DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I was glad to watch this movie free of charge as I am working in the hotel industry and this movie came lately to our movie library. Nothing against low budget movies, but this movie has horrible acting and directing. How can a movie as this one ever be made. The director should be blacklisted, and for all the poor actors, it is for sure not a jumping board into a career. Please make sure that you'll not watch this movie, the acting is lame, the camera and directing awful. There are just a few more movies out there which deserve to be called the "LOW 10". Another example would be "Dracula 3000". People who make money with this movie should give it to charity, so at least it serves for a good reason. 

In this case I would watch it even another 10 (or at least one more time).

Sentiment: negative
"Mame" is a disgrace to many things--to Lucille Ball, to a story which has been told better many times over, and to the musical genre altogether. Ms. Ball does not understand her character at all and she seems to be heavily sedated. Bea Arthur is good, but it is not enough. The production is very shoddy and cheap looking, the songs are sub-par, and nearly every joke misfires. Also, Lucy couldn't dance well, so the music had to be slowed down to a funerial pace. Avoid at all costs, but DO see the delightful "Auntie Mame."

Sentiment: negative
Many people thought that this is a good movie but I don't agree with them. At the beginning of the movie, a spaceship crushed on earth and some of the aliens escaped from the spaceship, then hey killed some people on the earth, but for no reason. Also, it is in a dark forest, I can't see anything on the screen, I can only hardly hear the sound.

After a few days, the predator came to the earth but no one had sent signals to him before that, he should not know what happened on the earth, so there is a contradiction. Finally, the predator found the headmaster of the aliens and killed it for no reason. He was not live on earth, t is none of his business about the things happened here. Lastly, the duration of the movie is only 90 minutes long, the summary is too short and it can't tell the reviewers about the story clearly.

In conclusion, I don't think this is a good movie.

Sentiment: negative
Why are the previews so blah for a movie that is so awesome!! Everyone should know what an excellent movie this is. It is engaging and funny from moment one, original, and well-acted. I wish the movie was doing itself as good press as it deserves!

For anyone that loved The Princess Bride, Labyrinth, and other truly funny and original fantasy adventure, this is one of the great ones. Robert DeNiro is hysterical. Relative newcomer Charlie Cox is an incredible leading man. Claire Danes is fantastic as always. Michelle Pfiefer is making quite a splash with her recent returns to the screen. There are also a lot of wonderful moments from minor characters...even down to facial expressions.

Sentiment: positive
Kate Beckinsale is excellent as the manipulative and yet irresistibly charming Emma in this TV-adaptation of Jane Austen´s novel. When I read that novel I was sometimes quite doubtful whether the protagonist really deserved to be considered the heroine of the story: for honestly, she is so terribly self-righteous and scheming that one is tempted to dislike her seriously. Kate Beckinsale´s interpretation, however, saves Emma from herself so to speak: she is portrayed with all the innocence and generosity of her character in full view, and one can´t help but give in and like (not to say love) her in spite of her less amiable qualities. Kate Beckinsale is the main, but not the only, reason why this TV-series is so delightful; Raymond Coulthard is perfect as Mr. Frank Churchill, expressing this character´s personal magnetism to the full (which is all the more conspicuous because of this role being not very well handled by Ewan McGregor in the 1996-screen adaptation of Emma), and Mark Strong, Samantha Morton, Bernard Hepton, and Olivia Williams are all as they should be in their respective roles. This production is, in short, a great achievement and one to view many times with increasing pleasure.

Sentiment: positive
Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance are legendary actors, and director Kostas Karagiannis was the man behind the successful Greek Giallo-esquire thriller Death Kiss in 1974; and yet when you combine the three talents, all you get is this complete load of drivel! God only knows what drove the likes of Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance to star in this cheapie devil worship flick, but I really do hope they were well paid as neither one deserves something as amateurish as this on their resumes. The story focuses on a group of devil worshippers that kidnap some kids, leading another group to go after them. The pace of the plot is very slow and this ensures that the film is very boring. The plot is also a long way from being original and anyone with even a passing interest in the horror genre will have seen something a bit like this, and no doubt done much better. The obvious lack of budget is felt throughout and the film doesn't manage to overcome this at any point. This really is a depressing and miserable watch and not even a slightly decent ending manages to up the ante enough to lift this film out of the very bottom of the barrel. Extremely poor stuff and definitely not recommended!

Sentiment: negative
I saw Fame when it first came out. It deals with the high school class of 1980, which was coincidentally my year of graduation. I saw the movie in the summer between high school and college and, being a performer myself, it holds a special place in my heart.

The biggest criticisms of Fame usually have to do with continuity, and there are definitely some story lines that either are not completed or don't make sense. However, those problems are more than made up for by the passion and emotion of the characters and the incredible music.

I saw it again recently and was surprised that I still loved it as much as I did the first time. Fame is often compared to Flashdance, which I don't think is fair. Although Flashdance has some great music and Jennifer Beals is gorgeous, I think Fame is vastly superior in the development of its characters and the complexity of its stories. For anyone who truly loves the arts, this is a must-see movie.

Sentiment: positive
But perhaps you have to have grown up in the 80's to truly appreciate this movie. If you love the early 80's this is definitely a must see. Also, one of the best soundtracks ever!

Sentiment: positive
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Wow, what a predicament Joanna has found herself in. After accidentally running over a young child, she goes to call for help, only to return to the crime scene amidst a group of very angry onlookers. Understanda- bly, this is too much for her to handle, and she flees the scene. Luckily the child didn't die, but is seriously injured and in a coma. So starts the biggest struggle in Joanna's life: should she keep quiet or speak up? At first she doesn't, but eventually she realises that it's torture living with such a horrible secret.

At one point she even joins a search party to help find the culprit. And gradually a detective starts to question this woman's behavior. She wants to tell the truth, and she never meant to run away from the crime scene, but is it worth telling and having the whole town hate you for it?

The thing about this movie is that you don't choose sides. Joanna is very much a good role model, even though she's made some wrong choices. You feel for her, even though you know what she did was wrong. Her journey is a good representation of what any human being would go through if something like this were to happen to them.

Margaret Colin is an absolutely brilliant actress. She was amazing in the TV series Now and Again and great in films like Independence Day and The Devil's Own. Her performance here is so realistic and unforced that she carries us singlehandedly through the entire film. In the end, I wanted to see more of her. Lisa Vidal also provided some good supporting work as the gentle, resourceful detective.

To wrap it up, if you wanna see a movie that will make you think long afterwards, one that will say "This is reality", then you won't want to miss this one.

My rating: 9/10

Sentiment: positive
This was really a pleasure to see; the dialogue was - for the most part - absolutely outstanding (I thought the women's roles were a little better written, which is a nice surprise). The performances were uniformly very good, too. Frank Gorshin overdoes it a little when he goes into his various cons, but this might be his overcompensating for what I see as weaknesses in how the character is written; he's VERY good otherwise. Harry Groener does similarly well with a slightly underwritten character (Tony), overdoing some of the character's angrier scenes slightly. Ursula Burton is excellent as Sister Theresa, really carrying the film through some of its weaknesses. Seymour Cassel and Louise Fletcher are a little underused here, though I liked their work as always. Shirley Jones, Wendie Malick, Jill Eikenberry and Faye Grant are very good also (I couldn't help thinking Grant reminded me a little of Catherine O'Hara here); Cloris Leachman rather tears into her role, with reasonably good results.

I wish there had been more of a sure hand behind the camera, though. Sometimes the framing or staging seemed a bit off, or awkward. The closeups seemed overused (or erratically used) to me. And we don't always go from scene to scene as smoothly as we'd like. Some of the "tough guy" approach to the federal agent (music, costuming) was too over the top for me as well. And the few fantasy sequences didn't really work. But there are things that were VERY well done; the opening sequence set in Buffalo around 1970, for example. And, frankly, all of the scenes regarding Theresa's church work (I suspect the writer and actress liked the character a lot, which helps). The scenes between Malick and Eikenberry are VERY good.

The plot is probably a bit overcontrived - there seem to be a few too many schemes going on at once to keep them all straight at times, and the coincidences got to be a little too much. And I was a little bothered by the ending (should we REALLY be rooting for their biggest con yet to succeed?), but the ride along the way is very enjoyable. It would be nice to see more independent movies like this one made.

7 of 10

Sentiment: positive
This film has me seriously doubting again whether Armando de Ossorio was a good filmmaker or not... His BLIND DEAD films are praised by many fans. This I can understand. But wanna-be Gothic vampire trite like MALENKA doesn't show any signs from a gifted filmmaker. And that also goes for SERPIENTE DE MAR. It features horrible acting, a dumb plot, stupid events, a lot of other things you can expect from a bad monster-movie and also veteran actor Ray Milland, who does his best to mumble his way through this film while not having much of a clue about what he's doing in it. Apparently Milland was already very ill while shooting SERPIENTE DE MAR (his last theatrical feature) and going out with a ridiculous stinker like this, makes it all the more sad. One last appearance alongside Peter Cushing in a made-for-TV film directed by Roy Ward Baker (also in 1984) doesn't change much about it.

But the sock puppet/sea serpent is a hoot to behold. Watch it swirl up a lighthouse and crush it. See it destroy a harbour with miniature boats. Look at it demolish bridges and munch on charming miniature trains.

Good Badness? Yes. 3/10 and 7/10

Sentiment: negative
After winning a championship fight, boxer John Garfield (as Johnnie Bradfield) celebrates with a drinking binge, which leads to the manslaughter of a pushy reporter. Although his manager killed the man, Mr. Garfield is blamed. When the manager dies in a car crash, wearing Garfield's stolen watch, authorities think the boxer is dead. Still a WANTED man, Garfield changes his identity to "Jack Dorney" and moves to an Arizona ranch. There, Garfield meets "The Dead End Kids": Billy Halop (as Tommy), Bobby Jordan (as Angel), Leo Gorcey (as Spit), Huntz Hall (as Dippy), Gabriel Dell (as T.B.), and Bernard Punsly (as Milt).

Garfield bonds with the young "Dead End" lads, who were sent to stay with sweet "Grandma Rafferty" (May Robson) as an alternative to reform school, courtesy of her brother, deceased priest "Father Rafferty". Garfield falls in love with Halop's sister, pretty "Peggy" (Gloria Dickson), who is there to keep any eye on the kids. Of course, Garfield's past comes back to haunt him 

"John Garfield and The 'Dead End' Kids" make beautiful (Max Steiner) music together, thanks to effective direction and photography, by Busby Berkeley and James Wong Howe. The story is predictably comfortable, with the Warner Brothers support team in fine form. Garfield and the "Dead End" kids are a winning combination; although Garfield made no further movies with the "East Side" gang, the studio had him re-team with both Billy Halop and Bobby Jordan, almost immediately, for "Dust Be My Destiny".

The boxing scenes are nicely staged. But, the most exciting sequence has Garfield and four of the New York "Kids" (Halop, Jordan, Hall, and Punsly) climbing into a giant water tank for a swim - which unexpectedly puts their lives in danger. Other, more brief, highlights include floozy Ann Sheridan (as Goldie), boozy Barbara Pepper (as Budgie), and young Ronald Sinclair (as Douglas) losing at strip poker.

******** They Made Me a Criminal (1/21/39) Busby Berkeley ~ John Garfield, Billy Halop, Bobby Jordan

Sentiment: positive
A must see for anyone who loves photography. stunning and breathtaking,leaves you in ore. seen it twice once in a cinema and now on DVD. it holds up well on DVD but on the big screen this was something else.

Took my two daughters to see this and they loved it, my oldest cried at the end.but she was the one who wanted to see it again tonight when she saw it at the video shop. its simple telling of a child's love for nature and in particular a fox is told well. in some ways it reminded me of the bear in its telling a story not documentary formate. which works for children very well. not being preached to is very important, you make your own mind up.

But the star of this film is the cinematographers, how did they do what they did. amazing just amazing.

Sentiment: positive
We watched this movie in my chemistry class, so obviously it had educational value. I thought the film did a really good job of intertwining the subjects of the science, moral issues and personal experiences of the manhattan project, but wasn't exactly focused on strong acting. I would recommend this movie for the scientifically inclined or those interested in the moral issues behind Fat Man and Little Boy, but if the subject of nuclear bombs bores you, don't see it.

Sentiment: positive
I viewed my videotape last night, for the first time in at least ten years. I found the work itself and the performances just as gripping as they were in my memory. George Hearn, of course,was the master of the role of Sweeney; there is never a touch of softness in his determination to wreak vengeance on those he believes caused his wife's death and his daughter's disappearance; at least not until the end, when he discovers that his thirst for revenge has led him to murder his wife. Angela Lansbury, on the other hand, creates a more complex portrayal, as Mrs. Lovett. She understood that Sondheim wanted that role to be something of a "comic" counterpart to Sweeney; and even brings some tenderness into her courtship of Sweeney and her nurture of the boy Tobias. For those with long memories, this performance takes one back to her debut performances in The Picture of Dorian Grey and Gaslight; long before Murder, She Wrote. Only a year ago I saw the musical at Lyric Opera of Chicago. with current opera superstar Brynn Terfel as Sweeney. Others have commented on the operatic quality of the score. My conclusion is that "Sweeney" works better with actors who can at least handle the vocal lines, than with opera performers who have limited acting skills. As a final note, I commend the performer who portrayed Tobias. with his mixed loyalties and confusion about what is going on around him. It seemed appropriate that he had virtually the last word.

Sentiment: positive
Many funny scenes about the people that you don't normally pay attention to in a movie and what they have to do to get work and what happens once they do. Lou Myers was very funny as Half-Step Wilson. Any guy that has a tight group of friends can relate to many of the non-movie related scenes scattered throughout the movie.

Sentiment: positive
Director Kevin Connor and wannabe action-hero / romantic lead Doug McClure, re-team in this ghost story set in Japan. They had been moderately successful together in the 1970's, with the likes of 'The Land that Time Forgot' (1975), 'At the Earth's Core' (1976) etc. Without plastic monsters to carry the narrative along though, the results are shabby and derivative in the most corny way.

The film begins with a prologue set in the 19th Century, with a samurai husband killing his wife and her lover before committing suicide. A move forward to the present introduces married couple Ted & Laura, visiting Japan and moving in to the house where the tragedy took place.

No surprises as to what happens next, with the spirits of the dead starting to take over the new inhabitants with family friend Alex (McClure) assuming the role of the wife's lover.

Everything rumbles clumsily along with the elegance and grace of a charging elephant, to an inevitable ( but surprisingly downbeat ) conclusion. Main points of interest are two feeble decapitations ( 'The Omen' has a lot to answer for in promoting this as a standard horror set-piece ), and the love-making scenes featuring the doe-eyed but extremely kinky Susan George. The first is a long 'Don't Look Now' inspired piece with her hubby, complete with piano music; the second a much shorter (probably at her insistence) entanglement with McClure, both looking pretty uncomfortable. Anyway, every cloud has a silver lining and both scenes show of her fantastic knockers so all is not lost.

Overall I can't decide whether 'The House where Evil Dwells' is rubbish, watchable rubbish, or entertaining in a masochistic kind of way. If you're not into the genre there is nothing here at all, but for horror fans there is probably enough to provoke the odd rye smile and appreciative nod of respect for effort.

BEST SCENE - in any other film the big, black, tree-climbing, Japanese-muttering mechanical crabs would have stolen the show. They are eclipsed though by the legendary family meal scene, where a ghostly head appears in the daughters soup. On seeing this apparition she asks what kind of soup it is (!!!!), to be told beef and vegetable, before uttering the immortal line "Ugh - there's an awful face in my soup". If this wasn't enough the reply is "C'mon, eat your soup for Daddy." Laurel & Hardy rest in piece.

Sentiment: negative
I was waiting to welcome Arnold Schwarzeneger's return to action after the dismal movies he'd made after "Eraser." "End of Days," however, can be added to the dismal films he's had the misfortune of appearing in.

"End of Days" starts well with a gripping action sequence, yet quickly becomes a bore, taking the focus off action and suspense and instead concentrating on the investigation of demonic happenings and the quickly approaching millenium (read "Doomsday"). 

Performances are stale, special effects so-so, and gore plentiful. Considering myself a die-hard Schwarzenegger fan, I couldn't believe I didn't like this film, but with such an awful, lame script, what could Arnie have done, besides passed on this turkey?

3 out of 10



Sentiment: negative
We thought this was one of the worst movies ever. I had to volunteer to watch the end. The romance was not believable; the characters were not developed; the love affair made hardly any sense; it was miscast; and scenery was absolutely stupid because it was either (my opinion) like the ADAMS FAMILY GOES ON VACATION...just creepy, gypsy and cheesy; and the OUTERBANKS does not look typically like those houses on the surf; and who would spend the night in one during a hurricane if it was not theirs. Also..it was not realistic. hurrricanes give you plenty of notice to batten down the hatches.

Also the friend was superfluous; and did not match the story What did the civil war have to do with the outerbanks anyway? I also have to mention the wardrobe...did D. Lane have to have a scarf/pashmina/shawl on in every scene? It was overdone. She looked good enough to not have to hide things; without making them obvious like with light slacks.

Lastly I am concerned with the impact on our landfills when everyone has to dispose of this stupid, and I mean STUPID movie!!!! Don't fall for the hype on this one!!!!!! We did. Not even watchable.

Sentiment: negative
this film is really bad....... no i mean really really bad. Tony Scott is a terrible director. out of all the films he has made i only like enemy of the state, besides that he is one of the worse directors of all time. what appalled me the most is Richard Kelly (director of Donnie Darko) did the screenplay to this. now Richard Kelly is a genius in my eyes but to be involved in this makes hope he has learnt his lesson.

now i love Mickey Rourke's new roles but i cant even like him in this because of the terrible story and look of it. don't get me wrong i still love Mickey Rourke but he has made a few accidence's in his time and this is one of them. i don't know what to say about Keira knightly, i think she's a little too overrated. i just cant feel for her in films.

all in all this film is bad. thats it....... 1/10.......j.d Seaton

Sentiment: negative
The only reason I'm giving this a 9 is that the other kid actors who played Tadashi's tormentors were not up to the job. I presume they were just kids who happened to be the right age and handy, but they were not well coached, and their scenes were a minor annoyance. 

I say not to judge this by U.S. standards because it's full of ambiguities and the kinds of equivocations that Japanese culture readily embraces, and is not beholden to the black-hat/ white-hat moral constraints U.S. kids' films are routinely subjected to. For example, there is a preciously funny moment when Tadashi's small band of yokai companions finds themselves let down and abandoned by the other yokai, and Shojo--the avuncular Kirin herald--does what many a stressed-out Japanese adult would do. Hint: this would not happen in a Disney film. This picture also has the best product placement for beer you will ever see in a kids' movie. 

Early on, there's a moment where a school teacher smacks a couple of bullies on the head with her attendance book. There was a TV commercial in Japan a couple years before this movie came out. It was a stop-motion clay animation about a kid who's depressed and playing guitar and singing the blues in his room. His mother yells at him from downstairs to shut up. Then, someone gives him a candy bar and he cheers up and sings a happy tune, but his mother comes in and tells him to shut up again and gives him a dope slap that leaves a dent in his forehead. I mention this commercial, because it was considered funny, and I didn't hear any objections to it while I was there. There is a lot more bloodshed and physical cruelty on screen in "The Great Yokai War" than one would find in a Disney movie. As a parent, if this were a U.S. film, I would be up in arms about such things, although not necessarily the moral lessons drawn at the end of the picture, which, of course, are also not black and white. Since it's a Japanese movie, I accept that those cultural norms allow for imagery that would not get past the standards and practices cops in a U.S. production. However, I'd probably be a little uneasy taking young kids to see it without giving them some sort of pre-show briefing and/or post-show debriefing about the violence and other off- color stuff, or I'd wait till they're older to show it to them.

Sentiment: positive
This is a way cool fantasy movie. One of my faves, it really is so cool. The director is Bernard Rose who went on to direct Candyman, he made a great start with this film.

The film about a girl called Anna who falls ill with glandular fever on her 11th birthday. She draws a house on a shred of paper from her exercise book and falls into a dream in which the house is real. Each subsequent dream that she has is altered by the presence of whatever she adds to the picture. In her third dream she meets a boy she thinks she has created called Mark. She befriends him and their relationship becomes stronger as the dreams become darker and scarier.

Charlotte Burke who plays Anna is a terrific actress and it is very strange that, after just one film, she should disappear and never be in anything ever again. She really does give a great performance in this film.

Hans Zimmer's score is also ace. Much like Broken Arrow, the music is ghostly and mysterious. It's a real shame that the soundtrack is not available on CD anymore. The DVD is available in R2 only.

Sentiment: positive
***SPOILERS*** This movie - called EATEN ALIVE here in the UK is quite possibly the worst film ever made and is brilliant just for that. A sexy rich girl teams up with a rugged action man to search for her sister in the New Guinea jungle. What follows is an unspeakably crap mixture of cannibalism, insane cults and religious maniacs that has to be seen to be believed. The cannibalism scenes are quite horrific but are so badly staged and acted that they prove quite amusing. The cast are awful except for Janet Agren as the female lead who is excellent. Look out for the scene where she is stripped naked and covered with gold paint! My rating - 1 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
After seeing this film, I did not want my money back. I wanted my TIME back. I wanted that hour and a half back in my life - it was the most amazing, hideous torture to know that I had squandered precious minutes of my life on this dreck. I am scarred for life, and ever since this "film" entered my life I have had trouble sleeping. I am trying to suppress the memories, really I am. . . but they make me want to burn things.



Sentiment: negative
please why not put this fantastic film on DVD,i have been searching just like the previous writer for years, whats the hold up, or show it on TV. its so underestimated its one of the most romantic and beautifully written books i have ever read, and believe i have read some.I seem to think it was read on radio 4, but i can't find that either. Why not try and remake it even, i promise it will be top earner, people love those sorts of stories, So please either release it and take us out of our misery or remake it,although i doubt if it could be improved upon. Has any one read gone to earth by the same author or seen the film with Jennifer Jones, this is superb, but not to the same extent may be.

Sentiment: positive
Looking for proof that real life is more entertaining than fiction? You just found it. This superb documentary about an aspiring feature filmmaker (Mark Bortchart) who refuses to admit defeat is the funniest film I have ever seen -- probably because it's also one of the most tragic. Oddly enough, the more I watch the film the more inspired I become.

Sentiment: positive
This film promised a lot, so many beautiful and well playing actors but with a plot that had virtually NOTHING to say. So many potentially promising conflicts between the family members that could have been developed and elaborated but it was all dropped and not taken care of. There was no story to be told, just a show off of acting, technique, beautiful scenes - that were all EMPTY. But again, the acting was excellent so many of the individual scenes were entertaining, but as you became increasingly aware of the lack of underpinning ideas, even the acting lost its sense. So from the promising start you became increasingly disappointed as the non-story went along.

Sentiment: negative
I hate this programme: not only is the very concept ludicrous, but it tries so hard to be feasible (something that was left out of similar "I confess" ending programmes like, Muder: She Wrote).

Sigh. Why is it that the writers can't ever be intelligent enough in this programme to come up with evidence that would stick and win a decision in court?

Come on: after X-amount of years of the cases being unsolved, why must EVERY SUSPECT, EVERY EPISODE *CONFESS* (damn it!) to a murder which would otherwise go unsolved?

I bet all police wish that criminals were this good sportsmen: "Aw, shucks, officer, you're a bright one - I guess if you've uncovered enough to convince yourself I did it, I may as well admit to it and make it easier for you in court. What can I say? It's a fair cop."

Absolute dog s**t and an insult to those of us with with enough brains to even have heard of I.Q.

Sentiment: negative
Why does the poster & artwork say "Clubbed is one of the best UK indie films I have seen in a very long time. SCREEN INTERNATIONAL" when it was a quote of the French distributor REPORTED by Screen International (an influential film trade publication). See www.screendaily.com/ScreenDailyArticle.aspx?intStoryID=39811 which reads:

"Pretty Pictures has acquired all French-speaking rights to Neil Thompson's Clubbed ....James Velaise, president of Pretty Pictures, said: "Clubbed is one of the best UK indie films I have seen in a very long time.""

Isn't this rather misleading? The distributor is bound to say it's good. Are the other quotes real?

Sentiment: negative
I like Fulci films, i really do and not in some boring ironic way either but i recognise that they appear hopelessly inept and garbled to lots of people.

Conquest is where Fulci tries his hand at the epic fantasy genre and doesn't really succeed. Structurally, it's like most Fulci films you've seen. Some stuff happens, some more stuff happens and occasionally one scene might be tangentially related to another. Really it's like Conan with no sets, no script, no real actors (yes, Arnold Scharzenfartz is hardly an actor either), no budget, stupid looking dog soldiers and a bunch of gore.

This one was a hard one to get through and i could've lived without the inch of vaseline smeared on the camera to give it that Hair Metal music video look.

Sentiment: negative
I was surprised, that ''The Secret Fury'' was an enjoyable good film...... Probably because, I didn't have any expectations for this movie..... Though, the film does have it's plot holes..... I would say, that you couldn't guess who was behind the whole scheme, until the very end of the movie..... At first, I thought, it was Robert Ryan, using the same method, like ''Gaslight'' where husband tries to drive his wife mad, but I was wrong...... The main problem, with the movie is, they drive at a whole other direction, which gave no clues at the beginning...... I thought, Robert Ryan & Claudette Colbert carried their parts well...... Plus, Vivian Vance, a fine character actress, who steals scenes in this one...... Those who like movies, that keeps you guessing, will like this one......

Sentiment: positive
11 years after this film was released only 5 people have reviewed it here on IMDb. There is a reason for this utter lack of interest in Across the Moon. It is coherent, but lacks all cinematic virtue. See this film for examples of terrible production in all respects. The opening credits for instance are white letters rising mechanically from a red background. The ending features Michael McKean staring out a prison window saying "There's lots of mysteries out there." followed by a clip montage/music video of all the uplifting moments in the tragically bad movie. Julinana Hatfield. Everything in between is awful. I struggled to find any value in this movie and have come up empty. Though it is hard to believe, even a cameo role from Burgess Meridith (always a crowd pleaser) only disappointed me further. This movie is like a mockery of what is special about movies. On paper the movie is below average. Women living together in a trailer. But what actually was produced was nearly unwatchable. The movie attempts to branch off in many directions but never follows through on any. The unappealing conflict of having their boyfriends in jail is never resolved. No conflict is ever resolved. There really is no conflict. The women attempt to become hookers, but that never happens. Instead they get jobs as a bartender and a shelf stocker. Sound exciting? IT wasn't. IT was stupid. And the bulk of the movie is the two women talking and generating contrived conflict. The women are capable actresses, but the script was beyond poor. Useless. This was a terrible movie, but it is even worst that they borough Burgess Meridith out of his retirement home to make it. Bad from start to finish. Like the lion without teeth, this film has no bite.

Sentiment: negative
For the record, I am not affiliated with the production in any way.

Hidden Frontier is probably the Star Trek fan film with the most episodes produced to date. Over 7 seasons (this is the last) they have produced some 50 or so episodes.

This is no mean feat on almost no budget and everyone volunteering their time and energy.

By their own admission, the earlier seasons do not have as good production qualities as later ones but as they progress the effects, green screen work and acting all improve.

I did find it difficult to "dip into" so started from the beginning and watched all the way through. HF benefits from story arcs just like all the best sci fi and dovetails nicely into the Star Trek universe in which it is set. Characters and "relatives" from the original series have been brought into the stories and add a lot to the feel of the stories, sometimes improving on the characters over the original.

The whole experience includes an excellent web site, blooper reels, a high membership forum which is frequented by many of the actors and production staff and a weekly chat.

If you are looking for high definition, high budget productions, this is probably not for you.

If you are looking for continued adventures in the Star Trek universe with stories that does Star Trek credit and makes you think, this is the one.

Sentiment: positive
...this one just isn't worth the cost of a movie ticket. What these filmmakers have done cannot properly be called filmmaking; rather, they just chose sixteen students of some diversity (though not quite as much diversity as the reviews have suggested) and set them loose. The results are, to be brutally frank, far more often boring, self-indulgent, overwrought and off-puttingly grainy than truly insightful.

There are, of course, moments of recognition and identification of the sort only possible in documentary film, but overall there's not much more truth here than in "Bully" or, for that matter, a decent TV documentary of the same sort. Though full of talk about sex and sexual diversity and racism, the film brings nothing to the table that will be of use to anyone who has thought about any of these issues with any seriousness. And while certain segments serve absolutely no purpose other than to inject a bit of (admittedly welcome) comic relief, most often the five-minute limit keeps up from becoming emotionally involved with any of the students. An interesting idea, but thumbs down for CHAIN CAMERA.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of those films with a great potential. Brilliant actors, a debut from a very interesting director and a haunting "Survivor"-ish plot.

But it does not work at all.

To start with the good thing: The cinematography is stunning. The beauty of the Namibian desert shows itself as a merciless surrounding, also in the pictures. And then there is the acting. Quite allright. Jennifer Jason Leigh has never been better. Bruce Davison also seems to have developed his character from Altman's "Short Cuts".

Then the disappointments: Janet McTeer. Romane Bohringer. And the plot. Why on earth does Levring pick "Lear" for their play? The whole idea of letting Shakespeare articulate their despair and inner longings does not work. It seems like a facade. And it is clear that the tragedies takes place because of the choice of "Lear". They just needs to fit in in the Script by Levring and Academy Award winner Anders Thomas Jensen.

And the sex. It takes about three days, then more or less all of the characters are sexually frustrated. Dahh!! Sex is always the easy way out when you are in need of a crisis in a plot. Janet McTeer's part totally falls apart, mainly because of that ridiculous idea. The sex makes the plot fall promptly to the ground. Instead they could have focused on the dialogue. There must have been conversation between all of the characters, but we mainly see them talking in smaller groups. Their talking though is as dead as "Lear" and the rest of the film.

"The King Is Alive" still is not the worst Danish dogme '95 movie yet. But comparing it to the most recent of the homegrown dogme '95 films "Italiensk for begyndere" by Lone Scherfig, this one fails badly. It is not a good film. It is a bad one. But it is beautiful.

Sentiment: negative
I vaguely remember this film. I do remember it for the one solid reason that it is the only film that I have ever walked out on!! and since then I have never seen it available to rent ANYWHERE!! I can't spoil it for anyone cos I can barely remember it!! To think, looking at the cast, it seemed a winner, with John Landis directing, but good god, they must have been paid a whole lot for this drivel!! All I can seem to recall is that the dad goes missing and the family try to search for him, by trying to put an actual photograph into the disc drive of a computer. I walked out after about half an hour of this. I must confess though, I'd love to see if I can get a copy, just to see if it really was that bad!!

It wouldn't surprise me if this was on every actor's black list! I mean Christopher Lee was in this?? The legend of all bad guys, who'd been in Star Wars and Lord of the Rings?? As I said - black listed movie, The Stupids!

Sentiment: negative
This movie has got to be the worse movie i have ever seen. I only watched about a half an hour and i just shut it off. The cars in this movie look like two geo metro's front ends smashed together. This movie isn't even good for laughs. The only time i laughed was when Dante kept saying in funny voice, "Nobody can beat Dante, Muhwa hwaa." I said holy god and shut it off. Bad, Bad movie. 2/10

Sentiment: negative
A very "straight" nice old lady, desperate for money to save her house and possessions, grows "pot" in her house, smokes it with a few old-biddy friends and then sells it. That's the story for this low-key comedy, emphasizing the absurdity of the situation and some of the humor the predicament brings. For much of the film, it works. The humor isn't of the laugh-out-loud variety but it does keep you entertained for an hour-and-a- half, so I guess it serves its purpose.

There ARE funny moments and Brenda Blethyn is fun to watch in the lead role. But the ending really ruined a "cute" movie with insultingly-bad messages that only the ultra-liberals of the film world would like to see happen.

Like most people, I would prefer a happy ending, too, but it should not all warm and fuzzy for those who blatantly break the law. Also in here are the typical (1) children out of wedlock but that poses no problem and is deemed okay; (2) clerics portrayed as morally weak people; and (3) even a medical doctor who gets stoned, too! 

Hello? And reviewers here blast Hollywood? This is exhibit A how a secular society has lowered the standards in the UK and Europe in general. Hey, people: at least have a trace of morality instead of nothing but a Timothy Leary "If it feels good, do it" message.

Sentiment: negative
I happen to have read all of Junji Ito's English released manga. I watched the Tomie film and it was a big steaming pile of turd. THANKFULLY Uzumaki actually does justice to the manga. I think those who have read the manga will really appreciate this film more, as many screenshots and camera angles are exactly like in the manga and it is interesting to see how the book characters are played in the film. This film reminds me of eerie indiana. The ending differs to the manga, which I was expecting. Kirie looks like her manga counterpart, and her male friend suits the whole very well. Very creepy I have to admit, this film feels like a feverish nightmare, the kind you have when you were a kid. Not really scary at all, but freaky, if you get my drift? Another great horror from Japan, get yourself a copy.

Sentiment: positive
Well,

First of all, as many reviewers have pointed out - this is a rip off of the Martin Cahill story - first represented by the BBC and by the John Boorman film "The General" - which is a great film and far, far superior to this one.

Speaking as a native British person, the supporting cast to Kevin Spacey was really good in terms of British and Irish acting talent, especially Peter Mullan - but it was totally wasted. The characters were c**p! And as for Kevin Spacey - didn't come across as a loveable rogue but as nothing really substantial or significant.

Not a lot to redeem this film. The best bits are the gags and tricks nicked from the other films it rips off. Compare notes on this film and "The General" - I'd be interested to see what others think.



Sentiment: negative
Based on the memoirs of Gypsy Rose Lee, who painted a much more affectionate picture of their mother than did her sister, actress "Baby" June Havoc, in her autobiography, "Early Havoc" on which "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" was loosely based. I saw Ethyl Merman in the original Broadway production of Gypsy, and she was great as "Mama Rose" but certainly more "Merman" than Rose. I was disappointed with Rosalind Russell's portrayal in the 1962 movie version. An otherwise excellent actress, Russell was a very wooden substitute for Merman. Bette Midler, by contrast, was better and more believable than Merman and I'd recommend her performance as the definitive one.

Sentiment: positive
That was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Why would someone make a movie about getting away with murder!?! Mr. Allen again plays the only type of character that he's able, the sexually stunted man who can't get the girl. Get a clue, Allen, there's a reason that's the only character that you can successfully portray. Stir clear of this movie! It's a waste of time, unless you want to know how to successfully murder someone. I feel sorry for the actors who say 'yes' to Woody Allen. Look at his cast, and tell me how many of those people are still working. My respect for all of the actors, who work for him, immediately goes down, because they chose to participate in the film.

Sentiment: negative
This film would like to be the kind of shocking, cerebral, and intense movie that many others in its genre have successfully been, but it's not. It is at best confusing and absurd. When the twists and turns finally revealed themselves, rather than saying "Ahh, I get it!" I muttered something along the lines of "Okay...whatever." In my opinion, when a movie reveals a major plot twist it shouldn't have to employ a flashback sequence to prove that it did give some hints that would enable the viewer to discern the truth himself. But this movie does have a flashback; and here's the kicker: it flashes back on scenes that weren't even in the movie!

The characters were stereotypical, unsympathetic, and wholly ridiculous. I feel that the "steamy" love scenes between the romantic leads were the most untitillating and unsexy that I've ever scene in a movie that wasn't porn. It seems that the director was going for shocking and kinky with the love scenes, but they were really just plain silly.

And don't EVEN get me started on the crappy accents and second-rate sets. I guess the movie was set in New Orleans, but Aside from the afore mentioned accents and a couple bland city shots the movie could have been in Anytown, USA.

My recommendation: don't bother!

Sentiment: negative
Well I will come clean and admit that I was forced as part of my history degree to watch this film, and then write a short film review as part of my grade.

Yet even if I had watched the film alone, at my own discretion I found it extremely boring and absurd. The style is dated beyond its years, and the acting is farcical. Rather than use dialogue they instead exchange eye popping glances at each other, or sometimes into thin air. For me, such over the top acting does not convey any greater emotion, and after seeing an extreme close up Ivan's face for the hundredth time I was praying for the film to end.

The most disappointing though is how wrong Ivan's character is. This man was nasty, his bodyguard's murderous thugs and his character cowardly. For me the film was nothing but a piece of Stalin propaganda, inaccurate and dull.

Sentiment: negative
Ok with this film there are a number of ingredients at work:

First put in loads of hillbilly truckers--good ole boys who have secret desire to take law into own hands. Second put in evil hillbilly cops controlled by a Texas bred outlaw. Third put in karate fighting trucker played by Chuck Norris. Fourth put in a chump teenager as Norris's nephew captured by evil hillbilly cops. Fifth show Chuck Norris fighting in slow motion.

Now mix all together and what have you got?

You guessed it...one very mediocre movie!

Sentiment: negative
So so special effects get in the way of recapturing the interesting relationship between Uncle Martin and Tim O'Hara that we remember from the TV series. And what was with the suit? Annoying!

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie the other day in a film school class, and I hadn't seen an Almodovar movie before but went in expecting it to be good. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a pointless film with only a couple of laughs mixed in with two hours of sheer boredom. High Heels is just a collection of random scenes that might have worked in their own separate movies but together don't add up to any kind of meaningful whole at all.

Or so I thought. Then, the next day, my film professor spent the entire class period explaining all of the movie's hidden little details, like how the mural depicting stereotypical flamenco dancers in the background of the drag queen scene is some kind of commentary on the lack of identity that Spain as a nation has developed under fascist rule. Apparently, the whole movie is chock full of clever little visual tricks and references like this.

Great, but you know what? It's still a bad movie. It takes more than depth and complexity to make a good film--you still need to give the audience a reason to keep paying attention, something to interest the viewer enough to actually care about all the subtle tricks. High Heels gives us strange, off-beat characters but keeps them in mostly mundane situations recycled from other movies, and Almodovar doesn't seem to be using them to make any kind of point. What is the significance, for example, of the Hitchcockian surprise character revelation that occurs towards the end of the film? Why is that even in there? Just to surprise us?

There is one funny scene that has to do with a news broadcast. And that's it, that's the only entertaining moment. The rest of the movie is just nonsensical filmic references and visual cues that apparently exist only for the sake of showing us how smart Pedro Almodovar is. But no matter what my film professor says, it takes more than self-indulgent trickery for a movie to be good.

Sentiment: negative
When a dowdy wife (Shearer) loses her husband, she decides to completely make herself over to win him back. Not "politically correct" by today's standards, but still fun to watch, especially the scenes with Marie Dressler and Hedda Hopper.

Sentiment: positive