DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Anybody interested what black film making was like in the 70's watch this film. Some the dialog in this film is so funny IE the summary of my submission. Also watch out for the boom mic to show up in some of the scenes as well as some of the best karate action ever. Don't take this movie seriously or you will be disappointed, go into it with an open mind and step into the world of one the the baddest mutha in the world Dolemite!!! Editing wise its put together like it was sliced with a razor but once again this film is so much more than what you see in the movie it has influenced the black community in ways you cant understand!!!

Sentiment: positive
This is one of the most awful movies I've ever seen, probably only surpassed by the dreadful and utterly meaningless Blueberry. How can Harald Zwart even have put his name on this crap. I'm feeling every ounce of respect I had for him waning fast.

So what is it about this film that makes it so poor? Is it the story? Yes. Is it the actors? Yes. It it the whole "look and feel" of the movie? Yes.

To start off with the story, my god!It's about as cliché-ridden and predictable as what you would expect from a drunk 14-year old who is late writing his/her paper on "What I did this summer". The feel-good vibe the makers try to achieve just completely drown as we suffer through yet another embarrassing turn to the story.

The actors are amateurs, I know, and thus we cannot expect them to be of the same quality as professional actors. But for this to work, the characters HAVE to be charming and/or funny (preferably both), so that the viewers don't mind the cheeky acting, or perhaps it even adds to the characters. In this case, not even close baby! You start off disliking the characters mildly, and by the end of the film (I think it's about 90 minutes long, although it feels like 4 hours) you have a strong desire to hurt somebody to get your mind of these annoying stupid guys! It should be impossible to find this movie's attempt at humor successful unless you're actually yourself like these stupid hickeys. Their before mentioned lack of talent and credibility as far as acting goes, only makes the foolish and overly simple scenes fall harder to the ground. Even the family of the people involved will have a hard time finding this anything but very, very embarrassing (I'd rather have my sister make a fool of herself on American Idol).

Finally, why cram in a bunch of misplaced Norwegian celebrities? They look even more out of place than the actors, if this is possible. These celebrity cameos just add to the cheap feeling of the film and is in itself a pretty see-through shot in the dark at trying to improve something broken even before inception.

I cannot even begin to stress how much I'd rather watch paint dry than ever watch this movie again...

Sentiment: negative
I figured the whole joke of the movie would be to see some rich white guy acting like Chris Rock, and then see Chris Rock react to people's reactions. Instead you just see Chris Rock being himself and people not understanding him. There are maybe 2 scenes in the entire movie where they use their gimmick. This should have been a lot better.

Sentiment: negative
Adored by fans for his unusually charming creativity and by Hollywood for his softball, user-friendly movie-making techniques, Tim Burton tipped the scales too far in formula's favor with his new upset of a cinematic legend, Sleepy Hollow. Following the quest of Ichabod Crane  played by Johnny Depp, delivering this dreary film's only shining point  to the heart of the mystery surrounding a town's seemingly random and gruesome murders by a fabled headless horseman, the story plays out as if it were purposely trying to be repugnantly predictable. Contrived as a children's bedtime story, humdrum character introduction is laced with intended-upon exciting non-engaging chase scenes which, with undeveloped characters fleeing for their lives, produce about as much fright and thrill as The Nightmare Before Christmas.

Toss in an endless bundle of old trees for ambience and a wide-eyed, big-busted blonde love interest (Christina Reechi) and Burton has himself a movie that takes the age-old legend of Sleepy Hollow and succeeded in making it like a Disney movie without the charm or captivation. Dialog was choppy and ridiculous, severed heads were aplenty, and there were enough plot-revealing monologues to embarrass the likes of James Bond. Even with the backing of Emmanuel Lubezki, the most sought-after cinematographer in Hollywood today, the wonderful acting of Depp and Burton's astounding name-recognition, Sleepy Hollow is nothing to lose your head over.

Sentiment: negative
I will always have a soft spot for this Disney flick, another of their part live action/part animation entries that sought to recreate the success of "Mary Poppins" and never quite made it. When I was in grade school, every once in a while we would have a movie day, where the whole school would crowd into the cafeteria, and a movie would be projected the old-fashioned way, multiple reels and all. At the time, it seemed like a momentous occasion whenever this day arrived, and "Bedknobs and Broomsticks" is one of the movies I can remember seeing this way.

And from what I remember, it's quite charming. Angela Lansbury never put her name to anything that wasn't at least competent, and she's winning here as a witch with a magic bed (boy, that could be misconstrued, couldn't it?) who can take her and a couple of young kids on magic adventures to far-off places. Come on, what kid wouldn't want a bed like that? 

Grade: A

Sentiment: positive
Honestly, this movie is weak. Very weak. Only capital character can something. She's work like supercharger on bad engine...so, if you like red-haired Valkyries - see that. But better find picture of Brigitte as Sonja and put it on desktop. It will save of disappointments. Well, Arnold also do his deal...but it definitely not best his role. Other characters - bad is not that word. Sword fights? Monsters? Ridiculous. Plot is really shame. Why was necessary rape she? Especially, we don't see it.

Anyway movie is weak. Though worse movies exist...Without main characters it would be just ******. And if somebody even discusses it, maybe...

Sentiment: negative
On first watching this film it is hard to know quite what has happened, but on a subsequent viewing it become more clear. I enjoyed this movie. Dean Cain was excellent in the role of Bob. Lexa Doig's character was confusing to understand, at first, she was out to trap Bob but i really believe she landed up loving him although by then she had broken his heart. Dean Cain's performance was an usual excellent. He gets better with every film he does. My only question at the end of the film was what happened to Bob, Camilla and the baby. It was left for the viewer to decide

Sentiment: positive
I found this movie to be very well-paced. The premise is quite imaginative, and as a viewer I was pulled along as the characters developed. The pacing is done very well for those that like to think--enough is kept hidden from the viewer early on, and questions keep arising which are later answered, producing a well-thought out and very satisfying film, both cerebrally and from an action standpoint.

It seems some people were looking for a non-stop roller-coaster ride with this film--one of those that comes charging out of the gate. This would be more analogous to one of those coasters that first takes you slowly up the hill--creating a wonderful sense of anticipation--and is ultimately, in my mind, more fulfilling for the foundation initially laid.

Excellent film.

Sentiment: positive
In conception a splendid film, investigating the tensions that occur in family life in the idyllic setting of Galiano Island off the coast of British Columbia, _The Lotus Eaters_ is marred by the fact that it has been packaged as a made-for-TV movie, diminishing itself throughout by the addition of chirpy music over potentially powerful scenes, as if to get ready for the interruption of commercials. A pity, really.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie many years ago and it has never left my list of all-time best films ever made. When I first watched it, I was just beginning what has become a life-long passion for justice. It gave an interesting perspective of the death penalty and also gave me a few things to think about.

When you have a cast like this one, you are right to assume it is going to be nothing short of fabulous. This is, by far, the best role I have ever seen Sean Penn play (along with I am Sam). He nails the role, doesn't glamourize his actions while doing so. He manages to maintain a level of debauchery throughout the movie that I think was very important. Up until the very end, he does not try to be seen as anything more than what he is. He is a sick man who regrets his past, but still makes excuses for it. He ends up able to redeem his sense of self-worth as much as a convicted (and guilty) murderer can through the aid of Susan Sarandon's character, Sister Helen Prejean. Her character taught me about good will towards others without making me forget how horrible a person's actions can be and without making excuses for them.

The supporting cast was also top-notch. I was surprised to see a small cameo of Jack Black in this film given the funny-man he has become today! I loved this movie for both personal reasons and just because it was a work of cinematic art. And, in my opinion, this is one of the rare exceptions when the movie far out-did the book.

Sentiment: positive
I would imagine that if Steve McQueen knew he would go on to become an icon and start "Wanted: Dead of Alive" the same year this film came out, or be in The Magnificent Seven two years later, he would not have done it. But he did, and we are the richer for it.

Sure it's a camp classic. Horror the way it was meant to be for the drive-in theater. It's fun and nostalgic.

It is interesting that the last lines of the film were:

Lieutenant Dave: At least we've got it stopped. Steve Andrews: Yeah, as long as the Arctic stays cold. 

They never would have imagined 52 years ago that the Arctic would be thawing. The Blob will soon return.

Sentiment: positive
The fight scenes were great. Loved the old and newer cylons and how they painted the ones on their side. It was the ending that I hated. I was disappointed that it was earth but 150k years back. But to travel all that way just to start over? Are you kidding me? 38k people that fought for their very existence and once they get to paradise, they abandon technology? No way. Sure they were eating paper and rationing food, but that is over. They can live like humans again. They only have one good doctor. What are they going to do when someone has a tooth ache never mind giving birth... yea right. No one would have made that choice.

Sentiment: negative
Val Kilmer is almost nowhere in this film -lucky for him! He plays maybe 30 seconds of screen time and his role is completely irrelevant. After seeing the film I couldn't tell you what "role" he plays in the film!!?? OK... they suck you in the first hour by immersing you in dark underground tunnels. Spooky movies filmed in dark underground tunnels easily suck most people in to last the first 30 minutes to an hour. Then you will begin wondering, "why am I watching this?" I remember thinking how easy it must be for a director/writer to use dark underground labyrinths to make a film. Simply film people wandering around in dark tunnels and you have instant "suspense". But that is where this movie goes no further! We all wonder what goes bump in the night, but there is nothing out there in the dark in this film but more darkness. The story is even worse. Apparently there is an underlying story to the film that I learned of "after" watching the film. But the film uses such poor dialouge that it never came across clearly during the screening. I still don't understand what the writer/director meant to say. Some children trapped underground by a misled sister in Russia? Why? Are they in our time -the same time as the characters? Are they ghosts? 

This was an absolutely Horrible film that drew me to write my first IMDb review to warn others to avoid it.

Sentiment: negative
I can't believe this movie is getting the rating that it is here on IMDb. Of course, I've come to conclude that IMDb is somewhat worthless for actually finding out if a movie is good or not as 99% of films are rated from 6 to 7. It's the conclusion and failure of crowd-sourcing on the internet. For this purpose an average is taken of most people, and unfortunately, most people are simple minded easily entertained fast food lifestyle morons. But I digress. The movie. I really don't want to waste my time writing about it. Let's just say I found it to be tailor made for seemingly two groups of people, young teens, at the age where violent action movies of any sort just hit the spot, and goth types that just love to choke down whatever Gothic vampire fantasy they can get their hands on. If you aren't in one of those categories, you will find this movie absurd. I did enjoy the first Underworld. It was fresh at the time and held a sort of edgy quality. The second was a bit trying in plot, but I did enjoy the direction and cinematography at times. But this whole movie felt like a sci-fi channel production or even a TV series. I found the actors to be over-directed. Their body language stiffened into un-natural idealistic poses that seemed contrived. Lines were spit out like young actors would spit out lines of Shakespeare, reveling in their own egoistic glory at being in such a role, but in doing so, crudely bludgeoning the role. The plot was dry and predictable right from the start. I found myself wishing things to just "move along" as it was so easy to tell what was going to happen. I tried to care at first, but my brain was forced to shut off. By the end climax, I actually caught myself falling asleep. There were so many parts that were inconsistent and didn't make sense that it's not even worth listing them all. If you're a pimple faced teen or a chronic goth, sure, have at it. For the rest of us, forget it, like I'm about to do right now.

Sentiment: negative
A critical and financial flop when first release, the critics have turned around and stated that this film ison of the Director's best. A La Ronde like feel to the film quickly develops as the guys from a detective agency (Ben Gazzara, John Ritter and Blaine Novak) persue, fall in and out of love with some of the most quirky and beautiful women seen on film (Audrey Hepburn, Colleen Camp, Dorothy Stratten and Patti Hansen). Much of the script was ad-libbed or re-written on the day of shooting which gives the film a breezy feel. Ben Gazzara is excellent as the head detective persuing Audrey Hepburn after dropping singer Colleen Camp and seeing cab-driver Patti Hansen on the side. John Ritter ineptly follows Dorothy Stratten and immediately falls in love with her. Blaine Novak has a few girls he is chasing (including Joyce Hyser and Elizabeth Pena). This film has some great performances by a supurb cast. Standouts are Audrey Hepburn (she doesn't have a line in the first half of the film). Ben Gazzara has never been better (and an inspiring choice for a romantic lead) and Colleen Camp has one of her best roles as the manic country singer Christy Miller. She is a delight to watch as she fires off her lines in a rat-a-tat-tat delivery. Highly Recommended! ********* stars!

Sentiment: positive
I read the comment of Chris_m_grant from United States.

He wrote : " A Fantastic documentary of 1924. This early 20th century geography of today's Iraq was powerful."

I would like to thank Chris and people who are interested in Bakhtiari Nomads of Iran, the Zagros mountains and landscapes and have watched the movie Grass, A Nation's battle for life. These traditions you saw in the movie have endured for centuries and will go on as long as life endures. I am from this region of Iran myself. I am a Bakhtiari. 

Chris, I am sorry to bother you but Bakhtiari region of Zardkuh is in Iran not in Irak as you mentioned in your comment. Iran and Irak are two different and distinct countries. Taking an Iranian for an Irankian is almost like taking an American for an Mexican. Thanks,

Ziba

Sentiment: negative
I'd have to agree with the previous reviewer: This film has awesome animation, but has problems throughout the rest of the movie.

Plot holes are huge, dialog barely explains the concepts of the plot--the MAIN PLOT POINTS aren't even fully explained until the last five minutes of the film. The characters state the obvious, while failing to explain the more confusing points of the film. There are characters that pop up and have importance in the storyline that are never explained--most of them have names that are only mentioned *once*, and it is exceedingly confusing to a viewer.

Don't waste your time with this movie. Unless you are in it for a good laugh and how DUMB it is.

Sentiment: negative
"National Lampoon Goes to the Movies" is the worst movie ever made, surpassing even the witless "Plan 9 from Outer Space." At least that movie was just inept; the Lampoon film, on the other hand, is both inept and mean. Once upon a time, movies used to respect their audiences' intelligence. This one, however, holds a fetid, rotting carcass up to our faces -- and then tries to rub our noses in it.

Another reviewer on this site wrote that the only good parts of the movie are the nude scenes; and I agree, Misses Ganzel and Dusenberry do flash a bit of flesh, and very nice flesh it is. But the directors seem not to realize that even T&A needs a good story to surround it. There's none of that here.

Perversely, the film makers save the worst for last. The third of the three segments is the ugliest of the trio. In this vignette, Robby Benson plays an eager-beaver young police officer reporting for duty on his first day on the job. He is paired with a weary, cynical oldtimer played by Richard Widmark. For just a moment, we are given hope that this film will end triumphantly. Surely, we think, the youngster's spunky attitude will rub off on the cynic and change him for the better.

Forlorn hope! Instead, the cynic wins the day -- and the youngster's spark is doused forever. "National Lampoon Goes to the Movies" and heads right for the toilet, asking us to follow it down the drain. Nominally, this is a comedy. But where's the humor?

Sentiment: negative
OK - I gave it a "3" just because they obviously had no money to make this film, but I feel it might deserve the "2.3" rating it had when I got here. I'm actually helping to raise it's rating, despite being bored for the last hour and a half. I will save the "1's" and the "2's" for the higher budget pieces of crap. At least the makers of "Rise of the Undead" didn't waste that much money. They did manage to waste 90 minutes of my life.

The movie is too claustrophobic for me. The entire movie takes place in the same building, in dark rooms and hallways. With a setting like this, there should have been more action or character development, but there is just a lot of meaningless talk. I didn't get to know any of the characters. There is a schoolgirl and a Goth chick but we never find out much more about them. None of the characters seem really likable.

Terrible movie made on zero budget. No scary special effects. No suspense. Really nothing interesting at all here, folks. I admit I downloaded this from the net. It was free but I am throwing it away.

Sorry to the filmmakers. Better luck next time. This one is more like a soap opera than a zombie movie.

Sentiment: negative
I have seen this movie many times, (and recently read the book the movie is based on) and every time I see it, I just want to slap all four of them. The fact that they don't clue in to the fact that Tom Hank's character is flipping into his D&D(oops M&M) :) persona ("Oh, he's just acting in character.") outside of the gaming session. That and the fact that after three months of therapy, let's just destroy all that and feed his delusions! These kind of people are what give RPGs a bad name.

Also the corny 'love ballad', and the music done by 'cat on a piano' and 'stop us if we get too annoying' are almost enough to set your teeth on edge!

Sentiment: negative
This- and not a certain slightly overrated Southern Soap Opera-was the greatest epic to come out of Hollywoods greatest year, 1939.I will not not restate the obvious-Cary Grant,Victor McLaglen( who WAS a Bengal Lancer), and Douglas Fairbanks Jr. give superb comic performances.However, I want to note two other, less understood elements of this masterpiece. The Magnificent final battle sequence, as the wonderful Sam Jaffe climbs laboriously up to the pinnacle of the temple to blow his bugle and warn the regiment, is simply grand. It never fails to enthrall me. Yet another underrated element in the film is Eduardo Ciannelli's performance as the Guru. This is no Fu Manchu caricature, but an well drawn, articulate, historically informed ( "Have you ever heard of Changruputra Maurya?He defeated the armies left in India by Alexander The Great")villain. Indeed, one can see parallels between this mystical, evil nationalist and a certain well known figure of the thirties( A German, not an Indian). Gunga Din, anti-Nazi tract? Not quite. But still, a tremendous, funny, moving epic.

Sentiment: positive
No, this has nothing to do with the sitcom "Seinfeld" or its eccentric and hilarious character Cosmo Kramer. In reality, "Kramer vs. Kramer" is a fine drama movie, without a doubt one of the finest of its kind and one of the greatest movies ever. I'm glad that it won more Oscars than "Apocalypse Now" because it really deserved such glory.

"Kramer vs. Kramer" is an excellent film, so well made and so perfectly balanced that I wouldn't change anything about it in any way. There is nothing wrong with the film. It's film-making of the highest quality. And it stands the test of time, too. Not only it doesn't look any dated, but also its cultural impact is long-lasting and its realistic story remains just as significant as it was when it came out in 1979. A timeless classic. They don't make movies like this today.

This movie is dramatic, realistic, simple but brilliant, intense, powerful, sweet and even tragic and depressing sometimes. Yet, it has fine humor as well. It has no special effects, but who cares? This is not the movie or place to discuss such thing. For a movie like this, such thing would be pointless and absolutely unnecessary.

The story is very interesting. The actors's chemistry is just perfect. All of the actors are great, but the 3 main ones are the very best. Dustin Hoffman, a brilliant actor, has his greatest performance ever here as the lovable but distant workaholic Ted Kramer. Meryl Streep is great as Ted's wife, Joanna. And cute little Justin Henry is terrific as the loving but sometimes stubborn Billy, son of Ted and Joanna.

The soundtrack is all instrumental and wonderful. The opening song (by the guitarist Frederic Hand) is brilliant. The rest of the soundtrack is mostly Antonio Vivaldi's classical music and is simply dazzling.

This motion picture has also an incredible development of the characters. See the character Ted Kramer: a workaholic who becomes an amazing father after being left with no choice but to take care of his son, trying to adjust these new responsibilities with his job after being left by his wife Joanna. With this, Ted learns about the most beautiful things in life, but also realizes how though life is, with the problems in his job and the return of Joanna, who wants the custody of their son. But even Joanna changes for better and the ending is an unexpected surprise when one sees this for the first time.

This movie has also some though things, such as courtroom scenes where both Ted and Joanna face brutal character assassinations unleashed by the lawyers. Another though thing to see is when poor Billy falls off a jungle gym with his toy (a plane) and gets seriously injured on his face. But then again, the scene is very well made and what comes next is very intense: his father runs quickly and crosses numerous blocks, ignoring the traffic to take his son to the hospital.

Overall, this is a movie which is a good lesson of life.

This should definitely be on Top 250.

Sentiment: positive
In the old commercial for blank audio cassettes, the tag line was "is it real or is it Memorex?" The same might be said for the events in this episode - a compilation and remix of "The Cage," the first pilot of Star Trek. Mr. Spock has cleverly commandeered the ship to take it to the forbidden planet Talos IV in order to allow Capt. Christopher Pike, his first captain who has been burned and paralyzed, to return there. Why the finagling? Because to have any contact at all with Talos IV invites a death sentence. Why this is so is never explained - that bothered me tremendously - but, if nothing else, it adds to the story. After he has gotten the ship to travel to Talos IV, Mr. Spock turns himself in to Dr. McCoy (the senior-most officer present; Capt. Kirk was off the ship) for arrest and says, "The charge is mutiny, Dr.; I never received orders to take over the ship." What follows is a court martial in which - thanks to the Talosians - we learn why it was so important (besides the obvious paralysis) for Capt. Pike to get to Talos IV even at risk of Mr. Spock's death. The illusions the Talosians create, the background music and the entire storyline are fantastic. And Meg Wyllie as The Keeper (the head Talosian) is wonderful. Call me sexist but it never occurred to me to have a woman in that role but she was perfect! The Talosians, having given up almost all physical activity and becoming almost completely reliant upon the power of illusion, are also unisex; you can't really tell if they're male or female and it really doesn't matter. This episode, more than almost any other in the series, makes me hope and pray there are other worlds out there and that there are civilizations that are so far advanced! What a neat thing if this were so! This is one of my favorite episodes and, no matter how many times I've seen it (I even have it on video), it never fails to fascinate me. Meg Wyllie LOOKS like an alien and I do NOT mean that unkindly.

Sentiment: positive
This is unlike any other movie, the closest thing I can compare it to is a Woody Allen film... But where as Woody Allen is constantly fathoming human foibles Bret Carr appears to be trying to figure out a way to get to grips with that one crippling insecurity that tends to define us for better or worse. In the Case of Lou, it is the root cause of his stuttering, which can be traced back to a singular child hood trauma that is revealed through flash backs.

There are so many strangely neurotic people in the world and I believe they all deserve a chance for redemption, although diversity of human character is after all what makes the world such an intriguing place, so maybe we shouldn't fix our neurosis anymore than we should fix our noses or Breasts.

This is an indie film shot on a long shoestring, but the production values are tremendous as is the scope of the film. I feel like its a quirky Gem for the self-help market. I really look forward to seeing what this filmmaker does next, i could imagine a career along the lines of Woody Allen or Albert Brooks, although usually when a guy like this breaks through, he goes off and makes " X MEN" and his humble quirky origins are soon forgotten or are they.... X Men is aout a bunch of freaks if i remember correctly :)

Sentiment: positive
If this is not heavily featured on every list of "what not to watch", it should only be because those keeping that particular list are not aware of its existence, which, as long as that remains so, is the acceptable alternative. I'm not kidding you, this is a *bad* "movie". Joseph Meeker returns from the dead, with various vague, undefined supernatural powers, the most employed of which would seem to be appearing in new, increasingly comical-looking and ridiculous(and never scary or creepy... in general, when this goes for the latter of those, it winds up just being bizarre, and attempts at the former just don't work, period) outfits and stereotypes/archetypes, and he is portrayed by David Keith(whom I respect in... well, at least Daredevil), doing a more often than not terribly inconsistent(which could also have to do with script) and often over the top performance. A character or two have personalities so unbelievably irritating that they're painful to watch. The editing thinks it's considerably more clever than it really is(and what on Earth was with the red tint for the flashbacks?). Cinematography... oh, dear. Framing, coverage, effective use of angle(that one could be attributed some to editing, too, perhaps), please, guys, stop me when I say something you've ever heard about the existence of. As far as the technical side goes, this is a pretty lousy excuse for something more worthwhile to put in the projector than unexposed film. But why stop there? The plot is just poor. The basic idea's been done, and it's been done so much better than this(The Crow would be one). The way it's told is gimmicky, and while there is some explanation behind the flashbacks, it still doesn't satisfy. Pacing is about non-existent. The lead is distinctly unlikeable, and there's more personality in a barn door, not to mention that those are also considerably less wooden. Kelly Perine and Thomas Ian Nicholas? What in the name of all that is good and just(pun intended) are you doing in this? Perine, you were already funny before this, on The Drew Carey Show, Nicholas, well, I haven't seen you in anything preceding American Pie, but if nothing else, you *were* funny later on, and in those productions, the amusement was intentional. Dialog is... the less said, the better. Language is unrestrained, and tends to be stupid. The violence is shoddily done, and they don't even seem to care to try to hide it(hinting at it might have been the smarter strategy). Characters, don't get me started. Why spend so much energy on portraying unexciting, at times utterly illogical, events? The more you think about this, the worse it gets. It's not even passable as a "bad horror flick", or a B movie(it may very well pass through the rest of the alphabet, and go further still), it couldn't scare you on the scariest day of your life if it had an electrified scaring machine. I recommend this only to people who want to disprove how bad this is, and don't say I didn't warn ya. 1/10

Sentiment: negative
I love Henry James books and Washington Square was no exception. I was very excited to see a new movie coming out, based on the book of that title. Jennifer Jason Lee is an exceptional actress and Ben Chaplin good enough to play the lead roles. Albert Finney is miscast and doesn't carry the role well. I wanted to shoot Maggie Smith....or rather her silly, insipid role. The real problem and what's lacking in this latest version is a good script, music, and direction.

I fell asleep in the theater watching this long, drawn out and exceptionally boring movie. There are more pauses in the dialog than a Pinter Play. In the book I felt a deep caring for Catherine Sloper and her life. The movie had just the opposite effect. I also disliked the twist where her aunt has a sexual attraction to Morris. Eeeeeeeek. YUK.

Watch it if you can't sleep, it's a definite snoozer. Don't watch it if you're depressed. You'll need Zoloft after this.

Sure, "The Heiress" was exceptional with Olivia Haviland and Montgomery Clift in the title roles. The actor who played her father was on the mark as the uncaring, cold father....still grieving for his dead wife and hating Catherine for it. The movie was not faithful to the book but neither is this one.

This movie was a box office flop. I have no doubts as to why.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of those movies that was never publicized and therefore was missed when it originally played in the theaters.

I came across it while switching TV channels and was immediately engrossed in this story of an aging rodeo bum whose recklessness and lack of responsibility hurt everyone around him. I've often wanted to see the movie again but couldn't even remember its name, and have never seen it in the rental stores.

James Coburn and Slim Pickens were excellent in their roles, and the rodeo footage was first rate. While being an action movie and having a western setting and theme it could be enjoyed by anyone regardless of their taste in films.

Sentiment: positive
A good Korean film about not just Taekwondo but what its takes to be good, like a thugs way of fighting cannot beat a taekwondo guy in his sport because there are rules, just as there are to life and school and this film has undertones of this notion.

The martial arts in the film isn't that good but it is passable and enjoyable. Friends who go on to achieve something they once would mock become stronger through the mind and heart. This film isn't meant to be taken too seriously as it does have slapstick, but it also carries a message.

A good film again from Korea.

Sentiment: positive
(NOTE: I thought I'd be the only one writing what I did below, but I see the others here agree. I guess it was pretty obvious - this was overdoing the bait-the-cat bit. Anyway, here is what I had written:)

The owners have left on vacation for two weeks - a trip to California - leaving the cat (Sylvester) all alone and locked in the house. That means no milk, but the cat, to his relief, does find a bunch of canned tuna. However, to his dismay, he can't find the opener.

It turns out the little mouse in the house has it...and baits the cat with it. This is a mean rodent who keeps teasing Sylvester with the opener and then yanking it away at the last second. Sylvester tries everything possible to open the can of tuna but can't do it. 

This is a frustrating story, and why they make the sadistic mouse the "good guy" is beyond me. It's like some of the Tom & Jerry cartoons where poor Tom always gets the worst of it even though many times the little mouse starts the conflict!

Sentiment: negative
First off, I can remember vaguely being told this story in primary school, about 6 or 7 years ago so I am sort of familiar with the story.

A lot of that has changed however, and there are many differences and mistakes (sometimes unnecessary) in the film that die hard fans will not appreciate.

However as a whole I really love this film. I first saw it near Christmas about 2 years ago (well the 1st part) then caught the whole thing again last Christmas probably on the same channel.

I was very impressed, at times it may be a bit overdrawn and long, but with an engaging story, decent acting (especially from frosty Fonda and Hobbs) and beautiful scenery, costume and little touches of magic make this a really special film - which for me really reminds me of Christmas.

Despite differences from the book, I think the film does well to incorporate new themes and ideas (the seasons with Autumn, Winter etc. with I think a new thief character to represent Autumn) throughout the imagery once you notice is quite startling and brilliantly executed.

I live in the UK so have waited a long time for the DVD, and luckily enough I saw an advert showing a series of free DVD's being offered in the Daily Mail newspaper which I don't normally get, so I got yesterdays issue and finally have my DVD. If you missed it and want this rare DVD for region 2 I suggest you collect the tokens from the Daily Mail and send them off as your DVD will then be delivered by Christmas.

So for a bit of escape into the Christmas season this year, put on your fire, get cosy and watch this as you and kids probably will really enjoy this great film. If you don't have it, it will probably be repeated on Channel 4 this Christmas, so record it!

Sentiment: positive
This is the most boring, pretentious, and stupid film I have seen in a long time. I saw it at the Academy in Beverly Hills, and there were quite a few people in the lobby who had left the screening and were seeking refuge there. All were solemnly shaking their heads and looking as though they had been to a funeral. What a waste of time and money. Even worse are the critics who gave this pretentious blimp good reviews. What's with them? Are they just afraid they won't be considered "hip"? Were they bribed? This film is staggeringly bad. Don't take a date to it expecting to have an in-depth chat at the Cheesecake factory afterwards. If going to see this film was your idea, she'll browbeat you and hold it over you the rest of your life.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was beautiful. It was full of memorable imagery, good acting, and touching subject matter. It would be very easy to write it off as being too sentimental, but that is the sentiments this type of a movie is trying to achieve. I was totally involved in the story's unfolding and presentation. There were a few cheesy shots, but such is to be expected in a religious propaganda film. The only complaint I can conjure is there wasn't a ton of details. However, this movie wasn't created to explain every element of Joseph Smith's life, ministry, triumphs, controversies, failures etc.; it was designed for a quick glimpse at a few highlights of one of the most amazing American and historical religious figures of all time.

Sentiment: positive
When a movie like "The Dukes of Hazzard" brings in over $75 million it makes some incredibly sad statements about the condition of our own society. Either we are collectively too stupid to stay away from trash like this or maybe I'm just not realizing how many people this kind of no-effort trash will appeal to.

Hollywood has had no incentive to make good movies since if it puts out trash then people will see it anyways since there is nothing else on screen. This is that. I walked out despite getting a free movie pass. The dialogue could not be dumber. The stunts could not be more over-the-top and outrageous. Perhaps this "bigger that big" image appeals to Texans but it didn't appeal to me nor anyone else in the theater. None of the "big names" were in this career-ending flick, except for Burt Reynolds, which says all you need to hear. Jessica Simpson -- don't make me laugh.

I wouldn't even recommend this film for video, even if you were desperate. This was all about fooling the public to make enough money after opening day to equal or do better than it cost through marketing. They did despite the public being forewarned. Stupidity abound.

Sentiment: negative
And now for another point of view: I didn't like it. I didn't finish it in fact. I know that "Unforgiven" is ranked by some as one of the greatest Westerns ever made. I know that it stars and was directed by Clint Eastwood, one of the icons of American cinema. I know that it won a bunch of Oscars. Still, I didn't like it. I don't like Westerns, and that's clearly a matter of taste, but I also don't admire Eastwood's acting. He is not and never has been a leading man. He is no Burt Lancaster, no Paul Newman, no John Wayne. In this film alone he is dwarfed by Richard Harris and Gene Hackman; they are both actors. No, Eastwood is a tall guy with a reedy voice who usually plays tough guys. Here he plays a retired tough guy. When I see him on screen, I see a man laboring at his acting. Then there's the anti-Western Western plot. It is too obviously intended to inject contemporary values -- a respect for the role of women, blacks, native Americans, and single parents; a disrespect for violence and drinking; the wholesomeness that comes with marriage, including interracial marriage, and small adorable children -- into a century in which those values weren't necessarily accepted, at least in these ways. By promoting those values, the movie comes across as mannered, if not preachy. Then there are the hoary movie stereotypes -- prostitutes with hearts of gold, the kid who can't shoot straight, the city slicker new to the wild West, the sage brush shimmering on a summer afternoon with a musical accompaniment in major chords. Finally there is the pacing of Eastwood's direction. I gave up after an hour. Eastwood was still riding north, chatting with Morgan Freeman and the kid who couldn't shoot straight, sixty minutes after the plot driven by the slashing of a prostitute was set in motion. It was way too slow. Somebody had to find these elements uncompelling. I am afraid it was me.

Sentiment: negative
I'm surprised that mine, so far, is the only comment on this t.v. movie...as far as I'm aware, the series itself, has had a huge following, reviewer pundits and real people alike, have praised it to a person. Anyway, let me tell you right away that, if like me, you're a sucker for gritty police dramas, you'll like "The Lost Child" Tennison, the heroine, throughout the "Prime Suspect"series, has been battling the male police establishment, throughout the series, getting to her present, comparatively powerful rank in the police hierarchy through hard work,obstinacy, and sheer talent for police work. She is,essentially, an ambitious career woman, but she has a romantic side and is certainly no man-hater. Unfortunately her relationships are affected by the wicked hours, which her career demands, and she has never married, so when she finds herself pregnant from her latest affair, she is faced with the choice of becoming a mother, and jeopardising her entire police job, let alone future advancement, or having an abortion - which she opts for. This abortion never looms large in the ensuing drama - it's very skilfully dealt with, in less than a couple of minutes screentime, a marvel of economy in scripting, and editing - but it's always there, as a counterpoint to Tennison's desperate efforts to find another "lost child" - a kidnap victim - before it's too late. The story takes many twists and turns,before the surprise ending, and one is fascinated, alike, by the plot, and characters (although I found the many villains a little overdrawn), the police, and especially Tennison, herself, are not always competent, nor that likeable, which figures, given the unpleasant job that they have to do, in the sleazy underworld which this series, habitually inhabits.

Mirren, herself, has said that she'll make no more movies in the series, but, excellent as she's always been in the role of Tennison, the series, itself, is as "actor proof" as is another addiction of mine -Dick Wolf's American"Law & Order" - whoever appears therein, each could go on forever. As is my fervent hope.

Sentiment: positive
Rock 'n' Roll High School was one of the best movies ever made! I think the only reason it was so awesome was because of The Ramones! You couldn't have made the same movie and put something like the Sex Pistols, or The Clash in place of The Ramones, it just wouldn't have been the same. dey young, clint howard, Vincent Van Patten, Mary Woronov, Paul Bartel, and the hall monters, just added to the movie. The whole entire movie is about The Ramones...especially Joey! So everybody showed see Rock 'n' Roll High School if your a huge fan of real PUNK. Not the sissy new crap...but the loud, and fast kind. The kind only The Ramones could do. R.I.P (Rest In Peace) Joey Ramone 1951-2001. Dee Dee Ramone 1952-2002!

Sentiment: positive
This movie is one of my favorites because it makes me think of all the choices I have made and how my life would change if my choices had been different. It plays right into the " Multiple Universe " theory.

The only thing that doesn't ring true is how Larry Burrows ( James Belushi)has such a hard time understanding what is going on, that everything has changed.



Sentiment: positive
When I first heard that this movie was going to be made, I was very excited to see it. The ideas to make a movie of this caliber, as good as it was, must have been very difficult. I wasn't really sure if anyone could encompass all of the Pope's many amazing qualities in a movie, but the movie did his memory justice. In my opinion the most important task was to reveal to the people who the Pope started out as. To his days in Poland, all the way to his last days in the Vatican, this movie followed every aspect of his life. Thomas Kretschmann, the man who played the Pope in his adult life and on, did a very good job at getting the emotion across. Overall this movie was educational, but also very entertaining.

Sentiment: positive
The premise is ridiculous, the characters unbelievable, the dialogue trite, and the ending absurd. 

Believe me, I'm a fan of Kevin Kline, but watching him do a Pepe Le Pew accent for 2 hours as a supposed Frenchman is not nearly as amusing as it sounds.

For her part, Meg Ryan is once again as perky and adorable as a (take your pick): kewpie doll, baby, puppy, kitten, whatever you happen to think is the cutest creature on earth. She also bears not the slightest resemblance to a real human being.

This movie strikes me as an opportunity seized by buddies Lawrence Kasdan and Kline to vacation in Paris and the south of France while being well-paid for it. So I can't really blame them.

Sentiment: negative
Classic author C.S. Lewis once wrote an essay stating that no children's story is worth the reading, viewing etcetera if it can only be enjoyed by children. I'd say this film is an easy one to hold up as a defence of his argument.

Around the age of five or six, I loved it, tracked it down only three or four years later and found it to be wet, poorly animated, dully and confusingly written, and with distressingly repetitive and awful songs (I'm looking t you, hi-cockalorum), showing a production aiming at joyful silliness and whimsy, but resulting with an ugly, twee, frustrating mess.

By all means, show this to your infant, but I would heartily recommend that you don't buy a copy or attempt to sit in on the viewing. If you want something set in the same era but with genuine charm and wit, go after 'Oliver Twist' or the BBC's brilliant adaptation of 'The Box of Delights'.

Sentiment: negative
They played this on the July 4th Twilight Zone marathon and this is, hands down, the worst Twilight Zone episode I've ever seen. It's completely out of sync with the rest of the series in its tone. Even though Twilight Zone is a pretty uneven series and many episodes end up being groaningly predictable, this one was completely out of place. Compare this to legendary episodes like "A Stop at Willoughby" or "Midnight Sun", and you realize there is no comparison.

Buster Keaton did what he could with such terrible material, and frankly it surprises me that someone of his historic comedy stature would stoop to the level of this episode. Even though he seemed to be giving it some effort, he MUST have needed the money... there's no other explanation.

Sentiment: negative
This is a great movie for all Generation X'ers. What a different world the America of 1972 was compared to our psychotic 21st Century. You can get a sense of what an 1972 America gone by was like by watching this movie. I found that the clothing and the car styles brought back to me fond memories of a much better country than we have now. Just think...back then there were only 4 or 5 TV stations to choose from. There was no AIDS, Muslim terrorists, Road Rage, 911, Bird Flu, Freeway Snipers, etc, etc. The Vietnam war was just over. There will still be 7 years before Star Wars comes out. The personal computer and internet would still be 29 years away.

When this movie first came out the producers had to market the film themselves as no other film company wanted it. So it began touring small Protestant churches around the country being shown on movie projectors(This was the days before VCRS of course). The pastor of a church who would would be interested in showing A Thief in the NIght to his congregation would obtain a copy of the film. Then he would set up a evening to show it in the church meeting area or lunch room. Members of the congregation would invite "unsaved" friends and family members and it would be a social event of the week. 

If you can get past the limited production values of the film and just watch it for its nostalgic value, then I think you will enjoy the film more. Of course I am speaking as a gen xer. 

If I had a time machine I would go back to 1972 and say goodbye to the 21st century cesspool we have now.

Sentiment: positive