Mouwiya/imdb_reviews_with_labels huggingface dataset:
WINCHESTER 73 is the story of a man (Jimmy Stewart) obsessed with getting back his prized possession, a repeating rifle made by Winchester. The rifle keeps changing hands, and Stewart doggedly keeps after it. This 1950 B&W effort by Anthony Mann is more a crime film than a traditional western, and the cowboys often seem more like modern-day gangsters than old-fashioned cowboys. Shelley Winters plays a woman of questionable virtue who is headed for a ranch with a man (Charles Drake) she may marry. She ends up falling for Stewart, but not before she is passed around a bit. Winters is the most complex character in a film filled with unusual characters. Watch for a young Dan Dureyea as a nutty killer and Tony Curtis in a very small role. A woefully miscast Will Geer plays Wyatt Earp.
I'll keep this one quite short. I believe that this is an extraordinary movie. I see other reviewers who have commented to the effect that it's badly written, poorly shot, has a terrible soundtrack and, worse, that it's not real in its portrayal of life. OK, so it may not be quite believable for its whole length, but this movie carries a message of hope which some others seemed to have missed. Hope that it isn't too late to save people from the terrible things that go on in so many lives. Gangland violence is real, right? Is it right, no! This movie carries an important social message which the cynics may dislike but which nonetheless is to be praised, rather than denigrated. I have watched this movie with great enjoyment at least eight times, each time with equal enjoyment and each time with the feeling that maybe the world could be made better and is not beyond saving (well not until 2008 anyway). 9 out of 10 from me for this one. It's very nearly perfect in my view. JMV
Did the movie-makers even preview this before they released it? The script jumps from place to place without giving much explanation. The beginning doesn't clarify if its a prequel or not. It starts with Superman's beginnings on Earth and then jumps to a point after the last movie - but doesn't really alert the viewer of this. VERY confusing! Superman himself is weak and in need of Prozac. He is portrayed as a potential home-wrecker, a stalker, and someone who is clearly depressed and confused. This type of character rarely makes for an interesting hero. The ending is absolutely ridiculous. Superman ending up in a hospital just made me want to kill him off myself. I'm seriously waiting for a SNL skit where Superman appears on Maury Povich and Maury says, "The results are in - in the case of the child, Superman, you ARE the father." To sum up - OK acting by this Superman and Kevin Spacey, but HORRIBLE script. The movie is basically unwatchable.
This is a quirky little movie, and I have to agree that there is some quirky acting in it as well.
It follows the adventures of a young man who decides that he wants to become a famous Las Vegas illusionist, and is partly about following his dream, partly about the dreams of others, and all about the travails of showbiz. I thought the movie was charming, and it has a moment or two of real magic that make the whole thing worthwhile.
Alan Arkin is terrific as the magician who never was, and his mentoring of Max makes for a funny and touching relationship.
Not for everyone, probably, but if you like movies about the journey, then I think you'll like this one.
Wow, my first review of this movie was so negative that it was not excepted. I will try to tone this one down. Lets be real!!! No one wants to see a Chuck Norris movie where HE is not the main character.There was a good fight scene at the end, but the rest of the movie stank. I have to wonder if old Chuck just can't hang with the best any more. Has he slowed down so much that he has to turn out junk like this and hope that his reputation will carry him through the entire movie? Chuck is an awesome martial artist, and as we have seen from Walker, Texas Ranger, a fairly good actor, but the trick is to combine both of these qualities in his movies, and this one does not. Very Disappointing for us Norris fans. Chuck, stay as the main character in your movies, because this does not work for you...Gary
this movie is not porn, it was not meant to be porn, and unless my uncle runs for president of the world it should never be considered porn.
now that that issue was sorted out, i can say i thoroughly recommend this film, as it's issues are still widely available. it's funny, the acting is great and it raises serious(curious) questions.
i can't fully understand why this film was so mistreated, probably this is why i plan to never visit the us. Lena is the true pioneer of the modern riot-grrrl movement, confusion, curiosity and wit are her main attributes, she is occasionally angry, but aren't we all?
:Spoilers:
I was very disappointed in Love's Abiding Joy. I had been waiting a really long time to see it and I finally got the chance when it re-aired Thursday night on Hallmark. I love the first three "Love" movies but this one was nothing like I thought it was going to be. The whole movie was sad and depressing, there were way to many goofs, and the editing was very poor - to many scenes out of context. I also think the death of baby Kathy happened way to soon and Clarks appearance in the movie just didn't seem to fit. It seemed like none of the actors really wanted to be there - they were all lacking emotion. There seemed to be no interaction between Missie and Willie at all.
I think the script writers should have went more by the book. It seems like every movie that's been made so far just slips further and further away from Janette Oke's writings. I mean in the movie they never mentioned a thing about the mine and the two boys or Clark getting hurt because of it. And I think Missie and Willies reactions to Kathy's death could have been shown and heard rather than just heard.
Out of the four movies that have been made so far I'd have to say that Love's Abiding Joy is my least favorite. I hope with the next four movies that more of the book is followed and if Clarks character is in them I hope he's got a bigger part and I hope his part isn't so bland. I also hope there is more of Scottie and Cookie and maybe even Marty but who knows what the script writers will have in store next.
This is a really fun movie. One of those you can sit and mindlessly watch as the plot gets more and more twisted; more and more funny. Sally Field, Teri Hatcher (in her hey-day), Kevin Klein, Elisabeth Shue, Robert Downey, Jr...It's all these well-known, quality actors acting as if they are soap opera stars/producers. If you have ever watched a soap opera and thought, "How on earth did they come up with THIS idea??", you will LOVE this movie. I have seen it multiple times; and each time I watch it, the more I appreciate the humor, the more I realize just how well-acted it really is. Don't expect Oscar quality. This is a fun movie to entertain, not some artsy attempt at finding "man's inner man", etc. Sit back, relax, and laugh.
Sorry everyone,,, I know this is supposed to be an "art" film,, but wow, they should have handed out guns at the screening so people could blow their brains out and not watch. Although the scene design and photographic direction was excellent, this story is too painful to watch. The absence of a sound track was brutal. The loooonnnnng shots were too long. How long can you watch two people just sitting there and talking? Especially when the dialogue is two people complaining. I really had a hard time just getting through this film. The performances were excellent, but how much of that dark, sombre, uninspired, stuff can you take? The only thing i liked was Maureen Stapleton and her red dress and dancing scene. Otherwise this was a ripoff of Bergman. And i'm no fan f his either. I think anyone who says they enjoyed 1 1/2 hours of this is,, well, lying.
I've been impressed with Chavez's stance against globalisation for sometime now, but it wasn't until I saw the film at the Amsterdam documentary international film festival that I realize what he has really achieved. This film tells the story of coup/conspiracy by Venezuela's elite, the oil companies and oil loving corrupt western governments, to remove democratically elected president Chavez, and return Venezuela back to a brutal dictatorship. This film is must for anyone who believes in freedom and justice, and is also a lesson to the rest of world ! I commend the people of Venezuela for taking matter into their own hands, and saving their country from the likes of Halliburton and the Bush regime.
If you are looking for a definitive biography of the life of boxer James Corbett, then this is probably not the film for you. The famed boxer receives a 1940s "Hollywood-ization" of his life--making the story far more entertaining and engaging than real life. However, because the performances were so good (particularly by Errol Flynn) and the script so likable, the film's embellishments can be forgiven.
Errol Flynn plays Gay Nineties-era boxer James "Gentleman Jim" Corbett--a man who became world boxing champ in 1892. The film goes from his rather humble beginnings and follows his through his career through him winning the title match against John L. Sullivan. However, while it could have focused mostly on the matches, most are rather brief in the film (except for the final title match) and the emphasis is on Corbett's brash personality as well as his relationship with the lady played by Alexis Smith. Throughout the film, there is excellent supporting work done by a cast of wonderful supporting actors (such as the perennial supporting actor in Flynn films, Alan Hale) and the writing really helped bring these people alive.
What is particularly nice about the film is seeing the athleticism of Flynn as a boxer. While a few of the shots are of doubles, almost all the boxing scenes are of Flynn and he did a convincing job as a pugilist. This was a nice departure for Flynn, who generally played "pretty boy" roles or swashbucklers and this shows just how tough a character he was. To find out more about this, try reading a biography of him--he was quite the rough and tumble character before coming to Hollywood.
Now as for the REAL James Corbett, read on if you aren't afraid of finding out how the movie isn't accurate. First, Corbett was NOT a poor guy coming from a poor family, but was college educated and bright. Second, while he DID get Alexis Smith at the end of the film, they also divorced a few years later. Third, the wonderfully touching final scene of the film between Sullivan and Corbett was probably the best part of the film, Sullivan was a jerk and this never could have happened--in reality, Sullivan was more the egomaniac and Corbett was not the fat-headed guy they portrayed in the film--though it made for a lovely film.
"The Muppets Take Manhattan" is different in a lot of ways to every other Muppet Movie made so far. For one, it remains the only Muppet film not owned by Disney. As of 2008, the film still belongs to 20th Century Fox (CBS Fox at the time of its release) even though Disney owns the rights to the Muppets. Also, this film has a story line that's very non-linear, and events that are otherwise unpredictable.
Of course, it's very hard to beat the original "Muppet Movie" from 1979, especially since that movie had more memorable songs than "Manhattan" does. However, one way in which "The Muppets Take Manhattan" is better than "The Muppet Movie" is perhaps the surprisingly realistic scenarios. In the first movie, all the Muppets really have to do is go to Hollywood, walk into an agent's office, and they are immediately given a "Rich & Famous" contract. In this movie, the Muppets learn that they actually have to work for their desired success, and it's a lot harder to do that, especially in the entertainment business, than they initially thought. That's an important and often times overlooked message, provided one is willing to suspend the disbelief that the Muppets, being small and made of cloth, don't necessarily have to live in a spacious place or even eat respectively. Above all, their struggle to make it after graduating college creates a very good story. Another note: The celebrity cameos in the movie were cool, and they surprisingly managed not to take away the spotlight from the Muppets. That ability right there is a testament to Henson, and how appealing the Muppet characters were even to adults.
Where "Manhattan" falls flat, and this is where I'm sure people will disagree with me, is with some of the key songs, especially in the end. I thought the wedding song "He'll Make Me Happy" was too somber for such a happy occasion as a wedding. It sounded more like a song that's played at a funeral. Every time I watch this movie, hearing that song makes me unusually depressed, especially when the film begins on such an upbeat number as "Together Again" and ends happily for that matter. "Saying Goodbye" was a sad number too, but it fit better into the movie because the Muppets were disbanding and weren't sure they were going to see each other again. That last song was such a let down, and perhaps even added to younger viewers' misery of seeing their favorite Muppets leave the big screen.
"The Muppets Take Manhattan" is overall a good film, and one that marches to the beat of a different drum than the other Muppet films, including the newer ones made after the deaths of Jim Henson and Richard Hunt. Fortunately, the film marches in the same direction as well. I just wished the film ended on a better song that wasn't quite so melancholy. Plus, Disney should have gotten its hands on this film's copyright and given it a proper DVD release. Maybe it will someday. We'll see.
Last November, I had a chance to see this film at the Reno Film Festival. I have to say that it was a lot of fun. A few tech errors aside, it was a great experience. I loved the writing and acting, especially from the guy that played the lead role. There is a lot of heart in this movie, a lot of wit to. I got a chance to speak with a few of the filmmakers after it was done, and they seemed real nice. All in all the whole movie was just a positive experience, and one I'd definitely recommend. The story was entertaining and cool, as a woman I've been through a lot of the same problems as the lead guy, and I could really understand his problems because of it. The movie does a great job of giving us people we can sympathize with. The friends in the movie are really well written to, they are realistic. I know people like these, I only wish Imy friends and I could sound as cool as these people when we talk. The whole movie is just real cool, I wish there were more films out there like it.
- Jayden
For anyone who wishes to get an impression of the Soviet view of modern Russian history this monumental film is a treasure. The story starts at the turn of the century (1900) in the yellowish sepia colours of old photographs which improves to black and white during the middle of the century and to full colour when the story approaches modern times (i.e. the 1960s).
The story focuses on a boy in a remote Siberian village, who is marked by the arrival and arrest of an anarchist during the czarist era. He later joins the Bolsheviks after the revolution and brings soviet communism to his village. His son, by the local beauty, fights the Germans during the Second World War. When he returns to the village, the oil industry takes off and we are treated to some Soviet economic idealism.
This film is long and slow, but utterly logic and very well made. It can be seen in three parts.
I guess this would be a great movie for a true believer in organized Christian Dogma, but for anyone with an open mind who believes in free will, rational thinking, the separation of Church & State and GOOD Science Fiction it is a terrible joke!
There are some well known actors who were either badly in need of work or had a need to share their personal beliefs with the rest of us heathens.
I WAS entertained by this movie in the same way I was entertained by "Reefer Madness." That movie attempted to teach drug education by scare tactics the same way this movie tries to teach "Christian" principles with the threat of hell and misery for otherwise good people who don't share their interpretations of our world.
It had me howling with laughter and at the same time scared me to realize how many people actually believe that our society should revert to the good old days of the 19th century!
Here's a rare gem for those of you that haven't seen or most likely not even heard of this. During the 80s, Dennis Quaid was a hot commodity, but in the early 90s, Dennis Quaid disappeared from the scene. In 1993, he burst back onto the big screen with three movies, all of which unfortunately bombed. Two of those films I liked very much, and let me elaborate on one of them.
"Wilder Napalm" is a crazy flick about two brothers, Wallace (Quaid) and Wilder (Arliss Howard), whom are...fire starters: yes they have the power of pyrokinetics.
Wilder has decided not to use his power anymore (for anything not useful anyway) after a fatal incident during his youth, where he and his brother blew up an abandoned house which killed a man who was inside unbeknownest to them. Nowadays, Wilder is a firefighter and is married to the wacky Vida (Debra Winger), who is under house arrest for, guess what, arson (see the movie to understand this better). Wilder also hasn't spoken to Wallace in 5 years, because Wallace set his hair on fire during his bachelor party.
Wallace loves his pyro power and uses it for amusement. He also runs a Carnival and is the head clown. When the Carnival comes to Wilder's town, Wallace decides to reunite with his brother and also to see Vida, whom which Wallace has been in love with! Vida's house arrest sees its end, but Wilder is preoccupied. So, Wallace steps in and the fun begins. Brother vs. brother...fighting fire with fire!
Some great fireball throwing in this flick...eat your heart out, Drew Barrymore!
The film also has some really weird, yet funny elements, like Wilder's fire unit sings songs acapella during firefights and after wards. Jim Varney (globally known as 'Ernest') pops in as Wallace's redneck carnival buddy. "Wilder Napalm" is brilliantly shot...and cleverly put together...very off the wall and avant-guard.
Give this one a look...
I can't say that this film deserves anywhere near the amount of vitriol being heaped on it by some reviewers. Yes, it's bogged down by an overly-padded running time, hamfisted editing, and an overreliance on cheeseball special effects. And it lacks much of the energy a comedy needs to get your average audience member to sit through it without checking his or her watch.
On the other hand, it's also got some laugh-out-loud funny lines, a talented and earnest cast, and the classic underdog premise. Macy, Stiller, and Azaria are brilliant as the "core" team, and Garofalo and Studi do superb work adding conflict and variety to the team. I can't say Reubens or Mitchell added much to the film overall, though each had a few chances to shine.
The plot, as I said above, is your classic "underdog-makes-good" stuff. No surprises there, since you know they're going to triumph. What makes it worthwhile is not the absurd, gaudy heroes and villains, but the dialogue and interplay between the characters. Underneath it all, these people are children at heart, who just want to do right. The best scenes in the film give this film its emotional grounding. Look at Azaria's relationship with his long-suffering mother; Macy's endearing innocence in his unwillingness to accept Cap. Amazing's secret identity; Stiller's rage (not unlike that one weird, spazzy kid you once knew who'd always go into quivering, impotent rages on the playground); Garofalo's desire to avenge her father. This childlike belief that a sense of justice and goodness will always make the world a better place, is the true appeal of super-hero comics; and underneath its parodic exterior, "Mystery Men" shows us why these hackneyed comic-book tropes matter to so many.
It never really gels into a satisfying whole, due to the huge number of half-baked subplots (romance, family life, conflicts within the team, etc.), but the main plot is such loopy fun that it makes up for that. The fact that it's supposed to be good, nonsensical fun seems to be lost on some of the reviewers here, so I'll issue a caveat: if you're the type of viewer who finds his enjoyment of an Itchy and Scratchy cartoon ruined by the unexplained and illogical ("Am I to believe this is some sort of.. *snort*... _magic_ xylophone?"), then you are far too literal-minded and humorless for this film. Go rent a Sandler film instead.
(7/10)
The performances of Fishbourne (who appears strangely funny somehow) and (short featured)Ed Harris are remarkable, unlike Connery's who doesn't appear to find sense in his role and ends up in the motorial behaviour of a 80yr old man. In fact the screenplay doesn't make sense; imagine a 60 min. happy ending-plot plus a sudden turn appendix without any argumental structure in respect to the characters. It's more an accident than a screenplay and may be good for examination purposes at screen-wrights' schools. The more you remind the details the stronger this impression gets. The capital punishment is not an issue here, although it is a subject from the beginning; it sort of fades away without further comment. The subject-matter and environment could have been good.
Harman and Isings 'Old Mill Pond' is a true masterpiece of the art of animation. The consummate skill and artistry that characterise this duos work is nowhere more in evidence than in this cartoon. It is a shame that so many people can see only offence in what is, and was always intended to be, a light hearted piece of entertainment that in no way sought to denigrate black people. If anything it is a tribute to the infectious humour and musicality of the black race. I have not been able to view this confection for many years as the 'race commissars' in England have deemed it too offensive to be shown in multi racial Britain. If anyone knows where I can obtain a copy I would dearly love to view this masterpiece again. I think those who routinely look for messages and intent that were never intended in these cartoons, which are, after all, sixty years old, should try to lighten up and remember that the world is a very different place today, but that does not mean that anyone has the right to censor what is viewable from the past.
Look, it's the third one, so you already know it's bad. And "Maniac Cop" wasn't good enough to warrant the second installment, so you know it's even worse. But how much worse? Awful, approaching God-awful.
When Maniac Cop goes on a killing spree, a reporter exclaims, "What happened here can ONLY be described as a black rainbow of death."
1-- Rainbows are not black, and can never be. 2-- Rainbows are harmless, and can never inflict pain or death. 3-- A news reporter, one valuable to his agency, might find another way to describe the aftermath of a killing spree. "A black rainbow of death" is not the ONLY way to describe the given situation.
This is what you're in for.
I saw this film again and noticed how close it is to the novel if we ignore the part about Cary's [Leslie Howard] childhood. Considering that
at the time not much can be shown on the screen, [not that there is much in the novel] the obsession of the character with Mildred [Bette Davis] is very well conveyed to the audience. I recommend this film to anyone who ever fell for another person and the other side tried to take advantage of him or her. I have read that Maugham was asked to make a recording of the novel for sale, but when he started to in the studio he began crying and could not finish more than a few lines and whole project was chucked. One can tell the novel is written from the heart and the film is a good
adaptation of a part of it at least.