Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I've read a lot of comments about the film and how it's so hard for people to believe that it is a sequel to Henry Fool, and even though it technically is, I think that Fay Grim needs to be looked at as an entirely different film. Just because it is the sequel doesn't mean that it has to be a direct continuation of the first, and I enjoyed that so much about it. The whole point of the film was to change direction from the first, which makes sense because the movie isn't called Henry Fool 2, it's Fay Grim. All that aside, the film, I thought, was so well made and thought out that it actually surprised me. I was expecting to rent another nearly-released-straight-to-video film and have to endure 2 hours of bad editing and an almost hard to follow story-line (aka parker's last direct to video feature the Oh in Ohio) but this was so surprisingly well focused that it almost doesn't seem so, which I absolutely loved. There are so many nuances in the film making and writing that I crave to see in films, but never do. The cinematography was brilliant due to it's simplicity and truly making the film seem 'Grim' throughout - in terms of setting. The writing was so well put together as well, whoever said this movie isn't as witty as Henry Fool needs to watch again and actually listen; I almost can't even begin to explain how actually hilarious it was, and pertinent. And well, Parker Posey, who could complain? The scene in which Fool and Jalal were talking in the dark was so captivating and emotional. And I thought the spy-ness throughout the film was just so hilarious and spot on (in hindsight because i do agree that at times during you kind of felt lost). The main thing that struck me so powerfully about the film, and i believe the point of the film, was Parker's love and naivety about Fool, which was so endearing and turned, yes very quickly, from denial to outright passion. The last five minutes of the film were perfect. Obviously there were things that weren't excellent, but nothing is perfect; some of the acting was poor, and at times I did think that some of the new back story and dialogue about terrorism got a little hard to follow and out of hand, but in the end you got it and didn't even mind that at the time it may have slipped from your comprehension. (This may also have to do with Goldblum's tendency to talk extremely fast) On the whole I would say that it was probably one of the best films I've seen this year; stylistically pleasing, clever and witty writing, performances that were so impressive I now have gained new respect for some of the actors, and a truly touching film, and don't forget, a complete departure from Fool. Which was the point.

This movie is absolutely pointless, one of the good esamples how Malcom McDowall never got one decent role after Clockwork Orange. This one may be one of the worst though. No story, crappy special effects, shot in 4:3/or even worse cropped on DVD, just avoid it ....
A few years ago, I bought several $1 DVD's that contained two movies each. One of them had Three Broadway Girls (an alternate title for The Greeks Had a Word for Them) and this one, Happy Go Lovely. It's basically a backstage musical comedy that takes place in Scotland and concerns mistaken identity involving one of the dancers hitching a ride from a millionaire's limousine. Vera-Ellen is that dancer and-wow, what legs! Ceasar Romero is her producer who takes a chance on her after the original leading lady leaves because he thinks she's dating the millionaire whose car I just mentioned. And David Niven is that rich guy who, when looking for Vera-Ellen, is mistaken for a reporter who's supposed to interview her but gets stalled by Romero. What I've just mentioned may be confusing but (mostly) makes sense if you're willing to check your brain while watching this charmingly screwball comedy with wonderful musical numbers as performed by the exquisite Ms. Vera-Ellen. Romero can be a bit frantic here but Niven becomes hilariously bemused throughout. The print I saw was actually pretty good considering its age and the fact that it's in public domain. And Vera-Ellen does pretty well with her lines since she's not really an actress. So on that note, I highly recommend Happy Go Lovely for movie buffs who love old-fashioned musical comedies.

not your typical vamp story, not bram stoker or anne rice here. a truly original vampyre story. these vampyres are genetic mutants who the sunlight don't bother. they are pure evil to.
the film is not perfect. many of the actors are clearly amateurs. the two leads who play van helsing and rally the vampyre chick are pretty good though. the film is intensely violent which may disturb some people. also it is loaded with scientific detail that many will find hard to understand and may get bored with. i was sold on the clever storyline and the couple good performances. no telling how successful this film could be if they had a bigger budget and it got mass distribution
This movie is funny and suitable for any age. It is definitely family-type entertainment. The cast does a fine job playing folks in the mid-western town of Big Bean, Illinois. Where we must assume nothing ever happens since the excitement (pre-invasion) of the decade is the new (and only) exit ramp from the Interstate. The location appeals as suitably boring and totally unlikely for the invasion of earth by Martians. But these Martians are totally inept, despite being well-equipped with an arsenal of suitably ghastly and deadly weapons... including one set on eradicating the Martians, too! The Martians dead-pan their lines and throw in just the right accents to make us the viewers and the locals wish to help them... leave earth. J. J. Anderson playing the very young Halloween carnivorous duck has just great lines. Watch this movie for laugher and entertainment; thought-provoking it isn't. But subtle and enjoyable it is.

Prior to watching "Dahmer," I thought no movie could be worse than "Freddy Got Fingered." I was wrong. To sum "Dahmer" up, it's a story about a gay serial killer which features almost no killing and almost entirely consists of Dahmer's encounters with gay men before they were killed. There is no plot to be found, and it serves no purpose as far as telling us anything about "Dahmer." All you'll learn about Dahmer from watching this movie is that he liked to have sex with men. Horrible acting, horrible directing, horrible writing, horrible everything... If you have to choose between watching "Dahmer" and projectile vomiting for three hours, go with the vomiting .... it wll be less painful.....
Why didn't this pick up a bag full of Oscars? It is an amazing interpretaion of an oft-filmed/performed piece. The visuals are breathtaking (especially in wide-screen...the pan & scan really kills this film's wonderful cinematography and sets). Every frame is a painting. Astounding. The play is almost completely intact, and Branagh's passion for it is clear from the opening titles on. No Zefferelli here, just great storytelling the way only film can, but rarely does. Jacobi is especially perfect as Hamlet's murderous Uncle: he doesn't play him as a mustache- curling evil villian, but a charming politician, allowing us to see why only Hamlet suspects foul play. Branagh also nails the subtlety of the line between Hamlet's fake/real madness and the burning revenge inside him. And the many cameos come off quite well, everyone from Billy Crystal and Robin Williams to Gerard Depardeu and Charlton Heston, unobtrusive if you are sucked into Branagh's vision the way I was. A mesmerizing piece.

Normally, I have much better things to do with my time than write reviews but I was so disappointed with this movie that I spent an hour registering with IMDb just to get it off my chest.
You would think a movie with names like Morgan Freeman or Kevin Spacey would be a bankable bet... well, this movie was just terrible. It is nigh on impossible to "suspend disbelief"; I tried, really, I wanted to enjoy it but Justin Timberlake just wouldn't let me.
Timberlake should stick to music, what a dreadful performance - NO presence as an actor,NO character. Can't blame everything on Justin: The movie also boast a dreadful plot & badly timed editing; its definitely an "F".
After seeing this, I have to wonder what really motivates actors. I mean, surely Morgan actually read the script before taking the part. Did he not see how poor it was? What then could motivate him to take the part? Money? Of course, acting is at times more about who you are seen with rather than really developing quality work.
LL Cool J is a great actor; he gets a lot more screen time than Freeman or Spacey in this movie and really struggles to come to terms with the poor script.
Meanwhile, the audience goes: "What the hell is going on here? You expect me to believe this crap?"
In short, apart from Justin a great lineup badly executed - very disappointing.
This Wrestlemania just didn't do it for me. While some things, such as the battle royal and involvement of celebrities were a throwback to the good old days, so to speak, it seemed to be more of a highbrow "In Your House" than anything else. Above average...worth it for several matches such as the tag team title match, although worthy of note is that the title change meant nothing, as it was reversed the next night.

Felt mine was while watching this...but it seems that is the reason for insanity running in the family in this film. Not that makes a lot of sense anyway, as others have mentioned, this was one of Karloff's last films and it's only his screen presence that lends it any credibility at all. It's sad that all of the great legends of the horror films in the sound era were eventually reduced to starring in low grade rubbish like this. Marginally, Boris did get off slightly better than poor old Bela Lugosi but not by much.
Boris does his best and give him credit for trying to hold this mess together. The strident background music doesn't help and distracts from any lucid moment. Apart from Boris, the rest of the Mexican cast are dubbed into some strange, clipped, English monotone that is reminiscent of the type used in porn films of the late seventies.
At a guess I think it's Edgar Allen Poe's 'House of Usher' that this is taken from but you'd be hard pressed to find a great deal of Poe in the finished article.
Still, there are far better films out there with Boris Karloff at his best, search them out and give this a wide berth, unless you want the curse of the 'shrinking brain' too!
Example of how a World War 2 documentary should be made,using first hand accounts from actual troops and civilians whom participated in this awful conflict,and archived footage gathered from around the time .I caught this on a re-run on the History channel about a year and a half back,with no knowledge really of the Second World War at the time,but it enveloped me,and now I consider myself a World War 2 buff,watching and reading any and all that I can find about it,but nothing comes close to this landmark documentary,definitely worth buying the boxed set of.............
This is quite simply documentary making of the very highest standard.

I was willing to go with the original _Cruel Intentions._ It went along with the plot and stayed true to the characters of one of my favorite stories. However, this movie was, in my opinion, a crummy rehash with essentially the same story line and no clear character choices. I didn't honestly care what happened to any of them. The strongest part of the original story (Les Liasons, not CI) is the characters and their interactions, not the events themselves. I wasn't clear until I read the IMDB that this movie was meant to be a prequel, especially since the title includes a number "2," I expected a sequel, but then determined that it must be a companion piece. Over all, I must say that this movie read, to me at least, like a soft porn version of Les Liasons. I was not impressed.
Stage adaptations often have a major fault. They often come out looking like a film camera was simply placed on the stage (Such as "Night Mother"). Sidney Lumet's direction keeps the film alive, which is especially difficult since the picture offered him no real challenge. Still, it's nice to look at for what it is. The chemistry between Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve is quite brilliant. The dynamics of their relationship are surprising. Caine is fantastic as always, and Reeve gets one of his few chances to really act.
I confess that I've never seen Ira Levin's play, but I hear that Jay Presson Allen's adaptation is faithful. The script is incredibly convoluted, and keeps you guessing. "Deathtrap" is an enormously entertaining film, and is recommended for nearly all fans of stage and screen.
7.4 out of 10

About time they released this movie on DVD. I know some say WB rush the release of this movie because of The Dreamgirls movie. But, how can you rush the release of a movie that's been in you catalog since 1976.
I'm very disappointed with the DVD release of this movie, no special feature, no 5.1 DD sound. come on WB, you can do much better then this. The audio and picture quality on this movie needs some serious help.
Seem WB didn't place as much time and attention to this movie because it is a black movie and my have okay sales. They could have kept the CD which by the way dose not have all the songs the original CD has.
Would I recommend this DVD for purchase. Yes, because it is a classic film. But WB need to go add some more special feature. Take notes from other group movies, The Five Heatbeats, or The Temptation were you may view just the performance, and the sound on both are much, much, much better than this DVD.
Gandhi, the Great :
Greatness in the world is associated with people like Alexanader the great, Ashoka the Great for their greatness lied in being glorified as more than humans. Gandhi is called great for actually not being a Great but being more human, for I always believe bringing out the humanity in us is where the greatness of being human lies.Gandhi was a human with humanity and one who strived for humanity ready to sacrifice himself in the battle for humanity but not his enemies. Let me move to the movie review now.
About Gandhi My Father :
Gandhi My father is a film not about Gandhi but about his son Harilal Gandhi.On telling the story of a son whose father was one of the greatest humans to walk this earth, the director succeeds in portraying the tale.The film succeeds in telling the story of a mislead son of a father who lead a nation to greatness.The movie is termed as a criticism of Gandhi's failure as a father to his son, I would rather say it is of a sacrifice Gandhi had made as a father of a son to do justice as a father of a nation.
I wish the essence of this movie prevails not just in India, the Gandhian land, but through the hearts of all the people of this world.
Gandhi the true Human. Jaihind.

I'm sure this was one of those "WOAH!" attractions in 1982 when Epcot opened, but now it's just silly. The film's message is cliché. The Circle-Vision is disorienting. And that awful song at the end is grating. And I really wish they'd install seats. After so much walking, all you want to do is sit down for a few minutes. And when you hear there's a film to see it sounds pretty glamorous! You get entertained while sitting down, right? WRONG! You're standing there for 18+ minutes leaning against a short little railing. Disney should make a newer Maelstrom like attraction to liven things up and replace this dull, lackluster film. NOT FUN. Skip it. In fact, skip Canada altogether unless you're eating there. Move directly to the United Kingdom.
An American woman, her European husband and children return to her mother's home in "Watch on the Rhine," a 1943 film based on the play by Lillian Hellman, and starring Paul Lukas (whom I believe is repeating his stage role here), Bette Davis, Lucile Watson, George Coulouris, Geraldine Fitzgerald, and Donald Woods. An anti-Fascist, a worker in the underground movement, many times injured, and wanted by the Nazis, Kurt Muller (Lukas) is in need of a long vacation on the estate of his wealthy mother-in-law. But he finds out that there is truly no escape as one of the houseguests (Coulouris) is suspicious as to his true identity and more than willing to sell him out.
Great performances abound in this film, written very much to put forth Lillian Hellman's liberal point of view. It was certainly a powerful propaganda vehicle at the time it was released, as the evils of war and what was happening to people in other countries reach into safe American homes. The movie's big controversy today is that Paul Lukas won an Oscar over Humphrey Bogart in "Casablanca." Humphrey Bogart was a wonderful screen presence and a fabulous Rick, but Lukas is transcendent as Kurt. The monologue he has about the need to kill is gut-wrenching, just to mention one scene.
Though this isn't what one thinks of as a Bette Davis movie, she gives a masterful performance here as Kurt's loyal and loving wife, Sara. Her acting tugs at the heart, and the love scenes between Kurt and Sara are beautiful and tender.
The last half hour of the film had me in tears with the honesty of the emotions. Lillian Hellman is not everyone's cup of tea, but unlike "The Little Foxes," she has written some truly sympathetic, wonderful characters and a fine story given A casting and production values by Warner Brothers. Highly recommended.

Definitely an odd debut for Michael Madsen. Madsen plays Cecil Moe, an alcoholic family man whose life is crumbling all around him. Cecil grabs a phone book, looks up the name of a preacher, and calls him in the middle of the night. He goes to the preacher's home and discusses his problems. The preacher teaches Cecil to respect the word of God and have Jesus in his heart. That makes everything all better. Ahh...if only everything in life were that easy. The fact that this "film" looks as if it was made with about $500 certainly doesn't help. 1/10
Oh it's so cool to watch a Silent Classic once in while! Director Vidor is simply delightful and even makes a lengthy (at least for 1928) cameo as himself. The story is about having success in life and the way it changes you. Marion Davies plays a girl that leaves its friends in a little comedy studio to be part of a larger "drama" studio. She becomes a big star and the consequences are she really alienates from the real world. For a moment she even denies her (poor) past! The cameos are simply hilarious, certainly the scene where the main character (Marion Davies) sees...Marion Davies in the studios and concludes she doesn't seem that special... It's got to be one of the first movie-in-the-movies here and for real freaks it's awesome to see the cameras and material from way back then. A must-see if you ask me!!

Excruciatingly slow-paced, over-scripted black comedy with a too-clever premise and bad acting.
Maybe this would have worked as a Twilight Zone or Tales from the Crypt episode, but by the last half, you just want it to get to its predictable ending and be done with it already.
I saw this at "Dances with Films", and it was awesome. I really felt for Jake. Talk about adding insult to injury! Not only are your parents getting divorced, but there's a monster after you.
It was both heartfelt and scary -- there were several moments where the audience screamed in genuine fright. It kind of reminded me of a Japanese horror film, except that the story was actually good.
And that's what separated "Jake's Closet" from the usual indy film pabulum -- an excellent script with compelling characters. Also, by mixing elements of the horror film with family drama, the movie gets the best out of both genres, and avoids the clichés of both.
If it's not coming out in theaters, definitely get the DVD.

Dave (Devon Sawa) and his friends Sam (Jason Segel) and Jeff (Michael Maronna) have scammed their way through college. When creepy Ethan (Jason Schwartzman) discovers their secret, he blackmails them into helping him score with beautiful, good-hearted student Angela (James King).
Stupid and incompetent "comedy" - a lot more groan-inducing than laugh-inducing. Movie tries appealing to its target audience with its disgusting gags - but NONE OF THEM WORK. What's more, it's full of worthless, unappealing characters - and Schwartzman's character is so repulsive he's a major turn-off. Movie even tries using 50's/60's sexpot/actress Mamie Van Doren in the movie's most outrageous scene. YUCK!!!
Further bringing it down are its utter predictability and the waste (yet again) of veteran comedic actor Joe Flaherty's talent - when's this guy going to stop accepting every role that comes along and do something worthwhile?
All in all, the only thing I liked was James (a.k.a. Jaime) King, who was very appealing - and deserved better.
This gets no more than one out of ten from me.
I was really looking forward too seeing this movie as it has been advertised as a must-see movie for people that love movies about nature. The movie shows different climates and the animals associated with them by starting at the North Pole and going down south as the movie progresses. The footage from this movie is often breathtakingly beautiful and I many times wondered how on Earth they could have taken some of the shots under water or in the sky. However beautiful, a large part of the footage I had already seen in the TV series 'Planet Earth', narrated by David Attenborough. I found Attenborough's narration of Planet Earth to be much better than the narration of Earth. 'Earth' is an easier movie. It skips much of the scientific detail that Attenborough covers in his 'Planet Earth' series. For instance, Earth will tell you that a tropical sea is an ideal nursery for a young humpback whale, because there are few predators. Planet Earth will tell you that a tropical sea is a good nursery, because the water is low in oxygen and doesn't contain enough nutrients to support very large animals, like large sharks, etc. To me, that's an important difference. That, together with Attanborough's far superior voice make Planet Earth a far better documentary than Earth. Still, however, I think Earth is worth watching for the beautiful footage and the fact that it's easier to understand makes it interesting for children too.

First of all, this film can be divided into three segments. A promising opening, with the ambushing of some cavalry by the Cheyenne. This is followed by what can only be described as a long boring middle section, with the totally miscast Candice Bergen and "Soldier Blue" traveling together to reach the safety of an Army garrison. Miss Bergen spews forth inappropriate four letter words every time she opens her mouth, and looks like she just walked out of a 1970s Jack Nicholson movie. I mean she maintains zero interest, with zero believability. The third and final section involves the totally gratuitous slaughter of an Indian village. This is so obviously overdone to lay on the anti-war propaganda, that it comes across as simply long, outrageous, and contrived. Not recommended. - MERK................................ Jacobe (comment above) Here's an idea. Why don't you actually watch the movie you are commenting on, instead of chirping your liberal nonsense. This is not a political site, it is for reviewing films. - MERK
a timeless classic, wonderfully acted with perfect location settings, conjuring a marvelous atmospheric movie. a simple story mingled with humor and suspense. i wish that a video was available in Britain. i have seen this film on many occasions and it remains one of my favorites along with Oh Mr Porter.

This movie was very very mediocre and very very gory. everyone left their acting lessons at home and totally forgot how to act I mean it was so bad and had no real plot and kindergarteners could have written a better story plot wait what story plot. not at all scary!