Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Filmed just after the war, this story was made in order to highlight Anglo-American relations after the war. It ended up receiving the honour of being the first Royal Premiere after WWII.
Remarkably the film tangles together the Royal Air Force, Sigmund Freud Psychology, the Founding fathers of America and various others up the long stairs (special effects in its infancy) and beyond the heavenly gates without losing any of its integrity.
Although sounding absurd, this clever script leads and dances the viewer between heaven and earth with the skill of a mountain goat and a presents a charming ease rarely matched in cinema since.
Be prepared to have your heart warmed by this sweet, innocent and charming love story. Roger Livesey acts like a man possessed to steal the show!!!!
British Cinema should cry when it remembers how good it used to be in those early post war years.

There is this girl and she's running in the woods but she ends up at this woman's clinic and she wants an abortion. Her daddy is outside in a van and he is all angry about it. The whole episode takes place in and outside of this abortion clinic. I'm not really pro-choice but I wanted the choice to kill this episode. I was laughing when I saw the baby come out and it went into the corner. The part where they were doing the ultra sound was pretty funny too. I was really feeling sorry for the poor dad in this episode. He just wanted to protect his daughter and I couldn't really blame him for what he did. I don't know what happened to him at the end or what happened to the other father and daughter in the waiting room. I was just laughing too hard and I would suggest watching "Pick me up" instead of this episode. It wasn't the worst episode but it wasn't that great.
"Tintin and I" first of all struck me as a masterpiece documentary. The photography and the editing are truly breath-taking (almost anti-Dogma).
We follow the life of Tintin drawer Hergé through an open-hearted interview from 1971. The Tintin series was drawn on the background of the great ideological fights of the twentieth century. In the midst of these Hergé has his own demons to fight with, and much of his drawing activity seems like an attempt to tame these and to escape into a world of perfection.
Even though there are spectacular photographic panoramas of drawings from Tintin albums and also some reconstructions and reading of passages from the albums, the story of Hergé is told entirely through interviews and archive material, and never through reconstructions.
Hergé lived the turbulent life of a true, suffering artist. But the fantastic world that came of his imagination will continue to amaze readers again and again.

I haven't seen the original, but just wanted to drop a quick note to anyone who happens to scroll down this far: Wicker Man is the worst movie I've seen this year. Maybe even in two years. I wish I could ask the theater for my money back or turn back time to warn myself not to see it.
I'll give it two positive nods: The sarcasm of Cage's character at least got some laughs from me and the scenery of the island was beautiful. Sorry, that's it. Here come the jeers. The movie's plot is only propelled forward because other characters won't give Cage any straight answers--and he puts up with this!!! How this could go on for over an hour of my time(much less days in the movie) is beyond me.
Not to mention that the plot is full of holes. You leave the theater with enough unanswered questions to fill a library. How anyone could read this script and think, "Yes, people should pay $11 to see this shady outline of what a film should look like" is beyond me.
Do not go see this flick. Or even rent it on DVD.
Criticism of the film EVENING, based on the novel by Susan Minot and adapted for the screen by Minot and Michael Cunningham, has been harsh, so harsh that it may have discouraged many viewers from giving the film a try. The primary criticism has centered on the fact that very little happens in this film about a dying woman's fretting over a mistake she made one summer in her youth, that famous actors were given very minor roles, that the entire production was over-hyped, etc. For this viewer, seeing the film on a DVD in the quiet of the home, a very different reaction occurred.
Ann Grant Lord (Vanessa Redgrave) is dying in her home by the ocean and her medication and memories allow her to share a man's name - 'Harris' - with her two grown daughters Nina (Toni Colette) and Constance (Natasha Richardson). As her daughters sit at her bedside Ann relives a particular summer when she was a bridesmaid for her best friend Lila (Mamie Gummer) - a marriage both Ann (Claire Danes as the youthful Ann) and Lila's alcoholic brother Buddy (Hugh Dancy) objected to, feeling that Lila was simply marrying a man of her class instead of the boy she had loved - Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson), her housekeeper's son who had become a physician. Harris, Buddy, Lila, and Ann are woven together in a series of infatuations and romances that have been kept secret until now, 50 years later, as Ann is dying. The older Lila (Meryl Streep) visits Ann at the end and the secrets are revealed: 'there are no such things as mistakes - life just goes on.' The film is a delicate mood piece and the script by Minot and Cunningham is rich in atmosphere and subtle life lessons. Yes, there are gaps in the story that could have used more explanation, but in order to maintain the aura of nostalgia of a dying lady's words, such 'holes' are understandable. The film is graced by the presence of not only Redgrave, Richardson (Redgrave's true daughter), Collette, Gummer (Streep's true daughter), Meryl Streep, Claire Danes, Eileen Atkins, Glenn Close, Hugh Dancy and Patrick Wilson, but also with an ensemble cast of brief but very solid performances. The setting is gorgeous (cinematography by Gyula Pados) and the musical score is by the inimitable Jan A.P. Kaczmarek. Lajos Koltai ("Being Julia') directs. Judge this film on your own.... Grady Harp

I thought that Zombie Flesh Eaters 2 was quite a good horror film When a terrorist's body, infected with a stolen chemical, is recovered by the US military, the corpse is then cremated, releasing the virus into the atmosphere over a small island. Soon the infected locals turn into flesh-hungry zombies, and a group of soldiers on leave must team up with a group of tourists and board themselves up in a abandoned hotel as they try to fight off the aggressive living dead. I did not find this film to be as good as the original film, Zombie Flesh Eaters. But it was still an OK horror film with some good action. I did not think that it was one of the best in the series. 4/10
Probably one of the prime examples of following a suspenseful, dramatic episode (in this case, the superb Balance of Terror) with a lighter affair, Shore Leave is the first true attempt on behalf of the Star Trek writers to produce a more entertaining piece of sci-fi, and while the formula isn't quite right yet in this entry (the true triumph is Trouble with Tribbles, in Season 2), the laughs come pretty fast as long as the viewer is willing to allow for all the silliness.
Diverting from the show's tradition, the Enterprise isn't on any proper mission in this episode. Instead, Kirk has found a perfect planet for his crew to spend some time off duty: a well deserved break after three months of incessant work. The Earth-like planet (a budget-related fact) is very appealing, but it only takes a few minutes before something weird happens: Dr. McCoy starts having visions of a white rabbit that seems to come straight out of Lewis Carroll's work. Soon, other people begin experiencing similar things: a woman meets a Don Juan-like character, Sulu has a run-in with a samurai, and Kirk faces a double encounter with the past, in the shape of almost love and the guy who used to pick on him at the Academy. Throw in a freakishly real-looking tiger, and it's easy to see why Kirk and Spock are determined to figure out what's going on before anybody gets hurt.
The idea is a classic one: idyllic place turns out to be far from heavenly. The episode's humorous take on the topic is rather successful, weren't it for a dark turn of events that doesn't sit well with the rest (of course, everything works out fine again come the end) and the cast's general unwillingness to show a funnier side of themselves (most notably, and ironically, the otherwise hilarious William Shatner). And yet Shore Leave deserves recognition for being another good example of the writers trying new, previously unseen things: the definition of Star Trek's success.
7,5/10

1999 will go down in history as the year the movie critic lead the general public astray. First they sent us to EYES WIDE SHUT. Then they hyped up THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and now MAGNOLIA which is by far the worst movie of the year. What is it about? Who the heck knows. Its full of self-indulgence and loaded with bad acting. I always like to stay and watch the credits, but when this thing was over I couldn't get out of the movie theatre fast enough. Most of the audience that attended the showing that I was at, felt pretty much the same way. Dates were arguing with each other as well as strangers. It's an ugly and hateful film that will make you feel ugly and hateful.
I loved this movie! Chris Showerman did an amazing job! Not only is he an incredible actor, but he is gorgeous with an awesome physique! He did a great job on the delivery of his lines, plus transformed into George better than Fraser did. A great performance for his first major roll! This movie is full of hilarious scenes that every child will love. My kids have watched this movie numerous times since we purchased the DVD the day it came out. In addition to the movie, the extras on the DVD are just as hilarious. Two thumbs up on this one! I highly recommend it to everyone!

I rented this movie roughly 4-5 years ago and was instantly disappointed.
I wanted to see a b-movie slasher flick, but ended up with a fecal matter for my eyes. The acting was similar to watching grass dry. I've seen better acting in a softcore film...
The idea that a crazy killer comes out of nowhere baffled me. How was this a horror movie?
this movie's production value, was laughable at best. There were no scares. It seemed like a high school student got a new video camera for Christmas. The plot was all over the place, if existent. If you are bored looking for a bad horror movie to rent, skip this one. There are much better b-movies out there.
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

My husband and I are the parents of an autistic little boy who lives in the same township as the screenwriter of this movie. We were very upset that the JCC is bringing this movie to its Jewish film festival because of the way that the mentally disabled character Frankie is portrayed. We went to see this movie at the local theater when it came out. We demanded out money back. We would encourage the screenwriter to donate a portion of the funds to the JCC's Achad program to apologize.
We did not like seeing Frankie - a mentally disabled and perhaps even autistic teenager - as part of a joke in which he keeps dropping something to look at the nanny's breasts.
There was no point to Frankie's character other than to say "hey, being mentally disabled is funny." Challenges like Frankie's are a serious matter. Families like mine are truly suffering.
The screenwriter needs to explain herself. Does she know families with disabled kids? Does she see the families with disabled kids week after week at the JCC pool?
Marion Davies stars in this remarkable comedy "Show People" released by MGM in 1928. Davies plays a hick from Savannah, Georgia, who arrives in Hollywood with her father (Dell Henderson). The jalopy they arrive in is a hoot - as is Davies outrageous southern costume. Davies lands a job in slapstick comedy, not what she wants, but it brings her success. She meets fellow slapstick star William Haines, who is immediately smitten with her. Well, Davies then gets a job at a more prestigious studio ("High Art Studios") and lands a job in stuffy period pieces. A handsome but fake actor (Andre Telefair) shows her the ropes of how to be the typical pretentious Hollywood star. Davies abandons her slapstick friend and father for the good life, but of course learns that is not who she really is. Marion Davies is wonderful throughout, as she - outrageously - runs the gamut of emotions required of a "serious" actress. William Haines is his usual wonderful comedic self, and there are cameos by Charles Chaplin, John Gilbert, and other famous stars of the day, including the director of the film, King Vidor. This is a silent film with a few "sound effects" as sound pictures were just coming into their own. A treasure of a film.

This documentary film is based on incomplete considerations of the evidence, in which Brian Flemming, perhaps purposely, fails to mention important evidence to the contrary. Perhaps his most crucial mistake is one of the earliest: His claims concerning the invalidity of Paul's testimony about Jesus Christ disregard key facts, like: **The existence of some formulated creeds within Paul's letters. These creeds suggest that most of the central claims about Jesus were already formulated into statements of faith possibly within a few years of Christ's death and resurrection. **The testimonies of the early Christians can't just be tossed out as mere fantasy. There were indeed many people claiming to be the Messiah during that period, but only ONE of them has remained: Jesus. Why? Because it would have been preposterous for anyone to have actually believed Christ was the messiah, and go on to die for those beliefs, if they knew that he had not been resurrected. **Even if the Gospels are dated more liberally, we are still talking about accounts of Jesus written within the lifetimes of other eyewitnesses that would have pointed out inaccuracies in these Gospels. And there is evidence that the Gospels were written much earlier.
What I am saying is that Flemming's documentary is an incredibly biased and self-serving piece of work that hodge podges different arguments and evidence to serve his anti-Christian view. Don't be fooled by poor investigation.
Surprisingly well done for an independent film, An Insomniac's Nightmare paints a startling picture of what it would be like to suffer from insomnia. Wonderfully well written, and directed, it creates the atmosphere of a dream as the viewer is taken through one night in the life of an insomniac.
Starring Dominic Monaghan as Jack, we get to see everything he sees as the long hours of a lonely night drag on. The narration is almost hypnotizing, and from the opening lines, it is impossible to turn away. Fascinating and slightly disturbing, it shows how someone copes with a lack of sleep, balancing on the brink between sanity and madness.
With twists and turns around every corner, An Insomniac's Nightmare is provocative and engaging. It comes very highly recommended.

This movie is the worst I've seen in the last 5 years. It is surprising how brilliant actors like two main characters in this movie has accepted to act in such worthless peace of trash. The film is rape/beating and revenge genre. Couple has gone to party and on the way back they hit a deer and he went out to finish it when a jeep full of bad guys comes. He didn't go to their car, instead he has been kicked and well beaten while she tries to run the car engine which betray her and she has been gang raped.Then somehow she is in her fathers house and one of bad guys is her neighbor so she took shotgun and wanted to kill him... So stupid scenario! Bellow Hollywood ! He was against that revenge but "She is raped" "They laugh to her" so she must kill them all... But once inside the house she was satisfied by pushing rifle's top in bad guys anus and went away while he has gone crazy and execute bad guy. Personally I think that director run out of money before finishing this because movie ends before they execute anyone else involved in this gang-rape and beating which is not big surprise because sponsor obviously has seen this and wanted to take back his money. LoL This movie is not even for people who enjoy watching rape because they won't see anything they are looking for... This director should be banned...It is for upsetting that this peace of trash has been made by British cinematography which I personally like and that is the reason I've watched this. Don't do it yourself you have better things to do that watching stupid scenario film ...
this movie was rather awful Vipul Shah's last movie was good this one was just bad although it's a good story and is handled in a great way Aatish Kapadia who adapted this movie from another gujarati play "Avjo Wahala Fari Malishu" made a good but slow pianful 2 and a half hours to watch there are a lot of flaws in this movie but it's still a entertainer songs are rather bleaked out and don't work well but they're still good overall not a movie you would enthusiastically watch it's still a story to take in to account and it's good if you're the relationship type pretty good movie with loads of flaws and humor that's really not needed even one bit

I found the characters mediocre and the story uninteresting. I never had to read this book (thankfully), or it would have been a painful experience. I got the tickets to the preview for free but it still wasn't worth my time, or my friend's. I think this story is not worth telling. It's like saying that old people have a past before they got old (no kidding). The lives of the main characters were painful to watch, one generation no better than the next at avoiding stupid mistakes. However, I think the actors did the best they could with a lame story. I've always been a big fan of Ellen Burstyn. I'm writing this review to counteract the positive reviews given, which unfortunately convinced me to give this movie a try.
I waited a while to post a review of this documentary because when I first saw it over 10 years ago, I wanted to think carefully about what I wanted to write.
I found from a documentary standpoint that this is a darned good documentary. It did what it set out to do, show me something I had no idea about and kept me interested in this world it explored. I knew nothing of the Drag world and finding out about them and the "Balls" was just spectacular to me. These folks were just so talented with what they do and how they do it, for competition. The catty folks, the complainers (even I was angry when someone told the judge that the coat the Drag Queen was wearing wasn't a man's coat!), the jealous, it's all there like in every other competition. LIKE EVERY OTHER COMPETITION like it. Which I felt was a point.
You had the older drag queen talking about how the Balls "used" to be compared to the newer drag queens who have changed the Balls and made more competition categories -- and even those who looked on knowing that the future of Balls would change even more when they were ready to walk the runway. It was interesting to hear that some of the contestants were living out on the street two minutes before the ball but came to compete, it was that important to them! Then there was sad stories, stories of who's "house" and "house mother" brought out the best and the brightest in competition. It was interesting.
Now to add after 10 years of seeing this film, I lived through the so called 'Madonna' craze. I spotted a few familiar faces from this documentary who ended up with Madonna during her "Vogue" phase and rightfully so. If not for those individuals, Madonna wouldn't have HAD a "Vogue" phase, I know that now. Credit should be given where credit is DUE. Makes me wonder, if anyone else from mainstream America would watch this documentary, they'll learn they're not as "mainstream" as they think.

I had the displeasure of watching this movie with my girlfriend, who, like me, is a fan of the first. This movie down right sucked! It lacked the magic of the first. You could actually understand every word the mice said, the animation is crappy, the palace is much much different from the first movie, there's new characters that were never mentioned before and were terrible, luckily the Prince didn't have many lines which kept him from sounding stupid. Basically its like The Lion King 1 1/2 except its different stories all told by the mice. The reason I'm giving this a 2 out of 10 is because the songs not sung by the characters were the most enjoyable.
A surprisingly effective thriller, this.
David Duchovny and Michelle 'Ensign Ro' Forbes are a successful, professional couple, he a writer, she a photographer. Forbes is desperate to move to California and, in an act of compromise, Mulder agrees to the move on the condition that, along the way, they visit sites of historical interest concerning famous serial killers. His idea: he writes the words, she takes the pictures, with the end result a bestselling coffee table book that will set them up for life. To help finance the trip, they decide to car share and advertise the fact. As their bad luck would have it Brad Pitt sees the advert and, shortly after killing his landlord, he and his girlfriend, Juliette Lewis, meet the writer couple and begin their cross country trek. Inevitably, mischief ensues.
Pitt is outstanding as the genuinely chill inspiring Early Grayce and is capably backed up by Lewis playing her customary white trash character that seems to be her default setting. Duchovny and Forbes make for a convincing double act too and, as events spiral out of control, you as the viewer are sucked into their plight and can feel the tension ratcheting.
Intelligent, sinister and beautifully shot, this deserves recognition beyond its current status. A top movie.

My nose is bent slightly out of shape as I write this. I had sent a previous comment on this film some weeks ago that has not yet appeared, so I assume it was rejected, even though it met all the usual guidelines.
I found this film interesting for the first thirty minutes, particularly the performance of Jordi Mollà, a veteran actor who has appeared in such major productions as "Blow" and "The Alamo." Leonor Watling is also quite good. Unfortunately, everything sinks eventually under the weight of a truly awful, melodramatic script. There is also an abundance of gratuitous nudity that does nothing to advance the narrative or lend even an impressionistic nuance to what is otherwise a beautifully filmed piece of art.
An actual day trip to the beach at Valencia would be much less arduous than having to encounter these fictional characters again anywhere, anytime.
I loved this movie since I was 7 and I saw it on the opening day. It was so touching and beautiful. I strongly recommend seeing for all. It's a movie to watch with your family by far.
My MPAA rating: PG-13 for thematic elements, prolonged scenes of disastor, nudity/sexuality and some language.

......in a horror movie that is. Alright first off , lets start with Kate. Her main goals include getting laid by George Clooney, looking good and last but not least screwing everyone over. Gotta love her. She had about 3 amazingly good chances to finish off this sicko but ..... instead she ran. I mean she didn't wanna bring Guy out for 10 minutes and when she did it was too late. I mean the guy tried to rape her. I cant get into these movies where the main character is a sad idiot. I mean who honestly would have any sympathy for a guy who finishes off everyone she has meet in a night. The movie kept going on. And as a result lost all its credibility.