Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Had placed this on my TIVO for a rainy day due to the cast, some really hard working people in the industry, and when I finally watched I was NOT disappointed.
This movie has some Altman-like flavor (he's mentioned in the end credits as a "thanks" person) utilizing seemingly independent unrelated plot lines that intertwine as the film draws to its climax. Macy is pure, clean, and honest as a man who can't seem to escape his "destiny", Sutherland plays and portrays as few can, Neve adds splash to a deliberately toned down environment, add Tracy Ullman, Barbara Bain (remember Mission Impossible on TV?), not to mention the steady John Ritter and you have all the ingredients for a good FILM. The script is uncluttered, the dialog is free from cliché and thoughtful (especially between Macy and David Dorfman). Suspend belief and enjoy, this is truly time well spent.

I really wanted to like this film, but so much of it is stolen/borrowed from other work -- some of the borrowing is painfully blatant. The New York Times' review pointed out that their singing frog is awfully reminiscent of the one in the famous Warner Brothers' cartoon ('Hello my baby, hello my darlin', hello my ragtime gal...'). But I challenge anyone to watch the Fox/Blue Sky animated feature Robots (2005) and not find ridiculous similarities in: storyline - A young inventor growing up, and a single innovative corporation distributes all great inventions.
cityscape - Extremely similar camera angles capture extremely similar futuristic city environments.
...robots... - The servant robot in the Robinson household has a very similar design to those in Robots, and both films use a sort of retro-futuristic look.
All of this seems to be in sharp contradiction to the obnoxious quote from Disney at the end, implying that the company has been a steady innovator who never looks back (which also contradicts their entire catalog of films in the 90s that were pretty much clones of each other, with some minor tweaks to storyline and ethnicity).
The filmmakers seem unable to let the story speak on its own, and instead constantly send objects and noises flying in our direction, as though we don't have the attention span for anything less.
The villain is really well-designed and brilliantly animated, and he's a pleasure to watch. Much of the rest of the film seems thrown-together. Some of the landscapes look like CGI from the mid-90s.
The film actually opens with a classic Mickey Mouse short. By the end of this cartoon, we are reminded that Disney never did have much interest in innovating or good storytelling -- they seem to think that simply getting something up on the big screen is proof enough of their virtue.
Sleepwalkers are creatures who drain the life force completely out of humans to survive...but they can only use virgins (it's not explained why). Charles Brady (Brian Krause) is one such who needs to feed his mother Mary (Alice Krige). He goes after likable Tanya (Madchen Amick). Will she escape?
On one hand this is a GREAT horror film. Fast-paced, plenty of blood and gore and a nice, twisted sense of humor. There are plenty of in joke references for horror buffs (Castle Rock is mentioned once). Also Krause is excellent (who would have thought he could act after "Return to the Blue Lagoon") as is Kirge and Amick. But I find this film annoying.
It was written for the screen by Stephen King and it's maddeningly vague. The sleepwalkers are never fully explained. Where are they from? Why are they called that? Why does the son have to feed the mother? Why do cats hate them and can kill them? What are their powers after all (at one point Krause makes a car disappear AND change color and style!)? Why do they need to feed off peoples' life force? Why does it have to be only virgins? Why is the son having sex with his mom? None of these are explained leaving the story confusing. It's really too bad because, those questions aside, this is an excellent horror film. Excellent makeup and special effects too.
Fast, gory and lots of fun. If only the script were better. Also a fairly explicit sex scene between Krause and Krige was edited (you can tell) to get an R rating. I can only give this a 7.

I agree with most of the Columbo fans that this movie was an unnecessary change of format. Columbo is a unique cop with unorthodox police methods. This movie looks like a remake of any other ordinary detective dramas from the past. And that is the disturbing point, because Columbo is no ordinary detective.
There are two parts in this film that left me intriguing. First, I can't figure out the title of this movie. It is misleading. Maybe a better title would've been "The Vanishing Bride" or something similar. Second, Columbo hides a piece of evidence without offering the reason (to the viewers at least) why he does it.
I don't feel betrayed, just disappointed. I'm glad Peter Falk went back to the usual Columbo.
Every now and then a film maker brings to life a unique group of people and lets you inside to see the things that make us human. Lawrence Kasden done this again. I always felt theBg Cill was the anthem of it's age and he has managed to do it again in Grand Canyon. Every so often we find ourselves at a point where we have the opportunity to choose life and so often we blow it. This is a film about people who find the courage to choose and experience life because of that choice. The juxtaposing of little and big events that lets us see how basically trivial most things we worry about are is truly genius. I have watched this film a number of times and am constanly surprised at how deep the emotions run through this film. Danny Glover and Kevin Kline do their roles with great tenderness and Stever Martins portrayal of a movie exec is priceless. Thank you again Mr. Kasden

Seriously, I'm all for gooey romantic comedies and will get sucked into Miss Congeniality as easily as Goodfellas...but this movie? It doesn't make any sense!!!! And I'm not even talking about the willing suspension of disbelief kind of not making sense. Why does her family live in England? Or, at the very least, why doesn't she have a British accent? She's sure cozy with her dad and he's surprisingly forgiving of her not being around for the last two years. (On that subject, no one ever makes much of a deal about her being away for so long). And what was with the goofy outfits at the bachelorette party? I'm not even going to get into the fact that the escort she paid for falls in love with her--that could've been overcome by better movie-making. I'm just saying that the characters, the setting, and the plot aren't fleshed out enough to make an even somewhat cohesive story. Oh, and the worst part, in my opinion, is the filmmaker's consistent use of the most unflattering angles on Deborah Messing's nose--I'd have sued the filmmakers if I were her! I mean, honestly, I'm all for women being who they are, but why, in seven loyal years of Will and Grace viewing, have I not ever noticed how incredibly odd her nose is? Oh! Because those producers are kind to her! This movie, like my other least favorite movie ever, Armageddon, is the fault of the filmmakers, not the actors. I can see both Messing and McDermott in these roles with a better writer, director, and producer.
This easily gets my vote as one of the worst movies I've ever wasted time on. I'm just glad a friend loaned me her DVD, so all I wasted was time. If there were a way to make this review ZERO stars, I'd do it.
Grand epic as it is, Kenneth Branagh's monumental rendering of what is perhaps William Shakespeare's most popular tragedy suffers under the weight of its four hour playing time and certainly takes some real staying power. Two entirely separate sittings would most likely be better in order to fully appreciate what is certainly high class film making. While I absolutely acknowledge this masterpiece as such, I must confess to a lack of enthusiasm for the old bards flamboyance, his rhetoric (and he sends himself up so well) and his many flourishes. Thus "Hamlet" loses its impact as it loses its grip.
From Patrick Doyle's music to Alex Thomson's cinematography to Tim Harvey's exquisite sets, the movie is a feast of visual and aural delights, which compliments a fine cast. Branagh has taken on three huge mantels, adapting, directing and playing. His adaptation is superb, his direction strong, but by the time he got to the role of Hamlet, the strain seemed to be showing; yet still he does a fine job in what is an incredibly taxing role. Derek Jacobi gobbles up the sinister Claudius with glee, and Julie Christie is most dramatic as his queen, Gertrude. Richard Briers is marvellous as Polonius, and Charlton Heston is once again a strong screen influence as the player King. Many others drop by, including Jack Lemmon (superb in a very small role), Billy Crystal, Dame Judi Dench, Sir John Mills, Sir John Gielgud, Sir Richard Attenborough and Gerard Depardieu. The acting prize though must go to one of the great thespian discoveries of recent years, Kate Winslet. Hers is a moving portrayal of the most tragic figure in this whole affair, Ophelia.
To finish (before this review goes on longer than the film), I must say it is the length that really tests the viewer in this movie. Branagh has directed with purpose, giving many important, impacting scenes. Too many of them outstay their welcome. Watching this film holds a fantastic reminder of the many pearls of wisdom we have garnered from it. "Neither a lender nor a borrower be" or "Be true to thyself". And of course: "To be or not to be".
The opening two hours does take some perseverance, but if you do manage to stay tuned you are sure to be treated to a rousing finale which gathers momentum from the tragic funeral onward.
Monday, June 8, 1998 - Hoyts Croydon

This movie features Charlie Spradling dancing in a strip club. Beyond that, it features a truly bad script with dull, unrealistic dialogue. That it got as many positive votes suggests some people may be joking.
Made only ten years after the actual events, and set in the Bunker under the Reichstag, Pabst's film is wholly gripping. It reeks of sulfurous death awaiting the perpetrators of world war. Haven't seen this in over three decades, but it remains strong in my visual and emotional memory. The characters seem to be waiting to be walled up in their cave. Searing bit of dialog between two Generals: "Does God exist?" "If He did, we wouldn't." Shame this is not more readily available for exhibition or purchase because it would be interesting to view and compare this film with the documentary about Traudl Junge, "Im Toten Winkel" {aka "Blind Spot: Hitler's Secretary") and "Downfall" with Bruno Ganz.

This movie sucks ass. Something about a heatwave in some European country, complete trash. There's nothing going for this movie whatsoever. maybe 30 seconds of sex but that's it. There is a very annoying chick who hitches rides with people and really pisses me off. This movie is complete rash and you shouldn't subject yourself to watching it. I regret it it's very boring. I would rate it zero but i can't. No body in their right mind should see this. i'm sure you'll regret it completely i did. How could they think up something this bad. Even Mystery men was better. MYSTERY MEN. That sucks. That movie wasn't worth being made. complete waste of time. The characters in this are very hard to understand and i good very very very bored.
THE INVADERS IS A FAST MOVING SCI-FI THRILLER STARRING BEN CROSS AND SEAN YOUNG. BEN PLAYS RENN, A TRAVELLER FROM ANOTHER GALAXY TRYING TO FIND ANNIE (PLAYED BY SEAN) WHO IS PHYSICALLY IDEAL TO HAVE HIS CHILD. THIS CHILD, IF ALLOWED TO BE BORN AND RETURNED TO HIS PLANET, MAY BE THE ONLY CHANCE FOR HIS RACE TO SURVIVE. THE ENEMY, AN ALIEN WHO HAS DESTROYED RENN'S PEOPLE, HAS ALSO FOLLOWED RENN ACROSS THE STARS TO STOP THIS BIRTH. CROSS AGAIN SHOWS GREAT RANGE FROM COMICAL BEGINNINGS AS THE ALIEN ENTERS A LOCAL BAR AND ORDERS HIS FIRST EARTHLING COCKTAIL, TO HIS RACE WITH THE ENEMY AND THE DRAMA OF WHETHER HE CAN KEEP ANNIE AND THE CHILD SHE IS CARRYING ALIVE.

This is probably the worst movie I have ever seen, (yes it's even worse than Dungeons and Dragons and any film starring Kevin Costner.)
Chris Rock looked very uncomfortable throughout this whole film, and his supporting actors didn't even look like they were trying to act. Chris Rock is a wonderful stand-up comedian, but he just can't transfer his talent to this film, which probably only has two strained laughs in the whole picture.
If you haven't watched this film yet, avoid it like the plague. Go do something constructive and more interesting like watching the weather channel or watching paint dry on a brick wall.
For Chris' efforts I give it a 2/10!
After a long hard week behind the desk making all those dam serious decisions this movie is a great way to relax. Like Wells and the original radio broadcast this movie will take you away to a land of alien humor and sci-fi paraday. 'Captain Zippo died in the great charge of the Buick. He was a brave man.' The Jack Nicholson impressions shine right through that alien face with the dark sun glasses and leather jacket. And always remember to beware of the 'doughnut of death!' Keep in mind the number one rule of this movie - suspension of disbelief - sit back and relax - and 'Prepare to die Earth Scum!' You just have to see it for yourself.

I really wanted to like this, but in the end it's a poorly made film with too few laughs.
The politics are spot on, it's gonna offend the hell out of republicans but that's what it's designed to do. That alone gives me reason to chuckle.
The problem is, it looks like it was made in a REAL hurry (like about a week). And it contains a stupid subplot about some bimbo singer, which seems to be completely off topic.
Turiqistan is obviously Iraq, or Afghanistan, or any other number of countries the US has f**ked with since the 50s. The humour is a little dark (amputees dancing with prosthetic legs made by Tamerlane corporation) but it IS on the mark, especially with the corporations cashing in on the reconstruction ("democracy lite"!)
However like a lot of satire criticising the US, it seems terribly heavy handed and laboured. I guess it's running counter to so much bs propaganda so it has to bludgeon people over the head to make a point. Who knows. I prefer more of a nudge, wink approach - a bit of subtlety. But that's just me.
Anyway I might watch it again, perhaps I missed something.
I'm hoping "W" is more on the mark.
Intelligent, wry, and thrilling, "The Invisible Man" stood out in 2000 among Sci-Fi's usual lineup, balancing out "Farscape"'s fantastical art direction and sometimes melodramatic script with gritty, cynical plots and modern noir dialogue. The show sat between "Law and Order" and "Doctor Who" on the believability meter, but there was no denying the fact that "I-Man"'s characters went beyond caricature. Even characters that verged on predictability like the Keeper, the Official, and Eberts were given reprieves from the formulaic. Paul Ben-Victor and Vincent Ventresca had a chemistry that evolved and shifted elegantly, made even more remarkable by the revolving door team of writers and directors. The effects are never allowed to overwhelm the plot, and the science only sometimes verged on the totally unbelievable. The show's low points are still entertaining, and I've never seen such taut pilot episodes. Matt Greenberg and Sci-Fi should be commended, and fans have the right to demand a comprehensive DVD edition of the show. Every time I come across a marathon of "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" on Sci-Fi, I roll my eyes and sigh, mourning the excitement and possibility of science fiction television that "Invisible Man" and its ilk represented.

First thing I noticed in this movie of course, was the unnecessary amount of nudity. It's not oozing nudity or anything, but a lot that was not needed. Annik Borel plays a disturbed woman believing her families ghost stories that her ancestor who eerily resembles her was a werewolf, and believes their fate are destined to be the same. Which actually I found quite interesting. The original Wolf Man was intended to be a completely psychological movie, but Universal threw in the actual Wolf man you were never supposed to see for n extra buck or two. I find this concept of someone not really being a werewolf interesting. Unfortunately this is not the film I was searching for.
Instead we know shes not a werewolf from the beginning, so there's no thrill or twist, also they attempt to make the film seem like a this really happened scenario. They fail there too adding one or two parts of the film referring to this being reality. At first I was excited upon reading the description of the film. But I slowly realized it was a cover just so they could expose the main characters breasts as often as possible.
Annik Borel is either a decent actor playing a great psychotic role, or a really bad actor playing a psychotic role. Since the character Danniele has no brains and is just a nut who runs around insane and snarling and snapping like a wolf, it takes little skill to play. She has moments were her performance breaks through for a creepy moment but is quickly ruined by the poor camera work and light. The idea is great, but hideously executed throughout the film. 3/10
It was "The Night HE Came Home," warned the posters for John Carpenter's career-making horror classic. Set in a small American town, Halloween centerers around serial killer Michael Myers' attempts to track down his sister Laurie Strode, and in the process eliminates all her friends in rather brutal ways...leaving poor Laurie to fight against the seemingly indestructible Michael. This plot out-line inspired countless horror knock-offs throughout the 80s, 90s and continues to do so today, as well as a poorly received 2007 remake. The difference between them, and this, is, quite simply, that "Halloween" is the best.
Made on a very modest, tight budget...Halloween changed the face of horror in 1978 and spawned the sub-genre of "sexually promiscuous-teens getting stalked by a knife/axe/chainsaw/ wielding psycho".

I think it's a great movie!! It's fun, maybe a little unrealistic, but fun and dramatic!! I would like to see it again, if they were showing it in TV!! Just 1 question: Are we still talking about the same movie???
Ulysses as a film should in no way be compared with the novel, for they are two entirely different entities. However, that being said, the film still manages to maintain many of the elements that made the book work, but since it is a visual medium, it is more difficult to pull of stream-of-consciousness. I think this is the best film they could have made with the material... and this is from someone that routinely rants about films not being like their literary counterparts. I recommend the book, but the movie is still entertaining.

I feel like I've just watched a snuff film....a beautifully acted, taut, engrossing and horrible thing! A two hour litany of perversion in the most basic and all inclusive sense of the word, sexual violence and torture, rape, decapitation, incest, corruption, live burial, and abuse, abuse, abuse. No redemption whatsoever. And I WAS entertained. I couldn't stop watching. What does this say about me, about the people who make and act in this sort of thing, and a world that has become so desensitized that eventually real snuff films will be the norm. And I'm neither puritanical nor humorless, I don't try to hide from the existence of darkness, and I definitely have not led a sheltered life, but I am ashamed of myself. AND I'm sorry to see my British cousins dragging the subject-matter sewers the way my own tribe does. It doesn't have to be cozy, but does it have to wallow in vicarious sadism?
With Oliver Hardy bedeviled by the sound of horns, bells, phones and trombones, his doctor Finlayson advises peace and quiet and a diet of goat milk. Partner Stan Laurel comes up with a great solution, living on a docked boat so the salt sea air can help Ollie get all the rest he needs. It's a great premise for all the mad cap hijinks to ensue, as the boat is set adrift by the hungry goat, and an escaped convict (Richard Cramer) stows along for the ride.
I got a kick out of all the gags in the film, starting with that sign in the horn testing factory - 'Silence While Men Are Working'. The early story at the boys' apartment features a number of mixed up plumbing and appliance mishaps, with Stan doing a banana within a banana bit. Laurel has a couple of great lines in the picture, like "We must have been dis-unconnected", but the one that had me rolling was his response to the criminal on board ship - "Self preservation is the last law of averages" - precisely!
I'm not as great a student of Laurel and Hardy's films as many on this board, all I know is I enjoyed them as a kid and find them to be as entertaining today as they were back in my youth. On that count, "Saps At Sea" provides a decent hour of hornophobic fun, well on it's way to hornomania.

Based on Tom Wolfe's satirical novel that was praised by all (i have not read it yet) Tom Hanks stars as a wall streeter who accidentally kills a black boy while lost in a bad part of NYC Willis stars as the reporter who starts Hanks on his downward spiral.. The characters are very thin and there seems to be no empathy for anyone in this movie and for a comedy or a satire there arent a lot of laughs either..Melanie Griffith had her breasts done during filming so a fun thing to do is to see if her boobs change size during different parts of the film..This will keep your mind off other things like the lack of script or humor.. On a scale of one to ten..3