Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
SYNOPSIS The future as seen from 1939 England. As war loomed over Europe, the salvation of mankind will not be found in the politics of the past. It is up to the brave new world of science to overcome man's past mistakes.
CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER Beware your leaders and what you are told. Thinking outside the box can lead to a brighter tomorrow. There will always be descent and fear, and learning to overcome it is our only hope.
PROS AND CONS I had seen this film long ago and recently downloaded it off of the internet (it is in the public domain). This is a fascinating work on numerous levels. Since it is a story about the future as seen from 1939, it has obvious flaws. This vision of the future is both terrifying and whimsical. This film was cutting edge for its day. The special effects are very good as is the story line. The acting suffers a bit in the British theatrical sense, in that it can lean a bit toward Shakespeare.
One of the underlying themes of the film is that science and technology can solve all our problems, which we now know is not always true. The films other plot line is that charismatic leaders are a curse of human existence and will probably always be with us.
The underpinnings of almost all later science fiction movies can be seen in this film. The set design and wardrobe of "Forbidden Planet", the failings of technology in "2001: A Space Odessy", even the lush landscapes / cityscapes of "Star Wars" owe some amount of inspiration to this film.
The ending of the film leaves the viewer a bit perplexed. While it is optimistic in its ending sequence of reaching for the stars, we are left to wonder if mankind will ever be able to make it. Even as we reach, there are those that are trying to hold us back. This films vision of the future while interesting is also a bit humorous by todays standards. Huge flying machines and guns that could shoot people into space never materialized in the real world, but in 1939 they were considered the next logical step.
Many great British actors are in this film as young men. Cedric Hardwicke and Ralph Richardson are the most recognized and their oratory skills are evident here. Raymond Massey is a curious choice to play the lead character, Cabel. His character almost comes across as the new Christ sent to save the world from its own destruction with the new religion of science.
This is a good piece of cinema history whose themes are still relevant today even if its vision of the future missed the mark.

Portly nice guy falls for a luscious blonde; she likes him too, but not for the reasons you might think. Little-seen black comedy from writer Pat Proft features very good performances by Joe Alaskey and Donna Dixon, yet it makes no lasting impact. It's just a quickie throwaway effort, helmed by Norman Bates himself, Anthony Perkins. Even on the level of B-comedies, the somewhat-similar "Eating Raoul" is a better bet. There's definitely an amusing set-up here; unfortunately, the picture has nowhere to go in its second act. An interesting try, but it misfires.
** from ****
`Stanley and Iris' is a heart warming film about two people who find each other and help one another overcome their problems in life. Stanley's life is difficult, because he never learned to read or write. Iris is a widower with two teenage children working in a bakery where she meets Stanley. She decides to teach Stanley how to read at her home in her spare time. Over time they become romantically involved. After Stanley learns to read, he goes off to a good job in Chicago, only to return to Iris and ask her to marry him.
It's a really good film without nudity, violence, or profanity, that which is rare in today's films. A good film all round.

Although i had heard this film was a little dry, I watch whatever Scott Bakula is in. At the start of this film I had high hopes for the classic cheesy but enjoyable Scott-gets-girl ending and until 20 minutes before the end it was going great. The plot twist was crazy and unexpected and very clever. I kept my fingers crossed that it would work out and it would all be some horrible misunderstanding, right up until when the credits rolled and I realised that there was not going to be a happy and contented ending. Unfortunately i was left regretting that i'd watched it and hurriedly putting on some quantum leap to restore my faith in the goodness of the Great Scott!
Utterly brilliant. Powerful and evocative. The most compelling documentary series ever made concerning war. It's tone offers a stark contrast to the often gung-ho attitude towards World War 2 that the media exhibits. Rather than opting for screaming about the horror of war, it allows Sir Laurence Olivier's quiet voice to take a back seat to the true images of war: corpses everywhere, explosions, terrified citizens and soldiers, broken men, indifferent politicians, mistakes that cost thousands of lives, the suffering of the innocents. Most of all it truly brings home that mankind is capable of when all normal rules of "civility" are removed. There is something distinctly Hobbesian about man in a true state of nature, he will return to a more beastly form capable of crimes that will still shock and fascinate 60 years on. Perhaps there could be a follow up series called "The century at war" for the twentieth century was truly the century of horrors. I feel it is an irony of immense magnitude that it took an event which caused the death of 50 million people to produce such a compelling and excellent series such as this.

Movies like these are to the originals what Album Oriented Rock stations are to what music used to be like - repetitive, boring, and drained of all the original energy by a committee of corporate drones. I AM glad that Aragorn wasn't typecast as an expectant psycho by this P.O.S. Go back and watch the 1971 version, count the things that would NEVER be included in a modern version, and thank whatever deity you worship that someone somewhere in the distant past had the balls to write and shoot an original concept movie that wasn't based on someone else's ideas, and wasn't passed through a corporate board before it saw the light of day.
I keep watching this movie over and over and over. I have to watch it at least once a week. I am from Africa and looking at that movie taught me some things that I didn't even know about Africa. Denzel's movies are all full of lessons for people of walks of life. I wish he was my own brother. I have also seen and love your Masala Mississipi. What a thrilling situation. When Denzel was trying to hook his brother up on the job, reminds me of my teen ages when my brother was always mad with me about getting myself busy all the time. My brother was always caring for my old father and he wants to see me the same way too. By the way where did Denzel get that African accent from in the Cry Freedom movie? I have first seen that movie in Africa and I didn't know then that Denzel was American till I moved down here.

I'm sorry but this is just plain pathetic. The little girl was a brat, their were no enjoyable characters and the plot sucked. Besides it wasn't even a gator as the film would like us to believe. If you check out any complete guide to reptiles you will find that it really is a Crocodile, not a gator. Obviously they didn't hire a real animal expert or they would know that the creature is a croc. It is a sad excuse for a movie. Especially the ending. I nearly fell asleep with this one.
In watching this early DeMille work, it was once again reinforced to me that early DeMille is far superior to late DeMille. His attention to use of light within scenes is remarkable. His pacing is very good, enabling much to be told in the space of an hour or so. It is a pity that he wasn't as intuitive about the style of his later sound films as he seemed to be in his silent films.
This was the first film in which I had seen Cleo Ridgely. She was remarkable, quite restrained and yet conveyed a broad spectrum of emotions.
The ending is wonderful.

I thought that this movies was a letdown I expected it to be so much better than it was. I am so glad I didn't pay to see this movie and that I didn't sit in a movie theater for this one. Where to begin on this movie, the acting in this movie was average, the humor was terrible and just the overall storyline of this movie wasn't special. I thought that this movie was suppose to be great, but it wasn't more than a cheesy waste of time. I think that the acting in this movie was terrible no of the actors in this movie had chemistry, it just wasn't there. I think that if maybe we had a different actor play Kirk than Jay Baruchel it might have been better but the entire time I watched this movie he looked high and I didn't get the feeling that he wasn't acting in this movie. Now, Alice Eve did a great job as an actress but, there was no chemistry between her and Jay. All the actors in this movie were no names and had very little affect in this movie. The humor in this movie was not funny at all, there were a few one liners in this movie that were OK but nothing worth saying to your friends that they would understand. I think that Jim Field Smith had a hard time with this because he couldn't decide if he wanted a romance or a comedy. I honestly think he needs to stick with the Burger King commercials. I think that this movie could have been better if the writers would have gone to a different director. The storyline of this movie is just like every other hot girl just OK guy love storyboring I think that it would have been better if it had more originality, but what a letdown nothing. I honesty would not recommend anyone go see this movie. I think that you would have more entertainment at the dentist than at this movie. So save yourself the agony and just don't see it.
In my opinion, this is a good example of the movie that could have been much better if it had been short 10 years earlier. I doubt it would benefit from modern technologies, but it would have looked much better if it was at least 90 minutes instead of 70.
The artists and animated did a great job. In my opinion, this movie can boast the best background art and one of the best character design. Animation are extremely smooth and realistic. For the duration of the movie you believe in the world you see, so everyone did a great job. It can also boast one of the sexiest female animated characters, if not the sexiest, that beets typical anime girls with ease.
Unfortunately, there are a couple of bad thins about this movie that will make it not so appealing at the moment. First, the plot and execution is comparable to contemporary adventure movies, and is really old-fashioned by modern standards. Second, due to the duration time it would benefit a lot from extra 20 minutes of dialogs. Finally, the setting is not so popular at the moment.
Conclusion: a great alternative to another short story about Conan the Barbarian, but not to a novel.

The remake of H.B. Halicki's classic seventies chase film is simply horrible. Along with Vanishing Point, Gone in 60 Seconds represent the quintessential car chase films. The remake takes the original and stands it on its head. Whereas Halicki gave us 75% car chase and 25% supporting drama, in GISS 2000 we get 25% car chase and 75% supporting drama. Cage as super man, saves his brother, kisses the girl. MTV edits, tits and ass. Save your money, rent the original. At least Halicki didn't live to see his baby (he wrote, produced, directed, and starred in the '74' film) degraded in this manner.
A true hero of modern times , Chuck Norris has left TV "Walker , Rexas Ranger ", and is looking new steps for his artistic career. The President´s man is the second movie of a future TV series , with Norris in the title role, and with young actors like Jennifer Tung or Judson Mills ( one of the young rangers of "Walker " ) . The old master teachs to young aspirant . It´s one of the most powerful themes of "The president´s man ". In this tima, "A line in the sand " has reached world surprise for his tratment of terrorism in USA , months before the tragic September 11. Eric Norris, son of Chuck is the director . The movie is amusing, a good action work , plenty of fights and heroism . Chuck Norris have many plans for the future . Bells of innocence , his next picture, will be the following.

To say this film stinks would be insulting to skunks. As the other commenter says, this movie is insulting to anyone over the mental age of 7 (it is especially, incredibly insulting to gays). It is awful - and not in a "so bad it's funny" sort of way either - it's just plain awful. No, I have to say it: IT STINKS! (sorry skunks).
From the opening credits to the end titles there is hardly more than 10 seconds of this movie worth opening your eyes for. The "plot" is incoherent, the characterization non-existent, the acting is of the over the top mugging "look at me I'm being funny!" school and so it goes on. The set pieces are clumsily set up (if at all) and are badly executed, it's just awful on every front - apart from the music maybe, I don't remember thinking the music stinks (apart from the songs).
To be fair to the makers, they lay their cards on the table pretty quickly: the opening credits include the title "Also starring Ertha Kitt as the voice of Betty the meteor" (since as the meteor in question turns out never never say anything but make an occasional purring noise they may well have lifted Ms. Kitt's contribution from one of her records) and the second line of the movie runs something like: "...and scientists have discovered new facts about the rings around Uranus." Uranus - "Your Anus" geddit? geddit? huh? huh?? Your Anus? The humour really is that cheap.
It says strange things about the "comedies" of that period in that it was perfectly permissable for the hero to deliberately shoot people dead in the street but not say "sh*t" out loud.
I paid fifty pence (about $1.00) for this movie in a sale. I feel ripped off.
The literary genius of Vladimir Navokov is brought to the screen again and many in the cultured world will take notice. The director puts us in check mate with the story of Alexander, an absentminded chaplinesque study of chess addiction. Nastasya is vacationing in a marble columned resort where a chess championship is being hosted. She meets Alexander by picking up a queen piece he drops thru his coat pocket. A magnetic attraction evolves whereby he proposes the next day, the mother alarmed telegrams the husband. He arrives and questioning Alexander we get these fades to the past, ala' Godfather II, where we see young Alexander, a child prodigy. He is taken under a school teachers wing and exploits his genius for 10 yrs making vast sums. Thinking Alexander reached his peak, abandons him but becomes legend. The old teacher returns causing harm, trying to give victory to an old rival of Alexander. In a serious chess game where World Chess Champion victory is one way to immortality, the chess clock ticks, match time ends to conclude the next day. That day is Nastasya's wedding, the old teacher interferes and Alexander is sent on a nervous breakdown. Nastasya, holding her stomach and looking thru her love's coat finds his strategy for the match and follows the moves. Though the film unfortunately sways from its Russian roots, its low back cut dresses are lovely, Alexander plays his role sublimely.The director underestimated her audience, we hardly ever get to play and the only hint of The Luzhin Defense is after trading queens, isolate the opponents King with your 3 paws & King, sacrificing the castle for mate. Nastasya is a great match, but feel its conclusion deserved more intensity, but maybe the emotions were right on check for chess meant more to him than her. The Luzhin Defense elegantly gives Navokov honor, the complexity of his work in images is a world event not to be missed.

I saw this film last night following a lot of good reviews from many sources. I would like to point out that if your not ready to try and work out continuously who is who and what it all means you will hate this film.
I am still struggling to understand the roles of the actors in this film, the film jumps from different stories and does not allow you to really empathise with any of the roles.
For the political buff's and those interested in corruption in other world governments out there this film is probably quite good, but to the average movie watcher this film is awkward,very boring in places and you will leave the cinema confused and annoyed that you paid the entrance fee.
see it if your ready to focus 100% on every minute detail or politics interest you. don't see it, if you actually like watching films.
The first installment of this notorious horror series presents a woman being kidnapped by a gang of black-clad men who torture her for several days before finally killing her.She is beaten savagely,spun around in the chair endlessly,has her finger nails pulled,animal guts are thrown at her,hot boiling water is poured on her and finally her eyeball is punctured with a needle(really sick and nasty scene).The makers of this unforgettable torture show tried to make it as real as possible and for me this one is the closest thing to a snuff film you can get without committing murder on tape.Of course some of the special effects are rather poor but the idea of making a snuff is pretty gruesome.I have seen also "Flowers of Flesh and Blood" which is more gory and sadistic,but less disturbing.Anyway,this one is a must-see for horror fans!

Check out the film's website, more time was put into making that than in the writing of the script for this movie. It couldn't be more off in it's boasting. Original story? Original? They must have found the script tucked away between the old testament, or face legal repercussion for that bit of horn-tooting. High-end special effects? Come on, I could do better with an Atari 7600 and a jug of earwax. Stylish cinematography? Oh yes, the America's funniest home video look is still a classic. I'm sure they had little money available for this title, so of course the sf aren't really that good, or a bit bad now and then, or just plain hilarious, but it's the story that makes this film a waste of time and money. 4 stories rolled into one and all of them brainless bits of seen-befores and done-already's.
Joseph H. Lewis was one of the finest directors of film noir. This is surely his best.
It doesn't have some of the standard features of what we now call film noir. Though American-made, it is set entirely in England. It lacks gangsters. It lacks a femme fatale. It does not lack crime.
The title character answers an ad. She is overjoyed that she'll be making some money as a secretary. Instead, she wakes up days later as the pawn in a frightening plot. Only a very strong person could survive such a terrifyingly unsettling ordeal. And Nina Foch gives the sense of a strong woman as Julia.
Part of the excitement comes from casting against type: Ms. Foch has an elegant manner. She is no screaming, cowering victim. She is actually a bit icy and patrician, albeit impecunious. This makes her character's plight all the more believable.
Surely the single most fascinating element is the casting of Dame May Witty. She was (and is) probably most famous for the charming title character in "The Lady Vanishes." She has a sweet manner and a harmless, slightly dithering manner. But here she is far from a heroine.
George Macready is excellent as her extremely troubled son. The whole cast, in fact, is superb.
It seems that this famous and brilliant movie was made almost by accident. Undoubtedly the director knew exactly what he was doing. But he did it on a low budget. That is the thrill and charm of film noir, the real film noir: It is small, convincingly lowlife, and, in this case, unforgettable.

Hopalong Cassidy with a horse who is not white & not named Topper? Go figure!
This travesty does a gross injustice to the greatest of all cowboy heroes, Hopalong Cassidy. The actor who plays him is young versus old, blond haired versus white haired and kills people versus shooting the gun out of their hands. Will the real Hopalong please stand up!
One of the worst movies ever made &,believe it or not, by the person who brought us the Grandfather saga!
You know? Our spirit is based on that revolution, it's asleep... I can explain, I think!! Well... Until that happen on 25th April 1974, our freedom was limited, we didn't had liberty of speech, but when we got it at the revolution, it seems that Portuguese People lost his opinion, we don't use our liberty of speech! That's all a consequence of the revolution! I think that's clear!... About the movie... I think that it has a few mistakes on some character's acting, but by the way I use to watch on Portuguese movies it's quite good!! I like it very much!

OK, not possibly, honestly the worst movie i've ever seen.
this made absolutely no sense, there was no plot, no characterization, no acting, just nothing.
here's what i thought when i first saw it may 28th, 2003 **caution, this is a spoiler alert. it's also alot of me complaining about how bad the movie is::
ok so the movie begins and the characters are introduced, but there is no character explanation. as far as i knew the main character was new to this school, but apparently not. also it appeared that he lived by himself... then that he was a foster kid... then that his mother was a raging alcoholic who lived with him still. also all his friends apparently had no parents and lived by themselves.
now we come to a main plot point, this insane guy has broken out of the insane asylum and is running rampant. now our main character is obsessed with this guy and focus' intently on him for the contingency of the movie. i think i must have missed a main plot element here, there was no REASON for the main character to get hooked. even if that's the point, having no reason, why do all his friends, who are skeptical like 5 minutes before, suddenly follow him and do what he wants.
so the movie continues on, and it gets all right. they're running havoc on the school, blah blah blah. but wait a minute... suddenly everyone knows that the main character is running the 'show' here. wait a second, didn't the insane guy specifically tell the main character NOT to do that? it was supposed to be anynomous.
ah another important plot element has been skipped over... the insane guy was supposed to not be insane... everyone said he wasn't insane. but as the story goes on, he is VERY CLEARLY OUT OF HIS MIND. but i thought the news people said he wasn't... hm...
now the movie comes to a close. THAT WAS THE CLOSE? WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT? not only did the ending not answer any questions about the main character, it didn't answer any questions about the insane guy. are these people in the same situation? if yes, then there are some very basic story lines that do not tend to this. if no then what is the point in saying "that's you in two weeks."??
*end of the thing...*
that's what i thought then. that is pretty much what i still think now. it's 6 months down the line, and if i can get it for free, i might give it another chance, but i doubt it. i highly doubt it.