DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I am really surprised that this film only has a rating of 6.4 as of the time I did this review. While not exactly a great film, I do think it's one of the best films Dietrich did and it's a shame it isn't more highly regarded. I think a lot of the reason I liked the film so much is that the usual silly Dietrich persona as the "über-vamp" isn't present and her role required her to actually act. I just hate seeing film after film after film in the early days of her career where she seemed more like a caricature or cliché than a real woman. I don't necessarily blame Dietrich for the silly vampish films she made in the 1930s--audiences loved them and they did make her famous. But here, she showed she really could act. After all, just looking at her in films like MOROCCO, BLONDE VENUS and THE BLUE ANGEL, who would have guessed that she was well-cast to play a Gypsy! I was quite prepared to hate the film because of this casting decision, but it worked--she was pretty believable and a lot of fun to watch as well! The film is, essentially, a vehicle just for Ray Milland and Marlene Dietrich--the other supporting characters are very much secondary to the movie. Milland is a wanted spy in pre-WWII Germany and in his efforts to escape, he stumbles upon a rather frisky lone Gypsy (Dietrich) who instantly takes him to be a fulfillment of prophecy--in other words, her new lover! Milland is quite stuffy but reluctantly agrees to travel in her wagon--even putting on body paint and piercing his ears to make him look like a Gypsy (hence the title to the movie). Over time, he slowly starts to realize that underneath her very uncouth exterior is quite a woman and romance slowly blossoms.

The film in a word is "charming". A nice romance with a good dose of comedy and fun--just the sort of picture you wish Hollywood still made. Also, please note the performance of Murvyn Vye as "Zoltan". He was very magnetic in the short time he was on film and I just loved his deep and beautiful voice.

Finally, a sad note to consider. While the film is set in Germany, no mention is made of the upcoming Gypsy Holocaust. During the war, throughout German territory, the Nazis exterminated a huge percentage of Gypsies and so the final nice ending to the film is a tad far-fetched.

Sentiment: positive
I really liked this film about love between two adults in postwar Britain. The high standards of BBC TV is evident in the production, and superb lead actors (Claire Bloom and Joss Ackland) make this an uplifting experience. Bloom and Ackland have previously worked together in theatre, and their chemistry and interaction is splendid. I recommend this version of Shadowlands over the film version of 1993.

Sentiment: positive
I just watched The Incredible Melting Man for the second time, and it was even more boring than when I first watched it. I don't understand why it has become such a 'cult classic' when it is so tediously dull. The opening scene looks promising, when the fat nurse drops the canister of blood and runs for her dear life. After this all that really happens is the melting man stalks around some woods and houses, whilst having flashbacks of his life as an astronaut. The makeup is quite good, and his melting gooey face looks fairly realistic. There is a cool scene where he throws a mans head in a river, and it floats until it reaches a waterfall where it falls on rocks and bursts open. There's not much to wet yourself over though, most scenes are shot in darkness and you can't really see what is happening. There isn't much gore, at least in the Vipco DVD I watched. 

No, The Incredible Melting Man is not that great at all. I'll give it marks for its cheese factor but that's about it. If you want a TRUE sci-fi/horror cult classic, watch The Deadly Spawn instead!

Sentiment: negative
An awful travesty of the Greek resistance. Senorita Cruz badly miscast as a Cephalonian Greek girl (there are plenty of attractive good English speaking Greek actresses so why pick a Spanish lady for one of the leading roles and with an English actor as her father, supposedly a Greek doctor!? Many of the supporting cast are well known actors and actresses from Greek theatre and TV series. The only foreign actor, to my knowledge, who has successfully portrayed a Greek was Anthony Quinn (as the Macedonian lignite miner Zorba in Zorba the Greek, as the plutocratic shipowner in the Greek Tycoon,and as a Greek colonel in the Guns of Navarone.

There is some historical truth reflected in the film. People who remember the Italian occupation of the Ionian Islands agree that the Italians were not harsh, unlike the Germans who succeeded them. Also Mussolini's forces, as hinted in the movie, had been defeated by the Greek army in the Albanian campaign. After the Germans intervened in the Balkans they allowed the Italian military to occupy certain parts of Greece, so the refusal of the local government to surrender to Italian forces, rather than to the Germans. as portrayed in the film is quite plausible, although I am not certain this actually happened.

Sentiment: negative
One of my favorite shows back in the '70s. As I recall it went to air on Friday (or possibly Saturday)night on the Nine Network (?) here in Australia. Darren McGavin and Simon Oakland were great together.

Each episode usually reached a climax with Kolchack having to engage in hand to hand combat with some sort of supernatural opponent. To their credit, the writers made a concerted effort to get away from the usual round of vampires and ghosts as much as possible.

I remember one episode in which the adversary was the spirit of an ancient Indian Chief which/who 'came back' as a massive electrical current which started to kill people in a city hospital. The final showdown saw Kolchack trying to short circuit the 'power beast' amidst an explosion of sparks and billowing flames. Oh well .... you had to be there at the time but it was an interesting idea.

McGavin always packed a lot of energy and enthusiasm into his roles and this was one of his best.

Definitely deserves a place in TV's "Hall of Fame". To quote Tony Vincenzo .... 'Kolchack you are ON IT '... Or, in the case of the Hall of Fame,'IN it' !

Sentiment: positive
Despite reading the "initial comments" from someone who curiously disliked the film -- (WHY IS THE ONLY NEGATIVE COMMENT VERY FIRST ON THE LIST?)it was very nice to note that virtually everyone else loved it! Obviously the Church wanted to stress certain points and portray the prophet Joseph Smith in a positive manner ~ thats the whole idea. And in fact, those points were extremely effective. We already know Joseph Smith was human... but despite that, AND all of the horrific negative attempts stirred on by the adversary, it showed just how he was able to complete a remarkable, God-given work. I'd recommend it to anyone!

Sentiment: positive
Saw in on TV late last night. Yeah, I can hear what y'all say about this one. It IS likely to be categorized as one of those stereo- typical TV soap series. In all fairness, the story line does have a fine twist to it, and you might nod saying, "Well, that's not what I expected." But, as a film, well it is not easy to spot a redeeming element. Casting, acting, camera work, cars, costume, setting, script, no, there's nothing to congratulate. Rated R?? Oh, that scene. Did we need it? This is a film that you can watch it and then forget that you even watched. And what was the title again?

Sentiment: negative
The premise of the film was very promising - sort of a gay Napoleon Dynamite type of film. And to be fair, there were some funny moments and funny lines but it really wasn't very good overall. The script and dialog felt like a local sketch production, full of clichés and scenes that were predictable.

However, there was enough that was amusing, that I stuck around to see how it finished, since there were hints that something special happens at the end. But it seems that either the film ran out of money or the writer ran out of ideas because the ending is extremely abrupt, almost skipping directly from what looked to be the key conflict in the film to the final credits.

Overall, it was very disappointing but not completely unwatchable...

Sentiment: negative
"Land of Plenty" is not a film. It is a tombstone for the directorial career of German Director Wim Wenders.

Many felt it in "The Million Dollar Hotel" and now "Land of Plenty" makes it perfectly clear; not only has Wenders lost it, he's actually turned into a BAD director, creating horribly weak and superficial stories and scenes.

One might argue that the "time you lose it" comes for every director, but Wenders' case is extreme. It's as if he completely forget everything he knew about cinema and started all over again - only to get sloppish results.

In a few words, this film does not deserve your time.

Sentiment: negative
I am truly beginning to believe that Seagal is on a mission to see how crappy his films could become.This particular movie was a complete and utter waste of time to see.My first complaint was the cover of the DVD where they have doctored his pic and made him look slimmer and younger when in the film he looks like crap.He has his big pot belly and double chin going for him and the most miserable and bored look on his face.

The whole plot was ridiculous to begin with and drawn out way too long.The whole film was leading up to the finale where Seagal and his team had to take on a bunch of people under the influence of a top secret military chemical adrenaline enhancer.There was way too much useless dialogue and not to mention the ridiculous and constant dubbing of Seagals voice even in the middle of a statement.The dubbed voice sounded like a man with a frog in his throat and was quite comical.

The fight scenes in the film were horrible.Half the time when Seagal fought you could not even see what was going on.There would be tight shots of him flapping his arms at the camera and then the person flying through a wall or something.It was reminiscent of the old Kung Fu series on television.They used way too much slow motion for the fight scenes.

I believe this is Seagals worst film to date and I am glad I did not purchase this film or I would have been very upset since I am a huge fan of Seagal the Aikidoist.The action star is quickly fading away and seems to be getting worse with every performance.

Sentiment: negative
This is a good movie, I won't go into any details as the other user comments do a good job of taking care of that. However, I disagree with the statement that this is Eastwood's best work. That is just not a very defendable position based on the volume of strong movies he has directed and starred in. I would like to note that I find it interesting that two of the actresses who played in this movie, Pattye Mattick and Peggy Drier, never again appeared in another film or television show, in spite of giving good performances. My curiosity has me wondering what happened to these two actresses?

Sentiment: positive
Like almost everyone, I am familiar with the music of Ray Charles. Who hasn't heard "Georgia ON My Mind" and "The Mess-Around" and some of the other marvelous songs featured in this movie. But about the life of Ray Charles I was sadly ignorant until watching this. I have to say that Jamie Foxx brought Ray Charles to life brilliantly. His performance was powerful, right down to the mannerisms and voice inflections. The movie also offered a no-holds-barred account of some of the trials and tribulations Charles dealt with over the course of his life, and with some demons from the past that haunted him well into adulthood. Perhaps the most powerful scene in the movie was the heroin withdrawal scene, which was painfully realistic. The movie portrays Charles' growing awareness of and involvement with the civil rights movement, culminating in his refusal to play before a segregated audience in Georgia, which led to a ban on him performing in the state. His drug addiction and extra marital affairs are also well documented. The movie revolves around a plea from his mother when he was a child: don't let anyone or anything turn you into a cripple." The point is that drugs did just that, and to honour his mother's memory, he had to beat them. There's not much here about his later life and career after breaking his heroin habit but up to that point, this is really powerful stuff. 9/10

Sentiment: positive
I'd have to say that I've seen worse Sci Fi Channel originals, but this Nu Image shonker from Yossi Wein was still quite a drag. The big problem with it is that it simply isn't convincing, not just its creature, but acting, writing and any attempts at drama. The direction lacks any kind of flair and the script from Boaz Davidson and Danny Lerner never really works, predictable, often laughable, whilst it delivers less howlers than a fair few of these sorts of films it never offers anything to engage or raise the pulse. The actors do their best, but with such material their workmanlike efforts have little effect. Matthew Reilly Burke is a blandly watchable hero, Meredith Morton similar as a blandly watchable love interest. Actually she was a bit less convincing but at least she was easy on the eyes. The film at least has the dignity to bowl along at a reasonable pace, but its biggest plus is that the octopus isn't entirely CGI rendered. So even though it doesn't look good, at least there are a few legit scenes of characters inanely grappling with rubbery tentacles in pretty amusing fashion. I also chuckled at the disparities between different representations of the octopus, the cgi shots of the creature as a whole vary over the course of the film, they are also different not only in size but appearance to the practical shots of it, and there are scenes where the tentacle action suggests that the makers had abandoned pretending they were making a film about an octopus and just envisioned their creature as a bunch of miscellaneous tentacles. The scenes of the creature attacking people get old pretty swiftly, but there are a few funny scenes where it takes on other things, like a boat and a crane. Yes, these scenes are poor, but they did make me chuckle. Undisputable highlight though is a hilarious sequence in which the octopus takes on a New York landmark, the scene may not be much more than a minute but it really is inspired, and well worth looking up on youtube. Apart from that things are uninspired all round, (a PG level lack of gore or nastiness stops this one from even pulling off much in the trash good times) the film does take a turn into semi gripping disaster movie territory at the end, but I can't really give it credit because the best shots in the last few scenes were culled from the Stallone flick Daylight (which by my recollection is quite good). Altogether this was pretty rubbishy stuff and not something I'd really recommend to anyone except creature feature die hards. Better than a poke in the eye with a wet stick, but not by much.

Sentiment: negative
After Kenneth Opel's rousing story of the invigorated me back into the pleasure of reading during grade school, I had high hopes for this series. The story of an underdog bat voyaging across country to reunite with his colony captivated my imagination and resonated deeply with my burgeoning imagination.Upon hearing of this series, I began browsing Bardel Animation's site and liked what I saw. The character design looked impressive and the fast-paced plot seemed to have been stretched respectably across a thirteen episode arc. Much was my disappointment, then, when I decided to watch a rerun early one morn.

The opening episode shows our hero, Shade Silverwing, pursuing a tiger moth in the deep hours of the night. Chirruping an echolocatory song, we see a nifty if crude CGI effect illuminate the moth, and the chase takes on a frenetic turn as the tiny insect creates numerous illusory copies of itself do deceive its pursuer. As a lover of biology, I had a decent understanding of the principles in place (tiger moths can sense the sounds their predators use for echolocation and spin a sonic cover for themselves) but without such exposition I would have surely been lost. A minor quibble, I thought. Surely they director will fill us in momentarily. I waited in vain.

Once our protagonist roosts down with some of his fellows, we are treated to some of the dullest dialog I've ever seen on television. Chinook, Shade's childhood rival, begin taunting the diminutive hero with the stupidest lines I've ever seen on a show. I can understand the writers not producing Shakespeare, but one would think they'd have had some social contact in their lives - surely enough to make communication seem natural. Oh, how wrong I was.

The voice acting, while not horrendous, hardly was a shining example of human achievement. "Oh Shade, you're broken the law!" Shade's mother sighs emptily. "You must come with me, young one." croaks Frieda, the wizened elder of the Silverwing Colony. The actors try, but it hardly matters at this point, as the story becomes less and less compelling with each pass minute.

While each episode deals with a problem of the week, as is typical of with most television series, overarching story arcs pervade the saga, for better and worse. While the main point of the story is Shade's reunion with his family, later episodes tack on other story arcs, involving cannibalistic bats from the Southern jungles and a brewing war between birds and beasts. The writers try to do too much at once, fighting to compress as many promising ideas as possible in the hopes that it will grab audience interest enough to keep the bloody show going on. Unfortunately, these attempts are futile to all but the eight to ten year olds at whom this show is aimed.

While it's nice to see Canadian media be perpetuated, it would be all the sweeter if the enjoyability of the series wasn't limited to the immediate family of the animators or frothing fans of Kenneth Oppel's books. There are worse things out there your children could be watching than Silverwing, but far better programs are out there, too. Pass on the mediocrity and read the books instead.

Sentiment: negative
Based on Tom Wolfe's satirical novel that was praised by all (i have not read it yet) Tom Hanks stars as a wall streeter who accidentally kills a black boy while lost in a bad part of NYC Willis stars as the reporter who starts Hanks on his downward spiral.. The characters are very thin and there seems to be no empathy for anyone in this movie and for a comedy or a satire there arent a lot of laughs either..Melanie Griffith had her breasts done during filming so a fun thing to do is to see if her boobs change size during different parts of the film..This will keep your mind off other things like the lack of script or humor.. On a scale of one to ten..3

Sentiment: negative
The Nest is really just another 'nature run amock' horror flick that fails because of the low budget. The acting is OK, and the setting is great, but somehow the whole film just seemed a bit dull to me. The gore effects are not the best I've seen but are fun in a cheesy sort of way. The roaches themselves are just regular cockroaches that bite people. The Nest reminded me of a much better film called Slugs. If you liked The Nest then Slugs is a must-see as it's ten times better. Also worth noting is that Lisa Langlois who plays Elizabeth was in another 'nature run amock' type film called Deadly Eyes (aka The Rats), which is about killer rats as you may have guessed. 

If you enjoy these types of horror films then you may want to give this a watch, but you'd be far better off seeing Slugs which is far more interesting and gory.

Sentiment: negative
This film basically try to portray the heroism of firefighters by making the whole movie revolve around a American dad with a good heart that puts others before himself. Now I know they try to show Jack Morrison(Joaquin Phoenix) as a typical American father that is a firefighter but like there is just nothing interesting in about him what so ever, thus when the movie gets to the climax there is just little to no emotion. This movie basically tries to make the life of a firefighter exciting but it just comes off as boring as any other jobs except you save lives or property by extinguishing the fire. John Travolta plays the captain of the fire station but anyone could have played his role and he is a dull character as the rest of the film. What could have been a good film is that the firefighter are put way up as heroes because they are firemen and turns the whole scenario into a uninteresting melodrama.

4.9/10

Sentiment: negative
Low budget, mostly no name actors. . . this is what a campy horror flick is supposed to be all about. These are the types of movies that kept me on the edge of my seat as a kid staying up too late to watch cable. If you liked the 80's horror scene this is the movie for you.

Sentiment: positive
I just thought it was excellent and I still do. I'm grateful we're still able to see different stuff from what Hollywood almost floods us with. Saving Grace is smart and enjoyable - those who feel offended by the marijuana thing better go see the America's bride sort of movie.

Saving Grace also shows that a funny movie doesn't have to be stupid. I was laughing my ass off during most of it but also pondering questions about what was the female lead character supposed to do to pay her deceased husband's debts.

In a nutshell - a witty storyline with typical English humour and good acting and directing. You couldn't ask for more.

7/10.

Sentiment: positive
...and this movie easily exceeded my expectations. The fact that it is written and directed by Peter Dalle led me to believe it was in style with other films I'm used to (and bored with) seeing him in. Anyway, I grudgingly went along to see this flick and that I'm glad for. This stuff has humour and depth. 9 out of 10. See it!

Sentiment: positive
This was a pretty good movie, I liked it. I thought it was a pretty accurate look at bulimia and how it's not about dieting, it's about having a pain so deep that they have to find a way to deal with it and they choose this. Beth was a very accurately drawn character and in the scene where she confronts her mom about the eating disorder you can see the pain inside her and hear it in her voice and you know how deep the pain is that she is feeling. I also think one of the best lines in the movie is where Beth yells the words, "It's not about you." to her mother. Those words were so true and added so much to that scene in the movie. I think that that scene was definitely the most important scene in that movie.

Sentiment: positive
I just don't get these reviews! I can't help thinking they are written by the sort of L.O.G fan who would worship anything they ever do without questioning whether it is actually any good.

I'm a massive fan of the programme but thought this film was a pointless project. I could forgive the ridiculous plot if I had come out of the cinema having laughed more than twice. At one point, I thought it might just me before I realised hardly any laughs were minting from the rest of audience.

I wasn't expecting much of a plot (very few TV comedies stand up to being stretched over 90 minutes) but thought the odd bit of classic L.O.G dialogue or visual joke (like at the start of each programme) would carry a film. After 5 minutes of the 17th Century plot, I was begging for it to end (little did I know it would carry on for the rest of the film). It just wasn't funny.

I was just massively disappointed and can't see history being too kind to it, even if a few die-hard fans write enthusiastic reviews.

Sentiment: negative
This film should never have been made! It stinks, it's awful, it's no good, it's bad, it's terrible. Starting to see a pattern here? Jackie Mason is certainly no Rodney Dangerfield. Gone were Ted Knight and Bill Murray, who, along with Dangerfield, were essential to the first film. It seems that the three of them (the stars) all knew a stinker of a script when they saw one. The one who didn't have the good sense to bow out of this was Chevy Chase, who stuck around but was extraneous to both films in my opinion. This film is quite simply NOT FUNNY. Nor does it have any other endearing qualities. This thing relies heavily on anti-Semitism to work and it works to it's detriment. I hated this thing. A waste of everybody's time.

Sentiment: negative
This movie rips off of every mobster/gangster film ever made. MP Da Last Don has a reference to every movie. The acting was by far the worst i have every seen. Who the hell is John Mario anyway? His acting was by far the worst I have ever seen. He makes bad actors look good. As far as Master P goes, he's selling out quicker than an N*sync concert. I really wish I was there to tell the whole production company: WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING WHEN PENNING THE SCRIPT?" Obviously these people are so fixated on the gangster image that they decided to make a movie and live out their gangster lives for real in their minds. One thing I do know is that there wasn't anyone who wanted to distribute this film so it seems (and how predictable) that the guys at NO LIMIT had to start; NO LIMIT FILMS. I've said enough! This movie is terrible and it does not deserve to be called a movie!

Sentiment: negative
The depiction of Ichabod Crane's character was so terrifically unlikable, my wife and I were hoping that the horseman (or some other character) would not only cut off Crane's head, but do it slowly and painfully.

I mean, this Brent Carver guy played it over the top---like he was on Broadway. And he was such a relentless jackass that we had no sympathy for him whatsoever.

I could go on with specific critiques of how this movie failed, but I prefer to not devote the energy.

Just skip it and go for the Johnny Depp version. Either that, or rent the Haunted Pumpkin of Sleepy Hollow (animated). It is quite good--entertaining for kids and adults.

Better yet, read Washington Irving's original story.

Sentiment: negative
After seeing Arthur on TV numerous times I laughed so hard Dudley Moore's role as Arthur a happy go luck drunken millionaire was hysterical but John Gielgud as his servant/ father figure Hobson was equally charming. I bought the DVD a few weeks ago and watched it, despite the passage of nearly 27 years it's still as enjoyable as it ever was Liza Minnelli's role as the love interest was fascinating the chemistry between the two was magic.

Arthur Bach, (Moore) is a spoiled drunken millionaire who has a bar bill that reads like the national debt he has no desire to grow up and enjoys acting like a child. His activities are supervised by his dry English butler Hobson (Gielgud) it appears that nobody really cares about Arthur except for him, Arthur's father (Barbour) offers an ultimatum if he doesn't marry the dreadful blonde socialite Susan Johnson (Eikenberry) in four weeks he'll cut off his son's inheritance of 750 million dollars.

However Arthur meets and falls in love with Linda Marolla (Minnelli)a young working class waitress and tie thief,now he faces a difficult decision marry for love or money. When Hobson dies Arthur finally grows up and breaks it off with Susan before the wedding, leaving him to keep both the money and his true love.

Arthur is a truly enchanting romantic comedy for for everyone

Sentiment: positive
This is one of my favorite movies. The performances of Rip Torn and Tantoo Cardinal are excellent and their performances combined with the music, scenery and reality of the movie are quite compelling. A look at a true, tell it like it is, logging, mountain man who refuses to give up his way of life in the name of progress and development. The music of the Horseflies is very unique and adds an eerie quality to some of the scenes. After seeing this movie for the first time, I had to go out and purchase the video and the soundtrack. Overall, a quiet type of movie with bursts of panic. Both Torn and Cardinal are very believable in their roles. I put this movie in the same category as Winter People with Kurt Russell and Kelly McGillis, another favorite.

Sentiment: positive
This was one of the most mixed up films I have ever seen. Everything in the movie seemed to be attached to justify some other element that had been glued on. There is even a talking buffalo that wants his wet nose rubbed to make the magic happen. Even the brutal father seems to be stuck in just to give the kids an excuse to fly away in a wagon. It was laughable, but in an uncomfortable way because of the serious subjects that seemed to be used just to set up the plot.

Sentiment: negative
Accepted is a 2006 teen flick that stars the guy from the mac and PC ads. The movie is about Bartelby .B. Gaines a guy who has rejected from all the colleges he has applied for so decides to make his own college and invites all the other people who did not make it, problem is hundreds of people sign up to his school. The movie is hilarious and I was lucky enough to buy it for $5.00 at a sale and I have always watched it since. Overall this movie is a must watch for fans of all comedy as it is funny, witty and just a good movie all up. I rate this movie a very fair 78%. GO ACCEPTED MAKE A SEQUEL GUYS BUT MAKE SURE IT IS NOT CRAP.

Sentiment: positive
I just watched the 30th Anniversary edition of Blazing Saddles, one of my all time Favorites!! The TV Pilot for Black Bart stunk. The plot was non-existent and the acting was not good. It was obviously an attempt to profit off of the success of Blazing Saddles and there have been TV shows that have succeeded in doing take-offs of big movies, but this one would never have worked. Considering that for so many years TV would not even play the farting noises when they televised the movie, it is inconceivable that they thought they could put a show on TV with the "N" word thrown around. On the other hand, I enjoyed seeing a lot of familiar faces!!! There were quite a few actors/actresses that I recognized from other shows over the years. I had to write down all the names and do a few searches. That was fun. I was arguing with my mother if Steve Landesberg was from Barney Miller or Mash. I won! :)

Sentiment: negative
I've never found Charley Chase very funny, even though his on-screen character sometimes reminds me of John Cleese, whom I find VERY funny. (Charley Chase also reminds me of gowky Hen Broon from Scotland's 'Sunday Post' comics page.) In Chase's best films, I tend to admire his professionalism rather than laughing at him. I'll give Chase credit that his very best films -- such as 'Mighty Like a Moose' and 'His Wooden Wedding' -- have inspired a fandom who are fiercely loyal to him ... but I'm positive that even the most die-hard Chase fan will agree that the very early and very crude 'Married to Order' just isn't funny at all.

Chase -- eager, awkward, gormless, naff -- is a young swain hoping to court the fair Rose. Oliver Hardy gives the best performance in this film as her blowhard father, who disdains Chase as a 'mollycoddle'. Leo White, who did more notable work as a foil for Chaplin at Essanay, is on hand here as a rival.

There's some action involving an Ingersoll watch. I was intrigued that the brand name is mentioned in the dialogue titles: is this an early example of product-placement? 

Sadly, a major flaw in 'Married to Order' is the casting of Rosemary Theby as Rose: she's meant to be a standard-issue ingenue, but Theby -- flat-chested, hawk-faced -- is physically wrong for the role. Theby (the wife of Harry Myers) had a successful career as a screen actress, but was never a believable ingenue. Film historian William K Everson dealt with her very dismissively in one of his film books.

I'll rate 'Married to Order' just 3 out of 10, and I'm being charitable ... because I keep suspecting that Charley Chase has got something that everyone else gets but I keep missing.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is awful beyond belief. It's a low-budget, badly written, piece of pointless garbage. But the Saturday afternoon I stumbled across it on TV still sticks in my mind as one of the most entertaining I've ever spent in front of the television. The badness of this movie is epic -- maybe not Ed Wood epic, but close. The premise is hysterical (men are banned for being too dangerous and imprisoned in -- haw! -- football stadiums), the pseudo-dyke culture is laughably bizarre (there's an underground sex trade with women who dress up like men to service "deviants") and the "last man" of the title is a pitiful reincarnation of Rocky from Rocky Horror Picture Show. I didn't get to see the end of it, which I have to assume was so dripping with syrupy "what have we all learned from this?" nonsense it would bring on an urge to brush the teeth, but everything in the first two-thirds was so memorably bad, even if the last third turned out to be a pale imitation of the rest, it's still worthwhile for anyone who gets a kick out of campy, stupid, brainless sci-fi B-flicks.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is just crap. Even though the directors claim to be part of that oi-culture, it's still a very, very bad directorial debut. The topic itself is very interesting and I accept the bad acting due to the fact, that they are all amateurs and never acted before, but the worst thing about this film are the dialogs and very unexperienced and naive directing. There's no timing at all in that movie. I felt like the directors were so exited to do that movie (it's their first feature), that they actually never really asked themselves, what story they wanna tell. I met Ben (one of the directors) on several occasions and he's a nice and thoughtful guy, but that doesn't make him a director. I think, that "American History X" is full of clichés, but somehow manages to transport a story. "Oi!Warning" is full of clichés, doesn't tell anything new or provocative and (-that's the sad thing about this movie) it's far from any Oi!-Reality.

If you wanna see weird but great German films, watch the movies of Michael Haneke, Christoph Schlingensief, Oskar Roehler, Hans Weingartner or Oliver Hirschbiegel:

Benny's Video Funny Games Die Unberührbare Mein Letzter Film Das Experiment Das Weisse Rauschen Muxmäuschenstill ...

*** out of ten, because of the topic and the photography

Sentiment: negative
Hard to imagine what they were thinking of when they made this movie (i.e., the writers, directors, producers, actors, editors, etc.). Christopher Plummer, veteran of 129 movies, frolics along among scores of other actors with apparently no more motivation than to collect a paycheck. I guess there is nothing wrong with that, but once they are paid that doesn't mean anyone has to watch it.

It bugs me that there are actually good reviews for this movie here at imdb. Art? If you want to see art go to an art gallery, don't watch this movie. Comedy? Watch a re-run of the Flintstones, about the same plot with less time wasted.

Dabney Coleman gives his usual performance, for better or worse. And some of the young actors may have gotten some good experience from doing this movie. But Plummer???? It was embarrassing to watch his performance, in fact I was positively transfixed on him throughout the movie, knowing this was Plummer of Sound of Music fame! I see from his bio that he called Sound of Music "sound of mucus", so guess he didn't like it as much as the 100's of millions who liked him in it.

I wonder if today he was asked, how do you rate Sound of Music compared to Where the Heart Is, what would he say.....?

Probably something like "Where the Money Is"....

Sentiment: negative
Eisenstien's "Potempkin", (Bronenosets Potyomkin), is among the finest films ever made and possibly the best of the silent era. Eisenstien was a pioneer of film form and his use of montage editing has influenced films to this day. The Odessa Steps massacre footage is as powerful today as it was when first seen over 70 years ago. DO NOT pass up the chance to see this film!

Sentiment: positive
(Some possible spoilers)

 I'm not too sure what Dreamworks was thinking when they decided to plunk $80 million down on this extremely tired and lame animated flick. They probably thought the spectacular animation would be more than enough to bring audiences (mostly families) to see it in droves. Well it seemed to work for the opening weekend, it made $26 mil., roughly and has made $38.1 mil. total (an estimation for this weekend). But I think audiences that came during the weekend saw pretty much the same thing I did, when I saw and they spread the word. This is one majorly lame movie, apart from the animation everything else, mostly the script seem to be done by a three year old.

 The movie is only about 80 mins. long, but it feels like a three hour epic. A few sticking points for me are, well the irritating narration is one of them, and it's so obviously written. At one point he escapes from some captors and even though you can see the horse is obviously scared, up pops the narrator (the voice of the talented Matt Damon) to clear up any misconceptions (which would only happen in the simplest of mindsets.

 Another one is the constant pop up of Bryan Adams songs, now I'm a fan of his music, I think he's good, but come on did Dreamworks really think audiences would be able to handle 8-9 of his songs throughout such a short movie, I certainly couldn't. Finally and here's a spoiler, a horse gets shot at point blank range by a member of the calvary, no less, she (the horse) then falls into a raging river, Spirit (the focus of the movie) tries to save her, but they both go over a waterfall that must have at least a 50 foot drop, well later in the movie near the end we see that this horse is alive and well. Now I know this is a kids movie, but even that little amount of realism is unacceptable.

 To sum up, this is a really lame movie, I'm not saying kids won't enjoy it, but anyone else will be checking their watches just waiting for this tripe to end. Definitely on my Top 10 worst list of this year. -** out of 4 stars.



Sentiment: negative
Just seen Which Way to the Front? on TCM (UK) it is a truly awful film. If I'd paid at the pictures I'd have walked out.

A terrible mess of a film. Byers (Lewis) and his mates prance around in cast off uniforms from an Italian sci-fi movie of 1960's. Were the CND/Peace symbol badges on the uniforms meant to be Ironic? The sets were pure 1970, I'm sure a Hollywood TV back-lot could have provided a more realistic set.

The film is riddled with racism. The film takes the mickey out of veterans. 

Not funny how Lewis every got to make another film is beyond me.

Sentiment: negative
A £3.50 DVD can be a gamble and this was one that sort of paid off.

A decent Saturday Night type movie that entertains if you gloss over the obvious plot flaws. Special effects are a bit few and far between with some repetition (and why does London always look as if it's in the 60's ?)

If it had the budget of, say, Armageddon then I'm sure it would have performed better at the Box Office as the story is quite a good one.

Overall, Tycus is consigned to B movie history but if you see it for £3.50 then it's worth buying.

Sentiment: positive
Has anyone ever read or heard comments by Scorsese or David Chase ( Soprano's Exec. Producer) about "Death Collector/Family Enforcer"? I bought the DVD after not having seen it for a while on cable (like 20 years), but having seen "Goodfellas" and the entire "Sopranos" run to date. In retrospect, both guys must have seen Death Collector/Family Enforcer and absorbed the flavor ,perhaps inspiring the tone for their masterworks, both of which the polar opposite of the romanticized Godfather trilogy. Being a Jersey guy, it is interesting to see how the Jersey meadowlands have evolved since the mid-70's. It is not the swampy dumping ground it used to be although once in a while a body will turn up in a local waterway. Also, it's a little bittersweet to seen a newly constructed World Trade Center in the across the river in the opening and closing scene. Who could have imagined?

Sentiment: positive
> What a dud. It began with some promise, then became unfocused and > wandered. John Cusack's Cajun accent was laughable, Bridget Fonda's role > existed only to get a skirt into the film, and Pacino did Pacino. His entire > generation of actors -- Nicholson, Hackman, Caine, Hoffman -- have developed > a standard performance that each can deliver effortlessly (or, less > charitably, "mail in") in their paycheck films. This was > one. >

Sentiment: negative
Looking back over the past 28 years (since my first exposure to the show), all i can say is: Once you get it-it will stay with you forever. I remember my initial reaction being: 1) annoyingly overacted, 2)under produced 3) unlikeable characters

Well, two years later I watched some episodes again and didn't find it nearly as annoying. A year later I was able to catch the entire series from the beginning and quickly became engrossed in it's bittersweet tale of human fault and perspectives on happiness. Yes, the show has a style that is not for everybody, and I'm sure the dated production value would be hard to deal with now. But, I still think about the show at least once a month with a vague teary eyed longing for what seemed like simpler times... 

BTW I am a married man...(for all who think this is a show for females)

Sentiment: positive
Around 1980, the name Godfrey Ho was attached to a series of low-comedy action films starring an actor with the unlikely name Elton Chong". Although no masterworks of the genre, they remain surprisingly entertaining films for those with a high tolerance for silliness.

It is altogether unclear why Ho (or whomever) would want to make a film that would attack Jackie Chan's Drunken MAster, the film that legitimated the making of comedy-action films in Hong Kong. But that's what this is, a savage attack on the Chan film (the imitation Chan who stars in this movie learns to cause his opponents to laugh themselves to death - a pointless gimmick in any genre).

Along with all the flaws one expects from a Godfrey Ho film of this period - no continuity, no motivation, incomprehensible plot line, irrelevant and unbelievable characters - the film suffers from two unforgivable faults that effectively make it unwatchable: the fight scenes stink, and the comedy isn't funny.

Pointless.

Sentiment: negative
This has to be one of the, if not the worst movies I have ever seen. After watching this piece of sh*t I felt as though I should write to Madonna and demand compensation for my time, but now I feel that I should write Madonna and demand a great 80s album (considering she can't record a good album to save her life anymore) in return for this disaster. 

On to the movie itself, which can be summed up like this:

It consists Madonna jumping around acting like a spoiled teenager who lost her way. She is trying to impress this absolute douche of an actor who plays "the lawyer' in the movie. But, the best was the ending. I was staring with my jaw on the ground into the television as the credits rolled by thinking to my self, "That's it? That's the ending? What a piece of sh*t!". If Madonna wasn't a pop icon at the time of this film, this movie would have single handedly destroyed her career. And the funniest thing of the whole situation was that I just watched the damn movie to see where they placed the song "Who's That Girl". Well, guess where they placed it?...................................at the end!

Sentiment: negative
his costume drama is ill cast and without charm.

George Sanders was a superb character actor. But he is thoroughly implausible here as the lead, an Eighteenth Century rogue known for his philosophy and great good looks. His costar is, of all people, Akim Tamiroff. Some Frenchman! Then there's Signe Hasso, in a dark wig, as the virginal daughter of a wealthy family. Carole Landis fares best. The movie opens with her in silhouette. She is a soubrette, and a naughty girl at that. She disappears for a while but turns up in an improbably situation. But she's good. She was always an appealing actress. Here she is cast closest to her usual type of role.

It's meant to be a little naughty, kind of ooh-la-la. It ought to have had a light touch but it's a leaden affair from start to finish.

Sentiment: negative
Very unnecessary movie with characters that are acting so unsympathetically that I really didn't care who would fare the best (or was that the purpose of the film, to portray some smooth talking cold-hearted New York city folks?) No romance here, no comedy either. Acting is very flat and a very predictable plot. What annoyed me the most was this constant joking with quotes from classic movies. Man, can't you see that the more you quote, the less significant your own movie becomes? Try to be original yourself! A small budget is no excuse at all, first-time director neither. Crappy, crappy, crappy. No wonder it only cost me one buck...

Sentiment: negative
I'll try to use words to describe this on.... 

I saw the original, which was good in its own way, but back then I should have feared a sequel.

And I was 'afraid' when I picked this one up, but now that I've seen it, I have to say, it's even worse then I thought. Why these movies still get money still makes my mind spin. 

Let's start with the actors;they aren't all that good, but it has to be said, some make heads turn by being just plain awful. But what can an actor do with a script like this one. It's trying to be a copy of the original only this time the places have changed, any form of story is gone and any attempt of actually coming up with something that hasn't been done before, fails miserably. In a futile attempt to get it up-to-date, they try to make it exciting by making use of the whole 'big-brother' theme , but that has been worn out ages ago and offers nothing but a filler for between the beginning and the end. An attempt was made to try to save the movie by making a ton of references to the '83 original, but it just ended up being plain funny and sometimes a bit sad. In conclusion, if you have nothing , and I mean nothing , to do... go watch it, or play Frisbee... with the DVD.... by yourself. It'll offer you the same amount of fun.. I promise

Sentiment: negative
This movie is so bad it's almost good. Bad story, bad acting, bad music, you name it. O.K., who are the jokers that gave this flick a '10'?

Sentiment: negative
"Shadows and Fog" is surely one of Woody Allen's weakest films, right up there with "September" and "Hollywood Ending" (though nothing Allen has done equals the awfulness of "Anything Else").

"Shadows and Fog" is Allen's homage to the German Expressionist style of film-making, all stark and stylized light and shadow and...you guessed it.....lots of fog. But you can tell Allen got caught up in the technique and the parody and forgot to make a movie that anyone would care about.

Luckily, he made "Husbands and Wives" the same year, so things weren't a total wash for him.

Grade: D

Sentiment: negative