Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I stumbled on this late last night n TCM.
Hadn't seen it since it came out originally, but had never forgotten it.
I had completely forgotten how gorgeous and talented Signe Hasso was when she was still young, ditto for Shelly Winters before she balooned out.
Ronald Coleman, though, was the quintessential state actor of his time - I had read Othello in high school English - and HATED it. After seeing "A Double Life" I read it again and finally understood what the play was about.
The Gordon/Kanin writing team was at its peak when this script was done -
A movie well worth remembering and rewatching,

This started bad, got worse, and by the time the girl attacked the old lady at the end i literally wanted to take the DVD to the person we borrowed it off and choke the C**T to death with it. Avoid this film, a little bit of good cinematography and some naked shots, would be almost acceptable if i was 14 and had not seen Jenna Jameson naked a million times. If anyone feels the need to watch this film, i would strongly recommend you spend the time more appropriately, as an example i would say trying to cram a Lego house into your bum with no lube would be a good start. I hear that this film was not the original version, i would very much like to view the original, as it seems that this cut version is devoid of all plot, and apparently most of the nudity, can someone please tell me how i can get in touch with Christian Viel he owes me an hour of my life back!
Elvira(Cassandra Peterson) is the host of a cheap horror show. After she finds out that her dead aunt has left her some stuff, elvira goes to England to pick it up, hoping it will be some money. But to her horror, elvira finds out that all her aunt has left her is her house, her dog and a cookbook. Elvira decides to settle in the house anyways, but with her striking dark looks and her stunning features, she will not be able to live in peace. All the neighbours are now turning the whole town against her, and with Elvira's outrageous attitude and looks, everyone better watch out, because Elvira is on Fire! I really enjoyed this movie, it's really fun to watch get Elvira into all these adventures, she's just great. The whole movie puts you into a halloween mood, sure, it's silly and the jokes are cheap but it's a pleasure to watch it. I would give Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark 8/10

When watching this show you are not quite sure whether it is the story or the acting that is more annoying. First of all, the storyline of each episode is very predictable, the writers must have used every cliché possible, you can guess not only the general plot, but the arrangement of the scenes and also the lines of each character, making the show some sort of a collage of every police series out there. On the top of it all comes the "message" of the show, that the good are good and the bad are bad and that at the end of the day the good shall prevail and that we should all love each other, be better man and better citizens, all done in the most ostensible manner. The actors, as the vehicles of this message and nothing more than that, will use a limited set of acting skills: the "I am a good carrying person" smile, the concerned look and the "victory is ours" body posture, while the bad guys have the "I'm a bad one" frowning and the "you caught me" look, followed by the "I'm good for nothing and I should be removed from society" head banding (this kind of also sums up the general development of each show). True story or not, the show is garbage, yet another proof that producers don't give a s**t about viewers, that we are all thought to be idiots. Well this series makes every possible attempt to idiotize the living brains out of you.
A suspenseful thriller that bears some resemblance to Deliverance as for scenery and setting. There are also some very innovatively shot scenes and good music, although the daftness and sometimes seemingly careless attitude of one of the characters is unfitting to the situation, although this is not a mayor problem. It also poses interesting questions about justness of revenge and limits of friendship.

This is without doubt Rajnikanth's worst movies ever. The first part is held in place with solid comedy from Goundamani but it progressively gets worse and worse and completely illogical. Our hero also takes a dig at Saints with the same name (Baba) through a corny and utterly lame one-liner. The first half has Rajni uttering his usual array of oneliners and style and in the second half, becomes a quasi saint after a beggar takes him through a interdimensional portal to the Himalayas where Babaji (not the famous Saints he took a dig at earlier) gives him special powers for no apparent reason (other than karma). This is really starting to get interesting now isn't it?
The rest of the movie is about him wasting his magic boons and powers and fighting off politicians and related black magic. The usual predictable crap with hilarious implementation. Oh and the black magic never worked on our hero because he just happened to have a Param Vir...er....Shakti Chakra with him. The bad guys and the usual politician villains are clichéd, overworked and in the end, completely insignificant to the plot which itself doesn't go anywhere.
But despite all the flaws, it was fun to kill time with and yell Baba related one-liners during public events. Its also fun to watch others curse about this movie. AR Rehman is said to have composed the tracks for his movie through the cell phone. Thats how important he considered it.
Rajni is very popular in Japan and he has included two characters (one of them is called Keiko...why not Samsung?) of Japanese origin in this movie just for the sake of it. But the way they are portrayed, dressed and treated is absolutely pathetic. The Japanese may stop watching Rajni movies after seeing that. This movie was probably promotional material for Rajni entering politics but the results of the movie itself would have killed off any of his political dreams.
Fun if you turn your brain off though.
Have just seen the Australian premiere of Shower [Xizhao] at the Sydney Film Festival. The program notes said it was - A perfect delight -deftly made, touching, amusing, dramatic and poignantly meaningful. I couldn't agree more. I just hope the rest of the Festival films come up to this standard of entertainment and I look forward to seeing more Chinese films planned to be shown in Sydney in the coming months.

This 1970 hit film has not aged well, but frankly, it was not that good when it was released. Yet, it was a hugely popular success perhaps because the idea of fatalistic young love must have appealed to audiences saturated by constant TV coverage of the Vietnam War. The plot is pure drivel as it concerns Oliver Barrett IV, a privileged Harvard hockey player, who meets and falls in love with Jenny Cavelleri, an antagonistic Vassar music student proud of her working class background. His old-school father naturally disapproves of Jenny, and in a typical act of rebellion, that means the young couple gets married in one of those hippie-era, extemporaneous ceremonies. He lands his dream job in New York, but she gets unexpectedly ill and dies of her terminal disease. There is a veneer of then-contemporary film-making techniques displayed by director Arthur Hiller, but none of that can hide the old-fashioned, cliché-ridden story at its core. The inevitable ending left me particularly unmoved.
Both Ryan O'Neal and Ali MacGraw became stars with this movie as Oliver and Jenny but inexplicably so since neither seems able to convey the depth or complexity required to make their characters compelling. At least the boyish O'Neal is sincere in his weakly defiant approach, but MacGraw is so wooden and smirky in behavior that it's hard to see what Oliver sees in Jenny beyond her sarcastic façade. John Marley (two years before finding the decapitated racehorse in his bed in "The Godfather") does better as Jenny's plainspoken baker father Phil, as does Ray Milland as the seemingly insensitive Barrett paterfamilias. The overly familiar Frances Lai music has almost become parody in itself over the years. The print quality on the DVD is good, though the only extra is a rather effusive commentary track by Hiller. The most interesting bit of trivia is that author Erich Segal (upon whose book this movie is based) conceived Oliver as a mix between two Harvard roommates he knew  Vice President Al Gore and actor Tommy Lee Jones, who happens to have a bit part in the movie as one of Oliver's roommates.
I was very impressed with this film. I would have to rate it as one of the better classic-era westerns. I say that for the whole thing: the acting, mature dialog, no- nonsense story and excellent cinematography.
Director Anthony Mann, who did several well-photographed film noirs around this same era, also made some westerns such as this one. It has that same film-noir look. Mann and Jimmy Stewart collaborated on several westerns during this period. . If you like this movie, I recommend the Mann-Stewart film "Bend Of The River."
In a nutshell, the story is about a man, "Lin McAdam," (Stewart) who owns this prestigious Winchester 73 rifle, a weapon he won fair-and-square in a contest. It is then stolen and passed on from villain to villain. All of those villains are interesting characters.
Aiding Stewart act out this interesting tale are Shelley Winters, Dan Duryea, Stephen McNally, Millard Mitchell, Charles Drake, Will Greer and J. C. Flippen. All of them are fun to watch. It was a bit of a stretch, however, to see Rock Hudson playing an Indian ("Young Bull"), but you can't have everything.

There was something here with the female lead having this perfect life she's always wanted after the worst life possible, beginning as a child prostitute and winding up with Eric Roberts. But her background makes it impossible for her to trust Dean Cain and this utterly destroys it in the end. It sounds weird, but I like the position Dean Cain was in at the end and the choice he made. He can't hurt her because he loves her and she's the mother of his child (I think the time frame makes it clear it's his child and not his brother's), but at the same he can't forgive her for all she's done, sleeping with his brother (which shows the love and obligation he felt was pretty much one way) and then being part of his death. In better hands this would have been a better movie, but for something I caught on late night cable, it's not bad.
Erich Rohmer's "L'Anglaise et le duc" makes a perfect companion piece to Peter Watkins' "La Commune (Paris 1871)." Both films -screened at this year's Toronto International Film Festival- ironically illustrate how history is shaped to by the tellers of the tale. Ironic, given the tragic events that were taking place in the U.S. during the festival.
Set in Paris during the French Revolution, the movie, based on Grace Elliott's (Lucy Russell) "Memoirs," is a first-hand account of how she survived those heady but dangerous days. She also details her relationship with The Duke of Orleans (played by Jean-Claude Dreyfus), who, in contrast to herself, is a supporter of the Revolution.
True to form, you don't know whose side of history Rohmer is going to come down on. One of the earliest of the French "New Wave" filmmakers, Rohmer has often been criticized for being too conservative. After all, in the midst of the rebelling-youth-Viet-Nam days of the late 60s and 70s, he was filming romantic little confections like "Claire's Knee." But don't sell the old boy short, folks, he's always been a student of human nature, not an ideologue, and "L'Anglaise et le duc" continues to bear this out.
Rohmer's characters are never the "bad guys" nor the "good guys'; they are first and foremost human beings who are capable of exhibiting a full range of human potentialities -and limitations. That's why his movies are always provocative, and this film is no exception.
Now for the technological nuts and bolts.
Rohmer, though making his way into his 80s, is still on the cutting-edge of cinematic innovation. The look of "L'Anglaise" is like something you've never seen before. You guessed it, the old guy -like several of the festival's directors this year- has gone digital.
All of the movie's exterior scenes look as though they are taking place in their original 1780s Parisian settings. As a matter of fact, you may get so distracted from marveling at the authenticity of the film's look you may have to go back for a second screening to catch the subtleties of the film's psychological -and yes, I'll say it- political insights.
Toronto features some of the world's edgiest young filmmakers this year, as well as some of the world's oldest. And the old masters are standing there on cinema's cutting-edges right alongside the young ones.
Long live youth. Long live old age. And long live Erich Rohmer.

I have seen bad movies before, but this one takes the "Worst Movie of a Lifetime" award by far !! Anthony Hopkins has to be completely mentally ill to have his name attached to this one - anywhere ! I will never see another movie with him in it, directing it, etc., etc. ! I can't believe the other actors & actresses that I liked, (in this picture), that stooped so low to be a part of this disaster ! There must be some great drugs out there ! For anyone to not be embarrassed to be a part of such a film, is beyond me ! Save your money on this one ! HUGE FLOP from beginning to end ! Shame on you Mr. Hopkins ! Also, shame on Christian Slater ! I can't believe you put your reputations on the line for this one !
This movie blew me away. If you can see only one of the animated bug movies this year see this one instead of Antz. the plot, characters, and jokes are better in A Bugs life. Also when you go stay in your seat until the end of the credits. it's the best part of the movie. Rating 9

One of, if not the worst film to come out of Britain in the 80s.
This tawdry tale of a middle aged lecher who 'seduces' two teenage scrubbers who babysit for him and his faux-posh wife has nothing to redeem it.
In turns gratuitous, puerile, uncouth and unrealistic, this film plumbs the depths as it fails miserably in its attempts to be funny, provocative, intellectual and controversial.
Perhaps the worst thing about this film is the way the strong cast of George Costigan, Michelle Holmes and Siobhan Finneran are completely stitched by such a lame script. It's no surprise that this was the late Andrea Dunbar's only work to make it onto the screen. Complete and utter rubbish on every level.
this is a wonderful film, makes the 1950'S look beautifully stylish. Kim Novak is intriguing and compelling as a modern-day witch with one foot in Manhattan and another in infinity. All the supporting performances are terrific, from Jack Lemmon as her bother Nicky to Ernie Kovacs as the author of Magic in Mexico who is working on Magic in Manghattan, to Elsa Lanchester as the slightly batty as well as witchy Aunt Queenie. And then there is the cat- I have no idea how many witches (besides me) have named a cat Pyewacket but suggest a zillion. Jmes Stewart looks out of place, but only just as much as his character is out of p;ace in this weird sub-world of magic and witchcraft. Perfect. And it has the perfect romantic happy ending, which we believe in because movies of this vintage do have those happy endings. Gillian and Shep certainly have as much chance to be happy ever after as Rose and Charlie Allnut in The African Queen (another great film)

I love the music of the Clash and I love the music of Joe Strummer and The Mescaleros. I went to this movie hoping to learn about the man behind most of that. But I came out of the theatre not knowing much more about Joe than I already did after reading the entry on Wikipedia. The movie never really gets through to the person, his thoughts and feelings. What they did was to collect the little material that they had, shaky blurry videos and to interview some people about Joe Strummer at a camp fire. It turns out that most of these people knew him very little or not at all, and that the director just wanted them in the movie in order to have some more celebrities say, "Oh, he was such an inspiration to all of us". Like Bono or Johnny Depp (whom they seemingly asked to keep his pirate costume on to benefit from his current success in Pirates of the Caribbean). It seems that the director could not even wait until the body was cold before he jumped in to sell his version of "the greatest punk rocker and hippie at heart" that ever lived, sanctifying the person without really knowing enough about him.
Sure, being a fan i enjoyed seeing the images of the band, hearing the anecdotes behind the songs and such, but in the end I felt like what remained as the portrait of Joe Strummer could have easily been told in 60-90 minutes.
Go see the movie if you are a fan, otherwise better listen to some music of the Clash or even better the undeservedly unknown Mescaleros, where Joe Strummer reached the peak of his musical development before his death, melting all his rich influences together to one amazing sound.
If you like rap or hip-hop, watch this movie, although it's funny if you don't get the references, as a straight comedy.
Haven't seen much of the much hyped CB4, but what I did see didn't have the heart that this little stormer has.
Haven't heard from the people involved since, which is a surprise. The film is very similar to Spinal Tap, which is no bad thing, and I think a lot of the dialogue, while priceless in Tap is funnier here, probably because I'm more into rap than rock theses days, so my own judgment does cloud that point.
The rap songs are funny as hell, and it's basically spot the reference for most of the film, not all of them are in-your-face, which means the physical comedy and the one-liners get priority over the take-offs.
Great fun, one to watch twice if there ever was a movie.

It's not the most well made slasher movies of all time, but for what it is, it's pretty amusing. The plot is lame but the kills are not too bad. I have to be honest, if you don't follow the bands that are featured in this film, you wont find this film as funny as those who do. I knew someone who saw this film and was really disappointed because of the poor quality of the film but you have to understand that it was made in the spare time of being on tour, in between playing to moshing kids and drinkin' with friends backstage...it's not made to be taken seriously. It's ubber cheese at it's punk best and with over 100 kills,most of which are ultra gory, it's a fun movie to have friends over to watch, drink and be merry!
This scary and rather gory adaptation of Stephen King's great novel features outstanding central performances by Dale Midkiff,Fred Gwynne(who sadly died few years ago)and Denise Crosby and some really gruesome gore effects.Director Mary Lambert has a wonderful sense of visual style,and manages to make this one of the few versions of King's work that is not only worth seeing,but genuinely unnerving.The depiction of the zombie child Gage(Miko Hughes-later in "New Nightmare")is equally noteworthy,as what could easily have been a laughable character is made menacing and spooky.As for the people,who think that this one isn't scary-watch it alone in the dark(eventually with your squeamish girlfriend)and I guarantee you that "Pet Sematary" will creep you out.Some horror movies like this one or "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" shouldn't be watched in group.Recommended for horror fans!

This film is terrible. The story concerns a woman trying to find out what has happened to her sister. The film struggles with its identity, lurching from Noir/thriller to erotic, with elements of horror thrown in for good measure. The film has a very confused structure, for example with frequent use of flashbacks without tying these into the story. The plot is poorly developed, and the characterisation made it difficult to distinguish between who was who and the part they were playing. Some implausibilities exist in many films, but the scene where the main protagonist willingly accompanies a virtual stranger to his home, then agrees to go upstairs alone (to where he says she will find a phone), minus the gun she had brought with her, to call the Police, was too hard to believe. Some of the cinematography is very poor: we were watching on a 42" TV so how anyone with a smaller set could work out what was happening in the scenes taken in almost complete darkness is beyond me. Overall, a chaotic mess.
I was first introduced to "Eddie" by friends from "across-the-pond" who know I like intelligent humor. I prefer comedians who can be thought provoking while entertaining such as George Carlin and Dennis Miller. In 'Dress to Kill' Eddie provides the same type of social observation humor that stimulates your thoughts on a subject all the while causing your side to split at the same time. There is a wide range of subjects in this stand-up and they are simply hysterical. The piece on how to decide on Englebert's stage name will leave you in stitches!
Thanks Andrew and Catherine! ... and "Do you have a Flag?"

This adaptation, like 1949's *The Heiress*, is based on the Henry James novel. *The Heiress*, starring Olivia de Havilland, remains as a well-respected piece of work, though less true to James' original story than this new remake, which retains James' original title. It is the story of a awkward, yet loving daughter (Leigh), devoted to her father (Finney) after her mother dies during childbirth. The arrogant father holds his daughter in no esteem whatsoever, and considers her, as well as all women, simpleminded. When a young man (Chaplin) of good family and little fortune comes courting, the Father is naturally suspicious, but feeling so sure that his daughter could hold no interest for any man, is convinced that the young man is a fortune hunter and forbids her to see him. Leigh is a controversial actress  most either love her or hate her  and she always has a particular edginess and tenseness to her style, like she's acting through gritted teeth. She's not bad in this, and she handles her role relatively deftly  it's just an awkward role for any actress, making the audience want to grab the character by her shoulders and shake her until she comes to her senses. While the character garners a lot of sympathy, she's not particularly likable. The very handsome and immensely appealing Ben Chaplin (previously seen in *The Truth About Cats and Dogs*) plays his role with the exact amount of mystery required to keep the audience guessing whether he is after her fortune, or is really in love with her. Maggie Smith is one of the finest actresses alive and raises the level of the movie considerably with her portrayal of the well-meaning aunt. Finney is marvelous, of course, as the father who threatens to disinherit his daughter for her disobedience, but the daughter is willing to risk that for the man she loves. But does her ardent suitor still want her without her fortune? This is only one instance where *Washington Square* differs from *The Heiress*. Another instance is the ability to stick with it. It is a handsome movie that is as tedious as a dripping faucet, offering too little story in too long of a movie.