Mouwiya/imdb_reviews_with_labels huggingface dataset:
This is just one more of those hideous films that you find on Lifetime TV which portray the abhorrent behavior of some disgusting woman in an empathetic manner. Along with other such nasty films as "The Burning Bed," "Enough," or "Monster," this film takes a disgusting criminal and attempts to show the viewer why she's not such a bad person after all. Give us a break! Here's my question to the filmmakers: If LeTourneau were a man, and Vili were a 12 year old girl, would you have made a picture sympathizing and empathizing with this person? Answer: Hell no.
Imagine switching the genders in this film, and then you'll see just why myself and others here consider this a worthless piece of garbage. Were the genders switched, there would be no attempt to empathize with the criminal. Instead, we'd likely be treated to a portrayal of a monstrous and hideous man preying upon a young girl, his lascivious behavior landing him in prison, and his brainwashed victim suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. The only reason LeTourneau does not receive the same treatment in this film is by virtue of her sex.
Let's call a spade a spade. LeTourneau is a pedophile. Plain and simple. No ifs, ands or buts. She's a criminal who belongs in prison, and deserves our derision and contempt, but certainly not our pity or empathy.
Much as we all love Al Pacino, it was painful to see him in this movie. A publicity hack at the grubby ending of what seems to have once been a distinguished and idealistic career Pacino plays his part looking like an unmade bed and assaulting everyone with a totally bogus and inconsistent southern accent.
The plot spools out this way and that with so many loose ends and improbabilities that the mind reels (and then retreats).
Kim Basinger is there, not doing much. Her scenes with Pacino are flat and unconvincing. Hard to believe they meant a lot to each other. There's no energy there.
Tea Leone, on the other hand, lit up the screen. She was electric and her scenes with Pacino were by far the most interesting in the movie, but not enough to save Al from embarrassment.
Franco Rossi's 1985 six-hour Italian mini-series of Quo Vadis is a very curious beast, creating an absolutely convincing ancient Roman world shot in matter of fact fashion (very few long shots, no big cityscapes), but playing the drama down so much in favour of allusions to classical literature and history that the story constantly gets lost in the background.
The shifting structure (much of episode one is played out via voice over letters) and lack of narrative urgency makes the full six-hour version simultaneously demanding and undemanding, and certainly far too often uninvolving, but it has something going for it. The two main strengths are the characterisation of Petronius (a thankfully dubbed Frederic Forrest, whose own voice would almost certainly flatten his dialogue) as a man whose spent so long looking for an astute angle to survive court life that he's become incapable of experiencing emotion, and Klaus Maria Brandauer's unique take on Nero as a wannabe actor whose every move and action is calculated on how his 'audience' will receive it. Elsewhere, Max Von Sydow briefly appears in a few episodes, being rewarded with the show's most impressive and genuinely moving scene here he encounters a child as he attempts to leave Rome. It's the kind of thing the show could do with more of, but it seems all too often to flatten every potentially emotional, inspiring or exciting moment under it's relentlessly low-key direction.
Unfortunately Francesco Quinn makes a staggeringly anonymous hero, blending in with the walls and coming over less as a Roman officer than that quiet, slightly gormless but inoffensive guy who works in the same office as you who never says much at office parties - you know, the one who you think is called Dave or something like that. The budgetary limitations are very visible once its Meet the Lions time for the Christians and Ursus battle with the bull is so determinedly low key that it just passes over you before the show just abruptly loses interest and suddenly ends.
Not a trip I can particularly recommend, I'm afraid, but if you do embark on it it's one not entirely without its small rewards.
this is one amazing movie!!!!! you have to realize that chinese folklore is complicated and philosophical. there are always stories behind stories. i myself did not understand everything but knowing chinese folklore (i studied them in school)it is very complicated. you just have to take what it gives you.....ENJOY THE MOVIE AND ENJOY THE RIDE....HOORAY!!!!
I caught this movie at a small screening held by members of my college's gaming club. We were forewarned that this would be the "reefer madness" of gaming, and this movie more than delivered.
Tom Hanks plays Robbie, a young man re-starting his college career after "resting" for a semester. What we, the viewer, find out as the movie progresses, is that Robbie was hopelessly addicted to a role-playing game called "Mazes and Monsters," a game that he gets re-acquainted with after a gaming group recruit him for a campaign.
This movie is laughable on many, many levels. One scene features the group "gaming by candlelight," which is probably the best way I can describe it. While I'm sure that this was meant to be "cultish" in some way, as most gamers know, it's horribly inaccurate. Most role-play sessions are done in well-lit rooms, usually over some chee-tohs and a can of soda.
The acting, while not Oscar-caliber, isn't gut-wrenchingly awful either. This is one of Tom Hanks's first roles, and Bosom Buddies and Bachelor Party were still a year or two over the horizon. The supporting cast, while not very memorable, still hand forth decent performances.
Mainly the badness lies in the fact that it was a made-for-TV movie that shows the "dangers of gaming" Worth a view if you and your friends are planning a bad movie night.
I am terribly sorry, I know that Faßbinder still is called one of the greatest directors in post-war Germany and that most of his films are considered "master-pieces", but when I see "Lili Marleen" today, in 2004, I wonder what everyone is up and away about this movie! The acting is simply terrible - Hanna Schygulla is all the smiling like an idiot! -, the changings between Nazi-glamour and battlefields are ridiculous, the whole film looks as if it was made within two days in an attic. Probably it was exactly that way and many people seem to take this for "real art", but for me this movie is simply bad & cheap. Compare this to Viscontis "La Caduta degli Dei" and tell me again that "Lili Marleen" is a good movie...
I have never read the book"A wrinkle in time". To be perfectly honesty, after seeing the movie, do I really want to? Well, I shouldn't be reviewing this movie i'll start off with that. Next i'll say that the TV movie is pretty forgettable. Do you know why I say that? Because I forgot what happens in it. I told you it was forgettable. To be perfectly honest, no TV movie will ever be better than "Merlin".
How do I describe a TV movie? I have never written a review for one before. Well, i'll just say that they usually have some celebrities. A wrinkle in time includes only one. Alfre Woodard(Or Woodward, I am not sure), the Oscar winner.
The film has cheesy special effects, a mildly interesting plot, scenes that make you go "WTF". The movie is incredibly bad and it makes you go"WTF". What did I expect? It's a TV movie. They usually aren't good. As is this one. A wrinkle in time is a waste of time and a big time waster. To top it off, you'll most likely forget about it the second it's over. Well, maybe not the second it's over. But within a few minutes.
A wrinkle in time:*/****
Other reviewers here seem to think this is an awful film. That's simply not true and a little unfair.
The acting is of a good quality and the direction moves on with a decent fluidity. I don't think there's anything wrong with the Tarantino-esquire way of interlocking stories together. Perhaps its just a new tool for directors to try. I thought it made the film much more interesting. Perhaps a few elements of the script need tightening, but that's about the only fault I can find. Nestor Cantillana gives a great performance as Sylvio, also Antonella Rios is stunning and worth the price of admission alone.
May I start off by saying that Casey Affleck is a very talented actor and I respect his work very much. I wish he was in more movies that showcased his talent. With this said, Soul Survivors was a very, very bad movie. Very bad.
I would have to say that I lay almost all the blame on the poor script. Affleck is a very talented actress, Wes Bentley had an outstanding performance in American Beauty, Melissa Sagemiller did well, and Eliza Dushku is currently the it girl in Hollywood. I don't think any of the actors really got into the script, and I understand why. To say that this movie belongs to the horror genre is an overstatement. It did have the twists and turns you would expect, but they just didn't lead anywhere... except to more confusion. I just found the ending very anti-climatic, because it just didn't seem to make any sense or really answer any of the questions that I had about the storyline.
I wish I could give this movie a good review, but I can't. In all honesty, the only thing I think you will find scary about this movie is that you paid for it.
This was a quite brutal movie. There were huge implausibilities, and a silly script, bad acting, etc.
The only reason to watch this movie is that from time to time some quite impressive sets of breasts were exposed.
I'm writing this because I somehow felt being led to believe Dark Remains was a good movie. Whilst it's not the worst I've seen, it certainly isn't good.
A Weak script, weak actors, and weak directing. Even if they can't afford big name cast, would it be too much to ask for a more attractive lead actress? It was painful to watch a plain actress through out the film with her dull performance. The story was a cliché and poorly scripted. The special effects were minimal. The "suspense" tricks employed repetitively here were hard to swallow.
To be fair, Dark Remains is no worse than quite some of the Masters of Horrors' episodes. But not quite on par with quality movies yet. Dark Remains is only recommended for the hardcore horror fans who don't want to miss any movie in the genre, even if it's a poorly made one. As for anyone else, time should be spent on something more valuable - which should be extremely easy.
The John Van Druten Broadway hit is brought to the screen with a maximum of star power in this romantic fantasy about a modern-day witch who beguiles a successful Manhattan publisher. James Stewart may get top billing, but it is Kim Novak who steals the show as one of the most alluring witches ever to cast a spell on the movie screen. The lead pairing is, in fact, one of the movie's few weaknesses: the gray-haired Stewart seems a bit old for the role, and while it is easy to see why he falls hard for Novak, it's a little harder to understand what she finds attractive about him, as they seem mismatched in temperment and outlook. (It is one of the story's amusing conceits that witches and warlocks are portrayed as Greenwich Village beatniks and bohemians.) Curiously, the Stewart-Novak pairing would generate a lot more heat in "Vertigo", released the same year as this film, but then "Vertigo" had a compelling suspense story, and the benefit of Alfred Hitchcock's direction.
The film's comic moments are mostly provided by the stellar supporting cast, including a young Jack Lemmon (as Kim's warlock brother), Elsa Lanchester (their ditzy aunt), and Ernie Kovacs (!) as a befuddled writer. Hermione Gingold even shows up in a hilarious cameo as a sort of Grand Witch. There's lots to like in this movie--wit, romance, and a great cast--that is, if you can possibly take your eyes off the enchanting Miss Novak. I have seen the movie a half a dozen times, and I never can.
1985 was a good year for films - maybe even great - but this one missing out on a gong went a long way to convincing fans that ol' Oscar is little more that a hood ornament for good party members.
11 nominations and not a single title: such was the Academy's disdain for one of their greatest directors; and one who had to wait another 8 years before whatever prejudices had prevented them from handing him the statue before allowed them to give him 7 for Schindler's List, which is, arguably, not as good (and I'm half-Polish).
Don't get me wrong, Schindler was a classic. And I'm not knocking 'Out of Africa' (which won that year) either; but it was, in my mind, a class behind this one: an epic story of suffering and hope that brought me to tears - and I'm not a big cryer.
Maybe it was the music (superb), or the cinematography (sumptuous), but more likely simply the acting: Whoopi, who proved to all of us that she was much more than just a comedienne; Danny Glover, who I'd never heard of before; and, of course, Oprah.
The rest is history; but, at the time: who knew?
I've seen most of Ryuhei Kitamura's work and I've come to the conclusion that he has a knack for action. Scenes are kinetic and fast often combining elements of martial arts, gun fights and samurai fights with camera work that effectively captures the on screen carnage. With "Versus" and "Aragami" Kitamura demonstrated that creativity and showed that he his more than capable of working with a low budget. So what happened in "Alive" ? To be more blunt, the answer would be - nothing. Nothing happened in "Alive" it was a two hours plus movie with little to no action and little to no characters and plot.
Adapted from a comic book by Tsutomu Takahashi "Alive" is an examination of the life of one Tenshu Yashiro (played by Hideo Sasaki) a death row convict who survives his execution. He is then given a choice of either to repeat the execution or to subject himself in a bizarre series of experiments. He chooses the latter and soon after that is placed in a room along with a rapist and later with a girl infected with a strange parasite that in exchange for it's host's humanity grants supernatural powers. Naturaly at some point that parasite moves into Yashiro, the bad thing is that doesn't happen very soon.
Similar to "Aragami", "Alive" sets it's first half in establishing the basic exposition. Characters are introduced, their motivations are set and their relations between each other are uncovered. The whole thing even takes place in just one set. The first major problem of that comparison is that while "Aragami" was just a 70 minute movie, "Alive" drags on for more than two hours thus making the first part over one hour long. That length could have been justified had the characters been made a bit more interesting but alas that is not the case. Dialogue is dry, monotonous, delivered without any sense of emotion or depth, characters themselves aren't much interesting. There were some small attempts at making "Alive" a bit more moral ambiguous but in the end it all came down to the classic : evil government people against, super-powered protagonist, whom yes you guessed it, saves the girl in the end. Like I previously said the entire film practically takes place at just one set, and after two hours that does get boring, even worse the set design itself wasn't even interesting to begin with, and doesn't do much to improve on other aspects of the film.
Now, after that first part is over, one might think that Kitamura would at least make some entertaining action scenes to make up for the boring beginning. Sadly that is not the case. The two only fights are actually rehashes of similar fights from Hollywood movies, complete with bullet time effects and psychic powers. They're just not interesting or fun, Kitamura's creativity from "Versus" is gone, the small set even limits his often very impressive camera-work and it all boils down into generic and expectable fights, a shame really.
Evidently "Aragami" was better on all accounts and "Kitamura" had learned something from "Alive". So it wasn't at least a total loss watching this movie. If only to understand the errors made, how to fix them and create a better more entertaining movie.
Having heard so much about the 1990s Cracker series without seeing any of them, I looked forward to this eagerly. Surely the combination of Jimmie McGovern and Robbie Coltrane could not go wrong. How wrong I was!
The polemics, backed by frequent, repetitive and violent flashbacks, were overpowering. The production tried to be super-modern, but the flashing boxes and even the childish font irritated. Robbie Coltrane sleep-walked through the two hours, coming up with unexplained and unlikely "insights", and the police were portrayed as one-dimensional bumbling idiots. As a result, the tension never built up and the next-to-final scene (no details for fear of spoilers) was as laughably bad a piece of TV drama as I have seen for a long time.
No, I don't want to see any more of these, but I will go back to the DVDs of the 1990s series to see if they match their reputation.
I am from Sweden and i have just seen this movie and the thing is that i thought it was okay. I have seen many bad comments about it but you must remember that a lot of people that watch this two parts miniseries are located all over the world and not just in USA. Also remember that not everyone has ever heard of the film made in the 60:s and maybe not in the events(murders). And even more...that it can be hard to find the original movie and if so there always be people around that doesn't like black/white films. This one feels fresh and in color and will find its public. Its 12 years old now but i just saw it for the first time. I will try to find the first one if i can to compare them but i haven't seen it anywhere in Sweden. Ofcorse there is internet but not for anyone in the world. The thing here is that this is mostly part of an American crime-history and was big in the 50-60:s in just USA but in rest of the world it just past by i guess. Well it was told about for some time but 40 years later it will fade away in for example Europa cause time goes by. We had our own problems and crimes so if someone will do a remake of the film and put it back in some light again its not a bad idea at all. A new generation can take part of this horrible story and even the film about Capote that was released just a few years ago witch was a pretty good film too i think. It will boost interest to the events that took place some 50 years ago and maybe stop it to fall in sleep. It started me up and now i am looking for the Robert Blake-version so it wasn't that bad...huh? This are my opinions. Some people will of course disagree but hey...its okay. Sometimes there will be okay with remakes on old films. Its not every time the old ones are that good. The film-making techniques has developed a lot and scenes can be made more realistic if they want today. Its always a question of money of course. There has been so many movies that were made in the "good old days" but there were also money missing, bad directors etc, and they remakes them today (50 years later) and suddenly they are okay to watch. My friend got this box of old classic horror-movies and s/f and i cant say i was impressed of the so called good old days. Most of them you cold put in the trashcan directly. They were so bad that we just sat there like zombies...could not move...like brain-dead. I cant recommend them to anyone. Some of them i have seen remakes of and i remember liking them...but not the originals. They were just painful awful. This is like the old story of who was the best Bond...Moore or Connery...I think if you see Roger Moore first you maybe find him the one to trust or like... Thanks for me and i am sorry for my English, thats not so good. /Lars from Sweden
I can just about understand why some people might wish to stress this film's link with the Eighties but I really wouldn't say it's an accurate depiction of most peoples' lives in that era - even on the poorest Bradford estates. It is however typical of the blunt agitprop rubbish the dear old Royal Court Theatre was churning out at that time. Plenty of 'right-on' artistry for small, small audiences but enough well-connected backslapping to ensure future commissions for turgid playrights. IThe simple fact is that if you want to reflect upon truer common experience you'll find millions more nodding in knowing agreement to love and live as depicted in 'Gregory's Girl'.
I would be tempted to call this a 'kitchen sink' drama but that would be doing a great disservice to the plumbing industry. However, as far as having a decent script is concerned, this film is indeed all washed up. For some reason it has accrued an odd following amongst Guardian reading film-goers - I can only assume they get a visual frisson out of pretending to slum it. Steer clear my friends. It is a poor film with a poor script that likes to think it is breaking boundaries by adding humorous insights into grim life on the estates. it isn't..but it is grim. Do the washing up instead.
I first saw this video 15 years ago. I thought it was excellent then and I still do. I am a former teacher of English (high school and college) and a lover of English Romantic poetry, so Coleridge rates highly with me. Anything which might detract from the beauty of the poem or the power of the story wouldn't get my vote of excellence. In this case, everything works well to engage the viewer, especially high school students. The story is well illustrated for a generation which grew up on television. In addition, the voice of Michael Redgrave adds a sense of authenticity and authority to it. Okay, so there wasn't a big budget for the project. So it wasn't Star Wars and there's no CGI in it. But who can dismiss Gustave Doré illustrations as part of the presentation? The comment above, which in just four lines dismisses the video as a piece of trash, is grossly unfair and unperceptive. I'm a friend of the producer, but that isn't my reason for this comment. Rather, I'm defending a work of artistry which I think has value on all levels. It is well suited to bring Coleridge's poem to students in a way which awakens their appreciation of it and awakens their sympathy for the lesson which the ancient mariner imparts.