DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Seeing this film, or rather set of films, in my early teens irrevocably changed my idea of the possibilities of human interaction and the range of potential experience. This monumental exploration of individuals, and their historical setting, reveals how full bodied and intense every human existence is. The people are portrayed as they are to themselves: their experiences of the smallest to the largest internal and external phenomena are detailed with the greatest of artistry and perception. Edgar Reitz displays a fabulous appreciation of human motivations and longings.

When these phenomena are set against the immense time allowed by the length of the work, one cannot help but apprehend the force and vivacity of happiness, defeat, lust, love, sadness, melancholy, that each person feels. When I saw these films I perceived my future experiences, how my life would inevitably twist and oscillate due to both intended and accidental events. I acquired a feeling of the longevity of being and what it meant to reflect upon past lives, memories and contexts. A masterpiece and a revelation. I only wish the BBC would screen it again.

If anyone knows where I can get a copy, could they contact me

Sentiment: positive
Being a Film studies graduate I would like to think that I have seen a diverse range of films, some good and some bad, but I would have to say that 'Summer rain' is by far the worse film I have ever seen! I chose the film in the hope that it was going to be a great British classic such as 'Secrets and Lies' or 'Lockstock' but oh no this was so bad that my flat mates and I ended up laughing and cringing at the ridiculous acting and cheesy script (reminded me of a bad 'theatre in education' school production). The main characters Michelle and Gary began to annoy us from the start. 'Michelle' the main character who lives with her two friends has the type of face that you would never get tired of slapping and Gary was so wet (he kept breaking down in tears every 5 minutes) that by the end of the film I really didn't give a damn about either of them. All I could think was ' I paid £3 for this pile'. I have never written a review before but after watching this film it has spurred me on to warn people of this disastrous production. So please avoid at all costs. Thanks for reading.

Sentiment: negative
This movie should have been called "The Eyes of Alexander", and they should have done away with the Bogart concept altogether. The film started out with a lighthearted approach to Bogart's legacy and some comical moments with his surgery oriented face, but after the first 15-30 minutes it morphs into a more serious thriller, where two palm size sapphires, purportedly laid as eyes into a marble headpiece of Alexander the Great, for him, and seen by him, right before his death. So the gems are of great value not only because of their quality and size, but also because of the tie to the Greatest conquerer the world has ever known. Being an expert on Alexander qualifies me to say that this is wholly and completely a fiction, but it makes for a good movie anyway. So the film winds around some early silliness and stumbles along with all sorts of Alexander allusions in both the foreground and background (which I really liked), ending with a dated shark attack (you couldn't go to a movie in '79-'80 without some shark showing up to menace the audience). There is a yacht named Euridice (Alexander's father's young wife), a man named Alexander, Philip, Cleitus?, (it's been about 5 years since I've seen the film, so can't remember all the details), Olympias, some street names, and many others. It was fun to watch the film just to try to catch all the background details that the director (obviously an Alexanderphile himself) put in. When all is said and done, the eyes are retrieved and the camera pans in on them on a bed as the credits roll by. Kind of a neat ending. What would have been more fun would be if they went the Indiana Jones way and had an action adventure. There were many, many real artifacts that could have been used to make this more interesting, or instance, the hand-annotated (by Aristotle) version of the Iliad that Alexander kept with him all his life, even on his many journeys across Asia (would be of incalculable value if found today). Olivia Hussey (my all time favorite b-movie actress)is killed off way too early, and should have been the main actress throughout, not the girl from the Momma's and the Poppa's...though she was herself easy on the eyes. If you can find this flick, it might be worth checking out for the historical stuff and to see Olivia Hussey in an extremely funny deadpan humor bit early on, but beyond that, I'd pass on it for something more entertaining.

Yours, Nick

Sentiment: negative
This movie was awful in the worst way: you just didn't care. You didn't care what happened in the plot; you didn't care about the characters. Everyone was devoid of heart. I ended up walking out about an 45 minutes into it because I simply didn't want to subject my mind to it any more. There is far too much sex in the film. Sex can be okay; it can even make the movie (hence Karma Sutra) but the intercourse here was not beautiful or sexy. It was just ugly. Don't see this film.

Sentiment: negative
I agree in many parts with the fairly thorough review already posted on the subject of the miniseries, and agree that it does have its pros, not only its cons. For example, the original film manage to truncate much of the middle and final sections of the novel into a single montage, including the discovery of Gurney Halleck and the love affair of Paul Atreides and Chani, which, on reading the novel, is a travesty, probably born of the studio cutting shenanigens of which the other reviewer writes. This was one of the great failings of the original film, and the miniseries, to its credit, does include many of the original plot lines that were cut out of the Lynch film due to the expansive nature of the Herbert novel.

However, this in itself is a double edged sword. Rather than complete a text-to-celluloid transfer of the novel, the creators of the miniseries were tempted to create their own plot lines, absent from the original novel. Similarly, although this is surely a "fuller" account of the storyline of Dune, it is also a break from the originals heart and soul & main vision - that of prophecy. Where are the internal monologues that characterize Herbert's writing and demonstrate what the many different characters are thinking, without the need to suddenly switch viewpoint, or expand in words or unnecessary and stilted spoken monologues? Gone. So much of the original agony of Paul's decision to choose the jihad or death, the choice to fulfill the prophecy or swing away from it, surely the most interesting aspect of the novel itself (and one which captivates people who are far from Science fiction fans) is missing. 

Without prophecy, what is the point of Dune? It is simply a more educated and learned version of Farscape or Andromeda. How sad that this is all we are provided with. Lynch's film was flawed, yes. But a flawed film could lead to a correction by another film-maker, taking on some of the best points of Lynch's film-making and rejecting some of the more overblown aspects of the style whilst restoring the storyline. Now this story shall probably never be translated to film again, and this I find heartrending.

Sentiment: negative
I am a big fan of Stephen King's work, and this film has made me an even greater fan of King. Pet Sematary is about the Creed family. They have just moved into a new house, and they seem happy. But there is a pet cemetery behind their house. The Creed's new neighbor Jud (played by Fred Gwyne) explains the burial ground behind the pet cemetery. That burial ground is pure evil. Jud tells Louis Creed that when you bury a human being (or any kind of pet) up in the burial ground, they would come back to life. The only problem, is that when they come back, they are NOT the same person, they're evil. Soon after Jud explains everything about the Pet Sematary, everything starts to go to hell. I wont explain anymore because I don't want to give away some of the main parts in the film. The acting that Pet Sematary had was pretty good, but needed a little bit of work. The story was one of the main parts of this movie, mainly because it was so original and gripping. This film features lots of make-up effects that make the movie way more eerie, and frightening. One of the most basic reasons why this movie sent chills up my back, was in fact the make-up effects. There is one character in this film that is truly freaky. That character is "Zelda." This particular character pops up in the film about three times to be precise. Zelda is Rachel Creed's sister who passed away years before, but Rachel is still haunted by her. The first time Zelda appears in the movie isn't generally scary because she isn't talking or anything, but the second time is the worst, and to be honest, the second time scares the living **** out of me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this movie, it is almost perfect. Pet Sematary delivers great scares, some pretty good acting, first rate plot, and mesmerizing make-up. This is truly one of most favorite horror films of all time. 10 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
Thursday is clearly derivative of the 'new wave' of crime films released since Quentin Tarantino took the genre by storm with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction in the early nineties, but it has enough ideas of it's own to ensure that it remains an interesting little film. Thursday utilises a few characters mostly within a single location. It works because each character is quirky enough in their own right to be memorable, and when put together what you've got is a very amusing little thriller. There is little substance to be found within the plot, but it doesn't matter because nobody goes into this sort of film expecting a life-affirming experience. The plot follows Casey; a former drug dealer who has gone straight and is now living as a successful architect in suburbia with his wife. The pair wants to adopt a child, but things turn awry when Casey receives a visit from his old partner in crime, Nick, who brought with him a case of heroine and a load of money stolen from the cops. Thursday is going to turn out to be a very interesting day for our former criminal...

The first scene sets the film up rather nicely and ensures that we know what to expect. We see a coffee order go wrong, which turns into a murder scene that the culprits promptly cover up when a cop comes in for refreshments. The scene is soaked with dark humour and witty dialogues, and that is carried on throughout the rest of the movie. Thursday is a very funny film, and scenes such as the ones that see the adoption visitor turn up at an awkward time ensure that the film is difficult to dislike. It's true that the film doesn't bring anything new to the table, cinematically or plot-wise, but the fact that it's happy to wallow in its derision ensures that there's more time for the absurd situation to build around the central characters. The acting is decent enough, with the entire cast clearly having fun with this plot. Thomas Jane holds the film together well in the lead role, while amusing portrayals from James LeGros, Paulina Porizkova, Michael Jeter, Glenn Plummer and Mickey Rourke back him up nicely. This film is unlikely to impress the seasoned film fan, but if you just want an amusing little movie with a few enjoyable twists and performances; Thursday is likely to suffice.

Sentiment: positive
My god how bad this is. Who is this impostor pretending to be Ali G? Avoid this at all costs. It replaces the smart multi-layered satire and humour of his show with down and out toilet humour.

This was obviously an attempt to get him known in the States before he released his show there on HBO.

One commentator here pleads that we not judge the movie on the merits of the show due to the difference in the mediums. While it is true that the standard format of the show could never have been transferred to the big screen Mr Sacha Baron Cohen could have ensured the smart use of his comic style in a more conventional movie storyline. Instead we have this mess, which in all honesty has nothing at all to do with Ali G except for the packaging.

Terribly disappointing. Go seek out the DVD's of Innit, Aiiii, or Bling Bling for some real Ali G.

Sentiment: negative
This movie tries to hard to be something that it's not....a good movie. It wants you to be fooled from begining to end,But fails.From when it starts to get interesting it falls apart and you're just hoping the ending gives you some clue of just what is going on but it didn't.



Sentiment: negative
If you have trouble suspending disbelief then this isn't for you. Consider: a woman already in late middle age finds a newborn baby in a cabbage patch and raises it as her own. Think about it; she makes no attempt to locate the mother, who may well be a confused teenager in need of medical treatment and seemingly no one from the Italian equivalent of Social Services makes any attempt to put the baby into 'care' (no Social Services? now I KNOW it's a fantasy). Before you know it young Toto is ten or so and his adoptive mother dies leaving him to the orphanage from which he emerges a HAPPY man who loves everybody. In nothing flat he has not only given his suitcase to the man who stole it from him but organised the local homeless into bona fide Shantytown residents and for an encore he leads them in a fight against capitalism in the shape of the businessman who buys the land on which the Shantytown stands when oil is discovered there. This wants some swallowing without the subsequent 'miracles' beginning with Toto's dead mother (the old lady who raised him rather than his biological one) appearing to him and handing him a dove which doubles as a magic wand allowing him to grant modest wishes and a finale in which the hobos fly away to a better place located presumably somewhere over the rainbow.

On the other hand the film is up to here with Charm and is easy to surrender to. On balance a small masterpiece.

Sentiment: positive
Pretty, stereotyped, good looking cast, the story loops in a wide and confusing arc, leading you down a number of garden paths (without attendant fairies) before plummeting to an end that feels you leaving - hollow.

If you are after a film that has climax or ends with a satisfying thump, this is going to be a disappointment. Inspite of the main character's notionally overt sexuality I felt that he was androgynous, lacking a clear male persona, rather like his lacking of a clear French persona. Even though he is notionally laid naked (or rather sat naked) at the end of the film, the viewer is as unaware as the character as to motivations - that little thing called plot. Probably a stereotypically English speaking point of view, at least if you take the side of the film.

Sentiment: negative
Anna Christie (1930)

Anna Christie has some terrific parts, and some amazing performances, and yet it should be even better than it is. It has drama. Some of the scenes are really atmospheric, and if the interior shots around the table are a bore, other shots at night and at sea are really pretty exciting. Then there are the nearly historical, lively scenes set in Coney Island (even a brief jittery roller coaster ride), and the episode where two women are behind a netting in separate beds, and visitors to the midway can throw balls to try to tip them over, and the women (scantily dressed) egg the men on is weirdly sexual come-on kind of way. All the while Garbo (at the front of the crowd) watches.

Garbo of course is what makes this movie more than just another very good early talkie. She plays all sides of her character. She is coy and skeptical and in some kind of inner anguish. She laughs and cries, withdraws and pushes outward. In some ways it's a forward looking, remarkable movie (directed by Clarence Brown, who has a whole series of significant films from this pre-code sound era).

Though based on a successful Eugene O'Neil play, it's the writing that struggles a little as the actors seem to go through the paces at times. Marie Dressler is great in that exaggerated way she almost trademarked. And then there is Greta Garbo, who really does have a natural presence, even if it seems she's overacting, just slightly, at times (but then, so is everyone else). Garbo is of course famous first as a silent actress, and this is her talking film debut. Audiences loved her enough that she made a German language version the following year.

Sentiment: positive
I find this film meretricious, tentative, lethargic, and skillfully a bad choice of entertainment on celluloid. But I admire the courage to throw away a script, turn the camera on, and act a fool. I find the inauspiciously performances, lighting, cinematography, sound, and whatever film school laws D' Urville Martin broke funny. Speaking from a film directors perspective there is times I just want to drop everything and have fun on the set. This film looks like fun. When other aspiring film directors ask me advice I just tell them to watch any film by Rudy Ray Moore. They always return a puzzled look asking me why not watch the masters Woody Allen, Scorsese, Lucas, Capra? I laugh and include that you always want to know what not to do in cinematic story telling first.

Sentiment: positive
Shocking, well-made chiller is an undervalued tale of atrocious murder and evil forces.

Small town doctor tries to discover who, or what, is committing a series of violent sexual murders.

Incubus is a tight mystery, with some horrific murder sequences, that builds to an off-beat and eerie climatic twist. The murder scenes are intense and gory, so this isn't a film for the squeamish! The direction of John Hough, along with a bizarre music score, combine to create a dark atmosphere of dread that runs through out the film. It also carries a kind of Gothic vibe as well. Nice filming locations and some stylish camera work also highlight.

The cast isn't bad either. The great John Cassavetes does a solid performance as the new doctor in town. Also good are the performances of Kerrie Keane as the local reporter, Helen Hughes as the town historian, and Duncan McIntosh as a tormented psychic teen.

All around Incubus is a forgotten horror film that needs to be re-discovered and re-evaluated.

*** out of ****

Sentiment: positive
This little seen movie is a languid and laid-back giallo. It veers away from some of the cliché's of the genre and adopts a looser approach. It's about a woman searching for her missing lover; a psychiatrist who has suddenly vanished for no apparent reason. Her search leads her to a villa populated by a group of eccentric individuals. In true giallo style, murder is never far away.

The cast is really rather good. We have Aldofo Celi (Thunderball), Alida Valli (Suspiria), Horst Frank (Cat o' Nine Tails) and a very young Sybil Danning (80's scream queen). The lead actress is Rosemary Dexter, and while I am not familiar with her, she does a good job in leading the picture.

One of the defining features of Eye in the Labyrinth is its music. Atypically for a giallo it features a jazz-rock fusion soundtrack. This score, composed by Roberto Nicolosi, is reminiscent of Miles Davis, especially his work on In A Silent Way. It's an excellent soundtrack and really gives this movie a different feel than most gialli. The fusion groove accentuates the languid atmosphere and compliments the sunny, sea-front scenery that the film is mostly made up of.

This is a giallo so we really need to talk about the murder set-pieces. Well, this film falls a little short in this regard. It's certainly not devoid of them but they are few and far between. The opening dream-murder being probably the best on offer as well as a memorable burning car sequence. But this really isn't a particularly violent film. Still, I don't think it should disappoint too many seasoned fans of the genre. The mystery is fairly compelling and it has enough eccentric characters (the idiot boy Saro and THAT unsettlingly inappropriate dubbed accent?) and moments of the bizarre to satisfy; while the sleaze-factor is upheld with a smattering of nudity throughout.

Eye in the Labyrinth plays like a giallo version of an Agatha Christie mystery, as it features a group of unsympathetic characters in a villa, all under suspicion of murder; we have the obligatory flashbacks detailing their connections with the final hours of the (highly unsympathetic) murder victim. While this isn't a grade-A example of the genre, it's certainly an appealingly different one, as it doesn't borrow too heavily from other films of the sub-genre. For giallo enthusiasts I give this a thumbs up and hope one day it's given a nice DVD transfer. It certainly deserves the treatment.

Sentiment: positive
The poster who called this "Plotless and pointless" literally took the words I would have used in my subject line. The only thing I'd add is "passionless." For a film made by a real life married couple and featuring lots of graphic sex scenes this movie manages to make what should be a sultry situation into one beyond ice cold. Dafoe and Colagrande look bored during the sex scenes, and the viewer might as well take a Valium and have done with it. Also, please, the women in the audience have seen WAY too many used tampons in their time, and any guy who is turned on by seeing Willem Dafoe pull a bloody tampon out of his wife's vagina really needs to get therapy.

I think the key to the film (if there is one) is the restaurant scene where a waiter explains to the perpetually sleepy-eyed Dafoe what a "deconstructed jambalaya" is. (All the ingredients of the dish still separate rather than simmered together.) This movie is a "deconstructed thriller". All the elements are there: spooky, isolated house, dead spouse,creepy violins on the score, weirdo caretaker who comes and goes as he pleases, auto accident deaths and near deaths, characters with a secret past. Basically every thriller cliché you can think of, but NOTHING comes together. Everything just sits there and never meshes into a coherent plot or even an artsy mood piece. At the restaurant, Dafoe passes on the "deconstructed jambalaya". Prospective renters of this mess would do well to leave this deconstructed thriller on the video store shelf.

Sentiment: negative
basically, i like Verhoeven film because in his film, i enjoy a brilliant pscychosexual story that i have seen before in "Basic Instinct".it is really a wonderful thriller i enjoyed very much.so it is obviously for me to watch this another Verhoeven movie.

well, it is his previous direction before his block buster hit "Basic Instinct" and for that i was very much curious to watch that movie and yeah, the movie has fulfilled my hope and expectation.

this movie "The Fourth Man" is a brilliant pscychosexual drama which is a lit bit complex for some audiences. the story of this movie is about a gay writer named "Reve"(Krabbe), an alcoholic person who is lives by his own moral values and sees many visions that may warn him from a future accident.after the end of his lecture, he introduce a seductive woman named "Christine", who has a mysterious past she doesn't want to reveal.Reve do sex with her at her house as she is a boy.next morning, he watch her sexy, macho boyfriend's picture on her table, the person he met at the station.he is curious to meet him and tell Christine to invite him to her house.

that's it. i don't want to reveal the entire story because it is a Verhoeven movie and the end of the film is really surprising!

especially, i like the character "Reve" which is brilliantly played by "Krabbe".i basically like his acting because as a gay person i am purely identified with his character and yeah i like his charming face.

i would like thanks Mr.Verhoeven to make such a black comedy.

i rate this movie: 10 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
Rutger Hower fans Don't BE FOOLED - he only plays a cameo in this movie and that's IT. This movie loses an extra point for that scam. I think Rutger Hower has a total of about 2 very short scenes and 2 very short voice-overs.

The female lead for this film is way above this poor material in looks and talent-she's great, this movie is a dog and she's wasted on it. The story is of a Lawyer hoping for that partnership one day at the firm getting suckered into having to cart the Boss' niece across country. They have several encounters on the road with various oddballs and that is the vehicle for a variety of skits and the dude that played Napoleon Dynamite is thrown in the mix as a side character for good measure.

This is a road-trip where extreme circumstances put our repressed hero to the test and he slowly winds up loosening up a little bit by the end of the movie, ah isn't love grand, yadda yadda..

Only watch this film if you want to see a hot chick be annoying to a dork in a truck for an hour and half.

Sentiment: negative
Diagnosis Murder has been shown on most Weekday afternoons on BBC1 since I used to watch it while ill from School a good 10 years ago - I know I shouldn't really enjoy it, in the same way I shouldn't enjoy 'Murder she Wrote' but I'm totally addicted to both and even have the DVD box-sets....OK I know that's sad!

Dick Van Dyke carries the show as he stars as Dr.Mark Sloan a Doctor at Community General Hospital in L.A who is also a Police consultant for the L.A.P.D. - his son Steve (Barry van Dyke - Dick's real life son) is a Police Officer, who needs his father's help on very many Suspicious deaths. 

Along for the ride is Dr.Amanda Bentley (Victoria Bentley) the resident Pathologist at Community General and for the first couple of seasons you had Scott Baio playing Dr.Jack Stewart, who upped and left the series in 1995 hoping to go on to bigger and better things...he should have stayed where he was, he hasn't done anything of note since....and his only theatrical appearance for many years was in Baby Geniuses 2:Superbabies....Oh Dear!!!

anyhow Dr.Jack Stewart was replaced by the younger Dr.Jesse Travis played by Charlie Schlatter who stepped into Baio's shoes pretty comfortably.

The series is highly implausible but what Whodunit series isn't? (Murder she wrote - everywhere Jessica goes, someone ends up dead, or The underrated Father Dowling Mysteries about a Murder solving Priest with nun sidekick)

The series was much lighter up until 1997 this is because it had a supporting cast that included the bumbling Hospital Manager Norman Briggs played by Michael Tucci along with Nurse & Mark's secretary Dolores played by Delores Hall, After 1997 both these characters were no longer included and the series became a grittier affair with a bigger looking budget, some episodes included far more action, one episode the entire Hospital is blown up.

This was a family show For the Van Dyke's because as well as Dick's Son Barry, you also had Dick's Daughter And all his Grandchildren making an appearance in various episodes. 

As the series went on it got a bit silly, one episode I remember Dick van Dike plays his entire family, which was a bit out of the ordinary, but on the Whole 'Diagnosis Murder' was a really good TV show which had numerous good Guest Stars.

Since this show finished in 2001, Dick & Barry have appeared together again in the 'MURDER 101' series of TV Movies made by The Hallmark Channel, pretty much following the same path, and still enjoyable. Dick who's now in his mid 80's doesn't seem to change a great deal, and looks as if he'll be working till the bitter end.

TV SHOW **** OUT OF *****

Sentiment: positive
First, This movie was made in 1978. So that tells you that the movie is going to be bad anyway.But I am not saying that all old movies are bad . Second, The special effects we're terrible for even that time. Finally, The acting was so bad, Bozo The Clown could have done it better. It makes you wonder how people get the money to make movies this pathetic. This movie sucks!

Sentiment: negative
They're not jawing journalists Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell from "His Girl Friday" or witty detective William Powell and sassy lady Myrna Loy from Thin Man, but Woody Allen and Scarlett Johansson are surprisingly charming as amateur sleuths in Scoop. Their screwball repartee is more postmodern than post Depression, Allen's writing filled with ironic self deprecation and plain old New York angst. Shades of the old wit occur rarely, such as when he, as Sid, the Great Splendini magician, responds about his background: "I was born into the Hebrew persuasion, but when I got older I converted to narcissism." Johansson, fresh from Allen's Match Point as a bad girl, here gets to be a relatively good, sometimes ditsy journalism student caught in a murder mystery suitable for London: a serial killer. The plot is a reworking of his recent London-based thriller Match Point, right down to the upper-class sins and the "American Tragedy"/Place in the Sun boating "accident." As a matter of fact, Allen is reworking Manhattan Murder Mystery and Purple Rose of Cairo to name just a couple of other examples. I care not if he reworks; I would like the new material to be at least the equal of the originals, and, alas, it is just a reflection of his younger greatness.

Allen as director and actor can't hide his love for the actress, as he couldn't for Diane Keaton, and therefore takes a middling comedy into an appropriate place down the Allen canon, not great but amusing, at times brilliantly satirical: About the suspected upper-class murderer, Sid (Allen) quips, "I'd be very surprised if he killed one person." This is vintage Allen humor. While there are barely any bright literary allusions as in most of his film, he lards Scoop with music from Grieg, Tchaikovsky, and Strauss to let us know the Woodman has not lost his touch of class.

Sentiment: positive
I remember seeing this movie 34 years ago and it was full of suspense and twists. It grabs you at the beginning and keeps you guessing throughout the whole movie. I have thought about this movie for the past several years and have checked in video stores to see if it's available, but was never able to find it or anyone who had even heard of it. I think this type of movie is timeless, and I know it would be enjoyed by a whole new generation of movie watchers. I hope this gets on video soon as it would be fun to see if it has the same impact on me as it did back in the early 70's.

It's very rare that a TV movie can make that much of an impression, but this was did and still does after so many years.

Sentiment: positive
this movie had me stuck in this endless loop of thinking about it for days afterward...granted i am not the movie snob that some folks around here appear to be, but i thought this was amazingly well-acted, and a powerful creation, if lacking a little subtlety in exectution. i happen to admire movies that can effectively recreate the sensation of watching a stage play, it creates an inharmonious eeriness that works well with this flick. i am also a great fan of alan rickman, so that might be my bias. personally i found the lack of spatial landmarks a good thing -- this could in fact be anywhere, and probably is. i say go easy on what was a powerful experience for me, and likely for anyone involved in any sort of political activity.

Sentiment: positive
Peak Practice was a British drama series about a GP surgery in Cardale  a small fictional town in the Derbyshire Peak District  and the doctors who worked there. It ran on ITV from 1993 to 2002, and was one of their most successful series at the time. It originally starred Kevin Whately as Dr Jack Kerruish, Amanda Burton as Dr Beth Glover, and Simon Shepherd as Dr Will Preston, though the roster of doctors would change many times over the course of the series.

The series was axed in 2002 and ended on a literal cliffhanger when two of the series main characters plunged off a cliff. Viewers wrote to ITV in their thousands and a petition for one last episode was set up by website Peak Practice Online. However, all pleas were unsuccessful and ITV said they would not make any more episodes.

Peak Practice was replaced by Sweet Medicine, another medical series set in Derbyshire. It lasted a few episodes before it was dropped from the schedules.

Cardale was based on the Derbyshire village of Crich, and the series was filmed there and at other nearby Derbyshire towns and villages, most notably Matlock and Ashover. After the end of this programme, ITV attempted to launch a follow-up series called Sweet Medicine, which extended the stories of different characters from the original show.

Sentiment: positive
Engaging, riveting tale of captured US army turncoat who has to prove his innocence to avoid the hangman. Paul Ryker dodges friendly fire in a seemingly doomed attempt to convince a military court that he was actually a US spy on a secret mission in Korea.

In the vein of classic courtroom dramas, "Sergeant Ryker" is an extremely well crafted mystery, ably guided by an outstanding cast, director Kulik's constant momentum, and effective plot twists and turns.

This film was originally made as a television movie in 1964, and subsequently beefed up for this revision with the presence of many "name" actors, and some action sequences. Dillman, reprising his role, is spot-on as the doubting defence attorney, whose attentions sometimes stray to the personal plight of Ryker's supportive, yet somewhat distant wife, played with aplomb by Vera Miles. Rounding out the frontline is Peter Graves for the prosecution, and Norman Fell and Murray Hamilton in key supporting roles.

Marvin's interpretation of the Paul Ryker character is a balanced depiction of a simple but dedicated man whose normally laid back demeanour is challenged by the desperate circumstances in which he's placed. Marvin switches perfectly from resigned indifference, to passionate determination, giving a convincing, often intense performance that is the highlight of this otherwise small-scale drama. It's this performance that should elevate the film to a platform where it occupies a place on the best-ever lists of courtroom dramas.

However, despite its apparent obscurity, "Sergeant Ryker" still remains a taut and compelling examination, like a book that you just can't put down. Highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
Unfortunately there was not a 0 for a rating or else I would've chosen it. This movie lacks the star power that the original movie had in such abundance. Carol Burnett, Albert Finney, Tim Curry, Bernadette Peters, Edward Hermann, the innocence of newcomer Aileen Quinn, and expert directing from seasoned pro John Huston (father of actress Angelica Huston)is what made this film so charming. Even the 1999 remake with Kathy Bates, Victor Garber, Alan Cumming, and Kristin Chenoweth had more to offer than this sorry excuse for a sequel. Before she did this movie all Ashley Johnson was known for was her role as little Chrissie Seaver on the prime time show Growing Pains. She had a few bit parts in movies but I don't know who thought she had talent enough to carry a movie on her own. And adding Joan Collins as Lady Edwina Hogbottom, ridiculous! They couldn't get good enough actors to play the major roles like Daddy Warbucks, Miss Hannigan, and Annie but they will sign Joan Collins to play some British lady? It doesn't surprise me that this movie was as bad as it was. The critics were right to have not agreed with this movie, even if it was only made for TV, it was a poor sequel to an otherwise lovable movie.

Sentiment: negative
I always knew the day was coming. We all knew. There's only so much oil in the ground, and one day we'll run short. But isn't there supposed to be enough coal to use instead? And wind power, or something. Things for future generations to worry about.

Then this documentary hit me smack between the eyes. Oil makes the fertilizer that is the reason for the first time in world history practically no one lives on farms. When the inevitable oil shortages hit, a lot of things -- air travel, many drugs, plastics, life in the suburbs -- will become impossible. But the craziest insight from the documentary is this: oil gives us so much energy with so little effort, that without it our lives must change. Even if substitutes and conservation are implemented immediately, at best they'll smooth our landing into a strange post-oil world which (the documentary claims) could be starting NOW.

Despite its gloomy message, the documentary is often highly entertaining. It contains fabulous historical footage (sober images of dark urban factories, and campy funny stuff from the 1950's) which reminds us of why we moved to the suburbs in the first place. It also offers hope that a massive effort started now could both ease our transition from oil and make the world a better place.

My only complaint about the documentary is that it does not spend time on the mystery of why we are finding this stuff out now. How can this be a big emergency all of a sudden? We knew in the 1970s we should be preparing for a post-oil world -- and we started to prepare with alternative energy research and smaller cars. If our failure to follow through on President Jimmy Carter's initiatives 25 years ago has doomed us to a hard landing in a post-oil world, why was no one shouting about it on soapboxes?

In the end I found the documentary highly persuasive; and it left me with the terrible chill of being dragged out of a very lovely dream. This is must viewing for everyone not afraid to face a very likely near future that we still have time to do something about.

- Charles

Sentiment: positive
I usually don't write reviews for shows unless I've seen them in full. However, there were so many positive views of this show on here I felt it was necessary to balance it out with a bit of realism.

This show is hysterically bad. I don't think it was meant to be, but it is. I see that there's lots of praise being showered upon the show, and I honestly can't understand why--- this show is so poorly acted, the dialogue is so awful, and the plots are thin around their holes.

I think that this show is interesting in that it is a definite litmus test of your standards. Some elements of the show work, and perhaps those elements are just more important to some people than those that don't work, which make the show nearly unwatchable to people like me.

If you enjoy making fun of a show as you watch it, anticipating clichéd lines and such, this can be an enjoyable show to ridicule, if you have that sort of time on your hands.

The pilot is a pretty fair example of the whole show. If the nonsense saccharin cliché ending doesn't leave you in a dumb shock, then this may be a show for you.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is so daring it doesn't attempt to hide its similarities to The Shining. It lacks the originality to do so. And when it does, near the end, try to cover up its story of "father goes psycho under influence of sketchy haunted house in a foreign place," it does so by stooping to plenty of other already established conventions and ideas. In other words, it reduces itself to mere cliche. But hell, even I enjoy a good predictable horror or thriller as long as there is an interesting story, one filled with violence and gore, somewhere before the film makes the dreadful turn towards the predictable and trite. Well, this film doesn't have a good story and I was really disappointed with it. What 'Darkness' has going for it is remarkable direction and cinematography. It is a film well-shot and carefully constructed full of fun, creepy angles and shots. What 'Darkness' doesn't have going for it is pretty much everything else. To begin with a minor quibble - the editing in this movie is obnoxious. It jumps from one scene to the next, sometimes pointlessly. For example, the old man in the movie (who pretty much carries the background story, later filled in by another character) is underscored by a hamster running circles. I mean, it looks cool the first time, but why continue to use the same image? I guess you'd have to see it for yourself, to understand what I mean. Another problem with this movie is Anna Paquin's character who essentially whines throughout the film, crying and caring all too much about everything - she's the film's failed attempt at a character-driven horror film. The movie has scenes of overblown sentimentalism and the family drama it depicts is simply not believable. By the end, 'Darkness' is a muddled melodrama, with a non-involving mystery provided with too simple of an ending. And it's hardly scary.

Sentiment: negative
There are very few performers today who can keep me captivated throughout an entire film just by their presence. One of those few is Judy Davis, who has built a successful career out of creating characters that are headstrong in attitude but very vulnerable at heart. She takes roles that most other performers would treat melodramatically and adds a fiery, deeply emotional intensity that pulls attention away from everything else on the screen.

Her skills are well displayed in "High Tide," a film that matches her up a second time with director Gillian Armstrong, who gave Davis her first major success with "My Brilliant Career." In that film, Davis played a young woman who was determined to make it in the world, despite the suffocation she felt from her community and upbringing. In "High Tide," however, Davis' character, Lillie, is roughly the opposite: she gave up on any hope for her future when she was young, and, after giving birth to a child, runs from her responsibilities and takes up a life without direction or meaning. When she finally meets up with her daughter years later, the thought of taking care of her child is petrifying; she knows this is her chance to atone for her failures, but how can she be honest with her daughter and still gain her respect?

Gillian Armstrong's films usually relate stories about characters who desperately want to communicate with each other, but face obstacles set up by their own personal habits and addictions. "Oscar and Lucinda," for instance, was about a man and a woman who desperately needed each other's love but were always blindsided by their craving for chance, represented by their gambling addictions. Here, we are immersed in the world of a family torn apart by the mother's inability to commit to a settled life and her struggles to redeem herself despite being fully convinced that it's too late to change for the better. This is not simply a film with a great performance at its center, but also a rare achievement: a fully convincing story of redemption.

Sentiment: positive
I loved this movie. It is a very simple plot and from what I understand it is based on a true story. Growing up in the 80's with hard rock/hair metal may have something to do with my love of this film but even aside from the music it is a really fun movie to watch. Give it a try, you will like it unless you are the hardest of critics and only like movies of "Citizen Kane" caliber.

Sentiment: positive
Writer/director Henry Brommel has done a wonderful job with his film, "Panic," from the year 2000, and that includes his choice of cast: William H. Macy, Tracy Ullman, John Ritter, Neve Campbell, Donald Sutherland, Barbara Bain, David Dorfman. Brommel has cast Ullman and Ritter in decidedly un-funny roles, and the offbeat casting is a welcome change from what we normally see.

"Panic" is the story of a hit man, Alex (Macy) who actually works for his father (Sutherland). He covers his true profession by doing mail order work; by all appearances, he and his wife (Ullman) and their son Sammy (Dorfman) are a typical suburban family. Unhappy with his life, Alex seeks the help of a psychiatrist (Ritter), telling only his mother (Bain). In the waiting room, he meets a young woman (Campbell) to whom he is immediately attracted, which complicates his situation further. His mother breaks her promise and tells his father about the psychiatrist. When Alex receives his next assignment, he discovers that he is to kill his psychiatrist.

This is a profound story of a gentle, good man made into a killer by a monster of a father, with his mother's knowledge, who kills to please his father but also can't stand up to him and quit. His rage is so deep-seated that he has lost emotional attachment to just about everything and everyone except his son - and it's finally his son who wakes him up out of a nearly lifelong repression. When it's time for "Panic" to moves, it does - quickly.

"Panic" doesn't seem panicked at all. In fact, it moves very slowly. But it moves slowly not because it's poorly made - the slowness is deliberate, mirroring Alex's own psyche slowly coming out of the fog. By making a decision about Sara, the Campbell character, and by seeing his mark, his own psychiatrist, as a living, breathing human being, Alex starts to make the connections between what he does and who he is -and how they don't jive. And the difference between the two could lead to the loss of another psyche, Sammy's.

William Macy gives another brilliant performance, as a loving father, a distant husband, and a cold killer, the child of two monsters who never cared a damn for his feelings or desires, a man who realizes finally that he has to step up to the plate or have the cycle repeated.

This is not the kind of drama that plays well in a movie theater. It's too adult, too small, too subtle, too character-driven, and too good.

Sentiment: positive
OK, lets start with the best. the building. although hard to believe it had electricity and running water after 35 years and a fire, the gruesome walls and odd items found throughout were interesting. other than that, its not worth it.

as far as the bad, its done by WWE films. WTF? is that supposed to make you want to see it? if anything, stay away. horrible, horrible idea for them to make movies and allow Gregory Dark to direct it. bad choice. the previews beforehand were more interesting and entertaining.

i cant even begin to discuss how bad this film is. untalented actors & a disappointing, vague storyline. apparently many of the actors are from that show "all saints". its a wonder why i haven't ever heard of them or their show. other than that, the bus driver, which you never even see, just him closing the door, has had more action that just about everyone together. at least he handles stunts for some decent films.

i like to see scary movies, i really do. but this one blew so much, the entire audience was laughing at it and cheering the characters on halfway through. very annoying. the child behind me was yelping more during the previews of other horror films.

this is not a film to see, even less if you have to pay for it.

Sentiment: negative
Andaz Apna Apna is my favorite comedy movie of all time.Both Aamir and Salman khan have acted brilliantly while Aamir's acting was far better than salman.Aamir Khan is known as 'MR. PERFECTIONIST' in Bollywood and he proves it in every of his film.

The story moves around two young guys Amar (Aamir Khan) and Prem (Salman Khan) both are from poor families and are a big dreamer.They want to become rich without bearing any pain.so when they hear about Raveena Bajaj (Raveena Tandon) daughter of Mr.Bajaj(Paresh Rawal) who comes to India to find his bridegroom , they both fool their fathers to marry Raveena Bajaj and the journey begins.There is also a twist in the movie that makes movie even more funny.Paresh Rawal is in double role (Teja and Mr. Bajaj) and has acted brilliantly as he always does.Shakti kapoor (crime master Gogo) also adds a great comedy.

This movie is a rib tickling comedy from first minute till last and it is one of classic comedy movies of Bollywood.

Sentiment: positive