DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I only watched the first twenty minutes of this movie and personally I think that this is the worst movie to be made in the recent years.

The plot was so bad that it might have been possible that a 10 year old kid wrote it. The acting was also sloppy with pretty much an unknown cast and not only that the action sequences especially at the first half of the film were so terrible it was unbelievable.

I don't know how the producers obtained the budget to film this movie but the production company must be regretting it by now.

To anyone who may come across this film in the near future, I advise you to steer clear of this joke of a movie.

Sentiment: negative
A very bad film, an amalgam of clichés and historical inaccuracies. A few examples: in an early scene Soviet infantry are attacked by the Germans; instead of staying in their trenches to shoot at them, they advance into open ground to fight them,contrary to all infantry tactics; Kate, one of the central characters, is supposedly the daughter of a White Russian and obsessed with her Russianness, yet she does not speak Russian; a guilt-stricken German airman attacks an anti-aircraft gun- the gun, however, does not fire shrapnel shells but scores a direct hit on his 'plane, which doesn't look much like a German 'plane of WWII. In fairness, when they could escape the preposterous plot and the consequent absurdities there are some genuinely powerful moments- the depiction of people slowly starving to death is convincingly done and moving, but these only show up the rest of it even more. A film to be avoided.

Sentiment: negative
I admit that for the first 20 minutes or so of this film I wasn't entirely sure I was going to sit through the whole thing. Like many other people, I found it pretty boring, and I wasn't entirely looking forward to an hour and a half of watching this guy bite icicles and stick them together. However, if you sit through the creation of his first work long enough to see the finished product, you get an idea of how impressive the rest of the film is. I really think it's sad that so many people found this impossibly boring or a retread of ideas done by other artists. 

Rivers and Tides is a quiet study of some of the artwork and methods of Andy Goldsworthy, who makes his art entirely out of things in nature, generally resulting in pieces that will be consumed by nature through the normal process of entropy. It is slow moving and unglamorous, but I think that a lot of the point of the movie is to show that Goldsworthy's art does not need any accompaniment in order for it to be appreciated. I've even heard people complain about how he is always talking throughout the movie, rather than just letting nature and his artwork speak for themselves, which I just think is madness.

On the other hand, lots of people complain about CDs coming with the lyrics written out inside them. A lot of musicians as well think their music should mean whatever the listener wants it to mean without the musician showing the exact lyrics, I guess I'm just the kind of person that believes that I'd like to know what the artist was trying to accomplish with his or her artwork. I can still take it how I want to even if I know what it was meant to do. I can understand not wanting to hear him talk through the movie. He does, after all, lose his train of thought and find himself unable to explain some of his work at more than one occasion, but if you don't want Goldsworthy talk about his art while you're watching the film, feel free to turn the sound off. That's like not reading the lyrics if you don't want to know what a musician is singing and would rather interpret the words yourself.

I think that Andy Goldsworthy's work, which I had no idea existed before I watched this movie, is incredibly impressive, and I'm glad that this film was made in order to showcase it. Indeed, since his work is generally not the kind that can be transported into a studio, photography is the only medium other than film that can express it, and I really appreciated being able to see the work that goes into his art, and the way that only things from nature are used. Whether or not you appreciate certain aspects of how this film is presented, Goldsworthy's work is moving enough to overlook that, because the film is not the star, Goldsworthy's art is. And given the lack of any music or even the smallest special effects and the slow-moving nature of the film, it seems to me that director Thomas Riedelsheimer knows that.

Sentiment: positive
I simply never tire of watching FREEBIRD. My husband was an extra so I was involved from the start. Have kept in touch with Jon and have helped out with promoting the film both in Cinemas and now the DVD release. Even to the extent of distributing promotional postcards on cross channel ferries and various places throughout France. FREEBIRD was expertly written and directed with the perfect combination of fun and serious moments plus choice casting. Only Phil Daniels could fit the role of Grouch. Great privilege to meet Jon and the cast at the party following the premier in January. Anything else you want doing Jon just ask, either email or phone, you know how to get me. Sue xx

Sentiment: positive
I love these "Diaper Baby" movies! You couldn't make a movie like this today and it is rich in cinematic history. It is goofy and the film was made to make you laugh, which it does. How they ever got these kids to "act" I'll never know. I think they are precious and the kids make me laugh but so do the others who made this movie as it shows the naiveté that existed in the early 30's. You have to remember that this is when the film industry was very young, the stock market had crashed, the world wide depression was beginning and these films were made to give a person a break from the real world. The fact that you could see movies for five cents is beyond my comprehension, but then dinner for 25 cents is too. It was a different time with a totally different mind set.

Sentiment: positive
Nice movie with a great soundtrack which spans through the rock landscape of the 70's and 80's. Radiofreccia describes a generation, it describes life in a small village near Correggio (hometown of Ligabue, the singer who wrote the book that inspired the movie), it describes life of young people and their problems relating to the world. It reminds of Trainspotting, with a bit of Italian touch.

Sentiment: positive
Okay, maybe this movie not a revolution. But it a very good piece of entertainment, and it's Liv Tyler's variation of Alicia Silverstone's "Clueless" or Cameron Diaz' "There's something about Mary".

Liv plays a femme fatale, which just wants to have an own house and all kinds of material comfort in it. And well she does everything to get just that... even crimes. Many crimes. And she drops every boyfriend which doesn't cooperate to get these things. Additionally, she actually doesn't mind to have some additional lovers beside her current boyfriend.

This movie is even funnier to watch if one knows that Liv is actually of zodiac sign cancer - and cancer are reported to be very domestic. So the character Liv played here is actually a parody of a cancer !

I was alone in cinema when I watched this one. That was quite comfortable because I could laugh as loud as I wished all the time - but it also felt strange, as if nobody was actually interested in this movie ?

I myself liked it very much. The acting was between very good to excellent, especially the main actors where brilliant. There where enough jokes, many of the black kind, and good dialogues.

This is a trash movie, and it is full of black humor. If you like this kind of movies, try this one !

Sentiment: positive
This movie "Vampires: The Turning" isn't even really worth the 2 out of 10 I'm giving it. The movie, is very predictable from beginning, up to the very end when our hero kills the leader of the Vampire Slayers. The use of music in this movie was even bad, it kept playing as if you were to expect something significant to happen at any second, though it never did. The acting, was B-Rank at best... And the movie was just, dull. The only reason I give this movie a 2 out of 10 is because the story, had potential though it ended up unable to deliver. Oh, and did I mention the wardrobe? The wardrobe for this movie was obviously cheap to "non-existent" because our hero, and his girlfriend (whom he's trying to save throughout the entire movie) wear the same outfits through the entire movie. I'd suggest this film only if your really bored, and don't have a good wall with fresh paint to watch dry. ~Dave, the Horror Cowboy

Sentiment: negative
Horrible Horrible movie, i still can't believe my friend talked me into seeing this! No plot, bad acting, unfunny scenes, and very very stupid dialogue. All i have to say is that this movie is the worst movie i have seen and it's worse than Halloween III which i gave 0 stars too. So i give it 0 stars and a 0 out of 10, well on here a 1, but you get the point.

Sentiment: negative
A town in Japan is being taken over by a horribly brutal abstract shape: the spiral. It's becoming a theme in everything from animals to clouds to people and twisting them, mentally and literally. This film shows it happening to several groups of people. Some demonic possession is implied, but nothing is entirely sure except that the best bet is to get the heck out of dodge. The film progresses really well from normal life to abnormal phenomena (giant snails and crazy people) to the truly supernatural (walking dead).

As a jaded American horror movie fan, this was just what I needed. Maybe it was just the novelty of a different culture's film, but it seemed to have a very original progression, set of characters, and the premise was definitely new. The Japanese may think "horror shapes" (uzumaki means "spiral," I'm told) are old by now, but it was nice for me because I'm used to monster/alien/virus/disaster/undead films. In an American movie, you know who's going to die (the annoying/nasty/lascivious/racist characters) and who will live (the children/heroine/dogs/cats/nice guy). That's not true in Japanese horror. It was not predictable how they would fight the evil or how it would end up. Also, it had this really new (but probably typically Japanese) color leached Pacific Northwest style cloudy day thing going, which was a fresh visual effect for me. The horrific moments were seriously creepy, relying on a little gore but mainly just impossibly overdone facial expressions (think The Ring) and body manipulations. This should be one of the greats, up there with once-original ideas like the first Nightmare on Elm Street or Night of the Living Dead.

Sentiment: positive
This movie starts out the way every movie should start out, with a bunch of hot babes in a dorm walking around in their undies and/or topless. A couple of them take showers. I'm liking it so far! Unfortunately, we then meet or main characters. They're just not particularly likable. Usually in these movies, the actresses aren't really acting, they give very "natural" performances, and they're quite sympathetic, fun, and likable. Not here. They don't have much of any personality and I didn't care for them much.

Some of the girls go on a camping trip for school. On the way they stop at a backwoods gas station and meet a biker gang. The biker gang should really have been left out of the movie - it was cheesy before, but now it's just plain stupid. The head biker looks like a middle aged guy dressed up as John Bon Jovi for Halloween. The girls go out to the woods and later the biker gang follows them.

I don't really know what the heck happens after that. There's a bunch of stuff about the world ending because it's the end of the millennium, then some of the bikers get killed by a mysterious Indian dude who keeps disappearing. Somebody gets eaten by a cheesy Lock Ness Monster thing as he's swimming across a lake. Some guy in silly makeup is apparently a Druid, and he needs to sacrifice some of the girls in order to forestall the end of the world. Or maybe cause the end of the world, I'm afraid I wasn't paying much attention. First he dresses the girls up in animal skin lingerie.

It could have been a really fun cheesy movie, but the biker gang kind of ruined the atmosphere and the plot was so scatterbrained that it didn't even live up to my grade Z schlock expectations. They really should have eliminated half the plot elements and just focused on one or two things. Instead it's all over the place. Overall, if you're looking for late '80 schlock, I imagine you could do worse. If you tried really hard. There's plenty of nudity at the beginning, but the characters are kind of crummy and the plot is too nonsensical to be even the least bit satisfying.

Sentiment: negative
Sorry Randy. I love your comedy but in this case you really laid a 'Golden Turkey' egg.

The plot was thinner than a single layer of my skin, the acting more wooden than a Giant Redwood and I think the direction was non existent.

There certainly appeared to be pathetic attempts at take-offs of other films, Jaws and European Vacation to name but two.

If memory serves me right Eric Idle played the same type of character in Nat Lamp European Vacation, but much better.

I am wondering if Chevy Chase and Beverley D'Angelo were approached to make this sequel. If so, they certainly knew what they were doing when they turned their parts down.

In my opinion no one can better Chevy and Beverley in their roles as the Griswolds and Randy Quaid complemented them admirably in the earlier movies.

Randy Quaid should have quit National Lampoon whilst he was ahead.

Sentiment: negative
The original "Psycho" (1960) is widely considered as Alfred Hitchcock's best work and certainly, in my opinion, is one of the best movies of all time. The decision to film a shot by shot remake is therefore, a little puzzling.

The cast in the original was flawless, so the cast of this remake had a lot to live up to. Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates was not a good choice for the lead. He is too much of a pretty boy hunk and is not very convincing as Bates. I can imagine actors such as Mark Wahlberg or John Turturro doing a much better job in the role. Anne Heche as Marion Crane does a creditable job, but one keeps mentally comparing her to Janet Leigh. Julianne Moore is a much better actress than she shows here and Viggio Mortenson merely walks through his role. The best of this new cast is William H. Macy as the private detective.

Although director Gus Van Sant does an acceptable job, he can't build the suspense the way Hitchcock did. And why did he change the scene in the basement of the house? In the original, the atmosphere is dark and damp and closed in, whereas in this version, it takes place in a brightly lit laboratory like setting. And I think the black & white photography of the original has a definite advantage over the color version.

Maybe another flaw could be the fact that most moviegoers have seen the original and know what is going to happen and when.

All I can say is if it ain't broke, don't fix it.



Sentiment: negative
Many people remember the Waco standoff that occurred a long time ago. What most people probably have ingrained in their minds is the "cult leader" David Koresh and the images of the compound burning to the ground after a long standoff. A lot of people have the belief that Koresh was some kind of madman who thought he was God. He was accused of being a child molester and was credited for the breakdown and deaths of his followers. Furthermore, many people feel the cult committed mass suicide when the FBI stormed Mount Carmel Center and when the building was burning. Most people feel the cult was at fault for not agreeing with the FBI on reasonable terms. Most people feel the cult was brainwashed by Koresh and followed along with everything that he said. Nothing could be farther from the truth, because of strong evidence after the nightmare was over, and this one-of -a- kind documentary pretty much proves it!! 

This documentary is one of the most balanced examinations at the situation that occurred. It is much more thorough and highly detailed than anything most people have received in the mainstream media. To the shock of many people, this documentary will reveal that is was the ATF, the FBI, and the higher levels of the United States government who were the ones who were unjust, cruel, and deceptive, and not David Koresh and his followers. What Korseh and Davidians were doing was just protecting their constitutional rights, and the higher powers completely violated and raped those rights. The AFT had no grounds to storm the compound; it was the AFT that shot first and they shot from the helicopters from above at unarmed men, women, and children!! What is even more shocking is the actions of the FBI when they entered the Mount Carmel. Watch it for yourselves and you will develop and new perspective on the U.S. government. There is infrared footage that clearly shows the FBI was shooting with machine guns at the men, women, and children in the burning compound. It will make your blood boil. It will make you really angry. It will make you wonder as to what kind of people run this country. Finally, it will make you wonder as to what you are being told on the news every night is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This video is frightening and I highly recommend it if one can find it. This documentary does not need to be purchased; it can be watched for free on google video!

Sentiment: positive
The casting of Robert Culp is probably the only decent move the production team made with this film. Falk and Culp were marvellous, but as culp was not Falks nemesis this time, chemistry was lacking. Columbo is only as strong as his opposite number, and this time he didn't have one.

Sentiment: positive
The first episode immediately gave a good impression what to expect from the series! Mysteries waiting to be solved and a lot of good drama! I love the fact that they gradually reveal the stories concerning the characters! Explaining just enough to stay excited! Of course this show has some flaws! In the first two series there are some characters who for some reason don't show up in the third season! Many of the characters have a decent sent off but some of them just aren't there! Like Rose and her husband! Where the hell are they? What happened to them? Maybe they will return in later episodes! But it is a little inconsistent! That being said "Lost" manages to be thrilling every episode(especially the first two seasons)! That is a very hard thing to do! I do notice that in the third season the focus is more on character development than the mystery aspects of the show! This is not a bad thing! It even saves some episodes from getting boring! One of the elements that can be considered the strength of this show are the wonderful characters! You will grow to love these characters! Good or bad! But eventually I will want to see some mysteries to be solved and get closure! The danger of "Lost" getting canceled due to declining ratings is near! And that would be devastating!

Sentiment: positive
Its difficult to be too tough on Brad Sykes, a hard-working guy doing what he loves, there is an honesty about him that seems often lacking with other microbudget directors. Check out the minuscule crew credits on Camp Blood, there is none of the usual thanking everyone down to the pizza joint they ate in, its Brad and his buddies and thats it, no pretentious rubbish. Jennifer Ritchkoff isn't your average horror flick heroine, but does well enough for you to hardly notice, Bethany Zolt looks like a star and Joseph Haggerty is so funny it hurts. The Clown is hardly an original horror film bad guy, but the design is good, Shemp Moseley does a decent job of bringing him to life and the image clashes nicely with the rural backdrop. Camp Blood is horror as blue collar and basic as it gets, not a good thing, not a bad thing, just a thing.

Sentiment: negative
Wow! the French are really getting the hang of it. If we look at their first Asterix movie we see a good story with nice actors (especially thanks to Gerard Depardeu)but very lame special effect. In a fantasy story like Asterix Special Effects are really important. Well.. they did it right this time! It looks terrific. I personaly think Mission Cleopatra is the best Asterix story ever written. In the movie there's not one moment you're bored. Go and watch this! One thing! they didnt go exactly by the script which I think is a little bit pittyful. For example, In the comic Obelix breaks the nose of the Sphinx, immediatly all the little storekeepers start breaking of the nose of their miniature Sphinx. (really funny to see)..Well they didnt put it in the movie, instead they burried the nose under the Sphinx. Asterix: "They will never look for it here" (guess again). Was funny but not as good as the original. Another thing i disliked about the movie was their choice for music. It maked the film to childies. But never the less... It's a must C!

Grz Da Jean Holland

Sentiment: positive
This film could be one of the most underrated film of Bollywood history.This 1994 blockbuster had all of it good performances,music and direction.I remember I was in Allahabad when this movie was running and it was somewhere in March at Holi time , the people there were playing its song "Ooe Amma" at their loudspeakers in highest volume. If someone who likes to watch Some Like It Hot and drools over Marilyn Monroe he should see this movie.Thumbs Up to Govinda.How many of you know that this film was shot in South of India and after Sholay could be one of the very few blockbuter to hit Silver Screen.With films like these Indian comedy could never be dead.

Sentiment: positive
This crime thriller is sort of like a film noir, though changes the context from post-war to Cold War and has something relatively decent to say about humanity. In "Pickup on South Street", policemen are good guys, criminals are genuine guys, and the only enemies are "The Commies", who are ultimately differentiated from the good-guys in that they are emotionally personable, driven by an actual care for their own worth, as shown in the constant tracked-in close-ups that speckle the movie.

This movie revolves around characters. The personalities in this film are rather unique and detailed: Skip the pick-pocket who is able to stare down any danger, and sometimes while going through their personal possessions; Moe the informer who is just trying to save up for a spectacular funeral, but who manages to capture the hearts and respect of nearly all the other characters (and the audience); Candy, the ill-named innocent girl who only thinks she's doing government work and doesn't fully comprehend the conspiracy she's involved with; and Joey, the ex-boyfriend evil Commie baddie who is trying to hide everything from everybody and, ironically, is the worst person at doing it. Throw in a bunch of very colorful supporting characters (such as the guy with the chopsticks and the policemen) and "Pickup on South Street" treats you to a splendor of personalities as they hunt down the mysterious and accidentally stolen microfilm frames.

--PolarisDiB

Sentiment: positive
This was usually producer Alexander Korda's advice on set to many of his underlings; the film is credited with three directors but in truth Alex, Zoltan Korda and William Cameron Menzies helped out, pushing it to six.

For John Kobal's 1987 book, "The Top 100 Movies", his survey of 81 film critics saw The Thief of Bagdad reach 55th place. A closer examination reveals only Jose Luis Guarner, John Russell Taylor and Kobal himself actually voted for the picture, but their high placings were enough to take it to near the half-way mark.

The outbreak of the Second World War saw the movie's production shifted around England and America, eventually seeing completion in 1940 and winning three technical Oscars. Like Citizen Kane, it is in some ways perhaps a film you might admire rather than love.

The special effects, outstanding for the time, are still reasonable, and actually hold up if you squint. But it's not so much their effectiveness as the audacity of the inventions. Among them is an amusing horse, constructed out of a kit model, which, when a key is inserted up it's rear end, begins to fly. There's also a killer toy of the six-armed Goddess Kali, (perhaps quite obviously a single woman with two women sitting behind her) and a quite horrific-looking giant spider. Also impressing is the climax with its wonderful flying carpet. But most memorable has to be Rex Ingram appearing as, in a superb moment of cinematic conceit, a djinn (genie) nearly a thousand feet tall! Ingram portrays the genie as quite a menacing creature, and adds an element of danger to the proceedings. And look out for the moment where he's tricked back into his bottle!

John Justin does well as the Arabic king who, for some strange reason, has an English accent and a stiff upper lip. Sabu, the astonishingly muscled 15year-old, is near-namesake Abu, a likeably cocky thief. After they cross paths with the evil Jaffer (Conrad Veidt), Justin finds himself blind and Abu is turned into a dog. When it seems the rest of the film will be told in flashback through the blind Ahmed's (Justin's) perspective, we find that halfway through the movie we catch up to the present and the adventure continues. In truth, the second half is someway the better, being full of greater incident and more fantastical in nature.

Three small songs pepper the piece, though as the film lasts for 100 minutes this feels more like mild flavouring rather than a real ingredient; I wouldn't classify this as a musical. It's all great fun; Justin and June Duprez are the love interest for the mums and dads, Veidt is the boo-hiss villain, and Abu is the youthful, irrepressible robber. It may take a while to get into the somewhat dated mindset and overblown melodrama of 40s English movies, but once you've sat through the first half an hour or so this film really draws you in. Quite commendable.

Sentiment: positive
(spoilers)

I shoulda figured. The dvd didn't even show the time or how long it was. I thought Wild Cardz was the worst anime movie I'd ever seen. This one is much worse. Makes no sense. Thrown together plot. All so we can see oversized breasts on a figure that doesn't support them. 

It had to of been a student film. That musta gotten a C grade

2/10

Quality: 1/10 Entertainment: 6/10 (until I found out it wasn't going to end.) the ending made no darn sense

Replayable: 0/10

Sentiment: negative
"The Long Kiss Goodnight" is an enjoyable and very cool action thriller, and a career breakthrough for Geena Davis. The plot is very familiar to that of The Bourne Identity but so what. The fight scenes are a real treat for the eyes and the plotline is strong enough to keep you engaged for the 2 hours.

It's directed with a slick sense of style and avoids most action cliches. Geena Davis is great as an action chick and gets past her usual "good wife" role. Samuel L. Jackson is good as usual as the supporting player. The film's baddie is overly cheesy though and you can tell what's going to happen to him. 

It breaks away from the usual run-of-the-mill actioners such as Commando and On Deadly Ground and is definetly one of the best actioners in years. Good fun and good popcorn entertainment. 7.4/10.

Sentiment: positive
Woody Allen, when at his best, has one of the sharpest pens around. He can make an acute observation and wrap it around a punch line like nobody else. However, when he's at his worst his movies can stench of pretentiousness. Unfortunately, "Melinda and Melinda" has this stench from opening to closing. The set up is one of his more intriguing ideas in a while. Four friends sit in a restaurant discussing whether the essence of life is comedy or drama. To help settle the argument, one man relates the beginning of a story and asks the two other men arguing (one a comic playwright, the other a dramatic playwright) whether the story is a comedy or a tragedy. The two men then continue the story and the movie plays out the stories that they weave. Now, when I first heard about this film, my understanding was that they tell the exact same story, the genre (comedy or drama) only changes by how you look at it. Now that would have been interesting. However, the stories only share one main element and a few side elements. They are entirely different stories with major plot differences. The drama is so stiffly scripted and pretentious that it can only really work as self-parody. If this was the point, then it failed because these elements prevent the audience from feeling any emotional investment in any of the characters. The comedy is the story that has moments of success, but they are still short and fleeting. Will Farrell is obviously meant to be the stand-in for Woody, but he could have played this character so much more believably without adding Woody's stutters and hand-ticks. Woody is the best at being Woody. When someone else tries, they're not playing a character, they are modeling a recognizable actor. This type of thing only pulls the audience out of the story.

My favorite Woody Allen movies make me leave the theater a little bit lighter in spirit than I walked in. This one made me wish I could get my money back.

Sentiment: negative
OK, the story - a simpleminded loony enters a life of bored to death young chick and her kid brother and wreaks havoc in their lives - is mildly interesting one. Anyway, ideas are nothing (everyone has some...) - the execution is everything.

This is what bothered me with this flick. And it did bother me immensely. The rhythm (directing, editing) was slow, the pace was uneven and the climax expected. We have seen those frigging highways five, six, seven times - why? Norton character's troubles were seen as a childish game, not enough deep to understand his problems / soul / blah and to root for or against him. Is he a coward, a manipulator or just a loony? References to the "Taxi Driver" were ridiculous and unnecessary and for certain not in favor for this flick (or to E.N. for that matter).

And IMHO, it is cowardly executed at the end. Cheap emotional tricks for teenage lovers somewhere in Mid America. This guy should have killed the kid, blamed the father, create a real havoc. Or the kid should have killed the father at the end etc., but no, we have gotten cheesy ending where kids miss the loony, the father is puzzled over his own life and relationship with them and the loony, of course, dies. The happy dysfunctional family stays unharmed, safe and happily bored again so we could enjoy our pop-corns, undisturbed.

And that scene where the loony enters the movie, oh my God, I would have to think long and hard to find something stupider than that! You do not shoot such a scene with a hidden camera and hidden crew. Creators of that movie probably thought that was a good idea but it was more than annoying. Again, if you're a 16 years old girl somewhere in Kansas nowhere or whatever-where and dream about having sex with a crazy man twice your age, OK, then you might enjoy this movie and its "message".

Sentiment: negative
Down at the Movie Gallery, I saw a flick I just had to see. It looked like a fun low-budget horror/action/western that I could get into. Yeah, I knew it would suck, but I rented it anyway hoping for laughs. Only a few laughs were to be found. This was an extremely stupid movie. It begins with a bounty hunter, our protagonist, who is possibly the weakest main character in the history of film. He looks/acts like he could take on Chuck Norris, but he can't. His dialogue sucks too. Anyway, he goes into a village, shoots some zombies. You could tell they tried to make this longer by putting in these boring scenes where he takes 3-5 minutes to reload or watch some zombies. At least the zombies look cool. So anyway, some people get shot, some zombies die, and in the end, everyone is dead except our main character, who should have died at the beginning when he was shot down by four people.

Sentiment: negative
Fun movie! The script is awful but the quality of actors saves the day. John Hurt is perfect, as is Jane Alexander. Beau Bridges is fair and the actress who plays his wife is very weak. The story is the true star. Based on a true story, the pace moves well and the whole concept of escaping East Germany sucks you in and holds you. Joyous ending provides enough elation to compensate for script. Don't expect Academy Award quality but it's a great ride for the whole family.

Sentiment: positive
The audience sat in silence through almost the entire film, with only a few, rare, occasional chuckles. The character of Maxwell Smart was so inconsistent, I felt whip-lashed. When it is convenient for the plot, Smart behaves like a master spy. At other times, he acts like an imbecile. They lift many classic lines from the television series, but they don't work in this version. The classic "missed it by this much" is funny if it is spoken with attempted braggadocio by someone who is an obvious failure - but it loses all humor when spoken by someone who is qualified. To a slightly lesser degree, many of the other characters move at a dizzying pace from skilled to cartoonish incompetent. Siegfried, the main villain, would seem to be intelligent, but he makes decisions that make no damned sense at all. Still, none of the characters in the film is as incompetent as the writers of this mess. I am utterly depressed that so many IMDb users think this was good.

Sentiment: negative
A warmly sentimental tale from the author of The Waltons. Were someone to pitch the material to me, I would probably reject it as too maudlin. But the dramatization here manages a tear without the expected embarrassment. No one in the 1950's was better at lovable hayseeds than Arthur Hunnicutt. His appeal here is put to consummate use as a mountain man doggedly faithful to a loyal hunting hound. Their fates are tied together as inseparably as any human bond. Good. I see a subtle environmental message here. All critters go to heaven, because how can we condemn any poor devil that merely follows instinct in order to stay alive. There is no deceit in the kingdom of animals, and yet how cruelly we often treat them. An oddly satisfying episode that confirms this important message.

Sentiment: positive
"A stage company cast finds themselves terrified when a bizarre killer known as 'The Fiend' targets them for death. A pair of reporters and their clumsy photographer set out to work the story of 'The Fiend' and find themselves targets as well. Just as you think our trio of heroes has the case solved, you're thrown another twist that has you wondering who the killer really is," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Taking "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" to Hollywood, producer Sam Katzman's lack of studio settings probably helps "A Face in the Fog" look interesting, especially toward the end (1930s traffic). The direction could be improved upon; for example, the camera angle on the fight scene is not helpful. The budget appears slight. Under the circumstances, most of the silent/talkie crossover cast perform it amiably.

**** A Face in the Fog (2/1/36) Robert F. Hill ~ Lloyd Hughes, June Collyer, Al St. John

Sentiment: negative
I've been trying to track down this film just by googling bad phrases about "teenagers seduce and kill man in his house" and such. I think I first saw parts of this film when I was about 10 years old when it was running on cable. It made quite an impression! It's the kind of film that kids know they shouldn't be watching, and switch the channel when their parents come in. When I saw who the cast was, I couldn't believe that some of these good actors were in such a horrible movie. Then again, if you like to see men who cheat on their wives get murdered, then this is an interesting film. Also, if I recall, there's some pretty interesting pseudo-lesbian moments. Probably the dumbest ending of all time, but still...memorable.

Sentiment: negative
I am in a movie club at my school and I was forced to sit and watch this utterly dismal film. The film's story is not dismal, but the entire movie itself is exceedingly dismal. The acting was absolutely dreadful. The children were overly whiny. A metal pole could have done a better job. I wanted desperately to fall asleep, but because the television was so loud, I was kept from peace. The monkey's are neither cute, nor are they funny. The drama is laugh-worthy. I cannot remember when I saw a more dreadful film. The story is weak, thin, predictable, and completely fake. The adults try to be good actors, but they just can't seem to break through stereotypes. The girl even appears to want to leave the film via falling off a hill during the movie in order to leave it, I don't blame her. Micheal Anderson should publicly apologize for this film. Not just to me, but to everyone else who was forced to sit through this awful film. In fact, I apologize to you. Even if I had nothing to do with this project, I apologize for this film, because this means at least someone will. This film even surpasses the dismalness of films that of Rob Schneider and the Cheetah Girls. I would even go as far to say that it is even worse that Hilary Duff's collection of films, but that's pushing it. Just please don't see this film, or else you'll be pushed to write a review similar to this one on how awful this film is. I'm very sorry.

Sentiment: negative
By watching this film you will not only explore the "Turkish music" but will also explore the city of Istanbul with wonderful pictures and scenes from all over the important regions of the city.There are lots of delightful conversations with all sorts of musicians and their thoughts about music,culture.There is also discussions about the mixture of east and west like Istanbul has,how they make their music, how do they see themselves comparing to other country's musicians.It consists the music of Ceza,Duman,Baba Zula,Aynur,Müzeyyan Senar,Orhan Gencebay..The Turkish Queen of Music Sezen Aksu...An important work of art!

Sentiment: positive
I have no idea how accurate the portrayal of Flynn appears in this film but even as a work of fiction it is one of the worst films I have ever seen.

The script is all over the place and leaves you wondering how he got from one scene to the next - you are just not given the minimum information needed to keep some continuity and understand his present situation, and it is difficult to understand Flynn's and other characters' motives behind some of their behaviour.

Add to that a series of silly and implausible situations and you have film that comes across as one of your dreams that seems to make sense while you are asleep, but when you wake up and you try to remember it, it is just strange, disjointed and totally unrealistic.

There are many long, boring musical sections of the film that to me are either bad direction or a bad director trying and failing to be artistic.

None of the characters are even likable and the Flynn character comes across as a self serving liar, thug, thief, robber, murderer, bear fist fighter, gigolo and impostor who will do anything and step on anyone to further his own dreams, and somehow, despite all that, great opportunities just seem to miraculously fall into his lap.

This film is not entertaining nor satisfying in any way and by all accounts not even historically accurate, so why even watch it? To rub salt into the wound, the DVD had one of the worst transfers I have ever seen, it wasn't even in wide-screen or Dolby 5.1, it had terrible telecine wobble and many, many artifacts from what looked like a film reel that had been gathering dust and scratches somewhere.

Sentiment: negative
First of all, let me start by saying that I have been a devoted follower of C Thomas Howell's career ever since "The Outsiders" and "The Hitcher". He was an up and coming star in the 1980s - with hits such as "Soul Man" also. The future was bright for this young actor and he had the potential to go on from there and really assert himself in Hollywood. Put it this way - Tom Cruise had a bit part in "The Outsiders" while Howell had the lead. Look at Cruise today !!! But picking material like this drivel will only denigrate Howell's career even more - if that was possible. Why does he pick stuff like this? A small part in a major movie would be of more benefit to him than this rubbish.

Essentially the story here takes place in a post-apocalyptic world where everybody lives underground where chaos reigns. Howell is a Shepherd - protecting the flock of various religious leaders by killing off any undesirables. He's a hit-man in other words.

The sets are so bad, they wouldn't look out of place on a Thunderbirds episode. The use of slow-motion needlessly repeats itself throughout the movie but is well backed up by bad acting (and bad is a kind word here), no continuity, scenes that are thrown in for no reason whatsoever, vehicles that looked like they were made from a Corn Flakes box and a directorial style that bordered on stupidity. Oh yeah, and the storyline was pathetic too.

I hate writing bad reviews about films - especially those in which I really like the star - but this film is so bad I don't believe for one second that anyone could have been proud of it. I am not a filmmaker nor am I a director but I would hide my head in the sand if I'd spent whatever amount of money and time on this movie.

In short - this was a monumental waste of time and energy and I would not recommend anyone to EVER see this film. It came free with a DVD player I bought but I still turned the thing off halfway through because I was embarrassed for Howell. Come on C - give yourself some credit and wrestle yourself away from these non-hit wonders and try to knuckle down and get a good part - however small.

1/10 - and only because there is no setting for 0/10.

Sentiment: negative
There are a lot of people that put down on these type 80's movies but those people may not have been coming of age during this time. I was just starting college when this movie was released so I could really appreciate it at the time and my friends and I still, to this day, will occasionally joke about certain lines in the movie. As much as I liked Sean Penn's Character Jeff Spicoli in "Fast Times", I actually enjoy Chris Penn's Character "Tommy" more because he is the lead character with more of a actual speaking roll opposed to just a series of one liners such as with Spicoli. Chris Penn should probably pop this film in his VCR and use it for motivation to lose some weight. Yes, the subplot with the Randy Quaid, Vietnam vet character does seem a little out of place, but he does a convincing job in the role. If there is anyone out there that hasn't seen this movie but liked the other similar type movies such as "Fast Times", etc. I highly recommend it.

Sentiment: positive
This is te cartoon that should have won instead of Country Cousin. Visually well-done and much more entertaining and memorable. Worth watching just for the music alone! Although there are elements that undoubtably will bruise the sensibilities of some these days, the cartoon has to be given a bit of perspective. It's over sixty years old and it is, after all, just a cartoon. I'm disabled and if I were as hyper-sensitive as the folks who look at things like this cartoon and take umbrage, I would have long since curled up in a fetal position and faded away. Sometimes you need to lighten up, put your head back and float! Caricatures of celebrities in cartoons were common in the 1930s and 1940s and were almost never terribly flattering. Bing Crosby reportedly hated it when he was used on more than one occasion. *SIGH*

Sentiment: positive
Age cannot tarnish the beauty of this East-west love story for me. Ignoring the famous and lovely title song and its lyrics, what we have is a dramatized biography of two remarkable people caught in a moment of counter-currents involving social conformity, bigotry, war, doubt, and the need for immense courage. With Hong Kong as the backdrop, this movie tells the story of a Eurasian doctor and a U.S. journalist who meet and fall in love during the Korean War. As Mark Elliott, William Holden is intelligent, breezy and a bit weak; Jennifer Jones is perhaps well-nigh-perfect as Dr. Han Suyin, by turns doubt-torn and ecstatic, eager and hesitant. Others in the large cast include Torin Thatcher, Isobel Elsom, Murray Matheson, Virginia Gregg, Richard Loo, Soo Yong, Philip Ahn, Jorja Curtright and Donna Martell; many of Hollywood's best oriental actors played smaller uncredited parts also. The script by John Patrick followed Han's exquisite novel closely; the direction by Henry King was solid as always. The thrust of the storyline is how unwilling Han was to fall in love with Elliott, with her busy and demanding schedule as a doctor and her doubts about their future; and how unafraid he was, despite the intolerance and interference they faced as their affair became known. The film is unarguably physically busy, interesting and often beautiful also. The hill to which the lovers go to be apart, the lovely bay where they swim are set against an already busy and crowded business city, large social events, and teeming streets, hospital corridors, and traffic-filled arteries. With cinematography by Leon Shamroy, Ben Nye's makeup and Helen Turpin's hairstyles, the great work by set decorators, sound and lighting, art department and all concerned, this has to be one of the most memorable productions set in a major non-U.S. city of all time, and one of the most difficult to capture on film. Yet what one remembers most here is the lovers, thankfully not extremely young, facing the odds against them and assessing exactly what they are--then going ahead as if love mattered and those conditions which are set up as barriers to love do not., The climax of the affair is Mark's going back to war; thereafter Han receives his letters, even after she knows he is has been killed; they seem messages from a better wold. A world where hope is all that matters, courage is the price of admittance to that world, and it is always summer on a high and windy hill set apart and above a zone where beauty and individual desires can be victimized, made subject to ill-fortune or brushed aside by militant forces of evil. Truly, love is a many-splendored thing, Dr. Han says; and this movie stands as one of that doctrine's shining proofs, lucent as a pearl, timeless as a Chinese proverb and lovely as polished jade set against a rough background.

Sentiment: positive
This movie appears to have been overlooked by everyone. Someone should bring it out on VHS and DVD. It is an excellent film and far superior to the one with Brooke Shields, which was terrible. 

Jean Simmons deserves more credit than she is getting now days. It would be nice if all her films were offered on VHS or DVD. Jean Simmons was, and still is, a very good actress. She certainly was a beauty. In fact, she is still a beauty. She also has done extremely well on T.V. She is so much better than many of the actors today.

Sentiment: positive