Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Hello Playmates.I recently watched this film for the first time ever and it is also my first experience of Arthur Askey, I have to admit I was very impressed by this film. As a fan of black and white films generally, passport to pimlico, the lavender hill mob and Tommy Trinder (who is apparently a distant relative), this film appealed in that it provided good old fashioned British humour. I notice that there are some on here who have criticised Askey's performance, however in my opinion it stands the test of time as a fine example of forties comic acting and if anything adds to the picture by creating characters that are more than the mere stereotypes which seem to so dominate films now.If you can get hold of this film I would recommend you get hold of it,shame these films generally aren't shown on Sunday afternoons anymore.I am also glad to have had the opportunity to watch another piece of work by Arnold Ridley (Private Godfrey in dad's army).I thank you

This horrendously bad piece of trash manages to be racist, sexist and homophobic all at once, while pretending to be terribly chic and sophisticated. Atrocious performances, a cliche ridden screenplay, and boring direction make this movie one to steer clear of. Two scenes were especially offensive - the one in which Schaech scrubs his tongue after being kissed by another man (could it really have been that gross), and the scene where Eastwood is kissed by Schaech's best friend, who is pretending to be Russian. After he leaves the room she exclaims "f**king foreigners"! So much for her being a cultured artist who dreams of living in Paris!?!
Jonathon Schaech can be a likeable actor on screen, and is astonishingly good-looking. It's a shame he didn't learn more from working with cutting edge gay director Gregg Araki on an earlier film, and try to salvage this film from descending into a string of gay stereotypes and a mire of homophobia.
I guess if a film has magic, I don't need it to be fluid or seamless. It can skip background information, go too fast in some places, too slow in others, etc. Magic in this film: the scene in the library. There are many minor flaws in Stanley & Iris, yet they don't detract from the overall positive impact of watching people help each other in areas of life that seem the most incomprehensible, the hardest to fix. Both characters are smart. Yet Stanley can't understand enough to function because he can't read; he can't read because he's had too much adventure in his childhood. Iris, although well-educated, hasn't had enough adventure and so can't understand how to move past the U-turn her life took. In both their faults and strengths, the characters compliment each other. It may be a bit of a stretch to accept that an Iris would wind up working year after year in a factory, or that a Stanley never hid his illiteracy enough to work in construction or some other better-paying job. And while these "mysteries" are explained in the course of the story, their unfolding seems somewhat contrived. I assume no one took the time to rethink the script. Even so, it's a good moviejust imagine what De Niro, Fonda and Plimpton would have done on screen if someone had!

Look, it's the third one, so you already know it's bad. And "Maniac Cop" wasn't good enough to warrant the second installment, so you know it's even worse. But how much worse? Awful, approaching God-awful.
When Maniac Cop goes on a killing spree, a reporter exclaims, "What happened here can ONLY be described as a black rainbow of death."
1-- Rainbows are not black, and can never be. 2-- Rainbows are harmless, and can never inflict pain or death. 3-- A news reporter, one valuable to his agency, might find another way to describe the aftermath of a killing spree. "A black rainbow of death" is not the ONLY way to describe the given situation.
This is what you're in for.
For what it is, "Raising Victor Vargas" is about as close to perfection as a film can get. Either sheer genius from a fledgling auteur or just one of those lucky mixes where everything clicked (probably some of each), this simple little slice-of-urban-life ethnic first love flick fleshes out its young characters with such depth you can almost read their minds. The film begins with a strong flavor of "street" but works its way into a Latino family affair and then focuses on a story which speaks volumes about the uncertainty of youth and the profoundly natural desire to love another. In my experience, never has so much been done with so little (cast of tyros, novice director, etc.). Praised by the critics but not for everyone, "Raising Victor Vargas" is recommended for indie lovers and realists into simple tales rich in humanness. (A)

Despite some moments in heavy rain, an encounter with a drunk as well as an organ grinder with a gypsy and a monkey, and a stay in a sanitarium, this Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle silent comedy short with support from Buster Keaton and Al St. John is only fitfully amusing though there is a quite funny sequence of Arbuckle in drag flirting with Buster that's the ultimate in "meet cute" scenes especially since it's one of the few times we see The Great Stone Face smile and laugh in the movies! Also, many scenes seem to have been jump cut edited possibly because of overuse of the film stock. Still, if you're an Arbuckle or Keaton completist, Good Night, Nurse! is certainly worth a look.
''Ranma ½" is my favorite anime by Rumiko Takahashi. The woman really knows how to entertain us with a good story, that is not only a comedy, but also an action anime. The main character of the story is Ranma Saotome, a teenager boy who is also an expert in martial arts. Ranma is engaged to Akane because of an arrangement of both fathers, who are great friends and trained together during many years.
Akane is the younger and most violent sister of the Tendo's: Kasumi is the oldest and is very sweet and Nabiki is the middle and loves to win money no matter what.
Ranma and Akane fight all the time,specially because both have a very bad temper, and when they discover that Ranma becomes a girl when splashed with cold water as well as his father becomes a panda,many new characters and situations starts to happen. They also discover the reason of the transformation: while fighting, Ranma and his father fell in a cursed river. But not only them had this kind of fate...
If you watched ''Ranma 1/2'' and liked, I would recommend you ''Inuyasha'' and ''Maison Ikkoku", two other good creations from Rumiko's hands.

the costumes, the dialog, historical accuracy are terrible. For instance, - Stacey Dash and the hanging scene. The noose was accurate ( as for as I could tell), but that type of noose broke the person's neck. Ms. Dash is left hanging at the end of the rope with no ill effects until the rope was shot. This type of not did not strangle the person, it killed them at the end of the drop.
And right before they go in to rob a bank (in a flashback), they pause on the street for a group hug - with their bandannas hiding their faces - that would have been obvious to people on the street.
The poor editing - that is a battery pack under that shirt and it is obvious, the clip of the "long ride" shows them riding along, then reverses the film.
I did like the fact that they kept the scene with the horse taking a crap - it seemed symbolic. The entire movie was crap.
I had never read Shakespeare's Hamlet before watching it but I did have a Shakespeare book with me and could follow the dialogue through it. My view on the movie may be partially biased since I had never read the play before, but I got pulled into this movie's grasp. Shakespeare is undoubtedly one of the best writers ever to have lived and the story of Hamlet is definitely one of his best achievements.
But now on to the movie...
I found that all the actors in the movie had a firm grasp of what they were saying and thus, were able to articulate it quite well. Leonardo in Romeo and Juliet is nothing compared to Kenneth Branagh and the King. The thing I liked about this was that it worked very well as a "MOVIE" and not as a play you are studying. You don't need to be affluent with Shakespeare to relate to all the Misery hamlet has to go through. I would recommend this movie to a wide audience.
That's my two cents.

Not only is it a disgustingly made low-budget bad-acted movie, but the plot itself is just STUPID!!!
A mystic man that eats women? (And by the looks, not virgin ones)
Ridiculous!!! If you´ve got nothing better to do (like sleeping) you should watch this. Yeah right.
Brothers with psychokinetic powers (yes, really) duel not just for Debra Winger's affections but really over a secret from their childhood that left them at odds over their powers.
There are surreal touches (the fire brigade that act like a singing Greek chorus), but there is also humour, wit and romance. The soundtrack is great also. And similar to the way American Werewolf in London used every great Wolf song they could get ~ but with fire and I don't think I'll ever forget Dennis Quaid (mmmmm Dennis Quaid), setting his own trailer a rockin' too 'She's a lady' ~ priceless ;)
Best line missing from the quotes section btw ~ 'Once you've had a clown, you never go back!'
I love this movie (I just ordered the DVD from the US) and if the comments written by the kind of people who'd be happier with Legally Blond 3 don't put you off ~ give it a try :)

Simply terrible! Why wouldn't you use actual actors? Look, this has to stop! Stop using non-actors! If you want any credibility or any message sent via these low-budget films...please for the love of god use real actors! Most will work for free...take advantage of that! Now back to my comment...anyway, the humour was lower than that of the bathroom variety and wasn't funny on any level. As for the quality...in one scene filmed on a public transportation bus you could see the reflection of the crew...guess what? It was one guy with what looked like a Sony Camcorder and probably not even his. Well, I assume the only audience for this film are people with a gore fetish...and it wasn't even good gore.
First saw this movie in about 1990, and absolutely died laughing through it. It became a cult favorite with my circle of friends, and we'd quote from it at the drop of a hat ("I'm going home in a bag!"). Needless to say, the humor is still there, 15 years later. It's become a tradition at Halloween time to expose many of my new friends to this film (good thing you can still buy it off Ebay!) I've found that Halloween candy tastes much better with your tongue planted firmly in your cheek..and this movie provides it all- pathos, suspense, unrequited love,nobility and the list goes on. Royal Dano provides an amazing heartfelt performance as Old Man Wrenchmuller. I remember seeing him in "The 7 Faces of Dr. Lao" as a bad guy who met a bad end. Here, you really feel for the old guy right from the beginning.
If you aren't careful, you'll miss some of the levels of humor in this movie. The creators got real subtle in many ways with offhand comments, little subtle costume digs at other sci-fi movies, and even a scene ripped from the pages of Wile E. Coyote!
Don't spend too much thought processes trying to analyze a movie, people- this is fun fare without the need for nitpicking, and shouldn't be offensive to anyone (well, maybe stupid people, but they won't know they're being mocked..).
-Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go get a 'Zag-nut' bar....
-Ramsay "RC" Cowlishaw, karaoke DJ/entertainer

Ever heard of a taiwanese horror movie? Or any taiwanese movie? Propably for a reason. This one was a really boring one, even though it has black magic including withered baby bodies and people exploding from the inside with thousands of eels.
Having read other peoples thoughts, I was looking forward for some violence and gore, but there's not much at all. Some blood puking and other lame stuff, if you are waiting for graphic gore or any gruesome effects you will be disappointed. They clearly didn't use the eel exploding and other things to their maximum potent.
Pretty much nothing good about this movie; a single character that wasn't completely bland and a few OK black magic spells, like the eel one. The plot was confusing and boring. The characters were thin and annoying, including the main character. The horror aspect didn't work at all, the most horrifying thing was an albino girl (not that scary really). This is the worst Asian horror movie I have ever seen.
This film, as low budget as it may be, is one of the best psychological thrillers I've ever seen. If you accept that it's low budget from the start, you can appreciate just how good of a story it is, how very well written the script is, and how great the filmmaker was to produce something so wonderful with so little money.
All the elements of a great film are here. The visuals, though shot on digital, were gorgeous in places. The bizarre, dreamy feel of the film is captured particularly well in the scene with the talking dog, that scene was just amazing. It's such a trippy piece of work, but not done in a pretentious way, and because of that I have a whole lot of respect for this film. It comes highly recommended to anyone looking for something unique and captivating, and different from much of the repetitive films that are out there.

The cast of this film contain some of New Zealander's better actors, many of who I have seen in fabulous roles, this film however fills me with a deep shame just to be from the same country as them. The fake American accents are the first clue that things are about to go spectacularly wrong. As another review rather astutely noted the luxury cruise ship is in fact an old car ferry, decorated with a few of the multi colour flags stolen from a used car lot. Most of the cast appear to be from the (great) long running New Zealand soap Shortland Street. It's as if this movie was dreamt up at a Shortland Street cast Christmas party, the result of too many gins, and possibly a bit of salmonella. Imagine "Under Siege" meets "The Love Boat", staged by your local primary school and directed by an autistic and you get the idea.
If you are an actor, I recommend you see this film, as a study on how to destroy your carer.
Although she is little known today, Deanna Durbin was one of the most popular stars of the 1930s, a pretty teenager with a perky personality and a much-admired operatic singing voice. This 1937 was her first major film, and it proved a box-office bonanza for beleaguered Universal Studios.
THREE SMART GIRLS concerns three daughters of a divorced couple who rush to their long-unseen father when their still-faithful mother reveals he may soon remarry--with the firm intention of undermining his gold-digger girlfriend and returning him to their mother. Although the story is slight, the script is witty and the expert cast plays it with a neat screwball touch. Durbin has a pleasing voice and appealing personality, and such enjoyable character actors as Charles Winninger, Alice Brady, Lucile Watson, and Mischa Auer round out the cast. A an ultra-light amusement for fans of 1930s film.
Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Other than the great cinematography by the marvelous James Wong Howe in the battle scenes, this film is a true stinker.
This is the second film that I've seen in recent days directed by Alexander Korda. The first was Charles Laughton's "Rembrandt." It was so lousy that I shut it off. This one I'm afraid is not very much better.
Flora Robson is as ugly as ever as Queen Elizabeth. Perhaps, her performance as the virgin Queen was good for 1937 standards but when you compare it to that of a Helen Mirren, it is absolutely no match. In robotic fashion, Robson states her lines. Her battle message to the English troops is so lackluster in spirit.
Even a dashing Laurence Olivier can't save this utter piece of boredom.
Future wife Vivien Leigh is in a supporting role here and she doesn't really convey anything here. To think, that Scarlett was 2 years later!
It's a shame that history with the Spanish Armada is made out to be so boring in this film.
I originally saw this film years ago during Cinemax Friday after dark series(back when the cable box was built like a keyboard),and it intrigued me. Even though there is a pointless aspect to the film it is well acted.The performances of Depardieu & Dewaere are very enjoyable.They have a good chemistry together & Miou-Miou makes a pink fur look breathtaking.A movie like this probably wouldn't be made in these politically correct times(at least not in the US), since it seems to sensationalize things like violence,robbery,& casual sex. This movie proves that with a talented cast & also talented directing a good movie is a good movie no matter the subject.It saddened me to find out Patrick Dewaere committed suicide & in the near future I,ll will check him out with Depardieu & Miou-Miou in Get Out Your Hankerchief.

Expecting a combination of scifi and period film about Ada Lovelace, Charles Babbage, the history of computers, etc, I was disappointed by this movies nonsensical pseudoscience and mixture of real and fabulous history. It gives the impression that its writer (Lynn Hershman-Leeson) has no real understanding of the Math, technology, or history constituting the film's subject, but is working instead from a sort of fuzzy artistic impression of them. This hits a sore spot with me, as I've long been irritated by the tendency of the arts to glom onto and awfully misuse science terms and ideas to the point of confusion, eg: Emmy Coer: "information waves have a half-life", Ada: "I'm not at all certain that half a life is better than no life at all".
This movie does worse than fail to entertain - it misinforms. The only redeeming value I can imagine for it is that it might attract a viewer to learn about the subject it so badly distorts. It's more likely, I think, to promote a superstitious perception of science and technology of any degree of advancement as indistinguishable from magic.
I would say that this film gives an insight to the trauma that a young mind can face when a family is split by divorce or other disaster. I would highly recommend this film especially to parents or individuals planning to have a family.
I found the characters to be appealing and highly sympathetic from a multitude of dimensions.
The scary monster although probably not scary to most adults, has a very real hint of what the overactive imagination of a child who is facing unknown terrors might create.
I found the film to be delightful!

I personally liked "The Prophecy" of 1995 a lot. Christopher Walken was, as always, great, and even though the film wasn't flawless, it was a creepy and highly original Horror/Fantasy film that entertained immensely. This inferior 1998 sequel is still worth watching, but mainly due to Walken. Walken is one of the greatest actors around, in my opinion, and he is once again outstanding in the role of the fallen Archangel Gabriel, whom he plays for the second time here. Once again, the war between fallen and loyal Angels is brought to earth. Gabriel returns in order to prevent the birth of a child, namely the child of the angel Danyael (Russel Wong) and the human woman Valerie (Jennifer Beals). This child could once be the determining factor of the celestial war... As I said above, Christopher Walken is once again excellent as Gabriel. Besides Gabriel, however, "The Prophecy II" sadly also includes a bunch of terribly annoying characters. The character of Valerie was annoying enough, and Danayel annoyed me even more. The biggest pain in the ass, however was the character of Izzy (played by Brittany Murphy), a suicidal girl who wouldn't shut up. Still, Walken's performance isn't the only redeeming quality of the film. The entire film is quite dreary, and well-shot in dark colors, which contributes a lot to the atmosphere. Gabriel's resurrection scene in the beginning is furthermore quite impressive, and one of the coolest moments in any of the "Prophecy" films. "The Prophecy II" is nevertheless the weakest of the three "Prophecy" films with Walken. Definitely a Christopher Walken one-man-show, entertaining, but nothing beyond that.
jim carrey can do anything. i thought this was going to be some dumb childish movie, and it TOTALLY was not. it was so incredibly funny for EVERYONE, adults & kids. i saw it once cause it was almost out of theatres, and now it's FINALLY coming out on DVD this tuesday and i'm way to excited, as you can see. you should definitely see it if you haven't already, it was so great!
Liz

Unfortunately, this movie is so bad. The original Out of Towners was manic and very funny, of course they used the script written by Neil Simon. For some reason Neil Simons script is not used in this film so it falls flat time and time again. Even the audience I was with never laughed. The direction is very slow and tedious and when there is a joke it is given away so the joke dies i.e. The couple having sex in the park. They announce it is a lighting ceremony for New York, well we all know the lights are going to come on and we will be able to see cute and mugging Goldie & Steve do a bit of slap stick. The whole movie winds up being like this...a joke is set up and given away. Why isn't Goldies hair ever even messed up in the movie. You will also notice every close up of Goldie (they use a very intense soft lens). I suggest you rent the original with Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis, that's if you want to laugh.
Apparently Ruggero Deodato figured out, early on, that his story wouldn't work if he approached it too seriously, so he decided to camp it up. The result is a film that can be viewed as either a ludicrous sword-and-sorcery epic or as a very entertaining comedy! And I think I'll go the second way. The brief gore moments are well-done, the Paul Brothers openly mock the material (they even bark at each other in one scene!), and there is also a charming, spirited, good-natured performance by Eva La Rue, as the girl who tags along with the "boys". Plus, where else can you see the insides of a dragon lighted like a discotheque?? (***)

I suppose that any novel that's as much of a downer as Moby Dick would not find much favor with Depression era audiences who had enough of their own troubles. But any resemblance to the classic Herman Melville novel is a pure coincidence.
In fact half of the film is a prequel to the main story as we know it, not that too much of it was kept for the film. We first meet Ahab Creely (he's got a last name and a brother) as one happy go lucky soul with two legs and intentions to marry Joan Bennett who is Father Mapple's daughter. That brother Derek, played by Lloyd Hughes, also wants to marry Bennett.
John Barrymore is Ahab in an over the top performance. Barrymore had not quite mastered the sound cinema and he gave out with all the silent era histrionics plus a stage voice that would have shaken the rafters of any movie theater this film was playing in.
We see Ahab lose his leg to the great whale Moby Dick and I have to say the amputation scene was pretty gruesome. Of course this was all before the Code. Still I'm sure 1930 audiences shuddered.
After that the story of Ahab's hunt for the whale that he thinks made him unsightly in Joan Bennett's eyes. That is not exactly Melville's motivation, in fact there are no women characters in Moby Dick as he wrote it.
One of the things Melville did was invest the crew of Ahab's ship the Pequod with personalities. Other than Queequeg the cannibal harpooner the names are there, but not the personalities. Starbuck and Stubbs might as well be Smith and Jones.
I'd see this version of Moby Dick strictly for curiosity and nothing else.