Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
2054. Paris is an Escher drawing with people and vehicles scurrying along at multiple levels in an obvious homage to Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Paris is both ultramodern and crumbling into decay. And in the blink between surveillance sweeps, a pretty young medical researcher is kidnapped just after leaving her sister in a seedy nightclub. A tough police captain investigates. Shown in stark black and white, with the gloomy corridors, shadowy alleys and single source lighting characteristic of the most hard-boiled of film noir, comparisons to Sin City are inevitable. But the story owes more to Masamune Shirow and William Gibson than to Frank Miller, as high tech surveillance, near-invisible stealth suits and ruthless super-corporations are as much a part of the landscape as guns and cars. The film never quite generates the doom-laden atmosphere of Gibson's cyberpunk vision, with its tech-heavy marginal characters clashing with industrial types from corporations that all seem to have their own Ministry of Fear, but the viewer definitely gets the sense that future Paris is no Utopia and future science is less than benevolent. And as the police procedural plot line unfolds we are taken into the darker recesses of individual ambition beneath the shiny veneer of Avalon corporation's cultivated PR image. The motion capture process used here produces a look somewhere between B&W comic books and next generation rotoscoping, and is either captivating or intrusive depending on your tastes. Nevertheless, a great visual sense is on display here, and future Paris is filled in down to the tiny details giving the picture a unique look which is in turns both spartan and baroque. Worth a look.

this movie offers nothing but the dumbest conversations possible. as a matter of fact i most probably could not have imagined how meaningless a film, how synthetic the dialogs could be until an hour ago, but then again i saw this video. in a movie that does not depend on a powerful script, one expects to see at least good acting and tasty conversations and even some humor maybe, yet this movie lacks them all. you heard me it lacks them all. there is not a single point i like about this movie, none. i hate it. i'm sure anyone will do so too. the name is intended to give the target audience some thoughts of nudity and stuff, yet it fails even at the nudity. i don't know how but i beared to watch this thing for an hour or so, and i definitely recommend you don't do so. worst movie i've seen in my entire life. if someone offers you to watch it, ruuun awaaaaay saaaaaave your liiiiiiiiife
I was pleasantly surprised to find that How to Lose Friends and Alienate People was nowhere near as 'gross-out' a comedy as the trailer had led me to expect. I rapidly became absorbed in the unfolding of the narrative and remained engrossed throughout. Pacing of the more visual humorous content was, I thought, spot on. (I mean I got the impression I was witnessing Pegg's attempts at restoring lost control very much 'in real time', so to speak.) At other moments there was time allowed to share the main protagonists' (i.e. Pegg's and Dunst's) reflection on how events were affecting them and what had led them to where they now found themselves. All the characters were well cast, to some extent interesting in and of themselves, and generally quite likable. (Any apparent ruthless ambition displayed tended to be tempered by a corresponding good natured resilience.) An entertaining, intelligently scripted, brilliantly directed and superbly acted film that I would thoroughly recommend.

This film was the recipient of the 1990 Academy award for Best Animated Short Film. Over the last few weeks, I have seen dozens of the nominees and recipients of this award from the last 30 years and I really think that this film might just be the worst of them all--yet it wasn't just a nominee but it won!! I assume that 1989 must have just been a horrible year for the genre.
The film shows a group of characters that look a bit like super-skinny Uncle Festers. The appear to be simple articulated figures who are moved using stop motion animation. All are identical--with the same faces, bodies and clothes. The only difference is that each has a different number drawn on their backs. They are all standing on a large platform that is suspended, as if by magic, in space. Each has a pole and their is also a box on the platform. The platform begins tilting slightly and in response the men move about in an effort to balance the platform. This goes on and on and on and on for the longest time. The only relief from this tedium is when one of them acts rather nasty towards the end, but it just isn't enough to make this fun to watch in the least. Aside from passable stop motion animation, this short offers nothing of interest to me....NOTHING.
By the way, the great short KNICK KNACK also came out in 1989 and I have no idea why it was not among the nominees. It was a GREAT short and was far better than any of the nominees that year or the year before. Perhaps Pixar's success in previous years resulted in a bias against them, but KNICK KNACK is so clever and so funny it seems almost criminal to have ignored it. Could Pixar have not entered it? This seems unlikely.
Very rarely does one come across an indie comedy that leaves a lasting impression. Cross Eyed is a rare gem. The writer director not only tackled the challenge of directing his own work, but gives a hilarious performance as an evil roommate. The script takes an interesting look at not only the plight of the struggling writer, but mixes so much comedy into the desolate world of the writer that you can't help but commit to Ernie as a character. Very funny stuff. Despite the tiny budget Adam Jones manages to give the film a serious look. He's not messing around when it comes to making a good movie. I can't wait to see what he comes up with next. This guy can make people laugh and think; that's special.

The only reason i am bothering to comment on this movie is to save you all 97 minutes of your life and maybe your money.
I bought it ex-rental for £3.00, it looked interesting, so i took a chance.
Within minutes of turning it on i realised i'd made a mistake. The entire cast should be stored away until winter and then thrown on the nearest log fire, where they could meet more of their kind.
As for the Devin Hamilton (Writer and Director), he should just be shot, sadly this should have been done before he made this rubbish.
Avoid this film, If you see it in the shops run away.
1/10
The only reason I saw this movie was for Jimmy Fallon, who I've had a crush on since 9th grade, which was his first year on SNL. I am a die-hard Yankees fan, and I didn't find the movie painful until the last 15 minutes, when they begin showing clips of the ALCS games. I had to cover my ears and make small noises so I wouldn't have to hear that which must not be heard, but otherwise it was completely bearable.
I thought Jimmy played the role very well, because the character was supposed to be nervous and quirky, and he is a nervous and quirky guy. I know that it may not be a Academy Award-winning stretch, but the movie is just a light, fun, romantic comedy that is actually appropriate for both women and men to see.
Jimmy and Drew worked well together, and they had much better chemistry on camera than other actors in the past. (Ed Burns and Angelina Jolie in that stupid movie? What?) I think Jimmy has a positive career ahead of him, and thank goodness, because Taxi could have killed it. I think Fever Pitch will help him out a lot. Everyone needs to stop being so critical of his acting ability because he is just starting out in movies. I imagine it must be difficult, and if you look at any of the other great actors of our time (Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe, etc) you'll see that they started off in some flops. Busom Buddies? Australian soap operas? Here's wishing Jimmy a successful career on screen. I never wanted him to leave SNL but what can you do?

The plot is plausible but banal, i.e., beautiful and neglected wife of wealthy and powerful man has a fling with a psychotic hunk, then tries to cover it up as the psycho stalks and blackmails her. But, what develops from there is stupefyingly illogical. Despite the resources that are available to the usual couple who has money and influence, our privileged hero and heroine appear to have only one domestic, their attorney and local police (who say they can do nothing) at their disposal while they grapple with suspense and terror. They have no private security staff (only a fancy security system that they mishandle), household or grounds staff, chauffeurs, etc. Not even, apparently, the funds to hire private round-the-clock nurses to care for the hero when he suffers life-threatening injuries, leaving man and wife alone and vulnerable in their mansion. Our heroine is portrayed as having the brains of a doorknob and our hero, a tycoon, behaves in the most unlikely and irrational manner. The production is an insult to viewers who wasted their time with this drivel and a crime for having wasted the talents of veteran actors Oliva Hussey and Don Murray (what were they thinking?). And, shame on Lifetime TV for insulting the intelligence of its audience for this insipid offering.
The idea ia a very short film with a lot of information. Interesting, entertaining and leaves the viewer wanting more. The producer has produced a short film of excellent quality that cannot be compared to any other short film that I have seen. I have rated this film at the highest possible rating. I also recommend that it is shown to office managers and business people in any establishment. What comes out of it is the fact that people with ideas are never listened to, their voice is never heard. It is a lesson to be learned by any office that wants to go forward. I hope that the produced will produce a second part to this 'idea'. I look forward to viewing the sequence. Once again congrats to Halaqah media in producing a film of excellence and quality with a lesson in mind.

The plot line of No One Sleeps is not a bad idea, and the subject matter is of quite a bit of interest. But, throughout watching this film, we were saying aloud, "These filmmakers go to the trouble of finding good locations, the lighting is good, makeup and hair are good...why is the sound so bad?" Throughout the film the sound was echoy, garbled and much of the dialog was unintelligible.
There is some good acting in this film, and I think Jim Thalman is really a good actor. This story, with some of the same actors, would have been worth doing as a high-budget film.
I just can't reiterate enough - if you have a limited budget, dedicate more to good sound. Sound is as much a part of a film as the image, and it's worth doing right. Could've earned a 6.
A good picture is worth all the words. This film has the most poetic scene ever dreamed of about people with Down's syndrome. And I won't spoil it by telling you. You'll want to see it yourself.
Pasqual Duquenne is an amazing actor. I did not need to understand a single word he said to understand his meaning.
The film has a magic of it's own. After watching it I understood better that we put too much value on achievement and not enough on the people we love. Passion and simplicity is all we need.

One scene demonstrates the mentality of "Terminator Woman" pretty well: Karen Sheperd and another woman are trying to escape from the villain's camp. Karen runs across an armed guard, who points his gun at her, but after a few seconds throws it away and challenges her to a fight. Karen kicks him in the balls, picks up the gun and runs away! Then again, when a film is directed by a martial artist and written / produced by another member of his family, you know you shouldn't expect too much. Karen Sheperd and Jerry Trimble do get some amusing banter going early on, and the film might have turned out better if it had focused more on their love-hate relationship. But after about 20 minutes they get separated, and the film slows to a crawl, and even with the occasional fight scene to liven things up, it lacks excitement. The finale has Trimble fighting Qissi inside a cave and Sheperd going womano-a-womano against the beautiful Ashley Hayden on a speedboat, but the fights are intercut in a way that breaks their flow and diminishes their value. On the positive side, kudos to the costuming department for giving Karen the chance to show spectacular cleavage throughout the film! (*1/2)
I absolutely LOVED this Soap. It has been one of my favorite. Will highly recommend :)... I just love Brazilian soaps, they deal with real life events. I'm really sad that the soap ended but I'm sure I'll be able to find it somewhere. For those of you who have not seen it, please see it. I loved the characters, the plot and how things turned out in the end for the villains. The only thing I would have changed is the end for Xica and her long life love. I can't wait to see it again and highly recommend it. Xica has been by far, the best soap I have ever seen. Forget everything else :)GO XICA.. Hope you all like it as well.

Rock star John Norman Howard (Kris Kristofferson) turns lounge singer Esther Hoffman (Barbra Streisand) into an overnight singing star. Esther's star rises while John's goes into decline, thanks to drugs and alcohol. After about two hours, John does the self-destructive-red-converible-160-MPH-crack-up-on-a-desert-highway thing. The best thing about this movie is the music, especially the song, "Evergreen." Barbra Streisand sings well, but you can't take her seriously as an up-and-coming star, when she is *already* a star. The very first time she appears, singing in a back alley bar, she looks like an established singing star who is slumming for the night, not like a struggling unknown who is trying to launch her singing career. She is too confident, too professional. Her apartment looks like a page out of "Apartment Living," not some hole-in-the-wall apartment where a real struggling singer would live.
Kris Kristofferson handles the self-centered, out-of-control rock star role like...well, like a singer who is trying to be an actor but doesn't have much acting talent. The direction is tepid, the story is slow and dull.
But the worst thing about this movie is not the acting, or the lame direction, or the slow story. It's the hair! After staring at Kristofferson's and Streisand's awful 70's hairdos for 2+ hours, your eyes hurt.
This was the funniest piece of film/tape I have ever witnessed, bar none. I laughed myself sick the first three times I watched it. I recommend it to everyone, with the warning that if they can't handle the f-sharps to stay FAR away. At his best when telling stories from a kids point of view.

Wow, I knew this film was going to be bad but not this bad. Spoilerific comments ensue.
Roddy Roddy Piper is sickly sweet retired cop (cliche!), helping out everyone - smiling like a post-op lobotomy patient through-out and lamenting over his dead son. His adopted son returns from Armed Forces "Special Ops" and because he's "seen things" - portrayed by clenching his teeth if anyone mentions anything about the past. Time to clean up the streets from another guy who once knew Piper and his dead son (who the bad lad killed) and his adopted son.
Oh, the love interest is a pretty young lady who decides for no reason that she wants to jump the bones of the ex-Army bloke. This happens in about 2 minutes of 1 scene.
The action could have saved this film, but it's even worse than the storyline and acting. It's all been done before, it's all been done much much better (Ong-Bak is a prime example). This is the worst film I've ever seen - and I've seen Waterworld, twice.
Erm, the film is called HONOR (Spelt Wrong for the Americans) and the tag line has "from the makers of Bloodsport and Kickboxer" - check out Director David Worths other films and you'll soon realise why they put these 2 films on there, even though they are over 10 years old. Such classics as "Shark Attack 3: Megalodon" - says it all really.
I'll give you £10 if you don't go to see this film.
PS - Apologise for not know character names, tells you something though.
This movie is awesome for three main reasons. It is esthetically beautiful. I absolutely loved that. There is a bold color theme throughout the movie with extraordinary costumes and picturesque sets. A photography which looks very costly (and probably was not) completes the look . I always enjoy those stories about groups of misfits/loners coming together and becoming a family . Sometimes they fall into clichés but this one does not. This group of actors really portrays well flawed, yet extremely likable characters. Alan Larkin is the best (between him , the van and the road movie theme, I could not help but remember my favorite movie of last year Little Miss Sunshine) . I discovered Fabrizio Bentivoglio , very interesting actor, and just got annoyed a tiny little bit by Til Schweiger performance at times . The opening scene, all the scenes where they mess up their tricks are very funny. There is a mix of humor and emotion throughout the film. I like the end a lot. And of course it is all about the Magician theme . A good magician is making the audience look where he wants them to, to create an illusion. Which happens to be exactly what a movie director does and that's why they call it movie magic.

Unfortunately this film, 54 was a pathetic attempt of the true story of 'Studio 54.' The only thing that was good about the picture was 'Mike Myers' who was a joy to watch. 'Neve Cambpell,' although her role was little was unfortunately bad. The bottom line is that this film lacked a good performance from the actors, except one and that the conversion of the true story was a desperate attempt for a good screenplay.
Victor Nunez imbues this unsentimental tale of a young woman's emotional journey with a sense of poetry seldom seen in cinema. By poetry I mean the sense in which the literary and the cinematic come into play. There is something very literary about the film, almost as if a novel has been adapted page by page to screen. In this sense, the film achieves depths many cannot; but it is also rather slow at other times, undercutting the depths it once achieved in favor of ennui. The film's star Ashley Judd has not yet made a better film than her debut here. She fits the role of lead Ruby like a glove, almost as if she didn't have to act. She has true movie star presence in the film, and hasn't really managed to convey the same allure in her later films, although she was impressive in Normal Life.

Feeding The Masses was just another movie trying to make a little money off of the zombie craze that is going around, mostly due to the popularity of movies such as Land Of The Dead and the Resident Evil series.
It starts at a television station, which is guarded by the military, and are reporting that The Lazarus Virus (zombies) are close to containment and the city will soon be free to do their business again. The problem is, this is totally false. Zombies are running rampantly and only a small minority of people are aware. Among them are Torch (William Garberina), the camera man, Sherry (Rachael Morris), the lead anchor woman (who for some reason is listed as playing Shelly on this website) and Roger (Patrick Cohen), their military escort. Torch and Sherry are against lying to the people but the station is being run by secret service (or some other government agency) and they are heavily censored.
This movie gives itself a pat on the back on the box-cover saying "We hold FEEDING THE MASSES on a higher level than any o the three 'of the Dead' films by George A. Rombero." The source of that quote has lost ALL credibility with me.
Let me just say that this movie is BAD. I don't mean bad like I was expecting more (I obviously was, though) but I mean bad in that I could not find any redeeming qualities in the film, whatsoever. The acting in all parts are either over done or too wooden. Did anybody remember their lines or are they reading off of cue cards? I can't even think of what the best part of the movie was or the best actor/actress. There really was not one. If I had to give a nod to someone, I would say Roger, the military escort was probably the most interesting character but that is really not saying much.
I would have to recommend to pass on this movie, despite the box-cover looking pretty good (It's what originally drew me to the movie). 3/10
This movie rocks" Jen sexy as ever and Polly wow were we really ever that young this movie can still touch the hearts of a lot of teens it needs to be put on DVD soon or it will become a classic. i Really enjoyed growing up to this movie i have always had a crush on Jen now i am too old but to this movie is made for all gens> you know i come from the early 80,s area were i Had to watch everyone els live the life i wanted but thru movies i can do that all over again i guess in short i am hoping and wishing that this movie not be lost in time but reborn to the youth so they may enjoy the heart warm filling you get learning about hormones and datting problems and how to get away with stuff that seems so major back then but don't mean nothan now so this movie is a dating tool.

An awful film! It must have been up against some real stinkers to be nominated for the Golden Globe. They've taken the story of the first famous female Renaissance painter and mangled it beyond recognition. My complaint is not that they've taken liberties with the facts; if the story were good, that would perfectly fine. But it's simply bizarre -- by all accounts the true story of this artist would have made for a far better film, so why did they come up with this dishwater-dull script? I suppose there weren't enough naked people in the factual version. It's hurriedly capped off in the end with a summary of the artist's life -- we could have saved ourselves a couple of hours if they'd favored the rest of the film with same brevity.
Deodato brings us some mildly shocking moments and a movie that doesn't take itself too seriously. Absolutely a classic in it's own particular kind of way. This movie provides a refreshingly different look at barbarians. If you get a chance to see this movie do so. You'll definitely have a smile on your face most of the time. Not because it's funny or anything mundane like that but because it's so bad it goes out the other way and becomes good, though maybe not clean, fun.

Did I miss something here? This "adaptation" has everything that Brookmyres first novel had. Everything apart from the story, the laughs, the black humour, the political intrigue, the characterisations, the plot, and some semblance of sense.
Spoilers;
Godamnawful, from beginning to end. They made a mockery of the plot, they had a romance between Parablane and a cop, and what was that all about, Dr Slaughter was portrayed as a bystander, and who the hell was Annette Crosby supposed to be?
It looked like they had made a three hour adaptation, then chopped it down to 90 minutes. (Even though the 90 minutes seemed to last forever.) Please, please, do not do this to any other of Brookmyres books, (especially "Country of the blind.)