Mouwiya/imdb_reviews_with_labels huggingface dataset:
ELVIRA, MISTRESS OF THE DARK (1988)
directed by: James Signorelli
starring: Cassandra Peterson, W. Morgan Sheppard, Daniel Greene, and Edie McClurg
plot: Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) quits her TV show and heads to the small Christian town Fallwell, Massachusettes to collect on her dead aunt's inheritance, hoping to make big bucks to open up a show in Vegas. Unfortunately for her, all she gets is a creepy old house, a poodle, and a magic cookbook. While in Fallwell, Elvira tries to make money, breathe some life into the teenagers, win the heart of a stud (Daniel Greene), avoid being burned at the stake, and keep the cookbook from her creepy uncle (W. Morgan Sheppard), who is planning to use the book to end the world.
my thoughts: I love both Cassandra Peterson and her alter-ego Elvira. She is a very successful, beautiful, and funny woman and as Elvira she's all that plus morbid and hilariously naive, not to mention she has an amazing pair of knockers. In this movie, her charms are put to good use.
I loved the whole 'fish out of water' feel to the film. You got Elvira, with her low-cut black dress, her big black hair, and her enormous 'twins', and she's in a Christian town where most of the girls aren't even allowed to wear makeup. This also makes her love story with Bob (Daniel Greene) a lot more entertaining.
W. Morgan Sheppard is equally great as Elvira's uncle/nemesis Vincent, out to steal the book to use it for evil. He has a lot of presence but still doesn't get in the way and steal scenes from Elvira.
What really makes the film is not the plot, but the many jokes. Everything from boob jokes to horror spoofing is here and makes me laugh a lot more than anything from a SCARY MOVIE sequel. I hear there are about 56 boob jokes in this film, and any fan of Roger Corman B-horror flicks will love the spoofing in this film.
If you love Elvira, you will love this flick. Also check out ELVIRA'S HAUNTED HILLS.
Ugly shot, poorly scripted and amateurishly paced sequel to Joe Dante's 1981 classic. "The Howling" is one of the two or three ONLY good werewolf-films ever made and yet it got 'rewarded' by a series of obnoxious and unendurable sequels like this one. If it's any consolation, "Stirba" is a sequel in name only and there's absolutely no connection with the characters or events that were introduced in Dante's film. The plot here revolves on a bloodthirsty cult of Transsylvanian werewolves  primarily female ones  led by Stirba. Stirba is played by Sybil Danning who transforms from a curvy old lady into a blond super-babe (with impressive bosom) in the blink of an eye and becomes all hairy when sexually aroused. Her arch-enemy is played by a seemly fatigue Christopher Lee. His character  Stefan Crosscoe  is an occult investigator who travels to Stirba's kingdom, accompanied by an American couple who lost their friend to the werewolf cult. In case you're exclusively looking for filthy gore and gratuitous nudity...this is your film. Even the smallest killing is shown in great detail and we're even treated to exploding eyeballs and the vile image of a dwarf who gets pierced on a pointy fence. However, if you want a little substance or depth, you'll be sorely disappointed. The dialogues are embarrassing and there's absolutely no tension to detect anywhere. The scriptwriters constantly seem to confuse werewolves with vampires (the Transsylvanian setting, garlic, wooden stakes...) and Danning's gorgeous balcony is shamelessly exploited as the film's only gimmick. During the end-credits, a shot in which she rips off her top, is re-edited repeatedly (according to my fellow reviewer Dr. Gore, no less than seventeen times!) which is pretty pathetic and pointless. The music is okay and some of the scenery is rather beautiful. I'm talking about the fierce-looking statues during the opening credits and the dark dungeons of Stirba's castle. The directing by Philippe Mora is a giant mess and  as far as I'm concerned  his only worthwhile film remains "The Beast Within", released three years earlier.
It is difficult to evaluate this or any other comparable film of the early sound era in terms that one might use for ordinary film commentary. At times there is almost a desperation, as many film personalities of the silent era try their wings at sound, surely fearing that they will be left by the wayside (as did happen to some), Rin-Tin-Tin. however, was pertfectly natural. In such a vaudeville of unrelated sequences, some were sure to stand out John Barrymore's soliloquy from Richard II is a moment certainly worth preserving. By and large, only those with earlier stage training exuded confidence. However, this is over all reasonably entertaining, and a must for "film buffs" especially interested in the silent to sound transition
I actually intended to see this movie in the theatre. It was actually sold out. I actually went to see Solaris instead, which actually was the worst movie to be released in 2002.
Victor Rosa (John Leguizamo), a tough, streetwise 'street pharmacist', freaks out when he sees a kid get shot, so he decides to go clean and invest all of his money with Jack (Peter Sarsgaard). Things seem to be going pretty well until Jack skips town with his girlfriend Trish (Denise Richards). This happened very late in the movie, so had they not revealed this in the preview, it might have been an interesting twist. But they did, so it's not.
In fact, there's not a single interesting thing about this movie; everything is given away in the preview. If you saw even one preview, you saw the whole movie, so you might just want to think really hard to fill in the gaps. Go to the website, download the preview, save yourself $3.99. There is not a single surprise or twist in the entire film, other than how terrible the soundtrack is.
I hope that whoever was in charge of writing the soundtrack was fired. Twice. Most of it is what music would be like if the only songs allowed to be released were Ricky Martin and Gloria Estefan duets, and (I may shatter the fabric of the space-time continuum with a concept as mind-numbing as this) they both had less talent and musical ability.
The acting is at best poor, the script is at best a crime against humanity, and Denise Richards is at best 67% styrofoam and 33% ziploc bag. You know things are bad when John Leguizamo (he was in The Pest!) upstages the rest of the cast with his acting abilities.
"The Cobweb" is an example of many examples of movies that feature strong, sometimes noteworthy performances and high points, but unfortunately are shattered and slowed down drastically by a murky plot and very little to interest the audience. It stars Richard Widmark as a doctor working at a mental institution whose life becomes in turmoil due to family problems and a rather ludicrous and overworked conflict that really seems like no big deal at all.
The plot is preposterous. Its time for the institution to get new drapes for the library windows. One old woman wants to have her drapes put over them, but a lot of the patients want to make their own. And somehow, this ridiculous and unintentionally loony conflict breaks out into the point where lives are in danger and families start to fall apart. It sounds more like a conflict that would occur between very young children.
The questioning of the logic of the plot and whether it could really happen is so massive that one wonders if only a real-like lunatic could buy it. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with the acting. The cast following Widmark is composed of other great actors, many of them Academy Award-nominees and winners. And there is occasionally a moment in the film that works out brilliantly, but it always excludes the stupid plot about window drapes. Unfortunately, there is too much about the doggone drapes and thus, the movie slows down. A lot of the takes are long and done from one camera viewpoint, adhering to the slow pacing and lack of viewing interest.
In a short analysis, "The Cobweb" is an unrecognized film and it becomes obvious why to the viewers basically as soon as the plot comes into focus, which it does pretty quickly. It just really doesn't sound like much fun to watch and I tell you that it is not much fun to watch.
There was a genie played by Shaq His name was Kazaam, and he was whack His rhymes were corny, this lines were bad some stupid kid cryin over his stupid dad bad actin, bad casting, bad special effects whats next? this movie sucks Prolly didn't make 20 bucks he lives in a boombox not a lamp hurts like a cramp like a wet food stamp...
Yeah, you get it, a stupid rhyming genie who can't act, in a stupid movie with horrible special effects. Oh, and its confusing as hell. I'm not even gonna go on. Let's just say, it belongs in the "its so bad, its funny" category. Watch it once with your buddies and get a good laugh. But don't expect anything spectacular.
How The Grinch Stole Christmas instantly stole my heart and became my favorite movie almost from my very first viewing. Now, eight viewings later, it still has the same impact on me as it did the first time I saw it.
Screenwriters Jeffery Price & Peter S. Seaman of Who Framed Roger Rabbit fame do a fantastic job of adapting the story of The Grinch to the screen. Ron Howard's direction brought the story to full life, and Jim Carrey's typically energetic performance as The Grinch steals the show.
Some detractors of the film have claimed that it is not true to the spirit or principles of the original story. Having read the original story, I must say I cannot agree. The movie makes the very same point about Christmas and its true meaning as the original story. Indeed, it enhances the impact of the story by making it more personal by showing us how and why The Grinch became what he was.
*MILD SPOILERS* (They probably wouldn't ruin the movie for you... but if you haven't seen it yet and you're one of those who wants to know NOTHING about a story until you've seen it, you should skip the next two paragraphs.)
I think just about everyone can relate to The Grinch's terrible experiences in school. I think all of us, at one time or another, were the unpopular one in school who was always picked on. I know I was... and that's why I personally had so much sympathy for The Grinch and what he went through.
And Cindy Lou Who's naive idealism, believing that nobody can be all bad, was heart rending. When everyone else had turned their backs on The Grinch out of fear and ignorance, Cindy Lou was determined to be his friend. If only everyone could have such an attitude.
In fact, I think the only thing that might've made the film a little better would have been to further tone down the adult humor and content. It was already pretty restrained, but any of this adult humor (like when The Grinch slammed nose first into Martha May Whovier's cleavage) just doesn't fit in a story like this.
This one's well on its way to being a Christmas classic, taking a richly deserved place alongside the book and the Chuck Jones cartoon as a must-see of every Christmas season.
i would like to comment the series as a great effort. The story line although requiring a few improvements was pretty well, especially in season 1. Season 2 however became more of a freak show, and lost DA's original charm. Season one story line was more interesting, a light side to the life at Jam pony while a focused serious plot with manticore chasing down the X-series. i was looking forward to new seasons, in fact i still am. I hope the FOX guys and DA production crew realize that a lot of ppl still wait for DA to make a comeback. Even after 2 yrs of it being cancelled, DA can make it big if worked on properly, and i think a name like James Cameron should take on this challenge.
Collusion Course is even worse than the typical "evil white male corporate capitalist" movie of the week. This movie is less pleasant than a toothache. Jay Leno can act. He's good in his underrated debut movie, The Silverbears, in which he gives a performance consist with the demands of his character. This movie is so bad Leno's character, a sanctimonious buffoon, is less annoying than Morita's character, a sanctimonious fool.
A chemist develops a fabric that never gets dirty or wears out, but it is seen as a threat to the survival of various industries. In this delightful Ealing Studios comedy, Guinness is marvelous as the mild-mannered but persistent chemist. Greenwood, with her sensual voice, plays the love interest; Parker is her harried father. Thesiger is amusing as a patriarch of the fabric industry. While telling an engaging story, the film also raises some intriguing questions about science, the economy, and politics. It is adeptly directed by Mackendrick, who would go on to make "The Ladykillers" and the sublime "Sweet Smell of Success" later in the 1950s.
How low can someone sink while trying to recapture an old glory? ST:HF will be glad to show you.
If you are used to seeing what made for a good Star Trek show, do NOT watch this.
The writing is hodge-podge, the actors' portrayals of their characters weak, and most of all, the design work is downright doggy.
Like watching strong captains, don't look here! Like the strong Federation attitude? Forget about it here! Starfleet is mocked by ensigns wearing SPIKES in their hair.
While a seemingly mentally feeble captain shuffles about and within two minutes of the opening show's credits, Ensign Spikey is attempting to arrange a tryst with an engineer. It just degrades from there. No, not even uniforms match, for goodness sake. They are too small or too big, collars down to their chests, and TNG Seasons One and Two Uniforms mixed in with Season Three and DS9 uniforms. The strict discipline and tradition of any of the originals in lacking in this production down to the treads! The only good thing about this show is its graphics, which seem to improve a bit with each season. OK, I take that back. Who uses CG that inexpertly? The designers of this show.
Don't bother with it, it will offend your Star Trek sense, as it did mine. Not even the throw backs to previous shows can save this catastrophe.
I wept openly when i watched this, probably because my eyes were bleeding and my head almost ruptured. That bad.
If Todd Sheets were to come out and admit that this movie was intended to spoof the zombie genre, I would change my rating to an eight. Try to imagine a movie where every scene, line, and even every acting nuance was designed to be a parody. I could probably crap out alphabet soup, rearrange what was left of the letters, and still have a better script. Two scenes in particular come to mind when I think of this movie. SPOILER ALERT! One is when Mike's dad and the other dad walk, I repeat walk down a staircase jam packed with zombies. This is a small staircase and even though they brush up against the flailing undead, nothing happens to them. When they reach the end, the ex-marine turns around, says "God you're a horny bastard", and shoots only one. The other is in the military complex. The girl stabs a zombie with a machete and is immediately surrounded. The camera moves around her for roughly forty seconds, while she is surrounded by zombies at an arm's length away. She then almost casually runs out from the crowd and joins the other humans. SPOILER ALERT OVER! These scenes must be seen to be believed. Still, I enjoy this movie as much as almost any comedy just because it's so damn funny. Kudos to Todd Sheets for getting so many people in his movie and having the drive to make it but not really for anything else.
Robert Wuhl is teaching a class of film students at New York University in Manhattan, New York.
He covers fallacies of history and truths that are no longer generally known. I would like to see much more of this show. It is very entertaining. Mr. Wuhl uses examples and "show and tell" to get his points across. He explained that the person who actually rode the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere was not Paul Revere! Henry Wadsworth Longfellow used Revere's name because it sounded better.
I've watched Robert Wuhl for many years, from the time he was doing stand-up comedy and all the way through "Arli$$" on HBO. He's a good actor and a good stand-up comedian, but he's an excellent teacher! I highly recommend that you watch an episode of this show. It is well worth your time.
A disappointing film.
The story established our protagonist as Chrissy, a 'young', rather sullen individual drifting, not doing much. Actually she does very little to move the narrative along so it didn't surprise me to see the focus shifting on her relatives. It's a pity though, Chrissy seem like interesting character.
Story was predictable and at times felt quite formulated. So the question now is, when are we going to see the Campions, Jacksons, and the Tamahori's breaking ground with compelling, cinematically-told stories that will inspire, rather than entertain for the toll of two hours?
Technically, a disgusting shot film.
Someone(or, something thing..)is leaving puncture marks on the jugular and draining victims of their blood till dead. Police detective Karl Brettschneider(Melvyn Douglas, before slipping out of the B-movie horror genre for greater heights)is stumped at who..or what..is behind these notorious crimes. The village is overcome by hysteria and Karl depends on his trusted medical genius, Dr. Otto von Niemann(Lionel Atwill, in yet another effective mad scientist role)to provide some feedback as to what might be causing the deaths of innocents. He also fears for the safety of his beloved Ruth(the lovely Fay Wray who stars for the third time with Atwill after "Doctor X" & "The Mystery of the Wax Museum")who is Niemann's assistant.
Dwight Frye steals the film as a rather loony village idiot who collects bats and carries a demented demeanor wherever he goes..it's easy to see why he becomes a suspect as local paranoia is at a fever pitch. Maude Eburne provides the film's humor as a very naive(..and easily influenced)patient of von Niemann's who believes she has ailments she reads about in books near the laboratory where he works. She's impressionable and often von Niemann just humors her and constant fictional illnesses she feels plagued with. Lionel Belmore returns as yet another frightened, superstitious Bürgermeister.
Creaky, static, but rather entertaining nonetheless thanks to the cast. The film is obviously as low-budget as they come, but this doesn't hurt the film too much since it's put together rather well by director Frank R Strayer and his crew. I'm certain the film's print has seen better days, though. This is the kind of B-horror item you'd find packaged in with 50 other random cheesefests and poverty row programmers. The film's villain..and his motives for feeding a synthetically made biological creature..certainly provides a different take on the Frankenstein formula. Many might be disappointed with the end results as the film strays away from being an actual supernatural tale about a real vampire killer causing the murders.
I have not seen the first film and if it anything like this have no great desire to.
Having just watched it a few hours ago I am struggling to remember a thing about it.
From what I remember it's main plot seems to be a group of very annoying people stay at a house with that dodgy old woman from Friday the 13th and are stalked by plank of wood man.
Some people die, the film ends, I am starting a law suit against the person who sold me this film as I want compensation for the missing time in my life.
I will pay u £1 to take this film off my hands......oh wait I already gave it away to a "friend".
...and even then, even they can live without seeing it. To be honest, this film (if one deigns to call it that) is of real interest only to bondage freaks. Bettie Page fans will learn absolutely nothing new (and I do mean *nothing*), nor will they enjoy the warm fuzzies of experiencing anything familiar, loved, or cherished.
Nevermind the abysmal screenplay, the wooden, less-than-community-theater acting, the utter absence of direction, the crappy lighting, or any of the rest of the bargain basement production values. This is definitely "Hey, kids, let's make a movie!" movie-making of the lowest order. I suppose one could be thankful that at least they knew how to run the camera. No, I'm sorry to say that none of that is germane to why this thing is so outright *wrong*.
It's wrong because the young lady playing Bettie Page, a somewhat zaftig girl whose only resemblance to the Queen of Curves is dark hair and the trademark bangs, utterly fails to bring anything to the role beyond a willingness to be bound and gagged. This is apparently a good thing for her film career before and since this wretched excess, but not for the wretched excess itself, which consists primarily of a number of lovingly re-enacted B&D set-pieces sandwiched between horrendously awful faux-biographical scenes delineating Ms. Page's fall from grace (so to speak). There's actually probably more information, per se, about Page's life in the opening and closing credits than the rest of the movie.
Do not be fooled. This is not a worthy companion film to "The Notorious Bettie Page." This is not a worthy film at all. This is a fetish piece that trades on the allure of one of the greatest pin-ups of all time, and does it without class, without style, and without any real sense of understanding the character of Bettie Page whatsoever. No true Bettie Page fan will find it to be anything but a disappointment, I guarantee that.
Avoid at all costs. If free, remember that time is money, too. Yours may not be worth much, but I'm betting it's worth enough that you'll be sorry you wasted time with this one. That's it, I'm done, you've been warned.
I just saw this movie the other day when I rented it, and I thought this was going to be just another movie with a girl trying to prove a point, but Diane joined boxing because she wanted to. I thought this movie was good. I gave it a 8/10. That's how good it is. Plus a movie with Michelle Rodriguez is always good. Even is she's been in only six.
This is a classic example of an increasing problem with films. Why is the background noise and the soundtrack dramatically louder than the dialogue? What sense does that make? This film isn't alone. Most films seem to do this now. For 2 years, I wondered if it was just something wrong with my TV, but then I got a new TV & there it is again. BACKGROUND noise that could be taking place a city block behind the actors drowns out the dialogue.
It was even more distracting in this film because, in the English version anyway, the woman mumbles constantly. I kept hoping Jean Reno would say "Excuse me, would you speak up or get the marbles out of your mouth." If you watch it on DVD & you have even high-school French, I recommend the French version with subtitles.
I give it 4 because Reno was so good in Leon. People rave about the scenery, but I saw it on a TV & I lived in the Rockies for a few years, so "Enh".
The film starts out very slowly, with the lifestyle of Wallace Napalm, an attendant at a photo-service drop-off station. His wife has been restricted to her home with an ankle bracelet as the result of a sentence for arson. Wallace is a member of the volunteer fire department, and takes firefighting seriously.
As we watch Wallace's rather dull life proceeding, suddenly there comes something new and jarring: a traveling carnival comes to town. One of its stars is Wilder Napalm, Wallace's brother. He's a clown, but he has a special talent.
So does Wallace. They're both pyrokineticists or "pyrotics," people capable of starting fires through mental energy. Wallace keeps his powers secret; Wilder lets his acquaintances know what he can do.
Spoiler: Some of their differences go back to a childhood incident where they inadvertently caused the death of a vagrant. Wallace holds back from using his powers; Wilder wants to go public on national TV.
Complicating the matter, Wilder wants Wallace's wife, whom they both dated years earlier. She becomes a bone of contention, and becomes one of the reason that the brothers finally have a literal firefight.
The film is entertaining, but not laugh-out-loud funny. I think enough of it to have a copy in my library. It's a good offbeat film.