Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
In 1954 Marlon Brando was THE hot actor after his performances in Streetcar Named Desire and On The Waterfront. Frank Sinatra had yet to re-invent himself on the silver screen. But Sinatra's portrayal as the erstwhile Nathan Detroit, helped re-establish Sinatra with his fans.
It is a great screen version of a great play and the choices of leads and support players are terrific. Imagine a movie where Brando sings? This was his one and only singing role as he portrayed Sky Masterson. In addition the female leads, Jean Simmons and Vivian Blaine(replaying her stage role as Nathan's long suffering girlfriend Adelade), put in superlative efforts. Special mention goes to the great Stubby Kaye(as Nicely Nicely), and with all due respect to Eric Clapton, no one's version of Rockin' The Boat even comes close to Stubby's. Sheldon Leonard, who would go on to fame as TV producer of such shows as The Danny Thomas Show and The Dick Van Dyke Show does "Harry The Horse" wonders, B.S.Pulley is excellent as the harsh mannered and rough talking "Big Julie", and even Regis Toomey offers his excellence as "Brother Arvide".
It is one of the fun musicals to see, good comedy, and you get Sinatra and Brando. Soooooo "Luck Be A Lady Tonight" and brother..."it's your dice"

I literally fell asleep 3 times watching this movie. Granted, it's Shakespeare and that takes a certain mindset to be interested or not. But this movie exceeds any barrier of long soliloquies and what not, that may prevent many from just not caring about a Shakespeare based story.
The largest roadblock to this production is the complete flatness of the characters. Often during character's interacting, it's nearly difficult to distinguish who's lines are who's. Granted, I believe this movie is dubbed in English. Certainly they could've obtained voice actors which could've added a bit more drama to these classic, literary lines.
It would be difficult to rate this movie greater than 1, although perhaps that's based on prejudices of perhaps age and what would seem a very low budget. Still, it's absolutely painful and boring. If you insist on Hamlet, do yourself a favor and read the book again. 1/10
A longtime fan of Bette Midler, I must say her recorded live concerts are my favorites. Bette thrills us with her jokes and brings us to tears with her ballads. A literal rainbow of emotion and talent, Bette shows us her best from her solid repertoire, as well as new songs from the "Bette of Roses" album. Spanning generations of people she offers something for everyone. The one and only Divine Diva proves here that she is the most intensely talented performer around.

I recently viewed Manufactured Landscapes at the Seattle International Film Festival. I was drawn to the movie as a photographer because I'm both familiar and a fan of Burtynsky's work. While I believe the movie does a good job getting it's message across, I couldn't help but feel that it was made as a complete afterthought to the photographs and subsequent popular book by Burtynsky. Obviously one reason for this is the extensive use of still photographs featuring zooms and pans across them. While this is a good effect when used economically, I felt like 75% of the movie was just stills from Burtynsky's book (which I already own). That's probably an exaggeration, but that's how I felt. If you own the book or are familiar with his work you might be better off skipping this one.
Rene Clair's groundbreaking musical. If you want to see where songs first drove a story this is the place. This is the story of a starving young artist who finds he's won the lottery just as his creditors come calling. Unfortunately his ticket is in his coat, which is in his girlfriends apartment and has been given to an on the run convict who then... oh but that would be telling.
This is a light and frothy story where much of the dialog is sung (most people think this didn't happen until Oklahoma or Andrew Lloyd Webber). Its the sort of movie that they don't make any more, and rarely did when they did. Its sound a film from the early days that plays like a movie from five or six years later. Clair moves his camera around in ways that not even Busby Berkeley was doing (though to be honest comparing the two film makers is unfair since Berkeley was doing essentially stage bound dance numbers and Clair was moving the camera through "the real world"). Its an amazing little movie. and its a charming movie that will just make you smile. Its just a fluffy piece of enjoyment.
I'm sorry I can't say more. Its just a nice little movie and thats really all you need to know.

I have a 5 minute rule (sometimes I'll leave leway for 10). If a movie is not good in the first 5 or 10 minutes it's probably not going to ever get better. I have yet to experience any movie that has proved to contest this theory. Dan in Real Life is definitely no exception. I was watching this turkey and thought; wow, this is not funny, not touching, not sad, and I don't like any of the characters at all.
The story of an advice columnist/widower raising three young daughters, who falls in love with his brothers girlfriend. I suppose the tagline would be "advice columnist who could USE advice"? I don't know. Dans character in no way struck me as someone qualified to give advice. I guess THAT'S the irony? I don't know. He goes to see his parents, brothers, sisters and their kids at some sort of anual family retreat, which seems very sweet, and potential fodder for good comedy, story lines...none which ever emerge. The central story is basically how he loves this woman, but can't have her. Anyone with a pulse will realise that eventually he WILL get her, but you have to suffer through painfully unfunny, trite, lifetime movie network dialogue "murderer of love" to get to the inevitable happy ending.
This is truly one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
The performance of every actor and actress (in the film) are excellently NATURAL which is what movie acting should be; and the directing skill is so brilliantly handled on every details that I am never tired of seeing it over and over again. However, I am rather surprised to see that this film is not included in some of the actors' and director, Attenborough's credits that puzzles me: aren't they proud of making a claim that they have made such excellent, long lasting film for the audience? I am hoping I would get some answers to my puzzles from some one (possibly one of the "knowledgeable" personnel (insider) of the film.

The only reason that this movie is rated a 1 is that zero is not one of the selection options. With a plot thinner than depression era cabbage soup, horrific acting, and special effects that look like they came out of the "Thunderbirds" TV series, it is amazing that Widmark didn't kill the director for putting this black mark on his resume. Even by 1950's standards, the special effects are atrocious, except for a couple of underwater submarine sequences. I can only assume that it was nominated for best special effects because, except for 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and THEM!, there wasn't anybody else doing effects. It was certainly no contest for Disney that year if this was their only competition. I wouldn't recommend the film, even for hard core submarine movie buffs, as the most realistic scene on the submarine was limited to one shot where seawater can be seen dribbling down the up-raised periscope. There are other, much better, sub films that you can enjoy from this era, like the aforementioned 20,000 Leagues or Torpedo Run.
Pandora's Clock is among the best thrillers you will ever read and this is one of the best thrillers you will ever see. A highly faithful adaptation of John J. Nance's novel ,which had a frightfully real scenario in the novel,is made even more so here.
Despite being made for TV, this is first rate entertainment. The cast is great and slips into characters from the novel so well that you would think they were reading the novel. Richard Dean Anderson steps way outside the shadow of Macgyver and gives the best performance of his career to date. Jane Leeves is great her role as an ambassador's assistant in a role that proves she can be a fine dramatic actor. Daphne Zuniga is great as Dr. Sanders and despite the character being a man in the book, it works incredibly well. Robert Loggia, Edward Herrmann, Robert Guillaume, and the rest of the supporting cast are top notch and fit their novel counterparts tot he letter.
There are changes to the story of course (including and a slight change in the ending) but those changes are for the better when compared with the novel. The plot is realistic and very see to believe in the way its presented making this the best airplane set movie since the original Airport movie. The production values are high and though the special effects might look as good as they did a decade or so ago, they work fine. Sets are great, especially CIA HQ and the Oval Office showing that the filmmakers spent a lot of time to make this work.
It doesn't matter if you see this first and read then read the novel or vice versa. Just do both and you won't regret losing four hours to this film and however long it takes to read the novel. This will leave you breathless.

Would have better strengthened considerably by making it as a
50 minute episode of the Outer Limits. Too much superfluous material and stuff like the chief bad guy looking like he'd escaped from The Phantom of the Opera didn't help. The whole 'Night of the Living Dead' sequence was extremely silly and quite unnecessary. After all, if the dead were to punish anyone for their sins, now remind me exactly who was killing everyone again?
Who would have thought that such an obscure little film could be so haunting and touching? I am really impressed. It's a shame that more people have not seen it. I loved, as always, Hans Zimmer's score. And what a directorial debut by Bernard Rose! Yet I wonder if I should call this a horror film. It could easily be argued that it is a fantasy or a drama as well. Well, regardless, I love the interpretive potential it has. Everything and everyone in Anna's (played by Charlotte Burke)dreams represents a real conflict in her life...the house itself, the tree, Mark, the lighthouse, etc. It is the many details such as these that make the film so good for repeated viewings. I hope I come across another little movie as loaded with emotion and psychological meaning as this one some time soon.

Can you say "All shock, no plot?" There were so many unexplored directions in this movie. There was no history about the room other than the deaths. *WHY* was it evil? What made it that way? Why an "hour" countdown? Then, there were the unexplored things hinted at; for example we *saw* a camera in the air vent, which he mentioned. But when he climbed up said vent, there was no camera.
How about the fact that all the ghosts looked "Digital", and things "winked out" before hitting the ground making a static noise? Hmmm... when you put all of *those* things together, it makes room 1408 look like a high-tech spook house. Except that there was no follow up on that.
Oh... by the way... electronics don't work in 1408. Well, except for the TV... the cell phone has no signal, but Wireless Internet works fine. How many incontinuities can you possibly add? I'm sorry, but this film was nothing but "shock after shock". It's all been done before. Reflections in the mirror. Things just out of site. Changing paintings. Bleeding walls. The "Oh, it was all just a dream... no it wasn't." And, if the room was "evil", why make our main character come to terms with his daughter's death, if it was going to keep him trapped there forever anyway? It just didn't make sense.
Additionally, there was no background information about "The first book" that he wrote. Just some vague information about the "dad was a jerk" and so forth. Speaking of dads, what was with the bit about his father? "You'll be in my place".
Overall, a truly HORRIBLE movie. It was 100% adrenalin shock factor, without any new or innovative effects, and certainly no back story, character development, etc.
My overall impression is that the entire movie was made on the "Cheap"; pretty much using one set and a couple of location shots, and was nothing but an effects film of recycled, cheesy, "seen-that-before" effects.
Telemundo should definitely consider making a DVD collection of the novela Xica! I know tons of people including myself who would like to be able to purchase the novela Xica! It is a very entertaining novela which is set in Brazil. The costumes worn by the actors are beautiful and the town in which the novela takes place is beautiful. Xica contains a lot of history of that time period. I wish Telemundo would televise it again even if it was a 2 in the morning. I would highly recommend watching Xica if it is ever shown again on Telemundo. I've e-mailed Telemundo a million times already to show the novela again but my pleas have fallen on deaf ears. The only cautionary statement about Xica is that it occasionally contains some harsh scenes therefore I would recommend that children under 14 do not watch Xica. Overall Xica merits a 10 out of 10!

This movie pretty much sucked. I'm in the Army and the soldiers depicted in this movie are horrible. If your in the Military and you see this movie you'll laugh and be upset the entire movie because of the way they acted as a squad. It was ridiculous. They acted like a bunch of normal people with Army uniforms on not knowing what to do. It was a pretty gory movie I'd have to say the least. There was a couple scenes where they try to make you jump. I'd recommend seeing it if you are bored and want to see a violent, gory movie. It will be a better movie also if your not in the Military. I also would have to say I liked the first one better than this one.
I saw this movie recently. 2 hours later, my head still hurt from laughing. The plot was soo awful, the jokes were soo bad, but what I didn't count on were:
1. the 2 scenes before and after the movie that had Pat and Jay posing (that caused more than enough laughter)
2. The kick through the windshield that decapitated the evil-doer.
This movie is about 20 times better than the Rush Hour series, and my copy even came with a disclamer saying if you didn't like the movie, send certificate to HBO. While I considered it, the date you had to send it in was January 1991 (which also caused wackiness to ensue).

This is the worst movie I have ever seen. The Avengers held this dubious honor but no longer. The acting in "Jill the Ripper" is terrible and was only eclipsed by the plot. This movie is as intellectually stimulating as the Telletubbes. It doesn't know whether it wants to be an S&M flick or a really bad thriller. Only watch under extreme intoxication or if you're bed ridden and need a leather clad distraction. This script should be reworked into a porn, it wouldn't take very much effort and would have a longer shelf life. A porn, even a bad porn, wouldn't do the damage to Dolf Lundgren's career the way that this movie has.
Bruce Almighty, one of Carrey's best pictures since... well... a long time. It contains one of the funniest scenes I have seen for a long time too... Morgan Freeman plays God well and even chips in a few jokes that are surprisingly funny. It contains one or two romantic moments that are a bit boring but over all a great movie with some funny scenes. The best scene in, it is where Jim is messing up the anchor man's voice.
My rating: 8/10

I foolishly read the back of the DVD cover of this movie in Best Buy about a year ago, and said to myself, "Seems funny, plus it has Michael Clarke Duncan, how can I lose!" I proceeded to pay $15.99 plus tax for it. I took it over to a friends house and we both stood aghast at how poorly it was written and acted. Wooden performances abound. All the "hilarious" and "outstanding" performances promised never seemed to arrive. After 90 minutes I hung my head in shame, knowing that I could never get that 90 minutes or $15.99 back. I literally almost cried as well, because if that was what could be considered "comedy" I didn't want to believe in movies anymore. My friend and I constantly informed a friend of ours of the horror of this movie to the point that he needed to see it just to understand how bad it was. Over the holiday season this year I watched it with him because he didn't want to watch it alone. This was my next horrible mistake, because as I watched I just became angry. I began to yell at the movie, and I'm not one to talk to movies period. Everyone I know that has even glimpsed this movie has agreed its the worst they've ever seen. My sense of humor is sick and twisted and often offends my friends, but that could not save this movie even. The fact that this movie is not on the bottom 100 list on IMDb is astounding. The fact that its rating (at the time of this writing) is 3.6 is a crime against humanity.
I stumbled onto this movie when I was eBay'ing Caesars Palace stuff, as I'm enamoured with its rich Vegas history as the last of the original luxury resorts still standing in good condition (unless you count Bally's, the original MGM Grand). In that respect, this movie delivers full-force. You're given a grand tour of the Caesars property,which in spite of all the renovations and additions they've done over the 40 years it's been open, looks alarmingly similar. As a film overall, the plot is somewhat difficult to follow, thanks in large part to the horrendous editing. And when I say horrendous, I'm not using that word lightly. There's a lot of spliced-in, second-long snippets of Vegas traffic, casino crowds, and even a scene where the Robert Drivas character is having a conversation with his father about how much he's grown up, and without any explanation, he (Drivas) goes (in those infamous snippets) from being himself, to a baby, to a little boy, and then back to himself while talking back and forth with his father. (That doesn't give away any plot details; if anything, one can be prepared for it and maybe they won't be as flabbergasted as I was by the editing.) The film has aged well otherwise, and has a good message about the inherent differences between a father and his son that most guys could relate to in some form or fashion.

I think I've seen worse films, so I'm giving this a 3, but it's a struggle to remember what they could have been!! Possibly Xtro (nasty & dull) or possibly Creep (just plain dull), but it is a struggle to think of something worse. It's difficult to know where to start. Let's just say it's a poor man's Under Siege, starring an even poorer man's Jean Claude Van Damme. The only redeeming feature was seeing Casper Van Dien - I always wondered what happened to him after Starship Troopers. Yes, he was Johnny Rico, if you really want to know.
Judging from this site, he's been stuck in TV movie hell.... Casper, be more selective.... please!!!!!!!!!!!! Arghhhhh, I've just turned over and there's a half decent film on called Criminal Law...... now I'm beginning to get really resentful about the last 1.5hrs!!!
Finally, an indie film that actually delivers some great scares! I see most horror films that come out... Theatrical, Straight-To-DVD, cable, etc... and most of them suck... a few are watchable... even fewer are actually good... Dark Remains is one of the good ones. I caught a screening of this film at the South Padre Island Film Festival... the audience loved it... and my wife and I loved it! Having no name actors, I assume the budget on this film was pretty low, but you wouldn't know it... the film looks fantastic... the acting totally works for the film... the story is good... and the scares are great! While most filmmakers focus solely on the scares, they often forget about story and character development, two things that help to deliver the scares more efficiently. Brian Avenet-Bradley must know that character and story are important. He develops both to the point where you care about the characters, you know the characters, and are therefore more scared when they are in danger.
Watching horror films that cost anywhere from $80 million to $5000 to make, I find "Dark Remains" to be one of the gems out there. Check this film out!

Unless you're twelve, this movie really isn't worth it. It's obviously a low-budget film with B actors, and with a genre like fantasy that sometimes requires intense CGI work that's not good. I knew it would be bad when I rented it. I enjoy laughing at bad movies. I didn't know how bad though. It's bearable, until after hour 2, then it really starts to burn. Fighting styles go between normal fighting that obey the laws of physics, and wire-fighting. There's no real explanation for the transitions. It has a plot, but once again, it's obviously a kid's movie. It seems like there are explicit moral lessons of the day that are being conveyed, like Sesame Street or something. It's bearable. But much better if you're, say, nine.
I would just like to say, that no matter how low budget the film is, it needs to be shown throughout this world the point to these movies. We don't read that much anymore, instead people want to see movies. Having this series out on DVD, has made me want to read the whole series, and want more. PLEASE MAKE ALL 8 MOVIES. Please don't change any of the characters either, it ruins the effect. Because I have grown to love the actors who have played the characters. PLEASE MAKE ALL 8 MOVIES. I want to see the message, and watch the message that these books and now movies are here to portray. We don't get that enough anymore. AWESOME JOB!!!

Being an Elvis fan, I can't understand how this proyect could be done. Is by far the worst Elvis related movie of all time, totally unfunny, silly and plenty of mistakes about The King. Come on, Elvis' grave in a public park? A mention about Suspicious Minds in 1958?...and these are just two examples. Some people in the cast tries to do their best, Mike Starr is funny (specially as an impersonator), the Tom Hanks cameo is a surprise, but the guy playing the young Elvis sucks.Overall the movie lacks fun and becomes more boring minute after minute. If you want to see an ultra cheap, insane but absolutely funny little film related to Elvis, I truly recommend you "Bubba Ho-Tep" instead of this mess.
I recently (May 2008) discovered that this childhood favorite was available as a DVD. Although I've seen a great deal of high quality movies since then (late 70's (I was 10 in 1978)), this three-episode, low budget thing still stands strong.
What's fun is that I now watched it with my 10 year old daughter, and she experiences just the same as I remember from back then: The creepy music (she had to hold my hand, even though she's been raised with watching LotR and Resident Evil), the ever changing theories of who the culprit actually is, and also complaining about the theatrical voices from an era before Norway discovered the difference between stage acting and movie acting.
This is the one and only good science fiction movie (or series) ever made in Norway. And it's still worth watching.

I grew up Baptist and I know the story this movie is trying to tell, although I no longer believe the story. I'll give the movie kudos for being as good as the average Lifetime Movie of the Week. Mildly interesting, mediocre acting, a bit slow, the script is predictable, the music is sappy, and it is a bit melodramatic. And all the people left behind have got to be the squeakiest clean non-Christians, ever. Not a single curse word from any of them. But I laughed out loud when the actor playing the man who runs the United Nations pronounced "nuclear" as "nu-cu-ler," just like Bush. Is there some Christian code of honor that mandates that since Bush claims he, too, is called by God, that all Christians must cover up his ignorance by mispronouncing that word the same way he does? LOL! I really had a difficult time taking the movie seriously at all after that. After the "nu-cu-ler" incident, the movie began to feel like packaged, manipulative propaganda. I was looking for something bold. Actually, I was looking for something that might make me think, but I didn't find it here. If you're looking for mindless entertainment, stop here - it's good for killing a rainy afternoon. But if you're looking for intelligence, look elsewhere.