Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Handsome and dashing British airline pilot George Taylor (a solid portrayal by Guiseppe Pambieri) gets beat up by thugs after a wild night in Hong Kong. George meets and falls in love with the sweet and virginal Dr. Emy Wong (a fine and charming performance by the lovely Chai Lee). George regains his health and goes back to work. When Emy fails to hear from George for a lengthy amount of time, she succumbs to despair and becomes a prostitute. While director/co-writer Bitto Albertini does indeed deliver a satisfying amount of the expected tasty nudity and steamy soft-core sex, this film is anything but your routine wallow in leering sleaze. Instead it's a surprisingly thoughtful, touching and tragic love story between two well drawn and highly appealing characters (Chai as Emy Wong is especially radiant and endearing). The picture starts out bubbly and cheerful, but the tone radically shifts into a more grim and harsh mood about two thirds of the way through. Emy's descent into vice after she falsely assumes that George has abandoned her is bleak and upsetting; ditto the remarkably sad and heartbreaking surprise bummer ending. Granted, the narrative is certainly melodramatic, but never too silly or trashy. Moreover, the sex scenes are quite tasteful and even genuinely erotic. Notorious Italian porn star Ilona Staller has a nice sizable supporting part as George's jealous and uninhibited secretary Helen Miller. Guido Mancori's polished cinematography offers many strikingly gorgeous shots of the exotic locations. Nico Fidenco's funky, throbbing score hits the groovy spot. Worth a look for those seeking something different.

Sorry did i miss something? did i walk out early? The first ten minutes of unusual (and untrue!) stories had me thinking "This is going to be a classic" But it was all down hill from there! The acting was brilliant, for what it's worth William H Macy is fantastic and just gets better and better every film i watch him in. But it never seemed to connect. I was waiting for the big moment where all the stories inter connect and then suddenly..it rains frog?? it was if the writer said "i've gone to deep how can i pull all these stories together cleverely....Oh sod it i'll just have it raining frogs". I like clever movies, i like strange movies but this was just odd and boring. 4/10
When I first heard about this series on AnimeTV,I have to say that out of all the shows that I have seen,this one tops it all off. I had to see this show,and that is what I really did. When I got the first volume of this show,it was the best. I really liked the animation,and all the fight scenes were awesome. I have to say that my favorite characters in the show were Saber,and Archer and of course I also like Illya. And of course,all the episodes on the volumes were interesting,and very cool. Another thing I have to say about the series is Michael McConnohie(famous for Transformers,and others) playing the voice of Berserker. He does have a cool character. And I even watched the entire series all over again before watching the final volume. So if you to see something good,then see this show,it's the best.

Every Christmas eve I make my kids endure yet another showing of It's A Wonderful Life. I also thoroughly enjoyed Bad Santa. So sue me. I admit it. I like cheesy, schmaltzy movies. I like excellent, intelligent ones too, but as with so many things, variety is a good thing. What would the Christmas season be without the annual cinematic ka-ching ka-ching of Santa in all his guises, from Edmund Gwenn to Billy Bob Thornton? Fred Claus will make no one forget Bedford Falls, but I do not believe a Christmas film should have to reach iconic stature to succeed. "Fred" is a perfectly OK holiday movie, with enough humor for the adults and sufficient charm for the kids. My wife and I laughed a lot, even if most of the humor was obvious and Vince was just being Vince. Paul Giamatti was a top-notch Santa, which helped a lot. Not a great flick, and unlikely to become must-viewing for anyone's annual Christmas traditions. But my wife and daughter and I enjoyed it for what it was, holiday schmaltz with a small dash of spice. There's nothing wrong with that.
Flat out the funniest spoof of pretentious art house films ever made.
This flick exposes all the clichés, and then some! Excruciatingly bad (Downs-Syndrome!) actors. Terribly heavy self important dialog. Scenes that are supposed to shock but fall flat. Jarring editing. Pointless plot points. All wrapped up in a kind of smirky miasma of disrespect for the audience and vague psych-drivel.
It achieves exactly what it was designed to. A hilarious satire of those tedious movies made by spoiled teenage trust-funders, to show to their parents when they ask them what they've been doing for the last two years! After "What Is It?" received its Cannes award, presenter Werner Herzog was rumored to have been told that the film was in fact a spoof, in part of his own films! He supposedly blew up at the info. To this day he refuses to discuss the incident.
Anyway, see it and laugh, this will be a classic of humor for many years to come.

I have nothing against a fast-paced fright-flick, but this Stephen King-derived nonsense is too freshly-scrubbed, too bright and modern. The plot, about a new teenage boy in a small town who is a "Sleepwalker"--sort of a cross between a vampire and a werewolf--and who feeds on the blood of female virgins, begs for a more mysterious, ambiguous treatment. This thriller is given an inappropriately colorful look and feel, with hardly any atmosphere. The kids are predictably pretty and energetic, but the big plus is Alice Kridge as the boy's mother; Kridge, from "Ghost Story", never broke out of the filler-female mold, and it's a huge loss that she hasn't been used more. Her performance is creepy and intense, and gives hint that "Sleepwalkers" might've been a much better film with a different focus and tighter direction. It's too over-the-top and commercially-driven, with an uneven tone that swings wildly from thriller to comedy to drama. Stephen King pops up in a cameo, as do real-life directors John Landis and Tobe Hooper. *1/2 from ****
Unremittingly bleak and depressing, the film evokes as well as could be desired the legendary misery and emptiness that characterised Houellebecq's controversial novel of the same name. Like many French films, its manner is one of wistful profundity but it is painfully slow - or should that be, slowly painful? While this is an excellent and challenging film, it is not an enjoyable one and its difficult to think of any time when one might be in the 'right' mood to see it.

For some reason, TV Guide gave this two and a half stars, plus Faye Dunaway is in it, so it definitely looked like something to see. My, oh, my, this may be the worst film I've ever seen. Ever. From its horrid acting (every time the girl asks the boy what's wrong with him, I shouted to the TV "I can't act!" When she asks what he needs, I yell "I need acting lessons!" to the unbelievably bad dialog ("Give me back my organs!").
And the Brian DePalma wannabe ending, too, it was all just beyond awful. I wanted to like it. Dunaway is one of the best actors ever. And the production values were pretty good.
But wowzers, this had me laughing, LAUGHING!, most of the time.
Don't even bother out of curiosity, that was my first mistake. Staying with it was definitely my second, and third and fourth.
Rohmer returns to his historical dramas in the real story of Grace Elliot, an Englishwoman who stayed in France during the apex of the French Revolution. One always suspected that Rohmer was a conservative, but who knew he was such a red-blooded reactionary. If you can put aside Rohmer's unabashed defense of the monarchy (and that is not an easy thing to do, given that, for instance, the French lower classes are portrayed here as hideous louts), this is actually an elegant, intelligent and polished movie. Lacking the money for a big cinematic recreation of 18th century France, Rohmer has instead the actors play against obvious painted cardboards. It is a blatantly artificial conceit, but it somehow works. And newcomer Lucy Russell succeeds in making sympathetic a character that shouldn't be.

I am a huge fan of the comic book series, but this movie fell way below my expectations. I expected a Heavy Metal 2000 kinda feel to it.....slow moving, bad dialogue, lots o' blood.....but this was worse than anything I could have imagined.
The plot line is almost the same as the comic, but the good points pretty much stop there. The characters don't have the energy or spirit that drew my attention in the comic series. The movie only covers a small portion of the comic, and the portion used is more slow and boring than later parts. The focus in the movie is on the insignificant events instead of the more interesting overall plot of the comic book.
With the right people working on this project, it could have been amazing. Sadly, it wasn't that way, so now there is yet another terrible movie that few will see and even fewer will love. My copy will surely collect dust for years until I finally throw it out.
What a GREAT British movie, a screaming good laugh and sexy Gary Stretch too, and oh, lots of bikes and lovely Welsh countryside.
Members of our club the ARROWHEAD Bike and Trike Social Club appear in it as extras! Hooray!!
There are some genuinely hilarious bits, good acting, a good idea.
Met the director, Jon Ivay at a showing in Wareham, Dorset. A great man, down to earth and a good laugh. This film must be supported, as all great Brit movies should!
So please go and see it if you can, they have a website with cinemas that are showing it , so find one near you!
I can't wait to get the DVD. Some of our biker friends have seen the film two or three times already and can't get enough of it.
Amanda

When you're making a thriller about witchcraft, I believe you should do everything you can to help the audience suspend its disbelief in order for the movie to work. Some pictures ("Rosemary's Baby", for example) have accomplished this; others (like "Necromancy") haven't and the potentially scary material comes across as corny and goofy. This film does have some atmospheric moments, but about half the dialogue is hard to make out (sometimes it's poorly recorded, at other times just incomprehensible) and Orson Welles, who gets top billing, has a role that is so BENEATH him that you have to assume he was desperate for the work. Or maybe he was simply having fun.....(*1/2)
As the film opens, two thugs kill another thug. When the body is discovered and about to be autopsied, the doctor realizes that although the man was shot dead, he was also suffering from the Pneumonic plague--a very nasty and more virulent version of the Bubonic plague! So, it's a race against time to find those who came in contact with the dead man and treat them immediately, otherwise a disaster could erupt.
Oddly, I actually know quite a bit about the Pneumonic plague, as I taught a series of lectures on it for my history classes. The film really did not do a good job of getting the facts right about the disease in that it looked little like what the people had in the movie. The biggest problem is that this illness is so incredibly grotesque that in 1950 they really wouldn't have been allowed to show it. Sure, there is high fever and coughing (they got this right) but also lots of bleeding and explosive vomiting of blackened blood--along with the enormously swollen lymph nodes like you'd get with the Bubonic plague--all purply and gross! I can certainly understand why they didn't go this far. Also, I am sure that the federal government would have had a much, much greater involvement in controlling and treating the disease--here in the film it was handled on a very local level and everyone seemed ill-prepared and a bit dumb. No one seemed willing to believe the doctors!! As for the acting, the film had some excellent actors here. Richard Widmark and Paul Douglas are, respectively, the public health doctor and police chief. Good actors but also known actors back in 1950. However, in his first film is the very menacing Jack Palance (still going by his original moniker, 'Walter Jack Palance') as well as the relatively unknown (at the time) Zero Mostel. Palance was great--very scary and very physically adept in his own stunts. Mostel played a heavy typical of his early work--a greasy and cowardly sort of evil.
Overall, despite really not getting the details right and wrapping everything up a little too neatly, the film is very tense and has excellent acting--and is well worth seeing.

Give me my money back! Give me my life back! Give me a bit of credit. This movie was vomit worthy. Useless and time consuming. What a waste of energy and totally pointless. Okay I understand the premise and the idea sound but, give us a break! Next time just give me the money and let me spend it. Lost child, mothers remorse, blamed husband! Cliché yes~! Get a life! Sorry but this movie was a total waste of my time, my money and my being. I would rather watch eggs cook! No real explanation to why this happened. Prison? Why? Loss? obvious but Why? Acting deserves a What am I doing here Oscar and the cinematography a Am I just doing this for a Wage? How much did this movie make? Well this silly fool hired a copy. Enough said
This movie is a Gem because it moves with soft, but firm resolution.
I caution viewers that although it is billed as a Corporate Spy thriller and Ms Liu is there, it moves at a deftly purposeful yet sedate pace. It's NOT about explosions, car chases, or flying bullets. You must be patient and instead, note the details here. It's sedate because that's what the Main Character is. The viewer has to WATCH him and Think as this story unfolds.
I will not give spoilers-- because that destroys the point of watching. The plot is what you've read from the other postings: an average white-collar guy, seeking change and adventure, signs on for a corporate spy job. Just go somewhere and secretly record and transmit inside data.
Take it from there.
This movie starts at a surreal walk-- with a background tang of corporate disillusionment that entwines itself with quintessential, underlying suburban paranoia.
Then it begins to accelerate.
The acting on all parts is superb-- and yes, some of the acts are caricature characters. But they all fit, and they entertain. And the light piano rhyme in the background is just perfect as the soft, soft key sinister theme: All is not right at the beginning.
And at the end: All is not what it seems.
Get comfortable and turn the lights down to watch this one-- and turn up the sound: This movie wants you to LISTEN.

The NSA, CIA, FBI, FSB and all other snoop agency in the world should watch this movie to gain information as to how to spy on people. (as MST3k Commentary states it..."Sanata has the dirt on every! Santa's Tentacles reach far and wide! There is no hiding from the Klaus Organization")
From telescopes that can spy over millions of miles to ears that can hear everything. Its amazing that the CIA doesn't have Santa on the payroll.
Satan's dance routine is hilarious. Pitch...he is so useless.
The cheese factor in of this movie is tremendous. Very low budget but so fun to watch. I recommend watching the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 version for even more laughs.
You even get a laugh at the missfortune of the good kids.
I give this a 1 for production quality and a 10 for pure cheese and fun factor.
1985 was a good year for films - maybe even great - but this one missing out on a gong went a long way to convincing fans that ol' Oscar is little more that a hood ornament for good party members.
11 nominations and not a single title: such was the Academy's disdain for one of their greatest directors; and one who had to wait another 8 years before whatever prejudices had prevented them from handing him the statue before allowed them to give him 7 for Schindler's List, which is, arguably, not as good (and I'm half-Polish).
Don't get me wrong, Schindler was a classic. And I'm not knocking 'Out of Africa' (which won that year) either; but it was, in my mind, a class behind this one: an epic story of suffering and hope that brought me to tears - and I'm not a big cryer.
Maybe it was the music (superb), or the cinematography (sumptuous), but more likely simply the acting: Whoopi, who proved to all of us that she was much more than just a comedienne; Danny Glover, who I'd never heard of before; and, of course, Oprah.
The rest is history; but, at the time: who knew?

the single worst film i've ever seen in a theater. i saw this film at the austin film festival in 2004, and it blew my mind that this film was accepted to a festival. it was an interesting premise, and seemed like it could go somewhere, but just fell apart every time it tried to do anything. first of all, if you're going to do a musical, find someone with musical talent. the music consisted of cheesy piano playing that sounded like they were playing it on a stereo in the room they were filming. the lyrics were terribly written, and when they weren't obvious rhymes, they were groan-inducing rhymes that showed how far they were stretching to try to make this movie work. and you'd think you'd find people who could sing when making a musical, right? not in this case. luckily they were half talking/half singing in rhyme most of the time, but when they did sing it made me cringe. especially when they attempted to sing in harmony. and that just addresses the music. some of the acting was pretty good, but a lot of the dialog was terrible, as well as most of the scenes. they obviously didn't have enough coverage on the scenes, or they just had a bad editor, because they consistently jumped the line and used terrible choices while cutting the film. at least the director was willing to admit that no one wanted the script until they added the hook of making it a musical. i hope the investors make sure someone can write music before making the same mistake again.
What a loss the passing of director Emile Ardolino was! He could take a light script and, with the right casting and editing, put a twinkle in it and make it shine like a star. This particular star may not be the brightest in the sky as great romances go, but it is definitely one that keeps you tuned in to the end. You really want to know how things are going to work out.
The script is perfect for Cybill Shepherd, who at the time needed to capitalize on her "Moonlighting" success for the new generation who was (fortunately for her) probably unaware of how many big screen major duds she had after a very promising start. In this film she's every bit back in form as a still-pining widow living vicariously through her daughter (Mary Stuart Masterson on the cusp of stardom which would peak with "Fried Green Tomatoes" two years later). She may have looked too young for the role, but that works well for the way the story unfolds. This is her film, but she doesn't overstep her bounds as a lead.
SHepherd graciously allows Robert Downey Jr. to carry much of the film and shows a more mature comic flair than he had in his previous films to that point. And there's ample support from Ryan O'Neal (in his best role in years) and Christopher MacDonald. Masterson's natural charm pretty much coasts on its own, either that or she has a way of making her character seem like a breath of fresh air with every word.
Ardolino makes good use of his cast's sex appeal the same way he did with "Dirty Dancing", but this film is not quite as sizzling so you could still watch it with your parents if they happened to be in the room. (Use your best judgment, they're your parents after all.) I give this film a high mark because it is very user friendly, romantic comedy enthusiasts will find it sublime, and those who are just watching along with them should find plenty of humor to enjoy as well.
Again, credit goes to Emile Ardolino for making the most of a charming script by Randy and Perry Howze. (Where are they now?) Ardolino's next film would be the phoned-in sequel to "Three Men and A Baby" but his final theatrical release (Sister Act) would finally give him the nine-figure-grossing smash hit he deserved. Mr. Ardolino, your cinematic touch IS missed!

I watched the movie "The Flock" because of the casting of Gere and Danes and because the story synopsis sounded interesting. This was one of the WORST movies I've seen in a long while (and I've seen some turkeys.) I've never posted online before but this movie was so awful I had to do so. I suppose the problems begin begin with the script which was so amateurish it's unbelievable. The story makes zero sense and the dialogue is so trite it's nauseating. Poor Gere, he deserves so much better. As for the Gere/Danes on screen matchup, because of the horrible writing, one doesn't believe either character for a single minute. I'll bet Gere wishes he could buy back the negative, were such a thing possible. It's a shame to see talent wasted so badly, not to mention I wish I could get my 2 hours back. (I know what you're thinking. How do I really feel?)
Stack should have received the Academy Award for this performance, period. Its a crime that he did not. Amazing how he humanizes a rich worthless character.
Dorothy Malone did earn a well-deserved Academy Award for her performance. In fact, all of the acting in this film is excellent.
The plot begins with a taxi ride, then an airplane ride, then keeps moving on an emotional ride that will hold your interest throughout. You will be entertained!
However, this is only a blatant soap opera. One-dimensional, 100-percent soaper. You might call it the ultimate soaper, because the acting so thoroughly triumphs over the material. Excellently acted, well directed, but strictly within its soap genre. I wouldn't even call it a melodrama (such as "Mildred Pierce" or "Imitation of Life"). While not denying the great entertainment value of this film, you can only imagine what this talented cast and director might have achieved with more substantial subject matter.

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.
One of the best (if not the best) Stephen King's screenings. Dark as dark can be, surprising non-hollywood ending, terrifying atmosphere, amazing book adaptation, outstanding cast, educational (don't play with afterlife), in short - everything an excellent horror should be...
My favorite horror movie, straight 10+.

There is not a single sympathetic character in this entire movie. Is it the lawyer played by Kenneth Branagh that we're supposed to be pulling for? Well, let's see -- we learn he's a sleazebag defense attorney who gets criminals off on technicalities. He treats his coworkers like cattle, gets them involved in his own personal crisis (in the process, getting one of them killed), jeopardizes the safety of his kids, threatens his ex-wife's new boyfriend, tries to strong-arm the police and school administrators -- and all this for what? Because he was THINKING WITH HIS LITTLE HEAD! I was really pulling for the father and his gang to beat the stuffing out of the lawyer and drown him in the swamp...it would have made for a far more satisfying ending.