Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
This murder mystery with musical numbers is long on atmosphere and character but rather short on suspense and plausibility. Based on a stage play by Broadway showman Earl Carroll and others, it combines a whodunit plot with a backstage ambiance (a homicide investigation takes place on opening night at the theatre where a musical revue is being staged).
The cast is impressive and varied: tough-goofy Victor McLaglen as the police officer who leads the investigation and never fails to leer idiotically at whatever showgirl happens to be in sight; Jack Oakie (the prewar Jack Lemmon  or was Jack Lemmon the postwar Jack Oakie?) as the harassed director who must coordinate the staged performance as well as the chaos behind the scenes; the ever-homely Jessie Ralph as a wardrobe mistress with deep, dark secrets; Dorothy Stickney, who has a stunning close-up monologue near the end, as the tremulous maid madly in love with the male lead; Carl Brisson, the Danish star, as that very male lead, warbling the classic "Cocktails for Two" not once but twice; Kitty Carlisle, operatically delivering "Where Do They Come from and Where Do They Go" and other Johnston-Coslow songs; the glorious Gertrude Michael, who parted from us too soon, as a mean-spirited showgirl whose love for Brisson is spurned; the usually ridiculous Toby Wing who here at least is the center of a laugh-getting running joke.
When the plot complications get out of hand there is always an interesting performer or fun and tuneful musical number to distract the viewer. The film's most celebrated sequence is the "Marahuana" number, led by Michaels, but aside from its controversial history, it's really one of the lesser musical offerings. All of the songs here are staged as if they could actually have fit into a standard proscenium theatre space, as opposed to the cinematic fantasy setup of the Busby Berkeley style.

This movie blows - let's get that straight right now. There are a few scene gems nestled inside this pile of crap but none can redeem the limp plot. Colin Farrel looks like Brad Pitt in "12 Monkeys" and acts in a similar manner. I normally hate Colin because he is a fairy in general but he's OK in this movie. There were two plot lines in this movie-= one about a kid who throws rocks through windshields of moving vehicles and the other about a woman with a moustache. Let's face it- this movie has no freaking idea of what it wanted to say or where it wanted to go. THe characters story lines intertwine on some levels but are in no means worthy of being included in a script. The whole thing is weak and pointless and then there is an occasional OK scene. But overall- Don't bother unless you love irish accents so much that you can watch mediocrity and it is rescued by everyone sounding like the Lucky Charms elf -an American fetish that has catapulted some truly crappy movies to success.
This is a feel-good movie and nothing more. And for that, it is great fun to watch. Sure it skims over political issues. But so what? I am sure she wasn't trying to make 'Good Night and Good Luck' here. Let's not try to make it anything else but what it is...light fare.
And very enjoyable at that!
Do we remember what 1984 was like? We've become very sophisticated according to the media as far as what we watch or not. I tend to differ on this point. Goldie knew this was fun-fluff and she went ahead and did it.
Like her lightest fare: Protocol, Overboard, Housesitter, Wildcats, Private Benjamin, Seems Like Old Times, Foul Play, Death Becomes Her, First Wives Club and the remake of Out-of-Towners, GOLDIE knows what she is doing...she plays every role for the camp that you can get out of it! Goldie just knows herself really well, and she knows what she can do really well.
She has always made me laugh cheerfully and innocently. I loved her in Laugh-In and every thing she's ever been in. She has never tried to be anything else but who she is...and that's that bubbling, giggly, girl next door who happens to be very pretty and has a smile and a laugh that will always endear me and remind me that life is pretty short and you've just got to lighten up because before you know it...you are old, wrinkled and suffering from one of life's inevitable ailments. If it even comes that late.
I appreciate Goldie for what she is: a lovable, comic actress.

This flick was a blow to me. I guess little girls should aspire to be nothing more than swimsuit models, home makers or mistresses, since that seems to be all they'll ever be portrayed as anyway. It is truly saddening to see an artist's work and life being so unjustly misinterpretated. Inconcievably (or perhaps it should have been expected), Artemisia's entire character and all that she stands for, had been reduced to a standard Hollywood, female character; a pitiful, physically flawless, helpless little creature, displaying none of the character traits that actually got her that place in history which was being mutilated here. Sadder yet, was to see that a great part of the audience was too badly educated in the area to comprehend the incredible gap between the message conveyed in the film, and reality. To portray the artist as someone in love with her real-life rapist, someone whom she in reality accused of raping her even when under torture, just plain pisses me off. If the director had nothing more substantial to say she should have refrained from basing her story on a real person.
I saw this movie when it came out when I was 17 years old and into classic rock (still am)...
I never liked opera before because I hate soprano voices, but he changed all that. He was adorable in the movie and had such an amazing voice.
I heard on CNN that he died tonight at home of pancreatic cancer, he will be missed, and he definitely left his mark on this world.
I hope to buy this movie if I can find it, watch and enjoy. *smile* Maybe I should head over to Amazon.com and have a look before it's sold out.

I rented this movie the other night because neither my girlfriend or myself had ever seen it, even though we had heard from a mutual friend how "great it was".
Now, I am pretty conservative in my views, but I knew going in it would be pretty liberal given who directed it. I figured before the movie started Michael Douglas would play a compassionate popular liberal beloved by the masses, and there would be a stodgy conservative opponent as his antagonist. But I thought thats where the political statement would begin and end.
OK, the plot was solid: Single president falls for a lobbyist. OK, this has potential I thought to be pretty entertaining, since the plot was unique. But then the movie turned into a liberal infomercial. The movie became more about gun control and environmental issues than it did about the relationship between the President and Sydney(Annette Bening).
There were several ridiculous premises in this movie: 1) The character Sydney playing this six figure lobbyist who is a "closer". Could she have been more flighty? She was constantly disorganized and seemed in awe of everything. Hardly a "closer". I am an sales, and she could not "close" selling a glass of water to a man dying of thirst.
2) Secondly, is there anything more ridiculous than Richard Dreyfuss playing a right wing fanatic? This is the most liberal man in Hollywood and her is playing some right wing ideologue. Give me a break. I liked how he took his conservative character and made him as sinister as possible.
3) The speech at the end was simply ludicrous. The line about "I am a proud card carrying member of the ACLU" was a joke. First, no president would ever admit something like that, being an active member of an ultra fringe group. Second, why even bring something like that up. You just alienated off over half the movie going audience who is moderate or conservative.
I thought the plot was great and unique. I thought Michael Douglas was a good choice as president. But the movie went from being a "movie" to a left wing political statement, which is why the movie failed.
Its a shame to see a great plot ruined by Hollywood having to force their political views on the audience
Robert Taylor and Stewart Granger switch the goodie-baddie roles they held in "All the brothers were valiant". Taylor seems a bit uncomfortable in his bad-guy role but Granger plays his part perfectly. However the real hero in the story are the bison and the northwest. The film is perfectly made, with the atmosphere of the times wonderfully given. The direction is taut and although the film is no light-hearted entertainment it is, to my way of thinking a major film, unjustly ignored by the cognoscenti.

Here goes the perfect example of what not to do when you have a great idea. That is the problem isn't? The concept is fresh and full of potential, but the script and the execution of it lacks any real substance. It should grab you from the start and then pull a little on your emotions, get you interested and invested in the characters. This movie doesn't have what it takes to take off and sustain flight, and here is why. First you don't really care about the characters because they are not presented in a way that people can relate to, I mean this is not Superman or Mission Impossible here, it's suppose to be about normal people put in a stressful situation. They are not believable in the way they act and interact. Example : Jeffrey Combs as a cop over chewing is gum, frowning and looking intense all the time isn't the way to go here. I mean what is that?, he looks like he's on the toilet or something. I loved him in re-animator and the way he was playing the intense/neurotic, unappreciated medical genius was right on the money. But not for this, he tries too hard to over compensate by looking so intense and on edge but in a still mild neurotic manner, it's not natural, I'm surprised he didn't dislocate his jaw during filming. The movie is basically on life support, it barely has a pulse and it kept me waiting for something that would never come.
Your average garden variety psychotic nutcase (deliciously essayed with unhinged glee by Stephen Sachs) knocks off various dim-witted young "adults" (to use the term very loosely) in Dayton Hall University, which is being closed down for demolition. Featuring dreadful acting by the entire cast (Daphne Zuniga makes her ignominious and inauspicious film debut here as Debbie, a bimbo who has her head crushed by a car!), a hefty corpse tally of 10, okay make-up f/x by Matthew Mungle, a few bloody murders (baseball bat bludgeoning, chicken wire strangulation, your standard drill through the head bit, that sort of gruesome thing), a downbeat surprise twist ending which was later copied in "Intruder," a creepy score by Christopher ("Hellraiser") Young, a slight smidgen of gratuitous female nudity, and endearingly incompetent direction by Jeffrey Obrow and Steve Carpenter (who also blessed us with "The Power" and "The Kindred"), this entertainingly abysmal slice'n'dice atrocity sizes up as a good deal of delectably dopey and drecky low-grade fun.

Yeah, well, I definitely had regrets about giving up my Saturday night watching this strange little, yet very long, movie. Apparently neither did the main character for stealing two hours of my life. Here's the epitome of the antihero in 'No Regrets.' We have this jerk, so messed up, so wandering, so selfish, aimless and unlikable that it was extremely hard to get past the attraction a highly favored businessman's up-and-coming son, Jaemin, unless it was just that: physical attraction. He claims otherwise, that it's love. But after watching this, it's like loving Charles Manson because you dig the beard. (Alright, he's not that bad, but still no real redeemable characteristics.) I could never get past the reason Jaemin endless stalks Sumin. It was never shown, just told, that Jaemin loves Sumin. Perhaps it's a culture thing that flew over my head: crazy/stalking = mad love over in Seoul. It has to be, because a little more than half the movie is one stalking the other and the last part is stalking back and forth to the point I thought this was turning into a screwball comedy. I was waiting for a tiger named "baby" to make an appearance. Okay, so Sumin works two jobs while going to school, so far so good on someone trying to better themselves. But after his first taste of his stalker's attraction, he gives up his day job for some kind of prostitution ring. What? OK, well, as previously mentioned, the obsession doesn't stop due to the job/career change and if you throw in a bunch of other very angry characters you get one messed up movie where unbelievable occurrences just seem to happen without buildup. Basic movie, not 100% terrible, but you can do better with foreign gay-themed movies.
This is not the stuff of soap-operas but the sort of conundrums that real people face in real life. A testament to the ensemble and director for the powerful story-telling of fallible characters trying to cope but not quite succeeding.

This reboot is like a processed McDonald's meal compared to Ang Lee's very good but very underrated 2003 "The Incredible Hulk".
Ang Lee's "The Hulk" is a comic book movie for the thinking person. The Hulk takes some time to appear (about 40 minutes), but when he does we see the conflict at our protagonist's core. He does his best to avoid losing control, but as he admits, when he does give in to his rage, he likes it.
Now compare this to Edward Norton's turn, where there is no display of conflict in his personality, and he turns into the Hulk whenever he becomes excited and his pulse rate hits 200 beats per minute (not 183, not 197, but exactly 200). To this reviewer, this felt akin to the introduction of midi-chlorians in The Phantom Menace, which tell how strong the "force" is with one, as if mystical abilities can be gauged through a blood test. In the 2008 movie, all Ed Norton's Bruce Banner has to do is to keep his pulse rate under 200, as monitored by a device strapped onto his wrist. And for the record, it is extremely difficult to get one's pulse rate up to 200 even through a very exhilarating run, especially for a physically fit person.
Emotions drive Eric Bana's Hulk. He has repressed memories of his mother's death and his father's role in his early life. On the surface he is calm, but there underneath there is significant anger, enough rage to fuel the Hulk when it is unleashed. But the Hulk never kills intentionally, even his attackers. Mostly, he just wants to get away or close to Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly). He incapacitates his shooters and in one critical scene, saves a fighter jet pursuing him from a collision.
In the 2003 movie, the visual effects are there, but as necessary. The action scenes (and there are plenty of them) are necessary to the plot, unlike the 2008 movie where action is inserted for the sake of action.
In his quest to turn it into a "fugitive" story, Ed Norton loses focus on how Bruce Banner feels about the Hulk. To him, the Hulk is a dangerous side effect of an experiment went awry. And Louis Leterrier, the director picking up on Ed Norton's cue, fails to add any emotional dimension to the Banner-Hulk relationship. The story can be summed up as: Banner is pursued and Hulk kicks butt, Banner is pursed and Hulk kick butt. Repeat as necessary.
The only thing that went against the 2003 movie is that it is perhaps not as true to the comic books as the 2008 version. However, even as I am a fan of the comics, I would prefer a movie that is not as true to the comics as a fanboy's dream but has heart over the comics-loyal but manufactured and soulless 2008 version any day.
Perhaps Ang Lee should have read more comics. Iron Man, also released in 2008, is a perfect example of a movie that is true to its comic-book roots and has heart.
Atlantis was much better than I had anticipated. In some ways it had a better story than come of the other films aimed at a higher age. Although this film did demand a solid attention span at times. It was a great film for all ages. I noticed some of the younger audience expected a comedy but got an adventure. I think everyone is tired of an endless parade of extreme parodies. A lot of these kids have seen nothing but parodies. After a short time everyone seemed very intensely watching Atlantis.

Sly Stallone is hardly the finest actor in the world but compared to his brother, Frank...well, roll out those awards now! Mullet haired, muppet Frank seems to think that every part he plays, calls for him doing the role as an American/Italian Wise-guy refugee from the 'Godfather.' Please, somebody make him an acting offer 'he can refuse!' This film just stinks the place out, even by the terrible overacting in this, Frank still steals the acting dishonours. All the people compensate for their lack of talent by shouting their lines and throwing their arms about, gesticulating wildly in a style that went out of fashion back with silent films.
The plot, what there, is, makes no sense as a meteor lands and turns all the women into sex-crazed nymphets but as this is 15 certificate film, that just means they strip to their underwear and make moaning sounds like dogs on heat. What happens in the end, I'm not quite sure as I was losing the will to live long before the film finished.
Avoid this like the plague and watch 'Deep Impact' for a reasonable film about a meteor about to hit the earth.
N.B. Point of order: when one of the female leads strips down to her underwear, she has her knickers/panties under her suspenders/garter belt, it's knickers over the suspenders to allow women to go to the toilet with less fuss. A trivial point, perhaps, but shows how dumb this film is when they can't even get this right!
I saw this movie as a teenager and immediately identified with Reese Witherspoon's portrayal of Dani Trant, a 14-year-old tomboy in rural Louisiana circa 1957. She feels that she will never be as beautiful as her older sister, Maureen (a now rarely seen Emily Warfield), and feeling out of place in terms of her conservative Baptist upbringing. Then seventeen year old Court Foster (Jason London), the son of her mother's close friend (Gail Strickland) moves in next door, Dani experiences her first crush, while Court enjoys her company, and willful spirit. Dani succeeds in getting her first kiss from him, but as soon as he sees Maureen, he falls head over heels for her, leaving Dani behind. The sisters' close bond is fractured severely by the rivalry that erupts, which only deepens when Court dies in a tragic accident. The girls then are made to realize how much they need each other.
Sam Waterson and Tess Harper are just perfect as the loving parents, trying to balance their daughters' individuality, at the same time trying to keep the family together. The beautiful cinematography, and the wonderful soundtrack featuring Elvis Presley, The Platters and many more contribute wonderfully to the film's atmosphere of a simpler time.
A touching coming-of-age film with a timeless message.

There is a remark that one of heroines was raped on "drunken rampage" by Russian soldiers, which is completely untrue. This movie should not be shown only because of this.
Also there is a statement by someone, that KGB prosecuted "Jews, Gypsies etc", which is "worse than Nazis". KGB was looking for so called "zionist" agents, who were (KGB believed) imperialist agents. This is totally different from targeting Jewry as a whole nation, as Nazis did. Gypsies were never prosecuted. KGB was political tool and used politically, but from internationalist standpoint. Communists really did not distinguish between nationalities.
Whole movie stinks like fake. Main hero does not speak Russian, signs in Berlin contains typographical errors, KGB general looks totally phony. Some so called "russian proverbs" are totally made up, and list goes on and on.
Not recommended to watch - this movie is full of lies, and phony stuff. Go to "Good shepherd" instead.
Brando plays the ace jet pilot, just back from shooting MiGs down in the Korean War. On leave, he discovers his Madame Butterfly, falls in love. The lovers both see the folly of racism and the cruelty which conservative cultural norms can bring to human relations.
This film is an excellent romance with a nice twist which rejects the racist, conservative standards, dominant at the time it was made in 1957. "Sayonara" will make you laugh and cry. Beware though, sometimes the musical background will make you wish it was not there, although, Irving Berlin's title song will entice your memory for a very long time after your theatre lights come on again.

Understand i'm reviewing the film I have seen. I realize virtually all the nudity and gore was cut from this film, thus neutering it completely. When seeing names like Ginger Lynn and Jenna Jameson attached, I knew I wasn't going to get a horror classic, but at the very least I expected gratuitous boobies and bloodshed. But no, this has got to be the most butchered modern horror film, I mean it's easy to tell there is much more to certain scenes', but they suddenly cut away, or the scene just totally ends right as it begins. How does one screw up cannibals' and porn stars? I mean thats a winning formula, it makes me wonder if the director slept with some executive's wife or something, because it is literally amazing how much got cut from this. Reading about it a few years back in Fangoria, I was excited, it looked like a fun film, but unfortunately the true film is locked in a vault somewhere, and we must endure this piece of excrement retitled Evil Breed. Hopefully an unrated cut will be released someday, as I think a good movie exists in this mess, but until then best grab a twelve pack of Bud, cause thats the only way you'll make it through this movie.
As drunken millionaire playboy Arthur Bach, Dudley Moore is perfect as a grown man trapped in childhood. As it turned out, the role fit Moore so perfectly, it trapped him as an actor as well. Many disappointments soon followed (including this film's pale sequel), yet that doesn't diminish the charm or appeal of this picture, which is cleverly written and directed. Some of Moore's drunk scenes are forced, parts of the film are wobbly, but the cast performs with so much relish it's a difficult movie to resist. It has a very big heart and gives Oscar-winner John Gielgud a sly, dryly amusing role as Arthur's valet, Hobson; his relationship with Arthur is delicious and they have a miraculous rapport. Liza Minnelli (as a blue-collar love-interest) is sassy in a low-key and Moore is brash, but deft and lively; he never shook off the shadow of Arthur, but at least we have this document of a career high-point to cherish. *** from ****

argh! this film hurts my head. and not in a good way.
maybe it's just my growing hatred for the action genre, but even as a kid when i would swallow tripe like Navy Seals, i still regarded this film with dislike. now i utterly despise it.
take one fairly good fast-paced story. keep the title and throw the rest away. instead use some half-assesd future gladiators storyline thats so full of plot holes the whole things in danger of collapsing (why is there a rebel base in the middle of the arena, what about the cameras? why have clearly marked footage of what really happened at bakersfeild in an unguarded room?)
the whole film screams eighties, from the truley awful score to the goofy shiny costumes. ugh.
don't watch this film. i know some people liked it, but some people get off on being peed on and i don't understand them either.