Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
This may not be a memorable classic, but it is a touching romance with an important theme that stresses the importance of literacy in modern society and the devastating career and life consequences for any unfortunate individual lacking this vital skill.
The story revolves around Iris, a widow who becomes acquainted with a fellow employee at her factory job, an illiterate cafeteria worker named Stanley. Iris discovers that Stanley is unable to read, and after he loses his job, she gives him reading lessons at home in her kitchen. Of course, as you might predict, the two, although initially wary of involvement, develop feelings for each other...
Jane Fonda competently plays Iris, a woman with problems of her own, coping with a job lacking prospects, two teenage children (one pregnant), an unemployed sister and her abusive husband. However, Robert DeNiro is of course brilliant in his endearing portrayal of the intelligent and resourceful, but illiterate, Stanley, bringing a dignity to the role that commands respect. They aren't your typical charming young yuppie couple, as generally depicted in on screen romances, but an ordinary working class, middle aged pair with pretty down to earth struggles.
I won't give the ending away, but it's a lovely, heartwarming romance and a personal look into the troubling issue of adult illiteracy, albeit from the perspective of a fictional character.

I had heard (and read) so many good things about Weeds that I was looking forward to getting hooked on another great cable Series (like Entourage, Sopranos or Mad Men) but that slowly eroded away with each episode I watched from Season One. (didn't make it past the first six episodes)
The writing was unoriginal, contrived and the portrayal of Blacks embarrassing. The dialog felt forced, like the writers are trying way too hard to be clever and hip . It was a rare moment when I actually emitted an audible laugh.
The characters never developed enough for me to care about them, they were selfish and unappealing. I absolutely HATED the addition of the Brother-in-law (who should have been hauled away on To Catch A Predator) and the removal of the Hodes' daughter Quinn from the cast by sending her to boarding school in Mexico was so unoriginal and cliché, I had to conclude the writers were testing the viewer's loyalty.
Episode after episode I liked the characters less and couldn't get past many of the technical flaws in the story line.
Add to that I heard that Season Two wasn't as good, so I lost all motivation to continue to watch this play out.
If you're a fan of good casting and writing, I suspect this show will be a challenge for you to like, unless of course you're stoned and then all bets are off.
Often laugh out loud, sometimes sad story of 2 working divorced guys -- Lemmon a neurotic clean "house husband" and Matthau a slob sportswriter -- who decide to live together to cut down on expenses.
Nicely photographed and directed. The script is very barbed -- that is, there's always more than one side to almost every line. Particularly funny scene involves 2 british sisters (Evans and Shelley) who seem amused by everything anyone says, but when Lemmon busts out his photos of kids and, yes, ex-wife-to-be, he has the girls sobbing along with him before Matthau can show up with the promised drinks!
Very entertaining.

This is the best film the Derek couple has ever made and if you think this is a recommendation then you haven't seen any of the others. There are the usual ingredients: it is just as poorly acted as their other efforts, we can watch Bo disrobing or auditioning for wet T-shirt contests quite frequently, the story is just laughably idiotic, and the film takes itself much too seriously. And then: Orang Utans in Africa?
But it has a few things going for it. Bo looks great, the production values (sets, costumes, etc.) are quite good, and this greatly enhances its camp value. In a strange way it is actually quite funny, simply because it tries to be serious and fails so badly.
A lush fantasy world with quirky characters and annoying 80's music. This epitomizes the 80's desire to rewrite fairy tales and make fun of how they work. Personally I liked Greensleeves and the other harsher characters. They had some of the more amusing lines.

A somewhat dull made for tv movie which premiered on the TBS cable station. Antonio and Janine run around chasing a killer computer virus and...that's about it. For trivia buffs this will be noted as debuting the same weekend that the real life 'Melissa' virus also made it's debut in e-mail inboxes across the world.
Paul & Grace Hartman are my husbands grandparents. They were both deceased when we met so watching old movies is a good way to see them and their work. I have always enjoyed old movies and was very happy to discover that this was also a very good one.

Reading my review of THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED, many may assume that I'm some 14 year old who thinks SCREAM is considered "classic" horror. This is not the case, as I'm 30 years old and have been watching horror films for most of my life. But admittedly, I'm a child of the 80's that grew up on slasher/zombie/ghost/cannibal, etc...types of horror films - so I do typically prefer horror films that are more graphic and faster-paced. Just like someone who can appreciate different music, painting, or in this case, film - but not necessarily like them - I can appreciate why some people may enjoy this sort of film...I just don't...
THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED is an exceedingly dull and tedious film about a school for wayward girls. The heavy-handed mistress of the school rules with an iron hand (or whip in some cases...) to keep the girls in line. She has a young son who creeps around and peeps on the girls while they shower (in their nightgowns no less (?!?)...), and meanwhile, girls are disappearing from the school as they are the victim of a murderer who's lurking about the campus...
I can see why THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED is often compared to SUSPIRIA (which is a masterpiece of a film in my opinion...), in terms of the atmosphere of the school itself and the interaction between the girls and their guardians - but this film is so dull and uneventful that I could barely stay awake. I'm all for "tension" and "suspense" in horror films - but this film held neither for me. Luckily, I wasn't expecting a whole lot going into this one, so I can't say I was really disappointed - THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED just reinforced the fact that I personally don't typically enjoy most horror films much older than from the 70's. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but those that I HAVE enjoyed definitely seem to be more of the exception. Probably a "must-see" for horror fans who enjoy more understated and suggestive horror films - but as I don't really know too many fans of that sort of material, I can't really recommend this one...4/10
While I suppose this film could get the rap as being Anti-Vietnam, while watching it I didn't feel that such was the case as much as the film was simply an honest look into the perspective of the young guys being trained for a war that the public didn't support.... it showed their fear, their desperation, their drive... all of it, out in the open, naked. As a soldier myself alot of the themes rang true to me in my experience in the military - especially boot camp. On the whole this movie, although it was shot on a very small budget, looks great, is very well put together, and features excellent acting and directing. I highly recommend this film to anyone looking for another excellent Colin Farrell film. 10/10

I enjoyed the feel of the opening few minutes, but 20-minutes in I was liberally applying the fast-forward button. Far too many shots of Stewart (Michael Zelniker) walking from room to room, down hallways, through doors and down the street, and as many shots of him looking pensive and confused. Gave me the impression that the story had originally been meant as a short (20-30 minutes), and then stretched into a feature as a labour of love between director Grieve and star Zelniker (they co-wrote the screenplay).
It might have been more entertaining if any of the characters had anything to say that I hadn't heard said in many other films before, or if the ending wasn't - disappointingly - the one I had predicted three minutes into the film (atypical for an independent/smaller studio film). At least its heart was in the right place - it wasn't your standard formulaic Hollywood manipulative nonsense.
I contend that whoever is ultimately responsible for creating/approving the trailer for this movie has completely blundered. NO ONE I know wanted to see this movie based on the previews, and EVERYONE who actually saw it (that I know) absolutely loved it... The advertising campaign is disgrace/disaster/blunder.
Opened at #4 behind...
#1-Rush Hour, which I have not seen, average IMDb score of 7.4.
#2-The Bourn Ultimatum, which I have seen, awesome movie but 3rd week out, average IMDb score of 8.7 (deserving I would say).
#3-The Simpsons Movie, which I have seen, okay movie but 4th week out, average IMDb score of 8.1 (a bit high in my opinion).
#4-Stardust, average IMDb score of 8.4 (lower then Bourn, but that's been our for 3 weeks).
Whether it was poor scheduling or poor advertising I think that the powers that be behind this movie screwed up big time! This should have been advertised as an amazing movie that happens to be a fantasy/fairytale and not advertised as just another fairytale Too bad :( Anyway- Now that I have very pointlessly ranted on-and-on... Awesome movie, go see it!

Dull haunted house thriller finds an American family moving into a 200 year old house in Japan where a violent murder suicide love triangle occurred.
Novel setting is about the only element of interest in this very slow moving horror flick by the director of Motel Hell. The film generates zero suspense and is composed of somewhat choppy scenes that rarely seem to be leading anywhere overall.
One obvious example is a fairly early scene where the male lead visits a temple after realizing that his house is haunted as the monk had earlier warned. The monk recounts the history of the house (which the viewer is already familiar with from the opening sequence) and then the film simply cuts away to something else. Earlier the monk had offered to help. Well, where is the help? The family continues to stay in the haunted house as things get worse and worse and no mention of the monk is made until nearly the very end when he turns up again to do what he should have done an hour earlier--try to drive the spirits out of the house, although by this time it's difficult for the viewers to care.
There are some (probably) unintentional campy laughs in seeing the American actors at the end become possessed by the Japanese spirits and suddenly start doing bad martial arts, I say probably because the scene is more than a little reminiscent of the chainsaw duel from the same director's Motel Hell which was more obviously meant to be amusing, but on the whole this is a forgettable dud.
"Imagine if you could bring things back to life with just one touch" As soon as I first heard that, my attention was locked on the Trailer, And after the First Episode I found my self in love with this show. A Modern day Fairy Tale that Brings my Spirits up and Holds my attention throughout the entire show. I think the Acting and Casting is just perfect, Each Character brings Something Unique to the show that adds to it's perfection. Even the one time Villains manage to overflow with A Unique sense, From the Bee Man to the Guy who can Swallow Kittens, they never seem to let me down. And the Deaths that would Normally lead to a Depressing Moment often end up being Purely Comical (Such as an Exploding Scratch & Sniff book)
Even with the large amount of Crime shows we have now a days, Daisies is one of the few that really stands out from the rest, Being not just a Mystery but a love story, Comedy and a Fairy Tale with a hint of Drama all baked into one Wonderful pie.....err show.
What really shocked me was the fact that it was on ABC, For Years I never had a reason to turn to ABC, But this brought me back each week with a Smile on my face. It was as if Pushing Daisies Brought ABC back to life for me. But just like that, after two seasons, A few Awards, A Large Fan Base and Positive Responses from Critics the show has been dropped. It seems as though Ned has Touched ABC again and forever killed it for me. I will always be a fan of this show though, And I Recommend this to anyone who likes a lot of talking and a lot of love from the shows they watch.

Without question one of the most embarrassing productions of the 1970s, GAOTS seems to really, REALLY want to be something important. The tragic truth is that it's so entirely valueless on every level that one can't help but laugh. Reaching in desperation for the earthy elements of Ingmar Bergman's films, it follows a city couple's day in the wilderness...they walk along a shady path, allthewhile pontificating like a U.C. Berkeley coffee clatch. Almost every line of tarradiddle dialog delivered here is uproariously bad("I feel that life itself is made up of as many tiny compartments as this pomegranate....but is it as beautiful?") After what seems like an eternity of absolutely nothing happening(well...OK...we are treated to some nudity and a tepid soft sex scene), there is finally a VERY anticlimactic confrontation involving a pair 'Nam vets who are making the nature scene and performing some pretty harsh folk ballads with an acoustic guitar.
Nothing at all eventful or interesting happens IN THIS ENTIRE FILM. I thought the Larry Buchanan picture "Strawberries Need Rain" was a weak example of a Bergman homage. "Golden Apples" is every bit as bad, but the ceaseless random verbiage it presents makes it memorably awful. 1/10
The Sunshine Boys is a terrific comedy about two ex-vaudevillians who reluctantly reunite for a TV special despite the fact that they despise each other.
The comic genius of two masters at work, George Burns and Walter Matthau are stellar! Some of the best scenes are when the duo is fighting over the silliest little trivial things! The material is fast-paced and witty, appealing to all ages.
MILD SPOILER ALERT: There are some mildly sad moments toward the end of the movie that deal indirectly with the affects of aging that gives the film a soft, sincere, tenderness that shows to this reviewer that what the pair really need the most for success, are each other.
If anyone loves The Odd Couple, you'll adore this movie. An excellent film!

Well what I can say about this movie is that it's great to see so many Asian faces. What I didn't like about the film was that it was full of stereotypes of what typical racial characters would do in their role. The Asian girl without confidence who has to play someone else to get ahead, the white guy infatuated with Asian culture and chooses to leave his white world behind for the land of yellow and the "keeping it real" black cab driver. Plus all the coke, shanghai tang and dunkin donuts product placement was a bit too obvious. The story plot itself was fun but pretty much how I thought the story would unravel. Then again when watching romantic comedies you can't expect much but then again I would have been wanted to just be surprised at least once. The parents are the best part of the flick.
Paul Lukas played a Russian intellectual making his living as a waiter in
"Grand Slam," directed by William Dieterle (1933). It is a surprisingly funny satire of the building up of celebrity. The waiter and the Russian restaurant's hat-check girl played by Loretta Young become America's sweethearts as bridge partners who do no squabble. With the aid of publicist and ghost-writer 'Speed' McCann (the wonderfully deadpan Frank McHugh) they become walking advertisements
for the "Stanislavsky system," a "system" of bidding whatever one feels like
(since bids are not rational, there is no basis for recriminations about their stupidity).
A duel with displaced bridge guru Cedric Van Dorn (sounds close to Goren, no? and I suspect the choice of the character's name "Stanislavsky" was also a slam at another kind of system), a puffed-up charlatan played very well by Ferdinand Gottschalk, is broadcast on radio stations across America like a prize-fight by Roscoe Karns (another great fast-talking deadpan comic actor of the 1930s).
The bridge players are even in a roped-off square, though the audience is
above them, unlike in boxing "rings."
The wide variety of American types prefigures the comedies of Preston Sturges, though for manufacturing celebrity, "Grand Slam" most calls to mind two better movies from the same (pre-Code) era with Lee Tracy playing fast-talking
publicists: "The Half-Naked Truth" and "Bombshell," but "Grand Slam" has its
moments, especially for anyone who has played bridge with serious point
counters.
Loretta Young was already a clothes horse. (To me, her face seems a bit long
and horsey, too. Another era's notion of beauty, I guess...) The movie
unfortunately all but drops Glenda Farrell, who plays McHugh's forgetful
girlfriend.

...for one of the worst Swedish movies ever...forgive me for being dull.
First of all i haven't seen the first one (i was bored that's my reason for watching the 2nd before the 1st one), well i hope the first one is better than this, it was filled with weird cut scenes and very strange plot changes, For the people that have seen this and think 4/10 is high (belive me so do i), but it made me laugh a few times, because it was so bizarre so bad and i still laugh thinking of the punk that came up with this idea, what's next "Det sjunde inseglet II". Sequels not based on novel or book doesn't turning out great to often, and this is a perfect example of one.
OK i'm gonna be honest with you: i did laugh a bit, it got a few decent jokes in it and slapstick humor. But don't buy it, rent it. Just let some other idiot do it or download it.
4/10 This movie will be remembered and the director is probably laughed out already...
So, not being a poet myself, I have no real way to convey the beauty and simplicity of this documentary. The effortless motion of Goldsworthy, as he molds natures beauty into his own work is captivating. Watch him stick reeds together in a web hanging from a tree in a close up for a few minutes while he speaks of his work, and then receive the payoff when the camera cuts to the wide shot. Be amazed by the ease with which he operates and then realize the futility when a slight breeze knocks down the entire web.
The genius of Goldsworthy seemingly knows no bounds as his inspiration is nature itself. It is in the essential change of nature where his work, though complete in its own sphere, is made whole.

how can this movie have a 5.5 this movie was a piece of skunk s**t. first the actors were really bad i mean chainsaw Charlie was so retarded. because in the very beginning when he pokes his head into the wooden hut (that happened to be about oh 1 quarter of an inch thick (that really cheap as* flimsy piece of wood) and he did not even think he could cut threw it)second the person who did the set sucks as* at supplying things for them to build with. the only good thing about this movie is the idea of this t.v. show. bottom line DO NOT waste your hard earned cash on this hunk of s**t they call a movie.
rating:0.3
This is the best movie I've seen since White and the best romantic comedy I've seen since The Hairdresser's Husband. An emotive, beautiful masterwork from Kenneth Branagh and Helena Bonham Carter. It is a tragedy this movie hasn't gotten more recognition.

I gave 1 to this film. I can't understand how Ettore Scola,one of the greater directors of Italian cinema, made a film like this, so stupid and ridiculous! All the stories of the people involved in the movie are unsubstantial,boring and not interesting. Too long,too boring. The only things I save in this movie are Giancarlo Giannini and Vittorio Gasmann. Hope that Scola will change radically themes and style in his next film.
What a fun filled, sexy movie! They certainly don't make them like this anymore. 4 sexy au pairs arrive in London and have all sorts of sexual misadventures. The tone is oddly innocent, as the considerable nudity evolves out of stock farcical situations, rather than any overt sexual desire on the part of the characters. It is only when the actresses accidentally lose their clothes that the male characters become rampant. Richard O' Sullivan literally gets 'Randi'(sic). The film certainly betrays the origins of the softcore feature as lying in the nudie cuties and naturism films of the old school. My special interest in 'Au Pair Girls' is that I am a huge fan of Gabrielle Drake. If any actress has ever looked better naked (she's slim but wonderfully curvy), or clothed, come to that (I've loved her since the original run of UFO - who else could carry off a purple wig!), I'll eat my hat.

This movie is mostly crap and the only reason this movie is worth watching is because Jean-Claud Vam Damme stars in this movie.There are some good action scenes in this movie and the best ones are at the end of the movie.
The acting in this movie is so bad and its the worst acting i have ever seen and the 2 actors Bill Goldberg and Michael Jai White Can not act at ALL.And this movie by far has to be one of Jean-Claud Vam Dammes worst movies he has done and if u what to watch him in one of his great movies u should watch Blood sport,KickBoxer or Sudden Death.
Over all this movie is crap/OK and my rating is 4 out of 10.
When I rented Domino I was expected it to be very dumb. I hate films that have really flashy editing and cinematography and Domino also just got very bad reviews. The only reason I watched it is because I like have liked Keira Knightley, Mickey Rourke, Christopher Walken, and Tony Scott on other occasions. I also just enjoy based on fact adventure stories. Yes the editing and cinematography were frantic, the story was weak, and the acting was mediocre, but I still loved this film for some bizarre reason. Domino was very, very entertaining and often very funny. It was horribly underrated when it was released I think because everyone wanted more of an emotional journey like Scotts last film Man on Fire and instead just got wonderful entertainment. I actually understand why everybody hated Domino so much, even though I loved it and recommend it.

I couldn't not recommend a Christmas movie more than this worthless piece of drivel (trust me, double negatives are required here -- it's that bad). This film was in trouble from the opening credits when it was revealed that the screenwriter was the same person as the songwriter. The musical numbers are all far too long and none of them any good ("Thank You Very Much" has a decent melody, but the lyrics are stupid beyond words). I would gladly bear the chains worn by Scrooge in the film's bizarre hell sequence than sit through this insult to movie musicals again.
The only entertaining part of this movie (completely unintentional by the way) involves Alec Guinness as Jacob Marley. Dressed in a silly powder white costume, Guinness foppishly prances through his scenes in what was either an attempt to make it appear as though he was floating like a ghost, or to show his utter disdain with having to be in this dreadful movie. Albert Finney, meanwhile, blends the best of Alistar Sim and Charles Laughton to create his hopelessly loathsome character of Quasimodo/Scrooge. Finney's Scrooge is so hideous a person, it's impossible to believe his transformation.
Steer clear of this abomination of filmmaking at all costs.