Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Page 3 is a great movie. The story is so refreshing and interesting. Not once throughout the movie did i find myself staring off into space. Konkana Sen did a good job in the movie, although i think someone with more glamour or enthusiasm would have been better, but she did do a great job. All the supporting actors were also very good and helped the movie along. Boman Irani did a great job. There is one thing that stands out in this movie THE STORY it is great, and very realistic, it doesn't beat around the bush it is very straight forward in sending out its message. I think more movie like this should be made, i am sick of watching the same candy floss movies over and over, they are getting hard to digest now. Everyone should watch Page 3, it is a great film. -Just my 2 cents :)

After being a big fan of the ten minute T.V episodes of 'Stella Street', I awaited this film with excitement and anticipation. Unfortunately I was left feeling very disappointed.
I was dismayed by the way that nearly all of the gags and one liners were directly lifted from the T.V Episodes, and delivered with much less enthusiasm and comic timing, as if the actors had said them once, and couldn't be bothered to say them again. I bought my copy on DVD and felt cheated that I had parted with my hard earned cash to watch the same jokes over again.
*SPOILERS* The plot of the film starts with Stella Street (a normal English street in Surrey), gradually being populated by 'some of the most famous people from stage and screen of the last forty years', including Michael Caine, Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson and The Rolling Stones. All the celebrities in the street end up being conned out of their entire fortunes by a local fraudster, and are forced to live like tramps and common working class people. There are some nice moments, but on the whole, the writers manage to take an interesting idea and make it pretty boring. *END OF SPOILERS*
In the T.V Episodes, all the characters are performed by John Sessions and Phil Cornwell (including females), but in the film Ronni Ancona is added to the cast. I think this was a mistake. Her impersonations weren't funny, and it felt like her characters were included in the story just to give her something to do.
If you were not a fan of the episodes of Stella Street, you may find this film entertaining. But if you were a fan, I think you may walk away feeling a little bit cheated. 4/10
Moonwalker by Michael Jackson is a real adventure film for the whole family!
Before the real story of the movie starts, we get a performance of the Bad Tour (Man In The Mirror), and it kicks off a great movie. After that we get a kind of a collage of Michael carrier, as it was until Moonwalker came out in 1988. After a few Music Videos also (Speed Demon, Leave Me Alone, etc.) the story starts.
The plot is basically that Michael and his 3 friends (who are kids) are being chased by the bad guy of the story "Mr. Big", because they discovered his evil plans of getting children all over the world hocked on drugs. During the chase we see fantastic segments, fx. Michaels video for Smooth Criminal, which is absolutely fantastic with its dance sequences, etc. But then one of the kids get kidnapped by Mr. Big, and Michael will haft to save her before she gets a drug addict.
During the movie we see special effects not only amazing for those days standards, but also impressive today. For instance, see Michael turning in to a robot/spaceship in order to protect his friends! It's so cool!
The movie ends with a performance of Come Together (later published in Michaels double-album of HIStory), and you leave the movie with a magic feeling. Amazing!
I recommend this for every family who wants to spend a nice night together with candy and popcorn in front of the TV. And now some parents might stand up and say: "But Michael Jackson is an alleged child abuser!" Yeah, he is indeed, but, come on, we all know it isn't true! Wait and see..

We bought this film from a shop called Poundland. We were looking for more inspiration as we have previously bought the film No Big Deal an remade it.
We expected this film to be badly inspirational so that we might remake it and put it on the tube. HOWEVER, this was shocking. BORING is the main word that comes to mind. The bad effects and script aren't enough to make you watch it. The main woman's body seems to be whipped out at opportune moments in a pathetic attempt to keep the viewer interested. However, it just makes you wonder, did they blow the budget getting her to take her clothes off? If so, I'd have asked for a refund! It looks like a homemade film, the shots don't even correspond with each other and the camera work is so amateur it makes our remakes of bad movies look professional. I CANNOT believe that this is being sold as a marketable product.
IT IS JUST BORING and UGLY to watch. The actors are bad and there is no degree of professionalism about it. There are no words to describe how terrible it is.
Poor Ivy: Though to the manner born, she had the bad luck to marry a charming wastrel (Richard Ney). As the movie is set in the 20s or 30s, when rigid Victorian ideas of class were starting to fray at the edges, this uncertain status vexes her unduly. The Gretorexes (for so they are called) don't know where their next shilling is coming from but there are yachting parties and fancy-dress balls in posh pleasaunces aplenty to tempt her. When Ivy (Joan Fontaine) makes the acquaintance of a wealthy older gent (Herbert Marshall, who must have been born middle-aged), she sets one of her extravant chapeaux for him. Luckily, one of the beaux she still strings along (Patric Knowles) is a physician whose consulting rooms provide a cache of poison, with which she bids her hubby farewell. The fact that it implicates Knowles doesn't phase her a bit, even as the hours trickle by until he should be hanged by the neck until dead. The turning of the plot depends on police inspector Sir Cedric Hardwicke; Knowles' mother (the redoubtable Lucile Watson); and Knowles' loyal housekeeper (Una O'Connor). Sam Wood adds some subtle touches to this well above average melodrama; Fontaine's luminous face supplies the rest.

There seems to be a surprisingly high number of 8-10 star reviews here from people who have never written an IMDb review before or since. Given the very low average rating given to the film by other people, I think you may draw your own conclusions.
This is a very bad film. I'll admit it, I thought the concept was kind of cute, and I was pleased to see the actresses who played Eve and Harmony on Angel getting work, but it didn't take long for the sheer awfulness of this film to make itself known.
Acting: The leads seemed competent enough, but everyone else? Terrible.
Plot: Chock full of holes big enough to drive a truck through.
Direction: Non-existent.
Humour: Did they really think people were going to laugh? Oh boy.
Eye Candy: OK. there were some really beautiful women in this film. Not just the three main female characters, but right across the board. It was as if the producers hoped the scenery would keep male viewers so distracted they wouldn't notice how terrible everything else was. If so, they failed miserably.
In the right hands this could have been cute but darkly funny camp classic. It wasn't even close.
This movie is beautifully designed! There are no flaws. Not in the design of the set, the lighting, the sounds, the plot. The script is an invitation to a complex game where the participants are on a simple mission.
Paxton is at his best in this role. His mannerisms, the infections used in the tones of his voice are without miscue. Each shot meticulously done! Surprises turn up one after another when the movie reaches past its first hour. This may not be the best picture of the year, but it's a gem that has been very well polished. It's not for the simple mind.

... mainly because Ju-on 2 boasts an outrageous FORTY minutes' worth of material literally taken straight out of the first Ju-on - and when you consider that the sequel only runs for 76 minutes, that leaves you with 36 original minutes' worth of film. Ho-hum. I found that deeply irritating - as if viewers simply wouldn't remember the same stuff! - not to mention dull, having to watch it all over again.
OK, that complaint aside, the byline for Ju-on 2 was that it was supposed to explain a lot of the unanswered questions from the first movie, which frankly, over 36 minutes, simply doesn't go far enough to making any kind of sense of the original's highly convoluted storyline.
There are, however, some really nice new horror sequences which show how good the film might have been, had it had some time to develop; and some of the questions raised by the original - some, but not all - are answered.
So in conclusion - if you loved the first original movie and want to see some further developments on the story, go for it - but just remember to keep your remote control to hand with your finger on the fast-forward button for forty minutes.
THE PERVERT'S GUIDE TO CINEMA (2007) ****
If Loving Cinema Makes Me A Pervert, So Be It!
If you are a true 'moviefreak' like me then I'm sure you can't get enough of films about film-making and I don't mean necessarily the dry documentary know and then. I mean a total discourse on the film viewing experience. Well if that's the case have I got a lulu of a film experiment for you.
In Sophie Fiennes (sister of Ralph & Joseph if you were wondering) has noted philosopher cum cinephile Slavoj Zizek give his analysis on cinema with some impressive (and often outrageous) takes on everything from the silent era of Chaplin thru the modern age of the Wachowski Brothers analyzing, probing, and pontificating about the psychosexual underpinnings, socioeconomic, political and of course indefinable magic of the film going experience with his unflagging, determined and near-frenetic dissertations. To go from explaining how The Bates' house in PSYCHO is actually the mirrored psyche of the conflicted Norman Bates with each level as his Ego, Superego & Id is one thing but then to suggest the same thing about each Marx Brother in barely a beat is a remarkable test of faith that wins over the skeptic layman.
Although I had no idea who Zizek was  he resembles a hybrid of filmmaker Brian DePalma, European actor Rade Serbedzija and the hyperkinetic energy of filmmakers Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese  with his sibilant tongue and passion, the host comes across as a mad prophet.
Fiennes cleverly inserts Zizek into several of the film clips' backgrounds peppered throughout making for a humorous tone but still lets the ranting and raving continue full throttle giving pause for argument in three acts covering the gamut of films by the likes of Kubrick, Lynch, Hitchcock and films as diverse as THE WIZARD OF OZ, THE RED SHOES, and FIGHT CLUB.
There's something for everyone and if one man can provoke an argument or at least a reason to discuss a film's themes  even if they are Freudian/Jungian to a fault  then I say this collection of film theory is worth the watch. Seek it out now if you can before it comes to home video; it's the only way to appreciate it.

I checked this movie out when it still had 6 votes and it said like 7.2 or something, but seriously this is a horrible movie. Lets break it down. The first thing you notice about this movie is that it was filmed on a hand-held digital camera owned by a freshman at a community college. the next thing you'll notice is that the actors, are all friends of said freshman (he probably met them at the pub the night before. Third on the list you will notice that the musical editing is horrible, and they try to cram many songs into this movie, at 30 second intervals... also all digital editing is done on said freshman's home PC... probably using windows movie maker. This movie was horrible... pretentious, had an undeniably bad script, and acting that followed suit. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone I know, but I do sentence the writer and director to watch this movie in hell for an eternity.
The short that starts this film is the true footage of a guy named Gary, apparently it was taken randomly in the parking lot of a television station where Gary works in the town of Beaver. Gary is a little "different"; he is an impersonator and drives an old Chevy named Farrah (after Fawcett). Lo and behold the filmmaker gets a letter from Gary some time later inviting him to return to Beaver to get some footage of the local talent contest he has put together, including Gary's staggering performace as Olivia Newton Dawn. Oh, my. The two shorts that follow are Gary's story, the same one you just witnessed only the first is portrayed by Sean Penn and the second by Crispin Glover titled "The Orkly Kid." If you are in the mood for making fun of someone this is definitely the film to watch. I was doubled over with laughter through most of it, especially Crispins performance which could definitely stand on it's own. When it was over, I had to rewind the film to once again watch the real Gary and all his shining idiocy. Although Olivia was the focus, I would have liked to have seen one of the "fictitious" shorts take a jab at Gary's Barry Manilow impersonation, whic h was equally ridiculous.

From a poorly contrived plot line that makes almost no sense to bad dialogue and disjointed scenes to the ultimate downer, bad acting (even Peter Falk can't find his way) "Finding John Christmas" is better left lost. Ms. Bertinelli's performance is without depth or emotion as are her co-stars, William Russ as brother Hank and David Cubitt as love interest Noah. Jennifer Pisana as Soccoro, the daughter of single dad Noah is almost unbearable to watch let alone listen to singing. But who can blame them with material like this. Michael J. Murray's script is juvenile at best.
Each year at this time I search the TV guides and wait anxiously for some of the really classic Christmas and inspirational holiday films to appear on the small screen. Films like "Miracle on 34th Street", Ernst Lubitsch's delightful "The shop around the corner" and, of course the 1951 version of "Scrooge". There's Frank Capra's classics "It's a wonderful life" and "Meet John Doe". Hey, forget the classics. What about "Home Alone" or " Home for the Holidays" with Holly Hunter and a great performance by Robert Downey Jr.?
My present to you is by way of advice. Your time would be better spent searching out these films than finding "Finding John Christmas". Merry Christmas!
I remember when I first saw this short, I was really laughing so hard, that like with a lot of other films that I have seen, no sound came out! Curly is really great at "singing" opera in this one, I am surprised that he did not consider a career as a professional singer, because he was really good!
If you noticed, this was filmed near the end of Curly's career as a Stooge, you could really tell he had changed, because he had lost weight and was thinner, his voice was deepening, his face was getting lined with wrinkles, though he still could pull it off, he looked like he was fifty at the age of forty. This was because he was suffering many minor strokes before his big one that ended his career. Be he still managed to pull it off in his last ones!
If you don't mind the fact that Curly was really getting very ill at this point, this is actually one of their funniest shorts. I know that I didn't mind the fact that Curly was really changing, because I still thought that he was great!
10/10

After reading all of the rave reviews about this film and a few that give it a so-so. I finally decided to throw in my no cents worth. I agree with most on the point that if it hadn't been for Lauren Lewis and Chris Ferry it would have been a disaster. Filmed in Mariette OH. just north of Dogpatch where all the real talent fled south down I-77 years ago, at least as far as a tank of gas would allow. I did get a chuckle from reviewers who subtly claim that they cerebrate a little better than most by claiming they followed the plot without an inkling of confusion. This wee tale by the Brothers Crook is like an old record with a skip in it. As an American I understand the difficulties Ind film artists have to face. A trip to Romania would have wiped out the budget for sure. Lets face it this whole film was a loop de loop of Claire in the gas station, Claire on the side of the road, Claire under the bleachers, Claire in the house, Claire in the cornfield, Claire at school. Claire here and Claire there. It almost became monotonous and would have if she had not been the best actor in the cast. Josh and Jeff have to make a living but don't write a two page script and turn it into an hour,twenty flick. Before writing another screenplay about dreaming ghosts watch an episode or two of Ghost Whisperer or something and get a little background. All of the cast except the above mentioned and a couple of others were engaged in their first and last film. Also, there is an appearance by co-director Jeff as he is in all his films. Just like Alfred Hitchcock, eh? One thing the film had going for it is that the cameraman seemed to have a fixation on Lauren Lewis' derrière. Well, with all sarcasm now satisfied I still recommend the film for the horror buff just to see this young actress in the formative time of her career (I hope)and that Chris Ferry has established himself as a villain worth watching.
I got this film about a month ago and I am now a fanatic fan of Drew Barrymore's. I love a happy ending and this film gives a brilliant one with the truths of Red Sox slotted in! It's about a maths teacher who takes some promising kids on a maths trip to a company where the successful Lindsey(Drew) shows them some information. This then leads in the Ben(teacher) and Lindsey dating. But it isn't all simple when he confesses he is a massive Red Sox fan.
First of all things are fine but then his baseball gets in the way of Lindseys life. It's all fine in the end and It took one shot to get Drew running across the field!! I got it for two quid in Blockbusters so I was happy. If you like films like this I suggest you see some more of Drew's work like Charlie's Angels and 50 first dates or even her new film with Hugh Grant in called Music and Lyrics.

What a powerful start to a film when Julia Roberts character is punched in the face by her abusive and anal husband played by Patrick Bergin and I felt ready to experience a powerful film on the same level as Farrah Fawcett's The Burning Bed. Well, as the summary says I was mis-lead. This film was nothing like The Burning Bed, which had power and Farrah played the part of a woman you truly felt for, and felt her pain and her need to survive. Sleeping with the Enemy drifted off after the first act into cheap thrills with Roberts faking her death to escape her husband and goes to live in Iowa. Her husband at first believes she is dead but starts to grow suspicious that she may still be alive and sets off after her. The rest of the movie is basically a cat and mouse game with Julia getting a house in this small town in Iowa and changing her identity....there is no mention of course how she got the money for this but at this point in the film I did not care all that much. She meets a guy (Mr. Nice wimpy) and falls for him and her husband does finally catch up to her but not before he re-arranges her soup cans and straightens up the kitchen. This was I assume to provide a cheap thrill to the audience. But I did not care much if she was an abused wife because the film as I have said cheated the audience. If it had stayed the course I might have felt for her and her situation. Of course the husband is killed and all is well for little ol Ms Roberts. If only the real world was anything close to this....See the Burning Bed and you understand what a film is suppose to be like on the subject of domestic abuse.
In her first nonaquatic role, Esther Williams plays a school teacher who's the victim of sexual assault. She gives a fine performance, proving she could be highly effective out of the swimming pool. As the detective out to solve the case, George Nader gives perhaps his finest performance. And he is so handsome it hurts! John Saxon is the student under suspicion, and although he gets impressive billing in the credits, it's Edward Andrews as his overly-protective father who is the standout.
Bathed in glorious Technicolor, The Unguarded Moment is irresistible hokum and at times compelling drama.

I wasn't expecting a lot from a film directed by Sidney J. Furie and starring Dolph Lundgren but I was surely expecting more than a got. A one-liner user comment - 2nd rate action movie - didn't seem too depreciative to me for a Lundgren film. On the other hand, I wouldn't have bothered to watch this film if its rating was below 5.0 but hey, the movie had a 5.9 out of 10 score, which seemed pretty acceptable to me for this kind of production.
Now I understand that the 37.5% of people who rated this film a 10 (excellent) was clearly a publicity stunt because DETENTION is the regular Nu Image garbage you have seen before, over and over.
Lundgren does not convince as an ex-military turned a history teacher assigned to a rough school. His acting is just plain terrible, emotionless and contrived. Lundgren's inability to act becomes more visible in the scenes with the juvenile delinquent kids. Either they are great actors or, compared to Lundgren, they seem great actors - just because they seem natural and believable.
DETENTION has some elements that could have been potentially interesting for this low budget movie - a closed-for-weekend high-security high school, four teens in detention with a war-veteran teacher and a group of ruthless criminals trying to get in - but the story (something like THE BREAKFAST CLUB meets DIE HARD, or is it PANIC ROOM?) is full of unbelievable situations, lots of clichés and stereotypical characters. And let's not forget Dolph Lundgren is the main actor.
Alex Karzis and Kata Dobó play a Bonnie and Clyde couple in love and they deliver the most acceptable performances of the movie, even if he seems a low-budget version of Sam Rockwell and she, a Milla Jovovich wanna-be. In a movie where everything fails, their craziness and style supplied enough fresh air to prevent my interest from dropping to ground zero.