Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Oh, those sneaky Italians. It's not the first time they based a movie on source material without the permission or knowledge of the, in this case, author of the novel. Of course this is not something that is typically Italian but got done quite a lot in the early days of cinema, mostly because they often thought they would be able to get away with it. James M. Cain's publishers managed to keep this movie off American screens until 1976 but nevertheless the movie itself has grown a bit into a well known classic.
The movie is not as great to watch as the 1946 American version but it's a great movie nevertheless. This of course not in the least is due to the movie it's great strong story, that is an intriguing one and provides the movie with some great characters and realism. It follows the novel quite closely and is therefore mostly the same as other movie versions of its story, with of course as a difference that it got set in an Italian environment.
Leave it up to the Italians to make a movie about life and the real people in it. These early drama's always have a very realistic feeling over it and are therefore also quite involving to watch. Unfortunately the movie lost some of its power toward the end, when the movie started to feel a bit overlong and dragging in parts. The movie could had easily ended 15 minutes earlier.
Nevertheless, I don't really have much else negative to say about this movie. It's simply a greatly made one, based on some equally great and strong source material. Quite an impressive directorial debut for Luchino Visconti, who continued to direct some many more great and memorable Italian dramatic movies.
8/10

As a "Jane Eyre" fan I was excited when this movie came out. "At last," I thought, "someone will make this book into a movie following the story actually written by the author." Wrong!!! If the casting director was intending to cast a "Jane" who was plain he certainly succeeded. However, surely he could have found one who could also act. Where was the tension between Jane and Rochester? Where was the spooky suspense of the novel when the laughter floated into the night seemingly from nowhere? Where was the sparkle of the child who flirted and danced like her mother? Finally, why was the plot changed at the end? One wonders whether the screenwriters had actually read the book. What a disappointment
This Movie was amazing, it is the kind of movie where you watch it and rather than look at other movies by actor you look at other movies by director/ writer. Sandler did a good job working a character outside of his comfort zone and the always good Cheadle did a great job too. This movie is great for a mature intelligent audience. The acting was fantastic and can only be surpassed by the Writing and directing of the film. This film focuses on the real Americans, the past generation, no stereotypes or Racism just people who have come together and realized the true meaning of life. This film is about loss and coping. Instead of picking on Psychiatry, it defines it, not as someone who heals you magically, but rather through the necessity of talking out your feeling to an impartial someone you can trust will not judge you, but rather will guide you though your thoughts. This movie is all round amazing!

I will never forget the night I saw this movie. We were on a submarine on patrol in the North Atlantic and this was the scheduled movie of the evening. We ALL gave up after the second reel. They did not even try to show it at the mid-night showing. Opting for a rerun instead...... This is all I really have to say but they have this stupid rule that my comment must contain ten lines. I'm not supposed to pad the comment with random words so I will just continue to ramble until I get my ten lines of BS. I could not find George Goble listed in the credits but I remember him in the movie. The sining was terrible and the songs even worse.
Despite some reviews being distinctly Luke-warm, I found the story totally engrossing and even if some critics have described the love story as 'Mills and Boon', so what? It is good to see a warm, touching story of real love in these cynical times. Many in the audience were sniffing and surreptitiously dabbing their eyes. You really believe that the young Victoria and Albert are passionately fond of each other, even though, for political reasons, it was an arranged marriage. I did feel though that Sir John Conroy, who was desperate to control the young Queen, is perhaps played too like a pantomime villain. As it is rumoured that he was in fact, the real father of Victoria (as a result of an affair with her mother The Duchess of Kent) it would have been interesting to explore this theory. Emily Blunt is totally convincing as the young Princess, trapped in the stifling palace with courtiers and politicians out to manipulate her. She brilliantly portrays the strength of character and determination that eventually made Victoria a great Queen of England, which prospered as never before, under her long reign. I believe word of mouth recommendations will ensure great success for this most enjoyable and wonderful looking movie.

This is just a butchering of a wonderful story by Edwin Torres. This movie doesn't follow the storyline in the book. And, there are so many inconsistencies with the original movie that you have to wonder if the screenwriter had even seen the first movie.
Al Pacino (the original and still the best Carlito) gets out of prison at the start of the original one. Here, Carlito retires with his woman in paradise.
What happened to Gail from Lorain, Ohio? In this installment, she isn't mentioned, and Carlito retires with and presumably will marry some other girl.
Also, where is Kleinfeld? I think he was in the first book.
I also like how Mr. Guzman plays a totally different character in this film. He was Pachanga back in the Pacino days. Now, he is Nacho Reyes, a killer from Cuba. I remember that Nacho Reyes had a much bigger role in the book.
It's been a while since I read the book, but where did Sean Comb's character come from? Also, I think this movie really glosses over the racial tensions in Harlem that Torres was writing about. And, the mob doesn't get the treatment that they did in the book. They are also wiped out in this movie. But, magically the Pleasant Avenue bunch is around for the second movie.
The book told a great story. This movie could have told a great story. This is just a huge disappointment. Read the book. It's a better use of your time.
I had fun watching Red Eye. It's not a masterpiece, but it's well directed and structured. Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams are perfect in the role. Yes, it's the same old story with a different setting but Wes Craven gave it a good pace. At least not another Scream with the usual college killer. It's nice when you can see a clean, coherent thriller even when originality doesn't stand out as its main character. Particularly from a film-maker like Craven that has brought so many innovative ideas to the thriller and horror genre in the past and that now just lends himself to bringing home what could have been a good TV movie had it not been released theatrically. Good job!

I've written at least a half dozen scathing reviews of this abysmal little flick and none get published, so I must opine that someone at imdb.com really likes this awful movie. The idea that a bunch of oilmen can resurrect a military tank that has set in the desert for over a decade, and make a fighting machine of it again is ludicrous. So is the acting and direction. Pass on it.
This, the finest achievement from Georg Wilhelm Pabst's Social Realism period is based upon a tragedy in early 1906 that claimed the lives of nearly 1100 French miners as a coal dust explosion deep in mines at Courrieres in northern France took place after a fire had smouldered for three weeks, eventually releasing deadly pit gas that brought about the fatalities. Estimable designer Erno Metzner creates stark sets that simulate the tragedy, providing a perception of reality, augmented by matchless sound editing, with the only music being produced by integral orchestras during the beginning and ending portions of a work for which aural effects possess equal importance with the eminent director's fascinating visual compositions. Pabst's manner of "invisible editing" that segues action from shot to shot through movements of players proves to be smoothly integrated within this landmark film that also showcases sublime cinematography utilizing cameras mounted upon vehicles, enabling the director to shift amid scenes without having a necessity of cutting. Although the work's cardinal theme relates to Socialist dogma, the unforgettable power of this film is held in its details, born of Pabst's nonpareil skill at weaving numerous plot lines into a cinema tapestry that stirs one to admiration for German rescue squads of whom their Fatherland is greatly proud while no less despairing of disastrous losses to the families of French victims; certainly, a seminal triumph fully as stimulating today to a cineaste as it was at the time of its first release.

first of all let's start out by saying that Robert Englund Doug Bradley and Melinda Clark should be commended for having to be associated with this piece of drivel. i had to give this a 1 it wouldn't let me give it a zero. wanna know how bad this movie is? my mom calls me from across town and tells me "son, i just watched the stupidest movie ever. i responded as saying "the killer tongue huh?" she was like how did you know that? that's how bad this movie is. i mean it looked like a good movie at first Freddy pinhead Melinda. okay i'll give it a chance. i sat through the rest of this movie only because i wrote a column for reviews of horror movies. i implore you, don't waste your time money or even brain cells on this ludicrous piece of crap. run away. far away. if you see it on the shelf at Hollywood video blockbuster or even your local video store, turn it around and walk away....and i still want my two hours back dang it
I've read some terrible things about this film, so I was prepared for the worst. "Confusing. Muddled. Horribly structured." While there may be merit to some of these accusations, this film was nowhere near as horrific as your average DVD programmer. In fact, it actually had aspirations. It attempted something beyond the typical monster/slasher nonsense. And by god, there are some interesting things going on.
Ms. Barbeau is a miracle to behold. She carries the film squarely on her shoulders.
This is not to say that it's a masterpiece. UNHOLY ultimately collapses under the weight of its own ambition. There are just too many (unexplained) subplots trying to coexist. And the plot loopholes created by time travel are never really addressed: for example, if Hope knows that her mother is evil and that she will ultimately kill her brother, then why doesn't she just kill Ma in the film's very first sequence? Seems like it would have beat the hell out of traveling into the future to do it.
Still, I give UNHOLY points for trying. A little ambition is not a bad thing.

Charles Bronson continued his 80's slump with what could possibly be his worst movie of the decade, if not ever. In it he plays a detective who goes to great lengths to track down a pimp who has abducted an Asian girl and is currently selling her to the highest bidder. It's a shameful attempt at action and is quite possibly the most depressing movie ever made. A lot of people consider the Death Wish sequels to be Bronson's worst movies. The Death Wish sequels weren't great movies but were in most cases competently made and very watchable. Kinjite however is an utterly dull thriller which is punctuated by mean spirited racism and child molestation. It really is a rephrensible film and all of it is made worse by the fact that it tries to preach a "Law and Justice" mentality that is too overwrought to really say anything. Indeed the movie begins with underage sex being interrupted with Bronson then anally raping the pedophile with a dildo. The Chicago theater I watched this in just gasped at the awkwardness of this scene, only to gasp at the awkwardness of the pimp raping the girl in this film. It has no point other than to exploit and really the movie wasn't well written enough to rise above the exploitation level and deliver something that would work. Bronson seems more into things but clearly this is far too repugnant to save. I want to point out that I think Charles Bronson is the coolest actor ever but this effort is ultimately his worst. The action sequences are poor also.
1/2* out of 4-(Awful)
Great voices, lots of adventure and clever dialogue make this a very good movie. The addition of "character" to the three lead animals gives the story a lot more depth and meaning, particularly the relationship between the older fellow, Shadow, and the young hellraiser, Chance. The earlier versions of this film were unable to give the animals any real personality or motive, which is done perfectly here. Sally Field is lovable in anything, but really shines in this film as the proud feline, Sassy. Great contrast between cat and dog perspectives on life, and just the right amount of spirit and warm fuzzies to make the plot and resolution excellent. There's even an uplifting score and beautiful mountain scenery. Definitely perfect for an evening alone or with the kids. Hats off to Disney.

This mess is so bad it doesn't even qualify as horror.
Debbie Rochon's talent is completely wasted in this film. She is not even the villain. The rest of the actors look like porno wannabes and the plot is so lame I won't even mention it.
Do yourself a favor and skip to the end credits to hear upcoming band TwoMarlowe perform "Better Than Sex" it's total 80's Disco candy song. Nice up tempo song about Gambleing & Sex. Way more entertaining than "Bleed". Put it this way, When one has the equipment to copy videos, but decides only to record the song at the end of movie, you have a really "BAD" movie.
Don't waste time reading my review. Go out and see this astonishingly good episode, which may very well be the best Columbo ever written! Ruth Gordon is perfectly cast as the scheming yet charming mystery writer who murders her son-in-law to avenge his murder of her daughter. Columbo is his usual rumpled, befuddled and far-cleverer-than-he-seems self, and this particular installment features fantastic chemistry between Gordon and Falk. Ironically, this was not written by heralded creators Levinson or Link yet is possibly the densest, most thoroughly original and twist-laden Columbo plot ever. Utterly satisfying in nearly every department and overflowing with droll and witty dialogue and thinking. Truly unexpected and inventive climax tops all. 10/10...seek this one out on Netflix!

I wasn't particularly impressed by this movie that has lackluster music and only lasts 40 minutes. Thank God, because I was falling asleep. I makes excellent use of time lapse photography to display the passage of time in the movement of light and shadow, people, water, clouds, etc. Unfortunately, that's all it is.
My preference is for its predecessor, the excellent Koyaanisqatsi made in 1983 at 87 minutes and to prove that a sequel can be better than the original, Powaqqatsi made in 1988 running 90 minutes.
Try them both.
Part Two picks up... not where the last film left off. As part of the quasi-conventionality of Steven Soderbergh's epic 4+ hour event, Che's two stories are told as classic "Rise" and "Fall" scenarios. In Part Two, Che Guevara, leaving his post as a bureaucrat in Cuba and after a failed attempt in the Congo (only in passing mentioned in the film), goes down to Bolivia to try and start up another through-the-jungle style revolution. Things don't go quite as well planned, at all, probably because of Che's then notorious stature as a Communist and revolutionary, and in part because of America's involvement on the side of the Bolivian Government, and, of course, that Castro wasn't really around as a back-up for Che.
As it goes, the second part of Che is sadder, but in some ways wiser than the first part. Which makes sense, as Guevara has to endure low morale from his men, betrayals from those around him, constant mistakes by grunts and nearby peasants, and by ultimately the enclosing, larger military force. But what's sadder still is that Guevara, no matter what, won't give in. One may see this as an incredible strength or a fatal flaw- maybe both- but it's also clear how one starts to see Che, if not totally more fully rounded, then as something of a more sympathetic character. True, he did kill, and executed, and felt justified all the way. And yet it starts to work on the viewer in the sense of a primal level of pity; the sequence where Guevara's health worsens without medicine, leading up to the shocking stabbing of a horse, marks as one of the most memorable and satisfying of any film this year.
Again, Soderbergh's command of narrative is strong, if, on occasion, slightly sluggish (understandable due to the big running time), and one or two scenes just feel totally odd (Matt Damon?), but these are minor liabilities. Going this time for the straight color camera approach, this is almost like a pure militia-style war picture, told with a great deal of care for the men in the group, as well as Guevara as the Lord-over this group, and how things dwindle down the final scene. And as always, Del-Toro is at the top of his game, in every scene, every beat knowing this guy so well- for better and for worse- that he comes about as close to embodiment as possible. Overall, the two parts of Che make up an impressive package: history as drama in compelling style, good for an audience even if they don't know Che or, better, if they don't think highly of him. It's that special. 8.5/10

I can not believe I wasted my money to rent this movie. I thought it was a porn flick when it started and it never got any better. The acting, the music drowning out the actors. Horrible. Save your money! You have to read the movie all the way through b\c they knew the music would drowned out the speaking lines. I never got the part about the slaughterhouse or the need to continue to show cows and pigs being butchered. What did that have to do with the "real" BTK killer? I understand why there were no famous actors\actresses in this movie. The script would have turned me away within the first page of reading. You would be better off watching paint dry.
I just watched Holly along with another movie about trafficking and child sexual exploitation called Trade at Film by the Sea international film festival. I have to say that Holly blew Trade out of the water.
Holly is a powerful and amazing film on many different levels. From purely an artistic and cinematic perspective, it is amazing. The sound-mixing, camera angles, directing and acting are all spot on.
Additionally, the way it handles the subject matter is tasteful and non-exploitative. It presents the issue of child sexual exploitation in a way that is both educational and accurate. The filmmakers paid an exquisite amount of attention to detail, truly capturing the nuances of the epidemic of child sexual exploitation and trafficking. Too often when dealing with a subject matter of this kind, it is tempting to shock the audience with graphic scenes of rape, and violence. Holly is able to achieve all of this without falling into that typical Hollywood trend.
I've had the pleasure of seeing Holly at two separate film festivals, once in the US and once in Netherlands. I can honestly say that I have never seen audiences more moved. Just listening to conversations after the screening, people are asking what they personally can do to fight child sexual exploitation.
I highly recommend it to everyone, both for its cinematic value and its subject matter.

I liked it, i really did. Please don't think that i'm an idiot but i have to admit that i enjoyed this film. I expected it to be crap, it was crap, but sometimes its OK to relax and watch a crappy film that you don't have to concentrate too much on isn't it? I didn't expect any hidden meanings or morales, and there wasn't any, but that doesn't matter because i only watched it for entertainment, and it did entertain me throughout. Films like this are why the Ben Stillers (excusing 'there's something about Mary') and the Vince Vaughns (however you spell his last name, i couldn't be bothered checking)have jobs. It's OK to watch a crap film as long as you don't expect too much from it, and i for one shall take a stand, jog, perhaps run, but not drive because i don't have a car, to Blockbuster Video, or even Choices, and rent a bunch of these toilet humoured films and stay in one night watching them. Good day to you reader. P.s if you do not say that this comment helped you then i don't like you, if you do say it helped then god bless you, you will go to heaven.
This film was absolutely BRILLIANT!! Every performance in this film is excellent, especially Jake Gyllenhaal and Chris Cooper. It looks like Mr Gyllenhaal will have a HUGE film career if this is anything to go by. I thought that Joe Johnston was an odd choice as director as he is usually associated woth big budget blockbusters(Jumanji, Honey I shrunk the kids). He pulls of every scene with sheer class. My favourite scene was where Homer is going down the mineshaft and looking at the sky, going down, as all of his dreams were, it was beautiful. Joe Johnston should direct more of these brilliant, acting driven films as well as his Big budget blockbuster faire, which is also excellent. KUDOS!! to all involved in this masterpiece!

This movie proves that good acting comes from good direction and this does not happen in Ask the Dust. Colin Farrell is usually a fine actor but in this he is juvenile. Donald Sutherland comes across as an amateur. Why? Because the script is awful, the adaptation is awful and the actors seem bored and half hearted. The atmosphere of the movie is bad - I could only think when it would finish and I turned it off half way. The director has done a very poor job and even though I have not read the novel it is certainly a missed chance. The atmosphere this film is trying to evoke and the message and storyline never reaches the audience. In one word, it is a TERRIBLE film.
Generally speaking, the plot was much better than I was expecting. The laugh track was a bit annoying at times and did tend to get in the way; however, there were enough real chuckles in this episode to make up for it. My biggest surprise was finding some of the best lines and situations were not shown in the trailers. Spade, in particular, was not presented in the best light in the earlier promotions, but his character comes across quite well in the pilot. There is is enough eye-candy to please almost anyone and all the regular characters seem up to the task ahead of them. Now, if the writers can just live up to what they have begun.

It was interesting to see how accurate the writing was on the geek buzz words, yet very naive on the corporate world. The Justice Department would catch more of the big corp giants if they did such naive things to win. The real corporate world is much more subtle and interesting, yet every bit as sinister. I seriously doubt ANY corp would actually kill someone directly; even the mod is more indirect these days. In the real world, they do kill people with nicotine, pollution, additives, poisons, etc. This movie must have been developed by some garage geeks, I think, and the studios didn't know the difference. They just wanted something to capitalize on the Microsoft antitrust case in the news.