Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
It was released in France on dvd several years ago--I wish it would be re-released with English subtitles. Do not confuse this with a remake with Penelope Cruz which gets poor reviews. Gerard Phillippe is a peasant who is told by a fortune teller that he will marry the daughter of the king. He sets off to join the army and goes to war. His love, however, is Gina Lollabrigida in an early movie for her. I won't spoil the end. Gerard Phillippe died a few years later at a young age, a great loss to moviedom.

This film turned up on local TV here in South Africa recently and I thought that I'd warn even those who enjoy watching B grade bad movies (which I do)that this is not even amusing. The plot concerns a couple visiting a house in the country. Some strangers appear and .... The problem is that most of the film, obviously shot in the early seventies, consists of extreme wide shots of people walking, in real time and awfully slowly, from A to B. This makes the film tedious in the extreme and the expected blood and gore payoff just never happens. I am really curious - how many people have actually watched this from beginning to end?
The movie is okay, it has it's moments, the music scenes are the best of all! The soundtrack is a true classic. It's a perfect album, it starts out with Let's Go Crazy(appropriate for the beginning as it's a great party song and very up-tempo), Take Me With U(a fun pop song...), The Beautiful Ones(a cheerful ballad, probably the closest thing to R&B on this whole album), Computer Blue(a somewhat angry anthem towards Appolonia), Darling Nikki(one of the funniest songs ever, it very vaguely makes fun of Appolonia), When Doves Cry(the climax to this masterpiece), I Would Die 4 U, Baby I'm A Star, and, of course, Purple Rain(a true classic, a very appropriate ending for this classic album) The movie and the album are both very good. I highly recommend them!

A few weeks ago, I read the classic George Orwell novel, 1984. I was fascinated with it and thought it was one of the best books I've read recently. So when I rented the DVD, I was intrigued to see how this adaptation measured up. Unfortunately, the movie didn't even come close to creating the ambiance or developing the characters that Orwell so masterfully did in his book. The director seems to think that everyone watching the movie has read the book, because he makes no attempt to demonstrate WHY the characters act and feel the way they do. John Hurt, the main actor, is droll the entire way through, and hardly does any acting until the end. We never really find out what he does for a living, or why his love affair is forbidden, or what the political climate is and why the main character desires rebellion. This book cannot be done justice in movie form without proper narration and explanation of the political system oppressing the characters, and the fact that those are missing is the greatest shortcoming of this film. Besides that, John Hurt was a terrible casting choice, looking about 15 years older than the 39 year old Winston he was supposed to be portraying. On a more positive note, however, the rest of the cast was well chosen. It's just too bad they were put in such a horribly adapted film with the wrong lead actor. -Brian O.
The movie wasn't all that great. The book is better. But the movie wasn't all that bad either. It was interesting to say the least. The plot had enough suspense to keep me watching although I wouldn't say I was actually interested in the movie itself. Janine Turner and Antonio Sabato Jr are both gorgeous enough to keep you watching :)They have a few cute scene's that should appeal to the romantic's. Overall I'd give the movie a 7 or 8. It wasn't bad, Just a little lacking plot wise.

As far as HEIST movies go, this one is pretty weak. Continuity is pretty lousy, there isn't enough character continuity to really feel like you understand any of the characters. Peter Falk is great, and he is one of the reasons its worth watching. Falk has some great lines, like "he'll be right back, he goin' buy to some saugages" or something like that... there are a few nice scenes, although they are entirely due to the efforts of the actors. Direction, script, and editing is pretty lousy.
...Heads, Hands, and Feet - a band from the past, just like Strange Fruit. A triple whammy there. Those who have professed not to like this film are either heartless or under 40, and have had no experience of the real thing. Sad for them. This is an achingly well-observed little picture that is an excellent way of passing an hour or two, and will probably not even fade much on the second showing. Stephen Rae, Timothy Spall as the fat drummer (in many ways quite the most delightful figure of all), and Bill Nighy - a new name for me - as the neurotic vocalist and front man all turn in super performances, and Juliet Aubrey has lovely doe eyes to go with some sharp acting as Karen, who tries to hold the band together as they spectacularly self-destruct.
The Syd Barrett/Brian Wilson echoes are loud and clear, Mott the Hoople rear up before one in all their inflated ridiculousness, and the script is never mawkish for more than a minute. Don't compare this with Spinal Tap or The Rutles or The Full Monty - it's unfair on all of them. The nearest comparison is The Commitments, and that's no bad thing. And any film that can conjure up memories of Blodwyn Pig - a band I do not remember ever seeing, but the name lives on - well, it shows somebody in the team knew what they were on about.
A small delight, and thanks for the memory.
Oh... and I've got ANOTHER one - Stiff Little Fingers; a-a-and what about SteelEYE Span... Spooky TOOTH... Ten Inch NAILS anyone? (You have to see the movie or have been on the road)

Wow! This film is truly awful. I can't imagine how anyone could have read this badly written script and given it the greenlight. The cast is uniformly second rate with some truly horrendous performances from virtually all of the cast. The story is disjointed, fragmented and incoherent. The telling, leaden and predictable. No wit, no charm, no humour. Not sexy in the least. The characters remain as flat as the proverbial pancake. There's also a strong current of misogyny which became increasingly hard to stomach as the film went on. When your lead (Carrell) is unfunny and unappealing it's uphill from there. Despite it's phony turn-around ending where love triumphs over lust I was left with a sick feeling in my stomach. If this is what passes for humour and social comment then we're definitely doomed.
This could be difficult to for some people to get into, being used to Hollywood production styles. The directing is uninspired, apparently simply a filming of the stage set-up, and the audio quality is bad here and there (the rustling of people's clothes occasionally competes with their voices, etc.).
My friends and I started watching without knowing what to expect, and the first scene almost put us off. It seemed very stagy and cheesy. Then we picked up on the tone of the content, and really started to enjoy ourselves.
It is very funny, despite some corniness. Definitely give it a chance if you appreciate great dialog. Also, Helena Bonham Carter is adorable, of course.

This film is really bad, with a script full of 'memorable' lines and incredibly bad performances. The special effects are also bad (not the worst ones I have seen, either) and the music is so bad that you have to listen to it to believe it. Just two short themes (30 seconds long or so) are repeated constantly throughout the whole film.
All in all, one of the worst films I have ever seen.
I would not have known about this film if not for its "surprise" Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature film. Thankfully, it came to pass that I was able to watch this animated little treasure.
The story is about the child Brendan who was the nephew of the imposing and overprotective Abbot of the township of Kells. The main pre-occupation of the Abbot is to build a wall to protect Kells from the attacking Vikings. One day, Aiden, the renowned illustrator from Iona, sought refuge with them. Aiden opens Brendan's eyes to the art of illustration and the lure of the outside world. Along the way, Brendan befriended the white forest sprite Aisling, as he sought to recover an ancient crystal invaluable to the meticulous art of book illustration.
"The Secret of Kells" is unlike most of the animation released these days. It is a throwback of sorts as the illustrations are done in stark geometric lines and design without much care for realism, as much as symbolism. The movements of these lines are reminiscent of the simplistic yet fluid animation style used at the beginning sequence of "Kung Fu Panda." However, it is the magnificent use of color that is the main source of wonderment for the audience. The reds used in the Viking invasion sequence is unforgettably haunting.
Try to catch this quiet gem of a film. It is a welcome respite from all the senseless bombast of current animated fare such as "Monsters vs. Aliens" and the like. The sparse Celtic musical score is effective in evoking the sense of fantasy that imbues the film. OK, the story might be a little shallow and the ending a bit wanting. I would have liked to know more about the Book that Brendan and Aiden was working on. But the clear star of this film is clearly its amazing stylized artwork, said to be based on the artwork in the real Book of Kells.

I've never been to Paris, but after seeing "Paris, Je t'aime" I'm crazy to visit this city! I've been to NY several times and I LOVE the city and its boroughs. I kinda expected to be touched by this film, to feel like jumping into a plane and fly there right away, but, lo and behold, I regret the time and money I spent with it. There are no love stories between people or a person and the city. There's a lot of dysfunctional meetings and relations or people who know each other and it just doesn't work out fine. Maybe this reflects a characteristic of the city, where it's said to have thousands of people living on their own. Can't you find love in New York?
MEN OF HONOR features Cuba Gooding Jr., in what is probably his best performance to date. He plays Carl Brashear, a man of towering courage and heroism. He's a poor dirt farmer from the South, who wants to become a Navy diver- but has problems because of his race. The head of the diving school, played by Robert DeNiro, is a racist redneck that nonetheless grows to respect Brashear. The film is about how Brashear has to concur the nearly insurmountable odds, not once but twice. The performances are what make this film special. Gooding is great, and DeNiro, the best actor in movie history, gives a towering performance- his best dramatic work in years. Charlize Theron gives another solid performance as DeNiro's much younger wife. The film lays on the patriotism a little too strong (though no where near the level it was in THE PATRIOT), and a few of the characters are just one dimensionally bad (Hal Holbrook's Mr. Pappy is just so evil), but the film is a rarity among films today. It's uplifting and uncynical. A wonderful film.

I was very disappointed by this movie. I thought that "Scary Movie" although not a great movie was very good and funny. "Scary Movie 2" on the other hand was boring, not funny, and at times plain stupid.
The Exorcist/Amityville spoof was probably the best part of the movie. James Woods was great.
Now, I'll admit that I am at a disadvantage since I have not seen a few of the movies that this parodies unlike the first, where I had basically seen them all. But bad comedy is still bad comedy.
Something that really hurt this movie was the timing, which ruined some of what might have been good jokes. Scenes and jokes drag out way to long.
Also, the same jokes keep getting repeated again and again. For example, the talking bird. Ok it was funny the first and maybe even the second time. But it kept getting repeated to the point of annoying. The routine between the wheelchair guy and Hanson (Chris Elliott) was amusing at first but it kept getting repeated and ended up stupid and even tasteless.
Some jokes even got repeated from the first movie. For example, the 'creaming' I guess you would call it of Cindy (Anna Faris) was funny in "Scary Movie" because Cindy had been holding out on giving her boyfriend sex for so long, that essentially he had blue balls from hell and it was funny when he 'creamed' her. But this time around it was out of place and not funny.
The bathroom and sexual humor in general was more amusing and well timed the first time around. The scat humor was excessive though and rather unneccessary in the second film.
Tori Spelling was annoying and really had no place in this movie.
But I did enjoy Shorty (Marlon Wayans) who in my opinion was the funniest character in the first film. The scene with him and the pot plant was one of my favorites from the second film.
Don't get me wrong, I love the Wayans family and their humor. That is why this film is so disappointing . . . they have a lot more comic ability than endless scat jokes.
Yes, Shakespeare would indeed have been proud. Laurence Fishburne was not at his best but certainly not bad. Kenneth Brannagh on the other hand was brilliant. His scheming was wonderful as was his toying with the audience. Very nice work.
There were at times too little drama where more would have been expected. Cassio's slaying, for instance, was a bit clouded by too much happening to far apart, causing the spectator to twist his head to grasp it all.
Did I mention Michael Maloney? His madness striken Roderigo was unusual; annoying even.
If you haven't seen Othello before, see this. If you haven't read Othello, see this. If you haven't heard Othello, see this. You do, on the other hand, do yourself a favour by reading it, seeing it acted onstage and hearing it sung too.

In my opinion this movie advances no new thought. seems to me like taking a spear to a spear without looking to the side! the director seems to have an agenda! Duh! I find that his rational is lacking there does not seem to be room for the alternative view. I for one am usually on the side of the naysayer but this movie lacks credibility as it relies on the fantastic observations of the man/woman on the street. really now if you wish to cr5eate a credible alternative to a creed held onto for 2000+ years you have got to make more of an effort allowing the other side to voice their beliefs. I'm not sure but at the beginning of the movie it felt like an attack on the Cristian faith, I for one am a non believer, but allow for the beliefs of others, and would not wish no ridicule them but try to understand and tolerate.
The next-to-last episode aired of the original Star Trek series is an interesting, sometimes melancholy installment that proves the show was still exploring its characters even at this point in the third season; though flawed, 'All Our Yesterdays' has its moments and overall a moody, compelling feel to it. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy beam down to a planet, assuming they are arriving in the nick of time to save or at least give some warning to whatever populace is there, since the planet's sun is due to explode within hours. But as it turns out, the people there are all too aware of the planet's fate, and using a kind of time travel device, have escaped into the past. Each person has been able to choose the time and place in the past where he or she would like to live at a 'library,' run by an elderly man named Mr. Atoz. Atoz assumes the three men are looking for a past to live in as well, and shows them various periods from which they can choose on viewers. There is some rather forced confusion at the start of the episode, with lines like:
McCoy- Where did they go? Atoz- Wherever they wanted to.
The misunderstanding could be cleared up rather easily, but for plot purposes, it isn't, and soon Kirk finds himself transported back to a period resembling 18th Century England, while Spock and McCoy are sent to an ice age, 5000 years in the planet's past. From here, the main focus is on Spock and his relationship with a woman exiled to this time by a tyrant as punishment. Spock begins acting increasingly emotional, showing anger toward McCoy and deep affection for Zarabeth, the woman. He eventually realizes that he is reverting back to the primitive emotional state of his ancestors on Vulcan, 5000 years ago. Kirk makes his way back to the library first, and finally convinces Mr. Atoz they don't belong in his planet's history. Spock and McCoy return just before it's too late, leaving Zarabeth behind; the Enterprise beams the three up and speeds away as the sun explodes, destroying the planet. The interaction between Spock and Zarabeth provides this episode's most memorable moments, though Kirk's adventure into the 'English' past is amusing. All in all, a very decent latter-day Star Trek outing.

Shaggy & Scooby-Doo Get a Clue. It's like watching a much-loved relative in the final throws of a degenerative illness!! Clearly the work of people with no soul, no love or respect for the original work. What in the name of all that's holy were they thinking of? It seems they were trying to go all post-modern and ironic. Instead it's just abysmal swill!! What's the point in taking up a successful franchise like 'Scooby-Doo' if you just going to flush it down the toilet? My son loves the original series - and even some of the spin-off movies - but he can't stand this drivel! And let's face it, you can't argue against the tastes of a seven year-old
I'm a fan of Crash and Blade Runner and this movie explores some of those highway death and 80s film noir themes that I like to see, so I enjoyed it.
In general though, the essential stupidity of the film noir protagonist is not pulled off well by the female lead and her hero is nearly a neanderthal, hence the kitch warning.

I rented this DVD having seen it while looking for something else. When I saw the title on the jacket I couldn't believe my eyes. I read Yalom's book about a year ago and loved it, in fact admire Yalom's work in general. (I am a clinical psychologist.) I have watched perhaps 30 minutes of this movie and have had to turn it off. I'm not sure if I can take much more. At a superficial level, the faux accents, as others have commented, are simply distracting at best and irritating and vapid at worst. The acting is dull when it should be passionate and comical when it should be serious. The portrayal of Lou Salome is simply flippant, and the brilliant Freud comes off as little more than a schoolboy. I see very little of the book's spirit conveyed thus far. I had hoped to be able to recommend this film to my students. Instead, I will refer them to the book. Imagine that.
i thought this movie was wonderfully plotted it made me confused and my cousin who watched it with me.to tell the truth i think that the younger kevin dillon was hot.hahahaha...but i also thought the girl was stupid to go along with the cop and that was wrong what he said to her before his death"i was inside you".i think that's what she gets for doing what she did with him and how is he going to tell her that she's too young when he never cared how old the other girls were.?now i don't think i myself could ever trust a cop like that.but to tell the truth it was pretty obvious it was him even if he was wanting to become a cop i would still be suspicious of him either way.and that was funny when she sprayed him in the eye in the store.hahahahaha.she was still stupid for going into the warehouse again by herself and so was the cop who died HELLO!! it's called back-up.sometimes these movies make me mad when people act stupid and do stupid things.but that's what i think an thought about the movie.

Let me start out by saying i will try not to put too many spoilers in this. Normally I enjoy Robin Williams movies, however this gem was not one of them. It was billed as a suspenseful thriller. The night listener was anything but. To be blunt there were 6 people in the theater opening day, 2 walked out, for good reason. The movie was in my opinion poorly written and directed. The acting was alright but again there wasn't anything to work with. The movie is about A storyteller who reads a good book by a dying kid. However *insert spooky here* no one can verify the kids existence. So Williams goes to Wisconsin to try and find the author, however all he gets is a headache and excuses from the boys caretaker. There thats it, thats all. You wait for about an hour and a half and movie ends. It had as many thrills and chills as a dentist office visit. The homosexual undertones, or overtones had really nothing to do with the story, and the movie had a little profanity but it seemed to be thrown in there for absolutely no reason and made little sense. In conclusion i really can't write a decent review on this film because there was nothing to it, it was as captivating as watching paint dry. I gave it a 2 because the acting for what it was worth was alright and it wasn't directed by Uwe Boll.
i expected something different:more passion,drama...Again another failed attempt of originality.i'm sorry to say that the film falls into the old cliché of 'cheesiness'.15 year old teens may appreciate it though.The acting was not very convincing and the lines common,lacking any wit.Still, the soundtrack was good and well adapted.I can't say that this movie is a total flop,because people do watch it but it didn't meet the public's expectations and sunk into mediocrity.So,to conclude,the production keeps you in front of the TV for almost an hour and a half,which is an appreciable thing.Thus,I guess its worth seeing if you don't get annoyed

1 is being pretty generous here. I really enjoyed BOOGEYMAN, even though it is not really the BOOGEYMAN promoted on the DVD cover and we all know it! It creeped me out. But this film, it is something else. For being directed by a guy who has been around a long time and directed a lot of movies, it looks like it was shot on a VHS camcorder by a 10 year old! The story and acting are atrocious! David Hess, you have let me down too. After playing one of the most menacing villains in film history, you have resorted to this? The story and acting may have been able to be forgiven however, if anyone had taken the time to make the video look somewhat professional. There are a LOT of shot on video films out there that don't look like it, or at least aren't so obvious that it detracts your attention from the film. I can't say it is the worst movie ever, because I couldn't make it through the entire film, but it is certainly close.