DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
The creative team that brought us Police Squad - and the Naked Gun derived from it - said in interview that they were told by their network contact that the show would be canceled, after their delivery of the first episode. Basically, the show was never given any chance. Typical Hollywood. The contact apparently told the team that the problem with the show was that, for the show to be funny, the viewer would actually need to watch it; most shows are presented on TV with the understanding that the viewer needed to get up and miss a few minutes while getting food, or going to the toilet, etc.

The humor of the show is extremely dry (it uses no laugh-track), and the universe the characters inhabit is one in which anything can happen, regardless of logic, as long as it was totally unbelievable; so, for instance in one episode a surgeon has to bribe an informant on the street in order to get a tip on heart surgery.

Those familiar with the Naked Gun films should be warned that there are a number of interesting disjunctions between the show and the films. In the films, Nielsen developed a particular "take" approach - that is, eyes widened when confronted with the unexpected. This doesn't happen in the show, where Nielsen's Drebin is the center around which the rest of the universe revolves - nothing is unexpected to him. Also, there are no romances in the show, and no parodies of MTV. Finally, the show takes certain risks that the films avoid; in the first episode, Drebin, to "re-enact the crime", has a squad of homicide detectives shoot each other from a number of different angles - ballistics the hard way. This is actually a risky bit of humor, since we need to accept that it's perfectly normal for policemen to kill each other while investigating a crime, for no other reason than experimentation. This sort of thing rarely happens in the films.

Taken individually, each of the episodes is actually funnier than any one of the Naked Gun films, since they are both more compact (more happens in a shorter time-frame), yet more leisurely paced (there's not the rush for a punch-line as sometimes happens in the films). There are some inconsistencies that happen in the films (primarily "2" and "3") that never occur in the show's shorter time-frame.

Of course, there's no doubt that Naked Gun (the first film) is one of the great comedies of theatrical cinema. And if you watch the TV show episode after episode in one sitting, the dry quality of the humor might wear away one's tolerance.

None the less, it would be useful to have a DVD of this, and watch an episode a day for a few weeks - If laughter has, as some claim, medicinal value, watching this show is good for one's health.

Sentiment: positive
Random Hearts is a very well directed, well scripted and perfectly cast actors for the primary roles. I found it to be so intense, that you have to stop and wonder in almost every scene Harrison and Kristin are together, how their characters deal with this horrible situation they find themselves in. Very talented acting from both of them. A lot of people I believe who did not appreciate the movie for what it was, did not get the point of the movie or could not even fathom a situation like theirs.

(please skip this next part if you have not seen the movie yet)

I loved the ending, which was a great surprise which tied the whole movie. It was relieving to see how these two good persons can come out actually happier in the end.



Sentiment: positive
This movie maked me cry at the end! I watch at least 3-4 movies a week. I seen loads of great movies, even more crap - ones. But when ending scene - catharsic at it's core - came I Cried! And if you didn't - you have serious problems! The story is archetypal - nothing new or original. But it's real - because that sort of things really happened and that people really exist. Glam isn't my sort of music but I really admire all that they went through in early 70's... At some point this directed me toward Velvet Goldmine! Docudramas never really work very good. But this movie really meked us believe it all...Because they don't try to make it as a path full of glorious concerts, present musicians that are superheroes, groupie girls that are stupid and emotionally numb, they don't glorify drugs and alcohol, they promote rehabilitation and redemption that comes even 20 years late... Once again great movie. Since "Leaving Las Vegas" I was never so moved by a movie.

Sentiment: positive
Pay no attention to the comments behind the curtain! The majority of people leaving positive comments about this film must be receiving royalties. This is a horrible film in every way. Imagine high school kids with no money and no sense of humor making a slasher/comedy video. They would receive a D for this. College kids would receive an F or asked to leave the school. Since this monstrosity was made by "Professionals" I believe there should be jail time or at least cinema probation. I enjoy watching bad movies Like "Plan 9 From Outer Space" but, this thing doesn't even fall into that category. The script, acting, sound, and directing are so bad that it is virtually unwatchable. If you enjoy watching bad films that are amusing stick with Ed Wood, blaxploitation, or 1970's horror films. After viewing this you get the feeling you've wasted an hour and a half of your life.

Sentiment: negative
Trudy Lintz (Rene Russo) was one very fortunate lady many years ago. She was the wife of a wealthy doctor and had lots of extracurricular money. Her passion was animals and she devoted herself to providing a sanctuary for the furry ones on her property grounds. Trudy also raised two chimps in her home to be more like children. They dressed in clothes and had many amenities. One day, she learns of an abandoned baby gorilla. Knowing nothing about the large apes, she relies on her husband's medical abilities and expert advice to save the gorilla's life. Once out of danger, Trudy decides she will raise the gorilla, also, as one of her children. This works well for years and Buddy, the gorilla, is truly a remarkably intelligent addition to her home. But, Buddy is also a gorilla and his strength and curiosity become quite enormous. Will Trudy be able to keep Buddy under control? For those who love animals, Buddy is a must-see movie. Based on a true story, Trudy and her ape develop a relationship that is unique in the annals of animal history and lore. Of course, Buddy is not a real gorilla but a mechanical one, in the film, but he is very close to seeming totally real. Russo gives a nice performance as a lady ahead of her time and the supporting players are also quite nice. The costumes are exemplary, as befitting the earlier era of the story, and the settings and production values outstanding. But, most importantly, animals are here in abundance, not only Buddy, but the adorable chimps, the ducks, the rabbits, and so forth. For those who want to watch a film and be transported to animal heaven, here on earth, this is a great movie choice. All animal lovers, and even those who just want to watch a great family film, will go "ape" over Buddy.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is just another average action flick, but it could have been so much better. When the guns come out they really needed some choreography help. Someone like Andy McNabb - who made that brilliant action sequence in Heat as they move up the street from the robbery - would have turned the dull action sequences into something special. Because the rest of the film was alright - predictable but watchable - better than you would expect from this type of movie. Then came the final scene, the show-down, the one we had been waiting for, but was like watching something from the A-Team in the 80s. They shoot wildly, nothing hits, and they run around a house trying to kill each other - same old, same old.

Sentiment: negative
Although I have rarely flown myself, I am keenly interested in aviation... and this film has added to the precious laughing stock in aviation cinema.

1. Why is the captain doing the ground checks? Why does he even measure the oil levels in the engines? With turnaround times as low as 15 minutes in commercial aviation this is not a typical pre-flight check.

2. WHY does the captain KICK against the aircraft tire? Strange kind of pressure check. Or anger management :-)

3. The cockpit has a crew of 3. All large, western, two-engined jets built since the 1980ies have a crew of 2 people. Now try a guess at how old the movie script is.

4. A helicopter manages to fly alongside the crippled airliner. Must be a fast one... and the captain's words to explain the "maneuver" to the passengers are indeed hilarious ones!

5. With arrested elevator rudders it is always possible to lower the nose of the aircraft. It happens, for example, when any aircraft moves slower than the stall speed.

6. The elevator rudders have hydraulic actuators. After the collision with the business plane it would, most probably, have severed the hydraulic lines and thus make them useless for steering, but it would NOT fix them in certain position.

7. The fire in the aft galley was a stupid idea. It was designed to show that only gentlemen ask for the extinguisher and fight the fire, regardless of who was actually trained to do that  the flight attendant.

8. At the time of collision, the aircraft's elevators would have been in a neutral position. The film could have ended here...

9. The flight engineer (the third person in the cockpit) has three bars on his uniform. In reality, flight engineers have two.

10. Why does the captain slash the cabin casing with an axe to examine the damage behind? I thought it would have been the flight engineer's duty, as he is already supposed to perform technical checks before and after flight.

11. In any aircraft, there is no unused space. At least commercial airplanes cannot afford the luxury of a compartment that can be filled with tons of water.

I could go on and on... but at last I laughed hysterically about how the screenwriters imagine aircraft disasters! Woooohooo! Most aircraft disasters happen in such a short time span that you simply cannot make 90-minute flicks out of them. But you can always fill 90 minutes with mind-boggling and insane crap, irrespective of the genre.

Sentiment: negative
Do not be mistaken, this is neither a horror, nor really a film. I firmly advise against watching this 82 minute failure; the only reason it merited a star was the presence of Chris Pine.

Nothing happens. You wait patiently in the hope that there may be a flicker of a twist, a hint of surprise, a plot to emerge - but no.

The characters take erratic turns of pace in their actions and yet don't have the time to develop - thanks to the thrifty editors and frankly ashamed writers - before returning to an idyllic and playful (bring on the teen rock montage) state. The only thing that could have made it worse would be adding the perishable token ethnic 'companion'.

Their encounters with obstacles (be they human or physical) are brief, confusing and entirely pointless.

Chris Pine fights to keep himself above the surface whilst being drowned by a misery of a lightweight cast. Lou Taylor Pucci couldn't be dryer if he spent the summer with Keanu Reaves combing the Navada desert.

Watch 'The Road', watch '28 days Later', watch day time TV...anything but this; I implore you. Suffer the boredom, unlike you may be led to believe in the film, this film is no cure.

Sentiment: negative
I absolutely despise this film. I wanted to love it - I really wanted to. But man, oh man - they were SO off with Sara. And the father living was pretty cheesy. That's straight out of the Shirley Temple film.

I highly recommend THE BOOK. It is amazing. In the book, Sara is honorable and decent and she does the right thing... BECAUSE IT IS RIGHT. She doesn't have a spiteful bone in her body.

In the film, she is mean-spirited and spiteful. She does little things to get back at Miss Minchin. In the book, Sara is above such things. She DOES stand up to Miss Minchin. She tells the truth and is not cowed by her. But she does not do the stupid, spiteful things that the Sara in the film does.

It's really rather unsettling to me that so many here say they loved the book and they love the movie. I can't help but wonder... did we read the same book? The whole point of the book was personal responsibility, behaving with honor and integrity, ALWAYS telling the truth and facing adversity with calm and integrity.

Sara has a happy ending in the book - not the ridiculous survival of her father, but the joining with his partner who has been searching for her. In the book, she is taken in by this new father figure who loves and cares for her and Becky. And Miss Minchin is NOT a chimney sweep - that part of the film really was stupid.

To see all this praise for this wretched film is disturbing to me. We are praising a film that glorifies petty, spiteful behavior with a few tips of the hat to kindness? Sara in the book was kind to the bone and full of integrity. I don't even recognize her in the film... she's not in it.

Good thing Mrs. Burnett isn't alive to see this horrid thing. It's ghastly and undeserving to bear the title of her book.

Sentiment: negative
What a disappointment!

This film seemed to be trying to copy 'cutting edge' comedy but the direction and the script was sloppy, sickly and sentimental in the worst film tradition. Jack Black's acting/role was self-indulgent and self-regarding... and the other characters were equally unmasking and uninteresting. The soundtrack was tedious. We are ( WERE) fans of Black but none of us did more than mange a forced titter for the duration. Why did he feel he needed to make this mistake?

We will not watch another of his films without reading reviews more carefully first!!

Was he drunk when he read the script before signing up for this drivel?

Sentiment: negative
Well, this movie shows us that Mark Griffiths and producers think we all are idiots. If not how should we understand this:

American pilots take off on Mig-29s. Suddenly all aircrafts turn to F-16s. Ha, a magic! After an action... Migs land. The magic again!

Oh, did I mention that F-16s had Israel markings? 

Another magic: obviously unarmed L-39 trainers are bombing enemies.

And more magic: while all movie is situated in Europe, we can see a desert in almost any flying scene.

Maybe the director wasted all his magic on things above, because action scenes are incredibly chaotic and also explosions look awfully as if pilots bombarded with molotovs.

OK, OK, this is a movie. I should write about its story... wait. A story? Yes there is SOME story in this film. And its horrible as well.

Sentiment: negative
If you are one of those people that think Lucio Fulci is all about gore, guts and zombies, you have to watch this (and "The Psychic" too, for that matter). Even though the film does include some quite brutal scenes of violence, and a unsettling subject matter, it's not the main thing here. This is a truly impressive, story and character-driven murder mystery that might well be the director's masterpiece. Here, he proves that he's a real craftsman, creating a memorable, disturbing yet strikingly beautiful masterpiece, filled with creepy Catholic imagery and interesting social commentary. It also has a great cast, including the gorgeous Barbara Bouchet, as well as Tomas Millan (from Beatrice Cenci) and Irene Pappas in a small but important role. Still, it is Brazilian actress Florinda Bolkan (who also stared in Fulci's bizarre "Lizard in a woman's skin") who steals the scene in the role of Majara, giving an excellent performance of a woman driven insane by her superstitions, and her vicious murder scene is particularly heartbreaking. The second star of the movie is Sergio D'Ofizi's cinematography who, along with the melancholic Morricone-esquire score by Riz Ortolani, help bringing the "secluded Italian village with a dark secret" setting to life. I have to admit thought that the dummy head hitting the rocks kind of pulled me off, but nonetheless, this is a definite Italian horror classic - a moving, sad and ultimately thought provoking work of genius. 10/10 for me. If you liked this one, I recommend watching Alfred Sole's "Alice, Sweet Alice", as they are somewhat similar, and are both underrated gems.

Sentiment: positive
This reminded me SOO much of Michael Winner's crappy 'Dirty Weekend' with it's awful English low budget feel.

Firstly I must say I am a fan of both exploitation and serious film. I appreciate, say, 'Demented' for it's ineptitude and 'Last House on the Left' for it's sheer unashamed brutality. And any number of inventive and increasingly brutal Italian spin offs.

This was just pointless though. Kind of like a British budget director thought 'let's remake "I Spit on your Grave" without making it too harrowing now that horror is back in fashion with Hostel.

The whole thing just doesn't hang together or have a point. What's with the rapists's daughter? Why bother having the man be an expert in security cameras? Crappy.

Sentiment: negative
Okay people, I have to agree with almost everyone else's reviews here. The characters. Are. Stupid. They're ALL stereotypical, and yet have nice clothes and are always skinny.

Don't even get me started on Jamie Lynn's role as ZOEY. Zoey is a pretty, popular, tan, blonde young teen who everyone just LOVES! She has a "rebellious", great, personality that everyone agrees with no matter how dumb or extreme it is. Most annoying of all: her voice is so darn bubbly and obnoxious. "OMG!"

Take for example the first episode. The moment she steps onto the huge PCA campus, everyone seems to love her. The boys want to ask her out, the girls want to be her friend, etc. Thinking she's all that, the episode plays out with Zoey always being the center of attention; she is the so-called best player of the unofficial girls basketball team, confident, and has everyone pity her when she weakly gets hit in the face. Oh boo-hoo.

My favorite character by far is this whole series is a girl that appears much later into the show, Lauren or something, who is the ONLY person ever introduced in the show to hate Zoey.

And Zoey doesn't even seem to be very loyal to her friends sometimes. In one episodes she even calls her friend a freak without EVER apologizing and doesn't show the least bit regret in doing so.

Zoey is ALWAYS the best:

-Desiging professional T-shirts and backpacks (which become a big hit)

-coming up with VERY elaborate schemes BY HERSELF to teach a single person a lesson. 

-Flawless grades 

-Taking the blame for stuff that wasn't even related to her just so everyone else could be happy.

-Coming up with a commercial that was so good it was put on TV. The list goes on and on...

Ugh. She has no acting talent. She's always the perfect person. She acts snotty and rebellious and preppy and...UGH! Can't stand her.

Not only that, but everyone in the show always has great clothes. EVEN THE NERD! Her wardrobe is better than mine, and mine is pretty freaking decent.

No one cares if everyone at PCA loves you, Zoey, and would do anything for you, even if it meant giving their right arm.

BUT regardless of these cardboard characters, the plots are creative. Not everyday things. They're interesting and amusing. The humor is usually good-natured and fun, but the characters are so paper flat that it's hard to enjoy it.

This show would be really good if Dan Schnieder put a bit more time thinking of the type of characters he wanted, because they are so typical, so boring that's it's lame and stupid.

Point: No one's the least bit overweight, everyone has stylish clothes, Zoey is the definition of Mary-sue, the story lines are well-thought out, and the humor is laughable. But again, I want to emphasize that the characters taint the show. Watch the show if you must, but don't say I didn't warn you if your eyes start to bleed.

Sentiment: negative
At what point does a film become so bad it's good? Compelling in it's awfulness, Darkhunters stands out as a shining example of c**p cinematography and for that alone, probably deserves some kind of award.

The plot revolves around the age old battle of Heaven and Hell for the unclaimed souls of the recently dead. In the case of Darkhunters, the representatives of good and evil manifest themselves variously as a herd of cats, a hooded Grim Reaper figure with a face of flickering flames similar to a coal effect electric fire, a Philip Marlowe-a-like with a seriously bad manicure and a female psychologist who appears to be on day-release from Kwik-Save.

The protagonists are competing for the soul of a newly dead teacher who spends most of the film running around a foggy field and bizarrely, a boarding kennels in an attempt to evade his pursuers.

The plot is spread thinner than a dieter's sandwich with no character development or attempt to build suspense. The acting is laughable, comparable to a school play - although that would be an insult to many educational establishments. And the dialogue .......... oh, how my sides ached! With the unclaimed souls of the dead being described as "life's unwanted gherkins" by the flame-glow demon, you wonder whether Hell really is a McDonalds.

But is is bizarrely compelling, you find yourself watching just to see how bad it can get - at just over 80 minutes, it's worth the time spent for the unintentional giggles.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie at an advance screening and found it excellent.

New York I Love You is a true spin on a romance that explores clever, funny, and sometimes shocking situations around the human race's most powerful emotion.

The cast is huge, a veritable Oceans 11 with Andy Garcia, Ethan Hawke, Shia Labouf, Natalie Portman, Bradley Cooper and others. They all give stand out performances in one way or another.

That's not to mention that there is a who's who of directors interweaving stories in clever and interesting ways. Brett Rattner, Shaka Kapur, Natalie Portman, I mean -WOW! This movie is not a straight ahead romance or romantic comedy even though it is both romantic and funny. It also has serious stories and notes. But that's good in my opinion. Go see it for yourself and reply to my review, I want to hear what others have to say.

Sentiment: positive
I was very surprised with this film. I was touched with the lives that paulie touched along his way to find his "marie" the little girl he was separated from. The humor was also very good and it did not hurt the story as i thought it would probably do. Actually i was expecting "paulie wants a cracker" jokes to hurt this film but even that was done in a very humorous scene that turns very touching when paulie is in the research lab press room conference. So if you wish to see a good "animal that talks" film check this one out, much better than Dr. DOLITTLE in my opinion. PAULIE also has a surprised twist in the end that is done very nicely as well.

Sentiment: positive
I was unsure what to expect from "driving lessons"- unsure whether Rupert Grint could carry such a role, but within the first few minutes I was completely hooked. All the way through, the music, acting and scenery were absolutely stunning. Julie Walters, as always, gave a superb performance as the eccentric old actress Evie, and Rupert Grint, equally as good,gave a fantastic performance as the romantic Ben.

Right from the beginning, I was forced into involuntary cringes, bursts of laughter and swellings of joy as Ben broke free from his controlling mother and fought for his friendship with his only friend, Evie. A very controversial story, probably rather exaggerated but none the less one of the best films i have seen in a long time.

Highly recommend to anyone seeking a good British film and an evening to kick-back and just enjoy yourself.

Sentiment: positive
This is exactly the type of film that frustrates me the most. Great cast, great director, great story potential, then they ruin it all with a screenplay that goes nowhere...and says nothing while going there! There is no depth here whatsoever. No depth of characters, no depth of plot, no depth of surprise, suspense, or common sense. We know what's happening, we are told how they plan to fix the problem, they fix the problem, throw a surprise at us near the end that fails to generate any suspense, then they end the film abruptly. Wasted opportunity.

On the plus side, Glenn Ford leads a cast of UK (and one French) actors who are all fantastic, doing an incredibly impressive job with the one-dimensional writing they were given. One of the absolute favorites is Herbert Walton as "Old Charlie", who provides some wonderful bits of humor and warmth to a dark and serious film. I also thought the film had a great look to it...all shadows and fog...very film noir in feel.

Even though the actors do the best they can and the directing is enjoyable, it still just isn't enough for me to recommend spending the time to view the film. There are far better Glenn Ford movies out there: The Big Heat, Gilda, Affair in Trinidad, etc.

Sentiment: negative
WHAT AN AWESOME FILM!!!!!!!! I came out of the theatre feeling stunned. The film that I had just seen was one of the best films I have seen in my life. I had my eyes glued to the screen. It's very symbolic, visually lush, beautifully shot, and gorgeously told. It's basically about two people who move into a flat and live next door to each other with there partners, who are assumed to be having an affair with each others partners. Assuming this, our two heroes act out what they think their partners are getting upto. There is an obvious repression of feelings for each other, with the use of vouryistic camera work, body language, and symbollic stairways. It's a visual feast, and hard not to like. Some of the story gets slightly confusing but that's nothing. The ending is one of the most beautiful (and anti-hollywood) endings I have ever seen in my life, and visually amazing. The films haunting score adds to the mood. I highly recommend this film to anyone with an open mind, and respect. What a superb film.

Sentiment: positive
Dear Mr. Seitzman, Or Whomever I May Hold Responsible For Mr. Seitzman Not Meeting His Rightful Fate Of Being Eaten Alive by Rabid Wolverines;

I do not know you, and so cannot comment on your character; for all I know, you give to charities and help little old ladies cross the street. Still, I must insist, for the common good, that you never write another screenplay as long as you live. Put down the pen, step away from the laptop! 

If you refuse to heed the pleading of wounded brains, I have watched a movie or two in my life, and I believe you will find my counsel helpful: 

1. Do not include love scenes in which overwrought teenage boys name the body parts of their girlfriends after US states. If you must pen such a scene, please do not name the breasts "New York" and "New Jersey"; it causes unnecessary speculation as to which cities occupy the nipples. Also, it is almost incomprehensibly stupid and annoying.

2. Do not rely solely on John Hughes movies in order to reinforce class distinctions.

3. Do not bludgeon the audience over the head with exhausted clichés. Yes, yes, Kelley and Sam stand out in the rain, and it cleanses them of their cares. We get it. Yes, the roses continue to bloom in Kelley's dead mother's greenhouse, even though every other plant has begun to rot. It Is A Symbol Of Their Love. It is also very painful when applied via blunt-force trauma to the backs of our heads. For the love of God, Mr. Seitzman, we get it. We all get it, all across the land. Amish people, the hard of hearing, unborn babies - we all get it.

4. Do not require the actors to perform mime sequences. Ever. No, never.

5. Did I mention that you should ease up on the trite symbolism? Because the audience can draw the parallel between the rebuilding of the restaurant and the building of the relationship between Kelley and Sam without any help. Truly. We get it.

6. Go through your script, and cull out the following lines, and any lines resembling them: "I don't know what we are anymore." "I don't want to lose you." "He's just like the rest of them!" (And its corollary, "Daddy, you don't even know him!") 

7. Yes, yes, she's in heaven, running around in a field. We get it.

8. And in other news, we get it.

I have seen dozens of terrible movies in my life; I never expected to suffer for your art, and I would have just left the theater, but an elephant with the words "DOOMED LOVE" painted on its side fell from the sky and pinned me to my seat.

In closing, your writing bites, you owe me ten dollars, and I hate you.

Sentiment: negative
The main reason to see this film is Warren William, who is in top form as the shyster campaign manager. He is electric, constantly finding ways to fool the public and defeat the opposing party in the midst of the biggest disasters. William is a great actor -- I feel he never got his due. Bette Davis as his girlfriend also shines in an under-written role. Personally, I found Guy Kibbee not quite right as the lame-brained candidate that William and the others are trying to foist on the public. He seemed more like an empty canvas than a person. I would have preferred to see a real character emerge rather than a non-character. The story itself is implausible, silly and clichéd. But Warren William and Bette Davis are well worth watching.

Sentiment: positive
I agree with the previous comment in naming the film's content "everyday madness" but would like to specify that: "Dog Days" is about how women are treated in (a male) society. The episodes we get to see here show some variation in everyday discrimination of women, mostly categorized by age group. There is a senior man who makes his new partner look and act the way his late wife had, treating her like a doll that shall act "worthy of wearing" the former's dress. There is a middle-aged couple in whose relationship she is nearly a slave and he a (violent) master. Further we find a somewhat younger man who does not communicate with his friend/wife and instead of being really jealous about her affairs even makes friendship with his competitor(s). A young adult man makes clear to his friend - a girl who is really troubled by being pretty enough for him - that she has to be the jewelry at his side and to follow his narrow viewed rules of etiquette. Finally there is a man in his late fifties who calculating his own advantage delivers a simple-minded hitchhiking woman to a furious client who - taking her for guilty in having scratched his car - natural beats her up. To complete the examples we find the pal of the man in the "master-slave"-couple - after collectively abusing her - threatening and humiliating the former "in her sake" for she shall get rid of her partner and take himself as her new "master". During all this the inhabitants of the lately built neighborhood in which the action takes place rests under the burning summer-sun - absolutely motionless (sic!). Unfortunately I have not seen the last minutes of this shocking and authentic portray of the archaic structures that still reign in the relationship between women and men, but what I have seen convincingly analyzed the repertoire of discrimination. Probably a helpful tool in teaching even the less sensitive spectator what goes wrong - due to good visualization.

Sentiment: positive
Okay, let's start off by saying this film is not an exact rendition of the crimes and legal pursuit of Andrei Chikatilo. While it may have been "official policy" in the Politburo that the USSR had no serial killers, in actuality the legal system had handled others, and "Killer X" (as he was actually called) was already being sought when Fetisov brought Burakov onto the case. In fact, as soon as it was realized they had multiple murders on their hands, the authorities assigned a task force of dozens of officers to track down and end the killing spree of a man that did not fit into what is perceived as normal serial killer parameters. It's good the director and writers consistently remind the viewer that the story is only "based upon actual events," for a docudrama this ain't.

***SPOILERS FOLLOW****

That said, this is a damn good example of a fast-paced Hollywood-style thriller that still gets across the basics of what happened. It is easy to follow and has just enough truth behind its version of events to make for compelling viewing. Yes, Chikatilo raped and murdered both children and adults, both male and female. Yes, shoddy lab-work set him free to continue killing for years. Yes, innocent men were accused of the murders and "confessed" to their crimes at police urging. Yes, the gay community was harassed while the crimes were being committed (albeit with Burakov's committed assistance). And yes, Chikatilo was brought to confession not by the haranguing of the special prosecutor, Gorbunov, but by the gentle understanding of a psychiatrist named Bukhanovsky (though Gorbunov was really nowhere near the egotistical martinet portrayed in this film). Quibbles about truth and veracity aside, all of these events are dramatized in a manner that consistently tightens the tension and fear.

It doesn't hurt that director and co-writer Chris Gerolmo has a pitch perfect cast. Stephen Rea's growing emotional involvement in the killings and developing expertise in detecting clues, Donald Sutherland's snarky manipulation of the Soviet party hacks and subtle spine that becomes evident when it is needed, Jeffrey DeMunn's seething undercurrent of rage hidden by a fear-filled demeanor, Max Von Sydow's boyish excitement at being part of a criminal investigation all enhance the sharp dialog and crisp editing in ways that cannot be underestimated.

Taken for what it is, "Citizen X" is almost pitch perfect (the "almost" due to one moment of self-congratulation at the end that just does NOT fit). Highly recommended as fiction well-told, not fact being presented...but considering the junky "serial killer" movies that Hollywood usually spits out, that's good enough for me.

Sentiment: positive
The greatest games of Kasparov or Fischer can be a mess for a total rookie. This is a great movie. There is no special agency involved in the plot. This is the clue! This is a PRIVATE plot, built as a PRIVATE enterprise. This is a self-destructive and a self organized plot. As a conclusion, the scenario described the perfect professional plot: private, self organized, self-destructive, with no trace at the end. Anyone can be behind the plot: a smart "director" with some money. All can be done just by delegation. The "director" must be just trigger. If the normal viewer cannot see the essence of the plot in the explicit sequences of the movie, a real plot has fewer chances to be discovered. All the actors' performances are well done , with some special mention for Gene Hackman and Mickey Rooney.

Sentiment: positive
hi

Blade is an sensational action movie . the hero (Wesley Snipes) and the villain have done justice to their roles.

The movie's action sequences are better then Matrix! 

Wesley Snipes is one the best action heroes ever.

If u like action/vampire movies , this is the ONE.

the theme is pretty good considering the fact that so many vampire movies have been made before.But these is the best of them.

Enjoy the Ride.

Sentiment: positive
The Poverty Row horror pictures of the 1930s and '40s depress the hell out of me. God knows I have nothing against low-budget films, but the ones produced in that period have such a dreary, shabby look about them--and, in the final analysis, just aren't very good. "The Corpse Vanishes" is slightly more entertaining than bottom-of-the-barrel dreck like "The Invisible Ghost" and "The Ape Man", but it's no classic. Bela Lugosi, long past his "Dracula" heyday, plays yet another mad doctor; the unbearable Elizabeth Russell plays his wife. They sleep in coffins because, as Lugosi explains to a doubtful young female reporter (Luana Walters), a coffin is much more comfortable than a bed. Ho hum. Angelo Rossitto and Minerva Urecal are also on hand, which might please hardcore fans of '30s and '40s films.

Sentiment: negative
Now, I loved "Lethal Weapon" and "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", but I cannot believe Shane Black wrote this pile...or that David Morse and John C. McGinley are in it. I screened it for a film festival. Awful. Everyone was laughing. It's preachy and heavy handed...not to mention stupid. Also, it's surprising how little L.A. looks like Cambodia. The entire idea of time traveling through post-traumatic stress disorder is kinda dumb. Imagine "Born on the Fourth of July" mixed with "The Butterfly Effect 2" (I used to sequel as the example to really show how bad this movie is) but directed by Michael Bay's 2nd unit director. That bad. The 2 stars are purely based on the production value.

Sentiment: negative
After seeing the trailer for this movie and finding out Spike Lee was directing, I was excited to hear about this event. I wasn't alive at the time, I didn't live in New York, so I expected more of a history lesson than anything. What I got was some interesting acting, a lot of sex, and about 30 minutes worth of film that actually had anything to do with the Son of Sam. I guess the film wasn't about the Son of Sam, but it was a peek into the summer of '77. Label me disappointed.



Sentiment: negative
"The Groove Tube" was initially shown on video, in the first "video theaters" here in Boston. In one room, there were TV monitors on high stands, with old movie theater seats, in small groups facing the monitors. There were old refrigerators stocked with Pepsi, and baskets of York Peppermint Patties. In a second, smaller room, there were no seats, just large pillows. That was the 'smoking' room, i.e., people got high in there. That act only added to the hilarity of the video.

I was a 'frequent viewer'; the scenes I liked most and remember to this day are: Koko The Clown, The Kramp Family Kitchen (Kramp Easy-Lube Shortening), Safety Sam/ VD PSA, the Chevy Chase hitchhiker w/ nude runs through the woods, the Finger Ballet on what was eventually revealed to be the nude body of a woman. The last item was very reminiscent of the late, incredible Ernie Kovacs. Now, I've lost a lot of readers that are under 48 ("who is Ernie Kovacs??") but trust me, it's funny stuff.

One reason I was a 'frequent viewer' was that I, and my friends, would bring other "Groove Tube" virgins to see it. We would sit and slyly watch the faces of the 'virgins' as the "Safety Sam" PSA would play. As the camera slowly zooms in on "Sam", we would wait for that "OH!" of recognition on the 'virgin's' face. Each time was more hilarious than the last. And then that 'virgin' would then bring a friend to see the show, repeating what we had done. To get this joke, you must watch the video.

Yes, some of it is dated, but most plays, film, television, and now videos are. Just look at any video made in the 1980's.

I did see "The Groove Tube" in a theater as a film, a grainy transfer from the original video. It had been cut, and was missing some of the original high-point scenes.

The first "Saturday Night Live" show, featuring Chevy Chase, elicited instant remarks of, "that's the guy from "The Groove Tube" ", so it was a precursor for Chevy.

I can't look at a can of shortening without hearing the voice-over, "coat your hands with a generous amount of Kramp Easy-Lube shortening..." and thinking of the "Kramp Holiday Loaf" recipe. Always gets me laughing in the Baking Needs aisle in the grocery store.

The early 70's were parlous times; "The Groove Tube" was fresh, new, and really 'got' the humor of the times. It offered a 'hip generation', humor that wasn't available in any other format/medium. MJH

Sentiment: positive
Let me begin by saying that there is no bigger fan of the original "Lonesome Dove" than I. Both the Pulitzer Prize-winning book and the towering mini-series adapted from it stand alone in my experience as moving, dramatic, believable, and engrossing works. There is no comparison between "Lonesome Dove" and any Western film- at least not since the legendary collaborations of John Ford and John Wayne. It was with real reservations that I sat down to watch this new mini-series, what with McMurtry's non-participation, and the missing original cast members. After watching the first episode it was clear that this is no "Lonesome Dove". In almost every measurable way this sequel falls short of the original. But so what? I wasn't expecting it to measure up. Taken as an effort of it's own this film is engaging, entertaining and of a very good quality. If it were done as a new story, not as a sequel to "Lonesome Dove", there is no question in my mind that it would not have received as many negative ratings. Jon Voight did a creditable job as Call, Barbara Hershey was a terrific Clara, and the new characters like Gideon Walker and Agostina Vega were well rendered and believable. Louis Gossett jr. deserves special mention as the horse wrangler Isom Pickett. The film made me care about the characters, and I don't ask any more than that from an actor. it is unfortunate that this worthy effort stands in the shadow of it's predecessor- it is worth viewing in it's own right.

Sentiment: positive
If you're at all interested in pirates, pirate movies, New Orleans/early 19th century American history, or Yul Brynner, see this film for yourself and make up your own mind about it. Don't be put off by various lacklustre reviews. My reaction to it was that it is entertaining, well acted (for the most part), has some very witty dialogue, and that it does an excellent job of portraying the charm, appeal and legendary fascination of the privateer Jean Lafitte. While not all the events in the film are historically accurate (can you show me any historical film that succeeds in this?), I feel the film is accurate in its treatment of the role Lafitte played in New Orleans' history, and the love-hate relationship between the "respectable" citizens of New Orleans and this outlaw who was one of the city's favorite sons. Don't worry about what the film doesn't do, but watch it for what it does do, i.e., for its study of one of New Orleans', and America's, most intriguing historical figures.

Sentiment: positive
These were two video shot movies that Troama decided were horrible so in a desperate move turned into this one movie. Perhaps the bitterness on Troama's side helped spark the comedy, but for whatever reason this is very funny stuff with an inspired bit with "Oliver Stone" doing commentary during the movie. Lots of cameos, lots of use of the Lesbian Cannibal HoeDown song add to the fun. Trey Parker, Ted Raimi, Julie Strain etc etc....

One of the best of recent Troama releases. Yes it's all over the place, know that going in, the production quality, or lack of, becomes one of the many running jokes. Go with it and you'll be in for a good time.

The behind the scenes, frequently the best things about Troama releases are also above average this time around. I really think the anger they felt over these two lousy films helped drive them to, well not greatness, but drove them to "fix" this film in a way that's better than either of the films would have been as they were originally planned.

Sentiment: positive
From what I understand, Mr. Bava abandoned this project before completion...AND RIGHTFULLY SO!!! If I were him I definitely would have made sure that EVERY copy was burned and if anybody in the future ever asked me about this film...IT NEVER HAPPENED & IT NEVER EXISTED...end of story.

Despite some great sets and good photography this is one horrible film...is it supposed to be scary? (not in the least) is it supposed to be funny?? (puh-leese) A total waste of time...and I really don't like to have to say that!!

Sentiment: negative
Arthur has always been a personal film for me for two reasons. A good friend of mine who worked on the film as an extra and to help out with the horses during the stable scene just recently passed away. If you look fast you can see Frank Graham during the restaurant scene in the background while Dudley Moore and Jill Eikenberry are in conversation. Frank was a champion equestrian and will be missed by all who knew him.

Secondly though, I actually knew a real life Arthur Bach. He was not quite as wealthy as Arthur, but spent 47 years of his life basically as a kid. His parents tightly controlled his purse strings, but his rent and utilities were paid for in a basement apartment in Greenwich Village. He spent a good deal of his time getting himself intoxicated on various spirits and making a public spectacle of himself, just like Dudley Moore does. 

The wonder with Arthur is why anyone would bother with him wealth of not. But that's the other half of the equation. My friend was a most charming person when you got to know him. In fact it was almost a compulsion to be charming. He couldn't buy a newspaper or magazine without trying to establish some level of relationship with the vendor. He spent his life being a perfect party guest. The term wastrel which was in common use in the 19th century would apply to him.

And that's what Dudley Moore is, a wastrel. Unlike my friend Moore has John Gielgud to clean up after him. That's a full time job as we see demonstrated in Arthur. My friend also never found a Liza Minnelli, a male Liza Minnelli in fact because he was gay. Still Moore's portrayal of Arthur Bach is deadly accurate and so real for me.

Arthur, 20th century wastrel, is being forced to marry another trust fund baby in Jill Eikenberry. Since he won't work for a living, the threat of being cut off is quite real for him. He only has his butler Hobson played by John Gielgud and chauffeur Bitterman played by Ted Post to pour his troubles out to. We should all have such troubles.

John Gielgud in his nearly century of life certainly did better work than in Arthur on film and in fact Gielgud is more prominently known for his stage performances. Yet 1981 was a year of sentiment at Oscar time. The Academy gave Henry Fonda and Katharine Hepburn Oscars for On Golden Pond and Gielgud the Best Supporting Actor Award essentially for the work of a lifetime. That man was amazing, still at his craft almost to the end.

So to Frank Graham who worked in the film and to Jackie Weiss, a genuine real life Arthur, I dedicate this review.

Sentiment: positive
I got to see this just this last Friday at the Los Angeles film festival at Laemlee's on Beverly. This movie got the most applause of all the films that evening. Considering that two music videos opened first, I didn't know what to expect since they were very fast and attention grabbing, I wasn't sure I was ready for a short immediately. But to my surprise I really enjoyed this. I thought the main actor demon guy was really good. I was so impressed with his performance that I checked out his name. I was surprised to see that this was the Witchblade guy. He's gotten really good especially since then! Either that or he was given lousy roles or had been pushed by the director really hard for this short. The girl did an okay job. I guess its hard since it was her first performance and being so young. The dad did well also. There was a lot of really nice cg work for a short, both for this and the short playing next "Mexican Hat" which was also nice, but I enjoyed this the most because it had the most depth and emotion and I actually cared about the characters. The other was a very simple story. The story was quite illustrative and dark! It dealt with real topics using a more fantasy like approach to keep ADD people like me interested. We won't even talk about the last film in the block which I left. My only complaint is that I only wish I had seen more of the demon character and a little less of getting started, which is why I gave it a 9 out of 10. I also thought the end credits went a little slowly. Otherwise it was beautifully told, directed and edited. The timing was very nice with a complete change from the fast MTV editing done on everything nowadays. There will be more coming from this director in the future as well as the actor. I now will think of him as the Sorrows Lost actor not the Witchblade guy.

Sentiment: positive