Mouwiya/imdb_reviews_with_labels huggingface dataset:
Deliverance is a stunning thriller, every bit as exciting as any good thriller should aspire to be but also stomach-churningly frightening. Though it is not a horror movie, it is just as terrifying as any classic horror film. The very thought of being a normal red-blooded male enjoying an adventure weekend miles from any form of civilisation, only to be captured and sodomised by a couple of violent hillbillies, is surely the worst nightmare of 99.9% of the world's population. It would have been easy for Deliverance to slip into exploitation territory, but John Boorman has cleverly avoided the temptation to go down such a route and has made a film that explores, questions and challenges the very meaning of masculinity. With so many films, you come away wishing to heaven that you could step into the hero's shoes, performing heroic deeds and saving the day and getting the girl.... but with Deliverance, you come away praying to God that you'll never have to experience what these four protagonists go through.
Four city guys - Ed (Jon Voight), Lewis (Burt Reynolds), Drew (Ronny Cox) and Bobby (Ned Beatty) - head out into the wilderness to spend a few days canoing down a soon-to-be-dammed river. The guys are riding the rapids in pairs, and Ed and Bobby inadvertently get a little too far ahead of the others so they pull in to the riverside and await their pals in the adjacent woodland. Here, they fall foul of two local woodlanders (Bill McKinney and Herbert Coward), who tie Ed to a tree, while one of them strips and rapes Bobby instructing him, perversely, to "squeal like a pig". Lewis and Drew arrive unseen and Lewis, being a fair archer, kills the rapist while the other hillbilly beats a hasty retreat into the forest. Under great emotional stress, the four canoeists decide to conceal the event and get out of the area. But they find the river increasingly dangerous to negotiate as they journey downstream, and the risk to their lives heightens when the surviving hillbilly returns to take shots at them with his rifle from some unseen vantage point in the rocky cliffs beside the river.
Deliverance is very powerful as a survival tale, but even more powerful (and disturbing) as a study of macho attitudes being torn apart and left in humiliated tatters. Though all the performances are remarkable, one must take particular note of Beatty's efforts in a role that many actors would've turned down. The film is very similar thematically to the 1971 film Straw Dogs - both films deal with terrifying sexual violence in isolated locales, and in both the eventual violent revenge exacted by the victim does not result in any sense of satisfaction. The backdrop of the rugged countryside in Deliverance is beautiful to look at, but it also adds to the tension by placing the four canoeists in a setting where they are at the mercy of the hillbillies and the landscape, with nobody to rely on other than themselves. This truly is suspenseful film-making at its finest.
That reviewers liked this movie surprises me. The plot is a muddle. The characters are wooden. Michael Bowen spends most of the film spying on the other characters and misjudging all of them. No one has any redeeming quality or point-of-interest. This is not an edgy work. It is not imaginative. It is not ironic. It is no clever. There is nothing straight forward about this tedious work. That is missed theatrical release is not surprise. That the "This Network" airs it diminishes that venue. I definitely recommend turning to a rerun of the Garden Smart show on PBS or even a good informational if you encountered this mess on late night television. If you encounter it on daytime television, take a long walk. Even if you walk in smog, you will feel better not having suffered through this shambles. Life is short. This movie is long.
I really liked this movie...it was cute. I enjoyed it, but if you didn't, that is your fault. Emma Roberts played a good Nancy Drew, even though she isn't quite like the books. The old fashion outfits are weird when you see them in modern times, but she looks good on them. To me, the rich girls didn't have outfits that made them look rich. I mean, it looks like they got all the clothes -blindfolded- at a garage sale and just decided to put it on all together. All of the outfits were tacky, especially when they wore the penny loafers with their regular outfits. I do not want to make the movie look bad, because it definitely wasn't! Just go to the theater and watch it!!! You will enjoy it!
"People I Know" is a clunker with no one to root for and no one to care about -- despite the game efforts of a talented cast.
Pacino delivers his usual tour de force as Eli Wurman, a past-his-prime publicity agent hollowed out by a lifetime of moral corruption. But unlike Michael Corleone, it's impossible to have an emotional investment in this character, his dilemma, or his fate.
The film traces Eli's preparations for a benefit for a liberal political cause, while distracted by a client's (Ryan O'Neal, good in an underwritten part) latest "dirty laundry" -- in this case, a TV actress companion who's gotten involved with the wrong people. Tea Leoni brings her customary star power to this supporting role, although again, the script doesn't give her much to work with. As Eli's sister-in-law, Kim Basinger manages to evoke sympathy despite implausible plot mechanics.
This movie is strictly for those who like watching Pacino strut his stuff, and enjoy the other principals. Unfortunately, between the script and direction, "People I Know" is strictly amateurish. Hence its limited theatrical release, and speedy journey to DVD. Consider yourself warned.
I can see why this film was Oscar-nominated for Best Live Action Short, as it was constructed masterfully. Even if you don't particularly like the Blues (though to me, this sounded much more like jazz), you can easily appreciate this film. It is simply very well made, though for the life of me, I can't see why director Gjon Mili only got to direct one film--this one. In other words, the film is nominated and yet the director didn't get any sort of career boost. As for the black performers, I could understand this not causing their careers to shift into high gear, as unfortunately most of white society have indifference (or worse) for blacks or "that kind of music".
If you do watch this film, if you aren't particularly enjoying the earlier portion, skip ahead to about the 5:50 mark--where it picks up considerably. When the lady stopped singing and the performers began to improvise, the pace improved quite a bit.
This is a film of immense appeal to a relatively well-defined group (of which I am not a part). I went to a preview of this movie not knowing what to expect - I ultimately found it disappointing. The history of a dreadfully dysfunctional (oftentimes downright "twisted") Hungarian Jewish family is not my cup of tea. An epic saga like this should really provide its viewers with something more in the end. Ultimately, pictures such as this are about the human condition - this picture cast almost no new light on any of its more meaningful facets.
I have zero interest rap and in ghetto culture, i'm white and like classic rock, however, that did not stop me from appreciating this fantastic comedy. Its pretty much a sequel of This Is Spinal Tap in the sense that it is the same movie, just about rap instead or rock. Yet it's hilarious. There are many funny jokes but not without a few jokes that just fall flat. The characters are all very funny and believable. I watched just because it made me laugh at 3 a.m., and any movie that can do that warrants at least a test screening. One of the reasons why this movies was so funny was that it makes fun of rap from a different. Rap today is concerned with the wrong things and get by with studio noise and little talent. This movie comes from a time where rappers deserved more credit. Overall, it's a funny movie with many jokes about racism, sex and music culture among the more obvious themes of humor. This is highly recommend for any fan of This is Spinal Tap. They are essentially the same movie, just about different worlds, and yes, the same jokes work in both movies.
I'm not entirely sure Rob Schmidt qualifies as a "Master" in the genre of horror, since he previously just directed one horror film called "Wrong Turn" and that one was actually just was slightly above mediocre, but fact is that he made with "Right to Die" one of the best and creepiest episodes of the entire second season of the "Masters of Horror" franchise. There was a similar underdog story in season one, when William Malone made on of the best episodes with "The Fair Haired Child" even though his other long feature films "Fear Dot Com" and "House on Haunted Hill" sucked pretty badly.
The story of "Right to Die" cleverly picks in on the nowadays piping hot social debate of euthanasia, but thankfully also features multiple old-fashioned horror themes like ghostly vengeance, murderous conspiracies, pitch black humor and comic book styled violence. Whilst driving home late one night and discussing the husband's continuous adultery, the Addison couple are involved in a terrible car accident. Cliff walks away from the wreck unharmed but his wife Abby is fully burned and needs to be kept alive artificially. Whilst Cliff and his sleazy attorney (Corbin Bernsen of "The Dentist") want to plug the plug on her and sue the car constructor, Abbey's mum sets up a giant media campaign to keep her daughter alive as a vegetable and blame everything on Cliff. Meanwhile Abbey's hateful spirit comes back for revenge and kills someone in Cliff's surrounding whenever she has a near fatal experience with the medical devices. After a few victims, Cliff realizes it might be safer for him to keep his wife alive if he wants to remain alive as well. "Right to Die" is a stupendous episode and exactly the type of stuff I always hoped to see from a TV-series concept like "Masters of Horror". It's violent and gory with a sick & twisted sense of humor and loads of sleaze sequences. The euthanasia theme and the whole obligatory media circus that surrounds it is processed into the script very well, yet without unnecessarily reverting to political standpoints or morality lessons. The atmosphere is suspenseful and the killing sequences are suitably nasty and unsettling. Actresses Julia Anderson and Robin Sydney both have pretty face and impressively voluptuous racks, which is always a welcome plus, and Corbin Bernsen is finally offered the chance again to depict a mean-spirited and egocentric bastard. Great "MoH" episode; definitely one of the highlights of both seasons.
I will admit that I did not give this movie much of a chance. I decided pretty early on that this just wasn't my kind of movie.
For the most part, it has an excellent look in terms of its cinematography. The scenes of early 70's Manhattan look very good, as does the lead actress. It is a very crisp black and white, which could almost make the movie feel undated and fresh. However, some of the other techniques the filmmakers employ shoot that prospect all to hell. The disjointed editing is VERY late-60's, somewhere between surrealism and new wave. The story also feels like it came from a very specific time, somewhere between free love idealism and artsy experimentation.
The film follows a young girl around the city as she looks for a man who she had anonymous phone sex with. As she meets other odd characters, she reveals her quirks and they reveal theirs. The movie seems to be meant as an off-the-wall, irreverent comedy, but adds an avant-garde feel. I would expect that if you like Andy Warhol movies, you would be very excited to discover The Telephone Book.
Some problems I had: Near the end of the movie, one character tells a rambling anecdote that lasts over twelve minutes-brutal to sit through. Also, there is a very explicit animation sequence that I found gross and juvenile that serves as the film's climax. I did laugh out loud four or five times, and I liked the ending (minus the flat-out disgusting animation). And when the film switched to color for the final phone-booth-at-night sequence, I actually liked the way it looked even better. It ended up being one of those experiences where I felt like I could have really liked it if it been a little different. But this is what the filmmakers gave us. It is obscure, artsy, and way left of the dial, but none of those are reasons to recommend it on their own. I didn't find it to be unique or creative so much as forced and pretentious.
Some people loved "The Aristocrats" and others hated it, frequently walking out in the middle. Reactions to Eddie Izzard aren't likely to be that extreme -- if you can handle a transvestite comedian (who says he likes girls) and has a vocabulary that makes, shall we say, enough use of the "f" word that his program would be one long beep if presented on network television. Many of Izzard's fans are so devoted that they see no flaws whatsoever in his performances. On the other hand, I thought this show was occasionally flatter than Izzard's chest but also more often than not funny and, in spots, absolutely hilarious. He has a way of connecting references from routines early in the show to his later routines. He's not a story teller. He's not a joke maker. He's not a frenetic fantasist like Robin Williams. He plays around with ideas, some of which work and some of which -- a routine with the San Francisco cable car and Alcatraz, for instance -- are completely unfunny. He has a way, however, of moving gracefully past the flopped routines and extending the ones that connect. I gave this performance a 7 and might be persuaded to raise it to an 8. But a 10? No way.
11 Oscar nominations and zero win!!! Am yet to understand why - its not like the actors in the movie did any better thereafter that you can make it by giving them awards for trivial roles like it was done with Halle Berry and Denzel Washington - Whoopi, Oprah, Margaret Avery, Danny Glover etc- were all amazing - i am curious to get scripts of the discussions at the Oscars that year...... it should go into the Shoulda-woulda-coulda category for the judges....
Its an amazing book - but true to Alice Walker's style of writing she has a way of seeming like she is exaggerating her characters - so I am so glad that they screen adaptation took a few things out.
The cinematography was amazing - the African scenes live much to be desired - the African part in the book is supposed to be set in Liberia - somewhere in West Africa - BUT oh no! Steven Spielberg thinks the world is so dumb that they cant think of Africa outside of the Safaris - so yes there had to be a complimentary Zebra and wildlife scene when we all know there are none West Africa ---- and most of all why get the people to speak Swahili --- who in West Africa speaks Swahili?? I just had to get that out of the way.......
But as a story - amazing, film-making - out of this world - CLASSIC yes!!
I own it and I watch it when my soul needs some rejuvenation.
I have read the book a couple of times and this movie doesn't follow exactly as it should. I could let this slide, it is after all a movie. However I have serious issues with the setting of the movie. Nobody has seemed to mention that this movie and the book it is based on are based in actual events that happened in Nebraska. I live in Nebraska. I grew up in the town that this movie is supposed to be based on. First of all, the "small" town that is talked about as the setting, is the third largest city in the state. With a population of around 50,000. Grand Island is the largest city between Lincoln and Denver. Second the scenery for the movie is wrong. Grand Island is in the Platte river valley. Which is very flat with very few trees. I tried watching this movie, but it made me mad to see my hometown being treated so bad. This was a real event. Large sections of the city were wiped out. In the book they talk about riding bikes from Mormon Island to Fonner Park. I guess you could if you don't mind a 15 mile ride each way. For anyone who wants to know what really happened go here http://www.theindependent.com/twisters/
This is one powerful film. The first time I saw it, the Scottish accents made it tough for me to understand a lot and that ruined the viewing experience. I gave up on it but then acquired the DVD, used the English subtitles when I needed them, and really got into this movie, discovering just how good it is. It is excellent.
The widescreen picture makes it spectacular in parts, with some wonderful rugged scenery and the story reminded me of Braveheart, an involving tale of good versus evil. Here, it's Liam Neeson (good) vs. Tim Roth (evil). Both do their jobs well.
Few actors come across as despicable as Roth. Man, you really want to smack this guy in his arrogant, irritating puss. (He is so nasty and vile the sick critics love his character more than anyone else's here). Neeson is a man's man and a solid hero figure as Gibson was in Braveheart. Jessica Lange is strong in here as the female lead. The movie draws you in and gets you totally involved, so prepared to have an emotional experience viewing this.
Why is it that any film about Cleopatra, the last phaoroh brings out the worst in movie making? Whatever attraction the woman had for the greatest Roman of them all, Julius Ceasar, and his successor, Mark Anthony, never seems to come across on the screen as other than the antics of over sexed high school seniors. Despite lavish sets and costumes, this movie is as bad as any Italian "sandals and toga" extravaganza of the 50's. Admittedly, this kind of spectacular belongs on the big screen, which is why "Gladiator" went over well, but "Gladiator" did not have all the romance novel sex.
Miss Varela has as little acting talent as Elizabeth Taylor, but Timothy Dalton has talent to spare. Pity some of it didn't wash off on the others.
Whenever people ask me to name the scariest movie I've ever seen, I invariably reply "Black Noon" and to this day nobody's ever heard of it.
I watched it alone some 30 years ago at the tender age of 13 when my parents had gone out for the evening. As far as I know its only ever been shown once in the UK and sadly is unavailable on DVD or VHS.
If anyone can trace a copy please let me know.
If I watched it again now it would probably be a big disappointment but it has always stuck in my memory as a particularly disturbing little film!
I was really looking forward to this movie based on the previews and press it received, but after viewing it I was terribly disappointed. Slums is a totally unfunny film mixed with a Todd Solondz type of disturbing family reality sans Todd's brand of humor. The story drags along and each scene is worse than the last. Maybe I missed the point, but if this film is an example of every girl's growing up experience I am glad to be a man.
When thinking about Captivity many words come to mind. Among them are: uninteresting, unentertaining, unsuspensful, unsexy, unfathomable, and unwatchable.
I used to hate those movies from the mid to late nineties that were basically ripoffs of Scream but these new Saw knockoffs are beginning to make those films look like classics. They still pander to the same demographic that those other movies were so successful at doing, but now they add a new level of degeneracy that make the twelve to fourteen year old girls they're aimed at feel like they're hardcore AND hip.
This movie is a load of boring crap! What the hell has happened to Larry Cohen? His name hasn't been attached to anything good since 1993! Even so, I was still surprised to see that he had anything to do with something THIS bad! Was anyone surprised when the movie's love interest turned out to be one of the psychopaths? Did anyone not know it when they first saw him? Only someone who has never before in his or her life, ever seen another movie!
This is one of the shallowest episodes in that the plot really seemed like an excuse to just have fun. BUT, I appreciated this light-hearted approach and this is truly one of the best episodes to see on a purely fun level. Think about it--the crew members have encounters with the white rabbit and Alice from Wonderland, a Bengal tiger, a samurai warrior, a knight on horseback who kills McCoy, and a host of other seemingly bizarre events that just don't make any sense at all until the very end. Despite all the danger, you just can't take everything very seriously--it's just too fun and the whole episode seems very surreal. So, on a purely non-aesthetic level, it's great stuff.
normally i'm not the sort to be scared by horror movies, but this movie is the exception. some how this movie got into my mind!!! it is a very simple movie but at the same time extremelly effective, it has great atmosphere and this leads to some shocking moments, the girls father coming down the hill is a real standout. Another seen was the family photo i wasn't expecting that and i jumped out my seat!!! i would recommend everyone to see this movie, with the lights out it will stay with you for a long time!!!!!
The premise may seem goofy, but since Murphy's character doesn't take it seriously, it helps ease the audience into this mix of mysticism and modern-day hard-boiled child abduction. Excellent cast, particularly Charles Dance and Charlotte Lewis, and Murphy is at the height of his 80's peak in comedy/action. There's also some great F/X, a very surreal dream sequence, and a fairly original plot. Often overlooked in the pantheon of Murphy flicks, but this one is worth a look.
WARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.
Although I haven't seen them all,The Hamiltons sure did deliver one lowsy piece of entertainment,which it did not entertain me at all!!!!I thought that in common with the semi-bad acting,stupid plot scheme,and the twist at the end of the movie,which was very retarded,this movie sucked!!!Okay,so supposively these are people who eat other people.Yeah......notice I said people not humans,not because they aren't human,or wait I think they are,OH NO WAIT,THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU!!!!!So okay,are these people cannibals,or are they imbreds,or what are THEY!!!!I mean,maybe they're just "THINGS" that came here to see what people taste like or,are they cannibals who have eaten people for a long time now,or maybe this movie was HHOORRIIBBLLEE!!WHICH IT WAS!!!So if you think The Hamiltons is good,I ask of you,why,why,WHY,WHY,why was it so awesome,because to me it was just flat out terrible!!!One big BOOOOOOO for The Hamiltons!!!Go see The Gravedancers,Tooth & Nail,or Borderland for a piece of entertainment!!!!!
"Return of the Jedi" is often remembered for what it did wrong rather than what it did right, and that is a shame, because the last chronological installment in the Star Wars saga is a shining example of epic storytelling. It manages to wrap up all story lines of the previous movies in one grand finale, and does so very convincingly.
Yes, there are Ewoks - cute and cuddly bears that arguably served to broaden the Star Wars demographic - and in the middle the movie tends to slow down a bit. But the final hour is arguably the best piece of the entire saga, where Luke finally comes face to face with Darth Vader, the most recognizable villain in movie history.
Return of the Jedi did so many things right that people tend to overlook: it presented an incredible conclusion to the Darth Vader storyline (which went from slightly implausible in the "Empire Strikes Back" to very convincing here), an exciting opening at Jabba's Palace, a masterful performance of Ian McDiarmid as the Emperor, Luke finally coming into his own, the resolution of Solo and Leia's romance, and the extremely powerful final moments on the Endor moon.
Yes, there are slight annoyances. But they are the annoyances of a generation of moviegoers who've had time to nitpick every single scene. It's still a magical and moving piece of cinema that also serves as a great final chapter. It's not a 'good' movie - it's fantastic!