Mouwiya/imdb_reviews_with_labels huggingface dataset:
In a summer that also boasted such repugnant stinkers as Snakes on a Plane and The Da Vinci Code, that's a pretty bold statement. But I stand by it nonetheless. Superman Returns, like King Kong 6 months before it, is overlong, hyper-indulgent and with CGI up to the eyeballs. My God, this stuff is doing my head in.
Richard Donner had the idea of 'keep it real' for his 2 outings. And I do find his approach to the special and optical effects to be the most appropriate. Brian Singer bombards us with so much CGI that it really takes you out of the story and constantly reminds you that you are watching a wannabe blockbuster that thinks that the only way to impress an audience is to spend $250 million (a totally irresponsible amount of money) on obnoxious visual effects that don't live up to the hype. We've seen everything and been everywhere that CGI can take us. There's no real atmosphere or involvement in this. And for a film that is 95% made up of this crap...well you figure it out.
I've read so many reviews from fanboy critics about how the movie has 'soul' or 'a human heart' or 'tender character moments'. Puh-lease! We've already had brooding superheros silently screaming 'you'd love me if you knew who I am' dozens of times already in recent years and SR offers absolutely NOTHING new in this regard. Even the plot is recycled garbage. Lex Luthor (a seriously mis-cast and hammy Kevin Spacey) plotting to destroy the landmass of America was done in the first film already! And, well...that's your lot! It's amazing that they managed to draw out this junk to 2.5 painful hours! Even if the cast were likable it would make it less unbearable. But Brandon Routh has the on screen personality of a mahogany hat-stand, Kate Bosworth is completely unconvincing as a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, James Marsden is 250% wooden, as usual and Kevin Spacey really needs to either fire his agent or acquire some better judgement. The only cast member I liked was the lovely Parker Posey. But I'm into weird-looking girls.
Every year films like this get bigger and more bombastic. Pretty soon we'll have $300 million films. Studios need to realise that maybe they should start looking down instead of looking up. For all the money that Warner spent on this pile of crap, for all the resources that this movie cost to make...was it worth it? In my opinion, certainly not! This garbage has put me of Superman for life!
I had just reached thirteen when I first saw this series and I am watching it again, on DVD, over thirty years later. The pictures over the opening credits have never left me. It has affected my view of the world and the peoples in it. My parents were with me long enough to have seen the series with me, and we always discussed the programme afterwards. It gave me a love for studying history and the highest marks I got in our school's public exams!
Sir Laurence Olivier's voice and delivery is timeless and perfect. I get the feeling that the people who lived through it would feel that this is their version of the history of the Second World War. I cannot imagine ever getting bored looking at it. Maybe an similar Cold War series could now be contemplated, although who could replace Sir Laurence is difficult to imagine.
Buy it!
Mario Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has written a definitive 120-page point-by-point, line-by-line refutation of this mendacious film, which should be titled A CONVENIENT LIE. The website address where his debunking report, which is titled "A SKEPTIC'S GUIDE TO AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH" can be found at is :www.cei.org. A shorter 10-page version can be found at: www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf Once you read those demolitions, you'll realize that alleged "global warming" is no more real or dangerous than the Y2K scare of 1999, which Gore also endorsed, as he did the pseudo-scientific film THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, which was based on a book written by alleged UFO abductee Whitley Strieber. As James "The Amazing" Randi does to psychics, and Philip Klass does to UFOs, and Gerald Posner does to JFK conspir-idiocy theories, so does Mario Lewis does to Al Gore's movie and the whole "global warming" scam.
Scott Henderson (Alan Curtis) is unjustly accused of killing his unfaithful wife. The night she was murdered he was out with a mystery woman who refused to give him her name. After accused of the murder, the police visit all the places he had been with her, but people only remember him being alone. He's sentenced to die and his secretary (Ella Raines) sets out to find the murderer herself because she loves him.
This was made as a B film from Universal (look at the cast--all character actors and one star--Franchot Tone--on the decline). The budget was small and the cast mostly unknown but what came out is one of the best film noirs of the 1940s. It's beautifully directed by Curt Siodmak and has a fantastic script that came from an excellent book by William Irish (a pen name for Cornell Woolrich). It moves quickly and just looks fantastic. And there's the infamous jam session with Raines and Elisha Cook Jr. which just comes off the screen with incredible sexual energy (I'm surprised the censors didn't cut it).
There are only a few flaws that prevent this from being perfect. Tone gives a dreadful performance. He looks ghastly and he's just horrible. Also Curtis is stiff and bland as Henderson. You really wonder why Raines loves him--he's so unemotional. But Raines is pretty good in the lead role. She's pretty and full of life. Also the last scene when the murderer is after her never rings true. He's hardly a threat physically and her reactions just seem overstated.
Still I'm giving this a 9. A really great film--flaws aside.
Whoever gave this movie rave reviews needs to see more movies.
A loser takes his camera and photographs his mental family. The movie is filled with idiots and includes live "teabagging". That should sum it all up for you.
Do not waste your time. You may want to watch the entire movie in the hopes that it gets better as it goes on - it doesn't!
I was really excited about seeing this film. I thought finally Australia had made a good film.. but I was wrong.
This was the most pathetic attempt at a slasher film ever. I feel sorry for Molly Ringwald having to come all the way to Australia to make an awful movie.
The acting was terrible (especially that Australian guy who was trying to speak in an American accent), and the plot was also pretty bad.
When I first heard about this film coming out, I thought that the title was pathetic (because it sounds like the cheesy film "Stab" in Scream 2), but I was willing to let it slide if it was a good movie.
WARNING!!! MAJOR SPOILERS!!!
Probably the worst thing about the film was the ending. I was expecting a big surprise about who the killer was.. but the killer wasn't even human.. which turned this realistic slasher film into an awful horror movie.
Don't see this film.. you'll probably be disappointed!
Of the three remakes of this plot, I like them all, I have all three on VHS and in addition have a copy of this one on DVD. There is just enough variation in the scripts to make all three entertaining and re-watchable. In addition has any other film been remade three times with such all star casts in each? Of course the main stars in this one are great, but the supporting actors are also superb. I particularly like William Tracy as Pepi. He was such a scene stealer that I have searched to find other movies he is in. He appeared in many, but most are not available. As the other comments, I also say - buy this one.
If this film had a budget of 20 million I'd just like to know where the money went. A monkey could make better CGI effects then what was wasted for 3 hours on this dreadful piece of garbage, although I must admit the machines and the martians would have looked really, really cool on an original play-station 1 game, and early PC games from the mid 90s if a game had ever been made. What puzzles me is where did the money go? Pendragon films could have made a great film with good old fashioned models and computer controlled cameras a la George Lucas circa 1975-83, and actors who actually look like they care about what they are doing (or ruining in this case) for about the same 20 million. This is quite possibly the worst film EVER made! I would rather sit through a 24 hour repeat screening of Ishtar than watch this film again. I hated it completely! I regress. I say this IS the WORST film EVER made because unlike other bad movies like Plan 9 or Killer Tomatoes, or Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, these are films that are so bad you have a special place in your heart for them, you love them. There is no love for this film and no place in my DVD library for it. I sold it to a guy for a dollar. I'm betting the money for the film was spent on booze and other vices for the cast and crew. Shame on you Pendragon films! I want my money back!
Rated NR(would be Rated R for Pervasive Strong Language and Crude Sexual Humor). Quebec Rating:16+(should be 13+) Canadian Home Video Rating:18A
Eddie Murphy Delirious is Eddie's first stand up comedy routine.This came out in 1983.Back then he starred in the movie 48 hrs and Trading Places and he was on Saturday Night Live.Eddie made two stand up comedy films.Delirious and Raw.I preferred Raw because I just found the subject matter to be more humorous.Delirious however is also very funny with Eddie talking about his childhood and making fun of celebrities such as Mr.T and singers such as Michael Jackson.Any fan of stand-up comedy films should see Eddie Murphy's Delirious.
I sat down to watch a documentary about Puerto Rico, and I ended up watching one about Nuyoricans. When I go to Puerto Rico, I fail to see the 50% that live in poverty. When I do see struggling people, they are usually Haitians, Dominicans, or Cubans that have recently arrived to the island. There is no such thing as spanglish... either you speak Spanish, or you don't.... and from what I heard... you don't. Pedro Albizo Campos IS NOT MLK to me. MLK was a great man. Campos is a great man to those that want independence which is 1%. To the rest he as loco as Osama Bin Laden. Puertoricans that want independence are a bunch of fools. If you want any proof to all of you dreamers of an independent Puerto Rico see Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Bahamas, all of South and Central America, and Mexico. Its worked wonders for them. This documentary is not about Puerto Rico, this documentary was about the Nuyoricans and their struggles.
To the person that complaint that not enough of Africa was on the show... it was suppose to be about Puerto Rico... not Africa. Denzel will make one shortly just for you.
In conclusion... to all those ignorant white people that think we need green cards to come to the US, and want to learn how the prime minister runs things, this is not a good documentary about Puertorican culture. Tell your kids to pay attention in Geography, and History class.
***Update***
Bocabonita... "doc." was about Nuyoricans. She promoted it as if its how we all feel. Should have been titled... "yo soy nuyorican... lunche...can't speak Spanish." PLEASE STOP USING PUERTO RICO, RICAN, BORICUA, OR ANYTHING ELSE ASSOCIATED WITH PR WITH THIS NUYORICAN HISTORICAL LESSON. God forbid they play this on the island.
I love watching early colour films - you mean those 40s clothes weren't all grey?
Margaret Rutherford dominates this movie. Her "eccentric" garb is actually rather attractive and yes, she has an amazing hourglass figure. But I feel she was given her head rather too much. She probably developed this characterisation over many performances, and nobody told her "If it gets a laugh, leave it out." She does too much deranged fooling about when she's supposed to be surprisingly down to earth. The Madame Arcati joke is that mediums were usually portrayed as wispy females in long drapery. Arcati behaves like a retired headmistress (We'll really put our backs into it!). The contrast between her breezy, commonplace manner and her wacky beliefs isn't really brought out.
Just because all the actors are English (apart from Cummings), the Americans feel they have to use the words "Brit", "stiff", "lip" and "upper". Oh, give it a rest! The three main characters lose their tempers constantly and make risqué remarks (Did he make love to you? Yes, but very discreetly - he was in the cavalry!).
As other reviewers have noted the film dies in the last 1/2 hour. However before that it suffers from predictability and a stunningly vapid performance by Kate Capshaw, who clearly never found her character and ruins every scene she's in. Connery is fine as is Fishbourne, but most scenes are manipulated for effect rather than truth which overlays the entirety with a sense of unreality. And the ending is simply bizarre. The film makers apparently knew when they pieced this mess together that all they needed were sweet potatoes and pumpkin pie to have Thanksgiving dinner, so to compensate they added an overloud "dramatic" score. Every little jump is accompanied by a crescendo of orchestration, to the point where it becomes laughable. If you want an example of major league bad film this is one to see, otherwise skip it.
Ettore Scola is one of the most important Italian directors. My parents and I watched together "C'eravamo tanto amati" on a summer night: we liked it, but we didn't love it as we loved "A special day". I believe Ettore Scola is pretty underrated: we often forget to remember him, maybe because his latest films were disappointing. And so, yesterday night, my mum and I sat on our sofa to enjoy this masterpiece. Writing, direction, cinematography, score and production design were sober and accurate, but the thing I liked the most was the chemistry between Loren and Mastroianni. They're both excellent actors and play the main roles of Antonietta and Gabriele. Antonietta is an housewife: married with a fanatic Fascist, she has six children but her husband wants to have another child to get a prize for the huge families. Gabriele is simply an Anti-Fascist. They spend together a special day, that special day of 1938 when Hitler came to Rome visiting Mussolini. I don't want to spoil anymore about the plot: go looking for this film!
A somewhat dull made for tv movie which premiered on the TBS cable station. Antonio and Janine run around chasing a killer computer virus and...that's about it. For trivia buffs this will be noted as debuting the same weekend that the real life 'Melissa' virus also made it's debut in e-mail inboxes across the world.
Some films are so bad that they're good. This is clearly not one of them. Based on a true story, this film was about as true to the story as Pinocchio's chances of becoming a real boy. The acting was terrible, the direction was poor, and it travelled way too fast. It was as if the director just wanted to get it over and done with and go home.
Nor did Melissa Joan Hart ever strike me as a talented actress, but then every film she made was pretty low-budget anyway. Like most of her other films, she lets down her characters by hamming them up too much, talking too quickly as if speeding up her words is going to make her more dramatic. She really brings out the sense that there is a crew in front of her and she's talking to a camera, when she should be engaging the viewer in her character. It pretty much lets down the whole film, and any leg that it may have had left to stand on, is ruined.
Probably the only good thing about the film is when she got nailed in the end. But even that wasn't satisfying enough to subdue my loathing for such a bad film.
Watch it if your taste in film is blander than a piece of dry toast.
This is complete and absolute garbage, a fine example of what a BAD movie is like, this can't be appealing to anyone, not even b-movie fans. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT waste precious time of your life on this piece of trash. Bad acting, bad directing, horrible (but I mean really horrible) script, and complete lack of an idea as to what entertainment (of any form) is. I bought the DVD for 3 dollars, I swear I could almost pay someone to take it. Burning it would not be enough for what this movie did to me. I like b-movies, the killer toys, the weird lagoon monsters, but this is nowhere near. You know those movies that are so bad they are funny? Not even. Just plain old pathetic.
Caught this film in about 1990 on video by chance and without knowing what i was in for. Many horror fans may have missed this thinking it was a typical prison film and the ones who did get it didn't like it as it was not what they wanted to see. The above mentioned factors are probably the reasons it is low rated but just ignore that and give it a whirl if you're a fan of the genre.
It has strong suits in all departments from script and atmosphere to acting and the prison itself.
An absolute diamond, a film i still have on video to this day. Check it out.
52-Pick Up never got the respect it should have. It works on many levels, and has a complicated but followable plot. The actors involved give some of their finest performances. Ann-Margret, Roy Scheider, and John Glover are perfectly cast and provide deep character portrayals. Notable too are Vanity, who should have parlayed this into a serious acting career given the unexpected ability she shows, and Kelly Preston, who's character will haunt you for a few days. Anyone who likes action combined with a gritty complicated story will enjoy this.
I wasn't sure at first if I was watching a documentary, propaganda film or dramatic presentation. I guess given the time of production it was a mix of all three.
Admittedly the dramatic plot was somewhat predictable. But you had a sense that there would be some interesting scenes as the movie went on. We were able to witness what appeared to be realistic training regimens and equipment.
Where this movie came together for me was closer to the end. The scenes had a realism (at least as I perceived it) that I haven't encountered often before. You could place yourself in the action and imagine the thoughts of the young combatants. This was mixed in with the usual problems of portraying passable Japanese soldiers at a time when you might think real Japanese actors would be somewhat scarce.
The movie is excellent as a source of the state of the American mindset in 1943 as the war waged with Japan. Also of interest was a dig at the Japanese with respect to the help the USA gave Japan in past years.
I'm not usually one to slate a film . I try to see the good points and not focus on the bad ones, but in this case, there are almost no good points. In my opinion, if you're going to make something that bad, why bother? Part of the film is take up with shots of Anne's face while she breaths deeply, and violin music plays in the background. the other part is filled with poor and wooden acting. Rupert Penry Jones is expressionless. Jennifer Higham plays Anne's younger sister with modern mannerisms. Anne is portrayed as being meek and self effacing, which is fine at the beginning, but she stays the same all through the film, and you see no reason for captain Wentworth to fall in love with her. Overall the production lacks any sense of period, with too many mistakes to be overlooked, such as running out of the concert, kissing in the street, running about in the streets with no hat on (why was this scene in the film at all? the scene in the book was one of the most romantic scenes written.). To sum it up, a terrible film, very disappointing.
Full marks for Pacino's rendering of the speech over the dead kid's coffin; Shakespeare's Mark Antony would be put to shame!!
Was it Paul Schrader or was it Ken Lipper who should be complimented on the remarkable dialogues? They are rich and intelligent and well worth your time if you like movies with good scripts. I found the story narrative developing quite well right up to the voice-over postscript.
There is little else to talk about in this film; even John Cusack has done better roles than this one. Interestingly, the film is very male oriented--the women are mere appendages.
7 if you're a kid- 6 if you claim to be an adult. This semi-sequel to the Lion King sees to spin off side characters Timone and Pumba, retelling the original story through their eyes, including the story of how they met. In the grand tradition of Disney, inferior sequels are made, and occasionally TV series featuring the adventures of minor characters from their biggest hits. You can be as sceptical as you want about this, but kids and fans of the series will likely not care; their are enough jokes and songs and interesting things to ensure that this is one of the few above average sequels. This works because of the charm of the much-loved central characters, the quick pace, the in-jokes involving the first film, and for older viewers there are some funny gags. The animation is as good as ever, if a little less flamboyant than the original, but the plot here is all about taking it easy, Hakuna Matata.
Timone and Pumba decide to watch the events of the first film, frequently stopping mid-film to joke about parts of it, like a real audience. We see how Timone is a near outcast, he feels he does not fit in and decides to go looking beyond what he sees to find his ideal home. On the way he meets Pumba, another outcast and they become friends. Soon they meet Simba, a Lion cub, natural predator of T and P, but they form a trio. However, when Simba realises he must follow his own destiny and leave the group, it is up to the others to decide whether to help or not, and how. Of course the usual Disney elements and themes are here, friendship, good versus evil etc. The plot is simple but works on many levels, making it smarter than your average animated movie. As the CG movies appear, Disney's traditional form must become smarter, but not forget the roots which made them popular. Toy Story and all that have come since have been clever, with jokes to suit all ages, and it seems this is the way the market is shifting. However, there will always be a place for films like this, and you cannot go wrong buying this for the youngsters.
7 out of 10
Michael Stearns plays Mike, a sexually frustrated individual with an interesting moral attitude towards sexuality. He has no problem ogling naked dancers but when women start having sex with men that's when he loses it. He believes that when women actually have sex that's when they lose any sense of "innocence" and/or "beauty". So he strolls through the Hollywood Hills stalking lovemaking couples at a distance, ultimately shooting the men dead with a high-powered rifle with a scope.
The seeming primary reason for this movie's existence is to indulge in sexual activity over and over again. The "story" comes off as more of an afterthought. This is bound to make many a happily heterosexual male quite pleased as we're treated to enough protracted scenes of nudity (the ladies here look awfully good sans clothes) and sex to serve as a major dose of titillation. Of course, seeing a fair deal of it through a scope ups the creepiness factor considerably and illustrates the compulsion towards voyeurism. (For one thing, Mike eyes the couples through the scope for minutes at a time before finally pulling the trigger.) This is all underscored by awfully intrusive if somewhat atmospheric music on the soundtrack.
Those with a penchant for lurid trash are bound to enjoy this to one degree or another. It even includes one lesbian tryst that confounds Mike and renders him uncertain *how* to react. It unfolds at a very slow pace, but wraps up with a most amusing ironic twist. It's a kinky and twisted rarity that if nothing else is going to definitely keep some viewers glued to the screen.
7/10