davidadamczyk/imdb-100 huggingface dataset:
i saw this film over 20 years ago and still remember how much i loved it. it really touched me, and i thoroughly enjoyed noel coward's work in it. highly recommended: atmospheric and touching.
i think of this film from time to time, and am disappointed it hasn't enjoyed as much of a revival as many classic films. hadn't realized til i searched for it today that it won an academy award for best original story for ben hecht and charles macarthur.
basically it involves a nasty character who destroys another's career and is cursed because of it. he dies, but is allowed redemption if he can convince someone to shed a tear over him. the bulk of the movies shows him in pursuit of this goal. well written and lovely. i had known him for his plays so i was surprised to see him in this role on TV late one night in new york. a must see if you ever have the opportunity.

Sentiment: positive
This movie may bear some historical importance, and it sure seems astonishing how well the facts are together, the setting, the rocket, the space suits, the surface of the moon, all scream "a classic" - but in the end, the result makes a pretty dull movie for todays eyes, and the 50ies tech scenes you might hope for in a movie like this are by far not enough to reward sitting through all the tacky dialog and predictable plot developments. The characters and plot may reward a scientific sociological analysis, but bear too little entertainment value many times.
Much of this movie seems like a good movie for nine-year-olds. The mature themes, the human drama and the violence are kept to a level suitale for children as well.
The images of the earth and the moon seen from space may actually be more accurate than the ones in "2001", but so what if their use is dramatically inefficient. Especially 2001 may seem like a stretched out meditation over themes of this movie, and, has Star Wars not somehow modelled it's space-scrolling opening titles on the opening titles of this Film? But then again - the inheritance is marginal.
If its a real groundbreaking and mega-influential mature 1950ies Sci-Fi classic you are looking for however, check out "Forbidden Planet".

Sentiment: negative
Man! I remember this show with nostalgic... I really dug Bravestarr because he wasn't the conventional hero. He was more than a futuristic Texas cowboy. The man had the strenght of a bear, the vision of a walk, and the agility of a ... I can't remember that one.
The action sequences were great! I remember that Bravestarr would always use his bazooka named SARAJUANA (translated to Spanish) anytime he was in big troubles.
This was a quality action cartoon. I loved the characters, the dialogs, the music, and of course, the opening credits sequence! Bravestarr! long live to him. A cult classic in my opinion and a must see.

Sentiment: positive
This is a 100% improvement over the dross of a third movie and it's one hell of a good time. This is a John Hughes movie meets The Devil's Rejects. I really enjoyed this movie and it really stands out as the savior of the series. I thought Jennifer Tilly played Tiffany really well and Brad Dourif in Chucky's shoes once again really makes this movie shine. Actually they're the only good parts of the movie. I got rather bored with Katherine Heigl and Nick Stable's scenes. It's as if they were thrown in there as a sidetrack and someone to save the day. But Chucky and Tiffany were great to watch and I really liked the black humor to it. I thought it made the movie stand out more. If you want one hell of a good time then be sure to check this out.
7/10.

Sentiment: positive
Don't pick this one. ****Spoiler Alert***** The plot of this aggravatingly bad movie is four friends are talked into taking the shuttle from the airport by a very zealous driver. On the shuttle with them is a rather milquetoast looking business type.
Shortly into their trip the driver of the shuttle takes an off-ramp and some lunatic driver tries to run them off the road. The end result is they get a flat tire. The driver gets one of the people on the shuttle to help change the tire and the jack slips and the guys fingers are crushed between the tire and the shuttle. It's at this point that the driver reveals himself to be a kidnapper and he has taken all the people hostage.
Now the movie gets extremely slow and tedious, as the characters do one lame thing after another. One of the men is killed trying to escape -- even that lacks any suspense. Finally it is revealed that the milquetoast business guy is in cahoots with the driver when milquetoast guy kills the other male friend by slitting his throat.
There are a couple of attempts to escape by the women. Milquetoast is beaten over the head with a tire iron -- yet he survives.
The driver is also beaten and somehow survived a head on collision with a fence at high speed while kneeling next to the steering wheel. Somehow he didn't go through the window or even get seriously injured with a collision with windshield. Yet the woman driving the shuttle is knocked unconscious -- yet she had a steering wheel to protect her and he had nothing between him and the windshield.
He is eventually able to subdue the women and get them to an underground garage that is a front for human trafficking. One of the women is killed. The other one stabs the driver in the leg with a good sized piece of broken mirror and shoots/grazes him in the head, yet he is able (in what should be a severely weakened state -- severe blood loss, two head injuries and a large leg gash) to drag her out of the shuttle, drag her to a large crate, throw her in and get it locked, all the while with her fiercely fighting him.
Now some people admire the message of the movie about human trafficking and how it is going on today. This is a serious problem. But, making an extremely boring movie about the topic does not entitle it to a higher rating.

Sentiment: negative
When I played the first Soul Calibur on dreamcast I thought it was great. When I played the second I was hooked. And finally when Soul Calibur III was released, I bought a playstation 2 and the game.
This can really keep you up for hours, with a huge amount of characters, loads of unlockable content, and not to mention a GREAT fighting system, this really is the greatest fighting game to date.
The games strong points is foremost the vs. gameplay, were two human players battle each other, either playing as one of the main characters or as a created and customized character. The Create character option is vast, and allows the player to make thousands of different combinations.
The only thing that bothers me is that if you create a character that uses the fighting style "Grieve Edge" (only kicks) has to wear those ridiculous shoes. ^^
This is absolutely the greatest fighting game one could wish for. Now, I'm just hoping the planned movie won't be crap.

Sentiment: positive
Farscape - is the one Sci-Fi Show which restarted the Interest in Science Fiction in me.
But Farscape is so much more then plain and simple Sci-Fi. Comedy, Drama and much more :) The Acting is very good. Luckily Farscape survived also it's cancellation and showed with Peacekeeper Wars that it is not dead yet :) I hope there is a future for Farscape :) In my opinion it is also not problematic that some of the characters in the Show are muppets. You have to look behind that and you will see what a beauty Farscape is.
Farscape set a new Standard in Television and i think it will be truly hard for new shows to prove that they can be equal or better than Farscape. I love this Show :)
SaphirJD

Sentiment: positive
Despite its many faults, Hallmark's 1995 version of Gulliver's Travels is still the finest adaptation of Jonathan Swift's satirical classic - largely because it not only includes ALL of Gulliver's many travels but also includes the satire that's often overlooked. Unfortunately the twin problems of the book's highly episodic structure and a television budget (even a fairly lavish one) remain. The book is a somewhat rambling collection of traveller's tales moving simply from one surreal landscape to another, but Simon Moore's adaptation tries to impose some order on the chaos by providing a parallel plot that sees Gulliver returned to England clearly deeply traumatised and trying to prove his way out of the insane asylum where the rival for his wife's affections has had him committed. The England scenes at once mirror and comment on the travels, elements of which occasionally spill over into the real world. The trouble is that for the first hour or so it acts more as a distraction, constantly pulling you away from the story just as it starts to get interesting. The Lilliput scenes suffer worse here, with the feeling that the home scenes are too often designed to save them from filming the more expensive setpieces - this has to be the only version where we don't see Gulliver pulling the Blefescu fleet behind him.
Yet once Gulliver makes his escape, the tone becomes more consistent as he finds his situation reversed and himself the pet of the giants of the Utopians of Brobdingnag, a guest of the wise men of the floating island of Laputa who are so engrossed in science that they have no common sense left, the guest/prisoner of a historian who leans history directly from the source, offered immortality with all it's terrible consequences before finally finding a world he wants to belong if only he can convince the sublime talking horses the Houynhnhms that he's not an uncivilized Yahoo, each new destination convincing him of what an absurd and petty species humanity is. For the most part it's a darker set of Travels than expected, with only Gulliver's curiosity and commonsense and disappointment keeping it from plunging into irretrievable bleakness - and even this is offset by the scenes in the asylum where it becomes more obvious that even if he is telling the truth it may well have driven him genuinely insane. It's in these latter scenes that Ted Danson's Gulliver really shines, never more so than in an extraordinary speech where he turns his trial into a disappointed judgment on the whole human race.
Being made for television, the Yahoos are rather less literally scatological here than on the page, but for the most part this is a more adult treatment than you might expect with no real dumbing down. The star cast is certainly impressive, and for the most part well-used (if somewhat briefly in a few cases) - Mary Steenburgen, James Fox, Peter O'Toole, Edward Woodward, Omar Sharif, Shashi Kapoor, Edward Fox, Ned Beatty, Alfre Woodard, Kristin Scott Thomas and Isabelle Huppert among them. It's hard to imagine the upcoming Jack Black version even coming close to being a fraction as impressive as this.

Sentiment: positive
Hubie -- like Stanely the troll from Bluth's A Troll in Central Park -- lacks the spark of personality to be the main character that carries an entire movie. We're supposed to like him because he's nice, but that's about all he is.
His character design is unappealing. The top of his head is a sort of dome that is narrower than the pudgy bottom half of his head.
And penguins should not have teeth. I know that Iago the parrot in Aladdin had teeth, but maybe that worked because it made him look more like his voice actor, Gilbert Gottfried. Hubie, with his weenie little voice (provided by Martin Short), looks funny with that big set of chompers in his beak.
Tim Curry, who is usually delightful at being evil, does some sort of dippy surfer dude accent as the villain (might have been a good voice for a comic relief accomplice, not the supposedly menacing main villain).
The entire plot revolves around the hero and villain's love for female penguin Marina, who is just as dull as both of her suitors.
Worst of all is the pacing. We keep cutting back to the villain to watch him threaten Marina some more - this time in dialogue, this time in song...
Barry Manilow may be a great songwriter, but in animated films like this and Thumbelina, his songs feel limp and listless - especially the ballads. The only song I liked was the 1930's-ish "Good Ship Misery" song.
I read that the distributor made some cuts in this film against the filmmaker's wishes, and that could have caused some of the problems - though I suspect the real problem is that they didn't cut the rest of it ;).

Sentiment: negative
Master Kieslowsky came with an idea in 1993, the idea was to portrait how human relationship are in the world today, passing from Blue (a crafted visual masterpiece about a woman's life) from White (A visual comedy movie about marriage) and finally arriving to Red (A masterpiece dealing with human interaction).
While I'm not going to spoil the move I can easily say Red is the best movie from the 90's decade because it has one of the strongest messages in a script I have ever ever seen.
The movie begins a little slow but finds it's rhythm early enough to keep you hooked through the whole movie.
The performances are perfect, sublime. since the characters are completely realistic and they're not clichéd in any way and one could expect no less from the actors and one doesn't get disappointed... seriously I believe Jean Louis Tringtignat deserved an Oscar nod at least.
The music from Zbiegnew Preisner is amazing it's one of the best musical scores ever. Piotr Sobocinsk Cinematography is also outstanding he got an Oscar nod for it (and deserved to win).
Overall the movie is a perfect 10 and will be loved by people that love foreign cinema and people who don't. Don't Miss it.
How did the awful Pulp Fiction beat ed this masterpiece at Cannes is beyond my comprehension

Sentiment: positive
I wasn't expecting much because of the harsh reviews, and proceeded to enjoy the movie a great deal as a result. Softer colors and less stunning compositions of the shots than some of his previous films, in my opinion, allowed the narrative to take the focus. Though the religious conflict in a vampire flick was commonplace, I felt like many of the other things were not. For example:
how his powers were often revealed through interaction with her.
the very strong and well acted love scenes.
the symbolism of the man they killed to get closer to each other actually separating them even more.
Their strong differences of what it means to be 'vampire' created by their prior life experiences.
the lack of scores of other vampires appearing or being created through the movie.
I've heard and read several things about 'tricks used in other films'. Of course. However, i feel that tricks are used to emphasize what is happening in the scene and I feel that he does this well. I don't need a director to use new tricks. I prefer that the tricks that are used are used well and appropriately, which i feel is the case with this film.
I recommend it.

Sentiment: positive
The story is derived from "King Lear"; the setting is a farm in Iowa. Here's a test for this kind of thing: if you find yourself asking, "Why did so-and-so do such-and-such," and the answer is, "because that's what happened in 'King Lear'," you know that the film has failed. Well, that IS what happens here. The father figure in this story isn't living his own life, he's mimicking a fictional one. But there's more wrong with the film than this.
Jocelyn Moorhouse is ambitious - far more ambitious than I think she realises. She's trying to take the King Lear story and completely change the setting. This is a task in itself. The likeliest result is that the transplanted story will die, and nobody will quite be able to work out why (although there are enough successful transplants, like "West Side Story", to make it worth trying). But she's ALSO attempting a revisionist retelling. In the version of "King Lear" she wishes to create, Reagan and Goneril command our sympathy, and Cordelia is a villain. This is a task in itself, too.
Succeeding at either task is hard; succeeding at both at once is impossible. In fact, succeeding at one while so much as attempting the other, is impossible. If we are to look on the very same events from a different moral perspective then the events must BE the very same events - which means there can be no tampering with setting. If the story is to be transplanted, alive, into a different setting, its moral heart must keep beating the whole while - which means there can be no tampering with ethical perspective. Moorhouse was bound to fail in not just one but in both of her endeavours. And so she did. ...Naturally, it's possible to attempt both tasks, fail at both tasks, yet by some fluke hit upon a work of art that's good for independent reasons. I mention this because I haven't read Jane Smiley's novel, which, for all I know, IS good for independent reasons. But the film isn't. If there was nothing else wrong with it, there would still be no getting around the fact that it's just so thoroughly, excruciatingly DULL. The very fields of corn are even more boring than they would be in real life - which needn't be the case, since off the top of my head I can think of four films ("The Wizard of Oz", "North by Northwest", "The Straight Story", "Kikujiro") in which the cornfields aren't boring at all.

Sentiment: negative
Maybe in its day this movie was special. But five decades later it seems quaint, just another cinematic relic of the dreadful 1950s. Stereotypes abound in this fluffy story about three female gold diggers who set up shop in a Manhattan penthouse, in an effort to attract wealthy husbands.
I don't mind the shallow theme. But the film's premise is lame. And the execution is worse. It's a romantic comedy, but I found little to laugh at. The plot point about an extremely nearsighted bimbo is about the only clever element of the story. Overall dialogue is flat, and so too is the delivery. And the script structure is disconcerting. The plot keeps jumping back and forth among the three ladies. It's as if the writer couldn't quite blend the ensemble roles. The result is a plot that seems choppy.
Marilyn Monroe was a good choice for her role. But Lauren Bacall was too old for the role she played. And Betty Grable, with her squeaky voice and awful hairdo, was just plain annoying.
Color cinematography is conventional. But there were lots of shots using rear screen projection, contributing to a dated look. The visuals are made even worse by costumes that reek of cheesy 1950's "glamour"; they are just awful. Viewers must endure a fashion show, a plot point that amplifies how the film's director was smitten by those trashy glad rags.
And then there is that orchestra. In what is arguably the worst film opening in cinema history, the first part of the film has an orchestra playing some dreary-sounding tune. At first, I thought I was watching the introduction to coming attractions. But no, it's actually part of the film. And the orchestra plays on, and on, and on. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, whatever to do with the story. What were they thinking?
I enjoyed Marilyn Monroe, with her breathy voice, as she bimbos her way through the plot. But the film would have been far better if they had dumped the other two ensemble roles, dumped that orchestra, enhanced the comedy dialogue, and downplayed those gaudy, cheesy costumes.

Sentiment: negative
Seriously! You've just got to see this movie to understand everything that is wrong with it. It came out during the time period where everybody was trying to make family movies that everyone could enjoy (The little rascals; Mr. Nanny, etc.) yet it lacked any charisma or enthusiasm. Every single character in the movie is driven by rage, with the exception of Trixie's mother, who shows only aggravation and weariness, possibly at the tired cliché's this movie enjoys.
To put it simply, the biggest flaw in the film was not the acting, nor the filming, but most notably the writing. The lines we receive are reminiscent of Disney classics, although this film lacks the whole-heartedness IL' Walt managed to pull off. Junior's Dad, (John Ritter) makes you mad without even doing anything, simply because he allows Junior to run around unsupervised, and only gives him a stern warning when he tapes a 200-pound behemoth to a chalk board.
Also, Junior's grandfather is particularly excruciating. For those of you who saw the first one, found it nauseating, and thus, did not see the second one, "Big Ben Healy" as he is referred to in this movie, is still a total douche. He basically barges into John Ritter's house uninvited, settles himself in Junior's room, even though he says that he hates Junior, and basically does nothing to accelerate the film's speed, or to support the film in any way. Rather, he ticks off the audience by being a lazy free loader.
Finally, we are introduced to a wide variety of new characters, such as the smug, obnoxious, Trixie, who carries dynamite in her backpack, which she first lights, then hands, to Junior, who simply stares wide eyed at. Also, Gilbert Gottfried returns in this film, this time playing the obnoxious principal at Junior's new elementary school. If Gilbert Gottfried ain't enough to get the point across, I will put it simply: This film reeks!
2/10 stars, because the actor's convictions shine through the film, even though the script sucks.

Sentiment: negative
I must say I was really excited about this film before renting it as it was an Adam Sandler "Happy Madison" production and I am usually attracted to that type of silly humour.
There were a few funny moments at the beginning of the film, but this film lacked everything that makes a good movie. I realize that many filmsthat are not realistic can still be quite funny, but this film was unrealistic and not funny at all. The acting was horrible, the cinematography was very poor, the plot made no sense at all. I cannot get over the fact that 3 classy older ladies would even work for such poor writing. Overall I was very unimpressed with this film and I do not recommend wasting 5 bucks on renting it.

Sentiment: negative
Who can ask for more? Taking my 2 and 4 year old children was a risk, I admit. But well worth it. They were enthralled from credit to credit, with their parents beside them.
I have taken the kids to films before with mixed results: too scary, too boring, too sophisticated, whatever. With this film, however, I was glad to see a smart film with wit, style and a sense of passion emanating from the screen. Any film that takes 5(!) years of production to make, good or bad, deserves some respect for the bravery and the patience it takes to film a film like this.
O.K. I'm gushing a little. Then again, why wouldn't I get excited? Looking through the movie listing today only reminded me of the poor quality of films that are distributed. At least for the moment Regardless, W & G is a film well made. Perhaps the originality wasn't the most inspired, nevertheless, well told and well paced.
Too much adult humour? Too many sex references? Maybe. Though my kids didn't quite catch them. Too young. So, in my case, I didn't really notice.
Well, needless to say, I liked it.

Sentiment: positive