Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Given how corny these movies are, you gotta figure that they must have had fun making them. The movie focuses on a house that strangely accommodates whomever lives there. The inhabitants were: author Charles Hillyer (Denholm Elliott (with hair!)), who gets haunted by one of his own creations; Philip Grayson (Peter Cushing), who gets a little too close to a wax statue; John Reid (Christopher Lee), whose daughter's cuteness is apparently a facade; and actor Paul Henderson (Jon Pertwee), on the verge of getting a little too much into character.
"The House That Dripped Blood" is actually worth seeing (well duh; it stars Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee). Aside from just being neat, there might be some undertones: it might be calling into question the issue of real horror vs. assumed horror. Like in "The Shining", we might ask whether the house/hotel itself holds some memory of past events. And if absolutely nothing else, Ingrid Pitt (as Paul's co-star) is HOT HOT HOT! Around the time that this came out, she also starred in "Countess Dracula" and "The Vampire Lovers" (also with Peter Cushing). Maybe she - like Barbara Steele - will remain known only as a scream queen, but mark my words: SHE IS A HOT SCREAM QUEEN! I'd like to see Ingrid Pitt and Barbara Steele co-star in something.
I guess that the only weird scene (so to speak) is where Denholm Elliott is wearing a pink shirt and fluffy jacket. You read that right. What kind of a name is "Denholm" anyway? Oh well. A very cool movie.

I had a really hard time making it through this move. It was extermly slow and at times wondered when the plot of the movie would actually come to life.
This movie seemed to flow to slow and I kept on wondering when it was going to end. I am normally a person who likes a good indie file every once in a while but this did not satisfy what I was looking for.
It seemed they tried to make to much out of this movie. At one point it seemed to turn political which I am not a big fan of in movies. If you are looking for a slow moving movie with little to no plot then this is the right movie for you. As for me I felt I wasted 2 hours when I could of been doing something else.
While I am not a big fan of musicals, I have loved the films of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers because they are just so much fun. Sure, they can be a bit formulaic, but even though you KNOW what is going to happen, they still are very pleasing to watch. However, despite this, I was a bit disappointed in this outing. Part of it was because this film doesn't have the wonderful supporting cast like you saw in TOP HAT or SHALL WE DANCE. Without Edward Everett Horton or Eric Blore, the film seems to be a bit lacking--especially in the "fun" department. The silly antics of these supporting actors gave the other films charm that you just don't get with FOLLOW THE FLEET. In addition, unlike the usual character played by Astaire, this one is more of a jerk--as his fat head gets Rogers into trouble again and again. And, as a result, it's a lot harder to like him or want to see them get together in the end of the film. Plus, although the music is by Irving Berlin, the songs just don't seem as memorable. In fact, none of the songs were all that special and I can't recall any of them even though I just saw the movie. While this is still a cute and worthwhile film, it just lacks the sparkle and magic of some of their other films. Good but far from great.

Despite some moments in heavy rain, an encounter with a drunk as well as an organ grinder with a gypsy and a monkey, and a stay in a sanitarium, this Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle silent comedy short with support from Buster Keaton and Al St. John is only fitfully amusing though there is a quite funny sequence of Arbuckle in drag flirting with Buster that's the ultimate in "meet cute" scenes especially since it's one of the few times we see The Great Stone Face smile and laugh in the movies! Also, many scenes seem to have been jump cut edited possibly because of overuse of the film stock. Still, if you're an Arbuckle or Keaton completist, Good Night, Nurse! is certainly worth a look.
I haven't seen this in over 20yrs but I still remember things about it.
This film could NOT have been made in color. The stark grays are what make it, and was life really that simple in the 1950's?? What stands out the most in my memory is Perry Smith going to the gallows. His breathing under the hood just before they sprung the trap. I don't think I could watch that again.....once is plenty. It's like that unnamed guy at the beginning of "Papillon" who is dragged out in terror to the guillotine. The guy that said watch this on a double bill with "Dead Man Walking" should have added the last 10 minutes of "I Want To Live" as well.
Some of my ancestors being "aristos" went to the guillotine in 1794-95 so my feelings on the death penalty are rather intense.

Who wrote this? Some guy named John Cohen. I guess this was the first screenplay he's ever worked on. Someone should've told him you're supposed to write dialog that sounds like something someone actually might say.
And who directed this? Scott Marshal? Son of Gerry Marshall. My the nut has fallen far from the tree. Someone might have wanted to let him know that you can, in fact, shoot a scene in a cab in New York, and it will look real, and you won't have to fake it with a blue screen for no reason. Might have also wanted to let him know he should stay away from Jessica Simpson, but hopefully he's learned that lesson now.
And Jessica Simpson... naturally she can't act. Hell, she makes Jessica Alba look like Audry Hepburn, and yet she's starring in this movie. OH wait, it was produced by her father. Okay, that's why she got the part. That's really the only reason I can think of.
So should I be surprised it's bad? No. Should I be amazed at how bad it is? I think a lot of people would if they saw as much of it as I did. I mean you expect a movie starring Jessica Simpson to be bad, but this... it's not just bad, it's the complete opposite of a classic film. Think of a great Woody Allen movie, this film is as bad as that film is good. It's the Anti-Annie Hall.
I am so glad I didn't pay to see it, I stopped watching ten minutes in cus I couldn't go on. No doubt I would've walked out of the theater sooner. In fact I wonder how many of the 6 people who saw it per theater actually stayed and watched the whole thing. The film starts out laughably bad, and then goes to the point of being so bad it becomes a kind of Chinese water torture. And then, around when the first act is ending, you realize it'll only get worse, and that's when you either need to leave, or kill yourself.
In conclusion, this film goes under the category of being so bad it should be used in place of water boarding at Guantanamo Bay. Although some prefer the water boarding.
The costumes and make-up were grand, there were some exceptionally funny lines, and the role was made for Jim Carrey. Carrey did as good a job as could be done given the rather disappointing script writing. Sure this was mostly a movie for kids, but if you are going to spend this much money making a movie you really ought to at least give the story enough body to go beyond that of Dr Seuss. I expected more from Ron Howard. It's worth a see, but it lacks the necessary qualities to become a major classic, by any measure.

I'm gettin' sick of movies that sound entertaining in a one-line synopsis then end up being equal to what you'd find in the bottom center of a compost heap.
Who knows: "Witchery" may have sounded interesting in a pitch to the studios, even with a "big name cast" (like Blair and Hasselhoff - wink-wink, nudge-nudge) and the effervescent likes of Hildegard Knef (I dunno, some woman...).
But on film, it just falls apart faster than a papier-mache sculpture in a rainstorm. Seems these unfortunate folks are trapped in an island mansion off the Eastern seaboard, and one of them (a woman, I'd guess) is being targeted by a satanic cult to bear the child of hell while the others are offed in grotesque, tortuous ways.
Okay, right there you have a cross-section of plots from "The Exorcist", "The Omen", "Ten Little Indians" and a few other lesser movies in the satanic-worshippers-run-amok line. None of it is very entertaining and for the most part, you'll cringe your way from scene to scene until it's over.
No, not even Linda Blair and David Hasselhoff help matters much. They're just in it to pick up a paycheck and don't seem very intent on giving it their "all".
From the looks of it, Hasselhoff probably wishes he were back on the beack with Pam Anderson (and who can blame him?) and Linda... well, who knows; a celebrity PETA benefit or pro-am golf tour or whatever it is she's in to nowadays.
And the torture scenes! Ecchhhh. You'll see people get their mouths sewn shut, dangled up inside roaring fireplaces, strung up in trees during a violent storm, vessels bursting out of their necks, etc, etc. Sheesh, and I thought "Mark of the Devil" was the most sadistic movie I'd seen....
Don't bother. It's not worth your time. I can't believe I told you as much as I did. If you do watch it, just see if you can count the cliches. And yes, Blair gets possessed, as if you didn't see THAT coming down Main Street followed by a marching band.
No stars. "Witchery" - these witches will give you itches.
You can do a lot with a little cash. Blair Witch proved that. This film supports it. It is no more than a sitcom in length and complexity. However, because it has John Cleese as Sherlock Holmes it manages to be hilarious even on a budget that couldn't afford a shoestring. The highlight of this film is Arthur Lowe as the sincere, bumbling Watson, his dimness and slowness foils Cleese's quick-tempered wit. If you ever run across the film watch it for a quirky laugh or two.

(NOTE: I thought I'd be the only one writing what I did below, but I see the others here agree. I guess it was pretty obvious - this was overdoing the bait-the-cat bit. Anyway, here is what I had written:)
The owners have left on vacation for two weeks - a trip to California - leaving the cat (Sylvester) all alone and locked in the house. That means no milk, but the cat, to his relief, does find a bunch of canned tuna. However, to his dismay, he can't find the opener.
It turns out the little mouse in the house has it...and baits the cat with it. This is a mean rodent who keeps teasing Sylvester with the opener and then yanking it away at the last second. Sylvester tries everything possible to open the can of tuna but can't do it.
This is a frustrating story, and why they make the sadistic mouse the "good guy" is beyond me. It's like some of the Tom & Jerry cartoons where poor Tom always gets the worst of it even though many times the little mouse starts the conflict!
This is easily the most underrated film inn the Brooks cannon. Sure, its flawed. It does not give a realistic view of homelessness (unlike, say, how Citizen Kane gave a realistic view of lounge singers, or Titanic gave a realistic view of Italians YOU IDIOTS). Many of the jokes fall flat. But still, this film is very lovable in a way many comedies are not, and to pull that off in a story about some of the most traditionally reviled members of society is truly impressive. Its not The Fisher King, but its not crap, either. My only complaint is that Brooks should have cast someone else in the lead (I love Mel as a Director and Writer, not so much as a lead).

It's nothing more than a weird coincidence that I decided to watch STARLIFT on the 59th anniversary of the day in June 1950 when President Truman's ordered US forces into the Korean War. STARLIFT, you see, is set largely at Travis Air Force base in California in the years when it was being used as a staging post for soldiers being shipped out to fight in Korea. But you'd need to do your own research to know this because not once during the film is the name 'Korea' mentioned. We see transport aircraft flying out fresh troops and returning with wounded soldiers but there's no mention of where these men will be fighting or getting injured. Which is kind of weird for a film designed to wave the flag and salute America's men in uniform. Released in December 1951 by Warner Brothers, STARLIFT is a very obvious effort to replicate the success of the studio's star-studded World War Two home-front morale booster "Hollywood Canteen." This 1944 crowd-pleaser told the story of two soldiers spending their last three nights of leave hanging out at the famous armed forces nightclub in LA hoping to get a date with Joan Leslie. But really it was just an excuse for Warners to trot out every star under contract, from Joan Crawford, John Garfield, and Barbara Stanwyck to Peter Lorre, Bette Davis, Sydney Greenstreet and more. STARLIFT features two Air Force soldiers hoping to meet fictional starlet Nell Wayne (a mask-like Janice Rule) and persuading a bunch of Warner Bros stars to put on a show for the departing troops. But in place of Crawford, Garfield et al the best the brothers Warner could scrape up in 1951 were Doris Day, Ruth Roman, Gordon MacRae, Virginia Mayo, Gene Nelson and Phil Harris with fleeting appearances by James Cagney, Randolph Scott, and a clearly embarrassed looking Gary Cooper. This threadbare cast, whose combined star power would struggle to illuminate a standard lamp, is perfectly matched by the crummy production values. Presumably in an effort to save money several long scenes were shot using really really bad back projection. How bad is it? You can see the join where the screen meets the floor of the soundstage! To describe STARLIFT as a sloppy, lazy and third rate movie is to do a disservice to films which are sloppy, lazy and third rate. It's just terrible. Avoid it.
The best of the seven Sam Fuller movies that I've seen (including Park Row, Run of the Arrow, Verboten!, Shock Corridor, The Naked Kiss, The Big Red One, and this film), Pickup on South Street counts as one of the best film noirs. It represents Fuller at his most controlled. I like him when he's out of control, of course, but nearly everything in Pickup is perfect. The film is absolutely beautiful. Richard Widmark stars as a pickpocket who steals some microfilm that was meant to go to communist spies. Jean Peters plays the woman who was carrying the film for her boyfriend, played by Richard Kiley. Peters is forced to find Widmark and get it back. She finds him through a stool pigeon played by Thelma Ritter. Widmark and Peters are attracted to each other, which changes Peters loyalties (that, and the fact that she learns she's working for communists; the Cold War stuff is really interesting). The love story is done a little quickly and not entirely believable, but it's not so bad that it harms the film (unlike Fuller's previous film, Park Row). Richard Widmark is great. This must be one of his best roles, but I'm not so familiar with his career that I can say that for sure. Thelma Ritter gives the most memorable performance. Her role gives the film an unexpected emotional resonance, and her final scene in this film is as touching as any you will find in the cinema. I will never forget that. 10/10.

At least the seats in the theater were comfortable and I ate the pop corn as loud as possible to drown out the inferior dialogue. This is absolutely not a girls film. Any blokes who like it, are the ones us ladies can be sure to stay far away from. Dumb story, mediocre dialogue and an overall cheap looking film. I've seen many, many movies but this one is the new winner in the bad category. If you do happen to see it, the one thing you'll look forward to is the ending. So you can finally run out of the theater as fast as you can.
Fascinating I approached I Am Curious (Yellow) and it's companion piece with great trepidation. I'd read numerous reports on its widely touted controversy and explicit sex. What I got wasn't this, but a thoroughly thought provoking and engaging cinema experience unlike any other. I sincerely believe that the majority of the commenter who felt the film was `lame' or `boring' approached the film as if it were pornography. Perhaps this is pornography, assuming pornography is something intended to titillate the senses, but it is intentionally un-erotic. Lena, the protagonist, throws her all into her performance giving it a realistic and humanity that is simply convincing and enduring. Her breasts may be saggy, her nipples unusually large, her thighs fat, and her face, chubby. But by the end of the film, the audience comes to identify with her, and accept her faults as human. This touch gives her even more believability out necessity. Had the director cast a Briget Bardot bombshell the effect would have been nullified. I cannot more highly recommend this thought provoking piece. Be prepared to invest much thought in this deliberately paced film. The patient and unassuming viewer will be thoroughly rewarded in ways most other films could dream.

A recent post here by a woman claiming a military background, contained the comment "A woman's life is no more valuable than a man's".
This mantra of the politically correct is not true as history as well as biology show. Societies have managed to recover from heavy losses of their male population, sometimes with astonishing speed. Germany was ready to fight another war in 1939 despite the 1914- 1918 war in which over two million of her men were killed. In South America's War of the Triple Alliance (1865), Paraguay took on three neighboring countries until virtually her entire male population was wiped out but fought to a stalemate in the 1932 Chaco War against much larger Bolivia.
No society, however has or ever could survive the loss of its female population. Only when the very life of the nation is at stake are women sent to fight. Israel faced that situation in 1948 but since then has never considered coed combat units for its Defense Forces despite the popular image of the Israeli girl soldier.
"G.I. Jane" is Hollywood fluff.
I'm giving ten out of ten it's one of the best movies ever. Absolutely smashed, stunned and dazed by the whole picture, marvellous playing of Jason Statham, Ray Liotta and all the crew, amazing plot... Just look into yourself and pluck up your courage to admit-it touched your soul, because it's strange, but there are all the answers you've been ever looking for... The very best, mr. Ritchie! THE VERY BEST EVER. Those who were looking for a simple figtings and skirmish keep yelling they are disappointed. But there are lots of shallow movies in Hollywood nowadays, you can't remember what it was about the next day you had seen it. On the contrary, Revolver is unique, I could have hardly expected it's possible to portray such a clear and genius picture of myself, of everyone who was to watch it. Absolutely unsurpassed, astounding, dazzling... One can get insight watching this, I have no doubt about that. Actually, no words can express my admiration... I'm still wondering how it was possible to shoot such a movie after years of giddy Hollywood rubbish we had been watching. Thank you from all heart, it's simply the best.

I can't believe that Steven Segal's career has hit so low that he has been reduced to making 4th rate films with 5th rate secondary actors. I watched this moving expecting to see him beet the crap out of some people the way he usually does. When he is reduced to using a single judo chop between the shoulder blades to take out an opponent and the guy falls like a ton of bricks something is wrong.
The plot is unbelievable as a movie, and even if you excuse the visuals, and had read this story as a novel, you'd be left wondering why you had even picked up the book.
Steven Segal goes through the motions and seems as if he is only doing this because he is under obligation. He shows no effort and no enthusiasm, and in some scenes he doesn't show up at all.
I hate to repeat other peoples comments, but the use of stock footage for cut scenes and for visuals of the aircrafts in flight is pathetic. The condition of those scenes chopped in, is shaky and scenes themselves seemed to have deteriorated over time. The zappruder film showing President John F Kennedy being assassinated is steadier and cleaner.
My honest opinion is to tell you not to waste your time seeing this movie, it is not up to the standards of his work in the glimmer man or exit wounds. I read one review that said the movie had a 12 million dollar budget (Segal being paid 5 of that) and that the movie still came in under budget. I must concur.
It is no wonder that this is a direct to DVD movie, as no conscientious theatre owner would play this movie .
i wasn't a fan of seeing this movie at all, but when my gf called me and said she had a free advanced screening pass i tagged along only for the sake of seeing eva longoria and laughing at jason biggs antics.
overall it was actually better then i expected but not by much. this was like a hybrid of how to lose a guy in 10 days and just like heaven. a typical romantic comedy with its moments i guess. the movie was quite short though (around 85 min.) but it was enough to tell the whole story, build some character development and have a decent happy ending. the whole idea of a ghost haunting its former husband was a interesting plot to follow. eva did a good job of keeping up the sarcasm and paul rudd and the rest of the supporting cast (especially jason biggs) kept the laughs coming at a smooth pace.
overall i liked the movie only because it had a good amount of laughs to keep me going otherwise i would have given this movie a lower rating. hey its a chick flick and i'm reviewing this movie from a guy's persepctive alright, it would be more of a fair fight if females reviewied this movie and gave there thoughts about it.

I have to admit, I don't remember much about the characters or the story, though I'm not sure there was one, I was soooo irritated by this movie that I had a bit of a hard time focusing on it. How can you name a movie "Keys to Tulsa" and then film it in Texas? The flat desert country around Arlington ( I think that was the location) in no way resembles the green rolling hills around Tulsa, and a celebrity in Tulsa would have a much nicer neighborhood to live in. Obviously no one in the movie has EVER BEEN to Tulsa or else they would have realized how nothing in the movie even resembled it. Hadn't anyone at least seen Rumblefish or The Outsiders? I know this sounds picky but I can't help it. I watched this because I love James Spader and I usually find Eric Stotz interesting. But even these two intriguing actors could not liven up this meandering,and mean story of self-involved people who are NOT IN TULSA!! I'm sorry, it can't be more expensive to film in Oklahoma. What if "To Live and Die in LA" had been shot in Toronto? Would that suck? Well so does this.