DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This isn't exactly a complicated story. It's not a mystery, or a plot you have to spend time re watching because you missed an intrinsic part of the dialog. Claiming a movie has to be seen multiple times for you 'to get it' may apply to a very few films, however this isn't one of them. Those type of movies have substance and are so involving it's easy to miss an important portion of dialog, or a subtle nuance to plot details you may have overlooked. With Goya's Ghosts this doesn't apply. The main flaw in this movie is an absence of detail. It jumps from one character to the next, never giving enough substance to any one set of scenes to allow the involvement of those watching. Because of that you don't connect with any of the characters. You don't get to the point where you care. Either the main actor is gone just as the movie seems it's going to redeem itself, or their actions are despicable and you're not inclined to anyway. Goya's refusal to go very far to help Ines is a good example. His refusal to commit himself further mirrors the overall tone of his part. The only characters you may momentarily feel for are Ines, when she's being questioned and then tortured. After her rape by Lorenzo any focus on her character is pretty much gone. Following that the only other in depth involvement comes from the best scenes in the movie centered around Lorenzo's invitation to supper with Ines' family, and her fathers all out attempt to force Lorenzo into signing a bogus confession and getting his daughter back. Then just as things start to be developing again, they're gone from the movie. I've read a lot of the comments here about how the movie didn't know what it wanted to be, etc. I found that basically it succeeded in not being much of anything. From Lorenzo's return and the coincidental viewing of Ines' daughter by Goya, everything seemed nothing more than contrived. Without much of a storyline, no effort to really examine the turbulent times they lived in took place. The essence of who Goya was didn't materialize, other than his actions, or lack thereof, proving him to be more self-centered than anything else. As for his art, the movie seemed intent on examining a few of the paintings he did but again frittered away another opportunity in examining the reactions to this work rather than the work itself. To sum things up best, the movie had no cohesion, it grossly lacked the substance to delve into the historical environment it covered, and upon ending, left you feeling like what you'd just seen was a series of aborted attempts to engage the viewer by switching from one thing to the next without adequately engaging the viewer in any of them. You can't watch something like this several times expecting it to improve with added examination. There's just not enough to it to waste the time. It's not a case of your missing out on something, it would just be more proof that the ingredients needed to make this movie good, just aren't there. As for best film ever made? It's not even the best film I've watched today.

Sentiment: negative
This is a bad movie. Not one of the funny bad ones either. This is a lousy bad one. It was actually painful to watch. The direction was awful,with lots of jumping around and the green and yellow hues used throughout the movie makes the characters look sickly. Keira Knightly was not convincing as a tough chick at all,and I cannot believe Lucy Liu and Mickey Rourke signed on for this criminal waste of celluloid. The script was terrible and the acting was like fingernails across a chalkboard. If you haven't seen it,don't. You are not missing anything and will only waste two hours of your life watching this drivel .I have seen bad movies before and even enjoyed them due to their faults. This one is just a waste of time.

Sentiment: negative
Czech movie goers may have enjoyed and rated this film highly because it was Czech, but I found it to be trite, tedious, moronic, boring, and insipid. Again, I suspect "ramping" in order to increase sales of this dog of a film. Amazon describes this film as being about a couple of fellows that refuse to grow up, but I will go one further--I think it is about two fellows that have entered a state of dementia and perform actions that make no sense to anyone. I have been told that one of the actors in the film committed suicide after the film, and I would believe it. When he saw his performance he probably realized what a gosh awful job he had done and realized that the only way to avoid terminal embarrassment was to make the "big exit", which I am sure was much more dramatic and a much better performance that he had done in "Autumn Spring." Don't waste your time or money on this pathetic performance. It's nothing but a dog in a manger.

Sentiment: negative
Rented the video with a lot of expectations, but it was a disappointment. The story didn't make sense, the plot was very weak and the special effects.. well, I think even I can do better with my home computer. Sorry. Missed a change here.

Sentiment: negative
I suppose it's nice and trendy to see wonderful things in the absolute emptiness of a film like this. With the sometimes pointless excesses of many Hollywood films, we can relax and enjoy a scene devoid of explosions, foul language, and corny one-liners. Minimalism has its place, and can be very effective when employed properly. However, this film is not one of those cases.

Take the long scenes with no dialogue and dreary, sparse scenery. I'm sure that they must hold some great meaning and insight, because the implied message in shrouded in bafflement. The acting is poor... bland and pedestrian... and features one of the worst crying scenes in history (at the end of the film, if you can sit through it to the end). The scenery is drab, and the ridiculously long ending sequence of the girl walking through the barren park is as pleasurable as having a tooth pulled. I would call this anticlimatic, but as the film didn't build to any sort of climax whatsoever... not even in the "erotic" scenes... it would be untrue. I'm sure that there was a script employed during the filming, but with the amount of dialogue, I think it might have been written on a cocktail napkin. Basically, this film offers nothing to interest or amaze... no great story, no stunning insights, no visual drama, no excitement. Apart from two or three amusing moments, this film is a waste of two hours. A tragically boring and dreary film.

Sentiment: negative
Words cannot begin to describe how blandly terrible this movie is. I wish it were "so bad it's good," but it's not. It's just dull, lifeless, and boring. It's so bad I couldn't even laugh at it.

In response to other posters, Anne-Marie Frigon is not the highlight of the movie. The only person less charismatic is the director Brett Kelly, who as a true statement on vanity, cast himself as the male lead. They both look like inbreeds, sister and brother.

The gal, Sherry Thurig, is a looker. The complete opposite of Anne-Marie - attractive. This girl is tall and willowy, and can act. Although you can tell she's holding back.

All the actors seem to be holding back, especially the supporting male, Mark. I've seen less wood in a rain forest, but he's still better than Kelly. Why would Kelly keep his actors from acting? Is he really that bad a director? Everyone else has summed the story up perfectly - there isn't one. Kids are kidnapped and Kelly steps in poo to solve the crime. I know how he felt stepping in the poo, it's how I felt after watching his movie.

Yes, I tried to get my money back from the rental store. This is a home movie best left to be seen by the friends of the director (and if you search them out, you'll see those same friends were the one who gave the movie positive marks).

Sentiment: negative
this became a cult movie in chinese college students, though i havnt watched it until it is broadcasted in channel4, UK.

full of arty giddy pretentions, the plot is mediocre and unreal; the 'spirit' it wants to convey is how independent artists 'resist the commercisliation of music industry' and maintain their' purity of an artistic soul' and wouldnt 'sell themselves for dirty money'. that is really giddy and superficial; the diologue are mainly pathetic. acting is poor. sceenplay is full of art pretention. it is a fantasy movie for kids and that;s all



Sentiment: negative
Words fail me.

And that isn't common.

Done properly this could have been great, funny spoof B-movie sci-fi, but sadly, it was not to be. Rarely in the field of drama have so many competent actors struggled so vainly with such a dogs-breakfast of a script. I can only endorse the previous reviewer's comments - go clean the bathroom. In fact do ANYTHING except watch this film.

Positives: Lucy Beeman's nose. Negatives: Everything else.

Most apposite line: "This isn't going anywhere".

If only every plastic surgeon could meet with such a fate.

Sentiment: negative
This is truly truly one of the best movies about love that I've ever seen. Closely followed by none other than "Before Sunset", which technically isn't another movie at all, since it's about the same two people and the same romance.

This is "love" in the real world. OK, that's only if most people are as intelligent and eloquent as the leads in the movie. Reading the other reviews, it pleases me to know how so many other folks are crazy over dialog-based movies as well. And this is what makes "Before Sunrise" so good. The dialog is perfect. It's so real, so engaging and funny. It's hardly a surprise that Jesse and Celine fall in love, 'coz you fall in love with them at the very same time.

My favorite scene is the one in the coffee shop, where they pretend to phone their best friends, with the other pretending to be said best friend. It's PERFECT. Brings you back to the very moment when you fell in love for the very first time in your life.

I must say that if you have a choice, do watch "Before Sunrise" before watching "Before Sunset". If like me, you watched "Sunset" first, it's hard to shake off the feeling of pity and sadness for the two young lovers throughout the entire show.

Once again, the greatest romantic movie in my books. Wonderful acting, excellent script, and beautiful locations. Young love, at it's best.

Sentiment: positive
A clever and bizarre angle to "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". At times you think this is campy and over the top, but the underlying poetic soul comes across strong and believable thanks to the performances of the two leads. One worth tracking down.

Sentiment: positive
My wife and I loved this film. Smart dialogue, great characters, clever plot construction. The pacing in this film is non-stop. Couldn't even get to the kitchen for some munchies. We have never seen Corey Feldman this funny. Taylor Nichols plays a good Fed...my wife loves him on that "Married Man" HBO show. The ensemble cast were all strong. The twist at the end had us cheering. That is why we give this film a "Standing O."

Sentiment: positive
Paul (Jason Lee) is an underachiever who just happens to be engaged to a type-A princess named Karen (Selma Blair). She chooses his clothes and his daily schedule. At his bachelor party, Paul gets a little too drunk and somehow ends up taking a pretty dancer named Becky (Julia Stiles) back to his digs. "Nothing happened", as they say, but the duo do wake up in the same bed. Suddenly Karen telephones. She's on her way to Paul's apartment. Understandably, Paul hustles Becky out of the place, although her underpants are left behind. But, there is even more fun ahead. At a family dinner at Karen's parents' home, Paul runs smack into Becky again, learning that she is Karen's cousin. Talk about some explaining to do! But, instead, Paul chooses to feign a stomach problem and hides out in the bathroom. Will Karen ever find out that Becky spent the night at Paul's place? And, what will be the consequences? I'm sorry for critics who pan movies like this. They should definitely lighten up, for this film is fresh and fun. Of course, it doesn't hurt matters that Lee is a consummate funny man, Stiles is a charming beauty or that Blair is a natural as a pretty but anal fiancée. The rest of the cast, including James Brolin and Julie Haggerty, is also quite nice. The look of the film is wonderful, as are the costumes and California settings. Best of all, the script is imaginative and inspired, creating big laughs for the audience. In short, if you want to tickle the proverbial funnybones, get this movie tonight. It may not be Academy Award material but it is absolutely guaranteed to turn a bad day into a darn good one.

Sentiment: positive
This is the type of film that makes you question your past admiration for a particular director before you stop and remind yourself that there are very few people whose body of work doesn't contain a few clunkers.

The casting in Lelouch's films is of utmost importance because he puts the viewer into such intimacy with the characters. The actors have to bring real screen magic to live up to the intensity. Otherwise it is just hollow. 

None of the actors in this film had any of that screen magic, in my opinion.

Jeremy Irons and Patricia Kaas fell far short as the leads. Irons is a talented actor but he was wrong for this part. Lovable rogue didn't suit his strengths. His brand of charm also hit a false note for me here. Iron's persona is too decadence-tinged to fit into a Lelouch love story.

Although I would hesitate to pass up any opportunity to hear an English accent, I also think an American actor would have worked better in this role. So many of the songs that Kaas sings are so closely identified with the Americanness of the particular lyricist that it seemed kind of discordant to then have Jeremy Irons playing the love interest -- even though logically it really didn't matter. It still screwed up the flow of the movie somehow. At least for me.

Of course, it would have had to have been the right American. I think George Clooney would have been great in the part. And he would have brought the screen magic in spades. Brad Pitt could also have done a really good job delivering his particular combination of charming and edgy.

I was also very disappointed with Patricia Kaas. In reading about her, I've learned that she has a hugely successful career as a singer and many fans, so what do I know, but I found her screen presence as a singer very boring. She was actually a much better actress in her speaking scenes than she was a singer in those scenes in which she had to interpret and sell a song. Nothing she sang moved me. She was pleasant but bland.

In contrast, someone like Kate Hudson, who is not a professional singer and has only voice-coach French still would have handled this part a million times better. Not to mention all that stunning French talent out there that could have been tapped into. It was wrenching watching Patricia Kaas take up screen space when there are so many charismatic French actresses who could have been cast instead. 

The music was so important in this film, it could not really work without the music working. And since Kaas delivered so poorly in this respect, the movie never really had a chance.

Lelouch sealed the fate of this movie when he cast Patricia Kaas. JMO.

Sentiment: negative
I have copy of this on VHS, I think they (The television networks) should play this every year for the next twenty years. So that we don't forget what was and that we remember not to do the same mistakes again. Like putting some people in the director's chair, where they don't belong. This movie Rappin' is like a vaudevillian musical, for those who can't sing, or act. This movie is as much fun as trying to teach the 'blind' to drive a city bus.

John Hood, (Peebles) has just got out of prison and he's headed back to the old neighborhood. In serving time for an all-to-nice crime of necessity, of course. John heads back onto the old street and is greeted by kids dogs old ladies and his peer homeys as they dance and sing all along the way.

I would recommend this if I was sentimental, or if in truth someone was smoking medicinal pot prescribed by a doctor for glaucoma. Either way this is a poorly directed, scripted, acted and even produced (I never thought I'd sat that) satire of ghetto life with the 'Hood'. Although, I think the redeeming part of the story, through the wannabe gang fight sequences and the dance numbers, his friends care about their neighbors and want to save the ghetto from being torn down and cleaned up. 

Forget Sonny spoon, Mario could have won an Oscar for that in comparison to this Rap. Oh well if you find yourself wanting to laugh yourself silly and three-quarters embarrassed, be sure to drink first. 

And please, watch responsibly. (No stars, better luck next time!)

Sentiment: negative
I find it hard to believe that anyone would put this movie in the same context as the Exorcist. Where the Exorcist was subtle and creepy, Stigmata was blunt, clumsy, and way too formulaic.

This is one of the most visually beautiful films I've seen in a while, but the imagery does not make up for the downward spiral of patronizing exposition that makes it unbearable. 

My interest in this movie was peaked when it was compared to The Exorcist, and my visit to the official web site increased that interest. The web site had many tales of "actual" stigmata throughout history. However, scene by scene, the movie is so obsessed by its quest for "genuineness" that it becomes comical at first, then outright hard to watch toward the end. I began getting suspicious when the priest charged with investigating potential miracles walks into the beauty parlor where our would-be heroine cuts hair and, evidently, flirts with priests.

The plot: A woman without faith in God begins receiving the wounds of Christ (the Stigmata) and is baffled and upset about the ordeal. A priest is sent straight from the Vatican to investigate the case. Is Frankie possessed by Satan, or a vessel for Jesus Christ?

The only miracle in this film is that it finally ends.

Sentiment: negative
This German horror film has to be one of the weirdest I have seen.

I was not aware of any connection between child abuse and vampirism, but this is supposed based upon a true character.

Our hero is deaf and mute as a result of repeated beatings at the hands of his father. he also has a doll fetish, but I cannot figure out where that came from. His co-workers find out and tease him terribly.

During the day a mild-manner accountant, and at night he breaks into cemeteries and funeral homes and drinks the blood of dead girls. They are all attractive, of course, else we wouldn't care about the fact that he usually tears their clothing down to the waist. He graduates eventually to actually killing, and that is what gets him caught.

Like I said, a very strange movie that is dark and very slow as Werner Pochath never talks and just spends his time drinking blood.

Sentiment: negative
The Gymnast (2006) was written and directed by Ned Farr. Dreya Weber portrays Jane Hawkins, a former world-class gymnast who was seriously injured and now earns her living as a certified massage therapist.

The promotional material leads you to believe that the plot hinges around Jane's accidental reunion with a former teammate. Although this meeting takes place, that plot line is secondary to the main plot, which involves Jane, her husband, and a professional dancer named Serena (Addie Yungmee). The two women develop an act of the type performed by Cirque de Soleil. The two complement each other--Jane is more experienced with heights and has tremendous upper body strength. Serena is more elegant and artistic, although, obviously, also capable of incredible physical feats.

The film works because we can understand how Jane would turn to Addie, who is caring and compassionate, while Jane's husband has taken her for granted for the many years of their marriage.

Both women are incredibly fit and athletic, and Dreya has the lean body and well-defined muscles that are characteristic of gymnasts. They clearly are truly performing their act, and the results are so excellent that we can believe they would indeed, be a success in Las Vegas, or anywhere else they traveled.

The sexual tension between the women is obvious, and the situation becomes even more complex when the act requires them to kiss while suspended in the air. A woman with a neglectful husband and an attractive woman partner make for an explosive situation, which isn't resolved in a neat and tidy fashion.

Of the six films we saw at the Rochester NY Lesbian and Gay Film and Video Festival, we thought this one was the best. It will work on DVD, and is definitely worth seeking out on large or small screen. NOTE: Stay for the credits!

Sentiment: positive
I've tried to watch this film 3 or 4 times, but I just can't get past the fact that everything about it is just awful. I'm sure it was a courageous move by somebody to cast Jack Palance as the protagonist, but there is not one single fiber of my being that believes that he could act at all, much less act against type.

Yes, I understand that Clifford Odets was a brilliant author, but it's not evident here. This odd and forced mish-mash of 50's hipster dialog seems to obfuscate any genuine meaning, which explains why none of the actors, even the good ones (Steiger, Ida Lupino, Shelly Winters, Everett Sloane) seems to know how to deliver their lines - it's as though they don't understand the meaning of what they are saying. And in the meantime, Wendell Corey and Palance stage a terrific contest to see who can be more stone-faced.

The direction is amateurish and completely overwrought. The physical interaction between the characters is as stilted as the dialog.

And can we discuss that hideous set? It's so busy, ugly and contrived that it adds to the robotic, disconnected quality of the characters, the dialog and the portrayals.

This film seems to suck the energy right out of me. It looks like everybody took an overdose of Valium each morning when they arrived on the set. It takes a pretty lousy movie to make Rod Steiger and Shelly Winters look bad, but this one succeeds.

I can see that it might have been effective as a play on or off Broadway, where intellectuals and beats could have congratulated themselves for appreciating the power of the plot and the artsy flourishes of the pseudo-hip dialog.

Sentiment: negative
Damn straight.....this show was kick ass back in the day and still continues to outshine cartoons today. I can't wait to track down some of the DVD's to share with my little guy and see the same sparkle in his eyes. I've already introduced him to Voltron (the 5 lions one, not the 15 vehicles one)and I laughed my head off when he said to me one day "Dad..you sure watched some awesome cartoons when you were a kid!!" How cool is that.

Come on Hollywood, dust this one off and give it a live action attempt. Couldn't be any worse than Spiderman 3 was...Man oh man... 2007 has been pretty lame so far for summer movies.

OK, I'll shuddup now

Cheers

Sentiment: positive
This is a great film Classic from the 40's and well produced. There are very dramatic scenes in this film with John Garfield,(Al Schmid),"Force of Evil",'48 and Dane Clark,(Lee Diamond),"Last Rites",'88, fighting the Japs during WWII being completely surrounded and with only one machine-gun. When Al Schmid was able to go home after being wounded with a horrible injury, his problems just started to begin with his family and engaged girl friend. Dane Clark gave an outstanding supporting role as Lee Diamond, who did everything to help his buddy Al get his life together again. There is never a complete victory to War and lets not forget all the Brave Wounded Military personnel in Veterans Hospitals from All the Wars and our present Iraq Vets!

Sentiment: positive
To say that this is a good show is not to say anything at all. After all, this show is made by the same crew responsible for Airplane and other hilarious and brilliant movies. Writing is superb. Even though the show is built on one-liners, they don't become overbearing or annoying. Leslie Nielsen is flexing his comedy muscle to the full extent as if saying: You ain't seen nothing yet. The format was definitely polished to introduce Naked Gun. When watching these movies, notice how many schticks are taken from the TV show. The brilliant part is that they don't have to be changed too much. The show was truly a testing ground for bigger and better versions to come later.

Sentiment: positive
How can a movie be both controversial and gentle? This one does it with a near-perfect structure. No one wants their daughters to be athletes. Apparently most cultures don't want their daughters to be small-breasted, either. Here we see a bunch of superb actors we've never heard of before portray folks of different cultures living fairly humdrum lives until their female children want to, and have the potential to, become professional soccer players. The structure around the parallelism of the two cultures is wonderful. There is no condescension. Both cultures are seen as modern and valid. (And yes, both are silly, too). One flaw: the Hindu wedding ceremony seemed to involve hundreds of relatives but not one child among them.

Sentiment: positive
This is the worst hindi film I have ever seen. It conforms to all the stereotypes of bad Hindi films. The plot is ridiculous, the acting over the top, and Shah Rukh manages to fit in a couple of song sequences even though he is playing the character of a dumb man.

Sentiment: negative
An uptight voyeur who wants to commit suicide encounters a free spirited bad-seed who has 5 weeks to live and then they're off to discover America. Get the idea? There's not an original moment in this whole movie.

Sentiment: negative
What a terrible movie! It represents perfectly the state of degenerateness of French society, where the most elementary respect for wholesome values and traditions has completely disappeared. The plot is nonsensical, the movie is not funny at all and the characters are completely shallow and uninteresting. To say the least, the direction and the cinematography are very poor and uninspired. Catherine Deneuve is as bad an actress as she always was, even when she was directed by Bunuel in Belle De Jour. The rest of the usually good cast (Vincent Lindon, Line Renaud, Jean Yanne) seem completely lost in an ocean of vulgarity, platitudes and restlessness. I cannot help to draw a parallel with the wonderful James Ivory's "Le Divorce", with its thoughtful depiction of French and American mores, its superlative cinematography and stellar cast put to good use. Having watched "Le Divorce" you can feel a kind of empathy with the French, regardless of their foibles. "Belle-Maman" leaves you with only a nauseated contempt for its morally bankrupt and clueless protagonists.

Sentiment: negative
Most folks might say that if one were to spend a Saturday night watching a movie,you must be really bored. Actually,I had just gotten back home from being out and turned on the TV and there it was,"Paulie". 

I had missed the opening credits,so I didn't know the name of it but I saw that it had Cheech Marin in it,so I naturally thought I had tuned into "Born In East L.A." When I saw him talking to a talking parrot,I was ready to dismiss this as the kind of flop movie they show late in the night.

Happy to say,it was better than that. As you know,if you don't already Paulie is lost and trying to get back to his original owner. Seems it's taken years to find her. What should be Paulie's advantage is actually a dis-advantage in ways. People come across a literate parrot and all they see is a way to make money or benefit themselves. 

While Cheech Marin's character "is" making money from him,he's not mean to him. The dance sequences with the parrots are something kids will find cute,I found them amusing.

Paulie,who's naive',learns quickly that not all humans are nice people. Especially the owner of an animal research lab. The man lies to him saying he'll help him find his owner as long as he helps in his animal communications research. Paulie is now stuck but decides to make a fool out of the man at a demonstration to others of Paulie's vocal ability.

Throughout the film Paulie's telling his story to the facilities janitor who ends up freeing him,several other animals and finding the location of Paulie's owner. It's a touching reunion. 

8 out of 10,the wing clipping scene should have been assumed and not shown. That part might bother younger children. Otherwise,it's a great movie for older kids and adults who are a kid at heart. (END)

Sentiment: positive
Having just borrowing the Series one DVD collection from my somewhat obsessive brother, I was expecting to get through the first couple of episodes and handing it back. I have just found myself yelling at the screen for ending the first season on a cliff-hanger - a mere week later and I've watched the entire season. Where I found the time for this I have no idea.

This show is great. It doesn't take itself too seriously, it has likeable characters who are well acted, and the special effects (ignoring the odd tacky puppet here and there) are "special" enough to give it that polished feel. At first, I didn't realise it was filmed mostly here, and it seemed odd to hear so many Aussie accents on a Sci-Fi show - it was most amusing for the main character (John) to land back in Sydney midway through the first season.

I believe this show's biggest strength is the vision that the creators of the show obviously had. They have gradually introduced new aspects of the characters that have explain previous actions, and the continue to smatter John's conversations with slang in an amusing and unforced way. On top of that, having watched the entire Voyager and Next Gen series, I see little plot rip-off - so it has managed to maintain a sense of originality throughout the entire first season. I hope the rest of it is as good.

Farscape is not like any other Sci-Fi that I've enjoyed in the past. I heard that the fourth season wasn't as good as the first three, and I am now quite annoyed that they cancelled it before the 5th. I hope that they revive this show - with the same actors in either a movie or another series. It would be a shame to leave so many plot lines unfinished as I imagine that with a show that's had so much thought put into it, to have it axed without adequate warning will leave me feeling robbed.

Gotta go now... heading back to my brother's place to snaffle the 2nd season.

V.

Sentiment: positive
Just got back from the European Premiere of The Gamers: Dorkness Rising.

All I can say is that if you are a gamer (CRPG, RPG or LARP), then this movie is for you. And if you're not a gamer? Well, it's still a great deal of fun.

The acting is certainly not Oscar-worthy, but in the whole element of the movie it adds to the charm. The humour is everywhere, along with some very nice touches (the tribute to Gary Gygax is especially well done, if you can spot it). The cast are very down to earth in their appearance, befitting the fact that they are ordinary people enjoying an ordinary hobby.

The quality of the movie's sound and vision are adequate, but again, it all just adds to the atmosphere that helps to define this movie as being the Dungeons and Dragons movie, written and performed by gamers for gamers.

Not afraid to use terminology specific to one system, they still manage to allow product placement to be a part of the movie, but in a very understandable and utterly fair manner. It also touches on some of the perceived prejudices that some gamers can have about other gamers and deals with that quite well.

All in all the movie is very much driven by an well-thought-out equal balance of character, plot and entertainment (the Bard is amazingly good value-for-money).

In the end it does make scoring this movie quite hard, so I have given it 2 scores.

Score (for non-RP'ers): 7/10 (A few moments could go way over your head, but the main sections of the movie just work so hard and achieve so much more.)

Score (for RP'ers): 10/10 (Everything fits together, in the perfect quantities, and with the perfect charm and sentiment)

Sentiment: positive
I hope the viewer who regards 'Dream Machine' as one of Corey Haim's finest and the "best movies of the century" was kidding. Undetected sarcasm on my part? I sincerely hope so.

'The Dream Machine' marks the first of a long line of mediocre capers that would plague the rest of Corey Haim's career (except 'Prayer of the Rollerboys' which was surprisingly decent). Here, Haim plays nonchalant college boy, Bernie, who supposes that a cool car will attract his dream girl's attention. Lucky for Bernie, a rich woman aiming to get back at her cheating husband, hastily decides to reward her faithful piano tuner--Bernie--with a gift: a slick Porsche Turbo. However, unbeknownst to the woman, and unfortunate for Bernie, is that her dead husband was murdered and his body was hidden in the trunk. Now, being that in this movie, bodies don't seem to decay or possess a rather foul funk, Bernie is unaware of this. In fact, the oblivious boy has no idea that something suspicious is afoot despite several odd circumstances that arise. In particular, a grizzly man follows him around, desperate to get hold of that body relatively undetected.

This is a low-grade action fizzle as many of Haim's films like this are (see The Double O Kid). Despite being part action, part romantic comedy, this movie fails to offer the viewer much of anything of interest for at least the first forty-five minutes in which the filmmakers take more than enough time to show the immediate problem (i.e. Bernie being in possession of a car and a dead body, and a hit-man finding out that the Porsche is going to be hard to find). After which, and thanks to poor acting by Haim (I loved this kid, too, but it's not exactly sacrilegious to admit the times when he obviously couldn't act well) and the lack of real immediacy and emergency between Bernie and the villain that makes much of the events unconvincing and as a result, inappreciable. To add injury to insult, the soundtrack was unbelievably laughable and sounded more like self-evident songs you would hear in Team America (see the 'date' montage).

Loyal Corey Haim fans, however, should not be disappointed to see their boy in abundance. However, others understanding that Haim's career probably peaked when he was 14 or 15 and never recovered, might expect mediocrity, as will viewers just looking for early 90s b-comedy fluff to pass the time.

Sentiment: negative
Uncle Frank is everyone's uncle. This documentary covered all aspects of aging in America, the lonliness, the humor, the irony. Uncle Frank and Aunt Tillie were supremely generous in sharing their life experiences with the audience. The director did an unbelieveable job of capturing the small and large pieces that made up their lives. Thanks to everyone who helped in making this film!

Sentiment: positive
I've seen just about all of the Coen brothers' films now, and I have to say this is one of their better films. I wouldn't dare say it's better than "The Big Lebowski", but it was very good in it's own right.

I thought the story was very interesting and hilarious at times. I loved all the characters, especially Tim Blake Nelson (Delmar) and John Turturro's (Pete).

There really isn't anything bad I can say about this movie, but this movie isn't for everyone. It might be safe to say that if you liked the other Coen brothers' films, then you'll hopefully like this one too. And if you liked what you saw in the trailer, I think you'll like the film, but don't hold me to it.

Anyhow, I hope that you like(d) the film as much as I do. Thanks for reading,

-Chris

Sentiment: positive
This is an interesting true story of Archie Grey Owl, Who dreamed of being an Indiain when he was a child until the age of 17 he was born in England then moved to Canada where he was adotped by Indiains and he writes collums in magazines and he wrote a book that caugt the attention of millions the book was of his life. But at the end he told his wife that he was not a real Indiain and she was fine with it and he died at the age of 43 two years after he went back into the wildness.

Sentiment: positive
While the original titillates the intellect, this cheap remake is designed purely to shock the sensibilities. Instead of intricate plot-twists, this so-called thriller just features sudden and seemingly random story changes that serve only to debase it further with each bizarre development. Worst of all, replacing the original spicy dialog is an overturned saltshaker full of unnecessary four-letter words, leaving behind a stark, but uninteresting taste.

There was promise--unfulfilled promise. The prospect of Michael Caine pulling off a Patty Duke-like Keller-to-Sullivan graduation is admittedly intriguing. Unfortunately, this brilliant and respected actor only tarnished his reputation, first by accepting the role in this horribly re-scripted nonsense and then by turning in a performance that only looks competent when compared to Jude Law's amateurish overacting.

If you haven't seen the classic original, overlook its dated visuals and gimmicks. Hunt it down, watch it, and just enjoy a story-and-a-half. As for the remake, pass on this insult to the original.

Sentiment: negative
Biographical tale of the life of Charles Lindbergh, the first man to fly solo non-stop across the Atlantic in 1927, aboard his plane the Spirit of St Louis.

While not amongst Director Billy Wilder's best films it does boast some very impressive production values especially for a film made 50 years ago. The story is well told and the performances are also good though not outstanding.

One definite limiting factor upon the storytelling is that Lindbergh flew alone and without a radio, which meant he has no one to speak with. This necessitated a few different story telling techniques such as internal monologues, speaking with a housefly, and the occasional bouts of talking to himself especially once the exhaustion sets in. Also in order to avoid an extended sequence of the famous flight, it is interspersed with flashbacks from his life and the methodical preparations for the flight.

Charles Lindbergh was a huge hero of his era but his controversial beliefs would taint his legacy somewhat. Despite this he would continue to contribute to the aviation field and assisted as a civilian aircraft consultant to the US effort in WWII.

Jimmy Stewart certainly had the flying background to back his portrayal of Lindbergh. He rose to the rank of Colonel in US Air Force during WWII and while in the reserves following the War would reach the rank of Brigadier General.

Sentiment: positive
I grew up in the 90s; therefore, you must understand that i witnessed firsthand the premiers of the greatest DCOMs. I was there when Brink! appeared, Zenon, Halloweentown, Johnny Tsunami, etc, These movies constitute my childhood. When these movies came on, not only myself but whoever I was watching them with would stand completely in awe for 1h30, talk about it for the week to come and catch it again the next weekend. I don't think words could express the amount of excitement Zoog Disney brought. 

Even when I watch them now, the dialog doesn't seem that bad (so effective in fact, that I actually remember parts of conversations literally word per word, from movies I saw over ten years ago). The characters are believable, funny, granted a little stereotypical but that's what makes Disney's charm... 

I sat my little brother down in front of the Disney channel to try and convey and make him understand my feelings for DCOMs. Enter Stuck in the Suburbs... my brother looked at me slightly puzzled, asking me if I had always been gay. I feel more disappointed and betrayed now than, what could I compare this to?, when Han Solo found out Lando sold him out to Vader... 

Half the movie, and I'm not exaggerating, is flashbacks. There is no talent in these young actors (some of which are older than I am) whatsoever. The plot is ridiculous; it feels like a bunch of old rotting corporate people over at Disney sat around a table and asked themselves "How can we seem hip to these youngsters?" OK, maybe all the DCOMs were like that, but they at least made a little effort to not let us realize they think we're complete idiots. 

And apparently this type of movie works... Stuck in the Suburbs is rated almost as much as Zenon or Airborne. How is this possible? DCOMs got even cheesier and people prefer them now? (though apparently the lack of curse words is enough to give it 10/10 for some people) Christ, it's a completely different generation.

Sentiment: negative
I made it about 8 minutes into "Steel Frontier" before I turned it off. Then, glutton for punishment that I am, I watched some more the next day. Today I had to iron a pile of clothes, so I decided to finish the movie, and that was its own punishment. Here's what I don't understand: Robert Rodriguez and Shane Carruth each spent $7,000 on their debut features and created two remarkable movies. Yet here we have two directors with arguably way more money, and they churn out a huge, steaming pile of crap. Let me see if I can figure out the logic: "It's 'Road Warrior' but it's like a future Western. We'll get the cheapest 'actors' we can find, we'll have my mentally challenged cousin write the script, and we'll spend the budget on a bunch of explosions. We can't lose!"

Seriously. I don't think even the MST3K guys could improve this. But if you insist on watching it, I recommend getting very drunk first.

Sentiment: negative
I felt compelled to write a review after seeing the only review which gave this film a suspiciously high 9/10 rating. I say suspicious because it looks less like a review but more like a publicity statement. Perhaps the filmmaker himself, or one of his mates, has written that "review"? Naughty, naughty.

I watched this movie on the Propeller channel on Sky TV expecting it to be truly awful. The special effects used were to be honest very, very good for a low budget film, and some of the acting wasn't that bad either, but most of the acting was really awful, but well done for trying, as I expect most were pals of the filmmaker.

I think the filmmaker has done really well by trying to punch above his weight. I did find some of the film funny because it was trying to be super cool when it just wasn't.

If you don't take this film too seriously and watch it whilst drunk with some mates you might well have a good time but probably not in the way it was intended. This film is no way a 9/10 but worth watching for a laugh bearing in mind it was made on a very very low budget and in fairness due credit to those involved in it's production.

Sentiment: negative
I've got to say, I'm a big fan of these 'Last House on the Left' rip-offs, even the ones that most people seem to hate are often held in relatively high esteem by me; but one of these sorts of films that I didn't like much was Aldo Lado's 'Night Train Murders', and unfortunately it would seem that trains and The Last House on the Left don't mix, as Terror Express is another lacklustre rip-off. Something that this sort of film really needs is a resoundingly nasty lead character; and while Terror Express offers up three potential candidates, not one of them steps up and becomes this villain, leaving the lacking in the most important area. It actually gets off to a good start as three young men on a passenger train begin slightly irritating the guests on board. This leads the audience to believe that there is more in store, but unfortunately it never really gets going once the scene has been set. From there, the trio end up 'taking over' the train and use their new found power to terrorise the guests and rape the women.

It has to be said that there's a fair amount of sleaze in this film, which will be pleasing to many viewers; but there's hardly any blood. Director Ferdinando Baldi seemed to think that he could get away with replacing the blood with sex scenes, and he may have gotten away with it too; if he could film a brutal sex scene. The idea that these men have taken the train by force goes out of the window once it gets to the sex, as the people that you would expect to be powerful and forceful seem all too keen to show their women a good time, and despite one very tame 'sandwich' sequence, none of the sex is particularly interesting. Since a lot of the film is taken up by these sex scenes, this becomes a massive problem. Films like this are often lacking in style, suspense and credibility; but you know you're watching a bad one when it's boring you. As you might expect, none of the acting is up to anything; and the central three in particular stand out for being rubbish. The direction is lacking in style, and there's very little tension or suspense; making it difficult to care what is going to happen. Overall, this is a pretty crappy example of an exploitation film, and I can't recommend it.

Sentiment: negative
My roommate got the No, No, Nanette soundtrack as a dub on a tape and she proceeded to listen to it non-stop. After it finally totally brainwashed me into submission, I found the songs to be irresistible, especially the famous, I want to be happy, but I can't be happy... But of coarse from the soundtrack I had no idea what the film was about. So the other day I saw a copy of it at the video store and I rented what was supposed to be a long lost version of the film. I was thinking that it was going to be amazing, because the soundtrack is so cute. Unfortunately most of the songs that I loved were nowhere to be found in the video I saw. Now I've never seen the 1930 version of the musical but this version was sadly disappointing because there was very little singing and practically no dancing and beside that the sound was really bad through out and you couldn't really understand what people were saying a lot of the time. Really the only highlights of this film were the outrageous 1940's fashion. Nanette wears this crazy hat with two feathers that stick out like rabbit ears and Kansas Kitty has this bizarre feather muff that she keeps on her fore arm and then has herself wrapped in this net scarf. The one dance sequence is a little weird too with Nanette doing this weird ballet stuff with pin-up girl imagery superimposed on top of her. Actually one more bright spot of the film was the artist Guillespe who dreams of being a fine artist but it currently condemned to drawing pin-up girls for money. I like how Guillespe keeps it old school, and disses Nanette when his masterpiece, the piece that was to make his career, is sold by Nanette for a paltry $5250. Doesn't she realize that that piece was his immortality? Silly rabbit/girl with your feather rabbit ears on your hat. When will you learn? Why doesn't he just pencil in a cigarette before the ad men take the Work away?

Sentiment: negative
Excellent work all around especially by the actress who played the wife Gerda (Claire Price) as well, of course, as David Suchet. I did really figure out whodunit but that is beside the point. The ending, which I won't divulge (someone describes it on the Board in answer to someone else's question if you are interested.) I found really sad. Despite Agatha Christie's reputation for writing cardboard characters, I thought these really well-rounded by and large.

The pacing of the story was good and I enjoyed seeing Sarah Miles as Lucy and Edward Hardwicke (Cedric's son I believe in addition to being a well-known Dr. Watson.)) as her husband.

Sentiment: positive