Mouwiya/imdb_reviews_with_labels huggingface dataset:
This movie is one of the many "Kung Fu" action films made in Asia in the late '70s - early '80s, full of cheap sound effects, dubbed dialog and lightning fast martial arts action. But unlike most films of this genre it also has a decent plot and lots of great comedy. When workers of a dye factory are forced out of their jobs by Manchu bullies, they hire a con-artist (Gordon Liu) to try to scare them off. When his attempt fails miserably, he cons his way into a Shaolin temple to learn to fight for real. But instead of making him a Kung-Fu student, the Master instead orders him to build a scaffolding to cover the roofs of all 36 chambers. Well, it turns out that while he's performing these menial tasks (stacking and tying bamboo poles) that he's learning the skills to be a Kung-Fu expert! It's sort of like in Karate Kid when Mr. Miagi teaches Daniel the basics of karate by having him do routine household chores- "Wax on, wax off" et cetera. There's lots of great comedy from beginning to end, and plenty of action at the end when Gordon Liu once again faces his Manchu tormentors. "This time it's not just tricks- it's the real thing!" Liu declares, proudly thumping his chest. If you like classic Kung Fu films you don't want to miss this one!
I really think that this movie is great, personally. But, in every movie there is a downer. Now, some of you may not have watched Hilary Duff's 'Raise Your Voice', but If you think about it, those two shows are very very similar, if you know what i mean. In 'Brave New Girl', Holly wants so bad to get into Haverty Conservatory. In 'Raise Your Voice', Terri wants to go to a conservatory in L.A.(don't remember the name of the conservatory there). They are both in the music field, and they both have to sing at the ending of the semester. It's really funny how these two films are alike. I personally like 'Brave New Girl' better than, 'Raise Your Voice' though.
I just watched The Convent for the second time. I had enjoyed it previously and figured it would make for a good drunken Friday night film, some gore, some style, bit of humour and suchlike. I was saddened to find that I could no longer appreciate it much. It seemed like someone had set out to revisit cheeseball epics like Night of the Demons for a modern audience but lost the things that made the original worthwhile. For the record I'm not even a huge fan of Night of the Demons, but there were some things I really dug about it. The Convent does the cheese but the not the goodness so much. Apart from the main girl (likeable performance from Joanna Canton), the goth girl and a sweet cameo from Adrienne Barbeau pretty much all the characters were excruciatingly unlikeable, festering at the absolute lowest levels of moronic, offensive jockhood. The film is then gravely hampered by the complete lack of gratuitous nudity which means that, given the awful dialogue, it is difficult to watch the characters and harder to appreciate the good points of the film. The evil nuns are original in design and get lots of good scenes, though not scary their certainly kinda cool, and the film also fields a fair amount of neat gore. Towards the end, when Adrienne Barbeau is on the scene the film becomes quite entertaining cause all the obnoxious people are dead and its an evil nun bashing frenzy. The stylised direction also occasionally yields good results, although sometimes the camera just moves too fast. All in all, this was a film where for me the shining good points just can't make up for the things I hated. Those more fond of this kind of film may well enjoy it a lot more, but for me it wasn't a good time.
"Transylvania 6-5000" is an insignificant but occasionally funny and charming mid 80's horror parody with some very familiar names in the cast and a handful of genuine opportunities to chuckle in the script. Two bozo journalist of a gossipy tabloid newspaper are sent, very much against their will, to Transylvania to do a story on the alleged return of mad scientist Frankenstein. There are some adorable little gimmicks and details to discover left and right in the film, like a little guillotine for hard-boiled eggs and laboratory test tubes that are being used to put in cream and sugar at the breakfast table. The wholesome of the film, however, is not as successful as it could and should have been, with jokes and parody situations that are way too overlong. The Roger Corman production "Transylvania Twist", which came out four years after this, is a lot funnier and much more recommended. The film is particularly parodying the classic Universal milestones of the early 30's, so you better make sure you've seen those if you want to grasp all the tiny gags and references. There's a pretty original twist indicating that the Frankenstein character only behaves like a mad-raving evil scientist when he enters his laboratory. It's also revealed that he's actually more of a Father Damien sort of messiah who's only concerned with the condition of exiled monsters. Michael Richards, the freaky guy who plays Kramer in Seinfeld, stars as a psychotic butler who appears and disappears at the most inappropriate moments. I'm pretty sure John Turturro's character in "Mr. Deeds" was inspired by Richards's role here.
Okay, I've always been a fan of Batman. I loved the animated series, and even Batman Beyond. I even read a batman comic now and then. So as can be imagined--I was a little excited when I heard about this series, and then I was SEVERELY disappointed. This series is nothing. It doesn't even begin to compare with the original series. It's like one long TOY commercial. No depth whatsoever. And what the heck was with the Joker? Who,in my most humble opinion, is the best Batman villain of ALL time and they KILLED him. I wish I could say his design was the worst part. Actually, I wish I could say there was anything about this series that was remotely creative or interesting. In short (because believe me I could say so much more)do NOT waste your time on this show, or your money.
This recreation of the infamous 1959 murders in Kansas, based on the Capote book, is starkly filmed by Brooks and cinematographer Hall in black and white, giving it a documentary feel. There are good performances from Blake and Wilson as the killers and Forsythe as a cop who pursues them. The scenes leading up to the murders, filmed at the actual house where the crime occurred, with a soundtrack of whistling winds, are quite intense and chilling. Brooks directs with a lot of verve and uses several interesting transitions between scenes. The only complaint is that it is a bit overlong, with the denouement dragged out and somewhat preachy.
This documentary (or I should say mockumentary) is the perfect example of how ridiculous can the people be, when they have full enthusiasm on something like that. Honestly, I hate Cryptozoology. It is unscience, it just destroy it. However, something positive in this was the visual effects (dragons were beautiful), but some of the information in this mockumentary was totally fake, and that is really disappointing because it was coming from scientists, so that is the reason why it deserves a 1 of 10 and not a 0. An example of false information would be the hydrogen idea: It is true that, according to Chemystry, the hydrogen is produced in the stomach but it is impossible to be produced in that proportions, so in that case, you need a good explanation of what really happens in a dragon stomach. There are a lot of substances whit hydrogen in the nature but not the necessary to aloud an animal like that to fly, and the hydrogen does not appear from nothing, so it is impossible. Anyway, there is actually something worse, the idea of the platinum: This element is more difficult to find than gold, and I cannot explain myself how dragons survive depending of that. It is ridiculous, they present dragons like creatures with low chances of conquering the planet Earth, but off course at least that explain why they got extincted. Probably cryptologist's call themselves scientists, but they are not. People like them say lies like in this mockumentary, and what is worst, some people buy them. But I do not think that a person who cares about Science would believe in dragons after watching this. Those fake scientists waste their time.
A heartwarming film. The usual superb acting by John Thaw, who passed over recently. A man who was always so unassuming. He was one of Englands top 10 actors certainly of my time.
He can be remembered for his famous role of Inspector Morse. As Jack Regan in the 1970's hit TV series 'the Sweeney and as a barrister in Kavanah QC. A must see for all the family and a great DVD for my collection. The filming will bring back a few memories for people who remember wartime Britain and certainly those who were evacuated out of London to escape the German bombings. The interaction between the two main characters.Tom and the boy William was really well acted and true to the book by Michelle Magorian.
This film came recommended as a good action film, which I don't really think it is. I found the story convoluted and not all that easy to follow. There really isn't that much action until the end of the film and it's pretty dark and hard to see what's really happening. I was sure hoping for something different, but, alas, didn't find it here.
If you're at all interested in pirates, pirate movies, New Orleans/early 19th century American history, or Yul Brynner, see this film for yourself and make up your own mind about it. Don't be put off by various lacklustre reviews. My reaction to it was that it is entertaining, well acted (for the most part), has some very witty dialogue, and that it does an excellent job of portraying the charm, appeal and legendary fascination of the privateer Jean Lafitte. While not all the events in the film are historically accurate (can you show me any historical film that succeeds in this?), I feel the film is accurate in its treatment of the role Lafitte played in New Orleans' history, and the love-hate relationship between the "respectable" citizens of New Orleans and this outlaw who was one of the city's favorite sons. Don't worry about what the film doesn't do, but watch it for what it does do, i.e., for its study of one of New Orleans', and America's, most intriguing historical figures.
C'mon people, look at the title! LOL! I remember seeing this movie on Saturday Late Night Creature Features years ago. It's a great, cheesy monster flick with hilariously bad acting and two wonderfully moronic hillbillies that add to the schlock factor. The 2 redneck boat rental guys are the movie! LOL, and you'll love the boat scene where the English guy and his wife are talking about all the stars and it's midday and sunny. Bloody hilarious!!! You can tell they just didn't care about plot, they just wanted to blow through the filming of the movie as fast as possible. Bottom line, you'll love it if you love 70's schlock.
I was a little skepticle if I should watch this when it was first shown on CBS. I was one of the many people who were in NYC on that day, I was going to school at Hunter College. I didnt want to see all the devistation and carnage again, but like many I was curious to see what this was all about. Tears came to my eyes watching this documentary. All my memories returned and just the intense images were unbelievable. I bought the DVD on the one year anniversary and watched it a few times. How these guys were able to capture this footage was incredible. If you have not seen this documentary, do yourself a favor and check it out. It is obviously depressing and will bring tears to eyes, but it's an incredible document of this countries darkest hour.
Maybe I'm missing something because I've read more positive things about The Man Who Cheated Himself than I have read bad reviews - and I just don't get it. I like my noirs to have a little style to them with characters that speak, look, and act like Humphrey Bogart in The Big Sleep or Gene Tierney in Laura. None of the characters in this movie have that style or presence or whatever you want to call it. Take the lead actor, Lee J. Cobb. His rumpled, rolled-out-of-bed look is about as far from the dashing, smooth-talking noir archetype as you'll find. Or, take Jane Wyatt as the femme fatale as another example. This is one of the worst cases of miscasting I've seen in a while. She's just not convincing in the role.
As for the plot, it's tired and lacks any real surprises or anything new for the genre. I could have predicted the outcome of The Man Who Cheated Himself after about five minutes. And that final cat-and-mouse chase scene is plain old dull. Ten to fifteen minutes of nothing happening really ruined any pacing the movie may have had going for it.
Comedies often have the unfortunate reputation of having little real depth. Arms and the Man, proves that notion to be false. Shaw's play is full of comedic drama, combining an entertaining plot with true philosophical depth.
On one level, Arms and the Man is a successful, and somewhat unique, romantic comedy. The young, melodramatic, and superficial Raina comes from a military family deeply involved in a war; her fiancé and her father are both military officers. She is shocked, one night by the arrival of an enemy soldier. She rescues him, knowing that she'll have to keep the incident a secret from her family forever, and the soldier eventually leaves. Of course, once the war is over, that soldier comes back, forcing each of the primary characters to reevaluate their values and their relationships.
It is quite interesting how Shaw layers meaning within the rather standard comedic plot. Shaw manages to comment on class constructs, on the absurdity of war, and even on the nature of love. And, of course, he does this with the Shavian wit and within a satisfying plot. There is so much here to think about that I think a lot can be missed in a single viewing. Arms and the Man is excellent comedic theater and is definitely one of Shaw's best works.
"Arms and the Man" is both an amusing and thought-provoking movie that retains its relevance even today, more than a century after it was first conceived. Shaw mocks at the popular theories on war and love and combines a military satire with a taunt on love and family structure. The play has flashing wit, buoyant humor and bitter sarcasms. A good example of Shaw's dialog is the statement by Captain Bluntschli to Serguis: "I'm a professional soldier: I fight when I have to, and am very glad to get out of it when I haven't to. You're only an amateur; you think fighting is an amusement". Indeed as a Swiss hotel-keeper's son, Bluntschli had no reason to be involved in war and it is in this absurdity that Shaw questions patriotic sentiments. Shaw explores the whole concept of war and the military from both sides of the struggle and in the end shows that the feelings in both camps are not that different.
The dialog and sarcasm used towards the common notions of life are entangled with a gentle assurance of the movement of the story towards a fairytale ending. The end where all characters are rendered happy and lovers change and love shifts is what underlines the essence of this drama as a comedy. This is a movie that sustains its image of possessing a universal appeal and is still appropriate today when the concepts of war and patriotism and love and marriage have changed dramatically. Shaw's "Arms and the Man" should maintain its relevance as long as there is love and war.
The opening sequence is supposed to show the Legion arriving in Paris on 13 Nov 1918. The troops pile off the train -- wearing the uniform in which the French Army, including the Legion, marched off to war in 1914! This a sure sign that the war flick you are about to see will be a turkey. (The French Army realized by 1915 that going to war in red trousers and dark blue overcoats was not working. Metropolitan French troops were put into "horizon blue" and Colonial troops were put into khaki.) The Claude Van-Damme (sp?) remake at least got the uniforms more or less right. Really is too bad when directors make these sorts of mistakes when they then go to all the effort to get other things right.
This mini-series is actually more entertaining than some others with much bigger budgets and grander aspirations. SOTD falls somewhere between "Kung-Fu" and "H R Pufnstuff" on the entertainment spectrum. If it weren't so long (nearly 3 hours) I think that kids would like it quite a bit. It's got adventure, action, "cliffhanger scenes", and not too much romance or other "icky" stuff. When you're young, you're not too critical of flexing rubber swords, campy acting, and scenes that are repeated. (At least two scenes are repeated identically in the movie, just as was done in old-time serials in order to bring the audience up to speed.) Finally, kids are usually more accepting of American English dialogue coming out of the mouths of Asian actors. (Not to mention the fact that several of the leading roles are played by non-Asian actors.)
I was going to give this movie three stars, but I felt like the director, producers, and cast deserved some extra credit for at least carrying through on the project. This movie is not art, but, like painting your house, it actually took some time, effort, and discipline to get it made.
Overall, not a recommended use for your time, but it might keep the kids entertained while traveling in the mini-van.
Oh, yeah...hey, IMDb! "Dialogue" is the preferred and traditional spelling. Your spell-checking seems to think that "dialog" is the proper spelling. While "dialog" is acceptable, both Webster's and the OED consider it an alternative form.
Georgia Rule has got to be one of - if not the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The whole movie has a very surreal feel that made me gasp, "what?" out loud at least 7-10 times throughout its grueling two hour course.
Advertised in its trailer as a movie about three generations of women - Jane Fonda as the matriarch, Felicity Huffman as her daughter, and Lindsay Lohan as the rebellious, over- sexed, scantily clad grand-daughter, the viewer thinks this will be a cliché, light, chick-flick about growing up and coming together as a family.
Talk about false advertisement at it worst.
After many shots of animals doing "funny" things in the background of "pivotal" scenes and not to mention a whole five minutes focusing on an old woman who comes into a doctor's office weekly to have her diaper changed, or the fact that this movie is actually about Lindsay Lohan's character being sexually abused by her step-father, Georgia Rule creates its own genre of cinema : The ungrounded, horribly acted, inappropriate comedy dealing with extremely serious issues in the most awkward, surreal, strange way. If Garry Marshall wanted this movie to be a drama/comedy, then he should have watched The Royal Tenenbaums. Sideways. Junebug. And so on. And so on.
The only way I feel I can get a reader to understand the horrific genre that Georgia Rule falls under is to create a hypothetical situation. Say that the movie, The 40 Year Old Virgin, was about the main character being celibate because he was sexually molested as a child. But instead of having the movie take a more dramatic turn, belly laughs and comedy would ensue, with all of the characters' reactions being that of fake, lifeless, human beings pretending to care.
Throw in a yellow parakeet, Dermot Mulroney as the flattest, most non-dimensional character that could have been cut completely out of this poorly written script, along with a male character who throws away all of his religious beliefs and morals to be with a trashy, too-tanned girl who shares none of the same interests as he, as well as an an unnecessary car chase scene, unreal moments of characters trying to relate to each other, and you've got Georgia Rule.
I found this movie to be an insult to any of those people out there who are struggling filmmakers, screenwriters, actors, editors, etc..who have a lot more talent and aren't getting noticed.
Don't see this movie : my rule.
And if you must, get sufficiently drunk before hand.
This is not the video nastie, but only because it came out in 1994 when they were presumably tired of the whole thing in Britain. It is 75% a rehash of The Boogeyman, and would have been banned for the same reason - whatever that was.
I was initially confused as I thought that Annie (Kelly Galindo) may have been a different Lacey, but she was someone trouble by psychic visions of a boogeyman similar to the one in the first film. Fans will immediately note that they are not the same person.
After seeing a murder in a bathroom, and also seeing the address as well, Annie, her psychiatrist and a para psychology student who greatly resembles the guy on the cheap romance novels and butter commercials, head to the house, and, sure enough, it's the same bathroom. 24 hours later a murder happens just as she described. Of course, we have no idea who this boobilicious woman is or why she was murdered.
Then the movie shift to a rerunning of The Boogeyman story with some extra footage that we did not see in the original. Notably, the boogeyman is shown unlike the original. Sadly, some of the good scenes were cut, but 90% of it is there. Why rerun this film? Did they find the footage in the trash? What was the purpose?
We'll never know and, despite the psychologist telling Annie she is cured, we all know the bogeyman will never die.
Say what you want about Andy Milligan - but if his family was even 10% as deranged as the one in this film, well then I guess he could have turned out worse. Unfortunately, the video print of this film contains sex scene inserts originally shot by the distributor to boost the picture's box office appeal. Several times during the film Milligan's ugly camerawork and silent film music abruptly ends, and suddenly good-looking stand-ins for Milligan's homely actors take over and start doing it to psychedelic 60's guitar rock. It's pretty easy to fast-forward through if you're trying to pay attention to Milligan's original film, which, unfortunately, is missing quite a bit of action that was cut to make room for the added sex scenes. What remains, however, is still compelling stuff. I don't think I've ever seen a more hateful mother in any film before.
I can't stand most reality shows and this one is worst than the one with Paris Hilton, and sure it's his company. But "you're fired" or "you're hired", for how many seasons now? After watching the show I wouldn't want to work for the guy with his ego and all and I think watching paint dry has more entertainment valve.
I'd love to hear just one person get up and say "Donald I quit and take some of your money and buy a decent hairdo". I see he's even trying to buy fame in the wrestling WWE. I hope he gets hurt so I don't have to see his pathetic face anymore. It must be sad to want fame so bad and have no talent and make an ass of yourself trying to buy it. I'd give this show a negative mark if I could but it gets a 1 and it doesn't deserve that.
i think it is a nice movie; i think it is a very romanian movie through scenery and atmoshpere; i think it was not intended to be sensual (sensuality is a result, not a purpose); i think it is very natural; i think it is humane; i think it was interesting; i think the actors never made me think... waw lame acting (they are not Sean Connory & co) neither is the film a block buster, they are like the movie... normal ppl that can act...; i think the movie reached its intention; i think it made me feel things (or feel them again :) ); i think i'm not objective;
i really enjoyed it... that i know.