Mouwiya/imdb_reviews_with_labels huggingface dataset:
I never fail to be amazed and horrified by the evil that has been predicated in the history of the world in the name of religion, and it seems that the machinations of the Catholic Church in Twentieth Century Ireland rank right up there near the top - considering that the wisdom of history and modern times should have had some sobering effect.
A Love Divided is the story of a real family scarred by ignorant intolerance and prejudice all in the name of an inane Church doctrine. At the beginning of the film, we are offered a view of the bucolic life in a small Irish village in which Sheila and Sean Cloney are happily married with two young children. Sean is Catholic and Sheila is Protestant, but she has no qualms with their children being raised as Catholic. There is no sign of any animosity between the Catholics and Protestants in the village. The peaceful and loving relationships are soon shattered when Sheila expresses the desire to have their older child attend the Protestant school. The local priest takes it upon himself to forbid this "sin" and soon has Sheila's husband and the entire Catholic population of the village turned against her as well as her father, the local dairy farmer. In an act of defiance and desperation, Sheila kidnaps her two daughters and flees from the area.
Special note should be given to Orla Brady who plays Sheila. She gives an extremely powerful performance in which the viewer is drawn in to the emotional trauma in which she decides to reject the wishes of a husband she deeply loves in order to express her fervent desire to establish herself as independent from the pressures of the establishment. On an equal footing is Liam Cunningham who plays Sean for he gives a realistic portrait of a man not nearly as complex as his wife who is torn between his love for her and the influence of Church and community.
If fiction, this film would have been a compelling and interesting drama. Considering it is true, it changes to a horrific tragedy. In real life, the people and the village never fully recovered from the events that took place there. It took almost half a century for the Church to acknowledge its negative role in the events, and even though Sheila and Sean lived out their lives in the area, they never fully recovered from what was done to them by the religious leaders and their fellow villagers.
Whether it be denying basic rights to education of choice, crashing planes into buildings, subjugating women, condemning whole races, or just plain on torture and murder, we humans certainly have the ability to use religion as a powerful negative force in our society.
This is a typical example of technically highly skilled directors of video clips/commercials trying to do their first full feature length movie. On one hand the imagery, camera, lighting, CGI and even the sound are highly polished and have a truly "expensive" look and feel. Even the actors show a certain amount of potential - unto the point where even the best acting could not hide a bad plot.
In this case it is not a bad plot but hardly a plot at all.
So 50% of the dialog consists of "What the hell was that ?", "What was that ?" and "What the hell was that ?". In none of the cases any of the characters nor the audience is provided with the slightest hint of an answer though. In most of the other dialogues one gets the feeling that there never was any form of dialogue book and the actors had to freely improvise to a plot that wasn't ever explained to them.
The only reason why Skye Bennet's performance could be so good is that her character as an autistic girl didn't allow giving her these tragically horrible dialogue lines the other actors had to deal with. That way she was able to just show her acting talent which the rest of the cast couldn't even get close to. I mean there's not one actor in the world that could make up for a dialogue like this:
Ben: Is this real, huh ? Emily: Stop it. Ben: A mass psychosis, huh ? Jon: Somebody has to take control of this situation. Ben: This situation can't be controlled. Not by you, not by anybody. Emily: Not by you either. Ben: No
Got me goosebumps. But not for horror, more for the horrible attempt. In some moments I felt ashamed for the actors to have added this to their vita.
2 stars for the excellent technical work.
You like to solve mysteries? You like complex narrations? This is for you. Brilliant, clever movie by Francis Leclerc(son of a legendary french Canadian signer Felix Leclerc). Flashy photo and clever editing is the word of Leclerc, strongly helped by Roy Dupuis who's dythirambic in the lead role.
The plot is about Alexandre Tourneur, veterinary in his 40's who just woke up from a coma after being unplugged by somebody unknown. Tourneur is struggling to remember who hit him as he was ending a deer's sufferings on the road. Throughout the struggling, he has weird behavior and it seems like something took over him.
Not spooky, but very mysterious and well played movie. I have my hypothesis on the ending(I think the Indian caused the accident) but this ending was open to any explanations.
I strongly recommend it 9.5/10
This movie is a little ray of sunshine in a dark season. It celebrates a quality best described as plain old friendliness. Morgan Freeman plays a character very like Freeman himself--a successful actor pushing 70. He has traveled to a small, rather grimy grocery store intending to research a part he might play, as a manager of such a place. He soon beguiles the staff and the customers, especially the lovely, if cranky, young woman (Paz Vega) who presides over the "10 items or less" checkout lane.
10 Items Or Less doesn't have a big statement to make and doesn't pretend that it does. It follows Freeman and Vega as they become friendly, and as the older man offers his counsel, in exchange for a ride home--the movie-company gofer who is supposed to pick him up never shows and Freeman has forgotten his own phone number so he can't call for help. I had a little case of the blues on a gray Sunday afternoon in New York City and this flick cured what ailed me.
Ladies and Gentlemen,please don't get fooled by "A Stanley Kubrick" film tag.This is a very bad film which unfortunately has been hailed as one of the deadliest horror films ever made.Horror films should create such a fear that during nights people should shiver their hearts out while thinking about a true horror film.In Shining,there is no real horror at all but what we find instead is just a naive,foolish attempt made to create chilling horror.Everyone knows as to how good the attempts are if they are different from reality.All that is good in the film is the view of the icy valley. The hotel where most of the actors were lodged appears good too.A word about the actors Jack Nicholson looks like a lost,lazy soul who is never really sure of what he is supposed to do.There is not much to be said of a bald,colored actor who for the most of times is busy pampering a kid actor.No need to blame the bad weather for the tragedy.It cannot be avoided as the film has been made and poor Kubrick is not alive to make any changes.
I can't believe this movie was made as recently as 1984. It's got some laughable acting, not to mention one of the stupidest plots ever. Who would ever ask fat Texas sheriff Joe Don Baker to escort an Italian he illegally arrested in Mexico back to Italy? Not to mention that the title of the movie tells you pretty much nothing about it - in fact, it's about as generic a title for a wannabe action/cop film as I can think of.
I'm glad I only saw this on MST3K with Mike and the bots as a shield. They remark on the female lead's resemblance to Elaine from Seinfeld ("None of them are spongeworthy") and riff non-stop on Baker's weight. This movie probably isn't worse than "Mitchell," but Baker's reputation definitely precedes him here: when his title comes up at the beginning of the film, Tom says, "I wish I was illiterate so I wouldn't have to read that."
The movie has a great written genre story. It features all of the usual Columbo ingredients; The way Lt. Columbo approaches and bonds to his suspect, the way the mystery unravels for him, Columbo's dog, the cat and mouse play, which is great in this one and luckily as well some good relieving humor, mostly involving the Columbo character. It's all written despite the fact that it doesn't even have a truly original concept. Columbo hunting down a detective/murder novel writer had been done more than once before in a Columbo movie.
It's also an extremely well directed movie from James Frawley, who after this directed 5 more Columbo movies, in the '70's and '80's. He provided the movie with style and some truly great and memorable sequences.
It's one of the slower moving Columbo movies, despite not having a too long running time. This style and approach doesn't always work out well for a Columbo movie but in this movie it does, which is perhaps not in the least thanks to the acting performances of the movie.
Most Columbo movie either starred a big well known star or a star from the early days of film-making, as the movie its murderer. This movie stars the rather unknown 81 year old Ruth Gordon. She didn't starred in an awful lot of movies throughout her career but she is still well known to some, mostly for her role in "Rosemary's Baby", which also won her an Oscar. She had a realistic and somewhat unusual style of acting, which some people might not like though. It earned her 4 more Oscar nominations throughout her career, prior to her win for "Rosemary's Baby", in 1969. She has some great interaction as well with Peter Falk in their sequences together.
The movie also stars a still young G.D. Spradlin. I say young because I only know him from his latest productions out of his career, despite the fact that he already was 57 at the time of this Columbo production. He is still alive but retired from acting, ever since 1999.
An even better than usual Columbo movie entry.
8/10
Admittedly, I find Al Pacino to be a guilty pleasure. He was a fine actor until Scent of a Woman, where he apparently overdosed on himself irreparably. I hoped this film, of which I'd heard almost nothing growing up, would be a nice little gem. An overlooked, ahead-of-its-time, intelligent and engaging city-political thriller. It's not.
City Hall is a movie that clouds its plot with so many characters, names, and "realistic" citywide issues, that for a while you think its a plot in scope so broad and implicating, that once you find out the truth, it will blow your mind. In truth, however, these subplots and digressions result ultimately in fairly tame and very familiar urban story trademarks such as Corruption of Power, Two-Faced Politicians, Mafia with Police ties, etc. And theoretically, this setup allows for some thrilling tension, the fear that none of the characters are safe, and anything could happen! But again, it really doesn't.
Unfortunately, the only things that happen are quite predictable, and we're left with several "confession" monologues, that are meant as a whole to form modern a fable of sorts, a lesson in the moral ambiguity of the "real world" of politics and society. But after 110 minutes of names and missing reports and a spider-web of lies and cover-ups, the audience is usually treated to a somewhat satisfying reveal. I don't think we're left with that in City Hall, and while it's a very full film, I don't find it altogether rich.
Let's begin with that theme song sung by Christopher Cross. The song is "If you get caught between the moon and New York City." It's a great theme and song even after all these years, it never gets tiring. It really is a great song about New York City as well. Anyway, the great Dudley Moore CBE stars as a spoiled drunken millionaire who is engaged to Jill Eikenberry's character in the film. Jill would later star on LA Law. Anyway, he is served by his wonderful British butler, Sir John Gielgud OM who won an Academy Award for his performance in the film as Best Supporting Actor. Arthur falls in love with Liza Minnelli's character who is perfect in this film besides her performance in her Oscar winning role in Cabaret. No, Liza doesn't get to sing. She plays a diner waitress. Anyway I love Geraldine Fitzgerald as the Bach matriarch of the family who decides the family's fortune. Anyway, she is fabulous and should have gotten an academy award nomination herself for Best Supporting Actress. Barney Martin best known as Jerry's dad on Seinfeld plays Liza's dad. He's great too. The movie was well-written, acted, and delivered to the audience who wanted more of it.
This has the absolute worst performance from Robert Duval who sounds just like William Buckley throughout the entire film. His hammy melodramatic acting takes away from any dramatic interest. I'm not sure if this was deliberate scene stealing or inadvertent but it's the only thing I can recall from a truly forgettable film. This picture should be shown in every amateur acting class of an example of what not to do. Thank God, Duvall went on to bigger and better things and stopped trying to effect a cultured accent. He is a good character actor but that's about it. Klaus is so much better. His performance is muted and noteworthy.
This film is a wonderful movie based on the life of a man called Grey Owl in 1930s Canada. I found it to be similarly riveting and heartfelt as 'Rudy' and 'Awakenings'. It picks up late in Grey Owl's life and follows him through his most tumultuous and influential period.
The film is about a Canadian Indian trapper who finds himself promoting the plight of the over-trapped Beaver. He also predicts the decrease in natural lands and the overuse of Earth's resources. This is an outrageous concept in the 1930s and surprisingly well received. He becomes a well known speaker and the masses are ready to listen.
The casting of Pierce Brosnan seems rather odd, but is not outrageous. Anyone wanting to argue that point must first watch the movie to understand. Brosnan provides a wonderful performance as does Annie Galipeau. Galipeau is a strong actress whose place beside Brosnan is refreshingly natural compared to the forced pairings in recent Bond films.
I would recommend this film to anyone interested in good drama, beautiful scenery, or environmental causes. It is a movie for families as well, however children under 10 (depending on maturity) would have trouble following the plot.
I really can't remember who recommended this, but they said it was one of their favorite films. It is certainly a strange one - like rubbernecking at a highway accident.
Someone said that truth is stranger than fiction, and the truth here is something to see. I really can't understand how a fictionalized account of this documentary is to be released this year. How can you improve on this? The aunt and cousin of Jackie Kennedy remove themselves from New York Society and hide in the Hampton's. In the process they become recluses and what is best described as "crazy cat ladies." They would have stayed hidden had not the city move to condemn the property for the filth and the subsequent rescue by Jackie. This film was done after that rescue. All during, you couldn't help but think, "how bad was it before?" It's a look at high society from the darker side, and it is utterly fascinating.
I was so looking forward to seeing this when it was in production.But it turned out to be the the biggest let down. A far cry from the whimsical world of Dr Seuss. It was vulgar and distasteful I don't think Dr Seuss would have approved.How the Grinch stole Christmas was much better. I understand it had some subtle adult jokes in it but my children have yet to catch on. Whereas The Cat in the Hat screamed vulgarity they caught a lot more than I would have liked.Growing up with Dr Seuss It really bothered me to see how this timeless classic got trashed on the big screen .Lets see what they do with Horton hears a who.I hope this one does Dr Seuss some justice.
Oh my god! This movie insults the intelligence of everybody. I mean really, who thinks three kids can fight 30 to 40 ninjas and win. Not to mention the brainless humor thrown in. This film is baaaaaaaaaaaaaad. The movie is an omen, the only thing it's good for is a time killer or unintentional laughs.
"A stage company cast finds themselves terrified when a bizarre killer known as 'The Fiend' targets them for death. A pair of reporters and their clumsy photographer set out to work the story of 'The Fiend' and find themselves targets as well. Just as you think our trio of heroes has the case solved, you're thrown another twist that has you wondering who the killer really is," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.
Taking "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" to Hollywood, producer Sam Katzman's lack of studio settings probably helps "A Face in the Fog" look interesting, especially toward the end (1930s traffic). The direction could be improved upon; for example, the camera angle on the fight scene is not helpful. The budget appears slight. Under the circumstances, most of the silent/talkie crossover cast perform it amiably.
**** A Face in the Fog (2/1/36) Robert F. Hill ~ Lloyd Hughes, June Collyer, Al St. John
I have wanted to see this for the longest time, James Merendino is a great director. SLC Punk is one of my favorite movies, and in the first ten minutes of this film I thought that it was a great follow up after that though, it begins to drag. The acting and direction were terrific. In fact everything in the film seemed to flow except for the script. At times, the only thing keeping my attention was the fact that in the cast was the most beautiful woman in the world, Claire Forlani. This film was good, but I expected more.
P.S. Look for great cameos by Chi McBride, and Chris McDonald.
This is bar none the most hilarious movie I have ever seen. Beginning with the four delinquents being sent off by their fathers to Wienberg Military Academy, a tone is set that steadily continues all throughout this goofball film, and it does not let up for a second.
It's tough trying to describe this film; the humor elements are so spot on and brilliantly concieved that upon a first look it appears as nothing more than a stupid 80's teen lust comedy. But it is oh so much more than that! Fresh from the minds of those folks over at MAD Magazine, Up the Academy serves up a formula and style that I have never since seen duplicated by ANY of the "funniest" offerings to come out of Hollywood in years past. Basically the film is so full of infantile cornball material that you might guess that the writers were a couple of 14 year olds themselves. See this movie if you love to act "immature." A classic. *****
I must admit - the only reason I bought this movie was because I am a big fan of Gackt and a *huge* fan of Hyde. I was expecting a good movie with a lot of shots that were, shall we say, pleasing to the feminine eye but a slightly cheesy story. I mean, the synopsis sounded really out there. And now that I have just finished watching it - I feel the need to tell the world of its brilliance! Hyde and Gackt both gave heart-wrenching performances, and my eyes are still hot from the crying that lasted throughout the last half of the movie. You get sucked into the story, and you really feel for the characters by the end. The element of vampirism - which I love, but is very easy to overdo or to ruin a movie with - is subtly mixed into the storyline as to make it something merely exotic, normal to this setting, rather than a random unnecessary addition to the story. I ranked it at a 9 out of 10 at first...and then I went back and tried to think of why I wasn't giving it that last point. Came up with nothing. So a ten out of ten it is. After all - I'm not much of a critic - the fact that I'm bothering to write a review at all means I either really hate the movie or really love it. You can tell what side I'm on with Moon Child.
this movie is just great. if you have a chance to see it, then you should run to see it. even though the movie has almost nothing to do with its original from 1932, Pacino does a great job playing as Tony Montana to get around.
Pacino has this way about him where he can say anything in anyway and make it sound just great. if you thought that Pulp Fiction was good with the swear words (if you saw it) then you should also see Scarface to see another angle at how an actor can say them. (its quite sweet)
even though the movie is has a lot of action and the plot moves very fast through time, not keeping the realtime aspect ratio correct, it is still easy to follow along, but you must keep your eyes peeled at all times to not lose anything. personally, i have found that watching this movie makes three hours seem like a breeze, it is really just that great.
this movie is one of thoe movies that is acted and directed so well that not only do you forget that this movie was made in the crappy 80s but that it makes you actually root for the bad guy... "So say good night to the BAD guy"
I stumbled across this (Act-I) by pure dumb luck and this was more than a decade ago. This was'nt even what the cover label on the tape mentioned. It amazed me. It intimidated me. It shocked me. I eventually forgot about and almost a decade later, I happened to think about it again. Then went and bought both acts. They were even better than I had experienced at first.
My only complaint is that while the Tank Police keep on going on and on about being at war with crime, warranting tanks and heavy artillery, it would seem as though they are really having a hard time with criminals. That is either never shown or is simply a lie as they appear to be taking it easy most of the time. If that bit about being in a state of war was really propaganda, it certainly has not been shown as such.
I don't think the original Japanese version could have been any where as good as the Americanized version of this. But regarding the story, there has certainly been some proper explanations lost in translation but it can be excused.