input: I cant describe how terrible this movie is. Am i the only one here who finds the way its animated totaly disgusting? The Men of Rohan look 100% fake with their poorly colored hair, that doesnt even come close to matching what the actors look like. The orcs looked terrible. Why does gandalf walk with a bad limp? Why cant they pronounce things correctly? Saruman isnt Aruman. There were other what sounded like terrible pronounciation*sp* of Tolkiens characters. All and all im glad the studio who made this pulled the plug out from the sequal, it was just a terrible terrible adaptaion. Go watch the hobbit cartoon for a better cartoon of Tolkiens work. Hell, even the cartoon version of ROTK is better then this dribble. 2/10

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Alan Curtis has a loud, violent sounding argument with his wife, slams out of his apartment, has a night of drinking with a mysterious lady with a large hat in a bar (run by Andrew Tombes, in a nice villainous part for a change), and returns to find his wife dead and the police, led by Thomas Gomez waiting for him. His attempts to prove his alibi - that he was with that mysterious lady - fall because everyone that he can think of (Tombes, Elisha Cook) claims there was never any such person. He ends up with no alibi, although his secretary (who secretly loves him) Ellen Raines believes him. Convicted after a trial, he is awaiting his death sentence. Raines starts going out after the truth, discovering that Gomez has some doubts of his own. She also finds an ally in a friend of Curtis, Franchot Tone, who was apparently out of town the night of the crime. Will she clear Curtis in time? THE PHANTOM LADY is based on a novel by William Irish (the great noir writer Cornell Woolrich). As movie fans know from other works by Woolrich (LEOPARD MAN, THE NIGHT HAS A THOUSAND EYES, REAR WINDOW, NO MAN OF HER OWN) one cannot assume what is true on the surface anywhere. The missing wife of a salesman may not actually be upstate, sending him messages that she arrived, if he still has her jewelry. The mentalist may really be able to predict tragedy - or was he plotting the murder of his old partner, now an oil millionaire? Did a leopard kill the young women, or is the wealthy recluse in town actually hiding some guilty knowledge? Is the young woman, claiming to be the wife of a brother killed in a train wreck, actually an impostor? Here it is Raines and Gomez (with an assist by Tone) trying to prove Curtis did see a woman nobody will admit seeing - and if he did see her, why is nobody else able to recall seeing her? The problem with the story really is Curtis's personality - he gives in too easily when found guilty of the crime he did not commit. In reality anyone who is innocent would be screaming it to the moment they are executed. However, in defense of Curtis's collapse, it also happens to other people in various films: Gary Cooper, in MR. DEEDS GOES TO TOWN, gets so disgusted about the framing he gets as delusional and mad by Douglas Dumbrille and his minions that he does not defend himself at first, until the people who would depend on his help cry out their fears in the courtroom and reawaken his sense of responsibility. But Curtis just seems to give up. In normal circumstances Raines, Gomez, and everyone else would not care if Curtis didn't.

But the film survives this weakness. The slow unraveling of lies by witnesses bribed by the real killer allows two set pieces for Raines with Tombes on a deserted elevated platform and Elisha Cook at a jazz session. Gomez turns out to be more perceptive than the villain expects in double checking his alibi again. And the villain manages to keep slightly ahead of Raines and Gomez until the concluding minutes of the film. If it is not as great a film as DOUBLE INDEMNITY or THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE or THE MALTESE FALCON, it holds up pretty well until the moment Curtis and Raines are reunited at the end.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: If you haven't seen this obscure little charmer, you should seek it out. It is the story of a bumbling, wartime Sad Sack (Fred MacMurray) who is listed 4-F each time he attempts to join any branch of the military. He finds a magic lamp which of course contains a genie (Gene Sheldon), but the genie is even more bumbling than MacMurray is, sending him across time to serve in all the wrong times and places than the one he wants. It is cute, cheerful, and pure fluff, and you can't help but like it. The plots is much like a Disney film, particularly since the two stars (MacMurray and Sheldon) both made numerous Disney films in the 50's and 60's, although not together. Needless to say, it all ends well for everyone, and the viewer goes away feeling pretty good.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Right up until the end the bad guys have the upper-hand - always - which kind of put into question the competence of the good guys. A couple of innocent-man-accused-of-a-crime plots are irritating. Some unnecessary dialogue in which various dull legal issues get debated. This is just a mediocre dumb old western, so what's this nonsense about trying to keep things "realistic"? Cagney's atypical presence in a western is one of the few - if not the only - entertaining thing about the movie. Somewhere around the middle there is a ridiculously-timed marriage proposal; sort of like "Where is the Kid hiding??!! Where is he?!... Oh, and by the way, will you marry me?"

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative