DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I read that Jessie Matthews was approached and turned down co-starring with Fred Astaire in Damsel in Distress. Jessie Matthews in her prime never left her side of the pond to do any American musical films. IF they had teamed for this film it would have been a once in a lifetime event.

It's a pity because Damsel in Distress has everything else going for it. Fred Astaire, story and adapted to screen by author P.G. Wodehouse, Burns&Allen for comedy, and songs by the Gershwin Brothers. In answer to the question posed by the Nice Work If You Can Get It, there isn't much you could ask more for this film.

Except a leading lady. Though Ginger Rogers made several films away from Fred Astaire, Damsel in Distress is the only film Astaire made without Rogers while they were a team. Young Joan Fontaine was cast in this opposite Astaire.

Her character has none of the bite that Ginger Rogers's parts do in these films. All she basically has to do is act sweet and demure. She also doesn't contribute anything musically. And if I had to rate all the dancing partners of Fred Astaire, Joan Fontaine would come out at the bottom. The poor woman is just horrible in the Things Are Looking Up number. 

When she co-starred later on in a musical with Bing Crosby, The Emperor Waltz, it's no accident that Fontaine is given nothing musical to do.

The version I have is a colorized one and in this case I think it actually did some good. The idyllic lush green English countryside of P.G. Wodehouse is really brought out in this VHS copy. Especially in that number I mentioned before with Astaire and Fontaine which does take place in the garden.

Burns&Allen on the other hand as a couple of old vaudeville troopers complement Astaire in grand style in the Stiff Upper Lip number. The surreal fun-house sequence is marvelously staged.

P.G. Wodehouse's aristocracy runs the gamut with Constance Collier at her haughty best and for once Montagu Love as Fontaine's father as a nice man on film.

The biggest hit out of A Damsel in Distress is A Foggy Day maybe the best known song about the British capital city since London Bridge Is Falling Down. Done in the best simple elegant manner by Fred Astaire, it's one of those songs that will endure as long as London endures and even after.

Overlooking the young and inexperienced Joan Fontaine, A Damsel in Distress rates as a classic, classic score, classic dancing, classic comedy. Who could ask for anything more?

Sentiment: positive
... And being let down bigger than ever before. I won't make any direct references or anything here, but to say the least, this film is pathetic. If you're military trained, don't bother watching. I put it on the DVD with 2 friends wanting to watch a somewhat interesting action / war flick. Why couldn't I just have read the reviews first.

Already at the first "bomb" scene the film has huge glitches, and they continue to show and become bigger and bigger. My 2 friends, not connected to the military in any way spotted a couple of the filmmaker's mistakes almost as fast as I myself did and asked me if some of the things going on we're realistic. Well, as you might have guessed, they're not - at all.

Avoid this movie unless you're able to overlook these completely idiotic and re-occurring mistakes being made. 2/10 for catching my interest at first.

Sentiment: negative
This is the first of these "8 Films To Die For" collection that I've seen and it's certainly not made me want to see any of the rest...although I've heard at least a couple of them are decent. I don't know, this wasn't terrible but it didn't really do much for me. Your basic dysfunctional cannibal family in suburbia kind of thing, mom & dad died, the family sold the farm & moved to San Francisco (?) where they continued to bring home stray food sources whenever possible. The best part of this was the creepy Goth sister, who of course invites a friend over from school that never leaves. Anyway, of course we have a butcher shop in the basement and so on and so on. This family is sort of like the white-bread version of the Sawyer Clan, they're nasty & they do bad things but they ain't go no soul. I see a lot of reviews from people that liked this, and I guess I don't know what I missed, but I found it to be very mediocre & I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, really. 4 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
I've watched a lot of television in my 51 years, but I've never had so much fun week after week, as I had watching Oz. The acting by the entire cast was excellent. The writing was just perfect, with every character remaining consistent throughout the six year run. I also enjoyed the mayhem and the ultra-violence. It may sound odd, but it was at times, comical finding out how one of the characters would eventually end up dead. I particularly enjoyed the true romance and love between Beecher and Keller. Those two men really knew how to throw down, in every way possible. I truly hope that HBO will continue to show us re-runs of this great show FOREVER! I've watched every episode at least 4 times yet I still look forward to Tuesday and Thursday nights at 11 p.m. for an episode of this fun and very entertaining show.

Sentiment: positive
I first saw the opening of Otto Preminger's "Porgy and Bess" on TV, probably some time in the early 80s, and my younger self found it a bit slow, despite the timeless music. I turned it off

Last night, an extremely rare, cobbled together print screened at the L.A. Cinematheque and it was a bit of a revelation. The performances are strong and memorable. Dorothy Dandridge brings a great deal of vulnerability, strength and subtle (at least by today's standards) eroticism to her part. Sidney Poitier is said to be uncomfortable with the movie, but his performance is terrific, as is Pearl Bailey. Even better are Sammy Davis as the amoral, cat-like Sportin' Life and Brock Peters as the villanious bully Crown.

Still, I'm no fan of Preminger's earlier, leaden -- and far easier to see -- "Carmen Jones." Porgy and Bess" is far superior to that less controversial film -- though that may have to do with the fact that the source material is also far superior.

As seen last night, this is a sturdy but far from perfect work. Not all of the moments quite come alive, and there is some awkwardness in the way the film mixes the overtly stylized Catfish Row set (beautifully done by Oliver Smith) with actual locations. Also, even to my rather untrained ear, some brief portions of the score seem unduly popularized.

Moreover, while this doesn't detract from the achievement of the filmmakers -- Preminger's decision to film almost entirely in wide shots, with no close-ups and occasional medium shots, no doubt rendered it unwatchable on TV "panned and scanned" and may doom it even on widescreen DVDs if it gets the restoration it deserves. On smaller screens, we won't be able to make out the many details that are crucial to the way Preminger staged the film.

Also, the mix heard last night was odd. Many of the vocals, particularly on the opening "Summertime" seemed unduly soft and were overwhelmed by the instrumental music. Perhaps this can be fixed in a restoration.

There is the issue of the film's racial politics. Personally, I see nothing wrong with it, at least in a contemporary context. At the time when so few films depicted strong African-American characters, this may have seemed an unfortunate choice for a big-budget Hollywood film. And, while there may not be much "empowering" here, these are recognizable human beings that are not racial stereotypes. These are operatic characters who make poor choices because that's what tragic characters do. That alone made it a giant stride forward at the time.

In a modern context where strong and heroic African-American characters are less rare (though still not common enough), these characters seem nothing more nor less than human. They truly could be poor and undereducated people of any ethnic background.

Thorny politics aside, the original work is undoubtedly one of the truly great achievements of American music and (secondarily) theater. Poitier, Davis, Dandridge, Peters and, yes Pearl Bailey, were all amazing performers who we'll never see the likes of again. This less than perfect but still solid film clearly deserves to be seen and treasured.

Sentiment: positive
Based on Ray Russell's dark bestseller, this John (WATCHER IN THE WOODS) Hough-directed bust has little going for it.

Though it does not lack gory violence, it lack narrative sensibility and "characters".

The "Incubus" of the title is a demon endowed with a mammoth penis that shoots red sperm into vaginas during intercourse -- or, to be more precise, rape.

John Cassavetes, moonlighting from his successful directing career, is convincing as a doctor who questions the circumstances of the bizarre attacks on young women.

Horrific possibilities of the victims spawning demonic offspring are not considered -- and neither is the audience's tolerance for slow moving garbage.

The script's reluctance to explore the dramatic repercussions of a fertile premise exemplifies the major problems with this vapid Big-Schlong-On-The-Loose exercise.

Sentiment: negative
I was born in Beijing, China and moved to the United States at the age of 9. Been home to Beijing several times since and loved it each time. One of the many things I love about Beijing is the people and the ambiance they bring to the city. "You hau hao hao shuo" (which translate more accurately to "if you have something to say, say it nicely") delightfully and truthfully captures that feeling of Beijing. I suppose you would have to have lived in and kinda understood Beijing and its people to get the most out of this movie, though you might enjoy it regardless.

> The story is not complicated, intentionally kinda quirky, and captivating. I will leave it to unfold by itself and not tell you too much except some comments. Each detail, from the pictures on the wall, to the decorations, the streets, and restaurants feels like home. (Zhang Yimou most likely shot everything "on location") But more importantly, the characters - our "hero", the girl, the kind-hearted but unfortunate "laptop man", and the night club owner are each native to Beijing and lovable in their distinct ways. Their conversations really capture the essence of each character. The story, mostly driven by situations and conversation (save the brilliant bafoonery near the end) is intriguing and always interesting.

> I am 21 now. My parents and I love this movie. We are always so amazed by Zhang Yimou's ability to transform ordinary people into believable screen characters, and everyday life into extraordinary situations.

"keep cool" - different. hilarious. meaningful.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was just terrible, the first movie wasn't that great i mean it's ridiculously stupid if they didn't have enough with the first 5 films you had to add another one, why just not make this into an ongoing series like James Bond, i'll tell you exactly why because the bond films are actually very very good and these films just stink, i don't understand, was this supposed to be a cross between to genres like horror and comedy for goodness sakes my 1 year old niece wouldn't be scared of such a ridiculous attempt at horror, a spit in the face of people who at least want to be scared at some point in a so called horror film. Please no more of these movies.

Sentiment: negative
... in search of the cheesiest "so bad it's good" movie, I've repeatedly laughed at the first fifteen minutes of various films, only to be left disappointed and bored at the end. Not this time!!! My eyes teared up, my belly and my cheeks ached from laughing so hard throughout the movie. Sure, Hulk Hogan is a subpar actor and the plot is utterly predictable, but everyone dives into this movie knowing all this - all anyone wants to see when renting this is Hogan breaking out a can of whoopass, with a bunch of "YEAH BROTHER"s and "WHATCHUGONNADO"s flying from his infamously goateed mouth. And while the Hulkster on the screen pales a bit in comparison to the Hulkster in the ring, seekers of the ultimate cheese will certainly not be disappointed by this backhand gem of a flick. A laugh riot.

Sentiment: negative
I am surprised that there is confusion over the title of this film. Quite obviously, it is an investigation into the nature of modern love. It is suggesting that love is love while the going is good, but one in which people reserve the right to put themselves first, and if the going gets tough, they get out and go onto something else.

This observation has generational implications, as it is coming from Generation X, makes comment on Generation X, and in the end is aimed at Generation X. It expresses disappointment that love has transformed from that which the Baby Boomers, the parents of Generation X, had engendered in their marriages and family lives, and which gave Generation X the innocent and bountiful childhood it ultimately enjoyed.

The Generation X attitude to love is, of course, flippant, but as decisions are made and commitments are broken, the biggest casualty are the children of Generation X. This is made clear at the end of the film, and was so pungent I took a week to recover from the shock I received from this epiphany.

Sentiment: positive
This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The plot revolves around a man named Luther who wears metal dentures, bites people on the neck, and walks around clucking like a chicken without the flapping of the arms. He also thinks he's a chicken.

Sounds bizarre right? Well, to me, the more bizarre and weird the person is, the better. The more gore, the better and so on.

The movie starts out with the board deciding if they want to release this maniac from their institution. They mention that he has created some dentures in prison that he used to bite people on the neck. He also clucks like a chicken and THINKS he's a chicken.

If I had a patient like this, there is no way I would release him.

First, Luther heads to the supermarket and attacks an old woman on a bench and walks away. Then, he sneaks in the back seat of a woman's car and she drives all the way to her home.

While at the house, Luther ties up the woman to the bed. When the woman's daughter and her daughter's boyfriend come home, Luther hides.

Later through the film, a cop comes to the front door and asks about the mother. You can clearly see the daughter is scared out of her mind and crying but the officer keeps asking if everything is okay. She replies that everything is fine. The officer finally gets in his car and leaves. If I saw a woman constantly crying and looking scared, I would want to at least get inside the house to investigate a little.

The ending is stupid as well. While the woman in in the barn, she starts clucking and gets Luther excited so he starts walking around flapping his arms and clucking like a maniac. She finally shoots him and just sits there for a minute before finally clucking some more.

Then the credits roll.

This is one of the STUPIDEST movies I have ever seen! NOTHING happens at the woman's house! NOTHING!

I sometimes like campy films but this one really bored me.

I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Good idea, bad direction!

Sentiment: negative
There's about 25 years worth of inspiration packed into it. Beginning with existential themes of Blade Runner, as well as the vision of the future - with corporate billboards advertising their products, to the technology of the later Matrix films and Spielberg's A.I., and finally the black and white graphic novel look similar in style of Sin City. The creators have put in a lot of effort in the visual department and the outcome is a well crafted future neo-noir. Add a detective story and you've got an interesting film. I know what it wanted to be, but regardless of the stunning visuals, it wasn't enough to get it to the final destination.

Sentiment: positive
First of all i want to say Ang Lee Did a very good job on this one! I watched it yesterday and i was presently surprised. The story is very good, but all the ignorant people would say "This sucks people cant fly!" to them i say IT'S FICTION and that it is. This is not to be taken as a film about reality you could say this is a "fairytale". And a very pleasant to watch Asian fairytale. The image's can actually blow your mind. Because there so artistically filmed , Ang Lee has a very (unapreciated u might say) big talent. The fight scene's are very cool and beautifully brought to the viewer. But it's sad but this film didn't get the appreciation it should have gotten. But Ang Lee did fortunately get the attention he deserved with his blockbuster broke back mountain. So even for viewers who are not interested in the story the images are entertaining enough!

Sentiment: positive
Awful! Absolutely awful! No plot, no point, no end. It looks like the director turned the camera on and then the whole crew went to lunch. Every day. I'm trying to GIVE this video away but no one will take it. I'm giving it a 2 instead of a 1 because I like Benigni. Roger, I'm going to have to say thumbs down on this one.



Sentiment: negative
I'm not here to tell you "Armored" is Kubrickian, Hitchcockian or Fellini-esquire. Nope. Referenced directors are more like Don Siegel ("Charlie Varrick") and Walter Hill ("The Warriors"). Those two helmers didn't fool around with niceties like putting women in their movies. No skirts need apply. They unapologetically made guy movies. Guns, lots of guns. Men met violent death with a twitch of the jaw. Their movies were like a sap to the head. You want a friend? Get a dog.

"Armored" is so a guy movie. Dueling armored trucks? Bloody gunshot wounds? Exploding money? If that doesn't get the lizard part of your brain excited, then stay away.

At 88 minutes, "Armored" is all muscle without an ounce of fat. We meet six security guards who drive armored trucks, three per truck. The six, led by Matt Dillon, scheme up a fake hijack involving two trucks. Their mission one day is to deliver $42 million from the federal reserve (I think). The idea is to drive both trucks to a warehouse, stash the cash, then stage a hijack. Sure, the cops will suspect them, but if they stick together they'll get through it.

Trouble is, one of the six, played by Columbus Short, is a holdout. At first. But he faces eviction. And he's the guardian for his messed up younger brother. He needs cash bad.

Matt Dillon cajoles, pleads, persuades the holdout. No blood on anyone's hands. A clean getaway. All good, no bad. You'll be rich forever. Blue skies smiling at you ...

Right.

Everything goes to hell, of course. It's one damned thing after another and the stakes keep going up. And it almost all happens claustrophobically inside an abandoned warehouse somewhere in Los Angeles. In fact, the movie goes out of its way to project a backdrop of industrial urban decay. I happen to like industrial urban decay.

Kudos to Matt Dillon, who plays the top bad dog. He goes from charming to disappointed to frustrated to outraged to totally effing insane in the course of the movie. Love that guy.

Also, credit is due to the menacing, throbbing, blistering and totally sinister electronic soundtrack by John Murphy. I am guessing he's heard a few Tangerine Dream records.

Also, it's surprising that this is a PG-13 movie. I caught one  one!  f-bomb in this entire movie about violent tough-guy robbers. On some level, I like that. Take the kids.

The director is Nimrod Antal, a Hungarian who made a fine noir set in the Budapest subway system called "Kontroll." Screenwriter is an out-of-nowhere guy called James V. Simpson.

A lot of the people in this movie are just starting out. I am willing to bet the esteem given to this movie will rise as time goes on and these filmmakers advance in their careers.

Sentiment: positive
this a great Disney flick.it is the story of an aging high school baseball coach(Dennis Quaid),who was once on his way to the big leagues as a pitcher,but suffered a career ending injury.but through series of events,Jimmy Morris(Quaid)gets a try out with a major league team and even makes the roster.this is a great family film.it is inspirational,but doesn't pour it on too thick.it's fun and entertaining.adults will enjoy this movie as well as kids.it is based upon a true story,though i'm sure the filmmakers took some liberties in telling the story.Quaid is sensational as the title character,very convincing.if you're looking for a film the whole family can enjoy,look no further.9/10

Sentiment: positive
I read on the web that this film is being remade into a theatrical feature. Finally!!!!! It's about time Hollywood got their act together. The big Studios always frown at edgy material, with Oscar written all over it. Go figure!!

JERICHO MILE was made ahead of it's time. It's a masterpiece.

Michael Mann, a true visionary, found a way to engage an audience without overindulgence. Peter Strauss' Emmy award performance is probably the best character role I've seen in my film-viewing lifetime. Any actor who touches this role will never be the same (unless an Academy Award is already sitting on their mantle).

The gritty multi ethnic ensemble, a backdrop for THE JERICHO MILE makes one understand the delicate social dynamics of our world. This is about redemption without public validation, and the power of the human spirit overcoming all barriers. Imagine a convict imprisoned since he was a teenager for life with no chance of parole, that doesn't know he is possibly the fastest runner in the world. ...what would you do??

This movie makes you walk away feeling you haven't been cheated on any level. Totally thrilling, engaging, emotional, and a "Rolling Stones" soundtrack that kick's ass!!!

I always thought this would be made for the big screen... Can't wait...!!! In the meantime I'll have to continue re-watching my weathered VHS copy I've had for many years.

Sentiment: positive
Take "Rambo," mix in some "Miami Vice," slice the budget about 80%, and you've got something that a few ten-year-old boys could come up with if they have a big enough backyard & too much access to "Penthouse." Cop and ex-commando McBain (Busey, and with a name like McBain, you know he's as gritty as they come) is recruited to retrieve an American supertank that has been stolen & hidden in Mexico. Captured with the tank were hardbitten Sgt. Major O'Rourke (Jones) & McBain's former love Devon (Fluegel), the officer in command & now meat for the depraved terrorists/spies/drug peddlers, who have no sense of decency, blah, blah, blah. For an action movie with depraved sex, there's a dearth of action and not much sex. The running joke is that McBain gets shot all the time & survives, keeping the bullets as souvenirs. Apparently the writers didn't see "The Magnificent Seven" ("The man for us is the one who GAVE him that face"), nor thought to give McBain even a pretense of intelligence. Even for a budget actioner, the production values are poor, with distant shots during dialog and very little movement. The main prop, the tank, is silly enough for an Ed Wood production. Fluegel, who might have been a blonde Julia Roberts (she had a far bigger role in "Crime Story" than Julia!) has to go from simpering to frightened to butt-kicking & back again on an instant's notice. Jones, who's been in an amazing array of films, pretty much hits bottom right here. Both he & Busey were probably just out for some easy money & a couple of laughs. Look for talented, future character actor Danny Trejo ("Heat," "Once Upon a Time in Mexico") in a stereotyped, menacing bit part. Much too dull even for a guilty pleasure, "Bulletproof" is still noisy enough to play when you leave your house but want people to think there's someone home.

Sentiment: negative
There must have been a sale on this storyline back in the 40's. An epidemic threatens New York (it's always New York) and nobody takes it seriously. Some might say that Richard Widmark and Jack Palance did it better in Panic in the Streets, but I disagree.

There is always something about these Poverty Row productions that really touch a nerve. The production values are never that polished and the acting is a little rough around the edges, but that is the very reason I think this movie and those like it are effective. Rough, grainy, edgy. And the cast. All 2nd stringers or A list actors past their prime. No egos here. These folks were happy to get the work. Whit Bissell, Carl Benton Reid, Jim Backus, Arthur Space, Charles Korvin, and the melodious voice of Reed Hadley flowing in the background like crude oil. By the way, I've been in the hospital a couple of times; how come my nurses never looked like Dorothy Malone? In these kind of movies they don't bother much with make-up and hair, but they really managed to turn Evelyn Keyes into a hag. Or maybe they just skipped the make-up and hair altogether. Anyway, it was pretty effective. She plays a lovesick jewel smuggler who picks up a case of Small Pox in Cuba while smuggling jewels back for ultra-villain Charles Korvin (who is boffing her sister in the meantime). You got the Customs Agents looking for her because of the jewels, and the Health Department looking for her because she's about to de-populate New York. No 4th Amendment rights here. Everybody gets hassled.

You gotta have the right attitude to enjoy a movie like this. I have a brother who scrutinizes movies to death. If they don't hold up to his Orson Wellian standards, he bombs them unmercifully. They must have the directorial excellence of a David Lean movie, the score of Wolfgang von Korngold, the Sound and Art of Douglas Shearer and Cedric Gibbons respectively. This ain't it.

But I have the right attitude, and if you do as well, you'll love this movie.

Sentiment: positive
I hated the first episode of this show ( 'Protesting Hippies' ) so much in 1999 that I shunned the rest. However, when it came on 'The Paramount Comedy Channel' I watched it in full and, to my surprise, found it absolutely hilarious ( Motto: never judge a comedy series in its first week )! 

Set in 1969, 'Hippies' stars Simon Pegg as 'Ray Purbbs', editor of an 'Oz'-like underground magazine called 'Mouth'. His friends are the feminist Jill, laid-back Alex, and the half-wit Hugo. Back in the late '60's, there was a feeling of incredible optimism amongst the young, that they could change the world through the printing of magazines nobody read. Rather than sneering at the hippies' naivety, 'Hippies' is affectionate towards it. Arthur Mathews' scripts cheekily parody a number of that era's icons - 'Hair', 'Woodstock', 'The Graduate', even the infamous 'Oz' obscenity trial of the early '70's. Excellent performances from the cast; Julian Rhind-Tutt's 'Alex' strangely put me in mind of the Richard O'Sullivan character from 'Man About The House'. Its a shame that there was never a second series, possibly because of people like me. If you missed 'Hippies', give it a try. Once you get past the dire opener, you're in for a treat!

Sentiment: positive
Right at this moment I am watching this movie for the second time (on television) and for the second time I fell into it when it was running for an hour already (I think I saw 2 minutes more this time) This movie is really impressing, the way Goldsworthy looks at nature, changes nature in a way that you yourself would never think of, really is amazing. This whole movie gives you a warm feeling, seeing him play with the world around him with such love. Or only seeing his hands, covered in dirt and with broken fingernails, it just touches you.

Sentiment: positive
i can't believe people are giving bad reviews about this movie! i wonder why......maybe because of the book..... i have to admit, it really doesn't follow the book... for sure...the book by dean koontz is much better... but the movie is also good as well!!! it has the suspense...the acting are good... especially michael ironside, whom have given a superb acting in this movie!!!

come one guyz...give this movie a chance...there are still lot more worse movie than this....like sum of all fears...phantoms...the da vinci code...this are some of the worse movie i have seen...really boring if compared to watchers which really have great elements in the movie...this movie contains great suspense and non stop action!!! i'm looking for this movie...but it is really hard to be found on DVD...

by da way...i really recommended this movie to everybody... watch it!!!! you will never regret !!!

10/10*

Sentiment: positive
I've always been enthusiastic about period dramas, an art form in which the BBC has excelled in the past. This presentation of "Byron" was unbelievable. Unbelievably bad! The script was dreadful, the acting uninspired, and all the characters woefully insipid. Apparently Byron was "mad bad and dangerous to know", and set the ladies hearts all-a-flutter. Not in this production. Here he appeared as a tawdry jumped-up little squirt instead of a fiery hero of womenfolk and the Greek struggle for independence. It is said that Byron walked with a limp. This portrayal of the man was just limp all over.

I watched the whole two and a half hours waiting for something to spark into life. Not a splutter, not even a glimmer. It was utter tedium, if not downright boredom, from start to finish.

Having the opinion that no-one will ever better the Bard of Avon, I also believe that Byron's poetry is over-revered and to my mind should be flung on the back burner, and this dramatisation of his life should be accorded the same treatment.

I think the BBC lost its nous with this one

Sentiment: negative
"Tourist Trap" is an odd thriller that came out in the 70's, it's about 5 friends Molly (Jocelyn Jones), Jerry (Jon Van Hess), Eileen (Robin Sherwood), Becky (Tanya Roberts) and Woody (Kevin McDermott), who stumble upon a cloesd down museum SLAUSEN'S LOST OASIS, a curious and eerie roadside museum. This goldmine of decaying, but strangely life-like mannequins is run by Slausen (Chuck Conners), an eccentric, but seemingly harmless has-been. Slausen has one warning for the youngsters: Stay away from Davey, Slausen's reclusive and disturbed brother.

The youngsters' curiosity gets the best of them and they go exploring. The trap is sprung! Amidst flying objects, slamming doors, scarves that strangle on their own, empowered by some hidden force, the trap slowly closes in on the group. The "Creature" Davey and his army of murderous mannequins make quick and brutal work of the friends, until only one remains.

Although not a Slasher movie "Tourist Trap" still contains elements of slasher movies such as the chase scenes and the stalking and the fact the killer wears a mask.

The seemingly telekinetic abilities of the killer to lock bolts and animate the wax dummies, is used to great effect. Perhaps the scariest thing about this movie are the mannequins, which are admittedly scary enough to start off with, but are rally spooky here. The film succeeds despite, or perhaps because of, an obviously meagre budget. These wax figures are blatantly plastic shop dummies- but this only goes to serve as even more eerie when their eyes move with an incredible human The acting is actually pretty good, Chuck Conners gives a well rounded and creepy performance as Mr Slausen, Jocelyn Jones is great as the female lead.

Sentiment: positive
Well, to each his own, but I thought Gibson's Hamlet was the most god-awful rendition I had ever witnessed... as subtly nuanced as a paper bag, and as inspired as a telemarketing call. The only reason I watched the movie through to the end was that I held out hope that either it would get better or become unintentionally funny. No luck.

No disrespect for the supporting cast or for Zefferelli's staging, but nothing can make up for the bungling of the main character. I have seen Hamlet well-portrayed as an African prince, as an animated lion, as a rough-and-tumble warrior, as a romantic poet, etc. etc. etc. . But IMHO this portrayal was just a plentiful lack of wit together with most weak hams.

Sentiment: negative
Okay, first of all I got this movie as a Christmas present so it was FREE! FIRST - This movie was meant to be in stereoscopic 3D. It is for the most part, but whenever the main character is in her car the movie falls flat to 2D! What!!?!?! It's not that hard to film in a car!!! SECOND - The story isn't very good. There are a lot of things wrong with it.

THIRD - Why are they showing all of the deaths in the beginning of the film! It made the movie suck whenever some was going to get killed!!! Watch it for a good laugh , but don't waste your time buying it. Just download it or something for cheap.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this regurgitated pile of vignettes tonight at a preview screening and I was straight up blown away by how bad it was. 

First off, the film practically flaunted its gaping blind spots. There are no black or gay New Yorkers in love? Or who, say, know the self-involved white people in love? I know it's not the love Crash of anvil-tastic inclusiveness but you can't pretend to have a cinematic New York with out these fairly prevalent members of society. Plus, you know the people who produced this ish thought Crash deserved that ham-handed Oscar, so where is everyone? 

Possibly worse than the bizarre and willful socioeconomic ignorance were the down right offensive chapters (remember when you were in high school and people were openly disgusted with pretty young women in wheelchairs? Me either). This movie ran the gamut of ways to be the worst. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing -- all spanning every possible genre ever to concern wealthy white people who smoke cigarettes outside fancy restaurants. 

But thank god they finally got powerhouses Hayden Christensen and Rachel Bilson back together for that Jumper reunion. And, side note, Uma dodged a bullet; Ethan Hawke looks ravaged. This, of course, is one thing in terms of his looks, but added an incredibly creepy extra vibe of horribleness to his terrifyingly scripted scene opposite poor, lovely Maggie Q.

I had a terrible time choosing my least favorite scene for the end of film questionnaire, but it has to be the Anton Yelchin/ Olivia Thirlby bit for the sheer lack of taste, which saddens me because I really like those two actors. I don't consider myself easily offended, but all I could do was scoff and look around with disgust like someone's 50 year old aunt. 

A close second place in this incredibly tight contest of terrible things is Shia LaBeouf's tone deaf portrayal of what it means for a former Disney Channel star to act against Julie Christie. I don't mean opposite, I mean against. Against is the only explanation. I realize now that the early sequence with Orlando Bloom is a relative highlight. HIGHLIGHT. Please keep that in mind when your brain begins to leak out your ear soon after the opening credits, which seem to be a nod to the first New York Real World. This film is embarrassing, strangely dated, inarticulate, ineffective, pretentious and, in the end, completely divorced from any real idea of New York at all. 

(The extra star is for the Cloris Leachman/ Eli Wallach sequence, as it is actually quite sweet, but it is only one bright spot in what feels like hours of pointless, masturbatory torment.)

Sentiment: negative
I just saw it at the Toronto International Film Festival. Director Neal Slavin's impressive starring cast includes William Macy (seen in The Contender at last year's TIFF), Meat Loaf (AKA Meat Loaf Aday, AKA Michael Lee Aday), David Paymer, and Laura Dern (also starring in Novocaine, also at this year's Festival).

Based on the Arthur Miller novel by the same name, Focus follows Christian but "Jewish-looking" Lawrence Newman (Macy) as he struggles among the hatred and anti-Semitism in his neighbourhood. Pitted between the Jewish store-owner down the street (Paymer) and his card-carrying anti-Semite next door neighbour (Meat Loaf) Newman faces difficulty in dealing with inner conflict and conflict around him. Guilt over knowing what's right but not doing anything battles with wanting to blend in and keep peace with the neighbours. Things gets more complex when he meets and marries Gertrude (Dern) who everyone thinks is Jewish. Gertrude teaches her husband a few things about judging books by covers.

Will Newman stick up for the Jewish man in the end or will he flee? Go see it to find out.

The acting was fabulous. The writing was incredible. The cinematography was excellent. The sound was well done. Technically amazing, the movie was disturbing. Chilling. Emotionally intense. I found myself bringing my knees up into the fetal position a couple of times. I have great admiration for everyone who worked on it. I have not seen a film this good in a long time. It touched me.

Wow.

Sentiment: positive
what the hell was the point of this dull movie? it looked pretty interesting in the beginning but quickly fell flat on its face. its supposed to be based on a true story but for crying out loud is there no more script writers left in Hollywood? man iv'e seen these guys in some of the best movies ever made,defoe can play just about anything and when i see he's in a movie i don't have a problem renting it but I'm starting to wonder.redford also a great actor is also slipping; perhaps their hard up or just losing their senses. the dialog was long and terribly heavy eyed,especially at home with the family.i wonder if the actors thought they had a hit going here? perhaps...uh..an Oscar?

Sentiment: negative
Not too bad entry in the series, heavily ladled with war propaganda, but Rathbone & Bruce's sincerity keep me happy.

It's a rather fantastic story from start to finish, just how many McGuffin's are there? Holmes (and Moriarty independently) reeling out the Dancing Men code uncoded so fast was Amazing Watson - so why weren't you amazed! The post explaining the bomb-sight/enlarger tickled me, it was just the kind of cheap trick Universal would play - once again reminding me that they didn't expect people to be critically watching this over 60 years later. This (and I think every other potboiler from Universal at this period) were meant to be viewed the once or twice and forgotten. They perhaps should have realised that basically people don't change, that what was entertaining to ordinary people in 1942 would still entertain a select group now (2005) and tightened up on the script and sets!

Lionel Atwill was going through his Hollywood rape court case at about this time, I wonder if it was that or particularly effective make-up that made him look so haggard as Moriarty?

The important thing about SW though is that this was the first Holmes film Roy William Neill directed, I think he directed all of the rest and produced all but one, thus establishing a marvellous ambient continuity.

Sentiment: positive
Well our standards have gone into the toilet. The direction was poor, the acting was mediocre and the writing was amateurish. And those are the good points. Hopefully there won't be a sequel. Otherwise, I might have to leave the country.

Sentiment: negative
Man, the '90's really were an horrible decade for movies. The movies are lacking in a good style and also the storytelling is often lacking.

This 6th entry into the long running Halloween-series is certainly a bad one. You just never really get into the story because it isn't a very well constructed and build-up movie.

It's simply a poorly done film, that also suffers from its imagine-less writing and non-compelling characters that are in it. Dr. Loomis seems to be in it just for the sake of being in it. It's a real shame that this had to be Donald Pleasence last film-role. It's nice and also sort of suiting that his last role is in an Halloween movie but he definitely deserved to be in a better one.

There is never a sense of real danger in the movie and the character of Michael Myers just never comes across as threatening or scary. Perhaps it's because he's featured too prominently throughout the movie, from pretty early on already. He does his usual stuff again but without too much class or originality. Also the attempts to uncover Myer's past don't really work out, for the main reason that it just doesn't get explained very well. It's obvious that the script went through various re-writes before- and also very possibly during filming. Several scenes even got re-shot or added after the first cut turned out to be far from pleasing. 

The movie more often looks and feels like a made for TV one. This is also due to the lack of some real good gore. As an horror movie it really is lacking in basically everything to make this a good or even original one to watch.

So far the worst out of the series!

3/10

Sentiment: negative
"The missing star", who competed for the Golden Lion at 2006 Venice Film Festival, is a film that, when you think about, the first adjective that comes to your mind is: intense. Intense looks, intense sequences, this movie's intensity captures the viewer since the very first scenes at the steelworks, in Italy (I couldn't recognize the city, maybe Genoa or even Naples), although the pace is quite slow.

Vincenzo Buonavolontà, the male lead, and with him, all the audience, sees a completely different China than a normal Westerner imagines: horrible high-rise building with about 8 hundred flat owners inside, skyscrapers, desolation, fog, scrapers and cranes everywhere, but also the beauty of the Yangtze Kiang river, that will soon become a big lake because of the controversial dike that will wipe a lot of towns out. China is a country under construction, but, under all these colossal public works, there are still poverty, backwardness and unfair laws.

We can relate more easily to this story because Gianni Amelio, the expert director, chose two phenomenal leads: Sergio Castellitto, a well-known actor in Italy, and the Chinese surprise Tai Ling, a total unknown girl that gives an as intense interpretation as Castellitto's.

The film is not perfect, there are some flaws here and there, but that doesn't mean it's a mediocre film. Try to see it.

Sentiment: positive
I really like the show!! As a part of Greek Life, I can say that some things are over-exaggerated, but overall it's still pretty damn funny.

Rusty is a likable lead character, his roommate is HILARIOUS and the entire cast is entertaining in their own rights. I like that it focuses on individual situations as well as interpersonal relations with the organizations.

This show covers it all, and they do it without cursing or anything else that bad (how else could it be on ABC Family?).

My favorites are Cappie (of course), Rusty's roommate and pretty much all of Kappa Tau. This show is a great launch pad for them and I'm excited to see what doors this opens. 

Please renew this show next summer, ABC Family. Like I said, love love LOVE it!!

Sentiment: positive
`The United States of Kiss My Ass'

House of Games is the directional debut from playwright David Mamet and it is an effective and at times surprising psychological thriller. It stars Lindsay Crouse as best-selling psychiatrist, Margaret Ford, who decides to confront the gambler who has driven one of her patients to contemplate suicide. In doing so she leaves the safety and comfort of her somewhat ordinary life behind and travels `downtown' to visit the lowlife place, House of Games.

The gambler Mike (played excellently by Joe Mantegna) turns out to be somewhat sharp and shifty. He offers Crouse's character a deal, if she is willing to sit with him at a game, a big money game in the backroom, he'll cancel the patients debts. The card game ensues and soon the psychiatrist and the gambler are seen to be in a familiar line of work (gaining the trust of others) and a fascinating relationship begins. What makes House of Games interesting and an essential view for any film fan is the constant guessing of who is in control, is it the psychiatrist or the con-man or is it the well-known man of great bluffs David Mamet.

In House of Games the direction is dull and most of the times flat and uninspiring, however in every David Mamet film it is the story which is central to the whole proceedings, not the direction. In House of Games this shines through in part thanks to the superb performances from the two leads (showy and distracting) but mainly as is the case with much of Mamet's work, it is the dialogue, which grips you and slowly draws you into the film. No one in the House of Games says what they mean and conversations become battlegrounds and war of words. Everyone bluffs and double bluffs, which is reminiscent of a poker games natural order. This is a running theme throughout the film and is used to great effect at the right moments to create vast amounts of tension. House of Games can also be viewed as a `class-war' division movie. With Lindsay Crouse we have the middle-class, well-to-do educated psychiatrist and Joe Mantegna is the complete opposite, the working class of America earning a living by `honest' crime.

The film seduces the viewer much like Crouse is seduced by Mantegna and the end result is ultimately a very satisfying piece of American cinema. And the final of the film is definitely something for all to see and watch out for, it's stunning.

An extremely enjoyable film experience that is worth repeated viewings. 9/10

Sentiment: positive
Fantastically putrid. I don't mean to imply above that only a few people should avoid "Doc Savage." Almost every demographic group would be bored by this trivial, TV-movie-quality production. It's a little like the 60's "Batman" TV series, except it's not funny. Even accidentally. You're better off taking a nap.

Sentiment: negative
I was so disgusted by this film, I felt obligated to warn off others. This film has no story, plot or hint of purpose. The film starts after the standard "lets be scary" movie intro, which by now every film watcher has become accustomed. So we can ignore the beginning completely. We are soon introduced to the main actress and from this point it becomes clear to all that you have just wasted your hard earned and would be better off watching static. (Unless you have seen white noise - EEK) Acting is a DISGRACE and all of them should return to the travelling pantomime from where they came. Having said that, even the best actors in the world would struggle to make this film remotely watch able. Their poor performances merely contribute to the disaster. Senseless violence and what I can only assume is the written word of yet another junked up "eccentric" writer, who probably considers himself to be an artist, has resulted in a film which will test your patience. It was not until my fellow watcher turned to me and said, "We have been watching this for 45 mins" did I realise that this film is as thin and tasteless as a cup of tea without a tea bag. Clearly something was missing and unfortunately it wasn't the audience. Rather than suggest what the film is missing, let me tell you what it has: Dumb Blonde (surprise surprise), Victims, bad-monster-guy-thing, about 2 mins of storyline which is stretched over hours, days, weeks, months... and credits.

Want a silver lining? Well, the blonde girl is a bit saucy looking in some of the scenes, but expect to want to see her face ripped off for the rest of the film!

Sentiment: negative
Hey, you are not alone! I remember Nichols! I was just 17 when it was on. I remember James Garner was one of the coolest actors, and Nichols was such a great show. I couldn't believe it was on such a short time, wish I could remember the last episode, I probably didn't see it...there were no vcr's back then so it when it was on you saw it, and if you missed an episode it was gone forever unless it came back on summer reruns. Anyway, sure would be great if it came out on DVD, but I don't think that many people even knew about it. What a shame.

Garner would hit it big a few years later with Rockford Files, and he brought along his buddy Stuart Margolin from Nichols to play his sidekick Angel.

Sentiment: positive