Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I don't know what the previous reviewer was watching but I guess that's what reviews are, personal taste. Missed in this movie was the depth, a very deep film, many layers of emotion, affecting. Undercurrents of withheld love because of submission to societal beliefs, taboos of the times and classes, race relations not being in a very good state of equality, guilt, yearning, hate, confusion, very dark emotionally I thought, under the skin, you have to submit to the aire of it, a flowing movie, not slow as stated before, release yourself to the flow of the film, the emotions will show themselves, characters reveal their flaws, their nasty insides, excellent and actually very cruel!

The problem with family dramas is that, outside of TV movies on channels like Lifetime, most people don't want to watch them. And the ones that do get watched tend to be sensationalized and about current or topical problems or issues in the news (or recent news). Movies that explain or explore the human condition aren't popular. Particularly with the young crowd that would be Miss Lohan's fan base or the younger crowd that tends to make movies not simply popular but financially successful for studios.
The specific problems I had with this movie is the cartoonishness of some of the characterizations. It was a bit much to blame all of the Lohan's character's acting-out (wrecking the car, drug use, etc.) on what her step-father did to her. While not improbable,it's just a bit much to expect the audience to swallow. Additionally, other aspects, such as her giving the young Morman boy, oral sex, or that she would actually make a good assistant to the vet, who coincidentally happens to have a thing for her mother, etc., all these elements just did not really help this movie along. It placed it more in the element of a situation comedy trying one of their "special dramatic episodes" then it did for a fully realized, well-written feature film.
When you watch the DVD and listen to the commentary, particularly for the various alternate endings, you can really see all of this is sharp focus.
Ulysses as a film should in no way be compared with the novel, for they are two entirely different entities. However, that being said, the film still manages to maintain many of the elements that made the book work, but since it is a visual medium, it is more difficult to pull of stream-of-consciousness. I think this is the best film they could have made with the material... and this is from someone that routinely rants about films not being like their literary counterparts. I recommend the book, but the movie is still entertaining.

The movie seems disjointed and overall, poorly written. The screenplay moves along as if 10 different people wrote it, and none of them were communicating with each other. Apparently they wanted to take a page from a Miracle on 34th Street (the original) type film, but it is done in such a poor way that the movie falls apart. This film is for only the very young, and even THEY will see the fact that whoever scripted it knows little to nothing about baseball. Such as:
 When the Angels are in dead last place, the owner doesn't seem to care, nor is he bothered by the fact his manager just got into a fight with his pitcher  ON THE MOUND  or that he PUNCHED the team's play by play announcer on live TV. However, when the team is one game from winning the Division, he gets bent out of shape over a story (sourced by a 6 year old) that the manager is getting help from a kid who claims to see real angels. What sounds worse? A losing violent out of control manager whose team has lost 15 in a row? Or a winning coach on the verge of the playoffs that is acting a bit eccentric and is helping foster kids? The owner's reaction makes no sense. And he's moved to change his mind by Maggie and her 'straight out of cliché land' speech during a news conference.
 The Angels are supposed to be playing for the Division in the final weekend series against the White Sox, however at the end of the game the announcer's keep saying the Angels 'won the pennant". The pennant is not decided until someone wins the LEAGUE championship, not the regular season division title.
 Whitt Bass, the goofball pitcher is the starting pitcher and wins the game that breaks the Angels losing streak  then is the starting pitcher  THE VERY NEXT DAY.
 Mel Clark (Tony Danza) is said in the ninth inning to have thrown 156 pitches, in a low-scoring ballgame. Typically in low scoring games, the pitch count is MUCH lower than this, usually around 80-90 pitches.
 "AL" the angel says at the end "Championships have to be won on their own", even though he and his angels have been manipulating and fixing games throughout the whole second half of the season.
I could go on and on, as there are MANY other examples where the story is poorly written.
For younger kids (under 10), this movie may be entertaining. It's too bad  done right this could have been a classic. Done wrong like this and it's a forgettable mess that will forever live as a UHF/cable Saturday Morning washout.
Rock solid giallo from a master filmmaker of the genre, Sergio Martino. Fashioned from a marvelous screenplay by Ernesto Gestaldi, this shocking mystery often develops fascinating twists until the terrific finale which most might not see coming throughout the film. It's when everything has fallen into place that we can go, "Ahh.." The film revolves around the death of a husband(..in an airplane explosion)and the million dollars the wife receives from it. There are those with great interest in that money, one in particular being the dead man's mistress. The wife is Lisa(Ida Galli)and the mistress demanding half the money is Lara(Janine Reynaud). She tells Lisa she knows that the death was arranged by her to get the insurance money. Lara says she'll use her "lawyer", Sharif(Luis Barboo)to get that money. So already, the film produces two possible suspects in the later murder of Lisa, who awaiting someone in Tokyo. George Hilton portrays Peter Lynch. Peter works for a company that investigates those who gain inheritance to see if the pay day was gathered under suspicious means. When, on his watch, Lisa is killed by a man dressed from head to toe in black in her hotel room, he is a possible suspect. He decides to do a little investigating himself, while also assisting Inspector Stavros(Luigi Pistilli)and Interpol agent, Benton(Tom Felleghy)on their quest to find a killer. The killer strikes several times eliminating anyone revolving around the missing million dollars confiscated by the one responsible for the murder of Lisa. Soon, the film follows a journalist, Cléo Dupont(the delicious, luscious Anita Strindberg)as she and Peter meet for a dinner where she could try and sniff out anything that might break a story for her. Soon they fall deeply in love, but it seems like anyone who is near Peter is killed. Soon someone attacks Cléo with an intent to kill which pushes the investigation further into uncharted territory. Why would anyone wish to harm a journalist with no real facts to damage the one killing off people.
This giallo is quite clever and exciting to follow. The film never lulls which is quite remarkable since so much happens leaving open the question of the identity of the killer. This film follows the path of gialli with knife slashings because of a certain pattern the killer has taken(the throat and lower torso). The film's conclusion wraps up all the complex loose ends and is quite satisfying. The film has some unique camera angles, but delivers the goods in terms of driving the plot and the execution of the mystery.

I am a big fan of the original book and this adaption is simply bad. First of all, it had trouble deciding if it is a kiddie toon or an adult one, that caused a strange mix of an adult story and some pretty violent scenes with a silly little duck that keeps giving "funny" moments in the beginning.
But that's hardly important, the film is simply boring, unmoving and not true to the original story. It simply fails to transfer to the picture all the points Orwell tried to make to his book.
{SPOILER}
Second revolution?!! Haven't they guys learned anything?? Who be the next Napoleon then? Benjamin?!!
Being that this movie has a lot of fine entertainment qualities I think it should some more credit than it has been given on imdb.
It's your basic 'who done it?' thriller with sex and murder but it keeps you guessing right to the end. I like these kinds of movies and I certainly think this one meets the standard.
To me it was worth watching more than once so I'll give it an 8 on imdb.

I haven't been able to decide if this movie is so bad it's good, or, to quote Enid Coleslaw, "so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again." No matter, it forced me look much the same way a pile of weird coloured vomit might, and it offers up a number of scenes that you won't forget even if you want to. There's a sneering young Ray Liotta telling a pigtailed Pia that her creative writing trophy looks like a penis. A bit later, there's Ray again, molesting Pia, not with the appropriately shaped trophy but a garden hose. There's a firm chinned Pia telling her domineering Mom that she wants to go to bed with Ray's geezer father, Walter. There's the actress in the graveyard scene yowling the best line ever written by Pia or anyone else: "WWWWHHHYYYYYYY!" There's that garden hose again, as Walter waves it Pia's face and roars "Is this more to your liking!?" There's Pia and her date so turned on by closeups of each other masticating salad that they start tearing each other's clothes off. There's Pia showering but forgetting to remove her dress. Perhaps best of all, there's Pia's typewriter, but instead of keys there are the miniature talking heads of those who have tormented her the most (afterwards, I was afraid to open my laptop). And finally there's Pia at "The Awards" exposing Hollywood for the cesspool it is, spitting out the second best line ever, "I guess I'm not the only one who has ever had to **** her way to the top." I see I have already spent more time commenting on "The Lonely Lady" than I have on far better pictures, so I'll quit. Be forewarned, though, that once you start watching you probably won't be able to take your eyes off the screen until two hours of your life have vanished forever.
Alright this was quite a sensitive little number but I can't help thinking I've seen it before. Reminds me of another VCA film I saw at Poitier called "THE OTHER DAYS OF RUBY RAE" Also had specks of "Welcome to the Dollhouse" and "Ratcatcher" and Lynne Ramsay in it's execution. Which is not to say that they're not tasteful references...just that they feel very modern and very fashionable...which makes me feel like this is closer to advertising (as an approach in style and story) than the work of an original and authentic auteur to come.
The cinematography is just...too perfect for my liking. Too coral filter (or charcoal) for my liking...too archly framed 12mm. Therefore the entire impression left me a little distant -- beware of art that proclaims itself too readily! The french (they are a conservative bunch) seemed to buy it as did the jury however... but Cannes short film selection is notoriously conservative compared to it's feature selection although I wonder what's been happening in the last few years.

"Sundown:The Vampire in Retreat" is a rubbish.The acting is terrible,the atmosphere is non-existent and the characters are uninteresting.The only scary thing about this piece of scum is that majority of the IMDb users gave it a 10.This is really horrifying.No gore,no suspense,no violence,nothing.Bruce Cambell("The Evil Dead","Intruder")is completely wasted,the supporting cast is also terrible.Yes,some people may like this picture,especially a mainstream society but hard-core horror fans or gore-hounds won't enjoy this piece of crap.Personally I hate horror comedies,I prefer watching serious horror movies like "Cannibal Holocaust" or "Last House on the Left".In my opinion,a real horror movie is supposed to be scary,excessively bloody and disturbing,without stupid humour,which usually ruins the whole concept.This one isn't scary,isn't gory,isn't even funny as a comedy,so don't waste your precious time.
Barbra Streisand in 1964 was still a curiosity, and probably raised more than a few industry eyebrows when CBS signed her to 10-year, $5 million television deal (nothing these days). But more important than that, Barbra and her manager insisted on creative control--and got it. She had this special filmed her way, and for the most part her vision was by turns clever, canny, and incredible. Opening Act I with the title song (not written specifically for her), Streisand races through a classy cast of songs linked with "I'm Late" (from "Alice in Wonderland"!--she even keeps in the line about fuzzy ears and whiskers and "too much time to shave"!); this is a totally charming, if not bizarre, selection--and enjoy it because it didn't make the TWO soundtrack albums released. She slows down for "Make Believe" (which gets perhaps too slow), but the dramatic "How Does the Wine Taste?" is amazing. "A Kid Again" is cute (with Streisand looking tiny in a huge chair--is that where Lily Tomlin got the idea?), as is "Sweet Zoo" ("I'm an alligator--crocodile??--no, alligator!"). "Where is the Wonder" is very cool and elegant, and her "People" number, surrounded by an orchestra who tap for her at the song's close, is stunning. Act II is set in New York City's Bergdof Goodman, with Streisand acting kooky in high fashion get-ups (when she playfully stomps on the mink, the audience watching the tape actually gasps). Act III, before a studio audience (made up of lucky fan club devotees), begins with a powerful version of "When the Sun Comes Out" (Streisand actually looks out of breath at the dramatic close), followed by "Why Did I Choose You?" (probably her best early song), a too-quick "Lover, Come Back to Me" (where she's ultimately drowned out by the orchestra), and a 'Funny Girl' medley. The finale, "Happy Days are Here Again", which reportedly took 12 takes, closes the hour in amazing fashion. Sponsored by Chemstrand (a fiber-making company!), this black-and-white gem moves fast, with jazzy set-ups, terrific cinematography, kicky sets and costumes. They really don't make 'em like this anymore--and that pertains to the special and to La Streisand.

Jude Law gives his all in this beautifully filmed vampire flick which offers little else of value. Completely lacking in eroticism, excitement, or leading ladies with appeal. One decent fight, a few moments of mild suspense. And a one-note plot.
The movie waxes philisophic in a series of conversations between Law's character and a dogged homicide detective, well played by Timothy Spall. But despite their best efforts, both actors are staked to the cross of the film's banality.
With a lesser actor in the lead role -- and without the benefit of Oliver Curtis's cinematography -- Crocodiles would blend into the sea of low-budget vampire quickies.
For Romance's sake, as a married man. The following two films are recommended.
1. Brief Encounter by David Lean (1945), UK
Well, when a woman goes to a railway station, something may happen. And it happened! How she longed to be there, in a little tavern waiting for the man of her dreams. But she was married... the man was a stranger to the fantasizing woman
2. Xiao Cheng Zhi Chun by Fei Mu (1948), China
Well, when a woman goes to the market to buy fish, grocery and medicine, passing through the ruins of an ancient wall in a small town, there is much to think about, about the melancholy of her life, her sick husband in self-pity and lack of future...Just when a jubilant young doctor arrived, something happened... the doctor was a high school honey of the fantasizing woman
In both movies, from great directors of UK and China, the passion vs restraint was so intense, yet in the end the intimate feelings had not developed into any physical contacts. That leaves you with a great after-taste, sniffing it intensely without biting it.

Sugar &Spice is one of the worst movies of 2001. The film tries to cross Heathers and Bring It On and fails . When I saw last January I was so disgusted by the film that I walked and talked on my cell phone to my girlfriend for the last half hour of the movie. I've heard that the DVD has a director's cut maybe I'll check it out, but this PG-13 trash movie is s*** and the worst kind of s***. Maybe if the film had some T&A that would've have made it okay. But the gags are lame and the acting is horrible. Worse than a Troma film.
While there aren't any talking animals, big lavish song production numbers, or villians with half white / half black hair ... it does have 1 thing ... realistic people acting normally in a strange circumstance, and Walt & Roy did in their eras with the studio. If you thought think "The Castaways" or "The Island At The Top Of The World" weren't identical, or you hold them to a higher authority than Atlantis, then your idealism is just as whacked as keeping your kids up till midnight to watch a friggin' cartoon.

The Golden Era of Disney cartoons was dying by the time the end of the 90s. This show Quack Pack shouldn't even be considered a DuckTales spin off because the show barely had anything to do with DuckTales. It's about a teen-aged Huey, Dewey and Louie as they make trouble for their uncle Donald and talk in hip-hop lingo and they are fully dressed unlike in DuckTales. I prefer the little adventurous nephews from DuckTales. There are humans in Duckburg and the ducks are the only animals living in Duckburg. There's no references of Scrooge McDuck. The stories are repetitive, the plot is boring but the animation is good. If you want lots of slapstick humor, I recommend this to you. If you want a better Disney show watch "Darkwing Duck" or "DuckTales".
Just watched this movie on DVD and thought the acting was very good, but the over all story left a lot to be desired. This movie has the same texture and look of Panic in Needle Park or Drugstore Cowboy. Hard to believe that human beings can live this type of lifestyle; on the underbelly of society, in which their total existence is based on hardcore drug use, crime, violence, sex, and a total lack of self-respect for anyone or anything, including themselves.
Val Kilmore is outstanding in his role of "burnt-out" former porn star John Holmes. The supporting cast is just as good. However, this is a bleak, dark, disturbing, and depressing film. The murder was brutal, but the daily lives of these people were brutal as well. Unless you have an interest in these murders or were a "fan" of John Holmes, this really isn't a film to see. If you want to see a docu-drama on murder, Truman Capote's 1960s In Cold Blood starring Scott Wilson and Robert Blake is much better.

(Spoiler included, some would say)
This film is not possible to take seriously. At some parts it is so awfully stupid that I just can't help laughing at it all. Try me for the sequence where Stallone's character jumps some 20 meters with full climbing gear or (and this is really my favorite) snuffs a bad guy by sticking him onto a stalactite. Yeah, what ungodly strength did he muster to accomplish such feats? I dunno, but he sure gives reality a run for the money.
jim carrey rocks! if he's in a movie its bound to be good! he did not disappoint me with this one!the rest of the cast was cute,especially little cindy lou who and martha may, i was laughing through the whole thing and cannot wait to see it again!

As gently as I can, I sincerely believe this movie is a waste of time. I did not find it the 'warm, emotionally satisfying' film others did. I found it boring, with music that distracted from the film. The story was thin, the characters overdrawn, and the direction pedestrian.
Fooey.
Now I'm going to write some more about this movie, so I make the 10 line minimum. There really isn't more to be said and brevity is important, but IMDb has its minimums, so here goes.
Young eager kid finds nascent talent, seeks time with aging, embittered mentor in spite of father's cartoonish homophobia. Aging, embittered mentor turns out to drink a lot and teach very little. conflict arises. While I don't think this is a spoiler, I've added the warning in case someone feels this much information is too much.
Mostly, I just found the film boring and pretentious. A waste of my time. I honestly don't understand what little fuss there seems to be, mostly on this web site, about the transcendent quality of this movie. I think it's really worth avoiding. But, as Dennis Miller used to say, "Maybe I'm wrong."
What if Marylin Monroe, Albert Einstein, Joe Dimaggio and Senator McCarthy were to come together in a mind-bending evening of relativity?
This delightful roman à clef never uses the actual names of the characters it so thinly veils and scathingly exposes not only for the individuals they must have been, but also for what they came to represent over time. If you are confused by allegory, or if you like your movies served up predigested and mushy, you won't like this film. It is a demanding opus that rewards on many levels the viewer with the intelligence to appreciate it.
Dropping, for the time being, the rigorous avoidance of using the real names of the characters, we see Einstein, about to deliver a pacifist speech to a United Nations hell-bent for nukes, being visited by Marylin Monroe, after filming the notorious Seven Year Itch scene that some say led to the end of her marriage with Joe Dimaggio. They have a lovely interplay in which Einstein stumbles with suitable professorial clumsiness around the innocence of perhaps the greatest sex symbol of modern times.
Enter Senator McCarthy who thinks Einstein is a Red. He is determined to extract Einstein's assurance that he will support the activities of the House Unamerican Activities Committee while delivering the ultimate weapon in the name of peace. Add Joe, a surprisingly fragile and vulnerable person perhaps not perfectly cast as Gary Busey, who hates Marylin's exhibitionism and believes Einstein has become her lover, even though Marylin only wants to show Einstein that she understands the Special Theory of Relativity.
But there's more.
Just like each of us, these characters have their deepest fears, which they reveal one by one in haunting flashbacks. It is these weaknesses, ultimately, that lend humanity to figures we cannot help but see almost exclusively in the abstract today. Finally, we see the shocking terror of Einstein's vision, and the statement of the movie becomes clear. It is a powerful and memorable moment.
Insignificance is one of my top five movies of all time. It is utterly amazing.

All the world said that the film Tashan would be a good movie with great pleasure, but this is not the case. Vijay Krishna Acharya made a serious mistake to take as an actress Kareena Kapoor. She was unbearable throughout the film. Her tom-boy look does not really goes well. Even the film the story of the film is not making sense at all. Everyone said that the Quetin Taratino of India is Vijay but its not at all Quetin. The talent Anil Kapoor was involved in this stupid movie. Anil is an actor of large caliber and this film is not. Akshay Kumar has also been a victim of this film as all is Saif. The Style and the Phoormola is not really good in this film i was disappointed