Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I just saw "Of Human Bondage" for the first time a few days ago and WOW! What a mysterious and almost spooky film. I loved how the music went with the pace of each step of Philip's feet. It gave me the chills for some reason...
One of the greatest aspects of this film is that you get to see Bette Davis coming into herself right before your eyes. She's great, not necessarily because this is her best work, but because it was so out of the ordinary to be so vicious, gritty, and unflinching as an actress in 1934... Bette was a risk taker, always wanting to be different and this is right about when she started to realize that she could be as nasty and daring as she wanted and people would love her for it. If you're a true lover of film, it's amazing to see...
She just had a way of delivering a line that made the part, and the film for that matter, belong to her. Like "A mass of music and fire. That's me...an old kazoo and some sparklers" or "But you are Blanche, you are in that chair!" or "WITH ALL MY HEART, I STILL LOVE THE MAN I KILLED!!"... Those are from a few of her films, but you get my drift. She was just so brave, sassy, and exotic looking with those beautiful big eyes. After seeing this, I can't believe it was remade twice...
Leslie Howard was gorgeous...so calm and persistent, needing to be loved. I thought he was adorable and couldn't understand how everyone wasn't falling for him, but then again, everyone was...except Mildred. He did a great job...
The only thing that I didn't like was something that was common with the writing in the early films. They'd make a character so hateful that it's almost unbelievable that someone would actually fall for them in the first place. The performances were great, but in real life, Philip would have never been interested in Mildred. That's just the simple truth... See it!!

Yes, this is one of THOSE movies, so terrible, so insipid, so trite, that you will not be able to stop laughing. I have watched comedies, good comedies, and laughed less than my wife and I laughed at this movie. The other comments give the idea well enough. The characters are so unpleasant you cheer the rats on, the effects are so poorly done you wonder whose elementary school art class was in charge, the acting-- oh the acting-- talk about tired dialogue and embarrassing pauses.
But the rat, yes, the big rat. Why we didn't get to see the rat until the end rather surprised me. Often the 'big one' isn't shown until the end because the budget is limited and good effects chew up so much money. I surmise, however, that in this case the big rat was hidden until the end because the filmmakers were ashamed that the best they had was a guy running around dressed up like a woodchuck with third-world dentistry.
The most sublime part of the whole movie is the elevator scene. After figuring out that the rats couldn't stand loud noise (migraines from the bad acting?), the main dude rigs up a fire alarm to send the rats into a frenzy. If you've ever wanting to see a pair of rats waltz while blood squirts out of their heads like a geyser, this film is for you. Really, you need to rent it and see for yourself.
But not for more than 99¢, OK?
First off, this is an excellent series, though we have sort of a James Bond effect. What I mean is that while the new Casino Royale takes place in 2006, it is chronologically the first adventure of 007, Dr. No (1962) being the second, while in Golden Eye, the first film with Pierce Brosnan, Judi Dench is referred to as the new replacement for the male "M" so how could she have been in place in the beginning before Bond became a double-0, aside from the fact that she is obviously 14 years older? This is more or less a "poetic" license to thrill. We need to turn our heads aside a bit if we wish to be entertained. No, the new Star Trek movie does not have any of the primitive electronics of the original series from nearly half a century ago. In the 1960's communicators were fantasy. (now we call them cell phones) and there were sliding levers instead of buttons. OMG, do you think 400 years from now, they would have perfected Rogaine for Jean-Luc Picard? So, please, let's give the producers some leeway.
But to try and make things a bit consistent, let us just ponder about the Cylons creation just 60 years prior to the end of Battlestar Galactica. If that is the case, where did all the Cylons that populated the original earth come from? We know that the technology exists for spontaneous jumps through space. Well, what happened if one of the Cyclon ships at war with the Caprica fleet was fired upon or there was a sunspot or whatever and one ship, loaded with human-looking Cylons, wound up not only jumping through space, but through time, back a thousand or ten thousand years with a crippled ship near Earth One. They colonized it, found out they could repopulate it and eventually destroyed themselves, but not before they themselves sent out a "ragtag" fleet to search for the legendary Caprica, only to find a habitable but unpopulated planet, which they colonized to become the humans, who eventually invented the Cylons. Time paradox? Of course. Which came first, the chicken or the road? Who cares? It's fraking entertaining!

I wanted to like this film, yes its a SAW, blah blah blah ripoff but I like those films. If done well this had all the ingredients of being a good, not brilliant, but good film....unfortunately those ingredients had gone off! The acting was terrible, and this was first seen when the captives are introduced with their captor one by one (hoods taken off), the remarks and one liners are just terrible, yes I know, bad writing....but this is more than that, it was bad writing coupled with bad acting. Two of the captives had been in a relationship with each other and did not even acknowledge this until a lot further into the film.....
Sorry, Im even wondering why I am bothering to review this movie at all.
I will end with PLOT HOLES, PLOT HOLES & MORE PLOT HOLES! DISAPPOINTING!
THE RUNNING MAN, along with TOTAL RECALL, is my favorite Schwarzenegger movie. No, this isn't 2001, but it's not meant to be. And the acting and script here isn't even up to par with other Arnie movies like PREDATOR or THE TERMINATOR. But I submit that the IDEA behind this movie is one of the coolest ever to hit the big screen. A state-sponsored game show in which criminals convicted of serious crimes compete against "heroic" stalkers armed with all kinds of weapons (the runners are equipped with none) in order to satisfy the public's lust for sport and blood. The ultimate prize for a winning runner: freedom. Or so the rules claim.
For a movie with such over-the-top gory death scenes and cheesy one-liners, it really does have a lot to say. Someone else has pointed out all the commentary on culture/government presented in this movie, so I won't go into it here. Suffice it to say that if you can look beyond the seemingly silly feel of the movie, you will enjoy it very much (especially if you're a big SF fan with a lot of imagination). Like I said, it's not trying to be a serious art film, but it IS surprisingly layered for a 80s shoot-em-up flick. The premise is borrowed from a Richard Bachman (aka Stephen King) short novel, but diverges fairly strongly from its source material, especially towards the end. (The book ends rather nihilistically; needless to say this movie doesn't.) I enjoyed both, but I like the movie better.
My favorite line: "Guess it's caused from steroids."

Hi, May be because I am not a Theater major or a sophisticated movie watcher ... I think this movie is "Boring" and "Dumb".
I rented this movie because of Charles Bronson and it's title ... but boy what a waste of time ... just watching 2 guys sitting in a vault and talking ...
The movie on this DVD was so "DARK" ... I had hard time watching the darn movie ... I realize it is a 1968 movie ... but they are putting it on a DVD then they should do some digital remastering.
Also, I was totally surprised to see these high marks on IMDb for this movie ... like I said before I am not as sophisticated as the other folks who commented on this movie earlier.
Imagine that I was about to miss this great cultural event on Swedish TV last night, and it was only because my girlfriend insisted on keeping the TV on (to make it easier for her to fall asleep!) that I came across it (yes I had seen an advert for it previously but of course forgotten about it and looked forward to an 'early night'...).
Anyway - this must surely be a rather unusual idea - to base a film documentary on an interview made with sound only more than 30 years ago. But with animated and other documentary film material it adds up to a really good and insightful portrait of one of the 20th centuries' most appreciated literary artists - Georges Remy a.k.a Hergé.
I for sure will read my Tintin albums with a different eye after having seen this film, which makes it easier to connect the variations in style as well as content with the different periods in Hergé's life (and I can tell you that I will a.s.a.p get the few that I don't have). Of course my perception of the albums has changed over the more than 25 years that I have already been reading them, as has my view about what albums are my favourites, but this adds (at least) one more dimension to them.

The potential was there. I saw Creep and thought, 'Oooh, this is getting interesting' several times. Yet somehow the interesting plot lines wound up unexplained or ignored, like they never happened. The lead character was irritating throughout the movie, and at one point my fella and I both shouted that we wanted her to die. There are some genuinely spooky/scary moments, but these are grossly overshadowed by the moments that just annoyed the hell out of me. It's another one of those horror movies that crops up and intrigues you for a while, but ultimately leaves you frustrated and a little confused about what the movie makers were trying to achieve.
The one saving grace of this movie is the bad guy, but when the baddie is more likable than the lead character you know you're on to a loser.
this was one of the most moving movies i have ever seen. i was about 12 years old when i watched it for the first time and whenever it is on TV i my eyes are glued to it. the acting and plot are amazing. it seems so true to reality and it touches on so many controversial topics. i recommend this movie to anyone interested in a good drama.

Hmm, IMDb rating of 7.5, good comments, bla, bla ... okay, two of my friends and me, we orderd Pizza, sat down and wanted to see something as cool as Ichi or at least something brainless but funny like Versus. But Naked Blood sucked. It's a complete waste. Okay, the scene with the woman who likes to eat is quite outstanding. But that's it. Nothing more, nothing less. I won't summerize the plot, other people did already, I just wanted to stop the hype. But watch it and rate for yourself. Maybe we can push the rating where it sould be. One more thing that comes to my mind: the soundtrack is even worse than Carpenter ever was - okay, John's cool ... :) 2/10
Tho 35 years old, Groove Tube looks a lot like actual TV today! Specialty niche networks (nude sports), a TV show about stoner drug dealers called the Dealers (ala Weeds, and even predating 1978's Cheech & Chong Up In Smoke), weird beer commercials (Butz Beer, no less bizarre than Bud Bowls), dirty-minded kid's clown Koko (shades of Pee Wee Herman), even Chevy Chase doing slapstick humor (a violent barbershop vocal duo) a year before his 1975 debut on Saturday Night Live. And thanks to the infamous opening sequence that earned Groove Tube an initial X-rating, I still can't hear Curtis Mayfield's "Move On Up" without thinking of naked dancing hitchhiking hippies ---- For similar sketch-style movies, see TunnelVision, Kentucky Fried Movie, Amazon Women on the Mood, Monty Python's Beyond the Fringe, Dynamite Chicken, and the Firesign Theatre's Everything You Know is Wrong.

If you are looking for eye candy, you may enjoy Sky Captain. Sky Captain is just a video game injected with live performers. The visials are nice and interesting to look at during the entire movie. Now, saying that, the visuals are the ONLY thing good in Sky Captain.
After ten minutes, I knew I was watching one of the worse movies of all time. I was hoping this movie would get better, but it never achieved any degree of interest. After thirty minutes, the urge to walk out kept growing and growing. Now, I own over 2000 movies and have seen probably five times that number. Yet, this is only the second movie I felt like walking out of my entire life.
Acting---there is none. The three main performers are pitiful. Jude Law (also in the other movie I wanted to walk out on) is just awful in the title role. I would rather sit through Ben Affleck in Gigli than watch Law again.
Paltrow tries SO hard to be campy, that it backfires in her face. The last article I had read said that Paltrow is thinking of staying home and being a mother rather than acting. After this performance, I would applaud that decision.
Story---Soap operas are better written. The story behind Sky Captain starts out bad and gets continually worse as it progresses.
Directing---none. Everything was put into the special effects that story, acting and directing suffer greatly. Even "the Phantom Menace" had better acting and that is NOT saying a great deal.
I would have to give this movie a "0" out of "10". Avoid paying theatre prices and wait until video release.
At least for a half hour a week. I haven't been interested in anything on the big 3 networks (ABC/CBS/NBC) in years. All of the lions are interesting, although Larry can get annoying at times. I really like the Middle earth action figures they bring in with Hunter. Most of the other characters are interesting as well. The sideshow of Siegfried and Roy is entertaining at times, too. The animation is top notch, and definitely the best CG that has been done on a weekly TV show. Usually when they hire big names to star in a show, they're trying to hide a poor script or characters. Not entirely true in this show though, There's a couple characters that were weak and improved by the voice acting, but overall the characters stand on their own.
This is definitely for 16 and up. There's nothing here that most kids haven't already heard before though, and most of the jokes would probably just fly right over their heads. It's definitely not as crude and edgy as South Park, but does bring some of the same "Bash everyone" feel to it. One example is that it makes fun of both Dick Cheney and Barbara Streisand at the same time in one episode.
Father of the Pride and other Dreamworks productions like Shrek also feel like the spiritual successors of Animaniacs, Pinky and the Brain, and Freakazoid. It's the same type of humor grown up. It may not be as witty as Spielberg's classic TV series, but it's still good.
I hope that it finishes this season off well, and is renewed for future seasons. Otherwise I may never find a reason to watch the big 3 again.

I don't know why this has the fans it does and I don't know why I have even given it the score I have. This is preposterous. There are many a giallo where one has to suspend disbelief, let the picture roll and catch up with it somewhere before it becomes delirious and some poor police officer has to eventually explain what we have seen. But, this has very little going for it and has overlong sequences where nothing happens and have no relevance to anything while we have to listen to a most repetitive soundtrack, even by Italian standards. Not a giallo, this is a complete mish mash of horror ideas featuring Klaus Kinski in one his most blatant 'phoned in' performances. I reckon he turned up, did a day's work and cleared off leaving Mr D'Amato to get others to fill in. Ewa is of course pretty but no it is not enough, and in the end we have seen far too much of her popping up all over the place, long after we have completely lost interest in this mindless and pretentious twaddle. Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood!
This movie is one for the ages. First, I have to say after seeing this once, it became one of my all-time favorite movies. Why? Simple; Ben Coccio (writer, director)has put together a true piece of art. Where 99.9% of movies these days are purely entertainment, director Ben Coccio gives us truth, gives us reality, gives us a learning tool to know why this happened. The mainstream media spins and spins but Ben Coccio looks school shootings right in the face, able to go where no other form of media has EVER gone before, into the minds and hearts of two young men planning to kill their classmates. While it surely is graphic and horrifying, how couldn't it be? The gloves come off, the lies and the sugar coating of our media masters is brushed aside and we are taken to a place where we can find truth in what happened. Sometimes it isn't just a screw loose like everyone likes to think, no, sometimes hatred and isolation are deeper, are more human, we are shown that these boys are us and we them. Society left them behind and the consequences are horrifying and real.
Respect and love your fellow man. A lesson we all should learn, thank you so much for making this film Mr. Coccio, I hope with great anticipation that you will continue your film-making career.

The first one was the best. The second one sucked because the dialog was terrible. Although, the storyline wasn't so bad (in fact, all story lines are good and bad). Throughout the movie, I dosed off a few times. I know that Jackie Chan is a great martial arts expertise, but not a good actor in Rush Hour 2. Chris Tucker, too, wasn't good. And Zhang Ziyi, what can I say, a few lines, terrible acting (But that's based on her script). All the characters there were not that good. But, some of the things I like in Rush Hour 2 is always the action and less sex scenes. I know that Jackie Chan doesn't do those things which is good for him.
Really touching story of a recruitment camp in America, where young men are prepared for the Vietnam war. The human study always appealed to me when it comes to war movies, because it translates personal, subjective opinions on war, opposed war action movies where action, and technical data are being analyzed to the prejudice of the human factor.
The movie manages to put a new spin on an already ancient subject, and manages to distance itself from usual war movies, especially by focusing on an anti-hero from the view-point of traditional standard. The movie focuses on the tragic character of Bozz, who smartly avoids being sucked in by the dehumanizing war machine, and refuses to give up control over his destiny and fight for something he doesn't believe in, spends his energy in searching ways to avoid being sent overseas, both for himself and comrades and ironically ends up finding his own just reason for finally going to war. Perfect irony.
The acting is truly exceptional, and the documentary-style shooting almost makes you feel transposed into the movie. Also the movie will provide food for thought for those exhilarated by the action in usual war movies or war-games enthusiasts, hopefully awakening some minds of a generation which luckily escaped the terror of being drafted.

This is by far one of the most boring and horribly acted accounts of the early days of Adolf Hitler that I have ever watched. Robert Carlyle is a wonderful actor, but to cast him as Hitler is just plain wrong. To cast Liev Schrieber as Hitler's longtime friend and aid, Haefengstal must have emitted cries of despair and anguish from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre. A J-W playing a Nazi supporter, bad bad bad casting. This was not an enjoyable family film with a good historical background. This was Hollywood rubbish at its finest, cashing in on the strength of a strong (but sorely under utilized) supporting cast of actors whom seemed to have all but disappeared from the acting radar in the past 5 years.
The fake German accents (vee vill vin zis var) is insulting to German people everywhere. My mother is German and she sat fuming at the sound of the voices which kept switching from American/English/German all in the same sentence. The supporting cast make better cardboard cutouts at the local video store than they do on screen. Jenna Malone as the fated Geli Raubal, was splendid though, she captured the innocence and confusion of this tragic young woman who ultimately ended her own life to escape what her future would have been like in Hitler's shadow.
If you would like a tremendously fantastic and historically accurate account of Hitler's early years leading up to and including the war/holocaust, rent "Inside the Third Reich" 1983 starring Rutger Hauer as Albert Speer and Derek Jacobi as Hitler. It was good and made more sense then this baloney.
As a historical researcher of the Third Reich I can honestly tell you, this had me reaching for my books to confirm its myriad of inaccuracies.
This is one of the funniest series ever! I laughed till my sides split and rolled around on the floor. If only someone would release in America. Region 0 or 1 - Non-PAL please.
I know it being released in the UK but that's Region 2 and PAL besides! Let's give this series its fair shake. America must know this series. Moffat is a genius. I loved Tracie Bennett's quirky, goofy role in this. Of course I liked Fiona Gillies! But Tracie was a treasure!
Release this show in America! or Show it again on the PBS stations. I need to laugh and laugh again! Please indulge us, please! Please!
Thanks for reading.

"Raising Victor Vargas" is one of those light, family movies that you can watch and do the N.Y. Times crossword puzzle at the same time. And if you want to go to the kitchen for a taco and a Corona, you don't have to "Pause" the DVD. Just let it roll, 'cause you won't be missing anything really important. No twists, turns, or tension. It's not really an ethnic movie, it's a movie about a poor, struggling immigrant family that happens to be Latino. They could have been any ethnic group. It made very little difference. I've seen it all a zillion times before. Just plug in a Jewish family, an Italian family, a Black family, or an Irish family. Just the accents and names were different. If the Vargas family was named Bush or Clinton and were Presbyterians, the movie would have been a total snooze.
It's funny that the critics here couldn't get the locale straight. Some said it was Spanish Harlem. Some the Bronx, and another Brooklyn. As a life-long New Yorker, I vote for the Lower East Side. And it seemed that the family never met up with anyone except other Latinos. They lived in an insulated/isolated little enclave. Some interaction with non-Latinos might have created some excitement, interest, or tension. Remember West Side Story?
And now for the oft-criticized cinematography. I don't know if it was my TV or what, but all the indoor shots looked very ORANGE to me. The apt, the furniture, and the faces were all ORANGE. What was that supposed to mean? And the apt. did look pretty cramped to me. Somebody here mentioned that the old apt's/tenements had very big rooms. Well, maybe 50 years ago. What landlords have done is to break up one big apt into 2 or 3 very small ones and squeeze as many immigrants as they can into them.
And another annoying thing ....This is the second family movie I've seen and criticized this week that featured a teenage boy "jerking off". Is this private sex act necessary for us to watch? Please spare me! What's up with these directors?
So "Victor Vargas" is a pleasant little movie. It was nice for a change to see young Latino actors given a break and a chance to show their talents, which they did. But the writers let them down, giving them a flat, unspectacular script to work with. Enjoy the show, but keep your fingers near the "fast forward" button.