaving the movie theater afterwards had enjoyed it. I overheard one of them saying that he was extremely disappointed, because he liked the book so much. I did not read the book, but my advice would have to be: read the book, don't see the film.

Sentiment: negative
I am being in no way facetious when I say that this movie was worse than any other movie ever made. Worse than "Batman & Robin". Worse than "Manos, Hands of Fate". Seriously, it's that bad. When people tell me that a movie is terrible I use the "Two Girls" scale to figure it out. If the movie is comparable to "Two Girls" then I won't watch it. If it's twice as good, maybe I'll watch it, but only to laugh at the retards who paid somebody to make it, because a movie twice as good as this one would still be a piece of garbage.

Sentiment: negative
Iron Eagle may not be the most believable film plot-wise, but the characters are well written and very well acted. If you cannot believe the characters, the film is a flop.

I believe the photography, especially the aerial photography is superb. I believe it is far superior to Top Gun to which it is endlessly compared. It is one of the best pieces of aerial photography I have seen. The soundtrack by Basil Paledouros (forgive the spelling)is great, and juxtaposes well with the rock tunes. I wish that portion of the soundtrack were available.

Jason Gedrick does well as the teenager who suddenly has to grow up in a rush and and the realities of life, death, and responsibilities. Lou Gossett is fab as Chappy, both hard-bitten and yet human as he recalls pilot deaths.

There are lots of movies out there that you watch once and don't care to watch again. Then there are those movies that get you for one aspect or another and you can watch it again and again! Iron Eagle is that kind of movie!

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film on its release, and have watched it 3 or 4 more times, including last week. I regret I have to be a voice of dissension with regard to Mr. Branagh's performance.

This is really a glorious, sumptuous film, to say nothing of ambitious at over 4 hours long - beautifully shot and designed. Derek Jacobi, Julie Christie, Kate Winslet, Richard Briers, and many others do fine jobs. Then there's Kenneth Branagh. If ever there was a vanity project for an actor, this is it, and Mr. Branagh spares nothing in putting the "ham" in Hamlet. From the stunt casting (which gives us the worst performance ever by the woefully miscast Jack Lemmon), to the bits of distracting business thrown in to infuse a sense of "naturalness," to his own performance which runs the gamut from throwing away the single most famous soliloquy in all of literature to screaming every line of others. His performance confirms that, while he may come across better on stage where bigger is necessary, he has never been a great film actor. The scenery budget could be charged to catering, Mr. Branagh eats so much of it. His performance is a perfect example of why people don't go to see Shakespeare - "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." And if there is fault to his direction, it is that he keeps the camera firmly glued on his overblown performance.

No matter what theories people may posit on the Bard, he was, after all is said and done, a playwright. The brilliance of his plays rest in the fact that his themes are universal and timeless. Although there is no "right" way to play his plays, there is most certainly great acting, good acting and bad acting. Shakespeare himself gives instructions to the players in the text of "Hamlet" itself. It amazes me how Mr. Branagh "mouthed" it, but did not hear it. It was an example of spending too much time working out how he's going to say something, and too little figuring out WHAT he's saying.

While Mr. Branagh has certainly done a wonderful job in mounting some entertaining productions, he would be wise to stay behind the camera and allow those who know the art of acting to practice it. His direction has always been better than his acting. I still give him immense credit for resurrecting interest in filming Shakespeare. He set a great template for other productions. And, it would be interesting to see him onstage, from about 20 rows back. But, I do hope he chooses to direct more and act less.

Is it worth seeing? Certainly. There are many little joys to be found in the film. But, it's a long, long movie and, by the end, one may feel less that they enjoyed than survived it.

Sentiment: negative
Here is a movie that almost gets it all right, with good performances from everyone, and three strong leading performances from Hanks, Seymour Hoffman, and a fine turn up from Julia Roberts that had me spell bound from the first few seconds, these are performances that lift the production to the stars, and keep it there for the duration. 

Apart from one or two very minor factual problems with the script, the only thing that lets this movie down, is the technical direction, there are far too many bad cuts (fudged continuity)and a number of camera "cheats" that simply do not work. This is surprising for a movie of this stature, and is a little annoying to watch, but it does not destroy an otherwise beautifully crafted film.

Sentiment: positive
Old movie buffs will know why I'd call this one "The Man in the Grey Flannel Robe." Most Bible-based movies are basically schlock- what might call forth smiles and giggles here is how Peck, tries to raise consciousness on a variety of psychological and social issues with the spear carrying Neanderthals all about him. As a Great Romance, it falls flat as unleavened bread. But there is something gripping about this movie. Of all the big Hollywood Bible pictures it most strikingly conveys the ambivalent attitude of the Average American towards belief in the Biblical God. Billy Sunday's thesis is duking it out with H.L. Mencken's antithesis all through the script. Who gets the better of it in the Heavenly Chorus-backed synthesis depends on your point of view. Other than that, D & B boasts a good performances by Peck ( especially in the closing repentance scene) and by Jayne Meadows as his bitter first wife Michol, vivid, moody atmosphere (good idea to set most action at dawn or night), and the rousing rendition of the Twenty-Third Psalm at the end.

Sentiment: positive
Beyond dirt cheap, this shot-on-video exercise in ineptitude was difficult to get through. It's got the typical gore that you'd expect in a zombie movie, but none of the required atmosphere to make it worth while.

What's strange is that this is an amateur German video, and the version I saw is English-dubbed! The dubbers seem to be American fans (penpals of the Germans?!) who can't decide whether they want to play it straight or turn it into a comedy. One character (a white German, of course) is dubbed by a black guy apparently, who speaks with thick ebonics! 'Kno wahm sayin', Comrad?

Sentiment: negative
A hilarious and insightful perspective of the dating world is portrayed in this off beat comedy by first time writer/director Peter M. Cohen. The story unfolds as the four male protagonists meet weekly at the local diner to confer about their dating woes. We meet Brad: a good-looking, wall-street playboy with a quick-wit and sharp tongue; Zeek: a cynical, sensitive writer; Jonathan: a sexually perplexed nice guy with an affinity for hand creams and masturbation; and Eric: the married guy, who cherishes his weekly encounters with his single friends in hope for some enlightenment to his boring and banal married existence. The trials and tribulations of the men's single lives in New York are amusingly expressed, mirroring that of Sex in the City and HBO's new comedy The Mind of Married Man, and bring an astute light to scamming. The story takes a twist as the three singletons meet Mia--wittily played by Amanda Peet-and all fall for her. She seduces them each with her uncanny ability to conform to the personalities' they exhibit. When they come to realize they have all met and fallen in love with the same woman, they chose her over their friendship. Whipped is a realistic portrayal of the dating world, one that the critic's failed to recognize. In plain language, they missed the point. The protagonist's here are caricatures of real people. The exaggerations are hysterical, mixing satire and humility, and are not to be taken as seriously as the critic's disparagement suggests. See this movie, you'll laugh from start to finish.

Sentiment: positive
As I said, the book was pretty good and this might have been a good movie if Melissa Gilbert hadn't been so horrible and unbelievable in the lead roll. What kind of accent was that suppose to be anyway? It sounded the same as her horrible Russian accent in another movie that I have seen her in. Every time she opened her mouth I cringed. It took 3 tries before I was able to watch the entire movie. Brad Johnson was good as the other lead. 

I really liked the beach location scenes. They added some much needed brightness to take your mind off of Melissa Gilberts depressing portrayal. I think they could have used San Francisco views more to their advantage though. It looked like the night scenes were actually SF, but I could be wrong. I don't recall the character in the book being this depressing. 

Please keep Melissa Gilbert out of any future movies that require an accent!

Sentiment: negative
I never realized what a fabulous dancer Lana Turner was until I saw this movie. She was only 19 years old and gorgeous. What a pleasure to watch her dance with George Murphy. The story line was typical for its day but the dancing was really special. I never tire of watching Fred and Ginger but Lana Turner in this movie was just as terrific. I always thought of Lana as a so-so actress who tended to over act. She should have done more dancing and less of the Maddam X and Peyton Place roles. I had a new appreciation for her after seeing this movie and her wonderful dancing. Too bad the "Academy" doesn't give an "Oscar" for dancing.

Sentiment: positive
I was never a big fan of television until I watched 24 for the first time. I got into the series very late. Season 5 ended before I even saw my very first episode. It was an episode of Series 3 that was on my parents DVR (digital video recorder) box while I was house sitting for the weekend. It took that one episode for me to be hook line and sinker into the world of Jack Bauer. And boy was I hooked!! I watched the next six episodes without blinking an eye. The next day I went to Blockbuster and signed up for an unlimited month pass for twenty something dollars and needless to say it has been the greatest blockbuster money I've ever spent. I watched the first three seasons in three weeks. That's 72 forty minute episodes!!! I will say that finding out what happens next is easier on DVD than waiting an entire week. I can only imagine the anticipation of watching Season 6 week to week!! I find it mildly torturous and cruel but I'm going to give it a try and watch it just like the rest of America!! The DVR is set and you can bet I'll be chomping at the bit!!

Sentiment: positive
This film's trailer interested me enough to warrant renting the DVD. However, the resulting movie is absolutely dire! Admittedly, this is not the worst film ever made, or the worst film this year, but it came damn close!

The main issue is the film not knowing what it wants to be: comedy, adult drama, thriller, teen-porn? The story is interesting, as it deals with the pitfalls of mail-order brides, but the film is a mess. What starts out as a mildly interesting "comedy" (a word I use in the loosest possible terms), then goes totally in reverse, and degenerates into a very dark and distasteful misogynistic thriller. Nicole Kidman should know better, and Ben Chaplin is wasted! As are Matthieu Kassovitz and Vincent Cassel, whom I can only presume did this for the money.

This is a bad film in pretty much every single aspect. It's not funny, it's almost so sexist that you could almost forgive Benny Hill for everything he did, and the dramatic elements are just downright nasty. A film to be avoided, unless you absolutely have to see Kidman or Chaplin in every one of their films!

Sentiment: negative
I didn't expect a lot when i went out to see this, but my god what a disappointment. The original was kind of fun within it's genre, but this is so bad, i felt abused when i left the theater. There's no plot, it's not funny, it's not enjoyable to watch, it's straight out embarrassing. After an hour i hoped my patience would be rewarded but now i regret not leaving the theater. Do yourself a favor and ignore this one, see it when it comes to the small screen. Or see it on budget DVD, whatever you do don't waste any money on it. Don't say i didn't warn you.

Sentiment: negative
I have in the past loved Tim Burton. I loved Ed Wood, Edward Scissorhands, and even Mars Attacks. But I hate this movie. The costume drama scenes in the beginning were the sort of poorly done, stodgy things that used to plague historical drama 25 years ago. Then there were all the head-cutting scenes, which just left me cold, and that's the sort of thing that ought to mean something, I would think. Yes, there were some nice bare trees and foggy evenings and the horseman jumping out of the tree was a nice special effect, but on the whole the movie was just boring and pointless.

Sentiment: negative
Same old same old about Che. It completely ignored the really interesting facts of Che's true character. Sodeberg redid the same boring narrative of Che. The silly seductive tale of an Argentinean rich-boy who was so shocked by poverty he became a Robin Hood fighting alongside the poor, until eventually he was murdered by the CIA. Yeah, yeah, heard it all before, BORING AND UNTRUE!. The reality of Che Guevara is very different and far more explosive! The facts show that he was a totalitarian with a messiah streak, who openly wanted to impose Maoist tyranny on the world. He was so fanatical that at the hottest moment in the Cold War, he even begged the Soviet Union to nuke New York, Washington or Los Angeles and bring about the end of the world. CHe urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike against US cities. For the rest of his life, he declared that if his finger had been on the button, he would have pushed it. When Khrushchev backed down and literally saved the world, Che was furious at the "betrayal". If Che's recommendations had been followed, you would not be reading this review now. How a homicidal maniac became a pop icon would have made a much more interesting film. Incredible that no filmmaker has been daring enough to show the real side of Che and his posthumous media transformation. THAT WOULD MAKE AN Oscar WINNING FILM! I thought making independent film meant taking REAL RISKS and being GROUNDBRAKING! They only stick to "safe counterculture themes", to wit, "Che cool", "Wall Street bad", "Republican= Nazi", "Bush ex Hitler", "NRA is worse than KGB", "Christians are fanatics and stupid", etc...ad nauseum. Oooh, how daring, how mind blowing. Tres anti-mainstream and edgy. I wish they would have some real cojones and tackle the Independent Film Oligarchy! That would be truly daring!

Sentiment: negative
Crossfire (1947)

Great Message, Great Symbolism, Very Good Movie

It's hard to go totally wrong with Robert Mitchum, Robert Young, and Robert Ryan all together as the three male leads, and with director Edward Dmytryk pulling together a complicated murder and detective yarn. That's reason enough to watch it once and even twice.

You might need a second look to fully catch the plot as it is explained (too much) or shown in flashback (also too much) because it's a little complicated without good reason. But it makes sense overall, and we see early on (too early probably) who the culprit is, and even why.

Besides the drama, well done in typical noir lighting and filled with those short quips that make post-war films dramatic, there is the social message, the anti-anti-Semitic point of it all. It only borders on preachy once or twice, and it's such an obviously good point to make we watch it being made approvingly and wait for the plot and the dramatic acting to take front row. Which they do, especially Young, who is a brilliantly laconic and patient detective, and Ryan, who is mean in a believably crude and angry way (Ryan is good at that, his typecasting reasonable). Mitchum mostly plays a watered down version of what he is famous for, and the fourth known acting force, Gloria Grahame, is a great, brief, presence even if slightly dispensable.

Though the movie is dominated by the sequence of events and by the message, both of which grow in force as we go, it is really easy to watch just for the lighting, camera-work, and acting, including the classic fight scene that opens the first few seconds of the film, all done with shadows. 

The archetypes of soldiers presented is very deliberate, and this might be something people at the time were very familiar with and could relate to as much as the anti-Semitism thread. The shell-shocked soldier rendered helpless (but still intrinsically capable), the modest youngster without confidence (but capable, too), and the weary but outwardly able veteran are all there. And of course, the angry, violent soldier who is a product of the war, too. This last is also a responsibility of society--even the army goes all out to make good on the injustices here, not just because they are criminal, but because they stem from the wear and tear of a long awful war.

The audience then, more than now, could really get, but it's there to appreciate still.

Sentiment: positive
I'm sorry, perhaps this is part of the wave of praise for fireman since 911, perhaps it's an old fashioned story, perhaps it's not meant to knock your socks off but I'm sorry, this film is awful. As in the title, cliché 49, I think it has at least that many clichés. It's a dreary story (impressive managing to be dreary when there's dangerous fires and lives being saved) about a fireman. And his dreary life, told in a pointless, 'scene from now' flashback to the past style. We begin the film with the hero in peril in a collapsing burning building. The entire film is about trying to get us to love this guy so we squeeze a few tears out when he meets his end in the finale of the scene from the start of the film. I found it hard to care and wished he'd gone up in smoke earlier. Clichés abound such as - death of best friend, love at first site, hazing in a new job, firstborn, a worried wife with a husband with a perilous job, a father figure boss/superior, 2.4 kids (well 2 but close enough), sacrificing your life to save others, awards for bravery....on and on. It's every fireman's life, every police officer, nurse, doctor in some way. It was lazy, if it was meant as a 'life flashing before his eyes' as he died, then God help the poor chap, I'm surprised he didn't suck in more smoke to go quicker. The flashbacks are mostly mundane and predictable, dully acted and with a soundtrack that could put The Laughing Cow out of business it was so cheesy, it actually sounded like muzak or copyright free elevator stuff!!! To be avoided at all costs unless you need something to watch with granny of a Sunday evening. Or maybe if your related to a firefighter - warning - your life will end horribly or you will be scarred for life if you are a brave fireman according to this movie. Unless your John Travolta (strange Velcro style hair in this one!!)

Sentiment: negative
The only aspect of this film that saves it from being my least favorite piece of celluloid trash is a single line uttered by an agent attempting to infiltrate the man-eating tomatoes by dressing in a tomato costume: "Can somebody please pass the ketchup?" I highly urge anyone with a sleeping disorder to use this film as a sedative; it works better than an overdose of demarol.

Sentiment: negative
"The New Twenty" is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Yes, some may argue that formulaic small budget films that strive for less may seem worse, but I would argue that a pseudo-intellectual anti-formulaic "indie" film that pretends to be more is worse. 

"The New Twenty" was written and directed by Chris Mason Johnson, and I will never get back the 91 minutes of my life that I wasted on his film.

THE SCREENPLAY & CHARACTERS

From beginning to end, the screenplay failed to provide an anti-hero or hero with a moral core that the audience would want to see succeed or fail. 

In story telling, the three dramatic conflicts are man vs. man, man vs. the world, and man vs. himself. 

The screenplay focuses on a group of college friends in New York, and is preoccupied with the dynamic of man vs. himself, where each of the film's characters are so self-absorbed in a stupor of depression and self-destructive behavior that the movie atrophies before the audiences very eyes. 

Each of the main characters indulge in unexplained bad behavior (heroin addiction with no history as to why the character is an addict; a fiancée who has sex with her fiancée's boss/investor, even though the character is written too smart to have sex with such a sleazy character; a man who begins as a decent guy, but is attracted to a foul-mouthed investor, and converts for some unknown reason into a similar foul-mouthed business jackass; a closeted chubby gay cyber geek, who does nothing, but find dates online; and a gay Asian man who dates an HIV positive older man, but has no scenes establishing why the relationship works and why love develops).

Crucial scenes establishing the cause of the character's addiction, the suffering and self- loathing of the fiancée that might explain why she would sleep with a sleaze bag; the back story that would explain why a decent guy would be attracted to a "Gordon Gecko" type character and become a jackass; a story line for the chubby cyber geek; and more scenes of interaction between the Asian man and HIV positive boyfriend are all missing.

Without proper establishing details, all of the characters' actions seem forced and contrived.

DIRECTION, CINEMATOGRAPHY & SCORE

I found Mr. Johnson's direction to be without a clear point of view, leaving the actors emotionally incoherent. 

The cinematography can be described as mundane at best. Mr. Johnson selected small spaces to shoot and failed to catch the grandeur of New York City. This failure created a claustrophobic film, that viewed like the filming of a stage play, and not a film.

The score was embarrassingly absent from most of the film. I assume that Mr. Johnson is to blame, since he could have asked for full score to enhance understanding in each shot.

CONCLUSION

"The New Twenty" is an annoying and unmitigated failure in film-making.

Sentiment: negative
Bollywood fans pretty much hold Amitabh Bachan's Mard in high regard but I think it is very overrated. Manmohan Desai collaborated before on movies like Suhaag,Parvarish,Amar Akbar Anthony,Naseeb,Desh Premee and Coolie and I have seen all of them I liked so I had very high expectations before I watched Mard and was bitterly disappointed. My main gripe about Mard is that it feels like Amar Akbar Anthony part 2,maybe Mr Desai ran out of ideas, after all he had been using that formula for years and years. 1. First of all some members of the cast is repeated from AAA, for instance the police inspector who brings up Amar, the Muslim who brings up Akbar, Nirupa Roy and a few more. 2. In AAA Nirupa Roy loses her eyesight, in Mard she loses her voice 3. In AAA there is the famous song (Shirdi wale sai baba)well in Mard we have Amitabh singing Maa Sherawali. Having seen AAA for over 1000 times I noticed that straight away.

My other gripes are that some of the situations just seem ridiculous, true Manmohan Desai made leave your brain at the door kind of movies but with Mard I thought he went too far. My last gripe is that compared to songs in previous Manmohan Desai movies I found the songs rather disappointing. I know it has many fans that swear by it but I didn't like it one bit. It actually pains me to write this review because I am such a huge fan and have loved his movies since I was a child.

Sentiment: negative
Two old buddies are sent to Japan to get back results of a genetic research containing videotape, which is stolen by the black suited ninjas at the beginning of the movie. First they just have to learn some ninja skill, because "only ninja can beat the ninja."

Sakura killers tries hard to be enjoyable ninja-flick but fails that badly. The whole movie is just so hollow and predictable that is hard to say anything good about it: Same plot has been seen in different variations dozens of times before, characters are too briefly drawn, direction is dull and script doesn't offer anything surprising, even in the ending scene, which by itself reduced movie's (trash)value.

Even 80's ninja-flick-fan, who understands the esthetic of trash-movies, is hard to find this movie even barely enjoyable. It simply doesn't offer anything new to viewer, neither in visual level nor in plot. Shurikens are thrown and katanas are swinging, but it's not enough to lead the movie direction it meant to be and recurred similar fighting scenes numbs even the most calloused viewer after the first 30 minutes.

It's hard to recommend movie to anyone. Even Franco Nero's clumsy performance in "Enter the Ninja" falls behind Sakura killer's American-ninjas. Even in visual level movie doesn't have any balls and it's waste of time to try to find any great fighting scenes in this movie: There isn't any. In all, one of the most futile ninja-flicks, I've ever seen. Doesn't interest even in curiosity. Trust me on this one.

½ out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was so bad it was funny! For awhile there I thought I was actually watching a parody of a bad movie (a la "For Your Consideration"). The "cliffhanger" scene at the end had me laughing until my insides hurt. The script was dreadful enough, but coupled with Sean Young's terrible acting -- especially while she explains the entire plot in great detail (complete with flashbacks) while dangling off a cliff -- makes it a truly classically bad movie worth watching! In fact the fakey shots in this scene reminded me of an Ed Wood movie. I still can't believe how this thing got made. First of all, how did such a bad script get the green light? How did star actors get attached? Were they at low points in their careers? Questions, questions.

Sentiment: negative
ORCA is not exactly bad, but it's not really Richard Harris's finest hour either. As a demented, Ahab-like fisherman, Harris gets into a game of death with a vengeful killer whale after killing the whale's "wife" and unborn child. Charlotte Rampling plays a whale expert who gets involved with Harris. She yells at him a lot about how important it is to leave nature alone. He doesn't listen and somehow ends up in the arctic battling the revenge crazed whale. There are no special effects to speak of except for what looks like a round mirror for a whale's eye --- there are endless shots of Harris reflected in the eye so the audience understands that the whale knows who he is. Bo Derek, as one of Harris's crew has a particularly unpleasant run in with the Orca and most of the supporting cast, including Robert Carridine, Will Sampson and Keenan Wynn don't fare very well either.

Sentiment: negative
This was a pleasant musical about the creation of the Moulin Rouge dance hall. In many ways, this reminds me of the Hollywood musicals of the 40s and 50s, in that it has many clichés leading up to the inevitable conclusion ("will the show STILL go on?"). While of course none of this is new, it was enjoyable and well made. The musical numbers at the end are frenetic and beautiful to watch. In many ways it reminds me of a sexier version of THE GREAT ZIEGFELD. In real life, Ziegfeld was quite the player but this was sanitized in the American film. But, in FRENCH CANCAN, the characters have fully functioning libidos--but nothing is really shown, so the movie is okay for kids.

Nothing new but well done nevertheless.

Sentiment: positive
I've just finished listening to the director's commentary for this film, and I think the one big thing I got from it that I agree with is that this film, like Mann's The Insider, is completely subjective. It's from Howard's POV. So, any review or attempt at contemplating a set of comments about it, as Ebert did, is really about Nolte's character actually. If you feel, as he did, that the film "does not work", then you're saying, I think, that Howard does not work. And, to be frank, you might be right. Howard's reasoning and personality really wouldn't stand up to professional mental treatments and analysis.

But, hey, that's the nature of people.

Andrew.

Sentiment: positive
Cheap, gloriously bad cheese from the 80's, the decade of cheese. I watched this one first uncut and un-MST3K'ed, and it was pretty much laugh out loud funny even without the comments.

The plot(such as it is) revolves around a post-apocalyptic world in which the AI robots revolted(sound familiar?) and destroyed pretty much everything, leaving a world in ruins with air so bad no one can breathe it. The few humans that are left act as slaves to an enigmatic being called the Dark One, which seems to be part computer and part organic being. The 'air slaves' work to produce energy for this being in return for breathable air. Every once in a while, the Dark One has the strongest of the air slaves fight to the death, so that no one will rise as a leader in a revolt against the Dark One.

Okay, that's the so-called serious stuff. On to the silly stuff, such as the ridiculous quasi-futuristic clothing that everyone sports, including car seat cover 'fur' garments, loin cloths, and spangly stuff and feather boas(worn mostly by the Dark One's henchwoman, a chick with an unrecognizable and almost non-understandable accent). Or the wooden acting and stilted lines sported by all of the so-called 'actors', who's dialog is high on pretension and low on sense. Or the dime store special fx, including pink socks with teeth glued onto them for 'deadly' sewer snakes, a bomb made of strung piano wire and a tin can, and terrible 'mutants' with Halloween rubber masks on.

A band of air slaves follow their leader, a mysterious wanderer who has adapted to the air outside, to go to the energy plant to destroy the Dark One. The guy's name is Neo, which explains where the Wachowski brothers got the idea for the Matrix. They meet up with a group of Amazons along the way, with the obligatory fight scene in which the female is bested(of course). Has anyone else ever noticed that in every Amazon movie or t.v. show ever produced, these so-called amazing warriors always get their butts kicked by either men or women? Amazons are just pansies, I guess.

This band of determined warriors makes their way through Central Park...errr...the ravaged lands beyond the last standing city(good way to save money on the matte paintings of a destroyed New York City, anyway) and journey into the sewers leading to the Power Station where the Dark One and his go-go girl henchwoman Valeria hang out. Here they vanquish such ferocious beasts as the sock puppet worms, a giant spider no one sees, and the goofy lobster robot who is one of the Dark One's personal guard. 

The final showdown is pretty sad. One of the slaves, a girl who's father was taken by the Dark One because he'd produced a way for people to breathe the foul air, sees that her father has been 'consumed by the Dark One's true form", which involves him being eaten by a giant avocado until only his head is sticking out. The three remaining adventurers destroy the Dark One by turning off a few switches, and the robot holocaust dies not with a bang but with a whimper. The two humans exchange some amazingly wooden last lines, and that's it. The End.

Sentiment: negative