davidadamczyk/imdb-100 huggingface dataset:
As powerful as the true story of Phoolan is, this book this film is based on came out before she herself was released from Prison and had the chance to tell it.
It is allegedly based on her diaries but she is illiterate. How does that work?
That said, some areas of he film are accurate and the acting isn't bad, with some sensitivity being shown.
Really though this story needs to be old in a TV series. Far to much happens to cram into a couple of hours.
Read her autobiography. Highly recommended. It is a fantastic story.

Sentiment: negative
I've read a lot of reviews about Showtime on IMDb and many seem to miss the mark. I've noticed a lot of reviewers calling this the typical "buddy" film. De Niro is in no way Murphy's buddy throughout most of this movie. In fact, part of the comedy of this film is De Niro's reluctance to be friends with anybody.
Murphy really shines in this one. He is back at doing what he does best, acting like a complete ham. He is a cop who wants so much to be an actor and enjoys being in the reality show. De Niro is perfect as the straight man who thinks the entire thing is stupid. I thought the two of them had great chemistry and were a perfect casting choice. Rene Russo is also great as the TV producer. Of course, she loves everything Murphy does and tries so hard (along with Murhpy) to get DeNiro going too.
A lot of reviewers have touched on the hilarious scene with William Shatner, reprising his role as TJ Hooker to train Murhpy & De Niro how to "act" like cops. But, my favorite scene involves Murphy in the "confessional" hoping he could get a Wesly Snipes-Like cop to team up with instead of De Niro. Man, that was hilarious! Comedies often depend on your personal tastes. Sure you could poke holes in the plot, most often you can with a comedy. I was psyched to see the pairing of Murphy and De Niro...I think it brought out the best in Murphy, which was nice to see him at the top of his game again. I can only imagine it was a great honor for Murphy to be paired with the great De Niro. Rating 8 of 10 stars.

Sentiment: positive
If I compare two films with Sacha Cohen, Borat and Ali G then Ali G is immeasurably better. I'ts no master piece, but it's a film at least. Borat is complete garbage and I do not understand how it rated better then Ali G.
I cannot put my finger on it, there something wrong with the Ali G script: half of the jokes are as if written by a 15 years old, not by an adult scriptwriter. And a number of jokes including Mr Cohen's lower body are quite tasteless.
But the film actually comes together as a comedy and there are some valid jokes too that are funny: such as how Ali G becomes a member of government for doing something scandalous and stupid in the public (sadly true in today's western society: people get careers for doing stupid things in public), also Ali's advice about immigrant policy and some others.
Ali G overall remains a sympathetic character, even though a kind of mentally underdeveloped for his age. But it's OK to watch,it's quite funny.
But never ever watch Borat, it's awful and makes every intelligent movielover sick.

Sentiment: negative
Sorry to say but was disappointed in the film. It was very very rushed, as I suppose you can understand a movie length version of Pride & Prejudice would be and I felt that a lot of the major scenes were glossed over just to get through the story. As the movie is so rushed, unfortunately you don't get to really know about and feel for each of the characters much at all.
Not only that, this movie is Boring. I say that with a capital B. 1/3 of the way through I started yawning and couldn't wait for the movie to be over. As I have read the book and watch the BBC version, I knew how many scenes had to go, before I could finally leave the cinema. Mr Darcy whoever he is in this movie, definitely can't act. He looks also too young to play Mr Darcy. Every word that comes out of his mouth is rushed like he needs to get through the script or something. Where is the build up? At first, he seems confused with everything. He is just bizarre! It all looks put on.
Was trying not to compare to the Colin Firth version but if you love that version, you will most likely be disappointed anyway.
The costumes are absolutely shocking. Where are the corsets? I know Elizabeth is poor, but I think she still knows how to dress as some sort of ladylike fashion, and hasn't been brought up in a squaller. Her dresses indicates she might be the poorest peasant in all of England.
I didn't agree with a couple of scenes in the movie in the fact, that I don't think it would be considered proper in that society for men to do such things, honestly Mr Bingley who has wealth should know better. There is some things that are said that sound too modern for the period this movie is set in, and not at all like Jane Austen. Bingley's character is shockingly donee, to me he behaves like a simpleton, not a character to like and respect. What about that laugh of his!!! I Wickham hardly has a presence and Mr & Mrs Hurst and a couple of other characters have no presence at all. Keira did okay, but it just ain't the same.

Sentiment: negative
In the early 00's, production companies had a short-lived craze for supernatural genre movies in France after "The Crimson Rivers" and "Brotherhood of the Wolf" turned out to be hits, so several movies were green-lit or saved from their "direct-to-video" fate. However, France, as opposed to the US, UK or Italy, has little tradition of fantasy B-movies and it turned out quickly that "Samouraïs", "Bloody Mallory" or the "Crimson Rivers" sequel were ill-advised attempts at recreating a kind of magic that had never existed in French cinema in the first place. As they flopped, producers have gone back to their usual fare: derivative farces or the umpteenth self-referential tribute to French New Wave by a former critic from "Les Cahiers du cinéma".
"Brocéliande" could only have been green-lit during this short window, as it serves no other discernible purpose. It's your by-the-book slasher movie mixed with vague mythological element and horror references and you'll find bimboesque female characters, a French University looking like a US campus and plot twists so lazy you don't even care because you had guessed it by yourself an hour before, even before the movie started.
These elements make all the fun of a 70's or a 80's B-movie and you expect them in a 70's or 80's movie. However, we're not in the 80's anymore and nobody warned director Doug Headline, as this tribute to the slasher movie genre is nothing more than a derivative slasher movie. Headline himself is no rookie and has been writing as a critic about this kind of pictures since the early 80's but as a first time director he shows a lack of skill and ambition that makes "Brocéliande" a bore.
When you put together clichés from a movie subcategory and hand them to a skilled and inventive director such as Wes Craven or Quentin Tarantino, you get a "Scream" or a "Death Proof", movies that are imitations from old guilty pleasures but also magnify these clichés and add a great deal to them. That's called "talent" and that's why you can't confuse these recent movies with their original inspirations shot decades ago.
"Brocéliande" takes the lazy path and only reproduces the worst elements from past movies (unfortunately for the male viewer, the gratuitous nudity is mostly missing). There are very strong similarities (presumably unintentional) between the plot of "Brocéliande" and the reviled "Halloween 3: Season Of The Witch", as both deal with supernatural Druidic evil rituals and some silly attempt at taking over the world on Halloween night. As even the plot of "Halloween 3" makes more sense than this one, it means that something seriously wrong went with "Brocéliande".

Sentiment: negative
Personally, I think Kevin Spacey is one of the greatest actors of his generation, maybe the greatest. This in combination with another amazing actor named Jeff Bridges, it can't be bad. And that's exactly what this movie is! "K-PAX" is one of the most pleasant surprises of the latest years. To start with has the movie a brilliantly written story. It's part of what makes the movie so great. The other aspect that contributes to the greatness of the movie is the acting. The combination Spacey-Bridges really works.
This was already the second time I saw the movie and I'm sure it won't be the last time. "K-PAX" has everything. There are moments which are extremely funny, parts that remind of a true thriller and others which reminds of high-class drama. I think this movie deserves a much higher rating and a lot more awards. Great movie!
9/10

Sentiment: positive
WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS
The ripples in the wake of the first "Jaws" movie were still prominent in the 1980s as well as beyond. Movie monsters went from being radioactive monstrosities to unknown and voracious beasts lurking in the unexplored corners of human experience (ie: the ocean, deep space, genetics). Although "Jaws" was a milestone in this particular realm of film horror, few films have been able to match the visceral impact of the original. "Shark rosso nell'oceano" (aka Devil Fish or Red Ocean), is a dutiful follower of the original "Jaws" formula. After several hapless boats and seagoers are brutally murdered by some ocean creature, there is an initial drive to discover the beast, then a failure to study it without horrible results, and a final push to destroy it. Although the filmmakers attempted to inject some fresh life into the equation by adding elements of technology and corporate conspiracy, the result is nothing short of disastrous. This movie sinks under its own weight of ghastly editing, brittle acting, and cheap scares.
The most sickly compelling feature of "Devil Fish" is its cookie-cutter editing. From the onset of the film when 3 different scenes are mashed together, the viewer gets a sense that the film lacks any technical credibility. It appears as if the editors cut the scenes around a set musical score instead of cutting the film and then making necessary changes to the music. Furthermore, every cut is an intercut and it would appear as if the editors had never heard of the terms "fade", "wipe", or "dissolve". The impact of scenes can never settle in because they are immediately cut short after a final line and a new scene begins. Silly camera tricks abound such as when two of the principle characters share a private moment on the beach and a sort of time-lapse image of their act is composited over their bodies.
The music is equally bland. The creature theme is a hopeless duplicate of the "Jaws" theme with slight variation. Although I like to keep my reviews devoid of MST3K influence, Mike most aptly described the somber score as "soft core porn music". Failing to produce tension in a film that relies so heavily on it is a death blow to "Devil Fish". The acting is stale, the relationships baffling, and the whole conspiracy is laughable. The question remains that if genetics had advanced to such a level to create a huge chimera of a sea monster to protect oceanic interests, why couldn't a more practical use be administered to better mankind? One of the few positive aspects of this film is the idea of the monster, even though its film presence is less than stellar.
Overall, this movie is bad enough to dip below mediocre. If "Jaws" had never been made, then the film could be described as average because its subject matter would be new and exciting even if it was executed ineffectively. Sadly, as a carbon copy of Spielberg's original thriller it sits most comfortably on a garbage heap of cheese.

Sentiment: negative
THE SEA INSIDE a film by Alejandro Amenabar.
Almodovar has always single handed the flag for Spanish cinema for years now, out of nowhere came Amenabar reinventing genres and injecting some new blood to the otherwise malfunctioning Spanish industry, now in a big gamble he switches from psychological terror to social drama, well the big ones would be, are audiences ready to embrace the swing and more important can he hold the flag? This is the story of Ramon Sampedro, a sailor that in his twenties was paralyzed from the neck down in an accident at the sea and his fight with the Spanish government for the right to end his life. The story has the traces of an afternoon made for TV melodrama and the only way this is going to work is through words and honest performances and they both come in spades. Mateo Gil and Amenabar co-write in a way where the audience is not meant to be lead blind to a death end but they are encouraged to make up their own minds in the process and that is a brilliant stroke, this is not a movie pro death but a movie in favour of the ultimate illusions of our time LIBERTY. There is a few laughs spare a long the way, like when the church comes home in a wheel chair to deconstruct Sampedro beliefs but is mostly a valley of tears through out, punches coming from all fronts even when you think you are safe his father that to that point didn't make any sense comes up with the most moving line of the entire movie. It is a heartbreaking experience specially when Sampedro seems more full of life than most the people wandering the streets and everyone around him tries to convince him of the wonders of life even those who are helping him to die but when you strip a man of his dreams The film is almost exclusively built on close ups bringing a claustrophobic feeling that makes the audience more sympathetic with Sampedro. That's for the actors a huge challenge that must construct their whole performances with their eyes and the eyes don't lie. Bardem was not granted his second Oscar nomination, probably in favour of Eastwood, but in my opinion he was the only one who could have shadowed Jammie Fox. This role reminds me of the great Gregory Peck in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD where the acting looked effortless and I reckon Bardem has reached that status where the line of what is acting and what is real has become completely blur. I was never fond of his early work but since Almodovar's LIVE FLESH he is on a roll, LOS LUNES AL SOL, THE DANCER UPSTAIRS and the Oscar nominated BEFORE THE NIGHT FALLS made him an international star and although he and Banderas come from the same Almodovar background is fascinating to see how different paths they took and how Bardem has now become a real reference for Spanish cinema in the whole world. A golden globe, 14 Goyas, jury prize at Venice and probably an Oscar with permission from THE CHORUS BOYS, Amenabar directs, co-write, edits and puts music to a high caliber drama, he has pull it off what about some Science Fiction now? Whose life is it anyway?****.

Sentiment: positive
Plunkett & Macleane falls into my favourite genre of film (historical action adventure with comedy) which is probably why I rate it so highly.
The action centres around a highwayman (Plunkett) and a layabout 'gentleman' who gets entangled with him and his schemes (Macleane). This leads to all sorts of escapades and adventures which are all tinged with comedy. There is also, of course, a love interest.
The rest of the cast is made up of a number of vibrant, larger than life characters who add to the atmosphere of the film and show the excesses of the wealthy at this time.
This is an enjoyable film with a fairly simple but worthwhile plot that provides plenty of entertainment.

Sentiment: positive
I'm trying to find something of value here. The best I can muster is that Truffaut wanted to make a movie as tedious, painful, puerile, annoying, illogical, and brainless as the experience of being in love. If that was his goal, then he succeeded, but the solution to his exercise is really a drag to watch.
There is one scene that screams for a spoof: Belmondo compares the features of Deneuve's face to the features in a landscape . All I could think the whole time was "glacier," "ice floe," "two lonely fishermen wearing Army surplus on a frozen lake in Minnesota."
The only other point of interest was the resurrection of Buffoon's theory of climatic determinism. The tropics are presented as paradise, and things get progressively worse as they get colder, hell being Calvinist French Switzerland. That was kind of funny.

Sentiment: negative
Jack Lemmon was one of the finest actors that had ever graced the screen. He could effortlessly switch from dramatic roles to comedic with ease, making most of his peers green with envy. While his performance in "Save The Tiger" is Oscar-worthy, I feel it was given to him as he had missed out on his other opportunities to win the award due to other, better roles that had preceded this current one.
This is also one of those pretentious movies that comes out to basically showcase the talent of the cast, or in this case, one particular member. It's too bad the screenwriter's output didn't match that of Lemmon's. Don't waste your time with this one.

Sentiment: negative
The most disposable movie in the history of cinema?This one is a strong contender!Why wasting so much money for such a pointless useless work? The only difference between the HItchcock classic and this poor imitation is color,wide screen and Leila's Walkman!!A movie which's supposed to generate thrills and fear leaves me completely indifferent.
No you' re going to tell me it will urge the young generations to see the original?balderdash!This "psycho 1998" is a giant spoiler.
They could have done something different,for instance ,by casting an actor closer to Bloch 's Bates ,an obese man.They content themselves with an obnoxious rehash!A pox on it!and long live Alfred Hitchcock!

Sentiment: negative
The debut that plucked from obscurity one of the brighter stars of contemporary noir is an assured, if limited, stab at the con game and obsession. Filmed for zero money, Nolan couldn't have chosen a better subject than the drab and seamy underside of London to ply his trade, given the lack of funds. This short (67 min) is at its best in playing with the audience's and protagonist's expectations about who is scamming whom, though the initial set-up does ring some alarm bells in the credibility dept. The muddy cinematography (he often used natural lighting due to budget) can be mostly chalked up to noir stylization, though the limitations do show at times.
One can easily see Nolan's style developing in this fledgling effort; many of the same themes of blurred identity and expectation smashing recur in MEMENTO and INSOMNIA. Not a masterpiece but good and certainly worth a look for modern noir and Nolan fans.

Sentiment: positive
...Or is this another way below the bottom-of-the-barrel masterpiece? Preferably both! Somewhere between 1969 and 1972 came a host of several horrible horror movies that are all but lost again. Nothing more needs to be explained, asked, or screamed out loud. If you followed closely at my writings about CARNIVAL OF BLOOD or GURU THE MAD MONK, then you know what's in store with SCREAM BABY SCREAM. The title sounds cool; it's just the weak script that should have gone someplace else! Even so, this is hands down, the most dreadfully written piece of cinematic mastery ever worked on film!
If you thought this is an early slasher (which benefits the average IMDb user to write up another comment), better luck next time! The real truth behind the script has NOTHING to do with the movie, which supposedly tells of a blue-faced psychopath out to "kill" and make some ugly facial sculptures on his victims. It feels like you're watching another early "SCOOBY-DOO" episode. My favorite scene is the monkey cage where the four young hippie teenagers play in. And hooray for an actress under the name "Eugenie Wingate" for giving us the worst facial makeover, ever! 1969 has never been this bad, but it is!
Try finding this 30-year old rarity at a bargain basement for five bucks; it makes the perfect novelty item for going back to those psychedelic days of flower power, bad fashions, and trashy music! Interesting note: SCREAM BABY SCREAM is also listed in Troma's film archives on the company's website. Only time will tell when this reaches the top of the Bottom 100 List along with a few more early 70s cheapies; gosh knows they NEED to!!! PLAN 9 is history!!!

Sentiment: negative
I hope the writer, director, editor, and composer (and let's not forget producer) read this... because their work was truly incredible on this movie. Let me start by saying that I am in no way affiliated with this movie. I am only a regular guy who has been a fan of this movie for about 12 years and have seen it about 8 times.
Every second of this movie is touching. Every scene is classic. The acting is real. The movie is honest. You can relate to these characters as people, not actors.
This tale follows three distinct killers at different stages in their lives. The story is carefully thought out and every sub-plot is intertwined and woven together, culminating in a message that leaves us pondering the values of right and wrong that each of us carries inside.
Crispen Glover, Daniel Roebuck, Dennis Hopper, and Joshua John Miller (as a 12 year old boy) give absolutely amazing, real performances. I've seen this movie about 8 or more times and I still get so absorbed in their performances that I forget I am watching a movie. It's that good. Great job everyone who worked on this. Great job.
The music is also wonderfully matched and haunting. With the chosen cast, the carefully timed editing and pacing, the mood and tone, and even the subject matter, the director made some of the best decisions for a movie I've ever seen.
This movie is real. It's honest. It's a true movie experience which I will never forget. You may not be into the subject matter but it is something you cannot ignore. Ultimately, it's about people being people... and everyone can relate to that. I recommend this movie to fans of drama, suspense, and horror above almost every other film.

Sentiment: positive
Johnny Knoxville and the boys of Jackass go over the top for "Jackass Number Two." At a press screening, the laughter was so loud and raucous it was hard to hear all the dialog. The stunts are over the top and the pranks are funnier and more outrageous than ever before.
All of the guys put their limbs on the line to make a great film, and they succeeded. If you like this genre, you'll love this film. If not, don't bother.
Some of the funniest bits are the pranks the guys play on themselves, and they have no regard for what happens to them. They'll do anything to make a stunt work.
Many critics panned Johnny Knoxville for a less active role in the first film, but not to worry, he is front and center in Number Two, and they have enough footage in the can to be half way through a Number Threee.
This is a must see for fans of this type of humor.
Chris Sansone, Entertainment Editor, Fort Bend Herald

Sentiment: positive
Top gun without the in-house animosity. Or class. Or money. Or Cruise. An excuse for an upwardly mobile cast of next-big-thing actors to market their ability to lead a matinée this doesn't really have anything anyone can get their teeth into. It's a shame because the opening shot of Charlie Sheen opens out with great promise which is squandered almost straight away with a preposterous wedding set piece. Barking.
Dennis Haysbert is a changeable actor for me but in this film he is fine, particularly the action sequences. Michael Biehn is a first-class action hero but not a leading man: Charlie Sheen is, to all intents and purposes, the leading man but never quite an action hero. There's a stunt cast of hundreds who are also mentionworthy. 3/10

Sentiment: negative