DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
If you really loved GWTW, you will find quite disappointing the story. Those who may think this is just about a romantic story and the south, will be probably satisfied with this decent TV production (altought I consider an important miscast the choice for Scarlett). But, let me say that considering the novel, nothing good could came out of this.

I've read GWTW more than 20 times and I can really appreciate the adaptation Mrs. Mitchell did for the film. It took me some time to understand how good the ending was: Scarlett knew for sure she was going to recover Rhett, since she always got what she wanted. But there was no kiss in the end.

Then Alexandra Ripley came to "fix" this by showing us exactly how perfect and mighty Scarlett could be, and of course, describing in detail how exactly she gets Rhett back even when she had an important affair with someone else (nothing could have been further from Mrs. Mitchell mind, I am sure).

The story between these points is in my opinion just a long and boring ride made up to tie ends, showing off costumes and scenarios just to give us an obvious and totally unnecessary ending.

If Margaret Mitchell could came to live again, she would die one more time at the very moment she'd find out what Scarlett became after GWTW.

Sure it's not fair to compare this to the original but this is not GWTW fault. Isn't it? Is it any good if I don't compare it to the original? Maybe. Sorry to say I don't really care.

I would expect little more compromise to continue someone else's (suberb) work, otherwise don't even try.

Sentiment: negative
The title is onomatopoeic, the sound of a streetcar clacking on the rails. It is metaphoric for all that the people who live in the dump cannot have. The misery of those people is illustrated by the passing streetcar which represents the relatively unobtainable rich life of the middle class. The pathos of the little boy and his beloved yet sadly insane father is most touching. This was Kurosawa's first film in colour and he uses beautifully shocking hues, colours seen only in dreams. The movie is surreal and surpassing in beauty. The compassion for humanity is the underling force, but as always, Kurosawa is focused on capturing the beauty of the film. It is a masterwork by a genius of cinema.

Sentiment: positive
I mean really, really, REALLY high and this movie has a shot at entertainment. I don't mean regular high, i mean the high where reading the phonebook would have you in stitches. otherwise save the time out of your life and go do something more constructive with it, like hitting your head on a brick wall and insulting your own intelligence. A complete waste of talent in some cases (Bernie Mac, John C. McGinley, Tom Kenny, and the master of hams Shatner) and exactly the kind of crap they deserve to make (the myriad of rappers who insist on making movies). Not without it's laughs (again chemical aid is crucial) and certainly not without offending the politically over-sensitive (which I'm always in favor of) but ultimately not worth the time out of your life.

Sentiment: negative
Simply put, I was amazingly disappointed. I'm a huge fan of Asian Horror, and I can watch unoriginality (I myself enjoyed "The Red Shoes" and "Phone"), but this was just poor.

The movie has a lot of elements that are very high-quality: the photography is eye-catching, the visuals are cool, the directing is inspired, the acting is pretty good, the music is easy on the ears, and the CGI is incredible. But, since this is a horror film, we are expected to be scared, which just won't happen with this film. As with most South Korean horrors, this is unoriginal almost from beginning to end: there's the trademark long-haired vengeful female ghost, ominous clumps of thick, black hair and puddles of water, and near the end, a twist that *almost*, but not quite makes sense out of the whole thing (the twist is easily one of the best qualities). And to the viewer's irritation, when the film isn't recycling (at times, so exact that it could easily be dubbed plagiarized) imagery from other movies, it's making you jump. A lot. And by jumps, I don't mean things jumping out or anything, just VERY loud noises and screeches in the soundtrack used to make the audience jump six feet in the air (there's even a few "made-you-jump" moments that are simply infuriating). And when it is not ripping-off other movies, it's boring, and hard to sit through.

And it's a shame, because "Ryeong" could have easily been really good, and it has everything to make it good, but its the annoying overuse of completely predictable loud noises and jump scares that eventually ruin the movie. A perfect example of how good it could have been: there's a moment when one of out characters is looking at a corpse, and without a sound, the corpse looks back. It's wholly predictable, but the use of silence in that scene is brilliant. And unfortunately, that's as scary as the movie got for me.

Admittedly, "Ryeong" has a few good features, and even a couple jumps that aren't as predictable, and do work. There's a very good and sad back-story used to explain the events, and the twist is pretty unpredictable. Those are the only things that separate the film from any other Asian ghost/horror film. But the problem with these is, even though they do work, they have been used before (J-Horror fans will easily realize the big reveal was inspired by "A Tale of Two Sisters"), and it takes the back-story a good fifty minutes to get going.

So in the end, "Ryong" really seems like a truly wasted opportunity. Tae-kyeong Kim hoped that the plot twist and other good features act as diversions, so the audience won't notice the huge flaws. But he failed, and well... We noticed everything.

My rating: 4/10.

Sentiment: negative
"House Of Evil" aka "Dance Of Death" of 1968 is the first of four infamous and odd last movies starring the great Boris Karloff and directed by Jack Hill and Juan Ibánez. Unlike "Snake People" (1971), "The Incredible Invasion" (also 1971) and "The Fear Chamber" (1972) which were all released after Karloff's death in 1969, "House Of Evil" was released in 1968, when Karloff was still alive. "House Of Evil" is regarded by many as the worst of these four movies, which are without doubt all rather crappy, but definitely have their entertainment value as the unintentional comedies they are. I personally prefer "The Fear Chamber" and "House Of Evil" over the other two, simply for the reason that the lack of the slightest logic is even more extreme, and since there is no suspense whatsoever in any of the movies, the lack of logic increases the unintentional fun factor.

The odd story (I don't know if I can really call it a 'plot') is set somewhere in Europe in the 19th century. After some girls are murdered and found with their eyes ripped out, Mathias Morteval (Karloff), an enthusiastic organ player, invites his few remaining relatives to his bizarre mansion, which is full of eerie toys. His kinfolk includes Lucy Durant (Julissa), who is engaged to one of the police inspectors investigating the murders.

I won't give away more of the story, but I can assure you that it is quite bizarre throughout the movie. There are some very funny moments, especially some things Karloff's character says. Boris Karloff was without any doubt one of the most brilliant and important icons of the Horror genre who ever lived, and he manages to award this odd movie with a tiny bit of his greatness, and although (or because) his role is (due to a poor script and and directing) in no way scary, it looks like he deliberately plays it with a sense of humor. Just like in the movie's successors "Snake People" and "The Fear Chamber", the female lead is once again played by Julissa. 

Most of he supporting performances are hilariously amateurish, the cinematography is terrible and the locations and sceneries are beneath contempt. The storyline lacks the least bit of logic and the dialogue often does not make the slightest sense. It is the poor story and dialogue, however, that makes this movie so entertaining to watch. "House Of Evil" may be an extremely crappy attempt of a movie, but it is certainly as (unintentionally) funny as it is bad. Fans of Ed Wood's movies should be very amused, I personally found it hilarious. Crappy but entertaining nevertheless, and definitely worth watching since there's Boris Karloff in it and due to the fun factor. 3/10

Sentiment: negative
L'Auberge Espagnole is full of energy, and it's honest, realistic, and refreshing. Not a comedy or drama but more a slice of life movie about this particular group of very interesting but still normal young people who share an apartment in Barcelona for one year. Beautifully photographed with a nice soundtrack. If you're older, this movie should bring back a flood of good memories. If you're young, learn by this example.

Sentiment: positive
I liked this film very much, as I liked before the other movies by Cedric Klapish. All the actors, coming from all over Europe, are very good and funny. One can really feel the influence of "Amelie", like in many other recent movies, but it's ok.

Sentiment: positive
This movie has one of the worst lead characters ever. I say this because he is made out to be the hero when, in my opinion, everything he does in the whole movie screws up people's lives and causes problems. He can do nothing right, yet the movie makes him seem like the cool dude everyone should be looking up to. He has temper tantrums at all the wrong times, he has all the wrong stances on things that end up making people mad at him and getting people killed, he is too nosy, too pushy, too macho, too assuming, makes all the wrong decisions and has no common sense. 

It's about a private detective hired by a successful painter to find the woman and son that he walked out on years ago. The detective finds the woman and what he thinks to be her son. However, all kinds of things happen to make this story full of crime, drama and twists. It's made for TV, what do you expect?

Anyhow, the movie is fairly entertaining. Johnny Depp is very young in this one and has an awful 80's haircut. He chews gum and tosses a soccer ball around for about 5 minutes and that is all we get to see of him.

For some reason, the out of print VHS version of this sells for $40 in online auctions. It must be for Johnny Depp collectors only. It couldn't be because of the plot. It couldn't be.



Sentiment: negative
Valley Girl will always hold a special place in my heart: I would say this is certainly the best of the 80's teen-sex-comedies, but that is a back-handed compliment. This is a good movie, period. It is very specific in time and place--nearly twenty years later this is a marvelous snapshot--yet its story remains timeless. (This is just Romeo and Juliet, minus the death, after all!) Nicolas Cage is wonderful, showing all the early promise that, it turns out, he has squandered on overblown action crapola. Deborah Foreman is the revelation of this movie, and I can't believe she didn't go on to have a bigger career; someone rediscover her QUICK. This is sweeter and gentler than most films of the genre--the requisite nudity seems thrown in by contractual obligation--and, while not groundbreaking, it certainly is nice to see this kind of movie that respects its characters and doesn't crucify its shallow young girls for having fun--even Foreman's crew of best friends, misguided by peer pressure, are never presented as villains. (Indeed, her friend Stacy, forced to doubledate w/ Cage's friend Fred, has a good time despite her protests, and makes out w/ Fred in the backseat.) This will take you back to the early 80's if you were there, but it holds up quite well today. Warning to those unfamiliar with the movie: do NOT watch one of VH1's seemingly continual showings of it--go rent it in its unedited glory. Otherwise, you are missing some of the movies' most potent, time-specific dialogue. And one can't write about Valley Girl and not mention the fabu soundtrack of great 80's tunes--most of them by one-hit wonders, which are not only integral to the sense of time and place in this movie, but thematically well-chosen. See it--awesome little flick! Fer shur!!

Sentiment: positive
I bought this a while back, during a massive martial arts movie phase. Although this certainly ain't the best, I do love this kind of film making, and there was a lot to keep me entertained in this one. Leung Kar Yan is one of my favorite martial arts stars, I always appreciate the fact that, whilst he lacked formal martial arts training, he usually gave a more than capable fighting performance. He also has a good beard. This movie has him in a good, heroic role and although he doesn't kick as much ass as in some of his other movies, he still acquits himself well. Early appearances from Cherie Chung and Chow Yun Fat are also nice too see, especially for the fact that Chow Yun Fat takes on the bad guys without his trademark gun play. He may not be a great fighter but he does OK. Eddy Ko is as great a bad guy as ever, he performs the same villainry as in many of his other films and does it great, as per usual. The fellow who plays Bu is good too, I don't recall his name, but he's in Magnificent Butcher too. Although the fighting isn't as good as other movies of the era, The postman fights back makes up for it with a lot of imagination, quality cinematography and a nicely quirky ambiance. There are some very nifty scenes, good characters and a good eclectic mixture of Hong Kong talents all coming together to decent effect. All in all, I would recommend this to kung fu and general Hong Kong action fans. It may not be a stylised classic like the Shaw Brothers films, or as crowd pleasing as Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee, but it is rock solid entertainment.

Sentiment: positive
I finally found a version of Persuasion that I like! Anne doesn't look like a scullery maid in this version, just a very thin, aging, pretty woman, quite like she's described in the book. Captain Wentworth doesn't look like he's 50, nor does he look perpetually angry but rather, as he's described in the book, he hasn't aged as much as Anne and is quite handsome. And they play their parts with such conviction and realism...that's what acting is all about. They were believable. They created real characters, and it was like the characters in the book came to life. If you haven't seen this version, I urge you to find it, order it or request it from either a bookstore, or a library if you must. It's worth the price and worth the wait. 

I watched the 1995 version, and the 2007 version and this one towers over the other two. Why it isn't rated higher is beyond my comprehension. The book conveys the tenderness of their relationship and this movie makes the book come to life.

Sentiment: positive
This has to be one of the worst movies ever to come out of the Sci-Fi Channel. Here is how the movie starts, Women are the only humans on this planet due to the fact that in the not to distant future chemical warfare is A OK as long as it only targets soldiers (In case your wondering, Men) However the virus back fires (Big shock)and all the men on earth slowly die. Then all of male kind is condemned to die when the madam president is shot and killed by a man. now we are taken around 60 to 70 years from now, two female scientists are working on cloning a female baby and one of them says "Hey, why don't we bring men back?" The other one says no the world is not ready for that, but promptly ignores her and thus a man walks the Eath again.

First off, this movie assumes that all men who are not genetically altered are blood thirsty monsters. Secondly, the writer forgot to mention that present day soldiers are a good mix of Male and Female officers so there is no real reason to have a virus like that. This is the biggest waist of time you can find. This movie managed to insult my intellect not only by the bad story, but with the Lifetime style acting. Avoid this movie at all costs.

I give this a 1 out of 10 but only because I could go no lower.

Sentiment: negative
How can anyone argue the fact that Urban Cowboy was, and still is, the best document of Texas life for the time period. Consider the following: men beat their wives, get drunk at bars nightly, get married to settle a fight, commit adultery, and compete on mechanical bulls. Try and name a movie that depicts real life so vividly. They dont make them anymore. It seems current films are always about people with lots of money, they live in huge homes, drive expensive cars and don't work. This movie has a celebration scene about getting a trailer for pete's sake !

Anyway, I watch it at least once a week. No kidding. I have dissected this movie from end to end. feel free to email me to learn more about my reason for calling it a documentary. Consider the following scenes: Bud sees Sissy - they are split up - he amicably honks and waves, she flips him the bird - he returns half the peace sign honking his horn to add impact then tears off.

Buds mom calls him approx. 18 hours after he gets into town, on a Sunday, to see if he has a job yet - all he has accomplished is getting drunk and laid(x2), with help from his uncle and aunt who cover for him.

"You all live like pigs" Think about why this scene is needed. Think about it. Was it necessary ? Could we not figure it out without showing the filthy sink ? God I love that !

Sissy allows Wes to help her ride the bull. Only a few days (or possibly the next day) after Wes just kicked the crap out of her husband. Steve asks - Hey Sissy, remember Wes ? Oh yeah, didnt you beat my husband up the other night, so let's get this lesson goin', to make no mention of the fact that she seeks solace in him later during one Bud and Sissy's many fights, which by the way all take place in public - in Gilley's !

The Wedding reception picture taking session (oh the humanity !) could they at least arrange or move the chairs out of the way. "My legs are sweatin' momma"

In conclusion, you don't put scenes like this in a movie to try and show insight into human psychology. It is a documentary of real life.

I only wish there was a director's cut....

Sentiment: positive
Muscular 'scientists', unpleasantly thin females in swimsuits, lots of beer drinking.. Yet it's too long to be a beer commercial. Oh, okay, there's some plot about a big shark-like monster that's killing people and stuff. But it's nothing you haven't seen before.

Sentiment: negative
This film is an insult to the play upon which it is based. The character of Claude has been warped beyond recognition leaving a painful performance that does not even vaguely resemble the original plot. Shame, shame, shame. They have also cut a fair number of the original score of change the context in which the songs are sung. This warps the air of the film and causes the viewer who is aware of how this should be to wince as the writer of this screen play gives Hud a wife,turns Sheila into a spoiled rich girl, characterizes Claude as a cowboy, and kills Burger by sending him to Vietnam instead. If one is not familiar with the original plot I assure you this is not a bad film for you to see, but if you ever wish to see the original or are, as I am, a die-hard fan of the classic play, you would do best to avoid the film altogether. One really must stick to one or the other.

Sentiment: negative
Great characters, great acting, great dialogue, incredible plot twists in plain language one of the best shows I've ever seen in my life. Do yourself a favor and watch this show, you won't regret it. This show re-writes the book on Sci-Fi!

Sentiment: positive
Well I'd have to say that I do own this film and I only like the ending. The movie is boring and slow but the final fight is so funny. Lets just say that if the fake bird didn't attack the main evil guy this movie would be a 0 out of 10. The bird though makes it a 3. If you are truly bored or want something terrible to watch rent this and fast forward to the final battle.

Sentiment: negative
Another movie that relies upon the trite, worn-out cliché of the mad scientist gone madder. The movie centers around a surgeon whose life's ambition is to bring the dead...back to life. I know, I know...you've never heard that one before! Of course, as all of these movies go, the experiment goes very, very wrong and creates a maniacal, bloodthirsty creature. For this promising setup, you'd think that it'd be at least a bit suspenseful. Wrong. Like many movies of this era, the idea is nice, but the execution and the script is mediocre. Not the worst horror movie I've seen (no, Abominator: the Evilmaker 2 still takes the cake)...but not one of the gems, either.

Sentiment: negative
"When I die, someone will bury me. And if they don't, what's the difference. Who gives a damn, huh?" Thus the philosophy of life (or lack there of) is summed up once and for all in this less than classic but nevertheless fun spin off of Sergio Leone's "Dollars Trilogy." In the opening scene, three obviously evil gunmen ride into a western town and, with menacing glares, they intimidate all the pathetic normal people hiding in their homes. The observant watcher will notice that each of these three bears a striking resemblance to characters from Leone's For A Few Dollars More. There is one guy in Eastwood's poncho, one in Lee Van Cleef's black suit, and one seeming to act like Gian Marie Volonte's Indio. But this movie is not about these guys. No sooner do they ride into town when they are gunned down by someone even cooler than they, a mysterious bounty hunter known simply as the Stranger.

No. this is an altogether different story.

In an obvious copying of Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, three gunmen are again vying for a hidden treasure. Once again there is the bounty hunter and the Mexican bandit. The Stranger (George Hilton) is a supercool bounty hunter with a penchant for shooting people while dressed up like a priest. He is after the reward for the bandit Monetero (Gilbert Roland). But when Monetero's gang steals three hundred thousand in gold coins, the Stranger gets sidetracked from his normal line of work.

To round off the trio there is Edd Byrne's corrupt bank executive, Clayton. He too wants the money for himself. But after the money is hidden away, the only man who knows where it is gets shot. Now the only clue to the hiding place is a medallion that shows a family crest. The game is too find the treasure before anyone else does. And any gun can play.

With plenty of gunfights, fist fights, and double crosses, the action takes these three to the ultimate showdown ripoff, a three way draw for the hidden treasure ala The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly -- but with a twist.

This movie is not as good as Leone's films, of course, but in the end who gives a damn, huh? This movie is fun -- 60s nihilism, spaghetti western style. There are no rules, no enduring loyalties, and no right or wrong -- just the treasure and whatever it takes to get it. And, though the movie is not classic, the ending surely is. Hey, maybe we all can get along after all, for a hundred thousand a piece.

If you like spaghetti westerns, check this one out. It is fast, furious, and worth the look. My name is Evren Buyruk from Crestline California

Sentiment: positive
Gandhi, the Great :

Greatness in the world is associated with people like Alexanader the great, Ashoka the Great for their greatness lied in being glorified as more than humans. Gandhi is called great for actually not being a Great but being more human, for I always believe bringing out the humanity in us is where the greatness of being human lies.Gandhi was a human with humanity and one who strived for humanity ready to sacrifice himself in the battle for humanity but not his enemies. Let me move to the movie review now.

About Gandhi My Father :

Gandhi My father is a film not about Gandhi but about his son Harilal Gandhi.On telling the story of a son whose father was one of the greatest humans to walk this earth, the director succeeds in portraying the tale.The film succeeds in telling the story of a mislead son of a father who lead a nation to greatness.The movie is termed as a criticism of Gandhi's failure as a father to his son, I would rather say it is of a sacrifice Gandhi had made as a father of a son to do justice as a father of a nation.

I wish the essence of this movie prevails not just in India, the Gandhian land, but through the hearts of all the people of this world.

Gandhi the true Human. Jaihind.

Sentiment: positive
At times I really wonder when I look at the comments here it seems as if most people have seen a completely different film than I have. I've just seen it... and liked it. Not in the way, that it made me happy, but in the way of having seen a good film!

The film needs some patience, yes. And yes, the main character is REALLY annoying, but that I'm sure is by intention.

Maybe it really makes a difference if you watch this film in a cinema or at home. Most people watch films at home like they are listening to elevator music. This movie definitely doesn't fit as background noise.

And no. Good directing doesn't mean having five laughs or explosions a second. Good directing means following your subject and keeping the story and actors together. And while that doesn't work out perfectly, at least I think it works quite good.

I liked the photography and sets, even if they brink on the surreal at times. The opening scene is really special.

I also liked the acting  Guillaume Depardieu is NOT playing Pierre. He is acting the role of a Pierre who is himself playing a role! Pierre is not the romantic hero that he so hard tries to be, he is a presumptuous and self-righteous idiot, a downright weakling who by and by harms all the people he claims to protect. That even his love for truth is simply a pose is beautifully demonstrated by his ongoing lying and not even once asking questions or explaining himself.

People are wondering where this or that person came from and other stuff: No character who is seen for more than two scenes is left unexplained, there is enough information scattered throughout the film on everyone.

And even the strange building begins to make sense as soon as the target practicing is seen: Remember that Isabelle fled from a war zone - and obviously this is a refuge for fighters in a civil war, most likely Bosnia (which was still going on, when the film was produced). At least that's what is hinted at by the story Isabelle tells Pierre when she first meets him and by the later scene where Pierre shows Isabelle the book with his father on the cover, which is surrounded by books on Bosnia.

Sentiment: positive
John Boorman's "Deliverance" concerns four suburban Atlanta dwellers who take a ride down the swift waters of the Cahulawassee The river is about to disappear for a dam construction and the flooding of the last untamed stretches of land 

The four friends emphasize different characters: a virile sports enthusiast who has never been insured in his life since there is no specific risk in it (Burt Reynolds); a passionate family man and a guitar player (Ronny Cox); an overweight bachelor insurance salesman (Ned Beatty); and a quiet, thoughtful married man with a son who loves to smoke his pipe (Jon Voight).

What follows is the men's nightmarish explorations against the hostile violence of natureIt is also an ideal code of moral principle about civilized men falling prey to the dark laws of the wilderness 

Superbly shot, this thrilling adult adventure certainly contains some genuinely gripping scenes

Sentiment: positive
"Why?"

That simple question had to be on the lips of every single New Yorker during the 12 months of terror that David Berkowitz created in 1976-77. That same one word will surely become the same perplexing question 22 summers later as people exit theaters exhibiting the trite and exploitative "Summer of Sam".

Director Spike Lee attempts to weave the story of a pack of misguided thugs searching for the celebrated psychopath -- who paralyzed New York City for over a year -- with a stark and graphical depiction of the killings, the demons inside Berkowitz's head and the frustration of a futile NYPD manhunt. He presents an ensemble of despicable losers who hear their own "barking dogs" as they live lives devoid of love, honor and humanity -- no different than Berkowitz. Lee browbeats the audience in nearly every frame with "not one of us are what we seem to be". Often a critic of the white establishment, Lee perpetuates the stereotype by including a scene where Mira Sorvino, playing a newlywed with a cheating husband (John Leguizamo), hopes to have oral sex with a black man "in the back of a big black Cadillac". An Italian Mafioso tells a black detective that the famous Willie Mays' over-the-back center field catch was "lucky". Lee even makes sure to deliver the racist musings of one middle aged black woman who declares "I'm happy it's a white man killing all these white people because if it were a black man killing all these white people - there would be the biggest race riot in NYC history."

Other than an outstanding opening pan shot of an arrival at a disco (reminiscent of shots from Martin Scorcese's "Goodfellas" or Orson Welles' "The Third Man"), this film has no soul, purpose or passion. He parades characters on the screen bereft of human decency. Although we learn nothing about the true victims of this horrible spree, Spike Lee seems to be saying New York City got what it deserved during that frightening, boiling summer over two decades ago.

"How could anyone wreak such havoc on his beloved city?" "How could someone show such hatred toward his fellow man?"

Are these appropriate questions for Berkowitz or Lee?

You decide.

Sentiment: negative
Being an admitted chess addict, I was excited to see a documentary about the 1997 rematch between Garry Kasparov and IBM's Deep Blue supercomputer. I was hoping to see an in depth look at the match and a lot of what Kasparov had to say. Boy was I wrong and misguided by a mile. This documentary is a lot like many modern documentaries - there is a lot of flash but no real substance. After watching it, I am sad to say, I felt like I wasted my time. One of the most annoying aspects about the documentary is that it does not stay at one place for a decent period of time. It has the typical MTV type editing, where the camera shows different images and quick sound bites from people every five seconds. It is very sad that film-making has been watered down to the attention span of a 10-year old child.

I understand it is difficult to make a film about chess, but that does not mean one should make it flashy. 'Game Over' did have a couple of interesting ideas though. It brought up the idea whether computers can think like human beings or not; whether computers have advanced to a unique new level. This is what Kasparov thought after the match, but this film does not go deep enough with this idea. Also, this film tries to bring in a bizarre theory. It tries to imply the paranoid that a human being was making the moves along with the help of the computer. Kasparov had suspicions about this, but still to this day there is no evidence. Towards the end of the film, it tries to imply the bizarre that maybe Anatoly Karpov might have been the human being who was secretly making the moves with the aid of Deep Blue. Interesting to think about, but I don't know how plausible or realistic it is. I still would not recommend this movie though, not even for chess addicts.

Sentiment: negative
The title sequence shows the credits written on a rain-soaked sidewalk as people trod on it; music is provided by someone whistling Alfred Newman's "Street Scene." Then we meet Det. Sgt. Mark Dixon (Dana Andrews), who always wanted to be something his old man wasn't: a guy on the right side of the law. But he's pretty vicious for a good guy. After several complaints over his roughing people up, his boss, Insp. Nicholas Foley (Robert F. Simon), demotes him. Foley tells him he's a good man, but needs to get his head on straight and be more like Det. Lt. Thomas (Karl Malden), who has just gotten a promotion.

Meanwhile, Tommy Scalise (Gary Merrill, in a splendidly slimy performance) has an illegal dice game going and is looking to make a sucker out of the rich Ted Morrison (Harry Von Zell), who was brought in by Ken Paine (Craig Stevens) and his beautiful wife Morgan (Gene Tierney). She figures out too late her husband is using her as a decoy, and Paine strikes her when she refuses to play along. The chivalrous Morrison intervenes but Paine knocks him out cold. That seems to be the worst of it, but later it turns out the guy is dead; and Paine looks guilty.

But this won't be Paine's story. Soon Dixon has fallen in love with Morganbut not before losing his temper again and committing a terrible deed that he tries to cover up. Morgan's father, a tale-spinning taxi driver (Tom Tully), may take the rap for it. It's up to Dixon to try to pin the blame on Scalise.

Otto Preminger directs a script credited to Ben Hecht and three others from the novel "Night Cry" by William L. Stuart. This is a solid film noir with excellent performances and all the shadowy photography and murky morality we expect from this genre. It holds up until the brightly lit ending, which looks like something the studio had filmed to appease the censors. Of course, the classic noir directed by Preminger and starring Andrews and Tierney is "Laura." You'll enjoy this, but you can't miss that.

Sentiment: positive
Being the only movie I was able to see at this year's "Nordische Filmtage" at Lübeck, this year's festival will be remembered as a all-time low for me.

This movie, which was announced as an erotic thriller, is nothing more than a sick piece of crap! Excuse the language, but there aren't any decent words to describe it.

First of all, the actors are not the best. But even better actors would not have rescued the movie. E.g. the plot: after the first 15 minutes it was quite clear that John was sick, the neighbour girls were not real and that he killed his first girlfriend. The so called "sex-scene" was nothing else but disgusting (hitting each other until blood flows for me hasn't anything to do with sexuality), but unfortunately that were not the only disgusting images to be shown. Everything else was copied by other directors like e.g. Lynch, but of course without their geniality.

So, to summarize the whole film and to save other viewers time and money: guy loses girlfriend, girlfriend turns back home, guy kills girlfriend and becomes mad afterwards, guy imagines hot, but crazy neighbour girls, guy has very disgusting sex with one of them (or so he thinks), in the end he realizes, he is crazy and his girlfriend and her new lover lay in his apartment all the time... bad story, bad actors, pictures, that make you want to vomit...

1 out of 10 (1 point for the fact, that you realize how good you can understand Norwegian if you learned Swedish - at least one benefit of the evening - and you can't choose 0 points here).

Sentiment: negative
I have to say many people have argued that some of us need to get with the times cause the new "Dukes" movie is a modernized version. OH PLEASE. If this is what you consider modernized then Hollywood can keep it. Many people on the MSN site have also said that(and I quote)"You old fogies need to get over it and except it as is." Well let me tell you something, I am 24 so I am a long way from being and OLD FOGIE, and I won't get over it, it was a DISGRACE TO ALL THAT IS HAZZARD COUNTY. The only thing right in the movie title was "HAZZARD." Was all the profanity, smoking, and drinking really necessary. The cast was terrible. Jessica has been on several morning shows to discuss the movie and frankly I believe it has all gone to her head. She is in NO way a Daisy Duke, a fluke maybe, but definitely no Duke. I love Sean Williams Scott, but not as Bo. They should have included the original cast as at least cameos, but even Hollywood knew they wouldn't approve of the script. I mean come on people even todays actors and actresses are voicing a negative opinion so why are some of you giving positive remarks.

Sentiment: negative
The morbid Catholic writer Gerard Reve (Jeroen Krabbé) that is homosexual, alcoholic and has frequent visions of death is invited to give a lecture in the literature club of Vlissingen. While in the railway station in Amsterdam, he feels a non-corresponded attraction to a handsome man that embarks in another train. Gerard is introduced to the treasurer of the club and beautician Christine Halsslag (Renée Soutendijk), who is a wealthy widow that owns the beauty shop Sphinx, and they have one night stand. On the next morning, Gerard sees the picture of Christine's boyfriend Herman (Thom Hoffman) and he recognizes him as the man he saw in the train station. He suggests her to bring Herman to her house to spend a couple of days together, but with the secret intention of seducing the man. Christine travels to Köln to bring her boyfriend and Gerard stays alone in her house. He drinks whiskey and snoops her safe, finding three film reels with names of men; he decides to watch the footages and discover that Christine had married the three guys and all of them died in tragic accidents. Later Gerard believes Christine is a witch and question whether Herman or him will be her doomed fourth husband. 

The ambiguous "The Vierde Man" is another magnificent feature of Paul Verhoeven in his Dutch phase. The story is supported by an excellent screenplay that uses Catholic symbols to build the tension associated to smart dialogs; magnificent performance of Jeroen Krabbé in the role of a disturbed alcoholic writer; and stunning cinematography. The inconclusive resolution is open to interpretation like in many European movies that explore the common sense and intelligence of the viewers. There are mediocre directors that use front nudity of men to promote their films; however, Paul Verhoeven uses the nudity of Gerard Reve as part of the plot and never aggressive or seeking out sensationalism. Last but not the least; the androgynous beauty of the sexy Renée Soutendijk perfectly fits to her role of a woman that attracts a gay writer. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O 4o Homem" ("The 4th Man")

Sentiment: positive
Following the pleasingly atmospheric original and the amusingly silly second one, this incredibly dull, slow, and uneventful sequel comes across as a major letdown. Once again the nefarious criminal mastermind the Bat (hammy Luis Aceves Castaneda) is trying to steal valuable jewelry from the Aztec mummy Popoca. The Bat builds a hilariously clunky lumbering robot with a human brain in order to achieve this heinous goal. Flatly directed by Rafael Portillo, with a talky and tedious script by Alfredo Salazar and Guillermo Calderon, cruddy continuity (for example, the Bat was clearly killed at the end of the previous film, but is miraculously alive and well here!), an excruciatingly sluggish script, an excessive amount of stock footage from the first two flicks, a meandering narrative, a crippling lack of action and momentum, largely dreary going through the motions (non)acting from an understandably disinterested cast, and a poorly staged climactic battle between the mummy and the robot (the movie finally bursts to sidesplitting stupid life with said big bash, but alas it barely even lasts two lousy minutes and thus proves to be much too little far too late to alleviate the severity of the general overwhelming boredom), this numbingly dry, drippy, and draggy snorefest rates as a complete washout.

Sentiment: negative
Highly regarded at release, but since rather neglected. Immense importance in the history of performing arts. A classic use of embedded plots. One of my favourite films. Why hasn't the soundtrack been re-released?

Sentiment: positive
This film is really bad,so bad that even Christopher Lee cannot save it.A poor story an even poorer script and just plain bad direction makes this a truly outstanding horror film,the outstanding part being that it is the only horror film that i can honestly say i would never ever watch again.This garbage make Plan nine from outerspace look like oscar material.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was sooooooo good! It was hilarious! There are so many jokes that you can just watch the movie over and over and not get tired of it. John Turturro and Tim Blake Nelson were awesome as Pete Hogwallop and Delmar! I love those guys! I love the adventures they went on, too. I definitely recommend this movie.

Also, the music in this movie is terrific! I love singing along with all of the songs!

Sentiment: positive
Beware, My Lovely is an experimental studio film from the early fifties and was directed by a man, Harry Horner, better known for his set designs. Robert Ryan plays a handyman who is hired by Ida Lupino to do some housework for her. The problem is that he is a psychopathic murderer and doesn't know it. Miss Lupino is an empathetic soul and tries to win Ryan over, to little avail. He is not the sort of man compassion could help or cure. Thus we have an interesting situation of two people who basically mean well, but one of them can't do well because there is something wrong with him. He suffers periodic blackouts during which he commits acts of violence, which he later forgets. 

Essentially the effect Ryan has on Lupino is that of the hunter and his prey, or in another sense a sadist. The audience finds out early on that Ryan is a mad killer, but it takes Lupino much longer. Thus we must live with this knowledge as we watch poor Miss Lupino try everything in her power to 'win' Ryan over in order to make things work, get the job done, get on with life. But getting on with things isn't in Ryan's makeup, as he is incapable of any but the most rudimentary forms of normality, and as soon as there is an opening his paranoia asserts itself. 

As a study in mental illness the movie isn't too impressive. What it's superlative at is showing the effect of major mental illness, with dangerous psychopathology in the mix, and its effect on a normal person. In this regard the film is realistic and compassionate, though relentlessly logical in that we know Lupino can't 'fix' Ryan, yet we want her to. The result is that, if one is willing, one can get extremely involved in this film emotionally if one can put aside, so to speak, its melodramatic structure.

Horner shows us, gradually, the layout the Lupino house , a forbidding gothic monstrosity that never feels like a home. We become familiar with staircase, kitchen and pantry; and we come to know which windows Miss Lupino can use for an escape and which ones she can't.

Sentiment: positive
Horrible, horrible TV show! Why Comedy Central decided to repeat old episodes of this program is beyond me. It really sucks! I am, of course, speaking about the seasons after the first two. The first two seasons were golden, and if I was exclusively talking about those seasons, this show would have gotten eight out of ten stars. None of the comedians appearing after the first two seasons who were not part of the original cast are any good. They were, and are, awful. The comedy is not funny at all. AT ALL!!! 

The original cast was full of very talented comedians, like Artie Lange, Phil LaMarr, and Mary Schorr (or whatever her name is), all of whom should have gotten better deals after they left MAD TV. This show is highly overrated, and less worthy of your channel surfing time than Saturday Night Live, another horrible show. Go out on Saturday night and have fun, and leave MAD TV to wither and die, as it deserves to.

Sentiment: negative
Being a freshman in college, this movie reminded me of my relationship with my mom. Of course, my situation doesn't parrallel with Natalie Portman and Surandon's situation; but my mom and I have grown up with the typical mother and daughter fights. There is always the mother telling you what to do, or not being the kind of mother you want to be. I was balling my eyes at the end of this movie. Surandon's reaction of her daughter going to the East coast, miles away, after all they've been through reminded me of how I felt, being from a small city in the West coast, going to New York. 

The movie is meant for women who have children that are now all grown up. It is very touching, I was moved by the movie. Every feeling out of the characters in this movie was utterly real, you didn't get any phony sentimentality. I was sitting through the credits at the screening of this movie, alone, wishing my mother was sitting next to me so I could hug her and thank her for everything. This movie is a bit corny of course, but everything is trully momentous. Its all about what a mom can learn from her child; and what a child learns from her mother. 8/10

Sentiment: positive
It might be a little erroneous to open a review by describing a film in terms of other films, but I think it's the best way to give an approximation of the place Election occupies in the gangster genre arena. It works somewhere in between The Godfather and Kinji Fukasaku's yakuza opus The Yakuza Papers (AKA Battles Without Honour and Humanity), in that it is simultaneously both romanticized and realistic, dark and gritty. But it's also a Johnnie To film, and as such it carries the distinct touch of the Hong Kong auteur.

Every two years the HK Triad elects a new boss. Only this time one of the candidates is not overly happy with the result so he decides to take matters into his own hands much to the dismay of the rest of the Triads and the police. That's the story in a nutshell but rest assured it has a lot more going for it than that. As in The Yakuza Papers, there's a great deal of scheming, back-stabbing and forming and switching of allegiances (sometimes all it takes is a phone call - in one of the most memorable scenes I've seen in recent time) which might not necessarily make for deep drama but makes for an interesting plot and good character conflict. Fans of the gangster genre are likely to appreciate it in that aspect. Election is not as action-oriented as one might expect; although it IS violent. And I'm not talking about the glossy, glamour version of Hollywood violence. This is dark and grim. To's camera lingers in the scenes of people being brutalized in ways that reveal both the humanity and inhumanity of the perpetrators and victims; after all violence IS an integral part of us whether we like it or not.

If you're familiar with To's style, then you should know what to expect. The pacing is relatively slow and deliberate. The cinematography is great, slick and dark in equal measures, utilizing dark hues (brown, dark green and orange) while the smooth tracking shots add a vibrant quality to it. In the end, Election occupies a peculiar place. It's not exactly a character study and it's not an action-oriented gangster film. It explores a situation (the election and its aftermath), but does so in style, and is both realistic and romanticized (the Triad ceremonies in particular echo of an oriental Godfather).

Sentiment: positive
A political satire of a comedian (Williams) who after dissing the political campaigns and presidents is forced into the running. But shockingly we wins and makes a mockery of the office. "Man of the Year" is not the funniest movie nor the best but in small doses it does work. Williams again teaming with Levinson after a hit with "Good Morning, Vietnam". The two seem to have a great chemistry and work off each other. I am not comparing them to Scorsese and DeNiro but you can get the picture. Although I wouldn't quite say to rush out there and see the movie in theaters I would recommend renting it. This movie is a comedy but also has a great satire, please if you like movies like "Scary Movie 4" this is not for you, take your brain with you to see it. - ***

Sentiment: positive
Jack Frost is about a serial killer who is sentenced to death. On the Way to his death sentence the prison truck that he rides in collides with a chemical tanker filled with a chemical that turns his molecules with the snow on the ground turning him into a snowman. Being a killer himself that would turn him into a killer snowman. Jack now wants revenge on the sheriff who caught him. Jack now starts his rampage all over again killing people in a small town.

I don't think Jack Frost has a chance of becoming a horror classic but its a entertaining flick. Just put your brain on hold and have fun with it, but just don't take it too seriously.

Sentiment: positive