DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I look at this page, and it seems disapproving to me to have to listen to someone ramble and rant at a real classic. Sure, I agree to let everyone have their opinion, but here's mine:

This movie should not be missed by any classic horror watcher, and should be seen many casual viewers around the world. Sure, it has lost some of it's flair and greatness with age, especially in todays world of CGI effects, but that's not why you should like it.

You should like it because it actually is a scary movie, even for today's standards. It's overall ickyness will creep you out just as much as the original audiences, so don't slam a classic if you haven't given it a chance. Watch it, but not with a critical attitude. Watch it to have fun, how it was originally intended.

Sentiment: positive
I enjoyed this film, perhaps because I had not seen any reviews, etc. It was delightful and a little bit of a 'romp'. I don't know why it didn't make more of a splash than it did. As far as the story goes, I could relate to some aspects of the Paul Reiser character, and I could "see my dad" in Falk's character. Made me remember a lot of past times when I was a kid and listening to my grandparents, too. If you enjoyed movies like Grumpy Old Men or On Golden Pond, this is your movie. A "sleeper", in my opinion, and one of those feel-good stories. Peter Falk and Paul Reiser had many wonderful verbal tussles, yet nothing was overdone. I would say it rates at least an 8, perhaps higher.

Sentiment: positive
Rajkumar Santoshi Without Any Doubt Has Directed The Greatest Movies And Biggest Box Office Hits Of Indian Cinema.

This Movie Falls Short Of All Expectations As This Movie Stars Two Great Actors Mr. Amitabh Bachchan And Akshay Kumar And When You Have These Two Actors In The Same Movie You Have To Make A Magnum Opus.

In The Later Part Of The Movie You Can Make Out That Amitabh Bachchan's Voice Has Been Dubbed By Some Other Person Which Was Due To His Illness.

Still The Movie Did'nt Had Proper Character Development Plus Cinematography Was'nt Good Too And One Thing That Bollywood Should Learn Is That They Should Use Visual Effects Only When It Is Needed And When Applied Should Be Done With A High Budget.The Script Had So Many Flaws Which Gives The Viewer Excuses To Attend His Phone Calls Rather Than Watching The Movie.

The New Comer Shakes The Leg Well But Could Not Act Well But Where The Movie Loses Big Time Is The Storyline Screenplay And Cinematography.

A Talented Actor Like Bhoomika Chawla Has Been Wasted In The Movie As Well As Sushant Singh.

But Every Director Once In A While In His Career Makes A Bad Film.

So Watch It Only If You Are A Fan Of Multi-Starrer Flop Movies.

Sentiment: negative
I was very excited when this series premiered in 2005. The premise was very simple and appealing: each episode would be a one-hour mini movie directed by a famous, noteworthy horror director. Then, when I finally watched them it was a bit of a letdown. Some good episodes emerged from that first season, but all in all it was a mixed bag. I attributed it to the learning curve, and figured that season 2 would be a whole lot better.

Boy, was I in for a shock. At least season one had a few good stories here and there. Season 2 (with the exception of "The Black Cat" starring the excellent Jeffrey Combs) was a complete and total loss to me. The episode "Sounds Like" may very well be the worst thing I have watched on TV in the last 10 years, and most of the other episodes aren't much better. I really hope that season 3 turns this around next year, but I'm not holding my breath.

Sentiment: negative
A virtual carbon copy of The Cave save for a fewer lower budget effects and a slightly different plot. I knew the movie was going downhill when I saw the fake campfire flikering lights clearly reflected in a facial close up of one of the actors. The conflicts between characters and subplots seemed to serve no purpose whatsoever, and added nothing to the film except fewer moments of silence. The acting wasn't as bad as the typical B movie, and there was some believability in their fear, but as professional cavers, they seem to be too psychologically unstable for their chosen profession. Overall not worth wasting $4.50 to rent.

Sentiment: negative
Saying this movie is worse than asphyxiating on your own diarrhea is a generous understatement. The only thing more pathetic than this reprehensible piece of garbage of a movie is the shmuck getting paid by the producers to register a bunch of accounts to post fake appraise.

If watching a poorly-acted, suspenseless, snoozer of a movie about Sloth from the Goonies kill people in a fashion that completely ignores every law of physics (pulling on an unrestrained person's legs, causing them to be ripped from the torso) is your idea of a good movie, then knock yourself out.

No carbon-based lifeform with a functioning occipital lobe would consider in a million eons that this movie is scary or entertaining.

Sentiment: negative
Clint Eastwood reprises his role as Dirty Harry who this time is on the case of a vigilante (Sondra Locke)who is killing the people that raped her and her sister at a carnival many years ago. Eastwood makes the role his and the movie is mainly more action then talk, not that I'm complaining. Sudden Impact is indeed enjoyable entertainment.

Sentiment: positive
I purchased this video on VCR tape in a good-will store for US 50 cents. I have taken quite a few videos I purchased back for them to sell to others after I viewed them considering the 50 cent cost as a rental. This is the only one that will never go back. It is an explosion of artistic talent, color and sound. I don't know if I should calls it circus, dance, or both. It is bigger than life itself. They will only be able to do this well for just a few brief years in their life. These are the performers for the performers. If Gene Kelly and Burt Lancaster were alive today and saw them live they would be awe-struck. I would lend it to others to watch but I know if I do that I will never get it back.

Sentiment: positive
I cannot believe I actually sat through the whole of this movie! It was absolutely awful, and totally cringe-worthy, and yet I sat through it thinking it had to get better. It didn't, and I have wasted 2 hours of my life. Will Smith is much better in action movies - I loved him in I, Robot, Enemy of the State and Independence Day - and I don't think he can really be expected to carry off an entire movie as the romantic lead in the way that Cary Grant could. Then again, the script was unbearably awful, and the dialogue was so cheesy. 

I disliked everyone except for Albert's character, and even that I found was done with a heavy hand. If you want to watch a modern feel-good romantic comedy, watch something like How To Lose A Guy In Ten Days, or When Harry Met Sally. The 40 Year Old Virgin left me with a smile on my face. I even preferred Music and Lyrics above this - and yes, I know it's cheesy, but at least it didn't take itself seriously, and was sweet. I also disliked the main female lead - and wasn't convinced of the chemistry between her and Will Smith's character. 

In all, I think there were two scenes that I liked (and definitely not the ending, which was nauseating and unconvincing!) - Hitch calling Sarah when she hadn't given him her number was quite sweet, and - no, sorry, that's the only thing I liked about the entire film. Don't waste your time.

Sentiment: negative
This glorified discovery channel documentary, part biblical study, part treasure hunt, all misappropriated, might have sat well in it's television origins but falls flat as a feature film. Right from first glance of it's cheesy looking cover art, one may cast doubts upon the integrity behind this serious subject, shown on front case relegating the search for Jesus's tomb to a generic action font that looks more National Treasure or Tomb Raider then any informed debate and examination of the historical burial site should. Such is the underhanded way in which the entire proceedings revolve.

More curious child then worthy researcher, Simcha Jacobovici's explorations come across as self-indulgent while his research comes across as manipulative. For all the fascinating revelations this filmmaker tries to impart on his viewers through supposed evidence, a flood of repetitious statements reiterating the same research and findings over and over proves The Lost Tomb of Jesus has very little information to back up the bloated, albeit entrancing claims. What this amounts to is a very frustrating attempt to beat the audience over the head with the same small factual evidence in support of this tomb's authenticity, which ironically detracts from it. While tirelessly linking together many of these mini-coffins found together to support the Jesus of Nazareth theory, this research forsakes a well-rounded approach to continuously pursue this romanticized archeologist's singular obsession. There may be some impressive factual data which helps shed some light on many traditional dogmatic Christian-held beliefs, but essentially the shady nature of this project made it come across as merely an exploitation piece, financed at a time when The Da Vinci Code was all the rage.

In the end, the cheesy cover art was right. Despite my appreciation for documentary form, The Lost Tomb of Jesus takes an always interesting topic and turns it into overlong and unvaried geriatric adventure hunt, substituting any relevance and sacredness for the uninspired motivations behind this team. By the time these tomb raiders have finished their explorations, reluctantly having to stop research because of social demands, viewers are left with the sense the director was insistent on forging this mystery whether it was there to begin with or not. There are a few genuinely potent moments where the halls of history come marching through this documentary in unassuming ways, but all the decoding, exploring, and theorizing in the world still left this misguided vanity piece in an uneasy void of apathetic response.

Sentiment: negative
This was a very strong look at prejudice and group mentality. The cast is composed of superb actors doing a remarkable job. The sets are beautiful and just a bit stylized. The art direction is top notch along with great cinematography. The story is taut and shows how prejudice and bigotry can flourish easily. It is disturbing for its realistic violence and protrayal of a fairly typical community. I was very impressed.

Sentiment: positive
Messiah was compulsive viewing from start to finish. The story centred on apparently random murders of men in London in various gruesome ways. DCI Red Metcalfe (Ken Stott)has to find the truth which, to his surprise, is a little closer to home than he might think.

Gripping drama and Ken Stott was brilliant. Hopefully we have not seen the last of DCI Red Metcalfe.

Sentiment: positive
Done on a spare change budget of twenty bucks tops, this cheapie thirteen minute short cheerfully parodies George Lucas' legendary '77 sci-fi blockbuster "Star Wars" in the most infectiously dumb way imaginable. Writer/director Ernie Fosselius delivers a winning and often gut-busting blend of ludicrous sound effects, ineptly staged action scenes, cruddy (far from) special effects (you just gotta love the cheesy scratched-on-film lasers, tinfoil asteroids, and household appliances ... eer, I mean spaceships being swung around on obvious wires), badly dubbed in dialogue, shamelessly hammy acting, and Richard Wagner's rousing piece of classical music "Ride of the Valkyries." The characters are presented in suitably broad strokes; my favorites are whiny wimp Fluke Starbucker, venerable Jedi knight Auggie "Ben" Doggie, and hateful arch villain Darph Nader (who spouts nothing but incomprehensible gibberish). Moreover, 4-Q-3 is clearly based on the Tin Man from "The Wizard of Oz" while Artie Deco is definitely a cheap vacuum cleaner. This film's true masterstroke is casting legendary voice actor supreme Paul Frees as the narrator; Frees' deliciously rich and plummy histrionic tones add immensely to the considerable silly, yet sidesplitting tongue-in-cheek merriment (choice lines: "You'll laugh! You'll cry! You'll kiss three bucks goodbye!"). A total hoot.

Sentiment: positive
I didn't expect too much from this movie, but I was still disappointed. It's supposed to be a comedy, but there are only four or five scenes where I actually laughed, and I think that's rather poor. There is no real plot either, I always had the feeling that most of the scenes could have been put anywhere in the movie because there's no connection between them. But the worst thing was the "acting" of Kim Franke. He has ONE facial expression during the whole movie, as if he was supposed to play some retarded guy, but I believe that's not the case. All in all I rate it four out of ten, I've seen worse movies than this, but I wouldn't spend money on this one again.

Sentiment: negative
The dreams of Karim Hussain are to be feared. When the right hemisphere of his characters overpowers the left, shocking images of blood, dismemberment, and various abominations are released. Religion won't save you, nor will mother nature or your own family. Hussain's dark poetry, because that's what this film really is, destabalizes all institutions of sanctuary.

`Subconcious Cruelty' is a current crowd pleaser on the horror\fantasy festival circuit. The film's opening meditation on madness is both well written and profound. The protagonist's desire to profane the birthing process which brought him into the hell he inhabits unfolds with horrific and credible illogic. From here the film continues deeper into the subconcious and tackles mother nature. Hussain offers depictions of lusty pagan fertility and writhing mushroom madness. Nature is exposed as blood-drenched and violent in Hussain's frightening enlightenment.

`Subconcious Cruelty' is disturbing to all and rewarding to those who see past the shock into the mature themes of life, lust and madness this very worthy film explores. CJ Goldman deserves kudos for his special make-up, as do David Kristian for unnerving sound design and Teruhiko Suzuki for score.

Sentiment: positive
This is an excellent movie. The cast is a great mix of characters and the story is decent. The movie is basically about a well-accomplished doctor stealing the bodies of dead brides and taking them to his home. Once the bodies are at his home, he removes stuff (i hate to use such a general term, but i forget what it was he removed) and puts it into his wife to retain her youth. Then a reporter, Patricia Hunter, investigates the situation and begins to find answers on why the brides were dying. She takes a trip to the doctors house and the interesting things begin to take place. Definitely watch this oldie, but goodie if you can.

Sentiment: positive
This movies made me suffer and I LOVED IT! LOVED IT! It haunted me for days. I think Erika is the kind of character you simultaneously loathe and lament. The most terrifying sex scene ever caught on film. This is the best of Haneke's work so far. He is the only living director to redefine pace since Kubrick. The violence in this film is gorgeous. In a word, the film is about self-hatred. In a sentence, the film is about trying to find love in order to stop hating yourself and finding that that is a hopeless hope.

Sentiment: positive
I write this review just after hearing of Stanley Kubrick's death. It's a great loss, and I write about 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, because I feel it is the consummate Kubrick film, the one he will be most remembered for. It is a picture like no other, not only revolutionizing science fiction, but changing the way films are conceptualized. It was probably America's first 'art' film and has inspired the likes of George Lucas and countless other writers and directors.

Aside from its visual greatness, the reason the film spawns so much discussion and analysis is because so many people have so many different interpretations of it. Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, his co-writer, had a vision, but we have never really found out what was going through their minds. Of course, the skinny on its 'message' is how technology of the future will take over humanity and decide the course of our lives unless we are careful. 2001's ending is one of hope, a version of our rebirth through the star-child's flight back to earth. It is meaningless to many, but discerning filmgoers will understand.

Although 2001 does not have the wicked, dark humor of DR. STRANGELOVE or CLOCKWORK ORANGE, or contain strong, eccentric characters that filled his earlier works like PATHS OF GLORY or SPARTACUS, I still feel he would've liked to be remembered most for this. If anything, HAL will be his most memorable character, dangerous, murderous, and artificial. It was a half-decade in the making at a time when Hollywood was still churning out dull musicals and just waking up to the New Wave of French and Italian cinema. Kubrick was a maverick director who made great films on his own terms, his own time, and for everyone else to marvel at. He will be missed.

Sentiment: positive
''Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit'' is the same type of animation and from the same creators of ''Chicken run'', but the story now is other: Wallace, a inventor who loves cheese and his smart dog Gromit who is always helping Wallace in his problems,are trying to keep the rabbits away from everybody's vegetables,since there is in their town, an annual Giant Vegetable Competition. But when Wallace tries an invention he did, to make the rabbits avoids vegetable, the one who is going to be cursed is him. Before watching this movie I didn't knew that these two characters already existed and were famous.I loved Gromit, and I think he is one of the coolest dogs I already saw.

aka "Wallace & Gromit-A Batalha dos Vegetais" - Brazil

Sentiment: positive
I really like this film... when I started to watch it I thought I would get bored pretty soon, but it surprised me... I thought it was a great film and have seen it a few times now. The characters are believable and I have to say that I fell in love with Brian Austin Green all over again (the first time being Beverly Hills 90210). I would recommend this film if you are a fan of his, but I do agree with another comment made earlier, that the ending is sort of disappointing. I would have loved it to turn out a little different! Never mind though, good gripping story.

Sentiment: positive
What you saw in BULLITT and THE FRENCH CONNECTION is nothing compared to what you have here. The chase goes on for nearly 15 minutes and is the best you'll ever see. This movie has become a classic crime drama from the heyday of 70's film-making. It's a gritty and realistic portrayal of the mean streets of New York City. Featuring one of the slickest wise guys ever put on screen, Tony Lo Bianco's behavior in this movie is cool as ice. He's ripping off his own associates and making it look like the police are responsible. His childhood friend, Roy Scheider, is a street detective who becomes puzzled by the disappearances of the mobsters. You can tell that Lo Bianco's enjoying the game throughout the movie. At times though, the film gets dull, but then right when you feel like giving up on it, something big happens and it pulls you back in. The score by Don Ellis sets the tone of the cold, gray wintertime in New York City and to top it all off, my man Joe Spinell shows up in an early role as Toredano the garage man.

Score, 7 out of 10 Stars

Sentiment: positive
This movie reminds me of 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' and 'Garden State' not because of content, but because it is one of those movies that you don't hear about except through word of mouth, or you read the back of the DVD at the video store and think "why not". Needless to say I was pleasantly surprised (like the aforementioned films) at how good it was and how much I enjoyed it.

Best seen with little knowledge of the movie and with only intrigue guiding you to actually watch it. Also best seen with someone else or if you know someone else that has seen it - you will want to talk about it!! It's a beautiful film that stays with you well after you watch it. It's also an intelligent watch that requires little effort into figuring out parts for yourself.

Just enjoy :)

Sentiment: positive
Can you say "All shock, no plot?" There were so many unexplored directions in this movie. There was no history about the room other than the deaths. *WHY* was it evil? What made it that way? Why an "hour" countdown? Then, there were the unexplored things hinted at; for example we *saw* a camera in the air vent, which he mentioned. But when he climbed up said vent, there was no camera.

How about the fact that all the ghosts looked "Digital", and things "winked out" before hitting the ground making a static noise? Hmmm... when you put all of *those* things together, it makes room 1408 look like a high-tech spook house. Except that there was no follow up on that.

Oh... by the way... electronics don't work in 1408. Well, except for the TV... the cell phone has no signal, but Wireless Internet works fine. How many incontinuities can you possibly add? I'm sorry, but this film was nothing but "shock after shock". It's all been done before. Reflections in the mirror. Things just out of site. Changing paintings. Bleeding walls. The "Oh, it was all just a dream... no it wasn't." And, if the room was "evil", why make our main character come to terms with his daughter's death, if it was going to keep him trapped there forever anyway? It just didn't make sense.

Additionally, there was no background information about "The first book" that he wrote. Just some vague information about the "dad was a jerk" and so forth. Speaking of dads, what was with the bit about his father? "You'll be in my place".

Overall, a truly HORRIBLE movie. It was 100% adrenalin shock factor, without any new or innovative effects, and certainly no back story, character development, etc.

My overall impression is that the entire movie was made on the "Cheap"; pretty much using one set and a couple of location shots, and was nothing but an effects film of recycled, cheesy, "seen-that-before" effects.

Sentiment: negative
I hate this movie! It was NOTHING like the book, and just thinking about it makes me mad. If you watch the movie before reading the book, then yeah, it's a good movie. But King's book was AMAZING and this movie was nothing like it. I mean, the general meaning might be sort of similar but most aspects of the movie are completely different. The ending for example! So in the book it is extremely intense and Danny and Wendy escape seconds before the hotel explodes. but in this horrible movie version jack like takes them through a stupid maze... yeah, there is no maze in the book and there is no reason for it. Another part that made me angry was that jack just kills Mr. Halloran! what the heck, he is basically the hero of the book and they just kill him off like he wasn't important. Overall, it was just bad that the movie was so extremely off.

Sentiment: negative
A cheesy "B" crime thriller of the early '50, the story is droll, the characters wooden, Allison Hayes and Abbe Lane are the only two sexpots that make it an eye-catcher, but one short shot, only a few frames long, shows an "el" train crossing the river on the State Street bridge, of the 6000 series Pullman-built cars painted in their original 1950 paint scheme, as they were delivered when new in 1950. For traction fans like me, that one short take makes the picture worthwhile. I think films like this one, Ulmer's DETOUR, D.O.A. with Edmund O'Brien,THE FUGITIVE with Harrison Ford, and others of the film noir genre, (big city crime dramas) make it interesting if for nothing other than the fact that I know Chicago and San Francisco intimately and recognize most of the street locations. Other wise it's a really droll boring film!

Sentiment: negative
I have had the opportunity to catch this independent film and was impressed with it, despite the lack of excitement in the plot. The acting was very good by everyone involved. Amy Madigan played the part of a guilt ridden mother who is tired, yet well intentioned and determined to make up for her younger daughter's condition. Yet, in the process, she has neglected her older sister, who is more interested in playing with her savant-syndrome sibling and living in a world of escapism.

The men in the movie are very powerful in their secondary roles. Christopher Lloyd, in a very understated role, shows us why he has such versatility. He plays a teacher who is dedicated to his profession and literature research, yet starved for a meaningful relationship. He and Madigan connect very well in their scenes together, yet both know nothing more can come from their friendship. Their wordless goodbye is nothing short of brilliant, an acting lesson for aspiring performers.

And in a small role, Fred Savage is fun to watch.

You can tell why this movie was based on a play, it's probably very good on stage. On screen, it's not particularly exciting, but it's nonetheless very thoughtful and powerful in its subtleties.

Sentiment: positive
First of all, ignore the comment about how South Park should make fun of Republicans. Everyone is doing that now, why should South Park blindly follow what the rest of the media is doing? And what the Republicans are doing is more serious and less funny than Al Gore and his global warming hysteria.

But all that aside, this episode is just plain funny. Al Gore's portrayal has to be one of the best caricatures of a politician I've ever seen, it was original, and it was based on peoples opinions of the man. I don't want to give anything away, but it had me rolling on the floor.

There are also has some of the best Cartman/Kyle moments ever.

All in all I'd say that this is one of the best episodes the show has ever had, and I would highly recommend it to anybody.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of the funniest shows on TV today. It hits the mark 99% of the time. Usually after watching a sitcom after a few years, the actors become to cartoonish, as if they are trying to become the beloved characters they play. These actors have in my opinion stayed true to their roles. The chemistry is still there, the writing has not gone down and I still look forward to watching it. The family dynamic still seems real and the situations after all this time are not so far fetched to make it seem the writers are reaching into an empty bag trying to keep the show on for one more season It is one of the few shows I watch without the remote in my hand for quick switching.

Sentiment: positive
Wow. Something of a surprise. Though flawed, it is far better that I expected.

The brand new space liner Arcturus with some 3,000 passengers is in the final days of its sixteen day trip to Jupiter. Without warning, the ship's Cerebral (central computer) sounds a disaster alarm and orders everyone to evacuate. 

Soon, there are only a handful of people remaining including one of the ship's astrogators (Penny), the captain (Cary), and the director of the shipping line (Kenyon).

It turns out that the alarm was false and that the main Cerebral is acting

erratically. The remaining passengers and crew must escape the ship and

avoid personal conflicts in order to survive.

The film starts out very well. The opening commercial is a very nice touch. There are obvious parallels to 2001: A Space Odyssey and to the historic

sinking of the Titanic. The film does slow down at times and has pacing

problems, but is generally well made and well acted.

Sentiment: positive
I had never heard about this movie when it was given to me to translate, so I didn't know what to expect. I checked it out on IMDb and got curious. It didn't take long to realize that this was a gem. Outstanding performances, great story, and it's both well directed and well written. It's hard to compare it to other movies, but "Stand by me" comes to mind, although it has as many differences from "The cure" as similarities. The tale of an extraordinary friendship between young boys, plus the dramatic and humorous elements are the most obvious similarities between this movie and "Stand by me". Other than that, "The cure" is a fine movie in its own right, well worth a wider recognition. It's dramatic, but also adventurous, sad, but also humorous. I can't think of a single thing that bothers me about it. Having said that, I don't want to give the impression that it is a "perfect movie", whatever that means, but rather that I enjoyed it immensely, was very moved by it and wouldn't change a thing in it. I won't go into a detailed description of the story/plot, partly because it would be either too general or too revealing, and partly because you can find that information elsewhere on the site. In closing, I can only say: Wonderful movie, see it if you get the chance.

Sentiment: positive
The prerequisite for making such a film is a complete ignorance of Nietzche's work and personality, psychoanalytical techniques and Vienna's history. Take a well-know genius you have not read, describe him as demented, include crazy physicians to cure him, a couple of somewhat good looking women, have his role played by an actor with an enormous mustache, have every character speak with the strongest accent, show ridiculous dreams, include another prestigious figure who has nothing to do with the first one (Freud), mention a few words used in the genius' works, overdo everything you can, particularly music, and you are done. Audience, please stay away.

Sentiment: negative
Based on Christy Brown's autobiographical novel, this endearing film tells the story of his life, him being affected by cerebral palsy and being considered basically not a person by everyone including his mother. Amazingly, he teaches himself to draw and write using his foot, which is the only part of him he can control. An amazing story of courage with a truly amazing and unforgettable oscar winning performance by Daniel Day Lewis. 9 of 10

Sentiment: positive
This film screened at the American Cinematheque's Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood on April 7, 1999. It was described in the American Cinematheque schedule as follows:

"TOMORROW IS ANOTHER DAY 1951, Warners, 90 min. Steve Cochran's an ex-con who's never been with a woman. Ruth Roman is a dime-a-dance dame with no use for sappy men. A hotel room, a dirty cop, a gunshot - the perfect jump-off for a fugitives-on-the-run love story. This virtually unknown noir is Felix Feist's masterwork, packed with revelatory set-pieces. Cochran was never more vulnerable, Roman never sexier. Imagine GUN CRAZY scripted by Steinbeck - it's that good."

I just saw this film, and I agree with every word of the above description.

Sentiment: positive
This well-meant film falls just a bit short, and unfortunately in too many areas.

The scenery is gorgeous, with vistas of north-central Vermont providing the setting for this mid-century tale. Quebec Bill endeavors to go back to his whiskey-running past in order to save his farm.

Going back and forth between scenes of magical realism and straight-forward action, this film rarely hits its stride.

Kris Kristofferson as Quebec Bill seems pretty stilted, or else it's his lines; or else his cross of Yankee and Quebecois accents. Anyway, he just comes off as a low-key blow-hard. His dialogs with Gary Farmer's Coville character do sparkle, though. William Sanderson's Rat Kinneson is solid. Charlie McDermott shows some real potential as young Wild Bill; but his part's not large enough to carry a scene and he never steals one. Luis Guzman shows up on Lake Memphramagog (with a fine stand-in performance by Lake Willoughby) as a monk with a boys'n'the hood accent: who knows? And then there's Bujold's Cordelia: an oracle like her namesake, she channels Yoda as she intones lines like "You will marry a Quebec woman!"?!? Just too weird and nowhere near enigmatic enough.

The end gets really choppy. Again a bad mix of magical realism and the concrete. And Yoda never provides an answer we can understand.

Sentiment: negative
I enjoyed the movie and Kellie Martins performance immensely. It's the kind of movie I can show my family and has an example of a young woman placed in extraordinary circumstances finding the courage to do the right thing in the face of extreme danger.

Sentiment: positive
I remember watching this movie when it came out as a t.v. movie of the week in the early 1970's.

Although I haven't seen this movie in over 30 years I remember how creepy it was...the sister's dead body in the basement, the storm raging outside, the creepy house with no electricity and a killer still on the premises.

They just don't make t.v. movies like this one anymore. Elizabeth Montgomery was a very underrated actress and I liked her in not only "Betwitched", but several of her post-Bewitched roles, such as this one and 1975's "The Legend of Lizzie Borden".

I really wish that someone would come out with a DVD that has several of the 1970's t.v. movie of the week on one DVD. Wouldn't it be awesome to watch "When Michael Calls", "Bad Ronald", "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark", "Crowhaven Farm", etc., all on one DVD? I know there is a market for a DVD like this for all of us baby boomers who grew up in the 1960's and 1970's. Maybe, if we are lucky, someday someone will offer us a DVD with a great selection of t.v. movies like this.

Sentiment: positive
In the opening scene, the eye patch wearing desperado named Hawkeye has a smooth forehead, but when he follows Johnny into the pueblo, he's shown with a scar over his patched eye. That's just one of the many continuity lapses in this edgy 'spaghetti' Western, but rather than detract from the picture, it adds a special flavor to the proceedings.

Another occurs when Sanchez turns in his three dead bodies, they have to be examined for their identities - "You just can't imagine how many false cadavers we have in our town". Immediately after, Carradine (Lawrence Dobkin) shows up to collect his bounty with no more than a wanted poster in hand.

As for the film's principal Johnny Yuma (Mark Damon), he's shown with his holster alternately on his right and left hip throughout the movie after exchanging gun belts with Carradine following the barroom brawl. Johnny's bound for San Margo at his uncle's request, but will have to avenge his death at the hands of deceitful wife Samantha (Rosalba Neri) and her conniving brother Pedro (Louis Vanner). It takes some time getting there, but it's a fun ride with one of the best music scores on record. As for that saloon fight, I got a kick out of the kung fu sound effects every time a punch connected.

Care for some more story exaggerations? Following the duel with Pedro the first time, Johnny wipes a small amount of blood from his lip which he manages to smear Pedro's entire face with. Similarly, when Pedro smacks around little Pepe later in the film he doesn't cut him, but by the time Johnny arrives, Pepe's face is covered with blood.

"Johnny Yuma" is probably one of the best of the genre that doesn't have Clint Eastwood in it. As Johnny, Mark Damon is a reasonably suitable stand in but without the seething exterior. Carradine seemed to be a replacement for the obligatory Lee Van Cleef character, without being a total bad guy. At first the identity exchange between Carradine and Johnny didn't seem to make sense, but it all tied together by the time the film ended. You knew each henchman would wind up getting his due; marking time for each was part of the anticipation.

In case you're wondering, the title hero has nothing to do with the Nick Adams character from the classic TV Western "The Rebel". In this film, Johnny got his name from a gunfight he had in Yuma once.

Perhaps the most unique element of the story had to do with the way it tied things up with the evil Samantha who pulled the strings behind the scenes throughout. After shooting Carradine she beats a hasty retreat before Johnny can get his revenge. Still alive, it looks like Carradine tries to shoot her and misses, but it doesn't take long for Johnny and Sanchez to track her into the dessert where she perished without water - Carradine aimed for her canteen.

Sentiment: positive
While killing time on a Saturday morning, "Looking For Lola" came on HBO. I decided to give it a shot even though the description of the movie looked pretty bad. It was even worse than I could imagine. The movie was incredibly unbelievable and there was absolutely no on-screen chemistry between the lead actors that I found myself shaking my head almost every 10 minutes. Between Mike Greenbaum (lead actor) in scenes in which he skips the bill at a fancy restaurant and where Lola (lead actress) allows him to use her boss' house to fool his parents into thinking he's rich, it was almost as bad as him "daydreaming" about people around him doing the macarena (it was HORRIBLE!) and the two actors ultimately falling in love. I kept wanting to change the channel, but I was trying to give it every chance into becoming a cute love story with a few chuckles. It never did. In fact, it became so bad that I decided to finish it just so I can claim that I watched one of the worst films ever made in it's entirety, instead of being criticized for not "giving it a fair chance". The last scene where Lola tries out for a dance part was the culmination of the movie. She comes in late after getting married (even that scene where Mike tells the priest to hurry up and then just snatches the papers away claiming that it's done was in tune with the believability of this movie), and then somehow "convinces" the judges to give her a look. The two male judges are already put-off with how late she is. But after watching her waif around the stage (ok, she dances fine, but not overly impressive), everybody joins in including Lola and Mike's families, other dancers that were there, and *cough* even the judges. Bad, horrible, terrible. It was so bad I had to write a review. Watch at your own risk.

Sentiment: negative
The Girl in Lovers Lane is one strange little low-budget film. On its surface, the movie tells the story of a tough drifter named Bix (Brett Halsey) who spends his time looking out for a young kid named Danny (Lowell Brown) and the girl, Carrie (Joyce Meadows), that Bix meets who would like to look out for him. Nothing overly interesting happens (Bix goes out with Carrie, Bix gets Danny out of trouble, Carrie's father drinks a lot, etc.) until about 10 minutes to go in the movie when Carrie is murdered. Her father blames Bix, pulls him out of a jail cell, and just about beats him to death. Now their roles are reversed and Danny has to save Bix.

Until I read the reviews on IMDb, I thought that maybe it was just me reading more into Bix and Danny's relationship than was really there, but I see now that I'm not alone. It was quite obvious to me early on that Bix and Danny had more of a relationship than you usually see in a movie from 1959. The homosexual nature of their relationship, while never openly expressed, is still quite obvious. Their living and sleeping arrangements, Bix's reaction to finding Danny in bed with a prostitute, Bix's inability to commit to Carrie, and that phone call at the end when Danny tells his parents he's "brining home a friend are a few examples of moments that lead to the inevitable conclusion that there's more to their relationship than initially meets the eye. I'm sure they exist, but I can't think of any movies I've seen from the 50s that scream homosexual quite as loudly as this one.

As for the movie, I don't know any other way to put this  it's boring. As I wrote earlier, nothing much at all happens for 90% of the run time. The characters are dull and the actors aren't good enough to give The Girl in Lovers Lane much of a spark. The lone exception is Jack Elam. His crazy Jesse is the one character interesting enough to be worth watching. Elam had creepy down pat! But I guess the biggest problem I had with the movie was with character motivation and logic. Carrie is killed and Bix is immediately blamed? What about crazy Jesse who has been stalking Carrie for probably her whole life? Anyone think to ask Jesse where he was that night? Her father has seen him bother Carrie at the diner, yet he never considers that the leering Jesse might have something to do with his daughter's death? Not a lot of logic there. And what about Jesse's confession? Danny grabs Jesse by the lapel and this is all it takes to force a confession out of Jesse? Real tough guy, huh? Why would he confess so easily? And after he confesses, no one thinks to grab him? It's awfully nice of Jesse just to stay put and not run off. In any other reality, he would have never spilled his guts and would have run like a rabbit if he had been fingered for the murder. The fact that The Girl in Lovers Lane asks me to accept these ridiculous actions on the part of the characters is something I'm not willing to do. Overall, I'm giving The Girl in Lovers Lane a 4/10.

Sentiment: negative
First off, the title character is not even the main character of the movie. He is the sidekick of the cult leader. The actor who portrays Igor believed that screaming loud, laughing hysterically, and having a crooked smile while bugging out your eyes would be an excellent way to scare people. Igor also had the annoying habit of yelling (because he never actually just spoke) in a high pitched voice. He would also say idiotic one-liners. For example when the cult leader murders one of his followers with a buzz saw, Igor upon seeing this, yells out "Paul! No Paul! Why'd you do it? I could have cut her clean! So clean!" In another scene Igor tells a victim that she would have to 'get her own tools for surgery because right now, it was his time to operate.' Aside from the bad acting, the ending did not make sense because while the story builds up what little steam it has towards the climax, which is Igor getting a crossbow arrow to the head and the rest of his lunatic buddies being killed, he shows up again two more times to kill the remaining 'good guys'. The movie offers no explanation of this, only telling the viewer that Igor escaped from the mental hospital. What??? Bottom line is do not waste your time watching this movie. I wish I could get back the moments I lost watching this.

Sentiment: negative
Wow! All I can say is that if Elizabeth Montgomery is the enemy (she speaks Russian), then I'm surrendering right now. In her short skirt, high-top boots, and pronounced bust line, she's a real babe, even if her zombie-like eye-shadow sort of comes and goes. This 30 minutes is no doubt the sexiest of the series. Note the realistic and revealing wrestling match with Bronson until he ungallantly slugs her on the chin, ruining all the fun. Okay, probably I should leave off my hormonal response.

This is a very well produced half-hour by that underrated force behind the series's success, Buck Houghton. Naturally, the producers want to lead off the third season with an above average entry. It's post nuclear-holocaust America (we know because she's part of the invading force) and only American Bronson and Soviet Montgomery are left, along with about twenty tons of realistic wreckage. They wander among the destruction in alternating moods, while we wonder how long it will take for biology to trump politics, which of course it eventually does, (lucky Bronson). And that's about it. No real talk, except for what Bronson has to say which is pretty overblown. Nonetheless, the screenplay is still entertaining, and rather daring for its time, even suggesting that not all Russian women looked like truck drivers (a popular Cold War stereotype of the time).

In passing-- it's rather curious that the very Slavic-looking Bronson (Buchinsky) would be cast as the American and the glossy-looking Montgomery as the Slav. Appearance-wise, it should be the reverse. My guess is that the producers did not want to cast the American in the physically weaker role of the female, regardless of appearances. However that may be, there is little of the usual TZ fright or atmosphere, still the episode remains a very, very watchable 30 minutes.

Sentiment: positive
This film was really terrible.

However , it's worth seeing , as it features the worlds most unnecessarily extended sex scene ever. I mean , this thing went on for about 7 - 8 minutes (repeating the same 'moves' over and over), thats almost 10 % of the whole film! I haven't laughed as hard as I laughed at that for a long time.

There were some seriously strange and pointless goings on in this film, but the one that I found funniest was when (for no reason whatsoever) a helicopter lands and 5 or 6 guys in orange suits run in to the complex near the end. 2 minutes later they run out again. What the hell was that for?? Also , the tiny white forklift that magically changed into a huge yellow digger was pretty classic. I'm led to beleive that this is because they used footage from the 'carnosaur' trilogy to patch up this absolute donkey. I'm gonna have to see those now!

The film is worth watching for a laugh or two , but if you dont find bad movies funny, stay away!

Sentiment: negative
I actually was looking forward to this movie. After reading a number of reviews before the release, it sounded like a genuinely nice film, one that was beautifully filmed and one with an interesting cast (Nicholas Cage, Penelope Cruz and John Hurt.)

Well, it might have been all of those things BUT it is so boring that I defy almost anyone to sit through this in its entirety and keep attention. Also, Cage's attempt at speaking with an Italian accent is embarrassingly bad. He's such a good actor that I cringed every time he spoke in this film. 

'Disappointing" seems to be the most-often word used by reviewers here to describe this film, and I totally agree.

I guess it didn't take long for word to get out about how bad this movie was because, like Cage's accent, it did not do well.

Sentiment: negative
Nothing's more enjoyable for me than a who-dun-it or suspense tale that keeps you guessing throughout as to how the whole thing will end. And that's precisely what happens in DEATHTRAP, based on a chilling play by Ira Levin ("Rosemary's Baby").

And in it, MICHAEL CAINE and CHRISTOPHER REEVE get to do the kind of stunt that Caine and Laurence Olivier pulled off in SLEUTH--with just about as much skill and as many puzzles as ever existed in that extraordinarily clever play.

But because it's meant to scare you, surprise you, and keep you guessing as to the outcome, it's difficult to write a review about the plot. Let's just say that what we know in the beginning is all you have to know about the film for the present. MICHAEL CAINE is an insanely jealous playwright whose latest play has failed miserably. When a young aspiring writer CHRISTOPHER REEVE sends him the manuscript of his play, Caine realizes that passing it off as his own would solve all his problems and get his reputation back.

From that point on, it's a matter of fun and games for the audience as Ira Levin's story unwinds, managing to trump Agatha Christie for the number of twists.

Caine and Reeve play off each other brilliantly, each bringing a certain dynamic tension to the tale as well as some humorous touches that come from a script that laces drama with humor.

Summing up: Well worth seeing--but not everyone is pleased with the ending.

Sentiment: positive