davidadamczyk/imdb-100 huggingface dataset:
Who ARE the people that star in this thing? Never heard of them!! But this is one of the funniest comedies I have run across. It should win the Putz Puller Prize for Parody. The absurd starts with Dr. Jeykl snorting his powder and turning into a sex fiend.He is pursued by libido driven nurse early in the movie in one of the funniest scenes of the movie. Pay attention to the hospital PA system in the background; rather like the system in MASH. The final scene with Hyde accepting the award has had me laughing for years. Oh... and the "Busty Nurse" is Cassandra Peterson, who went on to become Elvira, Mistress of the Dark.
If you liked the Mel Brooks classic movies (Blazing Saddles, etc.), I suspect you'd like this one.
Damn shame you can't get it on DVD anywhere.
It's available on DVD now !!!!! Good thing DVDs don't wear out from use !!!!!

Sentiment: positive
I never saw any of The League's work until early last year - although when channel hopping one night I caught the end of one the series three episodes. But last winter I fell in love with the show and its dark, eccentric and sometimes downright sinister characters. So when I learnt they had made a film in which the show's lovable creators met their own characters, I couldn't order the DVD fast enough and near on tore it from my postman's hands when he delivered it. I was so excited to see what the Gents had done and how they'd done it.
And it was excellent! From the beginning where Jeremy (Michael Sheen) is terrorised by Edward, Tubbs and Papa (Dyson, why didn't you play yourself? He's perfectly capable as viewers of the infamous Highgate House of Horrors know!), to Bernice berating yet another one of her flock, to Geoff, Herr Lipp and Hilary discovering that THEY are characters, which is a great scene. The scenes set in 1690 are very enjoyable, with the Gents turning their hands to yet more characters and an all new plot. David Warner's turn as Doctor Pea is fantastic, slightly camp and very funny.
The League have always been brilliant at blending humour with sadness and emotion - and the climax of this film, where Herr Lipp is struggling with the idea that he and the other Vasey residents are just fictional people who will never be able to change who they are or their purpose - and to witness how it's breaking him down, is really sad and beautiful to watch at the same time and that really shows the Gents' talent - something for which they are terribly overlooked for to this day.
And then you have that rather clever ending - where you sit in wonder - with Joby Talbot's beautiful theme music playing. And you know you've enjoyed a very clever and funny film.

Sentiment: positive
This was terrible, mean-spirited, and full of the worst clichés and racial stereotypes I've seen in a looong time. Seeing Hayden P trying to act "ghetto" was painful (hi, one pant leg up on yer sweats and some braids Downs't make you "down with the homies"). Solange Knowles pretty much grimaces through the entire movie. Most of the set sequences look like they were filmed in cardboard boxes...what was up with the finale??? And poor Rihanna was just plain exploited to get people to watch her "act", which she can't.
Put simply, this film Downs't even deserve one star. Please put this tired franchise to rest. Or at least make the next one Bring It On IV: Cheerleaders vs. Freddy & Jason.

Sentiment: negative
This isn't a very good movie, but it is easily the best Troma Studios film I have ever viewed. Lloyd Kaufman - the "brains" behind Troma - isn't concerned with a good plot or even making a moderately entertaining film. His chief concern is making something bizarre. And his definition of bizarre oftentimes mirrors my definition of terrible cinema.
In this film we have the titled character Luther - whose favorite pastime isn't Baseball, but biting the heads off of chickens - receiving his release from lockup. The board has deemed him rehabilitated despite the fact that he doesn't speak - he merely clucks like a chicken - and has a set of razorblade dentures at his disposal. Of course, once Luther is set free, he goes about causing mayhem, first at a grocery store and later at a farm house.
VIOLENCE: $$$$$ (Lots of violence in this oftentimes tasteless flick. Luther sinks his razorblade chompers into a poor elderly lady waiting at a bus stop and then spends the rest of the film terrorizing the mother and daughter at the farmhouse).
NUDITY: $$$$$ (Stacy Haiduk delivers some noteworthy skin in his picture, as the former Lois Lane (I can't recall which Superman edition she was from) gives us a shower scene followed by a romp in bed with her boyfriend - a guy who just doesn't have any chemistry with Ms. Haiduk. The extended shower scene footage in the DVD extras gives the viewer quite a bit more of Stacy. She is quite something).
STORY: $ (Forgettaboutit!!!! Whitey Styles' screenplay may just be the worst ever written. The way in which Luther is released from the asylum completely throws all credibility out the window. His dialogue is something that a pre-schooler might write and the actions he writes for his characters border on the absurd. It's as if Styles spent ten years without human contact and completely forgot how people react in certain situations).
ACTING: $$ (The film belongs to Edward Terry who actually does a decent job as the Geek. He is quite menacing in a stupid barnyard fashion. Joan Roth as the mother does a super job in support but Haiduk and her boyfriend's lack of chemistry made their roles awkward at best).

Sentiment: negative
I loathe, despise, and hate this film with a passion that makes the red hot gates of hell look cold by comparison. it's nothing but a campy, frightening, and completly shoddy trip down memory lane to that oh-so-nasty time, the 70's, a decade im glad i wasnt a part of if this absolute trite is all that was on offer!
the animation is sickeningly dated, not least of all with it's tacky, missing frames, and characters with huge, bulbous heads, this film is an eye-sore. from the knowing, snide nod to the parents with the freakily gay sea horse, and it's camp hand motions and kenneth williams-esque voice, to the overtly, unsubtly druggy anthem, High Cockalorum, this film, im sad to say, is one that was forced upon me as a child and i have never fully recovered from the terror it caused me....
This ghastly display of complete terribleness should carry an R rated certificate, so disturbing it is in it's contents!

Sentiment: negative
He seems to be a control freak. I have heard him comment on "losing control of the show" and tell another guest who brought live animals that he had one rule-"no snakes." He needs to hire a comedy writer because his jokes are lame. The only reason I watch him is because he some some great guests and bands.
I watched the Craig Ferguson show for a while but his show is even worse. He likes to bull sh** to burn time.I don't think either man has much of a future in late night talk shows.
Daily also has the annoying habit of sticking his tongue out to lick his lips. He must do this at least 10 times a show. I do like the Joe Firstman band. Carson Daily needs to lighten up before it is too late.

Sentiment: negative
Rocketship X-M should be viewed by any serious movie buff for the following reasons:
1) It is one the first -- and the few -- movies not to have a happy ending. Doubtless the effect was more profound in post-World War II America than it would be today, but nonetheless the sad ending adds to the film's message.
2) It is also one of the first movies to deal with space travel in a serious fashion, using space as a valid setting for drama. The lack of scientific background notwithstanding, the movie stands on its own as dramatic fare. It's not so much a space drama as it is a drama set in space.
3) The anti-nuclear war message is delivered in a serious manner that is not lost in sfx involving large grasshoppers, men, or animal. The effect of Martian society from nuclear devastation is starkly and frankly presented. The fact that the survivors from the expedition crash land and as such are unable to preach the lesson learned on Mars adds another element of sadness to the tragic ending.
Sterno says take a ride on Rocketship X-M.

Sentiment: negative
So you're a giant mantis and you've been hanging out in the arctic for a while, and you're tired of Eskimos hitting you with snowballs. What's a giant mutant insect to do? Head for the big city, of course! See the sights, maybe catch a show on Broadway. But wait! Just when you find a nice cozy tunnel to call your own, some pesky humans start attacking you!! Argh! Time to smash!
Anyhow this movie is one step up on most other giant bug movies, because it has pretty decent FX for 1957. But that's about it. Avoid unless you really need to see another big bug smash things, or see another Perry Mason actor in a B movie.
4/10

Sentiment: negative
I just found out before writing this review that "Komodo vs. Cobra" and another movie called "Curse of the Komodo" were both directed by the same guy, Jim Wynorski. That might explain why they are films of nearly identical premises. They both feature a military-governed island, a colonel whose concerned more about covering his tracks than the lives of his employees, people racing to get to a chopper that is conveniently lying in a field somewhere on the island, and giant komodo dragons created through genetic experiments running amok. What differences are there? Well, the intruders on the island are now capitalists wanting to expose the government secret and there's a giant cobra on the island as well, hence the title "Komodo vs. Cobra" even though the conflict between the two monsters is hardly relevant to the 'story.' "Komodo vs. Cobra" is more or less what you'd expect given its title and its channel origin: the Sci-Fi Channel. Although every now and again you will find one that for one reason or another may appeal to you (I liked a movie called "Komodo") I hardly doubt this one will.
"Komodo vs. Cobra" is not only a boring film, but it's also one of the least enthusiastic sci-fi flicks I've seen in a long time. In some of these movies, there is an air to them that indicates the filmmakers were giving at least a certain level of effort, but I see very little here. That's indicated again by it just being a rehash of "Curse of the Komodo." The CGI for the monsters look as if they came straight out of a second-rate video game, the cinematography and misc en scene is poor, the acting ranges from passable to poor, the action scenes are dull, and then there are some parts that are, frankly put, unforgivably bad. I see a lot movies where a person will shoot a gun many times without reloading and I can deal with this. But in this movie, where Michael Paré takes a single thirty-eight handgun and fires it approximately fifty times nonstop without reloading oncewell, at first I laughed, but even then it just became tiring. That would be the 'action.' A monster appears, people scream, Paré fires nonstop without reloading his gun once throughout the entire picture, and somebody gets eaten.
"Komodo vs. Cobra" is a very bad movie. The only thing in the movie that is worth mentioning in a charitable manner is an actress named Michelle Borth, who is not only very beautiful, but a surprisingly strong performer. Even with the trashy dialogue and lack of enthusiasm in the screenplay she was given, Michelle Borth managed to pull off a surprisingly good performance and it just appalls me that an actress as good as her can get stuck in a film as junky as this. She obviously took it for the paycheck, but it won't boost her career any, I'm afraid.

Sentiment: negative
Central Airport is the story of a pilot named Jim (Richard Barthelmess) who has one bad flight in over 4000 hours and is forced to give up commercial flying. He meets a beautiful girl named Jill (Sally Eilers) and the two start up an act involving flying and stunts. The two start a relationship, but when Jim is hurt, his brother (Tom Brown) takes over the act for a while and falls for his brother's girlfriend. From there, things get exciting and terribly terribly sad.
This film is a pre-code because of several reasons. First, Jim and Jill have consummated their relationship without being married and with no intention of having a wedding. Second, Eilers is shown in her underwear, and absolutely restricted scene when the Production Code came into effect.
This film does not skimp on the dramatic love triangle and in consequence ends bittersweetly.

Sentiment: positive
Being raised at the time this movie was released has probably influenced my shallow mind, but still, this isn't a bad movie by any means. It's a movie about a hostage situation involving a prep school populated to some extent by endearing teenage boys who can't seem to get out of trouble. What's wrong with that? It doesn't have any big special effects, but so what? Who needs special effects? Cinema's decline began around the same time that special effects were popularized. A coincidence? I think not. It turned movies with potentially good plot and feelings and turned them into a big, substance-less light show for innocent kids and the self-medicated. Well, you know, not all movies need special effects. About three fourths of the movies on the IMDb top 250 are without special effects, but almost all of the Top Grossing movies of all time have some special effects. Think about it: Star Wars, E.T., Ghostbusters, etc. All good movies, but the rest of the top-grossing movies are usually cliched tripe with non-sensical plots and lots of eye candy. Well some movies don't need ny of that junk.
Excuse me for going off on a tangent, which I normally do, but I'm just so fed up with that special effects junk. Back to the point: Toy Soldiers is simply a great movie. I admit, some of the content is a little corny and ripped off, but so what, every movie rips off another to some extent. Think of Resovoir Dogs. Countless "appreciation" sites dictate the fact that beloved Quentin Tarentino, who I admit I like, has copied many, many, many movies in the making of his first major film Reservoir Dogs. Many say that the entire plot is ripped off almost scene for scene from japanese and chinese gangster movies which Mr. Tarentino loved so much, and probably still does. Sorry once again for the tangent.
Toy Soldiers is fun. It has the whole insubordination from teenagers to unwanted members of authority, i.e. hostage takers. It's fun to see kids take over when they're being held to something they don't want to do. Hell, teenage angst-inspired rebelion was the key topic to a great majority to 80's comedies. Plus there's the tension and thrill of having the characters use fire-arms and knock out the bad guys, etc. Plus there's some emotional points to the film. When one of the characters dies the others have to cope and adjust. It's not perfect acting but it beats most of the other tripe out there.
In short, Toy Soldiers is exciting, interesting, and fun. How dare you jaded blowhards rate this movie poorly! Shame on you all!
Personal rating: 8/10

Sentiment: positive
This movie is astonishingly poor. It was on television when I tuned in during an action scene and was chuckling away at the cheesy macho dialogue, waiting for Leslie Nielsen to appear. It took me a couple of minutes to realise that it wasn't actually a comedy, it was meant to be taken seriously. What has to be remembered is that somebody actually sat down and wrote this movie, and worse still - other people funded it and gave it the green light.
Rutger Hauer obviously doesn't read movie scripts before he signs up, either that or he has some seriously bad debts to pay.
Strangely, this film is so poor, that you find yourself staring at it, wondering how it actually got funded, and how a TV channel must have paid money for the rights to air it. The dialogue between hero and baddie whilst trying to shoot each other out of the sky is particularly painful, with dialogue sounding like it was generated by a Texas Intruments "Speak & Spell".
The Hollywood money machine at it's worst. Funny though.

Sentiment: negative
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning
David (Johnathon Schaech) and Tish (Lori Heuring) are a couple in Budapest, on business commitments and staying at a luxury hotel. One night, they meet an attractive woman at a nightclub and invite her back to their place, where they end up in a threesome. All is well, until David receives some negatives in the mail and he and Tish end up being blackmailed. But when some people involved in the deception are found murdered, things get messy and they are forced to enter the seedy underground world of pornography and hardcore bondage to track down the woman who may hold the key to everything.
Whereas the original film dealt with the concept of snuff films, this straight to DVD sequel deals with the more wholesome (!!!) theme of threesomes and sleazy sex. It plays like a porn film, a cheap piece of titillation with plenty of hot T/A action going on. If this sounds like your idea of a good film, you'll probably like it, but you'd probably be more at home in a porn shop than a video store.
This tries to copy the original film's dark and voyeuristic feel, but while it does a pretty good job of this, it still can't hold up to that of the original's. It has an apathetic story, with a dodgy narrative flow. And compared to Cage, Schaech comes across as interminably wooden.
Better than I thought it'd be, I suppose, and better than your average one of these DVD direct sequels that seem to be coming out a lot these days, but really, haven't we seen enough? **

Sentiment: negative
Oz, is one of the most mind-blowing and addictive TV experiences ever.
Having caught pieces of this on SBS, I was at first skeptical, however, having finished now the 4th season, I sadly know that that this brilliant show is approaching its end, (6 seasons), and yet I still can't get enough of OZ.
Want something that will push your senses and your stomach to the limit...Oz fits the bill, hands down.
This isn't kid's stuff, folks, its violent, brutal, and not pretty. Why, its a experimental unit inside a maximum security prison.
Tom Fontana's Oz is brilliant in all the right departments, the actors, the writing, and directing.
HBO's Oz site is also highly recommended, for newcomers, for info about this series. This was the first one-hour show, produced by HBO, and it proves what a master-work it is and that others would follow.
Thank-You HBO

Sentiment: positive
The idea that anyone could of concocted such a trite, cliché, yet indeliberately comical movie is shocking. The final 20 minutes of this film are comical glory; with six men digging enough trench in 10 minutes to light the runway with gasoline for a 747, while a supposed 'major' perfectly lands the 747 in a 110mph crosswind - leading one to question the misnomer of calling this movie CRASH LANDING...
Some of the dialogue was equivalent to rubbing sandpaper in my ears, while the only aspect that saved this movie for a 1 was the plethora of attractive women filling the screen a large portion of the time. Not exactly a consolidation for this pathetic excuse of a movie, but my mute button finally received a workout.
View at your own risk! 2 out of 10

Sentiment: negative
After reading other reviews on this site, we weren't sure if we were going to be able to critique this movie because it didn't sound bad enough. However, 2 minutes into the movie, we knew we were in for another flop. No summer is complete without ice cream, but this movie served up a melted, sour, broken-bottomed ice cream cone (you know, the kind that leaves you sticky and dirty and looking for a wet-nap). The biggest problem with this movie was the plot. What was it? It appeared to be a psychotic ice cream man driving around the neighborhood. That's it. Nothing else happens. First of all, what are the qualifications for becoming an ice-cream man in this crap town? 1. Spend several years in the most ridiculous mental hospital known to man. This hospital was plagued with clowns, graffiti, fake plastic sunflowers, and oversized syringes to the head. 2. Have extremely poor hygiene and a mutant face to scare the kids away. 3. Make sure your truck is stocked with severed body parts, roaches, and don't forget the eye whites!
The actors in this movie are pure B-Movie caliber. Mixed in with a bunch of unknowns is, who other than....a trailer-trash version of Macaulay Culkin!! Even his bratty charm couldn't save this kick in the pants. There seemed to be no rhyme or reason for any of the murders in this movie. The whole concept of the movie reeked! Who would kill an ice cream man in a drive-by shooting? Gangsters? Fiends? Vanna White? Who? We are still struggling with this question.
Whoever was in charge of the wardrobe for this movie should be immediately blacklisted from Hollywood. Did they honestly think a pillow under a kid's shirt would make the audience believe that he was really fat? Did they forget about the arms, face, legs, and all other body parts? Second of all, this movie was made in 1995, yet the wardrobe seemed to be picked from a lame 80's movie, evidenced by the big brother's white, crotch-hugging high-water pants.
While we were watching this shotty production, we both developed severe cases of ADD. We found ourselves leaving the room to walk around aimlessly. At many points it the movie, we found that staring at a blank wall behind the T.V. set was more entertaining than the actual movie. We were stunned that this movie didn't make it to the Bottom 100. Afterwards, we took the tape out of the VCR and left it on the black top to melt like a sub-standard ice cream cone.

Sentiment: negative
I've been studying Brazilian cinema since 2004, when I stumbled onto "Cidade de Deus / City of God". Let me tell you something, this movie is probably as good or BETTER than "City of God".
The acting, cinematography and music supervision make this movie a unique experience. I have not been to Brazil yet, but this movie presents the harsh reality that is beset before the citizens of São Paulo.
I recommend this movie if you enjoy good cinema. This movie is disturbing and you may feel a bit despondent after watching it.
Something you want to watch, but nothing you want to go to sleep on.

Sentiment: positive
My wife rented this movie and then conveniently never got to see it. If I ever want to torture her I will make her watch this movie. I've watched many movies with my 4 year old and I can take almost anything. Barney is refreshing after a shot of Quigley.
The plot, dialog, cinematography, & acting were one step above (or equal to) a cheap porn film. I feel cheated out of $3.69 that we paid to rent it and then 90 minutes of my life I will never get back. I will say my 4 year old liked it, luckily it was a rental we had to return right away.
I just hope that the younger actor's careers are not ruined from being in this movie.

Sentiment: negative
I own a Video store with hundreds of documentaries. I have seen loads of them and love all of the great info out there. Only a small handful though even come close to offering info as important as this one. I have been reading through other peoples reviews of this film and can't help but notice that the main things people are criticizing are irrelevant. Such as "It is very one sided" Such a pathetic criticism, every where in society that you look you will see the other side, and if you still need help go to globalpublicmedia.com. "It is the same people over and over" Uh one might be led to believe that these people are the experts, so maybe they are the best people to interview. "filming style is all the same, head shots with few exceptions" If you want flash and dazzle watch Micheal Moore if you want info watch real docs such as this one. As you can plainly see none of these complaints have any relevance to the information contained. My guess is that these people are just missing the point and don't wanna give up there SUV's.
My recommendation: Watch it. Learn from it, and continue your education about such subjects. It is very important stuff for EVERYONE.

Sentiment: positive