DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I have always been fascinated by silent films. There is something about seeing actors and actresses from 100 years ago performing. Jaded by today's high-tech special effects, I always try and imagine what it was like to watch a particular film at the time of it's original release. It helps to appreciate the crudeness of early cinema.

"The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ" is a very charming production from Pathe, originally filmed in 1902, but expanded and finally released in 1905. Imagine a series of famous religious paintings coming to life, separated by title cards, and you will have a pretty good idea of what this film is like. For example, the scene in which Mary and Joseph rest as they are escaping to Egypt, is almost identical to Luc Olivier Merson's 1879 painting "Rest on the Flight to Egypt", right down to Mary sitting on the famous Sphinx. While some might find these "living paintings" an unimaginative cop-out, I found them to be very charming, and very nostalgic.

The sets and costumes appear to be right out of a stage production of the life of Christ. Possibly from and elaborate passion play of the day. The make-up on the cast is very theatrical, so much so that a close-up of Jesus is almost comical. Again, where others might be bothered by the cudeness of them, I was quite charmed.

Having been filmed over a period of 3 years, the continuity isn't too bad. The biggest flaws are in the casting changes made over that time. The characters of John the Apostle and the 12 year old Jesus change in mid scene, much to the audiences surprise!

The best unintentional humor, of the film, is in the Birth of Jesus scene. The baby LITERALLY appears, as if by magic, in the manger between Mary and Joseph. Maybe it was simply my frame of mind at the time I viewed it, but I laughed out loud! If only child birth were that easy!!!! To top it off, the actress who plays Mary looks bored through the whole scene (actually, through the whole movie), as if this sort of thing happens every day! My, how times have changed!

As simplistic as this film is, compared to today, it's really a wonderful window into the past. I recommend it!



Sentiment: positive
I, too, was fooled by the packaging. I, too, fell for the gory packaging and the DVD casing that claims "grieved fans as every copy was pulled from shelves". Though it was inexpensive ($6.99), it wasn't really all that worth it - no scares, and very limited gore. The ending was very cheesy and didn't deliver the punch it should have. I really don't even know how it became a "Video Nasty" with how very tame it is. The story drags, the characters are obvious amateur actors...it doesn't live up to the promise. The DVD bonus feature (the "interview")is very strange as the director appears very incoherent and not all there. The lead actress talks like she's appearing in a Shakespearean production. It's a great laugh.

Sentiment: negative
I don't know what the critics were viewing when this movie was released, but it slipped by them unnoticed. It is well written, witty, satirical, and thoroughly enjoyable. It's like a video game brought to life. You never know who's behind the door or what will happen next. The violence is not gratuitous nor overdone for splatter effect.

One last word: For you Mickey Rourke fans...the Mickster is back and at his coolest in the cameo performance at the end.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of the movies having made significant influence on me as a person. The sound tracks are best and the performance is excellent. Just a great movie for ever, to time limit, just for the entire live, you must have in your collection! This is one of the movies having made significant influence on me as a person. The sound tracks are best and the performance is excellent. Just a great movie for ever, to time limit, just for the entire live, you must have in your collection! This is one of the movies having made significant influence on me as a person. The sound tracks are best and the performance is excellent. Just a great movie for ever, to time limit, just for the entire live, you must have in your collection!

Sentiment: positive
Some people say this show was good in it's early years! I disagree with all of 'em. The show is just plain stupid and pathetic. My mum hates it, I hate it, my dad hates it, I don't know about my sister but oh well. Here some reasons why:

1. THE CHARACTERS: Babies being used as grown up style characters are stupid. The babies are just precocious and annoying. The grown ups and adults are dumb and unappealing. The worst character is that Angelica Pickles (she really does it in for your ear drums when you had a long, hard and miserable day at the office) and also that Kimi Finster who appears later on; she is too over optimistic and a pain in the butt. She can't decided whither she is French or Japanese: it doesn't matter know; you are a American Citizen know and that's that! Oh, what am I talking about, all the characters from this show suck!

2. THE STORIES: The stories are unoriginal and dumb. The make it like the babies go off on a great adventure, yeah to the back yard shed. In one episode, that little goofy brat, Tommy Pickles the Leader broke in to a television's control room and literally almost destroyed it. Don't give kids any idea to smash up normal T.V Station's control rooms (they pay a awful lot of money for them in real life). I can imagine what the broadcasters must of felt like airing this episode, they will probably start staring at their machines throughout the day scared that a baby will brake in. Sad!

3. OVER RATED!: The show has been dragging on for years now and people are still making up stories and new series and spin-offs for this. Get off! The Simpsons have been going for nearly the same amount of time as this but they are much better and funnier than babies. The show is just plain over rated! People, where is your common sense!

Anyway, I surprised T.V Stations across the world want to air this series even off today. The show is utter junk and should have never been produced. The two movies for this cartoons sucked just the same! 2/10

Sentiment: negative
What a waste of time to watch this movie. Poor picture quality, poor sound, poor acting and definitely not based on actual facts. The deputy's "girlfriend" did so much overacting, as did the sheriff, that it was more comedy than horror. The deputy tries to make an emergency phone call by dialing 911...PROBLEM...in 1957 that emergency number was not in existence. That is just one example of glaring inconsistencies.

The "scary" aspect was way underdone. Just did not come across as horrific.

I did think that the actor playing Gein did the most admirable acting job in the whole movie. I could well see mental disturbances in his character portrayal.

Sorry...this one just does NOT get it!!

Sentiment: negative
Oddly enough, it's Fred MacMurray who plays the more "screwy" part in this screwball comedy. Carole Lombard shows a fine performance combining lighter moments with and undercurrent of drama and seriousness.

As usual, Fred MacMurray remains a mystery to me. The camera is no fan of his, he's not that attractive, and he doesn't have the style and panache to pull off this very Cary Grant-like role.

Ralph Bellamy is excellent as the kind friend coming back to life through his relationship with Lombard's character. One can only wonder why her character wouldn't want his gentle, reassuring love instead of the almost certain doom of MacMurray's ineptness. But that's Hollywood!

The picture almost works but misses the mark, primarily due to MacMurray's performance. It would've been lovely to see Grant or even Clark Gable in his role. Lombard and Bellamy are largely believable and likable; MacMurray is stiff and makes you want to keep him at arm's length.

Sentiment: negative
Terrible, boring zombie sequel is only marginally better than Uwe's horrible first film. It consists of a group of soldiers going into a zombie plagued college campus to find a certain type of blood which could assist in finding a cure for the infection. These soldiers are your typical lambs to the slaughter and none of them are that drawn out(or at least aren't very interesting)so you don't feel a sadness at the pit of your stomach when they are disposed of. The film has the typical zombies biting humans and blood splatter. It even has the same munching on guts. It just doesn't do anything for the zombie genre to give it memory. And, the story's climax is rather anti-climactic and ridiculous. One wonders how two people can submerged in an army of zombies and not get bit(for they are the main stars who seem to always manage escapability)while others seem to get bit rather easily. The film sole motivation is to show people getting bit..nothing else. Just go watch a Romero film for lasting effect.

Sentiment: negative
That reviewers liked this movie surprises me. The plot is a muddle. The characters are wooden. Michael Bowen spends most of the film spying on the other characters and misjudging all of them. No one has any redeeming quality or point-of-interest. This is not an edgy work. It is not imaginative. It is not ironic. It is no clever. There is nothing straight forward about this tedious work. That is missed theatrical release is not surprise. That the "This Network" airs it diminishes that venue. I definitely recommend turning to a rerun of the Garden Smart show on PBS or even a good informational if you encountered this mess on late night television. If you encounter it on daytime television, take a long walk. Even if you walk in smog, you will feel better not having suffered through this shambles. Life is short. This movie is long.

Sentiment: negative
Made in 1946 and released in 1948, The Lady and Shanghai was one of the big films made by Welles after returning from relative exile for making Citizen Kane. Dark, brooding and expressing some early Cold War paranoia, this film stands tall as a Film-Noir crime film. The cinematography of this film is filled with Welles' characteristic quirks of odd angles, quick cuts, long pans and sinister lighting. The use of ambient street music is a precursor to the incredible long opening shot in Touch of Evil, and the mysterious Chinese characters and the sequences in Chinatown can only be considered as the inspiration, in many ways, to Roman Polanski's Chinatown. Unfortunately, it is Welles' obsession with technical filmmaking that hurts this film in its entirety. The plot of this story is often lost behind a sometimes incomprehensible clutter of film techniques.

However, despite this criticism, the story combined with wonderful performances by Welles, Hayworth and especially Glenn Anders (Laughter) make this film a joy to watch. Orson Welles pulls off not only the Irish brogue, but the torn identities as the honest but dangerous sailor. Rita Hayworth, who was married to Welles at the time, breaks with her usual roles as a sex goddess and takes on a role of real depth and contradictions. Finally, Glenn Anders strange and bizarre portrayal or Elsa's husbands' law partner is nothing short of classic!

Sentiment: positive
Given that a lot of horror films are based on the premise that one or more of the central characters does something stupid at some stage during the proceedings, the girls in this film would be collecting Gold, Silver and Bronze at a Darwin Awards Olympic ceremony. A mentally disabled baboon would have made better choices than they did, and would have screamed a lot less while doing so.

If you like films with a grainy picture, deliberately amateur camera-work (my 92 year-old grandmother wields a camcorder with better results), extremely poor sound and no discernible plot/narrative, then this is your ideal film. Also note that you should enjoy the following: women screaming for no reason, women whining for no reason. In fact reason and logic don't appear much in this film. For example: "we have to find Stephanie" "yeah I can't believe I was speaking to her, like, last night" "she called you last night?" "yeah, she wanted to talk about some date she got asked one" "WHAT? How come she didn't tell me"? As in, our friend is being chased by a serial killer with a shotgun and an array of grisly weapons but I have a problem with the fact that she didn't tell me she was going on a date.

Okay, so the budget is low. That doesn't mean you have to make it look like it cost half the budget. The 'score' is interesting since all - with the exception of one - tracks have been written and performed by the writers/directors of the film itself. In fact it would appear that the entire budget has been blown on sampling a track by The Duskfall, a death metal band from Sweden.

The most worrying thing of all in the entire film is the ending which leaves us with the possibility for a sequel.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was excellent for the following reasons: 1) It contained great backdrops and sets. 2) It showed the disparity of a war-torn environment alongside a technological one. 3) John Cusack's acting was terrific. He portrayed angst very well. 4) It showed the vulnerabilities of everyone in a war-torn situation. 5) It gave us a picture of what might happen in the future in many respects. I was also impressed with the acting for the most part. Hilary's acting was, I found, the most stilted. The morals and values of everyone in a war-torn situation are up for grabs. The liberal journalist and the conservative business man are capable of doing anything in any situation and are equally unpredictable. Great stuff. PSP

Sentiment: positive
If you watched Pulp Fiction don't see this movie. This movie is NOT funny. This is the worst parody movie ever. This is a poor attempt of parody films.

The cast is bad. The film is bad. This is one of the worst pictures ever made.

I do not recommend Plump Fiction. I prefer the original Pulp Fiction by the great Quentin Tarantino. This is one of the worst parody films ever made.

Plump Fiction is not a good movie. It is not funny. It is so dumb and vulgar.

Sentiment: negative
No wonder so many young people have Attention Deficit Disorder. It seems that stage (dance) productions these days are all about how many cameras and camera angles a director/ editor can squeeze into a 1 hour show. Is there a special Emmy category for this feat? Try counting them sometimes for something different to do with this, otherwise, completely unwatchable show. 

I tried to make out at least a few faces of some of the other dancers in the production. That was impossible. They didn't appear to have any faces, just blurs - it was just Michael Flatley's face, Michael Flatley's bare chest(nice sheen!), Michael Flatley's feet, and that patented Flatley over-the-shoulder-come-hither look repeated infinity squared. Since he was an executive producer of this cut and paste job I guess that was to be expected. One doesn't have to wonder too much as to who his target audience is. 

Riverdance was a much better production, as it tried to present the show pretty much as one might see it from the audience, not the catwalk,side wings, or floor nail perspective. If I'm not mistaken,I believe Sir Michael has retired. Thank God for small blessings.

Sentiment: negative
Unbelievable!

this film gets a 7 out 0f 10. This has to be one of the worst films i have seen in years. not only was the acting incredibly bad, the storyline (if you can call it that) was just as bad. Offcourse everyone knows what's going to happen within the first 5 minutes. Which is not a bad thing if you can captivate the audience during leading up to that moment. That however, is not the case. There is no action, no suspense, not even a spark between the 2 leading actors. It was unfortunately a waste of my time, and certainly a waste of my money. 

and the 2 of merely for trying

Sentiment: negative
I am not a fan of the original book but was expecting to see a better adaptation than the Natalie Portman movie, which I found awful. This version is even worse.

First, there is very little of Ms. Gregory's book in this script. The whole subplot of George Boleyn's sexuality is completely eliminated and in this version George is merely a flunky shuttling between his duty to the Boleyn family and his duty to the King. I thought the title of the book referred to Mary as the lesser-known of the Boleyn sisters, but here it is used to refer to Anne.

Second, the script has the characters periodically address the audience as if in confession. Apparently this is intended to give a bit of back story and explain their motives, but it is amateurish in execution.

On top of the bad script, the direction is stunningly bad. There are too many shots done with a circling camera which is none-too-steady at best and downright shaky at worst. Several of the speeches are delivered tentatively, as if in a first rehearsal. The production values for Henry's flamboyant court are minimal. The costumes vary: some are copies of historical portraits and others are from some costume designer's fevered imagination. And the King, the source of all power and favors, is often shown ALONE. No fawning courtiers, no servants in the background - where are all the people?? I am accustomed to Hollywood turning history into fantasy, but I expected better from a BBC production. Even based on a flawed book this production is BAD.

Sentiment: negative
The 1960's TV series Bewitched owes it's idea from this movie. This is the movie that Jimmy Stewart & Kim Novak made right after they were cast together in Vertigo by Alfred Hitchcock. This one is not as obsessive as that one but Novak is just as captivating.

This was Jack Lemmons 10th movie and he is good in support here as well as Ernie Kovacs. The movie has a lot of good things about it. Hermine Gingold is very good in this movie, almost as good in support here as she was in The Music Man. The cast is very solid.

This movie has a late 1950's New York City feel & a cat that is as hexing as any feline in any movie. It is well worth watching as it is a love story with all the emotion of any, & a little magic too boot.

It is not Vertigo but I think because it followed that movie, viewers then did not rate it as good as it deserved - sure am glad that William Asher saw it, so that the 1960's series got created. I am not so glad about what Will Ferrell did to it on the big screen, this movie is much better than that.

Sentiment: positive
One Night at McCool's wants you to think it is a hip and clever black comedy. It pushes its "quirky" characters and "outrageous" situations at the viewer like a crack dealer making overtime. The premise is about a gold digging woman, named Jewel who dates men to get them to steal and sometimes murder, so she can have all the worldly possesions she so desperately desires. You know, this wouldn't be a bad strategy, if she chased after rich guys. This film really wants one to believe that a foxy con artist would waste time dating bartenders and Andrew "Dice" Clay. Please. That major flaw in Jewel's scheme is really the only entertainment to found found in this stinker (and that's unintentional). Watching it, it is not hard to believe there could have been a good movie inside it somewhere. One Night at McCool's just could not decide what direction it wanted to take, so just sat in the middle of the road like a dead armadillo. It tries to be sexy but no clothes are removed on camera, and the few scenes of body head are dreadfully pedestrian. There is one recurring scene where a hitman is asking the protaganist (played by Matt Dillon) about how the sex is with Jewel. It seems like Matt doesn't know, neither do the viewers. Why was he dating her anyway? One Night at Mccool's also wants to be funny. Sorry, bizarre coincidences and misunderstandings didn't even work on Three's Company. What's worse is that this movie really seemed like it was going for a dark atmosphere to accompany its comedy. Kind of like a sophomoric Coen brothers film but its shallow script could not play subtlety, nor could its lackluster dirction sledgehammer in any shocks. What the audience is left with is a film that seems to busy trying to please everybody and just losing any appeal along the way.

Sentiment: negative
Behind the nostalgic music, we see a young boy get off a train. He is arriving from Yugoslavia to meet his father, a man he has not seen in a decade. At the train station, we meet the man. He never smiles.

Thus, we begin our journey into "Four Friends", Arthur Penn's powerful and amazing film. You may ask why I began my review that way. Well, that is the way the video box describes the film. You may have figured out that the film will be the story of the boy trying to get along with this emotionless man and eventually, he will peel away at his cover and expose the kindness.

Well, if you bought that, I've got a bridge I want to sell you. You see, modern Hollywood would make that film. Penn has always been an outsider and has never resorted to typical cliched storytelling. He always tells interesting stories about people (his credits include "Bonnie and Clyde", "The Chase", "Alice's Restaurant" and the underrated "Mickey One") and "Four Friends" is no exception.

A typical Hollywood film would focus on the boy who is named Danilo. But Steve Tesich's script only focuses on that for about 4 minutes and then abandons him. We meet the adult Danilo, played by Craig Wasson (whom you may recognize from "Body Double" and "Nightmare on Elm Street 3") and his friends, Tom, David and the passionate Georgia. The movie takes us throughout the Sixties. Now in a lesser film, the events would receive the attention. But in "Four Friends", these events happen, but Penn and Tesich is more concerned with character study than plot and I think the film is better that way. We know the events; we don't need to dwell on them again.

I know I haven't described much of the plot, but I don't know if you can describe "Four Friends". It's not one of those "high-concept" films that can be described in a single sentence. It's a film of many moods and textures. It's also a genuinely emotional experience. The final twenty minutes of this film moved me to tears. I'm not ashamed to admit it. Rarely does a film have such power that it can reduce me to tears. The acting is first rate, especially by Craig Wasson, who seems to be one of the most underused actors working today. This is such a difficult, emotional performance and Wasson pulls it off. He should have received an Oscar for this. Another great performance is by Jodi Thelen, who has an even more difficult role than Wasson. But she handles it extremely well and gives Georgia a certain dignity most Hollywood actresses wouldn't (they'd be too scared to even try; they'd be more concerned with image rather than giving a great performance; that's not what acting is about). She also deserved an Oscar.

"Four Friends" didn't receive much of a push in 1981. Maybe people just didn't have the emotional capacity to handle it. And clueless executives couldn't push it as another "American Graffiti" (it lacks the wallop of "Four Friends"). So they let it die. Too bad, for this is one of the very best films of the 1980s, a decade where more and more slick trash was created and great art like this was without a home. I ask you to give this film a chance.

**** out of 4 stars

Sentiment: positive
William Wyler was to have directed this adaptation of Moss Hart's hit Broadway play with music/ recruiting poster-vivant, but his own military commitments intervened and it went to a most unlikely helmsman: George Cukor. The "women's director" has a sure touch on the many documentary-like sequences of Air Corps training, and he invests it with more unhackneyed humanity than the genre generally allowed, particularly in wartime. Sure, the gee-whiz (and entirely white, save for one unbilled Chinese-American recruit) bunch of newbies are nicer and more wholesome than in real life, and the speechifying about home and Mom and the wife and kid gets pretty thick, but it's efficient propaganda and undeniably stirring. Notable, too, for the all-military male cast, several of whom didn't reemerge for years: Lon McAllister, Edmond O'Brien, Martin Ritt, Red Buttons (in drag, as an Andrews Sister), Peter Lind Hayes, Karl Malden, Kevin McCarthy, Gary Merrill, Lee J. Cobb, and Don Taylor. Also for a very early glimpse of Judy Holliday, who doesn't show up till an hour and a half into the picture but has some good little sequences as O'Brien's worried-sick Brooklyn spouse. Too bad its rights are in a tangle and the only print anyone knows of is 16mm; evidently, after Twentieth Century Fox released it (to considerable success), the rights reverted to the Army, and if there's a good 35mm print out there, it probably lies somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon. It's disingenuous and corny in spots, but it also captures the rigors of military training and the terrors of war vividly, and it deserves to be more widely seen.

Sentiment: positive
"The Deadly Look of Love" is essentially "Fatal Attraction" with a couple of twists added onto the back half. The ending will not surprise anyone who has seen more than two or three Movies of the Week. It is yet another cautionary tale about succumbing to temptation, and it adds nothing fresh to the genre.

Brett (Vincent Spano) is engaged to a beautiful woman who just happens to have a sizable trust fund. Even though he has it all, he risks losing everything by starting up a steamy side affair with Janet (Jordan Ladd). Janet, a doe-eyed blonde from Cedar Falls, falls hard for Brett, and she does not take it particularly well when he comes clean about his engagement. Shortly after the wedding, Mrs. Brett turns up dead in the master bedroom of the large, luxurious home she shared with her new husband. When the police question Brett, he promptly points the finger at Janet. Following her arrest, Janet seems to get loonier by the minute - not that she was the picture of stability before. Her defense attorney (Holland Taylor) is convinced that Janet is innocent and is hell bent on proving it.

Did she do it or didn't she? How will it end? You can find out the answers to these questions the next time "The Deadly Look of Love" airs on your local station. And be sure not to miss the moral of this beautiful story: men are pigs, and women are crazy.

Sentiment: negative
This made-for-TV film is a brilliant one. This is probably the best and favourite role by BAFTA winning John Thaw (Kavanagh Q.C. and Inspector Morse). Tom Oakley (Thaw) widowed man has lived in a village alone for a while since his wife and son died, and now he has been landed with an evacuee called Willaim Beech (Nick Robinson). As he gets to know this child he starts to develop a friendship. Until Willaim's Mum (Annabelle Apsion) wants him back. After Tom gets worried about William not contacting him he goes to London to find him. In the end Willaim gets his home with a loving family (or Dad). Set during the Second World War this is an excellent film. It was nominated the BAFTA Lew Grade Award, and it won the National Television Award for Most Popular Drama. John Thaw was number 3 on TV's 50 Greatest Stars. Very good!

Sentiment: positive
Frank Tashlin's 'Censored' is a so-so Private Snafu short which aims to teach the importance of the Censor in stopping military secrets from leaking out. Snafu attempts to get word out to his girlfriend that he's to be stationed in the South Pacific but the Censor foils each attempt he makes to send the letter. These early scenes are the best, with the unseen Censor plucking the letter out of the sky with long mechanical arms, nets and even a specially employed eagle! The second half of the cartoon, in which Snafu manages to send the letter with the aid of Technical Fairy, First Class (who is actually teaching him a lesson), is less funny and climaxes with a disappointing only-a-dream finale. The main point of interest in this part of the cartoon is the appearance of Snafu's extremely scantily clad girlfriend who is even seen bare-breasted, albeit with strategically placed limbs at all times! Aimed at the military, the Snafu shorts were often characterised by a heightened bawdiness but these scenes, crowbarred in as they may be, are by far the most erotic I've come across in any of these shorts thus far. Despite all this, I prefer the Snafu shorts that go for the jugular a little more, usually resulting in the death of the main character. For great examples of this, seek out Tashlin's 'The Goldbrick' or Chuck Jones's 'Spies'. 'Censored' is fairly weak by comparison.

Sentiment: negative
Viewing "Impulse" is a very satisfying experience. Unpredictable films are such a rarity, when one comes along like "Impulse", it is something to embrace. The script is logical, and extremely creative. Meg Tilly, Tim Matheson, Hume Cronyn, and Bill Paxton, give believable performances. This could have played out like a zombie movie, but "Impulse" is far superior to any boring "zombiefest", and originality shines through in almost every scene. You get the feeling that something like this could have actually happened, even though the script is pure fiction. From the "grabber" opening till the credits roll, you will be fascinated. Very entertaining and definitely recommended. - MERK

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film at the Rotterdam Festival, as did presumably all the other voters. The Director was present and seemed to have worked very hard and be very committed to the project, which I think explains the above average reception and mark it got. It's most similar to a feature length episode of Aussie kids favourite "Round the Twist" but it takes itself too seriously to have even that redeeming feature. The movie in itself is maybe worth seeing if you're trying to do a cinematic world tour visiting all UN member states, as I can't think of another Fijian movie but overall it was generic, poorly acted (albeit by an amateur cast) and prey to the subaltern mentality. The moral of the story seemed to be that native islanders will try and screw each other over, but as long as there is an essentially decent white governor to step in, all problems can be solved (by leaving the island).

Sentiment: negative
This is one of the most outstanding horror movies i've ever seen in my life time. Forget the exorcist and all the other hype horror movies out there.John Carpenter as made a tour-de-force horror epic with outstanding special-effects great performances from Kurt Russell and co and a great soundtrack that will haunt you for ever! The greatest thing about this movie after 17 years is it has'nt dated it looks fresh and new and you don't get many movies like this.Back in 1982 this was up against E.T. and of course it failded and was a box-office bomb. Over the years THE THING as made a cult following from video and t.v sales and as many new fans. In the end this movie kicks ass and to me it as never loss it's edge to scare the pants off of you and to me that a horror movie. Long live John Carpenter!!

Sentiment: positive
Daraar got off to a pretty good start. The first scene really left me at the edge of my seat wondering what would happen next. Other than that, the first half of the movie is a total BORE. All the first half of the movie is about is Rishi Kapoor falling head over heels in love with Juhi Chawla. By the way, don't you think he's a little old for her???

Things finally start to spice up towards the middle of the film when Juhi tells us about her previous husband; and wow what a lunatic is he! He was an over-protective, neat-freak with a really HOT TEMPER! He used to beat up poor Juhi for no good reason! One of the reasons I really don't like this movie is because I can't stand to see Juhi (my favorite actress) get so abused. This film in general has WAY too much abuse and bloodshed; I find it so sickening!!!

Anyway, all I'm trying to say is if you're thinking about renting Daraar, you should put it right back on the shelf where you found it and pick something else!

Sentiment: negative
A young man, who never knew his birth parents, receives an old farm in an isolated section of West Virginia upon the death of his natural father. He visits his property with a cross-section of potential victims including the comic relief black guy and a trendy lesbian couple. (Hmm, will there be skinny dipping? Take a guess.) Unfortunately, the party comes to an end when the spirits of drifters killed by his evil great-grandfather and used as scarecrows come back for revenge. This film starts out well. An artful montage of depression-era photographs and phony newspapers set against a speech by FDR - this, I believe, is his first appearance in a killer scarecrow movie- establishes the mood. I developed some hopes for the film, which were partially realized. The story was serviceable enough. The setting was sufficiently bucolic. The photography was mostly in focus. The acting, while no great shakes, was slightly above par for horror movies in this budget range. The film might've actually worked within the narrow demands of the genre if the scarecrows were scary. But they weren't They looked cheap. They weren't frightening at all. The better the monster, the better the movie. These scarecrows wouldn't scare Dorothy, let alone Toto.

Sentiment: negative
I waited almost 25 years to see this movie, thinking it might be an underrated work, from a period animation was no longer of the quality it had once been. It starred one of the best film villains of all time, was based on a beloved series of children's books, and was a Disney Studios production. What could possibly be wrong with it? As it turns outs, almost everything.

Well, not everything. Vincent Price as Rattigan and Henry Mancini's swanky score are the movie's two saving graces. Price is wickedly enjoyable, and Mancini more professional than the material deserves. They bring class to a project that otherwise belongs in obscurity. 

Meanwhile the rest of the movie, while filled with inappropriately adult situations, still suffers from a completely dull script, blandly generic voice work, terrible songs, and lazy animation that wouldn't have been out of place on any of Disney's mid-1980s Saturday morning TV shows.

This was a complete disappointment to me. It's amazing that this movie was nearly contemporary with The Secret of NIMH. Costing a fraction of this, an independent studio produced something with more creativity in its trailer than GMD has in its endless running time.

The extra star that keeps this from being "awful" goes to Price and Mancini.

Sentiment: negative
I can't seem to find anything that is good about this miniseries. Why the hell would you ban chocolate when u could ban something far more practical like smoking or alcohol? Also the fact that its an Australian program and its all set in england and everyone is faking british accents is stupid. Overall i think that this show is Unrealistic and cheap.

Sentiment: negative
I'm embarrassed to be writing this review. I say that because those of you reading it will know that I sat through the whole thing and that is embarrassing to admit even to strangers. But I just had to warn those who read the viewer comments on IMDb before they watch a film not to watch this one. It's the least I can do. This is a bad movie! Trust me. The plot is goofy. The acting is amateurish. And the directing, camera work, sets, costumes, etc. are all second rate. Let it go.

Sentiment: negative
I know this movie isn't for everyone, and I won't push my opinions on you, but what I have to say is the truth about how many people feel about this movie...It was the best I have ever seen!!! It was soooooooooooooooooo funny, and even though it wasn't the scariest movie I had ever seen, it kept me on the edge of my seat, because I didn't know what was gonna happen next. If you like funny scary movies, you have got to see this one!

Sentiment: positive
John Ford is one of the most influential and best remembered American filmmakers in the history of film, his name usually associated with the western film genre. However, John Ford's arguably best film is not a western at all but a seedy drama set in the Irish fight for independence in the early 1920s: 1935's The Informer.

Times are tough on many in Ireland and the burnt out Gypo Nolan is caught in a web of poverty and desperation - and the walls are closing in. Gypo is big but he is not the brightest bulb on the tree, has a warm heart but a short fuse, and never seems to really think things all the way through but he is not a criminal or a self-centered pig. Walking the streets starving with no where to live, the hulking Gypo Nolan finds the prime lady in his life, Katie Madden, on the streets soliciting herself because of her own desperate situation and starts to dream about taking her to the United States if he only had the 20 Pounds to pay for it. As luck would have it, his friend Frankie is back in town with a 20 Pound price over his head and Gypo is desperate enough to inform the police of Frankie's whereabouts. Gypo, with the new 20 Pounds of blood money earned, finds this foggy night particularly foggier as guilt swells all over him and the IRA invests all their resources to find Frankie's informer.

Victor McLaglen portrays the fallen Gypo Nolan and definitely deserved the Best Actor Oscar he was awarded for this film. His brutish, stupid, and tender turns give the character dimension and McLaglen is only second to Dudley Moore's character Arthur Bach from the 1981 film Arthur as the most entertaining cinematic drunk. Margot Grahame's performance as Katie Madden is also excellent but she and McLaglen are the only members of the cast who truly impress. Preston Foster is especially miscast as an IRA head, mainly because he is most obviously not Irish, and J. M. Kerrigan borders on irritating throughout his role in the film but this disappointing supporting cast is the film's only poor point.

Often overshadowed by some of Ford's better known westerns like The Searchers or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The Informer is easily one of John Ford's best films - if not his very best. Beginning what would be a long career of Oscar nominations and wins for John Ford, The Informer won four Oscars including one for him for best director in 1936. Ford and company's use of shadows and light in the film is particularly engaging and vital to telling the story. Gypo's walk through the streets is narrated by the gloomy state of the town and the glaring accusations of the street lamps, each shadow constantly reminding him of his dark deed. Ford's command of this technique was amazing to watch; if The Informer was made 10 years later (thus making the genre requirements) it would probably be considered one of the best films noir of all time but that does not hinder it from being remembered as an excellent classic film.

Sentiment: positive
What is the story what is it on the screen. At first I must say, do not touch this movie, it is for your own best (it sucks). And really what is the story, in the beginning it seems okay but after ten minutes it all gets worse. And that is not all, you can hardly see what it is on the screen it is too dark all the time.

Do not touch.

Sentiment: negative
I managed to sneak away one night and go to the movie theater to see this one, thinking I was in for a treat. Boy, was I wrong. Considering the talent involved, this has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Everyone in it was miscast, and I find it incredible to read on this site that there are people out there who actually liked it.

Sentiment: negative
As Most Off You Might off Seen Star Wars: Return Off The Jedi You May Knows Its A Good Movie But As You Might Have Seen On Video They M|might have a party At The end And They Just Probably End The Movie with the party with no a spirits or anything But on the original one (Live TV) When they are Partying But before i say more when Ben obi-wan dies in the Imperial Ship Or Death Star They Saw him Disappear And Yoda Dies From Either Old Age Or Internal Illness But because Luke killed Darth Vader (Real Name: Anakin Skywalker) When They All Are Partying At The end when Luke Or Someone Stops the Spirits Off Ben And Yoda Stands Starring At Him And Smiling While Another Spirit Appears Is its Darth Vader but not as A Sith As The Old Usual Selve off Him And Started Smiling with Ben And Yoda I reckon That made the movie ending a little bit interesting But the Producers or anyone should off made a spirit off Padme And Mace Windu And Other Jedis that got killed with Younglings Under There Arms in the back ground

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie last night after waiting ages and ages for it to be released here in Canada (still only in limited release). It was worth the wait and then some. I am a very avid reader of Margaret Laurence and was excited to see that this novel was being turned into a film. I actually ended up liking the movie better than the novel. I liked that the character of Bram Shipley was a bit less harsh, and that there seemed to be more of a love story between Hagar and Bram, which made the scenes at the end of Bram's life that much more moving. The loss seemed stronger. Hagar was not any more likable on film than in the book, but Ellen Burstyn was a genius in this role. She WAS Hagar through and through. Christine Horne was brilliant and has many more great things ahead I am sure. Her scenes with Cole Hauser were electrifying. I could go on and on, overall a 9 * out of 10. Fantastic and can't wait for it to come out on DVD, a must own for my collection!

Sentiment: positive
Dark Harvest is about a group of friends that go to a farm(it belongs to one of the friends relatives or something) for a getaway. But there are killer scarecrows lurking there(there was something about a curse in there too but I forgot what that was about).

The acting in this movie is awful, I don't know what the director was thinking when he was casting actors and actresses. The script is the same story as the acting "awful"(this statement coming up is very obvious but..) if there was better acting and a better script this could have turned out "okay".

The directing stunk too, I see no potential in this guy's future. After all these negatives this movie still maintains a "fun" factor that bumps it up to a two. The last plus is they don't use CGI! My overall thoughts on this film are it's bad, real bad, but so bad it's "fun" so it gets a 2/10

Sentiment: negative
This film makes a strong comment about the Italian people of the time. The use of the mirrors to enhance the revelations of the characters is lovely and I can't not mention the beauty and magnificence of Sophia Loren and Mastroianni. I love them both. Their way of interacting is so beautiful and natural that you may question whether or not the camera is actually there. The husband, in his brief role, is also excellently portrayed as the fascist Italian who commands his wife and children but, in his own way, a loving father. The beginning scenes with Hitler at Piazza Venezia with all the Italians is incredible and really places the film historically. I loved the film and I also agree that it is funny it isn't more renowned.

Sentiment: positive
Wow, I think the overall average rating of this film on this site is incredibly low. There's really no reason to dislike this film. "Michael" is a simple, but fairly original, and easily enjoyable romantic comedy. The plot involves a group of reporters/experts going to examine the mysterious appearance of an angel (John Travolta) in the midwest. The angel proves to be less saintly and more worldly than we would expect, and that's what makes it entertaining. His interest in women and the Beatles takes a new spin on the angel thing. The romantic side of this film involves Michael the angel trying to get Andie MacDowell and William Hurt together. The two of them may not have the all-time greatest on-screen chemistry, but they certainly have enough to make it work well. Everyone who has rated this film so low (a 5.4??), come on! The film is not that bad. In fact, I found it quite funny and memorable. Sure, it's not the best thing you'll ever see, but it's still good. This is a film I feel has been remarkably underrated. It's fun, romantic, and recommended by me.

*** out of ****

Sentiment: positive
Firetrap is yet again another bad action film about a guy who- yada yada yada- and happy endings and fire, and burning, and overacting, and bad suspense, and predictable, and ------------------- just don't see.

(Dean Cain got stuck playing Superman on Lois and Clark and can't get any good roles anymore. So i don't know if he is a good or bad actor.

This isn't good.

Why can't anybody stop that bad people who keep making these things? AI swear they just s*** them out on a conveyor belt and hope they are good. They need to make a guy whose job is to just burn the movies that look bad, just have a bucket of carosine next to him and dump the cases in. Then at the end of each day light it and go home.

Sentiment: negative
This movie has bad writing and bad editing. It is difficult to follow what is going on because nothing any of the characters do makes much sense. Some major calamity occurs every 30 seconds. As a result, none of the "action" sequences are at all interesting. The movie is two hours worth of "throw away" scenes which are connected merely by the fact that they share common actors. This movie doesn't even have enough of a sense of humor to be a good "bad" movie.

Sentiment: negative
After we counted the use of the f word, oh, about 22 times in the first 10 minutes or so of the film, listened to some really bad actors going on about a woman and a horse, and pretty much acting like 12 year old boys being naughty together, well, we turned it off. Relying on gratuitous profanity and potty humor is a sure sign of a loser Hollywood movie, the product of unimaginative and no-talent writers. 

We did give it a second chance, thinking surely it would get better. No dice. Later, my boyfriend skipped through the rest of the movie in case it improved, still no dice.

The main character did have a cool bike.

I wouldn't recommend this to anyone except maybe really immature adolescents, or frat boys.

Sentiment: negative
I wrote spoiler alert, but there's not really much that can be spoiled. It's like spoiling rotten meat. This movie is probably the worst I've ever seen. Not because of the actors or the special effects, but because of the sheer number of mistakes, both factual and physical. First of all, the MIGs aren't actually MIGs at all. They're Mirages, and they're French. And how the heck can Doug's dad withstand the maneuvers his son makes to fight off the "MIGs" without a g-suit? And why would Chappy try to board his plane without a g-suit? And how could Doug defeat the enemy pilot ace with such ease? Anyway, I did not like this movie. And the worst part is that it has 3 sequels, the latest one from as late as 1995. Now that's scary.

Sentiment: negative