DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I caught this movie on the Sundance Channel on cable one late afternoon. You might say "Who Loves the Sun" is a perfect leisurely pastime of a story, why ever not. You get to hang out with the trio: Lukas Haas is Will (returning after abruptly leaving everyone years ago), Molly Parker is Maggie (we learn she's very much part of the family Bloom), and Adam Scott is Daniel (is he friend or foe or fiancé), by the scenic Falcon Lake, Manitoba, Canada, captured in graphic compositions juxtaposed in vivid summer colors against sunshine and shadows. And supporting the trio are two more family members in the revealing mix: Wendy Crewson is Mom Mary Bloom, and R.H. Thomson is Dad Arthur Bloom. Writer-director Matt Bissonnette has delivered an ingenious unfolding of story-line and its various tentacle links - worry not, Haas may have a 'listless' face, but humor will come as Parker and Scott enter the circle of friends reunited, wry smiles will break and knowing delights stir. Dialogs may be terse or even nil, yet we'd get the flavor of what's cooking, bemused or wondering.

Yes, "Who Loves the Sun" can very well be categorized as a sleeper gem. The chemistry between all five principals sure gels and 'combusts', giving an energetic ensemble performance. After all, it's all in the family, and the film sure doesn't take itself too seriously.

Looks like the official site is still available at "wholovesthesun.com" and there are information on the soundtrack by Mac McCaughan (Portastatic with guitar tunes and strings) where score excerpts are being played, and behind the scenes production notes, interview with writer-director-producer Bissonnette on how the movie and concept came about, the casting and more. Have always appreciate Molly Parker since her spare yet mesmerizing performance in 1996 Lynne Stopkewich's 'Kissed', and she's married to Bissonnette, who "wrote the Maggie part for Molly."

Sentiment: positive
One of the worst movies I've seen shoddy camera work, crappy filter usage, film was grainy, script was terrible, i mean come on, how predictable was the big battle at the end.....

some of the fight scenes were okay i guess....

some scenes were so bad it was comical ...like Sorbo getting the horse and riding at the end...LOL i mean really ..a horse? Oh cant forget how the bad assassins roll around in the same vehicle throughout the entire movie..one would think that after killling key witness and federal agents, they woulda been tracked down..ETC, ETC really don't bother watching it...

Sentiment: negative
For the record, I am a Curly fan through and through. But I do have to say that in reality, Shemp wasn't really that bad. Yeah, he might have lacked the same kind of slapstick that Curly had, but in his own way he was hilarious. At least he wasn't as bad as Joe Besser.

In BRIDELESS GROOM, Shemp plays a music professor (Stooge? A professor? Yeah right), who recently inherited a half million dollars from a dead uncle, and Moe & Larry have to prepare him to marry a woman by six o'clock that night, or no money.

This was one of the Stooges' first skit with Shemp, before they started recycling their material. Perhaps it isn't surprising that Shemp was part of the Stooges before Curly came into the picture, so he seemed natural at this. The slapstick gags are hilarious, especially this one scene with Moe and Shemp in a phone booth. Essential Stooge short to be honest.

Sentiment: positive
There seems to be a surprisingly high number of 8-10 star reviews here from people who have never written an IMDb review before or since. Given the very low average rating given to the film by other people, I think you may draw your own conclusions.

This is a very bad film. I'll admit it, I thought the concept was kind of cute, and I was pleased to see the actresses who played Eve and Harmony on Angel getting work, but it didn't take long for the sheer awfulness of this film to make itself known.

Acting: The leads seemed competent enough, but everyone else? Terrible.

Plot: Chock full of holes big enough to drive a truck through.

Direction: Non-existent.

Humour: Did they really think people were going to laugh? Oh boy.

Eye Candy: OK. there were some really beautiful women in this film. Not just the three main female characters, but right across the board. It was as if the producers hoped the scenery would keep male viewers so distracted they wouldn't notice how terrible everything else was. If so, they failed miserably.

In the right hands this could have been cute but darkly funny camp classic. It wasn't even close.

Sentiment: negative
First and foremost I am a gay man, although do not live my life within the so called "Community", and it's because of films like this that Gay themed movies are not my favorite genre because 90% of them are crap. Like this one. f I could give this a zero I would. (I do not understand all the positive comments, unless they were all made by people who made this film) I actually stopped this at the 24 minute mark when the so called straight "Anthony" kissed Adam outside the restaurant for NO reason at all. And how is the son stealing from the diner if he doesn't even live in the town? Wire transfers? The acting was HORRENDOUS! The sound editing? (Listen to "Anthony" and Adam when they are sitting on the fence eating their lunch. Every time the camera switched between the two so called actors the sound changes, like there was not a filter on the microphone)Seriously do not rent, or god forbid, buy this movie.Horrible Horrible Horrible acting and just a stupid storyline.

Sentiment: negative
It took us a couple of episodes to "get into" Dark Angel as a story and a series, since we were transitioning from The Sopranos, a very different mentality framework. But, once we got with the gist of the series, we were very quickly hooked. It's a shame that the series ended just when it was just starting to past good into the excellent category: Dark Angelwas much more than your average TV series. It kicks ass and rocks as far as action goes, but the interactions of the characters and societal reactions to "mutants" reminds us of the constant prejudices that we face (and make) everyday. That the story is set in the future keeps the mood surreal and prevents the anti-discrimination message from being rubbed in our faces (hence not ruining the "fun" for those who don't like to be lectured during entertainment), but every event and human/societal interaction remains relevant to the present. We all make judgments, face our own prejudices, but, in the end, the question of who you are lies in: do you sit back and shut your mind to it, or do you get up and do something about it? For those who have no choice but to fight, for survival or justice, this series empowers them. For those who've never had to face the question, this series "sneaks in" that message under the guise of pure action entertainment. It is much more well-made and well-written than most TV series; I'm highly disappointed it ended before it could really kick into high gear.

Sentiment: positive
Bob Cummings is excellent in this, as this technically brilliant Hitchcock film really does not get the fame as some of his other films but is very watchable even today. Priscilla Lane proves in this one that she can hold her own with other blonde's that worked with Hitchcock later. She just did a handful of films after this which makes her almost forgotten today.

There are sequences in this that will remind the viewer of set ups in later films by the director. The acting is so well done and the story so well done that this film is still very entertaining today. Every person in the cast performs well. There are several great backdrops in the black & white film.

This was the first film at Universal for Hitchcock. Long run between the feature films he did at Universal, plus the television series, Hitchcock would make as much box office for the studios as anyone who worked there. This fact gets lost in film history.

Norman Lloyd is well cast as the real bad guy in this film. The story moves along really well including Hitchcock's only filmed western sequence. This film is very good with lots of great work by everyone involved making it.

Sentiment: positive
The best bit in the film was when Alan pulled down her knickers and ran the cut throat razor over her bum cheeks and around her bum hole. It was also brilliant to see Alan's bum going up and down like a fiddler's elbow later on in the film.

Alan was tough as hell in it like when he got annoyed and pushed the four eyed wimp onto the sofa.

I've been laughing for days about the cut throat razor bit. A brilliant idea by the script writers. Alan must be brought back into Eastenders so he can do the same to Peggy.

Alan is back, and this time he's armed with a razor. Watch out if you're a girl and he finds you and pulls your knickers down.

Sentiment: positive
Cecil B. deMille really knew how to create a classic, and after 7 decades his western comes across as the Real McCoy, engrossing, entertaining, spectacular; in no way outdated.

As a real fan of TV's DEADWOOD, I'll tell you the performances of Gary Cooper as Wild Bill Hickock and Jean Arthor as Calamity Jane are far more on-target.

We don't have any giants in Hollywood anymore. PLAINSMAN is just one of dozens of classics from the 1936-1945 decade that have seen enduring commercial life decade after decade: released, re-issued, re-issued all over again. Filmmakers like today's Spielberg, Jackson, Bruckheimer are like kids playing in a sandbox. None of today's movies will be sought out in 7 months let alone 70 years.

Sentiment: positive
There is an awful lot wrong with this picture, beginning with a script that is both obvious and redundant. Courtney Cox plays a comic book artist who escapes to a small desert town after being raped twice in the big city. She immediately is stalked by a local who appears quite unhinged (Craig Sheffer), and who seems to be attempting a third rate Mickey Rourke imitation. D.B. Sweeny is a local cop, who is supposedly there to protect and serve. Meanwhile, the script manipulates the audience as to who's really the good guy? Logic flies out the window after the first ten minutes and never returns, and there are more unanswered questions than there should be. If you think "Blue Desert" might be saved by the wonderful Philip Baker Hall, you will be disappointed. His part is insignificant, just like the entire movie. - MERK

Sentiment: negative
Deliriously romantic comedy with intertwining subplots that mesh beautifully and actors who bounce lines off each other with precise comic timing, a feat that is beautiful to behold. When Cher's spineless fiancé asks her to help him make peace with his estranged, moody younger brother, no one could dream the consequences which follow. Operatic symbolism, Catholic church confessions, love bites and falling snow..."Moonstruck" is timeless and smooth. It takes about 15 minutes for the picture's rhythm to kick in (there's an early sequence with the grandfather and his dogs at the cemetery that's a little rough, and a following scene with Cosmo and the elderly man at the gate that seems obtuse), but the patchwork of the plot is interwoven with nimble skill, and the movie's wobbly tone and kooky spirit are both infectious. ***1/2 from ****

Sentiment: positive
All-Monster congregation in the final film in Universal's renowned cycle of classic horror stories. Count Dracula (an intense, dapper John Carradine), calling himself Baron Latos, comes to Dr. Edelmann (Onslow Stevens) asking to be cured of his affliction. Naturally, this is just a ruse. Then, coincidentally, Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney), a.k.a. "The Wolf Man", shows up and of course he *really* wants to be cured.

As others have noted, the monsters don't get equal screen time. The Frankenstein Monster (Glenn Strange) gets thrown in at the end just for the purpose of including all of the Universal Monsters. Stock footage and library music are re-used here as well. The film spends maybe a little too much time with the Dracula part of the story, although Carradine gives an impressive, non-hammy performance in the role of the Count. The film is mainly a showcase for Stevens, who goes through a tragic character arc of his own, and does an excellent job. The women are gorgeous, and I have to say that I loved Jane Adams as the luminous nurse - who happens to be hunchbacked.

Of course, it wouldn't be complete without the inclusion of angry villagers.

Competently, professionally made chiller is, just for my tastes, not really scary at all, but entertaining regardless. It's a respectable series entry overall.

7/10

Sentiment: positive
At first I thought this film was going to annoy me.It was as though I had seen this movie somewhere before. The disillusioned hero, the father figure and the 9 year old sister who is older and wiser than her years (see Gregory's girl), but then, not 15 minutes in, it became a laugh out loud, comic gem of a movie. Dylan Moran (who I thought was just going to bug me) was excellent. As was Mr Gambon and the mad Scottish hitman. Lena Headey was extremely sexy. For half of the film I was trying to remember where I'd seen her before. The Parole officer. She has the most amazing smile. But clearly the true hero of this film is Mr Caine. This man should do much more comedy. This ranks alongside some of his best comedy roles (Without a Clue, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels). He is a pleasure to watch in all of his scenes but especially the end.

No one can quite say f**k the way Michael can. 



Sentiment: positive
Man, some of you people have got to chill. This movie was artistic genius. Instead of searching for reasoning or messages to justify it in your reality, why can't you understand that it is a work of fiction? A story. Entertainment, for God's sake (no pun intended). It seems to me that too many of the people on here are trying to be movie critics--and they're not doing to well. I'm so impressed by the movie and Bill Paxton's job at directing, that I'm going to contact him personally to tell him. Ya know, if you weren't trying to analyze the heck out of the possibility of the story line, you might just enjoy the film. Me and all of my friends did!

Sentiment: positive
It purports to be the life of Paul the apostle. It opens with him involved in a loin-cloth wrestling match with a priest. The Pharisees were called that because they "separated" themselves from the Hellenism being forced upon the Jews by their Gentile rulers. The point is that Saul would never have been involved in Greco-Roman wrestling. PERIOD.

Then we have the two men (Saul and the Priest, Reuben - a totally extra-biblical fictitious character) shown being washed down in the nude in a Roman style bath house. Again, the Torah, which Saul adhered to religiously, condemned in the strongest possible terms looking upon the nakedness of another man.

Reuben is shown being the one that pushes Saul into destroying the church. Again, the text of scripture doesn't matter, for their it is PAUL that says that he laid waste of the church and breathed out threatenings and slaughter against the church.

The movie shows Barnabas "sprinkling" Paul - not baptizing (immersing) him, when the Text of Scripture says it was Ananias that did it.

Their is no mention of Mark or his turning back so the writers of the script are forced to have Paul and Barnabas argue over Paul's desire to preach in Rome as the basis of their separation.

No Silas on Paul's Second and Third Missions; No Timothy... EVER. No Titus; No Apollos... No, NO, NOOOO!!! James is said to have "known Jesus for a long time" rather than it saying, as the Text of Scripture does, that he is Jesus' brother.

Why not just call the movie "Frank, the fictitious Apostle?!?!" At least that would be closer to the text of scripture.

Sentiment: negative
The Book gets 10 out of 10 stars...

PROBABLY CONTAINS SPOILERS OF BOTH THE BOOK AND THE MOVIE!!!

If you've never read Geoffrey Household's Rogue Male, the source material for Man Hunt, you'll likely enjoy Fritz Lang's treatment of the story. On the other hand, if you're in my camp and have practically memorized the book, the movie will be a crashing disappointment. I'll assume you've already read a synopsis of the story, and proceed to my complaints. Household's little novel is one of the all-time great suspense classics, taut and spare, with only a bare handful of characters to propel the action. Fritz Lang and his screen writer Dudley Nichols feel the need to throw in the protagonist's brother and a sympathetic floozy, the latter of which reduces the depth of the story by injecting an extrinsic motivation into the screenplay where the novel needed none. In fact, the true climax of the book was not the nameless narrator's escape from his underground lair, but rather his self-acceptance of his true motive for going on his hunt in the first place. And that's another thing: if David Fincher and Quentin Tarantino can get us all the way through Fight Club and Kill Bill 1 without revealing the names of their respective protagonists, why can't Lang? "Thorndyke?" What hat did they pull that out of? Which brings me to my bitterest complaint: Household's hunter is so quintessentially British,he would bleed a Union Jack if you cut him. But Walter Pigeon, who plays him, is Canadian! He can barely sustain the accent, which is only slightly deeper and more convincing that Kevin Costner's in Robin Hood. He looked about right in the role, and was a fine actor for the 1940s,but as Rogue Male's reluctant hero? Let's look to the Sceptered Isle itself for a more convincing version. Remake soon with subtlety and with, please! I'll direct it for free

Sentiment: negative
I normally don't like romantic films, but I love this film very much. The story is really touching, and the ending is very appropriate. I feel I really care for many characters in this film. I feel I can feel their feelings. While most romantic films always make me feel detached and bored, this one completely makes me feel involved, starting from the scene of Capshaw running along the beach with Scott until the ending scene. I want to rate this film 11 out of 10, because I want to give an extra one point for the ending. The acting part is very strong. Kate Capshaw has a good opportunity to show her talent. Though I'm not impressed with Scott in `Dead Man on Campus,' this film completely changes my viewpoint towards him. He's so irresistibly charming here. Geraldine McEwan is as terrific as ever.

 This film might not be as good, complex, deep, or believable as other films which deal a little bit with the same kind of relationship, such as `L'ecole de la chair' or 'Post coitum, animal triste,' but `The Love Letter' can still be proud of itself as it casts a rare different light on that kind of relationship. And that difference makes this film eminently enjoyable. By being unambitious and relying on great charms of small stars, Dreamworks, this time you really make my dream come true.

Sentiment: positive
I caught this movie late night on TV, and was expecting a low-budget campy "masterpiece", I was surprised with a pretty decent movie. Angelina Jolie's unique acting capabilities (or should I say lack thereof?) make her perfect as an android, and the other actors, while terribly average, are at least not terrible.

There is a plot; a fairly intricate plot at that, involving conspiracies and the lengths a couple (one human, one android) will go to pursue their illegal romance, with a "big brother"-type figure and android assassin thrown in the mix. The production and sets, also, were much better than I expected. I haven't seen the original Cyborg, so I can't really compare it to much else; granted this film is no Blade Runner, but as a late-night, futuristic guilty pleasure, its worth a watch.

Sentiment: positive
I mean really. This is not going to help the Australian film industry to make this kind of film with no values of any kind. Okay, if you're a stoner and have nothing better to do, then maybe. I think film-makers from here should try to show the rest of the world what great talented people we have, and this is not the vehicle for it. Come on now, this film is just tacky.

Sentiment: negative
Just watched on UbuWeb this early experimental short film directed by William Vance and Orson Welles. Yes, you read that right, Orson Welles! Years before he gained fame for radio's "The War of the Worlds" and his feature debut Citizen Kane, Welles was a 19-year-old just finding his muse. Besides Vance and Welles, another player here was one Virginia Nicholson, who would become Orson's first wife. She plays a woman who keeps sitting on something that rocks back and forth courtesy of an African-American servant (Paul Edgerton in blackface). During this time a man (Welles) keeps passing her by (courtesy of the scene constantly repeating). I won't reveal any more except to say how interesting the silent images were as they jump-cut constantly. That's not to say this was any good but it was fascinating to watch even with the guitar score (by Larry Morotta) added in the 2005 print I watched. Worth a look for Welles enthusiasts and anyone with a taste of the avant-garde.

Sentiment: negative
Assuming this won't end up a straight-to-video release, I would have to say void this title at all costs. Unless you're bored of good, well-executed movies, that is. I saw this last night at AFI Dallas, and I left with 20 minutes remaining, simply because I didn't care anymore (about the plot, not about insulting the director...that is awkward). When you can spot a goof only 5 minutes into the movie (a shot out, shattered window before any shots are fired...and then the window breaks with the first shot), things are going to bad. Let's just say this is only an indicator of things to come...unfortunately.

I'll spare you all the details, but this is sub-par in every manner, even the half-assed acting by Michael Madsen is disappointing when you're expecting half-assed acting from him. And the rape scene...Christ! "Shut up and take it" should never be used in a rape scene. EVER.

3/10

Sentiment: negative
LOL.

The mere fact that I start off my review with 'lol' says it all. I used to watch this movie all the time as a kid; and even then I sensed the silliness of it all. The low budget, horrible acting and lame script was ever apparent back then. I watched it again yesterday and just couldn't stop laughing. It's so bad it's actually good lol. Like another reviewer said, it doesn't take itself seriously. There's no way one could look at this movie and say that the makers did so. The soundtrack is so funny, I laugh every time I hear it. The 'climax' is just a laugh riot. It's an all out war zone in New York, full of explosions and total chaos...so ridiculous you can't help but chuckle at the sight of it. 

Other hilarious moments: 

- The scene with Kersey and the cop running side by side like 2 cowboys against the whole Wild West was so cheesy it was funny.

-It killed me how the bad guys could be shooting at Kersey and he could even drop down on one knee taking ever-so-careful (and slow) aim and not get hit LMAO. Of course, with him it was one shot-one kill with his elephant handgun LOL.

- Another hilarious scene was the end when he finally killed the leader of the gang....with a ROCKET LAUNCHER lol...destroying the whole side of the apartment building with it.

- It's apparent that Kersey is all but used to losing loved ones...when his new girlfriend is quickly disposed of after only a few dates. The acting is so bad that you can't blame anyone that could only think that Kersey is mad at the destruction of the car lol....he runs down, looks at the carnage and just walks away.

Again, so bad, it's good.

*** out of **** stars.

Sentiment: positive
I have to admit that Tsui Hark is one of a kind, you can't top a person with a strong style of movie presence. A Chinese fantasy picture may not be easy to present to an audience, the director attempted to bring back the classic fantasy tales of Zu Mountain and this is what he displayed.

The new Legend of Zu has truly improved from the one in 1983. From this new millenium update, we could see Tsui Hark's vision of the Zu mountains. Spectacular visual designs, amazing action-fantasy epic made beautifully well. Kept me glued through the entire picture. Great cast with just fine acting. It's truly a fun movie to watch, but is it too weird?

Now the down side is people will definitely get confused with it's broad story line shortened down into a 95 minute movie. Plot may not have much relation among characters, but by rewatching the movie, you'll have a better sense of understanding the characters itself. Some can complain there isn't too much physical combat, besides with characters that have supernatural powers to defeat foes, spirits fighting by hand-to-hand wouldn't really make sense at all. 

I appreciated this nice stylish picture. It may have a thin story, but hey look at Tsui Hark's "Time & Tide," we got confused by the plot as well, but it was truly something stylish and awesome. Tsui Hark always attracts something different into H.K. Cinema. American audiences, may have some difficulty to understand while watching this movie, cause this ain't no Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, this is a whole new genre. Although it may not be a masterpiece, but it's special effects is truly better than Storm Riders. This is really worth checking out.

Sentiment: positive
Very heart warming and uplifting movie. Outstanding performance by Alisan Porter (Curly Sue). I saw this movie when it was first released and enjoyed it immensely. I just caught it again on the Mplex channel, and Curly Sue touched my heart again.

Sentiment: positive
If you like detective and police shows and you like suspenseful movies, then you will love this movie!! This movie is great! Christopher Meloni has amazing acting skills. You may think you know who the killer is in the beginning, but you don't. This movie is about the true story of the murder of Martha Moxley. Watch the movie!!

Sentiment: positive
Note to Horror fans: The only horror here is when you realized you just wasted 95 minutes of your life on a movie that's so worthless it's insulting.

I watched this because:

The premise sounded slightly promising: It's not. It's just an excuse to use the same lame set pieces from other low-budget slasher films that weren't good either. 

The promise of naked forest nymphs sounded nice even if the movie turned out to be awful: It's not. It's SO not. The amateur cinematography makes sure the "fallen angels" are about as sexy as the average homeless person.

The name Tom Savini has a long history in the horror genre: He's the king of low-budget special effects and lower-budget acting. Come to think of it, Savini should have been a reason not to watch this movie. It's not that he's bad, but he's almost always in bad movies. His only good role was in From Dusk Till Dawn, and he's been milking that at horror conventions ever since.

But let's focus on the positive: Forest of the Damned is a great example of how NOT to make a movie. 

Everything else is a negative. Obviously the writer is allergic to originality. The script is terrible. That's all a given after the first 10 minutes. But the clueless pacing; the way the director treats "plot" and "characterization" as a nuisance he thinks no one cares about anyway; and the excruciatingly long and boring driving, walking, and nature sequences (no doubt added to increase the running time to make the film qualify for distribution) show a complete lack of aptitude for film and storytelling in general.

This is another good example of the number-one way you can tell if a movie is going to be bad: If it's written and directed by the same person, expect garbage.

Sentiment: negative
The Power of Kangwon Province is director Hong Sang-Soo's second feature effort and clearly much of what he started with in his previous film returns in this film, including the multiple connected narratives (in this case, two), and stories of troubled or troubling relationships, as well as a potent dosage of irony.

One thing that's clearly reduced from his previous work is the flights of fancy that included elements of surrealism. However, this film also contains a single moment of surreal that strikes a contrast against the otherwise rather realistic depiction found therein. The two stories follow a young woman who goes on a trip to Kangwon Province with her friends, only to find herself drawn to a stranger, the second about a man who also goes on a trip to Kangwon Province with his friend and struggles with his relationship woes.

Again, Hong shows a strong understanding of irony and of the flaws in human nature and yet I don't think he's entirely unsympathetic when it comes to his characters, drawing in just enough compassion to offset the criticism he draws with his irony. I think the think I've come to love about Hong's films is that they just feel so real, especially the complex and conflicted characters. Not to say that every person is a hypocrite or suffering from confused feelings, but rather, that these characters he and the actors present, feel fully developed and believable.

This is not a fast moving film. There's a lot of lingering and like the previous film, things don't always connect immediately so patience does pay off and in surprising ways. There doesn't appear to be any element of the film that isn't intentionally placed in the film and it's made my a little hyper-aware of various seemingly extra characters as they get dragged into the mix as the film progresses.

Power is an excellent film that manages to inject a level of personal emotion, regret, longing into a story that highlights irony and the fallibility of human decision-making. It's a rather hard balance to keep and it's surprising how Hong manages to pull it off twice in a row. Technical production values have gotten much better since the first film and direction has gotten steady and clear. This film doesn't pack the same emotional wallop that the first does, but gains a lot in its assured exploration and the refinement really helps tighten the overall vision. Great viewing for art cinema lovers. 8/10.

Sentiment: positive
This is a awful re-make of a very good movie called "Up In The Air" starring Frankie Darrow, Mantan Moreland and Marjorie Reynolds. I was only able to get through about 20 minutes before turning it off. Almost all the lines are identical, I have no idea why they would re-do the movie. I totally disagree with a previous post that dislikes the songs ( there the same also), In the original the singing is first rate, I'm not sure if Marjorie Reynolds actually did her own singing, it's hard to tell since the vocals were usually added later, and the songs are very good, surprising in a "B" movie. If you get the chance see the original it's available on DVD. You'll be pleasantly surprised.

Sentiment: negative
About three minutes into this thing I started fast-forwarding, pausing only during the nudity (why is it that bad movies always include such good looking women?). In ten minutes I was done, and wishing I could get my money back from the rental store. The people who write these movies should be sanctioned by the MPAA. Come on writers - the bad guys ALWAYS get into the car with the bomb activated by the good guy's remote control! That's the way its been done since the days of the Ottoman Empire! Also, to add insult to injury, the "twist" at the end was so formulaic, that it could have come from any action movie written in the past 25 years. Burt Reynolds was fine, but he should concentrate on real movies.

This movie is just a waste of time - Run away! Run away!

Sentiment: negative
simply i just watched this movie just because of Sarah & am also giving these 4 stars just because of her,on the other side This movie was easily one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Theacting was horrible. The script was uninspired. This was a movie that kept contradicting itself. The film was sloppy and unoriginal. its not like I was expecting a good film. Just something to give me a jump or two. This did not even do that.

he worst thing is that, the more I think about the overall plot, the less sense it actually makes and the more holes we keep finding. A real shame really, as I'm fairly sure that there was a good idea lurking in there somewhere...

I'm perhaps being a bit harsh giving the film a 4/10 but given the actors involved and again SARA obvious writing talent, this film really should have delivered far more.

This movie is just crap, I cant put it differently. Since the very beginning one knows is going to be crap.

The story, dialogue, acting, special effects, make-up, pretty much EVERYTHING sucks. I like vampire movies and I know they will never be Oscar winning movies but this one is not even worth seeing, I can't believe how somebody produced this thing.

It's not even about vampires, it's more about a dream/reality experience. The development of the movie is incoherent, the motivation of the characters is... Doesn't exist, everything seems like a big joke. Maybe that's what they tried to do, but I sincerely doubt it. I wish I knew what they tried to pull but it just backfired, it's definitely one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life (and I've seen many bad movies, but nothing compared to this) Please, make yourselves a favor and do NOT watch this.

P.S. It's also full of clichés! P.S. 2 Bad Script, Bad directing, Bad cinematography. P.S. 3 I bothered commenting on this as a favor to everyone.

Sentiment: negative
Low-rent version of Ashley Judd's Double Jeopardy. Sutherland is too professional to be bad, but what was Brigit Fonda thinking?!? The Penelope Ann Miller curse continues (Think about it--when has she EVER been in a good movie other than Other People's Money? And I'm not saying she's bad, but all of her movies fail in some way).

Sentiment: negative
"Catchfire" or "Backtrack" as it is sometimes called, is not very good. That is, it's bad. Jodie Foster had already won an Oscar at this point. Why did she agree to do this? I don't know.

The hostage/kidnapper relationship is not believable, even if it is a common psychological phenomenon in real life.

Worst of all, this film features a scene where Hopper and Foster ride a boat under the Fremont Bridge (a bridge in Seattle) which means that traffic had to stop so that the bridge could open. I've had to wait for that bridge to go down many times, almost all of them on the bus. It's not a pleasant wait. This film caused unnecessary bridge-waiting and the world is a worse place for it.

Sentiment: negative
There isn't much about "Reckless" that feels right, beginning with the off-putting title (thanks to screenwriter Craig Lucas, who adapted his own play, bringing the title along with him) and continuing with the casting (Mia Farrow playing wife to Tony Goldwyn, who's young enough to be her son). The couple live in an idyllic winter world that appears to be the inside of a snow-globe, but Farrow gets a startling dose of reality after he admits he's hired a man to kill her. She flees into the night, taking refuge with a very strange couple who want to help her rebuild her life. The production design and art direction of "Reckless" are fine, but they are services rendered for a completely inane, often alienating screenplay. It's supposed to be a dark holiday comedy, though the cast is at a loss with this unfunny, occasionally offensive material. *1/2 from ****

Sentiment: negative
This cheap and rubbish film is about a NASA test rocket that is sent into space with a cargo of animals. It vanishes for a while then unexpectedly returns, crash landing in a forest, unleashing a vicious mutant creature.

Like many films of this type, Night Fright, features dumb teenagers boogieing on down to 60's surf music before being killed. None of the murders, however, are even remotely memorable, as we don't really see anything. One thing we do see, however, is that one of the teenagers appears to be about 40 years old and sports a quite impressively silly haircut.

For a creature feature to work, it really has to present its monster to the viewer properly. In this film, however, we only get the briefest glimpses of the monster. It seems to sort of resemble the alien from Robot Monster. But I'm not sure; as the photography was so dark I simply couldn't make out what the hell was going on a lot of the time. Although, my gut feeling was that I probably wasn't missing very much.

Sentiment: negative
Despite positive reviews and screenings at the international festivals, this movie is not for everyone.

The story is very similar to other movies, in which a teenage girl from the family of immigrants needs to overcome many common personal problems of her age, and also to struggle against the pressure of ethnic traditions in her family. She does that by choosing some kind of sport, and with the help of a local boy, that for some reason falls in love with her, she confronts her problems and wins.

In Girlfight it's boxing, in Bend it like Beckham it's soccer, and now it's Kung Fu.

But Fighter is much inferior product than these two, it was simply embarrassing to watch it. Semra Turan, the "actress" that playing the role of a teenage girl, maybe can do a lot of things, but one thing she can't do is to act. Her presence on the screen is anemic and clumsy, the dramatic situations, in which she tries to show some emotions, are dreadful, her body and facial language are of amateur actress, badly instructed by the director. The rest of the cast is a little better, but they just cannot save this cliché movie with stereotypical characters and shallow plot. Besides a few relatively good moments this movie has nothing new or interesting to offer.

Even the kung fu fighting is not a reason to watch this, it's just so boring. The slow motion was really unnecessary, the choreography was basic and lacked the inspiration, and most of the kung fu scenes are just training or standing in all kind of kung fu positions, not actually fighting. Not to mention how ridiculous it looks when a small and skinny girl fights big and muscular boys, and knocks them off their feet. 

The only reason this movie has been noticed at all is because it's European. It's very easy to publicize this movie - A first martial arts film from Denmark, but don't be fooled, it's not. It's just a drama about stupid teenage girl and her problems, which are, by the way, not really convincing.

Bad movie with embarrassing lines, acting and story.

Sentiment: negative
I finally caught up to "Starlight" last night on television and all I can say is. . . wow! It's hard to know where to begin -- the incredibly hokey special effects (check out the laser beams shooting out of Willie's eyes!), the atrocious acting, the ponderous dialogue, the mismatched use of stock footage, or the air of earnest pretentiousness that infuses the entire production. This truly is a one-of-a-kind experience, and we should all be thankful for that. I nominate Jonathon Kay as the true heir to Ed Wood!

Sentiment: negative
I agree that Mary Woronov (Murdoch's secretary) is one of the only good things about this film. She is my favorite actress ever, every role she plays is always done so well. Her character is sly, sarcastic, clever, light hearted, funny and cunning. She really pulls this role off well and you get a good feel for what her character is all about. 

The rest of the movie is pretty bad. The music is the most entertaining thing left. One of the characters has this really strange circular radio that she brings with her while she wears her tight zebra striped tank top.

One thing that was a little intriguing about the story was the idea that someone hires these three college-aged kids to spruce up an old abandoned theater. He gives them the keys and says - go at it. That would be really fun and I wish someone would give me that chance! Imagine going into an old abandoned theater with two other people and you get to decide how to decorate it, and fix it up. You have total control over the whole building. That would be so fun! Unfortunately, the characters do not think of this as an exciting adventure, they think of it as a big chore. They walk around with long faces and fight with each other the whole time. It's kind of a bummer. But it's fun to think about the possibilities that these people aren't even excited about.

The movie does a pretty good job at making you feel helpless or a little spooked out by the theater itself. However, the acting (besides Woronov.. and possibly Murdoch, the boss - just because makes a really good money hungry fake smiley business man who never has any luck) is really horrible and you just end up feeling unsatisfied. Plus, the random slapstick is a little tacky and kind of ruins the reality that the film tries to create.

Watch this if you dig Mary Woronov, funky 80's Casio keyboard style electronic beats and if you think having a giant spooky abandoned theater to yourself is at all intriguing.

Sentiment: negative
That's a problem I have with movies that come on television, when there is nothing else to watch. I somehow get sucked into really bad movies.

But this one was fairly watchable. The concept of being the only ones left on Earth after a comet, then finding out zombies are around makes me laugh. And that's why I gave this movie a 2, instead of 1. The story was stupid...but in that way that makes you laugh (too stupid >funny).

I think I only watched it because the guy from Star Trek was the lead. I was surprised to see him as a younger guy...and he was the only funny character anyway.

Sentiment: negative
This movie kind of reminds me of A Mary-Kate and Ashley movie-only worse. Just the rich sisters kind of thing I think even though Alysons more the actress, in this movie Amanda michalka was okay sometimes but Alysons acting stunk. i think that after high-school musical they needed to come up with somethihng better and this definitely wasn't it. The story line wasn't that great and I think they should have gotten two other people to play Taylor and Courtney. I'm not a big Alyson Michalka fan and this movie didn't make me like her any better. i think they should definitely sick to singing and only watch this movie if you have nothing better to do (which sadly I didn't)

Sentiment: negative
I watched this movie with some curiosity. I wanted to see if 1) Paul Muni could play Chinese and 2) Luise Rainer deserved her Oscar. I came away from the film thinking YES! Having seen Muni in only one film where he was quite hammy, I expected the same type of performance here. I was happily proved wrong. Although some might criticize him as being too childlike and stereotypically simple in the Hollywood idea of Asians, I thought he was just right in the role. Keye Luke, if he'd been given the chance to play a lead role, might have played him in much the same manner.

I was particularly impressed by the camera work and the use of crowd scenes, especially during the sacking of the palace where O-Lan was once a slave. The graphic and grim atmosphere of the firing squad and the drought made this an epic quite unlike others of the same time where it was all glitz and glitter. I watched this film from beginning to end enthralled. I can't say the same for the "epics" of today.

Sentiment: positive
Rawhide was a wonderful TV western series. Focusing on a band of trail drovers lead by the trail boss Gil Favor. Most episodes - especially from the first 3 seasons were really character studies of Favor and his men. Guest stars came and went but unlike Wagon Train they seldom dominated the episodes they appeared in. Rawhide was a true, gritty western and Gil Favor stood out as a memorable character never to be forgotten. Thanks to Eric Fleming's performance the show became a massive hit. Of course he was ably supported by a wonderful cast of good actors - Clint Eastwood, Sheb Wooley, Paul Brinegar, Steve Raines, James Murdoch, Rocky Shahan, Robert Cabal. All of these actors left their mark in a piece of television history. Rawhide captured the flavour of that time of the west that no other series has for me, as yet anyhow, managed to do so. Later seasons tended to split the leads and give them individual story lines. For me some of the time this didn't work - the cattle drive and the regulars provided the best stories. However there were still some classic stories and Rawhide remained top drawer affair. The black and white photography added to a bleak, realistic feel that other western series seldom managed to capture. Rustlers, Indians,Commancheroes, beautiful damsels in distress, serial killers, they all showed up to give our heroes problems. The end came for the series quietly when the final season was axed less than half way through. The reason - Eric Fleming had departed and Rawhide was now a head without a body - the gritty realism was gone, Gil Favor commanded respect and exuded authority - he was never infallible and this made him all the more interesting. We shall not see his like again. Watch an episode whenever you can, they seldom disappoint.

Sentiment: positive
A nicely evoked 1930s setting provides much interest for a viewer in the early 21st century; unfortunately, "London Belongs to Me" has little else to recommend it besides lashings of quaint English charm. All of the problems rest with the deeply unfocused story. The main plot concerns the actions of young lad Richard Attenborough, the problems he gets into and how the community in which he lives bands together to save him from society's laws. Or something. The main issue here is that Attenborough's character brings everything upon himself and, quite frankly, is guilty of almost every accusation brought against him, so it's baffling why the film (and all the characters) have so much sympathy for him. He's treated as a victim of circumstance when he really, really isn't; and what's more he isn't shown to have very much remorse for his actions, only caring about getting away with things he didn't mean to do. Alastair Sim gets a lot of screen time in a subplot that has absolutely nothing to do with the main plot line and you wonder what he's doing there (though Sim is, as always, superb). You know there's a problem with the structure when the main plot impacts constantly against the subplot but not vice-versa. And, following a sedate pace and a careful build up, the plot completely falls apart in the last 20 minutes with a deeply unsatisfying and unexplained conclusion which doesn't even show us if Attenborough's character has developed at all from the previous proceedings. The film doesn't end, it just stops.

The acting, direction and the general feel of the film can all be commended but unfortunately the story and structure of the piece jars constantly. A last point of trivia: Alec Guinness based his performance in the vastly superior film "The Ladykillers" on Alastair Sim's performance in this film, right down to both the characters having almost identical first scenes.

Sentiment: negative
It's difficult to find anything worth of praise with this movie. It's not the worst picture ever made, but that's not saying a whole lot. The plot is quite incoherent and unbelievable; it seems that the producers wanted to make a space movie, but decided to make it underwater to cash in at the success of The Abyss. In some scenes it seems as if the story indeed was set to outer space initially; the sub has a landing gear, the technicians are worried of a rip in a rubber diving suit at the depths of several kilometers, where the pressure would crush the diver and the suit like an empty beer can. 

The movie starts out okay, with planning of a recovery of a lost naval sub. After that the movie takes a plunge along with the Siren 2.

Effects are so-so. The navigational screens are all done on Commodore 64 (remember, this is 1990, not 1983), the sub is controlled like no other sub ever; instead of control consoles, the officers have keyboards with which they enter long number sequences to control various functions of the ship. The interior of the ship isn't too convincing either.

The final scenes leap from awkward to absurd. Welcome to the fifties, you can check your suspension of disbelief at the door.

I fail to see enjoyment factor here. The movie is neither good nor hilariously bad MST3k-style (until you get to the final scene), it's like eating a slightly bad apple.

Sentiment: negative