Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I did no research on the film prior to my first viewing of it because it was part of a Welles box set I had recently purchased. A box set I chiefly got because I wanted to own A Man For All Seasons and to also re-evaluate Waterloo. So I stick Orson and Rita in the player and I'm treated to class and confusion in equal measure.
On the surface the story seemed a simple one, man meets gorgeous woman and saves her from a couple of thugs, they click straight away and man gets offer of work on a cruise with woman and her famous lawyer husband, and then.............
..well it becomes murder mystery of plotted devilment and much shenanigans. Michael O'Hara (Orson Welles} himself doesn't really know what is going on, he is as confused as the viewer is, and that is wonderful to watch as he is pulled all over the place by pretty much everyone in the film. Obviously being pulled by the heart strings by a femme fatale of such beauty as Elsa Bannister (Rita Hayworth} has its moments, but you just know that things are going to go pear shaped.
So many wonderful things in the film, it has Welles visual style all over it, see a scene in an aquarium that is marvellous and the ending sequences in a fun house is majestic on the eye. The narration from O'Hara is joyously self mocking, and we get good light relief by way of a court case with Everett Sloane considerably lighting up proceedings.
Yet the film is an oddity, and in fact it's a choppy viewing experience, because {as I was to find out after} studio bosses cut the film by pretty much a whole hour, and that is just not only frustrating to us the viewer, but unfair on Welles' vision. I'm positive that a full original cut of this film would have been lauded and revered wholesale, as it is tho, we have a very good and intriguing film, one that sadly only hints at greatness, but remains a fiendishly engrossing film that I'm glad I own to revisit further. 8.5/10

Sorry everyone,,, I know this is supposed to be an "art" film,, but wow, they should have handed out guns at the screening so people could blow their brains out and not watch. Although the scene design and photographic direction was excellent, this story is too painful to watch. The absence of a sound track was brutal. The loooonnnnng shots were too long. How long can you watch two people just sitting there and talking? Especially when the dialogue is two people complaining. I really had a hard time just getting through this film. The performances were excellent, but how much of that dark, sombre, uninspired, stuff can you take? The only thing i liked was Maureen Stapleton and her red dress and dancing scene. Otherwise this was a ripoff of Bergman. And i'm no fan f his either. I think anyone who says they enjoyed 1 1/2 hours of this is,, well, lying.
This movie is definitely on the list of my top 10 favorites. The voices for the animals are wonderful. Sally Field and Michael J. Fox are both brilliant as the sassy feline and the young inexperienced pooch, but the real standout is Don Ameche as the old, faithful golden retriever. This movie is a great family movie because it can be appreciated and loved by children as well as adults. Humorous and suspenseful, and guaranteed to make every animal lover cry! (happy tears!)

No one should ever try to adapt a Tom Robbins book for screen. While the movie is fine and the performances are good, the dialogue, which works well reading it, is crap when spoken. Or, to put it another way, no one would be likely to suggest that hearing someone else's name was like seeing it written in radium on a pearl.
Overall, the movie feels like a badly-adapted Cliffs Notes to the book - most of the parts have been hacked down to a fifth of their size in the book, in terms of backstory and current story, and the ending is wildly (and unpleasantly) different from that of the book. Most of the plots from the book have gotten lost, including the one that makes everything make sense at the end, and there's more than one reference that makes sense in the book that makes the viewer say "Huh?" Not a worthy effort, unfortunately - the script should have been read, compared to the book, burned, and all the actors sent off to do something far better. I admire Gus Van Sant tremendously, but not even someone of his calibre could have made a decent movie of such a complex book without making a miniseries.
I just saw this last night, it was broadcast on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's 'Passionate Eye' series. It has been screened recently (Sept. 2003) at the Toronto International Film Festival as well as many others. It is a quite remarkable film. The filmmakers literally stumbled into the story, being there to make a documentary about Chavez himself. Instead, they found themselves squarely in the middle of events as the coup unfolded. They had unprecedented access to events and people and, for the most part, let the story unfold as it happens. They, of course, have their own ideological perspective (which they make evident) but they keep themselves in the background and instead try to focus attention on the events, the people, and the background and history leading up to the coup. As a film, it is not ground-breaking in a stylistic or aesthetic sense, and that is, I think, the way it should be. What we get to see what 'embedded' journalism should really be. What we get to see is a remarkable account of a country struggling to attain democracy... a charismatic leader (Chavez) who actually cares for his people... a story about power and greed as a coalition of corporate/military/media interests combine to lead a coup of a democratically elected leader... and unprecedented access to a historical event as it unfolds.

This has an interesting, albeit somewhat fanciful sci-fi plot, but it's wasted with poor direction and shlocky special effects. Rae Dawn Chong is appealing, despite the lack of a believable story and direction consistent with her talent.
Valliant effort to use a mining catastrophe as a vehicle to pronounce this director's distaste for war. The audience not only learns a great deal about early mining rescue procedures but, we learn that Europeans at the interval between WWI and WWII, had concerning pacifists(for lack of a better term). The speeches given by both representatives of each country at the end of the film, are inspiring given the time. Although the revised edition, through the transfer technology of early foreign films, "cuts-off characters heads" at times, this film holds it's own in many different aspects. Character analysis, lighting techniques, historical content and a scenario that has tested and inspired many a writer and filmmaker.
Pabst went on to Direct and put to screen Weil & Brecht's "Three Penny Opera", starring the original star, Lotte Lenya.

If they could get Ed Asner why didn't they get other actors instead of people who go to the same church as the producers? And why did the protagonist throw the wise old sage character to the ground when he was never in danger. It forced the old guy to mask the injury out of pride and so the young guy would feel guilty leaving him with a life long disability. I guess thats why the main character refuses money though and why the old guy works him like a dog even when he volunteers for extra work. If the d-bag boyfriend is a bad guy because he is long-distance boyfriend then why is a soldier any better. He has good reason to be jealous, good reason to get her away from her hometown and over protective, controlling manipulative father. All the characters that are meant to be likable aren't and everyone else is the 'bad' boyfriend. How did they meet anyway, a wine broker and a saw mill worker?
Sterling and younger brother try to survive on land, being squeezed by big cattlemen. When 'rogue' brother Preston arrives, a moral dilemma ensues. John 'Drew' Barrymore steals the show as the younger, impressionable brother-Barrymore shows signs here that he could have been an acting powerhouse. Moves at a nice pace to an exciting climax.

With all due disrespect for this George Stevens Sr. "epic" of miscastings and misreadings, I can only wonder that the James Dean "legend" could survive this outing, I submit that then-studio obeisances to bankable box office "giants" came a cropper of its own 'gigantismoses'. Nor were Rock and Liz that much better off. Let us just say that the televised "Dallas" was the authentic "heir," even if contemp(tuous) latterday "Texans" like Lay and DELay, not to mention our putative "president" of these here Yewbenighted States of Amurrika, perform a one-upsmanship of dastardly global dimensions. I never read Edna Ferber's original, but will lay odds it is head and shoulders superior to what got on screen herein. And all those well-paid, I would imagine, "supporting" actors of note and celebrity notwithstanding, "Giant" is, to me at least, a midget of scant merit, never mind the promo campaigns.
The daughter's words are poetry: "I can't go on another year. I got to get to a hotel room." "I lost my blue scarf in a sea of leaves." "The marble faun is moving in...he just gave us a washing machine. That's the deal." "I'm pulverized by this latest thing." "..raccoons and cats become a little bit boring for too long a time." "..any little rat's nest, mouse hole I'd like better." And there is wisdom in the mother's words: "...yes the pleasure is all mine." "This little book will keep me straight, straight as a dye." "Always one must do everything correctly." "Where the hell did you come from?" "...bring me my little radio I've got to have some professional music." "I'm your mother. Remember me?" The mother/daughter relationship is drawn in this magnificent film. This is a Mother's day film.

Much has been made of Rohmer's use of digital technology to 'fill in' the background. At times it works well, the scene where Grace and her maid witness from afar the King's execution is particularly striking. At other times it gives the film a strangely amateurish look, resembling a home video. However, the major failing is that the sheer artificiality of the mise en scene creates an alienating effect in the viewer. We know that what we are watching is not real so how can we feel for the characters? To be frank, I did not care at all what happened to the Lady or the Duke.
The other major failing, I regret to say, is the performance of Lucy Russell in the leading role. She is in virtually every scene and the success or otherwise of the film rests on her performance. OK she is speaking a foreign language but she is incapable of expressing real emotion. Her emoting in the scene where she recounts to her friend Mme de Meyler (an excellent performance by the debutante Helena Dubiel) seeing the head on a pole caused some embarrassed laughter in the audience. Also, watch her hands when she is expressing emotion!
All in all a very disappointing film, particularly given the positive reviews on this site.
Very rarely does Denzil Washington make a bad movie and come to think of it that goes for Kevin Kline and in this case , this must count as one of their best films. It is more about of film about how strong friendship can more than the story of Steve Biko although we do get an insight into what the man was like and how far the reporter and friend Donald Woods went to preserve the mans name and let the world know what a corrupt , putrid society South Africa was. The Direction is outstanding from David Attenborough as it was for Gandhi although if there is any critisism to be aimed it could be at the length of the film. Two and a half hours is a long time to sit through a historic movie .What is amazing is how he manages to control all the extras. Thousands of people in both films. This film really does open your eyes to what happened before the break up of Aparthiet and you cannot fail to moved by it. 8 out of 10.

I have come out of several years of lurking on these boards due to the sheer lack of intelligence that is communicated through the reviews that periodically appear on this film's IMDb space. I saw this movie courtesy of subway cinema's new york Asian film festival (which had an otherwise excellent selection of movies this year, see vital, snake of june, CHA NO AJI, Survive Style)and have regretted every day that a scene from that movie disengorges itself from the back of my mind, and becomes a vivid memory.
I'm sure that you can read a laudatory summary of the film off of Subway Cinema, which is probably why I made the mistake of dragging my friend to the film. The description built up the kind of horror film that I had longed for for a while, one that relies on sheer terror rather than cheap scares. P was in fact different. It relied on cheap laughs.
The incredibly annoying announcer described this movie as "Lesbians team up to fight monsters." Completely untrue. There is a subplot built up in this film to make it seem like the relationship between the girl and Pookie is actually going somewhere. More lies. This film seems like a short made for "Are you afraid of the dark?" The story is ridiculous, and only succeeded in eliciting laughter and confusion from the audience after they finally rescinded their attempt to view this film with any semblance of seriousness and try to forget the $9 that they wasted at the door. I almost wish paul spurrier was in the audience so that I could laugh at him and ask him why he wasted 5 years in thailand to make a bad softcore horror-cum-porn that belongs on the spice channel, which only succeeded to get the actress excommunicated from her family, and caused a minor stir at the belgium film festival. The only stir that this caused was a gurgle in the lower intestine as it couldn't extract itself from the sh*te that it is. Anyway, I hope I can dissaude anyone from making the grave mistake of seeing this film, it was truly one of my top 3 worst movie experiences, knocking out soulplane for the number 2.
This movie is not about entertainment, or not even a movie you want to see to pass the time. This movie is a genuinely a display of true love that can only come from God. One cannot help but be touched deeply by looking at this movie. We have several dimensions of love that contributes to the value of this movie. There is the divine love of God that is beautifully portrayed. God's love transcends the heart and mind and endures and is eternal. There is the love in a marriage. While the main character grapples with his wife's disease, he realizes through God's love that he loves his wife more than he could ever imagine. He knows that he and his wife are one and can never be separated. Finally, you have the love of child and parent. The kids in the family come together and realize that nothing else matters except that love conquers fear. Dear friends, love is not love unless it comes from God, because God is love and love comes from God. Talk to someone and let them know you love them. Love does no good unless it is given to another. I pray this movie can inspire and change the lives of everyone who sees it. Amen!!

Watching It Lives By Night makes you wonder, just who in the world greenlit this crap. A newlywed couple go spelunking on their honeymoon, get attacked by bats and the husband starts to run around in his pajamas attacking various people. And where exactly are they? They're in the desert, then they're skiing, then they're in a small town that looks like it has mountains nearby. The town is run by a sheriff who likes to watch and has a personal vendetta against whiny doctor boy. The ski hospital is run by a really groovy guy with a nice thick mustache and the wife looks like Mary Tyler Moore or Marilyn Quayle. There's no dramatic tension and the ending will leave you filled with anger. Special effects and makeup guru Stan Winston did the effects for this movie. I guess you have to start somewhere.
In anticipation of Ang Lee's new movie "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," I saw this at blockbuster and figured I'd give it a try. A civil war movie is not the typical movie I watch. Luckily though, I had a good feeling about this director. This movie was wonderfully written. The dialogue is in the old southern style, yet doesn't sound cornily out of place and outdated. The spectacular acting helped that aspect of the movie. Toby Maguire was awesome. I thought he was good (but nothing special) in Pleasantville, but here he shines. I have always thought of Skeet Ulrich as a good actor (but nothing special), but here he is excellent as well. The big shocker for me was Jewel. She was amazingly good. Jeffrey Wright, who I had never heard of before, is also excellent in this movie. It seems to me that great acting and great writing and directing go hand in hand. A movie with bad writing makes the actors look bad and visa versa. This movie had the perfect combination. The actors look brilliant and the character development is spectacular. This movie keeps you wishing and hoping good things for some and bad things for others. It lets you really get to know the characters, which are all very dynamic and interesting. The plot is complex, and keeps you on the edge of your seat, guessing, and ready for anything at any time. Literally dozens of times I was sure someone was going to get killed on silent parts in the movie that were "too quiet" (brilliant directing). This was also a beautifully shot movie. The scenery was not breath taking (It's in Missouri and Kansas for goodness sakez) but there was clearly much attention put into picking great nature settings. Has that rough and rugged feel, but keeps an elegance, which is very pleasant on the eyes. The movie was deep. It told a story and in doing so made you think. It had layers underneath that exterior civil war story. Specifically, it focused on two characters that were not quite sure what they were fighting for. There were many more deep issues dealt with in this movie, too many to pick out. It was like a beautifully written short story, filled with symbolism and artistic extras that leaves you thinking during and after the story is done. If you like great acting, writing, lots of action, and some of the best directing ever, see this movie! Take a chance on it.

I don't know what it was about this film that made me react so viscerally against it. Perhaps it was the characters who so unlikable and were not compelling enough to care about. Perhaps it was the disorganized storyline. Perhaps it was the fact that Rob Lowe wore a long dangly earring and eyeliner. Perhaps it was because at some point in the movie they all break out in song. Perhaps it was because the 1980s were never that 80s. Perhaps it was because everything was a garish hyperbole. Perhaps it was because a character pumps his fist while driving away from the camera during a fade out. I don't know what it was that made me hate it so, but if it means trying to watch it again I'm not willing to find out.
I came across An Insomniac's Nightmare while looking for offbeat independent films, and glad to say it did NOT disappoint. This crazy half hour ride had me wondering all the way through, and the ending was excellent - one of those NOOOOO moments that really stays with you. I've shown it to a number of people and everyone seems to agree hands down. The little ghostie girl was very talented and I think her performance stole the show. She creeped the heck out of me, I can say that much. Nanavati did a great job putting this short together. All the pieces just fell into place and you can tell that she's a great writer from what she did with this script. SO well written. It's undoubtedly the strongest part of the film. The directing was great and the acting was enjoyable, but the most important factor here is the strength of the screenplay. Good job to this girl, I can't wait to see more!

This was a popular movie probably because of the humor in it, the fast-moving story, an underdog character who shuts up all the loudmouths, etc. Funny thing is, you probably couldn't make a movie with this title if you substituted anybody but "white" as anything else would be deemed racist by the PC police.
Nonetheless, Woody Harrleson as the white guy who turns out to be as good if not better than any of the black basketball players, is interesting as is his main counterpart Wesley Snipes.
Snipes had a lot of funny put-down lines, providing much of the humor. The bad part of the film - which doesn't bother a lot of people - is the extreme profanity in here and the sleaziness of all the characters. That includes Woody's girlfriend, played by Rosie Perez. There are no really clean, nice people in this movie. For that reason, I can't honestly recommend the film, at least not to friends or those who are offended by a lotof profanity
Had this movie been made a few years later, I would have given it a lower score. However, for 1909, this was a dandy little movie and still stands up pretty well today. Just don't try to compare this silent film to later silents--the industry changed so radically that the shorts of the first decade of the 20th century don't look at all like movies made in the 1910s and beyond.
This movie is 11 minutes long (about average for most films back then) and is a variation of the Edgar Allen Poe story, THE CASK OF AMONTILLADO. While many are familiar with the story, I won't elaborate further as I don't want to ruin the film. Just suffice to say that it's very creepy!!

I cannot stand this show! Has there ever been even one redeeming quality, one funny punchline, or one plot line that "didn't" make the average viewer want to drown himself in a bowl of soggy cornflakes?
The voices. Oh, those horrible, wretched voices. Akin to repeatedly dragging a set of fine cutlery across a dusty blackboard, each character is uniquely annoying in his or her aptitude for shrill, nasal vocals. Cosmo sounds like a whining mongrel, Vicky sounds like a stereotypical shrew, and Timmy's dad makes every line sound like a bad impersonation of a game show host (Guy Smiley from "Sesame Street" comes to mind).
The animation is awful; even the producers of "Yu-Gi-Oh!" laugh at the overwhelmingly bad artwork on this show. Every character has buck teeth, or a square head, or a head three sizes too big for his or her body. And what's with having the characters speak every single line wide-eyed and grinning, as though posing for a photo op with the president? Then, there is the fact that every character on the show is completely moronic. Not since the subtle grace of Amelia Bedelia, Homer Simpson, and Buddy Lembeck of "Charles in Charge" fame have characters been portrayed as so unrealistically dumb. Usually "unrealistic" is synonymous with "unfunny", and that is most definitely the case here. There hasn't been this much slapstick based on cluelessness since "The Naked Gun 33 1/3"...and at least Leslie Nielson was good at it.
Finally, the premise of the show (and it's the same every single episode, so big time spoiler alert here): Timmy wishes for something with his two "Fairly Oddparents", something goes wrong, there's always some contrived reason why he can't immediately reverse course and wish away the damage, and then everything turns out just fine in the end. Oh, and on a side note, Timmy's parents never believe him when he complains about Vicky, and they continue to employ her at every opportunity. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that a kids' show containing the subtle message that it pretty much does no good whatsoever to tell on an abusive babysitter probably isn't a great idea.
If you're writing a paper and want to cite an example of just how far the quality of cartoons has fallen, "The Fairly Odd Parents" has to be a great place to start. A prime example of television producers throwing together a worthless product aimed at kids with little or no effort simply because they know that someone somewhere will watch it.