DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
****Probably will contain spoilers****

After a successful attempt to get attention (I would not call making sure that you get help before you die a "failed suicide attempt"), Joey finds out that she is pregnant and starts seeing images of spirits.

Overall the movie was a little slow going, but entertaining enough to watch the whole thing. For a horror movie, there were only a few minor creeps and thrills. Halfway through, however, was a really good scary scene (I wont give it away though) :) I watched this movie because I really liked the preceding movie, The Eye.

I was a little confused, however to determine that, other than being a "supernatural suspense" movie from the same creators, The Eye 2 had NO relation to The Eye, *whatsoever*; different cast, different story. The Eye2 does not even have anything to do with eyes :\

The movie had a few questionable scenes: Joey attempts suicide 3 times (4 times, if you count the time when witnesses say they saw Joey trying to jump in front of the train), she is associated with brutally defacing an attacker, she freaks out in a restaurant and witnesses say she was "attacking" people and yet she is allowed to go about her business freely, without even so much as a psyche evaluation or put in the hospital (for reasons other than her pregnancy).

The movie was not the greatest horror movie, the story was rather far-fetched (even for a fiction movie :P ), the spooks were either few and/or nothing we have not seen before. However, it was an "interesting" story and once you know what the "truth" is behind the spooks, it was an interesting twist on the "ghost" story.

I rate the movie 3 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
I hope whoever coached these losers on their accents was fired. The only high points are a few of the supporting characters, 3 of 5 of my favourites were killed off by the end of the season (and one of them was a cat, to put that into perspective).

The whole storyline is centered around sex, and nothing else. Sex with vampires, gay sex with gay vampires, gay sex with straight vampires, sex to score vampire blood, sex after drinking vampire blood, sex in front of vampires, vampire sex, non-vampire sex, sex because we're scared of vampires, sex because we're mad at vampires, sex because we just became a vampire, etc.

Nothing against sex, it would just be nice if it were a little more subtle with being peppered into the storyline. Perhaps HAVE a storyline and then shoehorn some sex into it. But they didn't even bother to do that... and Anna Paquin is a dizzy gap-tooth bitch. Either she sucks or her character sucks, I can't figure out which.

Another part of the storyline that I find highly implausible is why 150 year old vampire Bill who seems to have his things together would be interested in someone like Sookie. She's constantly flying off the handle at him for things he can't control. He leaves for two days and she already decides that he's "not coming back" and suddenly has feelings for dog-man? Give me a break. She's supposed to be a 25 year old woman, not a 14 year old girl. People close to her are dying all over, and she's got the brightest smile on her face because she just gave away her V-card to some dude because she can't read his mind? As the main character of the story, I would've hoped the show would do a little more to make her understandable and someone to invest your interest in, not someone you keep secretly hoping gets killed off or put into a coma. I can't find anything about her character that I like and even the fact that she can read minds is impressively uninspiring and not the least bit interesting.

I will not be wasting my time with watching Season 2 come June.

Sentiment: negative
Due to the invention of a "The Domestication Collar", flesh-eating zombies are brought under control, and become productive members of society; however, they perform menial tasks. The servile dead attend to those living in fenced US 1950s-styled small towns, while untamed zombies roam around in "The Wild Zone". In the town of "Willard", pre-teen K'Sun Ray (as Timmy Robinson) lives with parents Carrie-Anne Moss and Dylan Baker (as Helen and Bill Robinson). Alas, the Robinsons are the only family on their street who do not own a zombie; their new neighbors, the Bottoms, have six. So, to keep up, the Robinsons obtain zombie Billy Connolly (as Fido).

Unfortunately, Mr. Connolly's "Domestication Collar" is damaged by an old lady's walker, and he eats her; then, new and hungry zombies infest the town. Meanwhile, young Ray has grown attached to Connolly (the boy and his zombie are like TV's "Timmy and Lassie") and, the Robinson family find it difficult to cooperate with the controlling "Zomcom" authorities. 

"Fido" doesn't go far enough into its own intriguing "Wild Zone"; but, it is a colorful, stylish, and amusingly satirical addition to zombie film lore. Ray and the cast perform well, individually; with nubile zombie Sonja Bennett (as Tammy) and owner Tim Blake Nelson (as Theopolis) the most memorable pair. Director Andrew Currie and crew, including Rob Gray (design), Jan Kiesser (photography), Don MacDonald (music), and James Willcock (design), deservedly won awards.

******* Fido (2006) Andrew Currie ~ K'Sun Ray, Carrie-Anne Moss, Billy Connolly, Dylan Baker

Sentiment: positive
It's difficult to make it through this movie without choking on your own vomit, to be honest. The shoddy animation doesn't help, as it makes this look like a decades-old video you'd find in Morrisons's 99p bin. Still, it's better than the abysmal screenplay, which spends about a third of its length on superfluous extras like Belle's present day problems, stuff about Scrooge's dad, and plenty of charmless fannying around with - choke - TWO ANTHROPOMORPHIC MICE. These bizarre additions eat up screen time at the expense of elements you'd think would be quite important, like Dickens's dialogue and key chunks of his plot - the movie buggers up the game of twenty questions, for example, and at times fails to put scenes in the right order. Absolutely hopeless.

Sentiment: negative
Well, what's to say. THE GOLDEN CHILD falls in the category "so bad, it's good". Eddie Murphy is having some funny (and sometimes quite annoying lines), but you are still entertained. Chales Dance has never been worse than his role as the villain Sardo Numspa (what a f***ed up name is this??).

Who should watch THE GOLDEN CHILD... hm... difficult to say, but my best guess would be people who likes embarrassing movies and can be entertained by bad acting, bad plot and an even more embarrassing dialog.

4 out of 10

Sentiment: negative
Anurag Basu who co-directed the flop KUCCH TO HAI made his debut in this film 

The film was ahead of it's times in a way though it has a story not to different and it came closest to HAWAS which released 1 week before and luckily this was better and did a better business

The movie starts off well, Malika's guilt is well shown at the start though the scene with Emraan- Malika is too crude/vulgar

The scenes between Emraan and Malika are well handled and the twist in the tale where Ashmith confronts Emraan is brilliant

The pace moves fast and the viewer is kept on the edge but the second girlfriend track of Emraan isn't fully convincing

Also the cop track seems half baked

The finale is too filmy too

Direction by Anurag Basu is good Music is a winner, all songs were fab Camera-work was stunning

Emraan played his naughty streak very well, this was the role that gave him stardom and though he kept playing such roles and got annoying in this film he was superb Ashmith too was good in his role for once, He did a nice job and one of his only good performance and he looked good too Malika was brilliant in her role esp in the second half but her dial delivery was at times not up to the mark Sadly rarely she showed such potential in other films Raj Jhutsi is okay

Sentiment: negative
As a former Kalamazoo resident with a fondness for the town I was looking forward to seeing this movie. But, what a disappointment! Although the acting and the production values aren't bad, the script is awful, the plot is unrealistic, and the theme is disturbing.

The main message of this film is that Women are nothing without husbands and children. I can hardly believe how regressive it is in it's view of women. Has the writer been living under a rock? 

Although I enjoyed seeing my beloved city on the big screen, I wouldn't suggest this movie to anyone. It's terrible. It's an embarrassment to the city it's named after.

Sentiment: negative
Along with South Pacific, Guys and Dolls is for grown-ups - - it is sassy, sexy, and full of men being men and women being strung along.

There is an energy and drive that makes this stand out from the pack - the strength of Jean Simmond's performance, and the charm of a young Brando, and an already masterful Sinatra add much to the overall feel and look of the piece.

Guys and Dolls wins as it is unashamedly what it is: an MGM musical.

Still good to look at and listen too with great tunes and dance numbers - it will remain one of the classics of 20th Century cinema and be watched with pleasure for years to come.

Warmly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was fun! Especially if your between 8 and 15. Frankie Muniz and Amanda Bynes make a believable team of 8th graders getting back at an adult who really deserves it. Paul Giamatti makes a great adult who you really want to 'get'. My 13 year old daughter and her friend loved it. Parents: No really bad words or any sex to worry about. Recommend it for the 'right' crowd. AP

Sentiment: positive
The idea is a very smart title the film has a serious tongue in cheek feel to it. But it is so subtle you don't know how to read it! Are these guys doing a full blown comedy or is there something else going on. The little dialogue the film has isn't very delicate and this adds to the power of the film. If all the sound was switched off from the film it actually wouldn't take anything away from the film. The physical actions or the art of showing is so strong that it on its own carries the entirety of the story.

I is a blessing and with the blessing the emotion is followed by shame. I first say this film as part of a "black" film festival. After watching the film i was so impressed by the work. But then i asked myself what next? Where can someone else see this work? The common association of art without purpose isn't to be found here. You can see the intention in the design from the start to the finish. The usage of African music the style the casting everything seems planned and for a reason. The character development is amazing. The casting i think is the strongest aspect of the film; the characters are easily defined within 2 minutes of the 6 minutes of actual film.

We need to see more of these kinds of films, there really needs to be greater support for the development of short films across the board.

Sentiment: positive
If, like me, you like your films to be unique, and unlike the majority of other movies, then I wholly recommend that you check out The Beast. The film is a grotesque, erotic, fantasy fairytale that centres around a mythological 'Beast' that is rumoured to wander the grounds of a French mansion and lusts after women. The film is very daring with it's subject material, and that is something to give it credit for. The theme of bestiality is a definite taboo, and for good reason, I might add; but the film conveys it; straight and to the point. Like other films that handle a taboo subject at their centre, The Beast could have gone around it, and made us use our imagination to fill in the gaps, but Borowczyk didn't do that, and he is brave in that respect, especially as making a film like this will leave him open to all kinds of criticisms, but the fact that he went ahead with it, in my view, means a big thumbs up for the guy.

The film starts off with a sequence that sees a randy male horse mount a female. This opener puts an exclamation mark on the film and prepares the audience, in some ways, for the incredible, tour de force of eroticism that they are about to see. The scenes which see the beast mate with the woman are gratuitous and shocking, and are bound to offend many people (hence the reason it was banned for over 20 years), but these scenes are not merely an excuse for Borowczyk to shock the viewer; this film has a defining point. As said during the film; the only difference between man and beast is intelligence. Both man and beast have instincts, only man knows how to control them. The Beast explores this difference between man and beast through sexuality; the fantasy sequence in which the beast appears epitomises the control of human desire, and it is only when the central female character lets go of her control that she can see the beast. The film has strong themes of the age-old story of 'beauty and beast' weaved into it, and overall this is a shockingly morbid tale of lust, but not without a moral.

Many criticise the scenes around the film's shocking sex sequences for being boring, but these scenes are important to the film's story. Without these scenes, we wouldn't get to know the characters or the story of the beast, and, most importantly; the story of 'beauty and the beast' would not be able to have it's horrifying conclusion dealt to the audience, and as that is one of the key elements of the film; it would be a real shame. Besides that, Borowczyk keeps his audience entertained through these scenes, not with shocks, but with dialogue and the upper class persona of the family, along with the beautiful shots of the mansion's ground would not be seen, and therefore the stark contrast between that and the events later on in the film would not exist either.

Overall, The Beast is a shocking film. It's portrayal of a taboo subject and the shocking way it is portrayed will ensure that this film is not for everyone. However, if you can get over the film's shock, and embrace The Beast; what awaits is a skilful and beautiful piece of art that should not be missed by anyone that is willing to give this film a chance.

Sentiment: positive
I find this movie very enjoyable. The plot is simple and easily digestible, the humour is light and clean, and because the storyline involving mistaken identity is quite common, I find myself looking forward to how this movie flesh this story out. Turns out to be very nice. The performance of the female lead is admirable; her portrayal of an innocent, naive girl trying to fabricate some white lies to David's sophisticated role was very charming. I also find Vera's dancing very, very well done. I find myself drawn to her toes as she pranced about the stage effortlessly and flawlessly.

For those who have had enough of profanity-filled movies of today, you will enjoy this movie thoroughly.

Sentiment: positive
I kid you not. Yes, "Who's That Girl" has the distinction for being one in a string of Madonna's films that bombed, but I actually liked this movie more than "Desperately Seeking Susan". In "Susan", Madonna's character is relegated to being second-fiddle to Rosanna Arquette and is not given much to work with. No disrespect to Rosanna, but in WTG Madonna plays this zany, outrageous character, only done in an 80s style. While it may seem "cheesy" today, this is actually one of Madonna's best and one of her most underrated films.

Madonna plays Nikki Finn, an ex-con who is sent to the slammer for a crime she didn't commit. She's being released from jail after four years of good behavior. Griffin Dunne, who is also a very underrated actor, plays Louden Trott, a lawyer who has the unpleasant task of picking her up from jail to take her to the bus station. Of course, when these two get together, that's when the madness happens. Sir John Mills has a small role as the rich businessman who has a huge mansion in the middle of Manhattan with a rainforest(???) on his roof. 

This movie parodies everything. Rich people, the sleazy characters who live in Harlem and totally destroy Louden's Rolls-Royce, the gay cops who follow Madonna and Dunne around town, and Dunne's stuck-up fiance Wendy Worthington who has purportedly slept with every cab driver in New York City (played by Haviland Morris, who was Jake's girlfriend Caroline in Sixteen Candles). Hilarious! Plus, Dunne is also in charge of a rare breed of leopard reminiscent of "Bringing Up Baby". Plus, Madonna had a great platinum blonde 80s look back in those days and the movie has a great soundtrack. Throw this all into the mix and you have the zaniness of WTG.

Madonna is the queen of deadpan acting. There are times in the movie where she says a line totally straight and surprisingly, it turns out to be funny! That's how some of the best comedy should be played - straight. Madonna should have done more comedy and it was a shame that she did not choose to do so. Later on she became much more controversial and got into more of the dark, sexually-charged roles in the notorious movies "Body of Evidence" and "Dangerous Game". 

Some people say Madonna cannot act, and that is fine, people are entitled to their opinion, but I believe the real problem is that people cannot see the difference between Madonna playing a character on film, instead they still see only Madonna and that is main reason why she is given more respect for her music than for her movies. It's still a fun, screwball comedy of the 80s. Not for everyone, I'm sure some of you will dislike it, so I would recommend it mainly for Madonna fans, but you never know, you might be surprised and like it! 

Interesting note: One of Madonna's friends from her early-80s New York club days, Coati Mundi, who plays Raoul, was a member in the bands Kid Creole and The Coconuts and Savannah Band.

Sentiment: positive
They had me from the first show.

Welcome to Trinity County. A sleepy little Mayberry-like place with one slight difference. The sheriff is really Satan. There's the spoiler. Not like you wouldn't figure it out in 10 minutes anyway.

Oh, but that's not all. It turns out that Satan has a son named Caleb. Some people are trying to keep him good, but it's an uphill battle. Sheriff Buck (Satan) knows who Caleb is and likes to spend time with him teaching him the ways of darkness. Subtle. Sneaky. He doesn't always come off as evil. Most of the time he's a hero. Everyone owes him a big favor, because he often sets up a calamity and saves them from it. So every time you think someone will finally take him down, one of his friends comes out of nowhere to sabotage it.

In one of my favorite episodes, Lucas and Caleb were out in the woods in a cabin and some guys with guns decided to rob them. Lucas used it as an excuse to teach Caleb a lesson about evil.

The robber (Ted) was hesitant to shoot them. Lucas told Caleb that Ted had half a conscience. If he had no conscience, he would have shot them by now. If he had a real conscience, he never would have become a criminal. So he started calling him Half-Ted. It was pretty funny. He was taunting the criminals. And of course he stayed 10 steps ahead of Half-Ted at all times. And of course he was in complete control at all times. They actually had you favoring Satan.

Very very excellent show. it was one of my favorite horror shows of all time. Twilight Zone Night Stalker Circle of Fear American Gothic Supernatural

That's good company.

Sentiment: positive
First of all: I love good Splattermovies and am not afraid to get in touch with art, but this zero-budget-flick is none of it! The picture-quality is so damned low, the soundtrack the most annoying one I ever (!!!!)heard, and as for the FX... well the super-low quality makes some of them look not as bad as they would in a real movie (what this junk here isn't). No concept, a wafer-thin storyline, primitive acting and rare dialog - I think I counted about 10 sentences in the whole movie, each one repeated about 20 times... same for a lot of film-sequences (may be an indication for which kind of audience this crap was made!!!) The story seems to be that a young boy had to watch his father rape and kill his mother, got psychological damaged and as an adult goes touring, performing a show of self-mutilation. So far, so good... But for these pseudo-art-idiot-directors, this plot is just a line to put cheap produced shock scenes in a row which neither have a message nor make any sense (freshly taken-out bowels are thrown on a naked, bound woman in an earth-hole... why?? and why is that the only time you see both woman and thrower in the whole bloody "movie")??? Disturbing? Yes!! Sick? Yes!! Necessary? No! Artistically? NO!!!!! Everyone mistaking this cheap gore-show for art should as soon as possible visit his psychiatrist or should watch Pink Floyd's "The Wall" to see how a similar topic can be worked out in an artful way... I hope this was your first and last (!!!!!!!!) movie, Andrew Cobb... !!!! And all you gore-heads out there, remember: Not everything that looks cheap and makes obviously no sense at all is automatically "Art"...

Sentiment: negative
I love this movie ! I think I've seen it 5 times already (it was quite a success in France and they often play it on TV). Ok, it's a thriller and there is great tension. But mostly (and specifically in the second part) it is absolutely hilarious ! And very original. The directing and photography are just splendid.

Sentiment: positive
It's true that this is not realistic story, but romantic comedy is not a genre that I look to for realism. What counts is that the characters are likeable and, as needed, sexy. Shalom is beautiful and relaxed and Jake Weber is handsome in an offhand kind of way. They have enough chemistry to make the story believable in the area that counts, sexual attraction. I would love to see either of them in another movie. And yes, the clown is pretty cute too.

Sentiment: positive
Truly appalling waste of space. Me and my friend tried to watch this film to its conclusion but had to switch it off about 30 minutes from the end. And i can count the films I have switched off before the end on one hand.

The script and direction are leaden and deeply uninspiring. I wouldn't be surprised if they found the script in a pile of cast off scripts from 1983. For example the irritating scroat threatening the real estate guy from his house phone. I mean seriously. The police would be beating his door down in minutes. The scenes and events just wash by you like turds in a river. It is difficult to understand the actual thrust of the film. The narrative flicks between characters in a seemingly random manner breaking up the pathetic attempts at building the characters. Oh and what "characters" they are. The protagonist played by Rourke is dreadful. He could have just sent a cardboard cut out of himself and stayed in bed. After 60 or so minutes of the film I had built absolutely zero attachment to this character. He is neither sympathetic nor hateful. Just a disfigured dummy from a shop window blundering through every single scene. His motivation is impossible to discern from his generally mumbled and emotionless delivery. Is he happy? Is he sad? Angry? No idea. Just those same dead eyes staring out at you from a disfigured chunk of flesh. And the native American theme is just awful and pointless.

The good guys are at best unlikeable. A dull white collar stereotype and a simpering neurotic ex-wife stereotype. Cue archetypal wife with shotgun face off with bad guy, "you aren't going to shoot me" that is both tiresomely unoriginal and annoying.

The richie nix character seems interesting at first but soon descends into an irritating one sided psycho character. Which seems at odds with the seeming intention of making the bad guys in some way sympathetic or at least realistically motivated.

Roasario Dawsons character starts with some promise but soon descends into a sickening and childlike parody of the gangsters chick scenes from Jackie Brown. You really want me to believe her character was SO attracted to Rourke's? Or worse she is just a floozy who sleeps with anything that moves? Realistic female characters FTW! 

In summary a complete mess of a film. Hopeless characterisations and performances. A leaden and hackneyed script along with uninspired direction. And ultimately extremely dull. Its not even comedy bad either. Laughing at Rourkes haggard face gets pretty old after sitting through the first 15 turgid minutes of the film.

Sentiment: negative
I hate reading reviews that say something like, 'Don't waste your time, this film stinks on ice.' It does to that reviewer yet for me, it may have some sort of naïve charm. If you like the other 'Whistler' series films, this one will be watchable. If you like 40s noirish films, this one will be watchable.

This film is not as good, in my opinion, as any of the earlier series entries which starred Richard Dix as the protagonist. It's much slower, and the plot is trite. You've seen this same narrative device used in many other films, and usually better.

But the acting is good, and so is the lighting, and the dialog. It's just lacking in energy and you'll likely figure out exactly what's going on and how it's all going to come out in the end not more than a quarter of the way through.

The 'Whistler' series is semi-noir, and there character, mood, lighting, camera movement and angles are more important than the story itself. But this film is not noir. It's too light weight and Hollywood innocent for that. Neither Richard Dix's character nor those of any of his ladies in the previous films had to come to a good end. You just never knew until the end.

But still, I'll recommend this one for at least a single viewing. I've watched it at least twice myself, and got a reasonable amount of enjoyment out of it both times.

Sentiment: positive
I couldn't stand to watch very much of this crap. This is your standard junk that certain annoying women love- old English era drama with lots of costumes and cliché characters that seem to be plucked from either directly from oliver twist or some other dickens novel. This uses the usual clichés from the Victorian era. Certain idiotic people really think that the whole emotional torture of that culture being so bloody repressed is somehow fascinating and romantic. This is sap, pure and utter junk and boring as watching grass grow. As such it is perfect for women who crave some sort of English countryside snoozer romantic drama in a Victorian setting but for this man this movie is nothing but torture and cruel and unusual punishment to watch a bunch of drab boring scenes with unoriginal characters speaking in that wretched forced and fake English accent.

Sentiment: negative
I can't agree with any of the comments. First time I saw the film on a UK TV channel, it was presented as an indie film and if you take the film under this angle I think it's an all different matter. I couldn't believe what I was seeing and got hooked instantly. The plot may be as bad as a JS's show (ie there is no plot) but the acting is wicked, it's hilarious and it's all in all an incredible trash movie. 

It says as much about America than a Bully or a Ken Park without the drama perspective but it gives a glimpse on the US society, and more precisely on what afternoon TV viewers in America (and I believe there are plenty of them !) are interested in. After all it's the neighbours we're talking about, don't we ?

100% fun !

Sentiment: positive
Of all of the post-1985 Perry Mason movies I have seen, this one is my least favorite.

I confess I have never liked Diana Muldaur as an actress. She only seems to know how to play one type of character - a hard-bitten career woman with some undefined chip on her shoulder who for that reason is extremely difficult to in any way sympathize with. This one is no exception - it runs true to form.

The only thing that saves this movie, in my opinion, is an earnest performance by Scott Baio as the prosecutor - I actually found myself rooting for him to win, and the movie is worth seeing for him alone.

Sentiment: negative
Went to see this finnish film and I've got to say that it is one of the better films I've seen this year. The intrigue is made up of 5-6 different stories, all taking place the very same day in a small finnish town. The stories come together very nicely in the end, reminding, perhaps, a bit of the way Tarantino's movies are made. Most of the actors performed very well, which most certainly is needed in realistic dramas of this type. I especially enjoyed the acting by Sanna Hietala, the lead actress, and Juha Kukkonen. I noticed btw that IMDB has got the wrong information about Sanna. Her name, as you might have noticed in my review ;), is NOT Heikkilä, but Hietala.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film when it first came out and hated it. I just saw it again 27 years later. I actually liked some of it... although Robin Williams was totally wrong for the role... What I remember most about hating the film is that it was almost the complete opposite of what I had understood when I read the book. Since I haven't re-read it, I can only give you my impressions from the past - but I am sure of one thing - the film is a paean to family life, whereas in the book, almost ALL traditional institutions - including, and perhaps especially, marriage - are shown to be strait-jackets that we would be well rid of. The only positive in the book is the wondrous nature of children...something that only the very beginning and ending of the film really captures (with that incredibly gorgeous baby floating in the air. Too bad Williams doesn't have a tenth of his charm!) My low mark is therefore from the fact that the film misrepresents the book. As a film on its own it fares better - but only for a few key performances. Mary Beth Hurt is wonderful - I think anyone watching it would fall in love with her. And John Lithgow as an ex football player who has had a sex-change operation is fantastic... he never once camped it up or made the character anything but commendable - and as such his performance had an incredibly integrity. I watched him closely during all of his scenes, and never once was he anything except womanly. Nothing in his performance ever came near the performance of a drag queen... and that made all the difference. In fact, of all the people in the film, his is the only one which is irreproachable. It is worth seeing this film only for his performance.

Sentiment: negative
"Baby Face" is a precode melodrama starring a very young Barbara Stanwyck, an almost unrecognizable George Brent, and Theresa Harris. It's about a girl who goes to the city to make good...or should I say make time. Stanwyck's father has been pimping her for one reason or another her whole life in dingy, depressed, filthy Erie, Pennsylvania. After her father dies, one older father type who knows what she's been through and truly cares about her future advises her to go to the big city and take advantage of opportunities there - and not the easy ones - and to take the high road in life. (Note that I saw the censored version and not the uncut - this part of the film was redone for the censors.) She and Chico (Harris) go to New York where Lily (nickname: Baby Face) decides the low road's a lot smoother and will get her where she wants to go a lot faster. In the movie's most famous scene, the camera moves us up the corporate ladder by taking us from floor to floor as Lily sleeps her way to the top. She finally corrals the big man himself and is able to quit her day job. Trouble follows, and she's soon involved in a huge scandal.

Stanwyck wears lots of makeup and for most of the film is cool as a cucumber as she seduces one man after another with no regrets, and she's great at playing the innocent victim. In one scene, she sits staring at a king's ransom in jewels while wearing a black dress that looks like it's decorated with diamonds at the top. Then she asks Chico for another case, and that's filled with more jewelry, plus securities. All in a day's work.

Theresa Harris was an interesting talent - she could be played down or glamorous, and was a talented singer and dancer as well. Here, she sings or hums the movie's theme, "St. Louis Woman" throughout. She worked in literally dozens of movies and is very good here as a friend of Stanwyck's, her best work being in the precode era. As a bizarre byproduct of the code, blacks were often given less to do in films after it was put in place.

Precode films could be more sexually blatant and therefore, though they're 70+ years old, seem more modern. Even though these films didn't have to have moral endings, Baby Face learns her lessons - how like life it is after all. There were several endings of this film, all with the same message. The one I saw had an added scene, but apparently, there were two other endings that didn't pass the censors. (There wasn't a code but there were always censors.) At any rate, it's a neat surprise. "Baby Face" is an important film in movie history - a must see.

Sentiment: positive
This 1988 movie was shown recently on a cable channel. We wanted to see another film, which supposedly was starting, but because a mix up, Rent-a-Cop, was shown in that time slot. Never having seen it when it was commercially released, we took a chance at it. Bad decision.

One wonders what possessed the people behind the picture to go ahead with "Rent-a-Cop", or how they sold it to the studio behind the distribution. It appears this movie misfired big time. This film doesn't add anything new to its genre. It's totally predictable, as once the basic premise is shown, we know how it will end.

Burt Reynolds plays a wooden Church. This actor can do better, but who knows what was going on behind the scenes, or perhaps the direction given to him by Jerry London, had the opposite effect. Mr. Reynolds has one expression throughout the movie. He just doesn't register any emotion at all.

Lisa Minnelli, as the hooker who witnessed the original slaughter at the Chicago hotel, makes no sense at all. The romance between her Della and Church seems phony from the beginning. She and Mr. Reynolds play one dimensional characters.

Don't waste your time with this turkey.

Sentiment: negative
yeah..that's what the station disclaimer states after the commercials for this show "some scenes may be disturbing to some viewers" .

It is beyond disturbing. The validation of this whole display of ego framing and chauvinism is in the fact it is on the COMEDY channel. Yes..a comedy true and true. A JOKE. To see these 'playas' go through their rigid charade really spells out what is wrong with society. Especially the meat market bar scene. Both sides, the male and female, are equally as weak and desperate to be mingling among this superficial atmosphere. The club is obviously one of those Cigarette corporation sponsored plastic coke scenes. These people do have a choice, and that is what makes it even more of a joke. 

These slick ricks try too hard. They glisten with their own groove grease. That's OK. It's a lesson on video tape for the new generation of how NOT to focus on a potential heart interest. Hopefully that facade will crumble along with the Bush/Harper administrations. Problem is, who's lined up after these characters fade? The bastard children of the one night stands?

Sentiment: negative
No need to detail what others have written in other reviews - here goes the summary: 

* Much of the nested animation work is downright gorgeous - the colors are superb - would love to have it done in silk as a necktie

* The story and execution is a total snooze - it was quite difficult to stay awake at times

If you are a student of the fine arts, medieval calligraphy, early religion and so forth - have at it. This is a FILM for you.

If you want an engaging, entertaining MOVIE - look elsewhere - this is a failure as anything other than an artistic statement.

Vikings didn't have horns by the way...

Sentiment: negative
Right this may be the wine talking but this could be the best movie I've seen in a very long time. Granted I spent much of the first half an hour wondering what the hell was going on but once I had accepted that I would never understand everything from the subtitles I was able to enjoy the film.

Can you really hate a film where a staff turns into a flock of birds that defecate over the enemy? What does character development matter when faced with a lesbian alien princess whose people built the pyramids? Why does Buddha wear seriously blinging diamond earrings? Does any of this matter when faced with the sheer sumptuousness of the visuals and the sly humour of the characters. Any battle for my heart was won once I saw the main protagonist dressed as spider-man - awesome! Many people will complain about a lack of story cohesion but for a fun movie to laugh about with a bunch of mates you can't do better, especially if you do an alcoholic shot every time someone says "I will love you 10,000 years".

Sentiment: positive
Andrew Gurland's "Cheats" is his fictionalized "true story" about four high school friends who maneuver to cheat on tests. The quartet are: supercilious school-hating Trevor Fehrman (as Handsome Davis), his likewise good-looking pal Matthew Lawrence (as Victor), their chubby school-hating chum Elden Henson (as Sammy), and crooked geekster Martin Starr (as Applebee). The adults include high-strung North Point principal Mary Tyler Moore (as Mrs. Stark) and pornography-loving father Griffin Dunne (as Mr. Davis). The high jinks begin with Mr. Fehrman and Mr. Lawrence supposedly urinating on a teacher's grade book. Put this one at the bottom of the pile; and, be thankful it doesn't go on anyone's permanent record.

*** Cheats (2002) Andrew Gurland ~ Trevor Fehrman, Matthew Lawrence, Elden Henson

Sentiment: negative
'Take Fame' and 'You've Got Served' and roughly jam them together and what do you got? This God awful movie custom made for dull-normal adolescents. The plot very closely follows 'You've Got Served.' Three ghetto afro-teeners, this time living in John Water's Baltimorenot far from 'Peckers' homespend their time getting failing grades in high school and dancing in dilapidated 100-year-old buildings with hoochy-mamas. To finance their expensive baggy hip-hop clothing tastes, they steal cars and deliver them to the local chop shopnot unlike John (Tony Manaro) Travolta who worked in a Brooklyn paint store so he could purchase his polyester disco clothes.

Tyler Gage, one of the black three musketeers, gets caught trashing the local Fame High School and is forced to perform janitorial duties. He meets Nora Clark, a 26-year-old white high school student and discovers he's Irish-American, much to the chagrin of his black buddies Mac and Skinny.

As in 'You've Got Served' crime doesn't pay and Skinny, the youngest member of the trio gets shot by a Bad Bad Leroy Brown typebut that doesn't stop the musicand heart-stopping finale.

Sentiment: negative
Sometimes good things happen by accident.

I'd never heard of "Silverwing" until late 2005--I was flipping channels and happened to see something on Toon Disney with bats in a sawmill being attacked by owls. I had no idea what it was, but I was motivated to stay tuned--it was hard waiting for a commercial so I could find out what it was called!

Part of what intrigued me was the looks of the bats--first of all, they didn't use the popular convention of giving the bats "extra fingers" where their thumb claws are supposed to be. Rather, they have palms like human hands, but the fingers are longer and have webs of skin between them.

Also the faces--they look like human beings (in fact, at one point I wondered if they had once been human but were transformed INTO bats). Ordinarily I don't like this in cartoon animals, but it worked here--the story is a human story, even though it's about bats and other animals (not unlike The Lion King).

What I saw on TV were the last two parts of the "trilogy." I'd missed the very beginning of the first one, "Towers of Fire" (the second overall), but for the most part I saw all of each of them. However, I found myself wanting to understand what was going on, since the first part hadn't been on and I wouldn't have caught it anyway.

But I saw that it was based on a book by Kenneth Oppel. How fortunate that I paid attention and wrote it down--I was very disappointed when I learned that the series WASN'T AVAILABLE! It wasn't even that recently made that it made sense for it not to be available yet.

However, I did find not only the book Silverwing, but also the two sequels Sunwing and Firewing. When I read the first book, I was left wondering "Is that it?" Not only because a lot of what's in the series isn't in that book, but even had I not seen the animated version, the book Silverwing (otherwise a good story) doesn't end so much as it stops. Only one loose end is tied up--Shade and Marina meet the Silverwing colony at Hibernaculum.

In fact, Silverwing and Sunwing should have (in my opinion) been published in a single volume, because they make for a complete story together, but not separately.

Actually, the animated version takes some elements from Sunwing (e. g., Orestes, the lifting of the ban from seeing the sun) and some were completely original. It's not perfect, but it's definitely very enjoyable. I enjoy both versions of the Silverwing saga.

Which is why I'm glad it's finally going to be available in June. It was a long time coming, and it's well worth the wait.

Sentiment: positive
In a college dorm a guy is killed by somebody with a scythe. His girlfriend Beth (Dorie Barton) discovers him and tries to commit suicide. She's institutionalized. A year later she's out, has a new boyfriend named Hank (Joseph Lawrence) and is about to spend Spring Break with Hank and four other mindless friends in a BIG, beautiful condo in Florida. Naturally the killer pops up (for no reason) and starts killing again.

Lousy slasher thriller--a textbook example of how NOT to do a low-budget horror movie. For starters, large portions of this film are ENDLESS filler of these six idiots videotaping themselves, having "fun" (more fun than the audience), getting drunk, acting stupid etc etc. Also there is NO nudity in here at all. I'm not saying a horror film needs nudity but ANYTHING to liven this up would have helped. None of the deaths are really shown (you hear them), are only a little bloody and there is no gore. There's one REAL gruesome one--but that's not till the end.

With a few exceptions the acting sucks. Dorie Barton is dreadful as the main woman and Tom Jay Jones is lousy as Oz. Chad Allen pops up as Brad and he's TERRIBLE. Lawrence is actually very good--handsome and hunky and giving this crap his all. And Jeff Conaway pops up in a small role doing a pretty good job.

Logic lapses abound--after they realize a friend has been killed two of the girls casually talk about sex; Baston's non reaction to seeing a friend getting killed is kind of funny and WHAT happens to Lawrence? His character disappears without a trace at the end! Dull, stupid, no gore, no nudity--skip this one.

Sentiment: negative
A battleship is sinking... Its survivors, hanging onto a nearby liferaft, sit there doing nothing while we go into each of their minds for a series of long flashbacks.

Even though Noel Coward's name is the only one that you notice during the credits, everything that's cinematic in it is because of Lean. And on technical terms, its very good. David Lean just KNEW films from the get-go. There are many moments where Coward's studied dialogue takes a second seat and Lean's visual sense takes centre stage. Try the soldiers getting off the ship near the end, and that whole scene; the tracking shot towards the hymn singing, the scene where we're inside a house that gets bombed.

Noel Coward is one of the worst actors i've ever seen. He's totally wooden, not displaying emotion, character or humanity. You can see it in his eyes that he's not really listening to what the other performer is saying, he's just waiting for them to finish so he can rush out his own line.

7/10.

Its episodic, a bit repetitive, and the flashbacks overwhelm the story: there's no central story that they advance, just give general insights into the characters. Still, its an interesting film worth a watch - and a good debut for Lean. Its not a very deep or penetrating film, and its definitely a propaganda film, but its also a showcase for Lean's editing skills - its all about how the pieces are put together.

Sentiment: negative
There just isn't enough here. There a few funny spots, but not really enough. I was very disappointed because I love stupid movies. I was expecting this to be a hidden gem. IT WAS NOT. It was a hidden turd.

The whole time I was watching it I was thinking, "Geez, I could do better than that and I'm a moron". Don't believe the few good reviews. I was suckered in by them. At no point did I laugh at loud. Maybe this was funny or cutting edge in 1987 but man, it fell flat today. This movie had promise, it just didn't deliver on it. Maybe if they rewrote it a few more times. I cant fault the actors. They weren't the best, but they just didn't have much with which to work. This movie failed because of threadbare writing. SORELY disappointed.

Sentiment: negative
The first feature-length adventure of Jim Henson's beloved muppet characters is a very competent musical comedy vehicle as Kermit The Frog leaves his carefree, swampy surroundings for the bright lights (egged on by stranded Hollywood agent Dom DeLuise who overheard him singing); on the way, he meets Fozzie Bear (a pitiful stand-up comedian at James Coburn's El Sleazo Café who has Telly Savalas for a bouncer and Madeline Kahn a patron!), the piano-playing dog Rowlf, bestial drummer Animal and his laid-back, funky band, egomaniacal beauty queen Miss Piggy (in a ceremony presided over by Elliott Gould and Edgar Bergen), etc. All the while, Kermit et al are pursued by frogleg burger magnate Charles Durning and reluctant acolyte Austin Pendleton, sold cars, ice cream and balloons to by, respectively, Milton Berle, Bob Hope and Richard Pryor, served food by insolent waiter Steve Martin, nearly brainwashed by mad German scientist Mel Brooks and, finally, land an audition in the offices of movie mogul Orson Welles (who has Cloris Leachman for a secretary)! The pleasant song score comes courtesy of Paul Williams who also makes an appearance as the resident pianist at El Sleazo's. For the record, I have recently acquired four of the subsequent Muppet movies and should be watching them in the weeks to come when their turn falls due.

Sentiment: positive
I waited a while to post a review of this documentary because when I first saw it over 10 years ago, I wanted to think carefully about what I wanted to write. 

I found from a documentary standpoint that this is a darned good documentary. It did what it set out to do, show me something I had no idea about and kept me interested in this world it explored. I knew nothing of the Drag world and finding out about them and the "Balls" was just spectacular to me. These folks were just so talented with what they do and how they do it, for competition. The catty folks, the complainers (even I was angry when someone told the judge that the coat the Drag Queen was wearing wasn't a man's coat!), the jealous, it's all there like in every other competition. LIKE EVERY OTHER COMPETITION like it. Which I felt was a point.

You had the older drag queen talking about how the Balls "used" to be compared to the newer drag queens who have changed the Balls and made more competition categories -- and even those who looked on knowing that the future of Balls would change even more when they were ready to walk the runway. It was interesting to hear that some of the contestants were living out on the street two minutes before the ball but came to compete, it was that important to them! Then there was sad stories, stories of who's "house" and "house mother" brought out the best and the brightest in competition. It was interesting.

Now to add after 10 years of seeing this film, I lived through the so called 'Madonna' craze. I spotted a few familiar faces from this documentary who ended up with Madonna during her "Vogue" phase and rightfully so. If not for those individuals, Madonna wouldn't have HAD a "Vogue" phase, I know that now. Credit should be given where credit is DUE. Makes me wonder, if anyone else from mainstream America would watch this documentary, they'll learn they're not as "mainstream" as they think.

Sentiment: positive