DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
'The Curse of Frankenstein' sticks faithfully to Mary Shelley's story for one word of the title, which wouldn't be so bad if the changes were any good at all. The tragedy of the creature destroying Frankenstein's family has been completely excised and replaced with... nothing. The heart and moral centre of the story is gone. It doesn't help that this Frankenstein is a conniving, devious murderer; he deserves everything he gets. The plot is basically a shallow checklist of Frankenstein clichés. Even taken on its own terms, this is rubbish: a bland, rambling film featuring a shite-looking creature with a pudding bowl haircut. As it's the first of Hammer's horror films, directed by Terence Fisher and starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, its place in horror history is secure. But it's crap.

Sentiment: negative
This joins the endless line of corny, predictable 50's sci-fi shlock out there. As usual, it's pretty bad. There isn't much of a plot that I could detect and the over-exaggeration of the leads only adds to the unintentional laughs. The title is misleading also. Catching this on MST3K is probably the only way for it to be viewed, and it's better left that way.

Sentiment: negative
First at all: If you like watching movies I recommend you NOT to watch this one. Why? Afterwards you won't appreciate any other movie so easily anymore...

Actually I don't wanna give rise to any excessive expectations but it is almost frightening how perfect, intense and beautiful this work of Einar Gudmundsson is. When in most movies there is at least one aspect spoiling the whole thing, like good actors but horrible dialogs or a nice scenery but low budget cinematography  in Angels of the Universe" there is nothing of this ambivalence. Really everything is just great, even (and not least) the soundtrack with the magnificent Sigur Rós.

In this story about Pall, a student that goes schizophrenic after being dumped by his girlfriend, especially the dialogs (and monologues) deserve some attention: together with (and sometimes in sharp contrast to) the plot they range from depressing and fatalistic to the whole opposite of comical and totally absurd. What is more, they are often (with quotes from Hegel and Shakespeare) of such a poetic beauty that the movie almost drifts into a surreal sphere and is only saved to the real world by its incredibly authentic actors.

One of the other comments was already referring to another point: This movie is no trivial entertainment for relaxing in the evening. Despite of several comical reliefs in between it is largely disturbing, partly cynical and bitter, and most of all sad. It is a modern poetry about a life of insanity with all its emptiness, rage and solitude.

Finally: When you've seen the movie  watch it again. There are some great visual metaphors and allusions in it that you realize only when you look twice and connect them with the moral of the story". And of course: read the book, it contains a lot more of the small funny stories in between and also makes you understand some things in the movie a bit better.

Sentiment: positive
If you believe that any given war movie can make you really feel the war, you need to see "Letyat zhuravli" (called "The Cranes are Flying" in English). It tells the story of Veronika (Tatiana Samoylova) and Boris (Aleksey Batalov), who are in love on the verge of WWII. They are walking along the waterfront, watching the cranes fly by, when the war starts. Boris is promptly sent off to war. Veronika hides out with a family and ends up marrying the son, whom she does not love. Boris, meanwhile, continues trotting through the countryside, fighting the Nazis and experiencing all the horrors of war, until he he runs out of energy. When Veronika - working in a military hospital - receives this news, she refuses to accept it, until Boris' body arrives home on one of the trains. Simultaneously, the radio announces that Germany has surrendered and the Allied Powers have won the war; the Soviet Union lost 27 million citizens, but it's the start of a new era.

This movie did a very good job showing the human impact of the war not only in the battlefield, but also how it affected the civilian population. This is definitely a movie that everyone should see.

Sentiment: positive
Somehow, CHANGI lost out in the AFI Awards to MY BROTHER JACK. The latter, a high-quality adaptation of George Johnston's immortal novel, was outstanding - but, in my opinion, not as good as CHANGI. I have heard that many critics dismissed CHANGI as being irrelevant, unimportant, historically inaccurate or even disrespectful. Who and where are these critics? CHANGI is outstanding. More than that. Brilliant. It's not supposed to be a documentary - certainly I can forgive the actual Changi survivors (or indeed any survivors of a POW camp) for being disappointed with the production - but to the rest of us, CHANGI represents the remarkable power of mateship in times of extreme adversity. It contains a part of the Australian culture that appears to be diminishing as times become easier and less challenging, but which we should never forget: Australians were respected worldwide after Gallipoli and WW2 for their comradery and sense of humour. Rating: 96/100. See also: GALLIPOLI; PARADISE ROAD; THE LAST BULLET; THE SUGAR FACTORY.

Sentiment: positive
This film is terribly bad. Kevin Spacey is a really great actor, he shines in LA Confidential, American Beauty, Usual Suspects, 7 etc.. But this is truly rubbish, he came nowhere near a decent Irish accent, maybe he should have practiced it with Kate Hudson while she was doing About Adam. To Irish people this film is laughable and even worse, its quite irritating for several scenes. I think the producers made this film hoping the target audience (non-europe)would had never seen or heard of the 'General' or Martin Cahill and be enthralled in an intriguing and entertaining story. Total crud!!

Sentiment: negative
Of all the film noirs of the 1940s and 1950s, this has to rank as one of the strangest, and most fun to watch. I say that because of the four main actors: Orson Welles, Rita Hayworth, Everett Sloane and Glenn Anders. 

The first two names are familiar to everyone but it was the last two that made this movie so entertaining to me, especially Anders. His character, "George Grisby," is one of the strangest people I've ever seen on film. His voice, and some of the things he said, have to be heard to be believed. Slaone isn't far behind in the "strange" category. Hayworth is not as glamorous with short, blonde hair but still is Hayworth, which means a lot to ogle if you are a guy. Welles' is as fascinating as always. One tip: if you have the DVD, turn on the English subtitles. His character in this movie is an Irishman and you need the subtitles to understand everything he says. 

Welles also directed the film which means you have great camera angles and wonderful facial closeups. You also have a unique ending, visually, with a shootout in a house of mirrors. Great stuff! As bizarre as this film is, I still thought the buffoon-like carnival atmosphere at the trial near the end was too much and took away from the seriousness of the scene. Other than that, no complaints. 

This is great entertainment, which is the name of the game.

Sentiment: positive
When something can be anything you want it to be or mean, it's bound to register with someone as being rather special. But just as the shape of a cloud in the sky may appear to one of us or remind us of a battleship, and to another of his aunt's rear, and yet to another absolutely nothing other than a cloud, this does not make this cloud meaningful except for the viewers' interpretation. Anyone who might find throwing a stuffed giraffe out of a window brilliant, or worthwhile for that matter, without relating it in some context, is possibly merely trying to impress us with his or her intellectuality.

Submitting to this movie as the dreams of a madman does quite nicely, especially since there is no standard or expectation for what said dreams would be like, and even if we were mad ourselves, this would hardly give us sane reference points for comparison. A love affair with this movie entails the same risk as seriously interpreting Nostradamus. Whatever real meaning was being conveyed at the time might be buried in the private jokes, musings, or provincial minutiae of its day, and to a select few radical intellectuals at that! I did spot a bit of an agenda even with my limited capacity though.

The movie is definitely anti-Fascist and to some extent anti-Italian. I noted that although the years 1929-30 were years of great public works and urban renewal in Italy, any indication of this seemed avoided. Furthermore, (avant-guarde academic spinners take note of this for your next class) the very short cropped haired man with the mustache in the party segment near the end is a caricature of Victor Emmanuel III and his tall female companion none other than Queen Helen, formerly Princess of Montenegro. Without an understanding of potential historical relevance, even the apparent irrelevance is beyond the competence of academic or other intellectual poseurs who would bask in irrelevance to impress us.

I gladly add my own paint buckets to the defacement of this cinematic joke. But in an adaptation of the famous mot by the little boy; The movie really has no face (to deface). Paint would help it burn though.

Sentiment: negative
"MY WIFE AND KIDS," in my opinion, is an absolute ABC classic! I haven't seen every episode, but I still enjoyed it. There are many episodes that I enjoyed. One of them was where Junior (George O. Gore II) got his driver's license. If you want to know why, you'll have to have seen it for yourself. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, even though it can be seen in syndication now, I strongly recommend you catch it just in case it goes off the air for good.

Sentiment: positive
Prince stars as 'the Kid' in this semi-autobiographical film of a talented, but narcissistic young musician who has a less then stellar home life. True the acting leaves a tad to be desired (barring Morris Day and especially Clarence Williams who are both pitch perfect), but the movie is still great and among the best to come out of the 1980s. It has the best soundtrack of ANY movie of the last 50 years at least, highly quotable lines, and the dumpster scene is HILARIOUS!! Plus Apollonia is just simply STUNNING. On an unrelated not, when I saw Prince in concert in 2004 he blew down the stadium. He is an expert showman and it was one of the best concerts that I've experienced.

My Grade: A 

DVD Extras: Disc 1) Commentary with Director Albert Magnoli, Producer Robert Cavallo, & Director of Photography Donald Thorin; Theatrical Trailer; Trailers for "Under the Cherry Moon" and "Grafitti Bridge" Disc 2) A 12 minute featurette on the First Avenue Club; "Purple Rain: Bachstage Pass (a half hour featurette on the movie which i'll review later on it's page); "Riffs, Raffs, and Revolution: the Impact and Influence of Purple Rain" 10 minute featurette; 30 minutes of MTV's Premiere Footage (when MTV didn't suck donkey balls); 5 Prince music videos (Let's Go Crazy, Take Me With You, When Doves Cry, I Would Die 4 U/ Baby I'm a Star, and Purple Rain); 2 Videos by The Time (Jungle Love and The Bird); and a music video for "Sex Shooter" by Apollonia 6

Eye Candy: Apollonia shows her fine ass titties

Sentiment: positive
Time has not been kind to this film from the transition days of sound from silent. The plot has a gangster falling for a socialite who wants to help the down on his luck violinist she loves. There are of course complications. The problem with the film for me is that it hasn't aged well. Performances are all over the place with some emotional scenes seeming so over the top as to be laughable. One late exchange where Carol Lombard throws someone out of her room had me howling with its sing song delivery. There are other times when the film becomes static, a sign of the limitations of the microphones. Its not a bad film, its just that the technical limitations of the film get in the way of real enjoyment. Normally I'm forgiving, but this time out I just couldn't go with the flow (Then again the copy I saw was absolutely horrible). Worth a shot in a forgiving mood (and to be reminded that Robert Armstrong actually did more than play Carl Denham in King Kong)

Sentiment: negative
This movie was absolutely wonderful. The pre-partition time and culture has been recreated beautifully. Urmila has given yet another brilliant performance. What I truly admire about this movie is that it doesn't resort to Pakistan-bashing that is running rampant in movies like Gadar and LOC. With the partition as a backdrop, the movie does not divert to political issues or focus on violence or what is right and wrong. The movie always centers around the tragic story of Urmila's life. Her fragile relationship with Manoj Bajpai has been depicted excellently. The movie actually shows how the people, both Hindus and Muslims, have suffered from this partition. The theme that there is only one religion is truly prevalent in this film.

Sentiment: positive
I'm so glad he wasn't alive to see this. This movie is a debauchery of his work. I agree with the other commenter-- this movie was a terrible disappointment. I'd give it a zero, but am forced to give it a 1.

The story was weak, and it reminded me of the days when I was a young teenager trying to write a movie, then looking back on it and realizing how horrible it was. Bad actors, family and friends, and someone stupid enough to fund it was how it was made. It's really amazing how strings can be pulled to get anything done. If this movie was able to make it out to the general public it puts high hopes on other indie film makers who have talent worth a damn who're struggling! This movie made me laugh, but for all the wrong reasons. By all accounts this was seriously not meant to be a comedy. Scary movie is a better play on a horror genre-- this movie just sucks.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this at my in-laws' house one night when it popped up on TV and my mother-in-law said it was one of her favorite movies. Well, she can have it.

Look, I can enjoy a chick flick now and then, as long as it's good. But this one's extra-sappy, unrealistic, and just plain predictable, despite some decent performances from Rock Hudson and Jane Wyman. It's uncanny how quickly a woman can accept having her eyesight taken away from her. Oh well, they say love is blind...

The neat and tidy happy little ending nearly made me gag, too. And how often did we need Otto Kruger repeating the title? It happened not once, not twice, but THREE times!

Sentiment: negative
I went to see "Passion of Mind" because I usually get a kick out of the genre of alternate reality romances, i.e. "Sliding Doors," "Me, Myself, I," etc. 

But this was the worst one I've ever seen! I had to force myself to sit through it. I didn't even stay through the credits which is unheard of for me.

The magical realism was completely missing because Demi Moore was grim and the lovers she was two-timing were guys who usually play villains, though each was kind of sexy and appealing.

There was actually a psychological explanation provided for the dual lives, with a distasteful frisson of The Elektra Complex; maybe the magic shouldn't be explained for this genre to work.

(originally written 5/28/2000)

Sentiment: negative
I admit to being in awe of the Sea and have spent a number of years in the Navy, so I am somewhat biased on this one. I missed this documentary when it first came out but nagged various people to buy me it on DVD this Christmas (2002) and I got it! Some of the film is amazing and I have a lot of respect for those who make these kinds of documentaries, to see 200 ton Blue Whales 'cruising' through the Sea is an incredible sight, they looked like submarines. I like the level of information and facts conveyed through the narration, it is just right, I don't want to know a load of science just some of the basics, to see these things is enough for most people. The BBC has a knack of putting things at the right level for the intended audience.

A really great documentary, up there with 'The World at War for' me, the DVD is of excellent quality. If I had a minor criticism it would be some of the obviously added sound effects here and there, I think they detract from some of the scenes. But well done to the BBC and Discovery.

Sentiment: positive
Considering its pedigree, this should be a far more enjoyable film than it is. Even with a lip-smacking collection of eccentrics in the cast - what aficionado would not eagerly anticipate a movie which brings together Lemmon, Lanchester, Kovacs and Gingold? - the entire event is dully paced, drearily shot and, more often than not, witless.

Kim Novak's gifts were not essentially comic, as she went on to confirm in Kiss Me Stupid. James Stewart was a fine comedian, as he ably demonstrated in movies from ranging from The Philadelphia Story to Harvey. I think he comes out better from this mess than anyone else does. Except maybe the cat.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie a while ago and I was looking forward to it. My biggest problem was having seen the trailer I was expecting a very stylish marshal arts movie with plenty of action and maybe a bit of plot to think about along the way. I was sorely disappointed as it would seem that once you have seen the trailer there is nothing else worth watching (if what you are expecting is as described above). My girlfriend at the time gave up half way through and whilst I continued to watch in the hope that something interesting might happen... nothing did. I found no attachment or real interest in any of the characters. I would say just don't bother unless you have a few hours of your life that you don't really care about losing.

Sentiment: negative
Firstly, I'll admit I haven't seen Vampires: Los Muertos, but I've seen the original Vampires film and love it. I rented this film having heard nothing about it. I didn't expect to be impressed. I wasn't.

I love the idea of shifting the action to the far east, which should have opened up a lot of new avenues for the action sequences as well as the story line, but not enough was made of this. The fight scenes and the motorbike chases were painfully boring. 

There were some parts I liked, like the way the slayer team weren't shown as heroic good guys, as they were in the first movie.

I'd been hoping since I saw the old Hammer movie Legend Of The 7 Golden Vampires a few years ago that someone would one day make another good Asian-based vampire film. This was not it.

Sentiment: negative
The Drug Years actually suffers from one of those aspects to mini-series or other kinds of TV documentaries run over and over again for a couple of weeks on TV. It's actually not long enough, in a way. All of the major bases in the decades are covered, and they're all interesting to note as views into post-modern history and from different sides. But it almost doesn't cover enough, or at least what is covered at times is given a once over when it could deserve more time. For example, the information and detail in part three about the whole process and business unto itself of shipping mass amounts of drugs (partly the marijuana, later cocaine) is really well presented, but there are more details that are kept at behest of how much time there is to cover.

Overall though the documentary does shed enough light on how drugs, pop-culture, government intervention, the upper classes and lower classes and into suburbia, all felt the wave of various drugs over the years, and the interplay between all was very evident. Nobody in the film- except for the possibility of small hints with the pot)- goes to endorse drugs outright, but what is shown are those in archival clips about the honesty of what is at times fun, and then tragic, about taking certain drugs. The appearances of various staunch, ridiculously anti-drug officials does hammer some points down hard- with even in such an overview of the drug cultures and America's connection as a whole- as there is really only one major point that is made a couple of times by one of the interviewees. The only way to really approach the issue of drugs is not 'just say no', because as the war on drugs has shown it is not as effective as thought. It is really just to come clean on all sides about all the drugs and the people who may be hypocritical about them (as, for example, oxycontin continues on in the marketplace).

Is it with the great interest and depth of a Ken Burns documentary? No, but for some summertime TV viewing for the young (i.e. my age) who will view a lot of this as almost ancient history despite most of it being no more than a generation ago, as well as for the 'old' who can reflect some decades later about the great peaks, careless times, and then the disillusionment prodded more by the same media that years earlier propagated and advertised it. There are those who might find the documentary to be particularly biased, which is not totally untrue, but it does attempt to get enough different takes on the social, political, and entertainment conditions of drugs interweaving (for better or obvious worse) for enough of a fascinating view.

Sentiment: positive
This relatively obscure Hong Kong "minorpiece" is the perfect desert island movie for video age peeping toms (at least its first half is). Every set-up, every scene, every sequence is an excuse to look up a girl's skirt, stare down at her breasts, gaze at her bottom and leer at her tight crotch. What it's establishing is the lead character's perverted proclivities, of course(!)

Genre stalwart Anthony Wong is a marginally perverted married man who is plagued by erotic daydreams and outrageous fantasies. All involve scantily clad, sexy Chinese ladies with nothing but sexual servitude on their minds.

The plot is thickened by a homicidal subplot, voodoo doll skewering and a little rape and pillage.

Some of the sex scenes are fairly hot and the gore is liberal, but the supernatural elements introduced into the second half feel half-baked and the plot developments are ludicrous.

Clearly, producer of garish garbage Wong Jing was in a terrible hurry to get this into and out of theaters.

The arty title sequence did not fool this jaded punter.

Sentiment: negative
The Sarah Silverman program is ... better than those other shows. No laugh tracks, no painful jokes, just a program. The Sarah Silverman program. If you're like me, and you love comedy, this is probably a show for you.

Sarah Silverman brings out-there-funny, and right-here-funny to the table with ease. A mix of different styles, which makes for its own.

This program isn't something you want to start a compare war with, seeing as how it has absolutely nothing to do with them (other shows). This show is its own entity, and i think most comedy heads will like it just fine.

Go watch and see.

Sentiment: positive
What are Forest Whitaker and Clifton Collins Jr. doing in this? Light It Up is a ridiculously melodramatic piece on problems in low income area schools. While the topic is one that needs to be addressed, the film uses every cliche in the genre and comes off as a textbook popcorn flick. The characters are cutouts from the inner city version of The Breakfast Club or even The Faculty. Watch this with your children when they turn 13 or 14. With them, it could be an outlet for a lesson on current social problems. For anyone older, it will be nothing more than something to watch and spit on at 4 in the morning, as I did recently on Bravo. Matter of fact, what was this doing on Bravo?

Sentiment: negative
The short that starts this film is the true footage of a guy named Gary, apparently it was taken randomly in the parking lot of a television station where Gary works in the town of Beaver. Gary is a little "different"; he is an impersonator and drives an old Chevy named Farrah (after Fawcett). Lo and behold the filmmaker gets a letter from Gary some time later inviting him to return to Beaver to get some footage of the local talent contest he has put together, including Gary's staggering performace as Olivia Newton Dawn. Oh, my. The two shorts that follow are Gary's story, the same one you just witnessed only the first is portrayed by Sean Penn and the second by Crispin Glover titled "The Orkly Kid." If you are in the mood for making fun of someone this is definitely the film to watch. I was doubled over with laughter through most of it, especially Crispins performance which could definitely stand on it's own. When it was over, I had to rewind the film to once again watch the real Gary and all his shining idiocy. Although Olivia was the focus, I would have liked to have seen one of the "fictitious" shorts take a jab at Gary's Barry Manilow impersonation, whic h was equally ridiculous.

Sentiment: positive
What can I say, it's a damn good movie. See it if you still haven't. Great camera works and lighting techniques. Awesome, just awesome. Orson Welles is incredible 'The Lady From Shanghai' can certainly take the place of 'Citizen Kane'.

Sentiment: positive
Steve Carrel Proves himself to be a great leading man in this wonderful, original, raunchy breath of fresh air. I about wet myself at how geniusly hilarious it was.

Basically the movie's title says it all: Andy Stitzer is a 40 Year- Old Male who works at an electronics store. He is a bit of a nerd who loves videogames and Comics, and has the biggest collection. His Peers that work in the store with him find out that he's a Virgin during a rather sex dialogue filled poker game, and then Andy has to go through a rather funny as hell Odyessy of rude sexual awakenings, but always screwing up which leads to him not losing his virginity, but he eventually gets lucky in the very end.

Leave the little ones at home, But Take the entire family to see This awesome Romantic Adult Comedy. It will have you hooked and cracking up from the very beginning, and by the time it is over, you will be wishing you wore your extra thick absorbent undergarments. Only other thing I can say about it is Too bad Steve Carrel wasn't recognized as a leaving man 20 years ago. He is definitely gonna win best breakthrough male performance in next years MTV movie Awards. You can bet your hard earned dollar on that, people!

I Give this one a perfect 10!

Sentiment: positive
I started watching this movie expecting some barely tolerable Hammer horror film wannabe... and I wasn't far off. There's a fair amount of glimpsed gore, and they threw in lots of nudity, but the latter half of the movie presents a few ironic twists. Holy cow, they actually put a little thought into the story, and didn't completely fall into the predictable stuff one expected at the outset. And dare I say it, some of the "gratuitous" nudity wasn't so gratuitous after all, because it fit in with the story and setting.

Don't get me wrong, it's still overall a bad movie, but as bad movies go, it's a shade more intelligent than the REALLY horrible tripe like Mesa of Lost Women and Robot Monster.

Sentiment: negative
I have to admit that in spite of all media promotion and being nominee for Oscar, my expectation from the film was not so high before watching it. And I really found what I expected; a film trying to be likable for both for conservatives and liberals in Turkey, trying being authentic for foreign spectators and enough funny for all. But it should be understood that it is not possible to be favorable for everybody, therefore film stays as average for all.

Whole movie is telling a story occurred within 24 hours. To fit the short story in a full movie length, some scenes are added without a connection with the main story. These are mostly the ice-cream selling scenes to the eccentric local people (i.e. goat herdsman, old women etc.), and each of these selling scenes are tried to be interesting to the spectators by skits with comic dialogs. The subject is mentioned as a universal problem: Struggle of a local producer-tradesman against holding companies and monopoly, but this was the interesting subject of twenty years before. Most of the readers will remember the "Hero grocer against supermarket" from Ferhan Sensoy in 1980's. This was the correct story at correct time. Shortly the story is not strong enough and worth to be a movie as by now.

Except some gibbers due to local accent, the performance of cast is so successful. The leading role is played by Turan Ozdemir with excessive body language but anyway he is successful too.

On the other hand against limited budget, appreciable efforts of director and players are obviously giving a good mood to the film. But this is not resulting a film well enough either to compare with Italian neo-realists or worth to be Oscar nominee.

Note: In the real life, normally the Ice-cream seller would stop his own production and be the dealer of one of the competitors of Manda brand.

Sentiment: negative
I was 12 when this film was released and adored it. The song's were inspiring and it made me feel good, watching it several time's at the cinema. I actually had the soundtrack album and played the song's over and over.

26 years later...I'm ashamed. Just sat and watched it with my 2 daughters who enjoyed it lot's but my cynical older grown up eyes hated it. It's very poorly directed in many places and considering it was Lionel Jeffries directing I really wanted to enjoy it. The character animation was so rough yet the backgrounds were quite good. I remember the critics at the time saying that it was a poor film and was horrified but now I agree.

It is an old film yes, compared to what can be achieved now, maybe that's why I thought it was good then. But that does not excuse it for it's poor acting, directing and sloppiness. The main child actor's voice seem's dubbed which is very distracting too. Can't quite see what they were trying achieve when it was being made, all that it become was a weak film.

Sentiment: negative
I watched this film recently on DVD and I have to say I wasn't impressed. I know it's taboo to knock independent films, but this one felt devoid of entertainment.

The premise was interesting, but the execution of it fell short. I found myself thinking "okay, they're just getting into it, the story will pick up soon". Before I knew it, the film was over and the story never picked up. I can't say I found the acting all that impressive either. It was pretty bad. Not Star Wars prequel trilogy bad, but bad nonetheless.

I'm not sure what the running time was, I'll assume two hours (because it's a safe estimate). Anyway, when the film was finished, I felt as though I deserved some kind of recognition for the will power I exerted in not stopping the film and walking away halfway through.

Again, I was thoroughly unimpressed, and eventually bored out of my wits. I'm not one of those guys who requires fast-paced action and explosions in a film, so don't start in on me as that being a reason for not liking it.

Sentiment: negative
Pushing Daisies truly is a landmark in Television as an art form. Everything seems to pay homage to Amelie and Tim Burton, but so what, in a world where fresh ideas are distinctly rare, this show will guarantee that you do not care about whether its fresh or not. It is just Brilliant.

I have been captivated from the start, the intelligent writing, the Directing to the backdrops and dialogue make this show the most incredible masterpiece since The Shield and The Wire (ok not exactly good comparisons but the beauty of Pushing Daisies is that it has no comparisons on television).

Truly addictive and an absolute pleasure. Perhaps like one of the Piemakers pies that get mentioned in such tantalising ways.

Sentiment: positive
This is breezy highly entertaining drama with an excellent cast. Garfield is fine as a boxer hiding from the police with that motley crew the Dead End Kids. Most notable of these is the beautiful Billy Halop who has some very moving moments. Gloria Dickson, who in real life died very young in a house fire, is strong and very attractive as Halop's sister, and in the early scenes Ann Sheridan, on the brink of stardom, is a knock-out. May Robson is very funny as a crusty old granny, but Claude Rains proves here that even a great actor can flounder if mis-cast (whoever thought of casting him as a tough New York cop?).

Busby Berkeley proves here that he was a fine director with or without musical numbers. The film moves at a terrific pace and the water tower sequence is very suspenseful and well photographed. The ending is contrived, and the plot nothing startling or original, but I still found this a highly enjoyable experience.

Sentiment: positive
What happens to washed up rock-n-roll stars in the late 1990's? They launch a comeback / reunion tour. At least, that's what the members of Strange Fruit, a (fictional) 70's stadium rock group do.

Tony (Stephen Rea) has the concession on condom vending machines when he runs into the son of the promoter of a famous music festival. It was at that festival in the 70's that Strange Fruit broke up. The 70's are "retro" and the time is right to wide that wave. He sets off in search of the other members of the band.

Part of what broke up the band was the death and replacement of Keith, the lead singer and brilliant song writer. The band was known for its excessive lifestyle and now they are all back amongst the working class from which they came. Beano, the drummer, played by Timothy Spall (who was brilliant in Secrets and Lies) is a layabout, the bass player is a roofer, and their lead singer is still a rocker. While he owns a huge mansion he has been forced to sell it, as his fortune has not lasted. Brian, the lead guitarist, is dead, so a young guitarist is hired to replace him.

Somewhat reluctantly the band agree to give the reunion a try. Abandoning their day jobs, they begin to rehearse, and their manager approaches their label about reissuing their albums. But he wants them to start touring again first. And so they hit the club circuit around Europe. The club scene is not kind to these overweight, dated, old rockers.

It is on tour that the film really starts to develop. All of the old conflicts rearise, with the figures of Keith and Brian hovering throughout. They all hang together because they are all in search of a second chance for the greatness that eluded them earlier. And they rediscover some of the interpersonal chemistry that made playing together so enjoyable.

Still Crazy starts as Spinal Tap II but gradually becomes a more dramatically focused film, following the relationships of the band members. While it is still a very funny movie, it is the evolving characters, struggling to deal with the deaths of Brian and Keith and with their own personal demons, that make the film work.

Sentiment: positive
One of those, "Why was this made?" movies. The romance is very hard to swallow. It is one of those romances, that, suddenly, "click" - they are in love. The movie is filled with long pauses and uncomfortable moments - the drive-in restaurant being the most notable. Charles Grodin does a credible job but for most of the movie it's just him and Louise Lasser. Ask yourself, do you want to watch Grodin with his neurosis and Lasser with her neurosis together for a hour and half?

Sentiment: negative
POSSIBLE SPOILERS

No one is likely to pick up a DVD of Red Dust without knowing that it is about South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Hilary Swank stars as a South African exile who returns to her home town as a lawyer representing Alex Mpondo (Chiwetel Ejiofer), a member of the South African parliament who was tortured by a prison guard, Pete Muller (Ian Roberts), who is seeking to escape prison by testifying before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. They could certainly have found an actress who has or could imitate a South African accent; Ms. Swank makes no attempt whatsoever to cover her unmistakably American accent. Nevertheless she is the only well-known actor in the movie, and it would probably not have been made without her or someone equally well known. She does a passable job. However, Ejiofer and Muller (pronounced in the German way with an umlat over the "u") are outstanding as is Jamie Barlett as the chief of police, responsible for murdering Mpondo's comrade and fellow prisoner. The torture scenes are shown in brief flashes but they are vivid and believable. What is not believable is the Truth and Reconciliation process -- except that it actually happened. "Red Dust" should be seen for that reason alone because it was and is unbelievable that the ANC prisoners could actually forgive the torturers, and this is as close as we are likely to get to seeing the process in action.

Sentiment: positive
After reading the comment made about this movie, and currently watching it, I can understand how the person felt about it. The decisions made were after listening to common sense. When the movie came out, I had heard the information as to how it came about. The storyline was made from an actual event. During an award show, an actor, thanking the li'l people, attributed the award to a former school teacher, unexpectedly outing the person.

Of course, many people come 'out' of the closet most every day. Each outing is different for each person. In real life, the outcome of any individual is gonna be different as well. And a willingness to accept who they are is the most important thing in life to reach personal happiness. For those around them, the joy and honest acceptance can make life much more fuller. For the movie, the outcome of how Howard is out'ed is a lot more comical than real life. And the acceptance of the community showed the others that Howard was himself and nothing else.

Overall, the performances were crazy. The memorable quotes and use of music add to the stereo-types out there in the world, but taken with tongue and cheek humour. It's a movie. Sit down, watch with an open mind, and laugh your head off.

Sentiment: positive
British comedies tend to fall into one of two main types: the quiet, introspective, usually romantic study and the farcical social satire. Settings, characters, and concepts vary but certain characteristics place the vast majority of shows into one of the two categories. Butterflies is perhaps the epitomé of the first type. 

The scripts are very verbal, including long interior monologues by the main character Ria, a basically happy but unsettled housewife curious about what she might have missed out on when she embarked on a thoroughly conventional life. When she meets a successful but clumsy and emotionally accessible businessman (who makes his interest in her quite clear), she toys with the idea of finding out what the other path might have offered.

The acting and scripts are always on the money, which makes one's reaction to the show almost entirely a personal one: I was neither blown away by it nor turned off. My mother, on the other hand, adored this show. I think the degree to which one identifies with Ria's dilemma is the most important factor in determining one's reaction to Butterflies.

Sentiment: positive
okay, my question; who's the idiot that wrote this movie, giving it the same name as Dean Koontz's awesome book? its terrible, nothing like the book...you got the dog, and the watcher, but there the similarities end...might be good, if you haven't read the book, though...but it disappointed me, really.

they should make a new one, and let koontz write it... now that would be a good movie... I'll say it again, this movie disgusted me...absolutely disgusted me. it was terrible, it was absolutely nothing like the book. I would never again watch it.

Sentiment: negative
Robert Taylor definitely showed himself to be a fine dramatic actor in his role as a gun-slinging buffalo hunter in this 1956 western. It was one of the few times that Taylor would play a heavy in a film. Nonetheless, this picture was far from great as shortly after this, Taylor fled to television with the successful series The Detectives.

Stuart Granger hid his British accent and turned in a formidable performance as Taylor's partner. 

Taylor is a bigot here and his hatred for the Indians really shows.

Another very good performance here was by veteran actor Lloyd Nolan as an aged, drinking old-timer who joined in the hunt for buffalo as well. In his early scenes, Nolan was really doing an excellent take-off of Walter Huston in his Oscar-winning role in The Treasure of the Sierre Madre in 1948. Note the appearance of Russ Tamblyn in the film. The following year Tamblyn and Nolan would join in the phenomenal Peyton Place.

The writing in the film is stiff at best. By the film's end, it's the elements of nature that did Taylor in. How about the elements of the writing here?

Sentiment: negative
No doubt that the indie flick Eddie Monroe is one of the better independent films I've seen in a long time. The highlight for me was the performance of Paul Vario. I first saw Paul, or "Big Paulie" as he was called in Danny Provenzano's hit indie, "This Thing Of Ours". Thankfully, the "Eddie Monroe" filmmaker(s) did the same and utilized Paul's undeniable skills in a principle (principal?) role. Out came a performance (on camera and voice-over utilization as well) that shows worthy of big-budget studio roles in the very near future. It's refreshing to see a trained actor who is committed to the trade, prove the same to the audience. Keep up the good work Big Paulie and we'll be seeing you in Hollywood real soon! Not bad for a kid from Canarsie, huh?

Sentiment: positive
As I said, sometimes low budget is good. You get to see a good movie without a lot of the extra BS that can hide an otherwise piece of crap. Well...this was that piece of crap. If anything, I thought it had humor, unfortunately the humor was unintentional. The only half-witted acting came from Bill Smith and his part was cut out (that's a joke). There was never a Bill Smith, nor was there anyone cast who could act. Even Gerald Okamura sucked, and he's been cast in nearly 40 movies. The fight scenes were comical and made me feel like I could kick all their $%#@#$. The sound was horrible, as if all sound was recorded on the set. My 10 year old could have written a better script...BTW, my 10 year old fell asleep...no kidding. I give a B+ to editing for cutting the movie to only 90 minutes...60 minutes would have been an A+.

Sentiment: negative
Imaginary Heroes is clearly the best film of the year. It was a complete and utter joy to watch. I was riveted. The whole audience up at the Sunset Five was riveted, when the film ended no one moved, spoke, nothing. I think this film is a perfect example of the of the power that drama has. Especially in so much as it sets an example of the quality of drama/ work of this younger generation. 

There were moments in your film, many, like at least seven, where I was struck by such a great amount of beauty, emotional beauty, that I actually couldn't breathe for a while. And for a catharsis junkie like me, that's about the best censorial experience I could ask for. It is the result of powerful, masterful storytelling and direction. Like heavyweight stuff, like Burtolucci and those guys. 

Each element of the film fit tightly together. There were no missteps at all. The cast was amazing. I have been a huge fan of Emile's and Ryan's for a long time, and I thought they have never been better. I was/am/will be continuously stunned by this film. And I promise I will drag every person I know to see it. It should be seen. It should win awards.

Sentiment: positive
With awful movies like this one being even considered let alone being made, it's very easy to see why Hollywood is in such serious trouble with bad plots and worse remakes all the time.

I guess the viewer is supposed to be laughing their rear ends off over the 'black' in-jokes, the 'pimped up' look and the 'Bling'. It's so incredible 'over the top' and so bad that is even past the 'So bad it's funny again' mark and have plummeted right into 'totally embarrassing for anyone involved'.

I'm very, very sorry for every single minute I wasted on this one. I want my time back !

Save yourself the agony, do NOT watch this. The only reason for me to give even 1 point in the rating is that 0 wasn't an option.

Sentiment: negative
In the opinion of several of my friends and family members, including myself, this is the finest of the entire gamut of Tarzan movies. Johnny Weissmuller never played the part as well in the following issues in the series. It definitely rates a "10" in my collection of films.

Sentiment: positive
this film is basically a poor take on the old urban legend of the babysitter who gets crank calls telling her to check the children, she calls the police who trace the calls and find there coming from inside the house. when a killer calls has a story so simplistic a little kid could have written it. not much suspense, it becomes clear who the killer is halfway through the film. at the beginning, when the first victim is killed it looks like a bondage fetish scene from a porn site or something. whats up with that? the film is oh so typical slasher fare with a plot about as original as a Beatles concert. even by low budget slasher standards its cheesy. don't waste your time with this. nuff said

Sentiment: negative
I tuned into this movie not because I am a fan of U.S. High School basketball (in fact I only rarely watch NBA games) but rather because I am a fan of Gene Hackman, who usually manages to bring an impressive depth to his performances. In this case, however, I was sorely disappointed. This was not one of the bright shining stars of Hackman's career.

In fairness to him, he didn't have a lot to work with. As Norman Dale, the new coach of a small town high school basketball team in Indiana, he wasn't called on to do much acting. Basically his performance consisted of pacing up and down basketball sidelines ranting at the referees. I didn't find him particularly believable in the role to be honest. I also was unimpressed with the requisite romance between Dale and Myra Fleener (Barbara Hershey). Quite honestly there was absolutely no chemistry between Hackman and Hershey. The romance never captured my attention, and neither did the basketball "action," which was altogether too predictable.

There were far too many problems with this movie to make it worthwhile. I never did understand the depth of the sheer hatred that so many of the townsfolk had for Dale, almost from before the time he arrived. The character development was poor and the story itself was poorly developed. Too much basketball and not enough human interaction, in my opinion. How many shots of kids shooting baskets do we need to see to get the point that this is a basketball movie? There was no suspense: is it even possible to doubt that Hickory is going to win the big one? I realize that this is based on a true story, but I guess it proves that not every true story should be a movie. Quite frankly, it just wasn't a very interesting movie. Definitely a movie Gene Hackman would like to forget.

No better than a 2/10 in my opinion.

Sentiment: negative
I picked this film up at my local library. Having met the director at a film festival late last year, I was curious to "check out" his work. I was pleasantly surprised.

The film takes a fresh look at familiar subjects, love, infidelity, friendships, jealousy. It can be a bit 'talky' at times but never so much as to completely sink the film. I enjoyed watching a love story with characters that CLEARLY belong together and watching them make conscious decisions rather than haphazardly "falling" into something as important as love.

The contrast between this film and the average low-budget shoot-em' up black film is quite distinct. Check it out. If you're lucky, your copy will come with a copy of the soundtrack like mine did. Good stuff!

Sentiment: positive