Mouwiya/imdb_reviews_with_labels huggingface dataset:
Okay. Yes, this was a very-tight-budget movie with continuity errors (like single scenes obviously filmed in sunshine and then in shadow and then mixed together), and as much as I love Nick Mancuso he was often a little too good at the burnt-out part, and some of the minor supporting cast was really bad (plus at least one actor was used for two different but conspicuous roles). But come on. Richard Grieco was hysterical (his hair alone is worth the trip). Steven Ford was very likable. Mancuso had some great lines, while Nancy Allen, ironically, was completely bland and uninteresting. Classic? No. Bad parts? Yes. Entertaining? Big yes. I would have loved to have been on-set the day they decided what kind of hairstyle Grieco would have. "Are you fast?" ... "Y'ain't THAT fast."
The movie has only one flaw, unfortunately this flaw damages all credibility of the piece.
It starts with the condemnation of the Israeli occupation of disputed territories. It fails to address the reason Israelis are there. Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan attacked Israel. This is why Israel "occupys" their land, because those countries lost it in a war they started.
The film also claims that Israel has defied the U N by not complying with Resolution 242. Problem is, 242 was rejected immediately upon it's inception by.....the palestinians, making it void.
Many films are put together well, and can really show footage that changes minds, but remember, when watching anything, believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.
All participants in this film are known critics of Israel, and some have made many antisemitic public comments, removing any possible credibility to their words.
All participants are in dire need of a actual history lesson taught objectively, not by some palestinian sympathizer.
I usually check out the MTV movie awards to watch a witty, entertaining show that delivers a unique award show (Chewbacca winning a life-time achievement award as example). So this year was no different. While I'm not a fan of Justin Timberlake, Seann William Scott has always been funny-albiet stupid-to me. I've laughed at Stiffler in both American Pie movies, and even enjoyed him in Dude Where's My Car?. But the MTV movie awards were simply horrible. Nothing was coherrent, humorous, or entertaining. Justin Timberlake should stick to singing and dancing; he sure as hell can't act.
I'm curious as to who the writers were for this show. Last year's performance by Jack Black and Sarah Michelle Gellar was extremly funny (The Lord of the Rings parody alone was worth watching the entire show), but this year was completly different. Did anyone understand Timberlake's comments regarding Luke Wilson and Kate Hudson ("They're staring in a movie together, but have never met! Here they are...") Where was the joke? Kate and Luke just went into their lame dialogue, never making a reference to the "joke" by Timberlake. And Seann was completly wasted as a talent, not even causing me to smile, yet alone laugh. And what was the point of Harrison Ford's one-liners? Did they make ANY sense to anyone? Perhaps the MTV writers figured the young viewers would only know the aging Ford as Han Solo, Indiania Jones, or the President from Air Force One. I'm baffled. And would someone tell me the deal with Adrian Brody? How old is this guy and how old does he THINK he is? The guy looks 30, trying to act 19 again....give it up, show some class (like in your best actor academy award speech) and act your age!
I give this show 1 star out of 4, simply because of the speech by Gollam for Best Visual Performance. This was very creative, extremely well done, and caused the only genuine laugh of the entire evening.
A most recommendable masterpiece, not only for the underlying themes of the story but also for the unmatchably brilliant and ingenious picture work of Angelopoulos, not to mention the acting of giants, Mastroianni and Moreau, and the remarkable character play by Ilias Logothethis. Gregory Karr's performance may seem overshadowed by his "tough" partners' at first stance but in fact he perfectly plays his character, which is revealed in his very last scene with the girl (Khrysikou) and the man (Mastroianni), albeit hinted beforehand. (Hence the spoiler.)
Get your expectations straight! It's an "art movie" in whatever meaning that phrase has to offer and requires attention. Not for spending free time, but for watching an artwork with the necessary concentration as in reading a book or attending a concert. Due to the overall photographic style, large screen viewing is recommended.
Dialogues are used sparingly. But the film includes -in addition to the standard Greek and English speaking- fragments spoken in Albanian, Kurdish and Turkish, which will be attractive for those who are charmed by the beauty in hearing various languages.
Wow, I can't believe i'm the first and only one to post a comment on this great movie.
Although the movie itself seemed interesting enough the real thing that attracted me to this one is Matt lillard, granted most people probably either think he's too caffeine happy or just plain sucks but we're both the same age and from the same generation and i've watched this guy so many times that he's one of my favorites now. This is one of the few movies where he is the big shot and main star kind of like in SLC Punk, another great Lillard film.
Baiscally this is storywise your usual heist movies but with more twists than anything, which start to amount to craziness. Also very notable in this movie is another great actor named vincent D'onofrio, a very under appreciated person in the film industry. The woman in the movie is a newcomer and she isn't too bad although you know they hired her mainly for her accent and the nude scene =)
It's a game of jack vs jill vs bob as each want to reap the rewards but share with no one. They all try to get eachother to kill off the other and it's a timebomb waiting to explode. Matt shows his true prowess as the scheming JAck who initially starts the whole scheme. Vincent and woman play a couple of art thieves who are in need of money due to a lack of business. Vince's character is a bit deranged and skitz's throughout the movie but that only add to the intensity of the film.
The surprises left and right are well welcomed and the ending is very non cliche and makes you feel happy, well maybe that depends on the type of endings you like. This movie kept me very interested besides the fact Matt was in it, it's a great movie and i'd highly recommend it to anyone who likes movies. Critic's probably won't like this movie, but they don't watch movies cause they like movies anyway.
Being that this movie has a lot of fine entertainment qualities I think it should some more credit than it has been given on imdb.
It's your basic 'who done it?' thriller with sex and murder but it keeps you guessing right to the end. I like these kinds of movies and I certainly think this one meets the standard.
To me it was worth watching more than once so I'll give it an 8 on imdb.
Mat Spirogolou's (Toby Malone) family know he is a talented footballer, and are pleased when he secures an audition to join a big club. They hope that when he arrives in the city his cousin will look after him.
But the cousins are like chalk and cheese: one a naive farm boy, the other a streetwise spendthrift who has managed to get mixed up with drug dealers and gangsters. Mat is unlikely to have a quiet evening in before his big day.
Having missed his cousin George (Damien Robertson) on arrival in the city, Mat encounters further trouble when a young biker takes him for a ride in more ways than one.
Toby Malone, probably better known for his work in theatre, puts in a commendable performance as the bucolic teenager. There are telltale signs of a low budget, but as with so many other low-budget movies there's more fun, seemingly more spontaneity, and more charm, than there is to be seen in the average Hollywood blockbuster.
I waited a while to post a review of this documentary because when I first saw it over 10 years ago, I wanted to think carefully about what I wanted to write.
I found from a documentary standpoint that this is a darned good documentary. It did what it set out to do, show me something I had no idea about and kept me interested in this world it explored. I knew nothing of the Drag world and finding out about them and the "Balls" was just spectacular to me. These folks were just so talented with what they do and how they do it, for competition. The catty folks, the complainers (even I was angry when someone told the judge that the coat the Drag Queen was wearing wasn't a man's coat!), the jealous, it's all there like in every other competition. LIKE EVERY OTHER COMPETITION like it. Which I felt was a point.
You had the older drag queen talking about how the Balls "used" to be compared to the newer drag queens who have changed the Balls and made more competition categories -- and even those who looked on knowing that the future of Balls would change even more when they were ready to walk the runway. It was interesting to hear that some of the contestants were living out on the street two minutes before the ball but came to compete, it was that important to them! Then there was sad stories, stories of who's "house" and "house mother" brought out the best and the brightest in competition. It was interesting.
Now to add after 10 years of seeing this film, I lived through the so called 'Madonna' craze. I spotted a few familiar faces from this documentary who ended up with Madonna during her "Vogue" phase and rightfully so. If not for those individuals, Madonna wouldn't have HAD a "Vogue" phase, I know that now. Credit should be given where credit is DUE. Makes me wonder, if anyone else from mainstream America would watch this documentary, they'll learn they're not as "mainstream" as they think.
Years ago a movie going friend and I went to see a horror film that we thought would be good because it starred John Cassavetes. For the uninitiated, John Cassavettes was an actor, screen writer and director (married to actress Gena Rowlands), nominated for Oscars three times, who wrote and directed a variety of good low-budget films using his income as an actor to keep himself afloat. Up until seeing The Incubus, we did not understand that John Cassavetes income was made from any movie that was offered to him. Had we known what the film was about before seeing it we may have avoided altogether. But we did not walk out. At the time, my friend and I jokingly indicated it was the worst movie ever made. Now frankly, this is not true. I have seen many poorly made films on Friday nights on Cinemax (did I just say that out loud?) that are far worse than The Incubus. Almost any movie starring Brian Bosworth is by definition a worse movie than The Incubus. Certainly Santa Claus Conquers the Martians is a worse movie than The Incubus. However, I have since consistently used The Incubus as a threshold below which I do not want to fall. When talking to this friend about a movie I may have seen I will always remark that it was better (or worse) than The Incubus.
http://thevillagevideot.blogspot.com/
No artful writeup here because it doesn't deserve one. Not an art film. Not even one of those 'hidden' gems. You know, like those movies you hear about through a friend who saw this amazing movie downtown where they show all the good independents and art films.
Just pack it into the christmas boxes, and dispose of quickly.
There be very little doubt that HG Wells is the most influential writer of the 20th century . Jules Verne has some claim to be the father of science fiction but his stories were more adventure stories using marvellous inventions as plot devices . Wells was profound and brought subtext to his tales . Perhaps his greatest legacy is that there's very little if any evidence that people believed in life on other planets before the 20th century where as now many people including Richard Dawkins consider it a near certainty . There's no evidence of this of course and one can't help wondering that is was Wells who introduced this to human thinking ? Undoubtedly it was Wells that planted the seed .
THINGS TO COME was adapted by Wells himself from his own novel . It is rather obvious however that he is unable to tell the difference between the technicalities of writing novels and writing screenplays . The dialouge is often laden , heavy handed and unconvincing . One case in point is the two pilots from opposing sides discussing the nature of war " Why must we murder one another . Why ? " This mirrors the criticism , near naked contempt that Orwell had of Wells in his essay Wells , Hitler And The World State and it is true that Wells anti-war message is painfully overstated . It'd be impossible to believe a conversation taking place between an RAF pilot and his opposite number in the Luftwaffe a few years later
That said it is absolutely fascinating watching a film from 1935 predicting a world wide war taking place in 1940 that heralds the end of civilisation . There's a striking and haunting imagery as a child bangs a drum as a phantom army marches in the background and the collapse of society and the fear of The Wanderng Sickness is wonderfully realised . Even the rather lazy storytelling of showing the year of the setting has a compelling nature It's the images that makes this film along with Arthur Bliss score that makes the film so memorable . And to be fair Wells does ask the question " The universe or nothing . What shall it be ? " . In short this is a film whose flaws are easy to forgive
I don't remember seeing another murder/mystery movie as bad as this. This movie, about a medical examiner who investigates his friend's mysterious death in a car accident, has the complete receipt for a bad movie: bad acting, boring story, lack of suspense, poor humor and no drama. I remembered seeing this movie on PAX, a TV station notable for dishing out low-budgeted and campy made-for-TV movies such as this one. TV movies, of course, do not have the edge factor or the suspense as movies from the Big Screen. But, this movie sure hit all sour tastes. The makers of this movie have missed out on an opportunity to making "Receipe for Murder" a great TV movie; the title does offer some suspense.
So, if you want a good recipe, don't watch this movie. This movie alone can kill your TV appetite.
Grade F
I thought King Solomon's Mines was beautifully done. My only reservation was Alison Doody. Her acting was superb but her makeup and hair was not of the period, and always seemed to make her look out of place next to the other actors. I thought Patrick Swayze was an excellent choice for Alan Quatermain. It was nice seeing a seasoned, rugged looking actor in this role after sitting through movie after movie with the fair haired, fair skinned actors like Val Kilmer, Brad Pitt, etc. He was an excellent choice and I enjoyed every minute of this movie. This version cannot be compared with the 1950's version with Stewart Grainger. It was a big screen movie and not a made for TV movie. I thought both Quatermains were believable but the two medias have to be kept separated. I am looking forward to seeing this once more, and I hope Patrick Swayze will again look to these type of roles.
This is an art film that was either made in 1969 or 1972 (the National Film Preservation Foundation says 1969 and IMDb says 1972). Regardless of the exact date, the film definitely appears to be very indicative of this general time period--with some camera-work and pop art stylings that are pure late 60s-early 70s.
The film consists of three simple images that are distorted using different weird camera tricks. These distorted images are accompanied by music and there is absolutely no dialog or plot of any sort. This was obviously intended as almost like a form of performance art, and like most performance art, it's interesting at first but quickly becomes tiresome. The film, to put it even more bluntly, is a total bore and would appeal to no one but perhaps those who made the film, their family and friends and perhaps a few people just too hip and "with it" to be understood by us mortals.
Although there were some amusing moments, I thought the movie was pretty lame. The longer it ran, the worse it got. Once the action entered Monument Valley, I found myself watching the magnificent outcroppings more than the increasingly silly and unconvincing interaction of the characters.
The character of the daughter was particularly incoherent. First she's in on the deal, then discovers the truth and she bails. Then she's back again, then deserts them again. Then she's back again. There's no apparent motivation for any of her decisions. There were interesting characters, some interesting scenes, and many missed possibilities. I would have to say the pictures was much less than the sum of its parts. Apparently the people who liked Repo Man were inclined to like this one. Searchers 2.0 is no match for The Searchers.
Any movie in which Brooke Shields out-acts a Fonda is going to be both an anomaly and a horror. Shields actually is only bad because she's youthful, inexperienced, and clearly not well directed by her co-star. Peter Fonda is bad because, well, because he's bad. I liked him in Ulee's Gold, years later, but Lord above, he's awful here. Not that anyone else is good. There's not a single performance (outside Henry Fonda's delightful cameo) that is even passable. I've never seen a movie with this many bad performances. In the case of Luke Askew, the chief villain, it's clear this is because of poor dialogue and direction, as he's done good work in the past. But his partner, played by Ted Markland, is an embarrassing ham. The writing is just bloody awful, and the actors cannot be faulted for the terrible things they have to say. But they say them so badly! The editing and direction are worse than pedestrian. Shots are held way too long for no dramatic reason, or cut off before the impact of the scene can be realized. This picture was far worse than I'd imagined and would have been utterly forgotten (and probably never even made) without the participation of a couple of famous names. One bright spot: the cinematography in the Grand Canyon is exquisite, capturing the beauty of that area in a way even big-screen Imax productions have not quite done so well. And finally: either this is a bad version of Paper Moon, with a lovable pair of father-daughter types, or it's a bad version of Pretty Baby, with a considerably more icky romantic relationship between a forty-something and a 13-year-old. It suggests more of the latter than the former, and thus is pretty disturbing.
Letters with no destination end up in another world found in the back rooms of the post office. Here, Alice manages to land a job in hope of finding her lost father. What she does discover is the tormented soul of her boss, Frank. A quiet little Aussie flic that came and went at the cinema. Now you find it in the deep dark corner of the video shop, overshadowed by fifty copies of that dreaded GODZILLA film. It's a shame because this turned out to be a satisfying film telling a brave tale with strong simple images and effective performances from the two leads. This film succeeds where Garry Marshall's other dead letter office flic DEAR GOD (1996 - USA) failed, and comes close to the brilliance of, not the Kevin Costner turkey, but He Jianjun's POSTMAN (1995 - China).
Errol Flynn is "Gentleman Jim" in this 1942 film about boxer Jim Corbett, known as the man who beat John L. Sullivan. Directed with a light hand by Flynn's good friend, Raoul Walsh, the film also stars Alexis Smith, Jack Carson, Alan Hale Sr., William Frawley and Ward Bond. Flynn plays an ambitious, egotistical young man who has a natural talent for boxing and is sponsored by the exclusive Olympic Club in San Francisco in the late 1800s. Though good-natured, the fact that he is a "shanty Irishman" and a social climber builds resentment in Olympic Club members; most of them can't wait to see him lose a fight, and they bet against him. Despite this, he rises to fame, even working as an actor. Finally he gets the chance he's been waiting for, a match with the world champion, John L. Sullivan (Ward Bond). Sullivan demands a $10,000 deposit to insure that Corbett will appear to fight for the $25,000 purse. Corbett and his manager (Frawley) despair of getting the money. However, help comes in the form of a very unlikely individual.
This is a very entertaining film, and Jim Corbett is an excellent role for Flynn, who himself was a professional fighter at one time. He has the requisite charm, good looks and athleticism for the role. Alexis Smith plays Victoria Ware, his romantic interest who insists that she hates him. In real life, she doesn't seem to have existed; Corbett was married to Olive Lake Morris from 1886 to 1895.
The focus of the film is on Corbett and his career rather than the history of boxing. Corbett used scientific techniques and innovation and is thought of as the man who made prizefighting an art form. In the film, Corbett is fleet of foot and avoids being hit by his opponents; it is believed that he wore down John L. Sullivan this way.
Good film to catch Flynn at the height of his too-short time as a superstar.
because that is the only way you won't think this film is a TOTAL waste of time and money. A remake of "Heaven Can Wait", (which was at least worth watching) is a poor excuse for a romantic comedy. It is more a vehicle to give Rock some time on film for weak stand up comedy which doesn't play well on the big screen. Especially because his jokes generally are supposed to be from the body of an old, fat, rich, dead man but are shown coming from Rock himself. As he insults Blacks and Whites the chemistry is all wrong. The movie is not funny, poorly shot the acting is weak at best. Go rent "Heaven Can Wait" and a live Rock video and you'll be way ahead of the game.
I've read some of the comments about this film and can only surmise that some people are easily entertained. This movie is nothing. It's so badly written, directed and acted that it barely makes an impression. The characters speak in cliche-ridden dialogue and the situations are completely implausible. While that might make this campy and fun, it doesn't because everything is so lifeless the film becomes dull. It's as if Lee Rose decided to write a drama about a woman struggling with her sexuality but then she either wasn't allowed by studio execs to give the story some true-to-life gusto or didn't have the cojones. This movie could go in the enyclopedia as the standard-issue bad Lifetime TV movie.
Complete drivel. An unfortunate manifestation of the hypocritical, toxic culture of a decade ago. In this movie, pedestrian regrets for slavery go hand in hand with colonialist subtexts (the annoying redhead feeding Shaka rice?). Forget historical reality too. Didn't most western slaves comes from West Africa? An American slaver easily capturing Shaka with a handful of men?. Finally, David Hasslehoff could not have been any more obnoxious. One can only ponder, how would he have fared in the miniseries? (Promptly impaled most likely). The miniseries was superb, and it is unfortunate that DH should have gotten his hands on something unique, and made it mundane. (I tend to think that he had hand in creating this fiasco).