DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I saw this movie the first time at about twelve o'clock on a Saturday evening. It really is the perfect time for this one. I have never, EVER seen a movie that was actually more predictable and drenched with stereotypes. If you want to see a thrilling action movie, don't watch it because you might lose the will to live halfway through. However, if you want a good laugh, please watch it! I even bought the Chuck Norris 3DVD collection thanks to my enjoyable Saturday night. What especially struck me is that évery scene that would be expensive to make was copy-pasted from a Discovery documentary or an old TV-special on the US Army. Furthermore I was amazed by the fact that they didn't put the slightest effort in making the production look real. Afghanistan is, as far as I can remember, nowhere near any sea and yet with a single click Deke escapes from the terrorists sand-castle with his jet-pack and is taken away by a submarine (probably Discovery). Later on in the movie, Deke throws an Islam terrorist against the wall. In the slow motion scene you can beautifully see the long hairs of the Korean stuntman flap in the air when smashed against the wall. Gotta love it. I recommend you watch it with some friends and a good amount of beer though, only then you'll understand why I've been mad enough to spend 6,99 euro's on the box.

Sentiment: negative
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW*** 

What a long and mostly uninteresting movie! Who were these characters? Why didn't I care about them? If I'm going to watch a movie for two hours, I'd like to care about somebody or something. 

We know that Salvatore dreamed of the riches to be found in the new world. Beyond that, though, we learned little about most of his family's hopes, fears, etc., as they embarked on an adventure into the unknown.

And why was Lucy even in this movie? She said little; we knew little about her or what she was doing (was she forced to service men in exchange for being allowed to board the ship?) or what her plans were upon reaching New York. To those who might suggest that she was needed to underscore the point that a single woman, however cultured, could not get into this country alone, I say that that fact is not enough justification to give her so much screen time. That point could have been made in five minutes, with Lucy as a momentary character.

More questions: Why wasn't the twin brother at the boat to meet the family? We heard about the brother, and some closure on that point would have been helpful in giving the movie some cohesiveness. Also, how long was the journey from Italy to New York? Given the conditions on the ship, it makes a difference to the viewer if the voyage took five or 10 or 50 days. (Someone said something about seeing land a "week" at one point, but I think that was when they were already en route.) I needed these types of details to better appreciate what they were going through.

The only scene I really liked was when the boat, filled with passengers, left the dock. 

If you choose to rent this movie, do so with remote in hand; you may want the Fast Forward button handy.

Finally, may I suggest that, with the right voice-over providing helpful information about the times and the circumstances for immigrants--particularly during the slow stretches of endless shots of the countryside, people walking, etc.--this movie might have made an interesting public TV documentary.

Sentiment: negative
I was 16 when I first saw the movie, and it has always been a HUGE favorite of mine. Of course, you can't deny the appeal of Kristofferson in the movie - HOW FINE IS THAT MAN???????????? Sheesh. He still is. He's the bad boy every woman secretly wants. His acting is flawless. He played a drunk/druggie only the way someone who really had gone through it could - and he had - in '76 he finally got on the wagon, so it was all very real.

The music is GREAT and even though in later years I thought Streisand was somewhat not the right person for him in a physical beauty sense, I think it's more a problem for male viewers than female. Us gals are just looking at Kris - and naturally the guys are looking at the female interest - my husband cannot watch the movie b/c of her - he doesn't like her looks. But I did make him sit through just the red Ferrari scene on the road towards the end just so he could see how well done it was - the camera work was so perfect and you were totally in the car with him with the music blasting - you should have seen it on my 50" plasma - WOW!!!! And lastly, the transfer quality was GREAT - anamorphic widescreen and really clear with great color and very low noise except for dark areas which is normal for all film.

Brought back some great memories of my mom and I loving this movie together, I bought a copy for her for Christmas. Would have loved to watch it together with her last night.

I have tried to sit through the original with Judy Garland, but I guess seeing this one first, I just can't get into the earlier era. Watching all the concert footage in the '76 version was so much like what I was living at the time.

I am working my way through the commentary by Streisand, but she seems to only talk about herself and the songs, so far she has barely even mentioned Kris or details about scenes in the movie. Her voice sounds EXACTLY the same now as then.

Check it out, if you grew up in the same era as me (born in 1960) you will love it.

Wendy

Sentiment: positive
I first saw Thief as a child which makes me almost as old as the Jinn I guess. As any kid would be, I was delighted with the imagination, inventiveness and energy of the film. Several years later, I realized how much of the satire and wit of the script I had missed on that first viewing. I have never passed up an opportunity to watch it throughout the intervening years. In addition to the script, the production transcends the fantasy genre. This is Korda, the storyteller at his very best. When you see Thief as a child you know that you`ve had a great time. When you see Thief as an adult you know that you`ve seen a masterpiece. It`s as timeless as the story it treats. An amazing work.

Thomas McCarthy

Sentiment: positive
I have to say that Grand Canyon is one of the most affecting films I've ever seen. I've watched it several times now and I still feel as I did the first time; that this film, by itself, could make up the entire curriculum of a post-graduate course in film direction. 

A long time ago film trailers used to promise, "It'll make you laugh, it'll make you cry." That's a very trite and shorthand method of describing what Grand Canyon does. It takes you to the best places in human experience and the next moment takes you to the gates of hell. 

Much of the film is paced to cycle back and forth between people being close to happiness and the same people being close to horror. It's always a short step, too. Just to manage that swing with grace and without making it look false or exaggerated is directorial genius.

Spoiler (of sorts) coming up. After getting the audience used to rocking back and forth through the emotional spectrum, the film throws a curve with a sequence that doesn't go from good to bad and back but instead escalates from an ordinary marital spat, through an accidental self-inflicted knife wound that may or may not require stitches, to an earthquake that has the characters run from the house. In the moment of their relief, argument forgotten, cut finger forgotten, the earthquake survived, a neighbor woman calls out that her elderly husband has collapsed. The couple rushes to his aid. I cried when I saw this sequence. I cried every time I saw it. I'm crying now. It isn't sadness that does this to me. It's not a particularly sad sequence. What tears me up is that this few minutes of film was PERFECT. That's PERFECT! Astounding. (end of spoiler)

There's so much to say about Grand Canyon. It portrays relatively ordinary people experiencing epiphanies and it lets the viewer experience them vicariously. They aren't showy or overblown and there's no long pause to examine the moment carefully. The film moves on at the pace of life. Even when the characters do try to make sense of what has happened, they are uncertain of what to derive from their experience. 

Grand Canyon is a very human film.

Sentiment: positive
I went into this movie expecting it to be really god-awful. And it was. I really felt sorry for the star-studded cast- Kathy Bates was a wonderful actress... before she made this movie- Vince Vaughn and Paul Giamatti were disappointing as usual but Miranda Richardson couldn't put in one of the fabulous performances I know and love her for. Fred's dad, played by Trevor Peacock (of Vicar of Dibley fame, amongst others), had about one line.

The plot was predictable and all over the place, and the humour was... lacking. (However, there was one part of the movie where Santa enters the house of a Jewish family... that made me laugh just because their expressions were classic) Don't see this movie unless your only other alternative is having a head-on collision with a train (actually- maybe the train would be better...)

Sentiment: negative
Rated TV-14 for Sexual Content and Language.

I remembered hearing about this show back in 1998 when it used to play on the channel Teletoon.I didn't watch it then but now, it plays on the channel, Razer.I have seen about four episodes of this show and I must say, it is fairly intelligent and funny.

The show stars Jason Alexander of Seinfeld fame and also Tim Curry of Rocky Horror Picture Show and It fame.The show is about a duck who is a police officer.He basically does his job as a policeman, while coping with personal problems.This show is fairly funny at times and fans of animated-comedy will like this.

Sentiment: positive
I watched this flick yesterday and I have to say it's the finest horror film made for $36,000 I've ever seen (Sorry Steckler) The film is definitely worth seeking out if you are a zombie fan. This movie reeks of soul and atmosphere. Some of the shots of the zombs are the best ever committed to film. VERY creepy looking dusty webbed corpses slowly shamble to their screaming victims. Brrrrrrr.

Hot saggy Canadian women with sexy accents will keep you preoccupied before the HORROR rears its undead corpse eating head. This film entertained from start to finish. I couldn't ask for more than that. My only complaint is that is was too short.

Sentiment: positive
I have been eagerly anticipating the opening of this film for several months. Being a huge Jim Carrey fan, I easily saw how he could morph himself into Seuss' Grinch and make the character his own. I was not disappointed. 

This movie was pure magic. Carrey is a master at his trade and no one could have played this role to perfection as he did. There was plenty to enjoy for both adults and children alike and this movie is sure to become a timeless classic for all to enjoy in the years to come. I already have visions of my young daughter sitting down year after year to watch this remake on video, and I undoubtedly will watch with her and laugh as I did the first time I saw it.

Clearly, this movie has Jim Carrey written all over it, and I do not believe that it would have come together without him. However, the supporting cast was charming and entertaining in their own right, most notably the adorable Taylor Momsen who was the perfect foil for Carrey's antics. The set design, musical score and costumes all lent their hands to a magical, fabulous finished product and I believe all involved can be proud. 

It is not an easy feat to turn a 22 minute cartoon classic into a full length live action film, but Howard has succeeded with flying colours. For those critics who disagree, perhaps it is your hearts that are 2 sizes too small.

Sentiment: positive
It's been quite some time since I've watched this LOTR. I am currently hunting for a copy to purchase. Bakshi's work is quite true to the original work. The visuals are engrosing and sometimes haunting.

Drawbacks? Occasionally, the movie is confusing or muddled. There are one or two times where the storyline slows to a crawl. But, overall -- buy this movie. It's great for kids, adults and collectors.

Sentiment: positive
Exciting, action-packed, and interesting film telling the tale of a group of men stationed at a naval base in Italy and their adventures aboard a Navy submarine during WWI. Tommy and Brick (played by Robert Montgomery and Robert Young) are two pals, and make for a couple of very handsome officers, I must say. A new Captain arrives on-board, already known by a few as "Dead Pan" Toler (Walter Huston) and he's a real stickler for following the rule book and a "code of honor". Soon Tommy and Brick are chasing after an attractive blonde at an officer's dance, Tommy insults the Captain - and, of course, the blonde is actually the Captain's daughter. But Tommy wins out anyway as he and the daughter sneak away from the dance to a street carnival outside, and soon bond during an air raid - unfortunately for him, she reveals she is married. Later Tommy gets himself into some real trouble when he disobeys orders in an effort save his buddy.

This film is quite entertaining with an absorbing plot line that held my interest and top-notch performances by all. A climactic death scene featuring Sterling Holloway is haunting indeed - the most memorable scene in this film, I thought. Eugene Palette and Jimmy Durante add some humor here playing a couple of goofballs - Durante's character is actually studying to be a dentist via mail-order and continually has onshore run-ins with a British man who makes fun of his nose. Okay - if you're looking for a movie showing a man boxing a kangaroo, this would be the one.

Sentiment: positive
"Lion King 1 1/2" is the funniest non-theatrical release from Disney. I recently saw this movie again after not seeing it in many years. I remember first time I saw it I didn't had any expectations at all and were pleasantly surprised by this watchable and highly entertaining movie.

Is it better than "Simba's Pride"? In many ways, yes. Though "Simba's Pride" wasn't exactly bad, it did suffer some problems: lack of an good script and bad characterizations, which made impact of what otherwise a okay film.

Anyway: It's nice to see Timon and Pumbaa's personalities blossom again in the way that we (or certainly me) loved about them in this film; in "Simba's Pride" they were completely annoying and I didn't liked the "Timon and Pumbaa" series neither.

This film could easily have been a stupid one, but fortunately the filmmakers didn't took the wrong turn and instead focused to make this film at times extremely hilarious. There are a few jokes that adults can enjoy on their own. The score is quite good. There are two new songs, which are catchy and two new characters, Timon's mom, (voiced by recognizable Marge Simpsons' Julie Kavner) and Uncle Max, which are enjoyable. The friendship between Timon and Pumbaa are touchingly portrayed. The emotional scenes are well integrated in the comical story and doesn't feel out of place, which it could have easily done (especially in comedies).

But is there something that distracts this picture from getting 10 votes from me? Yes, there is. Although they fortunately doesn't impact too much, but I'll mention them: 1. Many of the scenes from the first film are used in this one. Personally, it was weird to see the old scenes integrated with the new ones.

2. During the climax, some of the jokes becomes lame.

3. Storywise, this is Timon's story and although the filmmakers try to integrate his tale with Simba's, it makes the screenplay feel a little rushed at times.

But hey, those details doesn't impact this otherwise amusing movie. It is the only really acceptable Disney sequel, which should be in every movie collection.

Sentiment: positive
I wanted to like Magnolia. The plot reminded me of Grand Canyon (which I liked). 4 different lives/stories that come together at the end but Magnolia took a wrong turn halfway through the movie and I was lost. I almost turned it off right then and there but I felt I should hang in there until the end, little did I know it would be another torturous 1 1/2 hours. Thank god I rented instead of seeing it in the theatre. I almost screamed out in frustration after 2 hours. The biggest kick in the pants was the ending frog scene. My DVD player still hasn't forgiven me and I don't blame it one bit. It was a unique movie, but a bad, boring, and pointless movie.

Sentiment: negative
Director and auteur Jean-Pierre Rappenau was 8 years old during the spring of 1940 as France's Third Republic disintegrated in a matter of a few weeks. It was a time, he says, when "all the adults were a little bit insane." He and the production staff have lovingly and meticulously recreated that world in a film where all the characters are essentially fictional. The structure, a classic farce, is ideal for the period as multiple plot lines zip and intersect only to come together in a logical, satisfying conclusion. The peg for this plot is Frederic, played by brilliant newcomer Gregory Derangere, who is fully up to playing opposite Adjani, Depardieu and Ledoyen. The real strength of the film is in its supporting performances. M. Rappeneau has cast the film exquisitely with actors who volunteered ideas for both action and dialogue and who know and prove that it is possible to fully realize a character with just two short sentences of dialogue. Though not yet as widely influential as Renoir's 'Rules of the Game,' 'Bon Voyage' richly deserves to be a companion piece to that classic. Though it demands a lot of the audience, it gives much back. One of its demands is tolerance for a certain coyness and misdirection as to the exact genre we are watching: a crime melodrama, no, a spy thriller, ah, a romantic comedy. Recommend it to cinemaphile friends. Just be sure to let them discover for themselves that it is a romantic comedy.

Sentiment: positive
Seriously, the fact that this show is so popular just boggles the mind. This show isn't funny, it isn't clever, it isn't original, it's just a steaming pile of bull crap. Let me start with the characters. The characters are all one-dimensional morons with loud, exaggerated voices that just sound like fingernails on a blackboard. The voice acting could've been better. Then there's the animation. MY GOD, it hurts my eyes just looking at it. Everything is too flat, too pointy, too bright, and too candy coated. Then there's the humor, or lack thereof. It's completely idiotic! They just take these B-grade jokes that aren't even that funny in the first place and then repeat them to death. They also throw in some pointless potty humor which sickens me. And finally, last and least, the music. It's just plain annoying. It sounds like it was composed on a child's computer and generates no emotion whatsoever. I wish there was a score lower than 1, I really do. This show seriously needs to be canceled. It's a show I try to avoid like the plague. Whenever I hear the theme song I immediately turn the TV off. If you've never watched this show then don't. Watch quality programming like The Simpsons or Futurama.

Sentiment: negative
Just saw it....the story, the plot, the script makes absolute no sense!! Its Samvise the brave part 2(without the RING), its characters showing up out of the blue(for no reason),its Hercules hated by everyone(no one knows why), its Leelee Sobiesky showing her true talents(two of them), its crappy special effects, its a few good actors wasting their talents(did I mention Leelee's two talents??)... do I have to say more??? ITS JUST AWFUL, even for NBC-TV standards!!! Its just the lowest....what a waste! by the way: how can you people give this mini-series so many stars????? Its beyond me!.... Shame on you! Have to make 10 lines, so this is my final word: AVOID, AVOID, if u are considering buying it!

Sentiment: negative
The 12th animated Disney classic is a reasonable movie told through a simple story. Even though a little dated, it deserves a place in the list of Disney classics.

It's not among Disney's top works, but is satisfying. One of Disney's most "simple" works, yes, but keeps a certain magic and enchantment (which old Disney is well known for). This was an important movie because it saved Disney from a delicate situation. If this was a failure, there wouldn't be any more Disney animated classics.

"Cinderella" is somehow like a return to Disney's 1st animated classic ("Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs") because it brings back the fairy tale genre. It's not clear where the story takes place, but I suppose it's somewhere in France because this is based in a tale by Charles Perrault.

There are plenty of likable characters, such as Cinderella, the Prince, Bruno (the dog), Jaques and Gus (the two main mice), the Fairy Godmother (for a fairy she sure is funny), the birds, the King and the Grand Duke.

Jaques is very smart and amusing. I love his voice. Really has that mouse-like quality. Gus might not be that smart, but he's humorous.

The King is hilarious, but I think that what makes him so funny is his short temper. The Grand Duke is a very cool chap and funny too. They're two of my favorite characters in this film and responsible for many of the most amusing moments.

The Prince is certainly one of the most charming in Disney. No doubt that Prince Philip from "Sleeping Beauty" was inspired on this prince, because they are very similar-looking.

On the other hand, Lady Tremaine (the stepmother) isn't supposed to be likable because she's cold, jealous, bitter and cruel. Her daughters (Anastacia and Drizella) aren't much better than her. However, the stepmother isn't as annoying as her ugly and selfish daughters. Cinderella, the main character, has nothing to do with them. Cinderella is gentle, kind, pretty and lovable. By the way, I think her beautiful pink dress is much nicer than the one given by the Fairy Godmother.

Lucifer (the cat) is hilariously malicious. The way he walks, sticking up his nose in the air and those arrogant and snobbish facial expressions make him funny. Ironically he's very much like the stepmother when it comes to personality. He always agrees with the stepmother's attitudes towards Cinderella. Lucifer has the right name for him because he's such a devilish and mean cat. Yet, there's nothing annoying about him.

The soundtrack is simple but pleasant, although not among Disney's best. The best song in this movie is "Bibiddi Bobiddi Boo".

There are plenty of well known talented voice actors in this, such as James MacDonald, Marion Darlington, Eleanor Audley, Verna Felton and Luis Van Rooten.

Despite being simple-looking, the movie has good artwork, as well as its nice details, although never something "out-of-this-world". However, the King's palace is a spectacular masterpiece, being truly majestic and colossal.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of my favorite films of all time. Al Pacino acting is at its best and the story is excellent. Too bad it didn't do to well in the 80's when it was first released because people didn't get a chance to experience this classic.

Sentiment: positive
My first Mamin film, saw it on IFC long ago, and LOVED it. It seemed absolutely artistic, original, fun and hilarious. Not a moment in the film let me down or made me bored, and i was laughing a lot or had a smile on my face. I mean this movie is truly funny. But here's the catch: it's also very artistic and creative - if you don't know Yuri Mamin (probably, sadly, because so many of his GREAT films aren't available here) he has a very original style like no one else's, and for me this isn't even my favorite film of his (right now it's the insane ("Saideburns/Bakenbardy"). Also, i have to say as a Russian, this film is great because you really do see what Russians are like. And this is possible because this is a true Russian film to me, NOT a foreign film trying to be American or trying to appeal; Mamin did not sell out (nor has he since, Gorko (1998) was as good if not better. This is true Russian style filmaking that came out of communist Social realism.

If you liked this film, i think you have a very high chance of loving Mamin's other films, in fact i like quite a few of them more than this one. I guess this one is his most accessible film. A similar film is Fountain, taking place 6 years before during perestroika, it has the same actor in the leading role, and more of Mamin's regulars who you will recognize from Window to Paris; this one has one supernatural twist in the end but is mostly a realistic comedy, a great one. Viva Mamin, hopefully Criterion will hook all of his movies up one day, he's still working, and his catalog is so great! See any of his films if you can.

Sentiment: positive
I thought this movie was great, not only because of it's storyline but because it was portrayed greatly by the excellent cast. I read that Drew Barrymore wasn't exceptional as Josie Geller because she is beautiful. Yes she maybe but in the movie she played outside herself, which brought on a plain girl searching for who she is in the world. The story is sweet and definitely for the hopeless romantics out there, I for sure am. David Arquette is mad as her brother Rob, and Michael Vartan is gorgeous as Sam Coulson. Leelee Sobieski did an excellent job as her mate Aldys, someone who wasn't afraid to be herself. I think this movie should get more credit rather than being branded as a "teeny boppy" flick

Sentiment: positive
This is my favorite movie that portrays African Americans in whole different light. because it shows a different side of African Americans that it is not shown in the movies. its not the gang bang, urban ghetto setting or having to deal with deep racial issues, it captivates the whole essence of being young and trying to be successful and having problems with letting your guard down and letting someone into your life, and the whole bohemian atmosphere gives that great touch that makes all that great, its a great script great dialoge that captivates you and you just get involved with the character. perfect casting with a lot of chemistry and very good acting and i still haven't seen any other movie with black characters that are portrayed in this format the only one that get close is "Sprung" but since its a comedy it looses it very quickly I give this movie 9 out of 10 and i wish they would keep making movies with this type of attitude about African Americans

Sentiment: positive
Shiri Appleby is the cutest little embodiment of evil turned good girl demon-kicking Buffy clone, Elle. But I'm getting ahead of myself, you see Lilith was the first woman made by god as a companion to Adam. But she got all uppity evil feminist so god banished her from Eden. A clandestine order known as The Fath captures her but doesn't kill her, so now with amnesia (which is not really explained that well) Lilith (now Elle) is free to become the aforementioned Buffy-clone who has to battle with a mad scientist who got an injection of Lilith's blood. 

If the previous paragraph sounded hideously convoluted, that's because it is. The movie is also dull, generic, and for a film with a plot steeped in theology it doesn't seem to know a lick about it. This bargain basement lousy-CGIed movie was apparently a failed series pilot. All I can say to the fact that it didn't get picked up is a resounding Amen.

My Grade: D-

DVD Extras: Commentary by Writer/Director Bill Platt and Co-writer Chris Regina; and Stills gallery; video effects samples: before & after (it also has an "also available" selection that you would THINK would lead you to some trailers, but nope on DVD covers for other films, which is a stupid idea)

DVD-ROM extras: Final shooting script and Deleted scenes transcript both in PDF format

Sentiment: negative
The acting made you feel like you were watching a kindergarten play. The story is full of holes and gaps and skips around so you have no idea as to what just happened. Half the scenes are pointless. There is not an inkling of character development. The score/soundtrack consists of about three songs one in particular is played in about 70% of the scenes. I'm glad I only rented the movie yet I still feel cheated. Avoid this movie at all costs unless you want to see some decent actors give horrible performances. It seems like the bulk of the budget was spent on putting a few name brand actors in this less than bad film. This movie is equivalent to visiting a strip club, it tries to get you excited and interested but just as you think something is going to happen your thrown into some unrelated scene and left trying to figure out how you arrived there.

Sentiment: negative
This movie starts with interesting set design and a promising premise, but fails to provide the cult-movie goods. Set in a gritty parallel universe where everything is owned by the "Blump" Corporation, it concerns a horrible stand-up comic who finds success when he grows a third arm out of his back.

All the potential for great cheese is here -- washed-up 80's star Judd Nelson, Wayne Newton, offbeat visuals and strange plot digressions, obese women in skimpy lingerie, necrophilia -- but it never pays off.

The pacing is the main problem. Each scene is excrutiatingly slow. Nelson's stand-up routines are supposed to be funny because they're pathetically not funny. But each performance drags on until it's not even tangentially funny, just boring.

Imagine someone telling you the longest, weirdest joke imaginable, full of smirky self-congratulation for how funny and weird he thinks it is. Imagine after a stultifying two hours of this, you never got a punch line. You've just saved yourself the trouble of watching The Dark Backward.

Sentiment: negative
I went into this film expecting it to be similar to The Matrix or Pi. Boy, was I wrong. Yes, there is a poorly written, poorly acted plot in the movie (with CG animated cells and peptides to boot). However, the real focus of the film are the "expert" talking heads spewing out new age feel-good hogwash in between plot segments.

Sure, it stars off innocently enough. There is a little bit of real quantum physics in the beginning. It states, for example, that electrons exist as both particle and wave, and that an atom is mostly empty space. However, the movie takes a giant (and unscientific) leap, saying that sub-atomic quantum effects happen on large scales as well. The talking heads take it even further. According to them, the following are true:

-When Columbus arrived in the Caribbean, the natives were unable to see his ships because their minds were incapable of perceiving something so different. -Meditation can reduce the murder rate. -With positive thought, you can walk on water. -Your thoughts can change the formations of ice crystals in bottles of water.

And hey, that's only in the first 40 minutes!

Watching the movie was torture. This film felt like a movie they would show you to get you to join a cult. After doing my homework, I realized that it basically is just that.

On the other hand, this could be seen as a campy comedy (albeit one that's not funny).

Save your time and money: don't see this movie.

Sentiment: negative
It's one of the funny things about being young that one can be fooled easily by advertising. I have spoken before on another film,in which the commercial for the (comedy) film makes it seem funnier than it is. Seeing the ad for this in 1981 made me think this was going to be a wildly funny film. What I and my brother who went and saw it with me didn't know is that the scene used in the TV ad was the very last scene in the film! 

Since this scene is the end result of all that came before in the film,I can only guess that there was nothing else funny to use! The last scene is,thanks to a youth potion,Dr. Fu Manchu turns from a long bearded old man,into a bright young Asian/Elvis like rock star! (With back up singers no less!) 

Set for no real reason,in the 1930's,Peter Sellers does his best with the material at hand but he's not given any really good reason for his "comedic" moments. The rest of the actors were just plain dull and my brother and I sat all through this barely laughing at anything. It was only natural that we were expecting a "Pink Panther" type comedy,Peter Sellers was so great at that. 

It's a pitiful shame this was his last film before he died. His appearance on the Muppet Show was more entertaining than this ill-conceived flop. Still,I don't fault him. I fault everyone else involved for not trying to make a better film of this. 2 stars is being generous!!

Sentiment: negative
Brilliant thriller, deserving far more fame, Mitchum and Ryan are awesome in their starring roles, as is the entire supporting cast. A truly gripping film noir featuring some wonderfully images and some great dialogue, at the heart of it all is a strong message of tolerance and understanding. Based on a novel concerning homophobia, this movie attacks post-war anti-emitism, and all intolerance and hatred, with considerable power. Though parts may seem a little preachy to modern audiences, it still has the power to shock, and works very well as a thriller in its own right. A credit to all involved.

Sentiment: positive
Plot: an amorous couple decide to engage in some extra-marital hijinks in a flashy car. They then become stuck (literally) in a Compromising Position, while said car wanders aimlessly about the countryside until the hapless couple are rescued by the authorities.

That's it. That's the entire movie. There may have been some dialogue here and there, but nothing comes to mind. It should be obvious by now that this movie is not just pointless, but actually physically painful to watch. The fact that it starred two of the UKs best up-and-coming actors (one of whom is now sadly deceased) only adds to the horror.

Ian Charleson was outstanding in the very much deserved Oscar-winning 'Chariots of Fire'. Let's remember him for that role, and try hard to pretend that this particular celluloidal abomination never happened.

Sentiment: negative
Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993) was a much needed parody from Mel Brooks. He has the assignment of spoofing the Robin Hood legacy and the couple of movie dealing with the mythical honorable thief of English folklore. Cary Elwes stars as Robin Hood. He's looking for a few good men who'll join him in his quest to topple the evil sheriff of Nottingham (Roger Rees) and win the fair hand of Maid Marian. Robin also has to deal with Prince John (Richard Lewis).as well. Tracey Ullman co-stars as Prince John's personal witch Latrine who has her eyes on the Sheriff.

Will Robin find his merry men? How far will the Prince go to throw his weight around in the absence of his father? Why does the Sheriff hate Robin so much? To find out you'll have to watch ROBIN HOOD: MEN IN TIGHTS!! Check out the hilarious cameo by Dom De Luise who plays the Duke of Jersey.

Highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
Many films attempt the ambitious. Few succeed. This film is one of them.

Though billed as a black comedy, that term seems too limiting to express the true nature of the story behind Max and Grace. Multi-hyphenate Michael Parness has managed to weave elements of absurdest comedy with incredibly real human emotion. Quite a remarkable feat, to be certain.

While the comedic aspects are certainly present, the heart of the film lies in its leads: David Krumholtz and Natasha Lyonne. The delicate balance of the film - really crazy versus real love - falls to them and they achieve it, carrying it through from the opening scene to the heart wrenching climax and on to the heartwarming ending. David Krumholtz, in the titular lead role and as narrator, anchors the picture and does an exceptional job. We see the world through Max's eyes and Krumholtz imbues them with a sort of wonder and hopefulness that one would not expect to be believable coming from a character who had previously attempted suicide. There should be no doubt from this point on that he has truly achieved leading man status, well deserved after more than a decade of memorable supporting roles. Natasha Lyonne might be something of a revelation for anyone who has seen her only in less challenging roles. The role of Grace is expansive in scope, requiring her to show both great rage and great tenderness - sometimes within seconds of each other. She manages to convince us of Grace's deep seated desperation that lies just beneath her alternating torpor and mania.

This is not a laugh a minute type of comedy so don't see the film expecting strictly humor from start to finish. Think more dramedy than comedy. There are some very dark moments, as one would expect given the subject matter of suicidal individuals, and some oddly real moments delivered most notably by Emma Adele Galvin as Max's sister, Sis. The most humorous scenes are those populated by the myriad of name actors in supporting roles. While Lorraine Bracco and David Paymer lend the most surreal aspect with their scenes the other supporting characters who populate the institution where Max and Grace meet are the real treat. Guillermo Diaz is a wanton scene stealer as the delightfully frenetic oddball, Hector. Ralf Moeller, as Bruno, acts as his straight man but has his own charm and appeal. Rosanna Arquette fully inhabits the role of Vera with the crass vitriol of an embittered truck stop waitress. Even her hardhearted character melts eventually, as does everyone who is touched by Max's literally undying love for Grace.

Can love conquer all might be the question behind the film and even though the realist within says no, movies are about an escape from reality, even if only for a few brief hours. I recommend seeing this film as an antidote to not just reality but to the cynicism that says that a love story like this never happens. Spending a few hours immersed in a world where it can and does works wonders on the psyche.

(Seattle International Film Festival - June 2005)

Sentiment: positive
I am shocked by all the good reviews on the cover of this movie and on IMDb. It belongs in the $2 bin at your local video store. To say that this is a B movie is extremely generous.

Besides lacking a single redeemable character, only slightly better than average acting, and an ugly 80's style picture quality, the script for this film is dull and lifeless. This film is not only boring--it is pathetic. (Admittedly, there is occasionally some mildly interesting chemistry between the two main characters.) Even the final plot twist--rather, the only plot twist--does not save this film.

Rent "Diamond Men" if you must, but do not hesitate to turn it off once you become appraised of its worthlessness. 2 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
I couldn't believe this was the same director as Antonia's Line.

This film has it all, a boring plot, disjointed flashbacks, a subplot that has nothing to do with the main plot what so ever, and totally uninteresting characters. It was painful to watch. Soooo, painful.

Sentiment: negative
London 1862, a young orphan named Susan Trinder (Sally Hawkins) grows up amongst the petty thieves known as Fingersmiths, under the guidance of Mrs. Suckerby (Imelda Staunton).

One evening, Richard "The Gentleman" Rivers (Rupert Evans) pays them a visit.

Rivers has an elaborate plan to defraud the wealthy heiress, Maud Lilly (Elaine Cassidy).

Susan agrees to help for a cut of the money, and is quickly installed as Muad's maid.

Upon arriving, she discovers that Maud is virtually a prisoner in her own house, as Uncle Chritopher (Charles Dance) controls every detail of her life.

As the plan begins to unfold, Susan finds herself developing an intimate relationship with the lady of the house.

Adapted from the novel by Sarah Waters.

Sentiment: positive
I was absolutely blown away by John Cassavetes's Opening Night. It's the first movie of his that I've seen that seems to be on a bigger scale, thus it feels more mainstream, but it still doesn't feel as if he grounded himself any more than he has in his previous films. That is perhaps what makes it so intense. There is also something undoubtedly cathartic about watching this movie.

It's about what in fact Cassavetes has made a staple of his career, an ideal that he has expressed behind the camera throughout his career as a director and is here expressing it in front. Rowlands's character, middle-aged stage actress Myrtle Gordon, cannot bring herself to play her role in the upcoming production as written so she uncalculatedly follows impulse after impulse, resulting in what appears to be chaos on stage, until she finds the right one. It's a daringly abstract premise.

This is a movie that does not fail to capture the innate steering that one goes through during an emotional cleansing. No one understands why Myrtle does many of the things she does, and it is seen and even portrayed as something destructive, yet it just might be the best thing for her. It may be a cleansing rather than a breakdown. A withdrawal, a cocoon, a rebellion, it all culminates into a meltdown. Cassavetes gives her character a brutally real touch, which is that early on, she is ardently arguing that she has nothing in common with her character, yet she is in quiet but emotionally corroding fear that the opposite is true.

The last scene, the climactic performance that Myrtle shares with a character painfully estranged from her who is acting with her, is one of the most interesting, hilarious, hard-hitting, enlightening, and enjoyable moments I've ever seen in a movie.

Sentiment: positive
since this is part 2, then compering it to part one...

man that was on many places wierd... too many time jumps etc.

I have to say that I was really disapointed...

only someplaces little lame action... and thats it....

they could have done that better....



Sentiment: negative
he is the quintessential narcissist and manipulator; in this case, portraying attorney (and murderer) Tom Capano.

Kathryn Morris is sympathetic as victim, Anne Marie Fahey, but in the beginning is a bit too much the victim. We are sorry for the situation, but become simultaneously disgusted after seeing his victimization of several other women (including Rachel Ward) as well.

The sad part is where she is actually getting help with her self-esteem issues, and Capano actually had her psychologist killed. Pretty hard to believe, but this was based on a true story.

There is a cameo with Olympia Dukakis (excellent) as Capano's mother. All in all, an interesting story because it is based on a true murder, and you will want to read Ann Rule's book to get the accurate details. 8/10.

Sentiment: positive
I've just finished viewing the 1st disc in a 4-disc (26 episodes) collection created in conjunction with the UCLA Film & Television Archive (S'More Entertainment, Inc.). So far (aside from the 1st episode), the image quality is quite good. The DVD box is shown on the title page here on IMDb.

"Mr. Peepers" is just as charming as when I first saw it (5-years old at the time) and Wally Cox is truly endearing in this role. If you're in the mood for quiet comedy that sneaks up on you, as opposed to hitting you over the head, you'll treasure this chance to experience all the wonderful characters you might remember from your childhood. Although some of the gags are a bit corny, most are ingenious and well-executed...and even the corny ones are fun. This is one TV series that lives up to my early childhood memories of it.

Sentiment: positive
There is no story! The plot is hopeless! A filmed based on a car with a stuck accelerator, no brakes, and a stuck automatic transmission gear lever cannot be good! I would have stopped that car within one minute whether I was in it or in the police car constantly following it. I feel sorry for the actors that had to put up with such a poor script. The few scenes that some similarity to action was heavily over-dramatized, and as far from reality you can get. In addition, there were a lot of blunders, for instance the hood of the runaway car, which was popped doing 100mph. At first it just folded over the windshield, like it would in reality, but then, afterwards, it blew off. The car was later in the movie observed with the hood on....

This film was nothing but annoying, stay away from it!

Sentiment: negative
I happened to catch this movie on cable one afternoon. I have to admit that I've never been a big baseball fan, but I can sometimes get into a good sports-related movie. What I found more interesting was the depiction of the foster family system. As a therapist who has seen both the good and the bad of the community mental health and foster system, I though it was rather refreshing to see a movie that showed both the ups and downs of this system: people jumping from family to family, biological parents not always taking an active involvement, and transitions that can be but heart-wrenching and heart-melting. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Danny Glover are the anchor of this film, and both bring very believable performances. Maybe it was just my emotional state, but I did find myself shedding a tear at the end of the film.

Sentiment: positive
An interesting premise, and Billy Drago is always good as a dangerous nut-bag (side note: I'd love to see Drago, Stephen McHattie and Lance Hendrikson in a flick together; talk about raging cheekbones!). The soundtrack wasn't terrible, either.

But the acting--even that of such professionals as Drago and Debbie Rochon--was terrible, the directing worse (perhaps contributory to the former), the dialog chimp-like, and the camera work, barely tolerable. Still, it was the SETS that got a big "10" on my "oy-vey" scale. I don't know where this was filmed, but were I to hazard a guess, it would be either an open-air museum, or one of those re-enactment villages, where everything is just a bit too well-kept to do more than suggest the "real Old West". Okay, so it was shot on a college kid's budget. That said, I could have forgiven one or two of the aforementioned faults. But taken all together, and being generous, I could not see giving it more than three stars.

Sentiment: negative
Predictable plot. Simple dialogue. Shockingly unemotional performances. But Robert Downey, Jr. is so cute, I gave this "poor man's afternoon special" a 3 instead of the 1 or 2 it so richly deserved.

Sentiment: negative
Sergei Eisenstein's most famous movie has truly withstood the test of time. The story of a mutiny aboard a warship in 1905 does have the feeling of Soviet propaganda, but does a good job showing the conditions that led to the revolt. The scene on the Odessa steps should remain seared into anyone's mind.

Okay, so "The Battleship Potemkin" wasn't actually the first movie to use montage, but they did a great job with it here. Certainly any film history class should show this movie. It's a great historical drama (although I will admit that I don't know how accurate it is). A 10/10.

Oh, and we should have learned by now that "Potemkin" should be transliterated as "Potyomkin".

Sentiment: positive