Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
This is a fascinating account of the hunt for the Soviet Union's first known serial killer. I had tuned in, just expecting a half-decent TV movie, but found myself drawn by the compelling way the story was told. As others have said, there is much to admire here that is sadly lacking in many big screen releases.
Much of the credit must go to Chris Gerolmo, whose intelligent screenplay and direction draw the viewer in, until it is impossible not to feel emotionally involved. The acting by the whole cast is also superb, especially that of the two leads, Stephen Rea and Donald Sutherland. Their convincing portrayals give their character arcs a great deal of credibility, and the scene where they have their first committee meeting after Perestroika is genuinely touching.
If you prefer your crime films with a bit more depth and a little less sheen, I strongly recommend you look out for 'Citizen X'.

There is a scene in this film at about the 42 minute mark that is among the worst I have seen in some time. As F. Scott Fitzgerald (Gregory Peck) and Sheilah Graham (Deborah Kerr) are lounging on the beach, suddenly things become tense and Sheilah begins to cry--at which point she tells her lover about her sordid past. This "dramatic scene" becomes so terribly overdone and histrionic I couldn't help but turn to my wife and exclaim how stupid it all was...as dramatic music swelled on the television as it all came to a phony crescendo. NO ONE experiences moments like this--no one. Now how much of the rest of the film is true, I cannot say, but this particular moment was laughably bad and as fake as an $8 Rolex--and leads me to assume that some of the other reviewers were correct--the film is a lot of bunk. However, I am not an expert on the life of these two people and the internet didn't seem to clear this up, either.
Just who were F. Scott Fitzgerald and Sheilah Graham and what was their relationship really like? What I do know about Fitzgerald, however, does seem different from what I saw in the film. Was he the suave and decent man we initially see in the film? Well, considering he was married at the same time he was carrying on with Graham and drank like a fish, I'd assume he wasn't. Was he as obnoxious and boorish as we later see in the film? Perhaps, but if he was this bad AND yet Ms. Graham stayed with him, then this makes her out to be a complete dummy--and not someone you'd like to see featured in a film. And, if he wasn't, then the film does a poor disservice to his memory. Either way, it made for a painful and not particularly pleasant viewing experience.
The sum total of this film appears to be a tale of two not particularly likable or healthy people. In a dark and salacious way, some might find this all very entertaining, but most are sure to see this as a train wreck with no surprises along the way! Unpleasant but with glossy production values (especially the music, which was lovely but way over the top) it begs the question "why did they even choose to make this in the first place?". The bottom line--it's a pretty bad film all around and probably not worth your time--even if, like me, you are big Gregory Peck fan.
Up until the sixth and last episode of the Star Wars saga, which finally ended in 2005, I had always looked at this 1983 entry as my favorite film of the long-running series. The varied action scenes and really different characters (Jabba The Hut, furry woodland creatures, etc.) made this a particularly appealing movie.
None of the action ever focused too long in one spot, either. The last half hour exemplifies this the most as the scene switches every few minutes from the woods to the battle among space ships to the individual laser-duel between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader.
Another nice characteristic this film had that the two previous did not was the absence of in-fighting between two of the stars. Gone was the incessant bickering between Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford. Finally, everyone was on the same page! It was nice to see.
In the end, this was simply a wonderful adventure tale, more than anything else.

I remember when this was in theaters, reviews said it was horrible. Well, I didn't think it was that bad. It was amusing and had a lot of tongue-in-cheek humor concerning families around holiday time.
Ben Affleck is a rich guy who needs to find a family for Christmas to please his girlfriend. He goes to visit the house he grew up in and strikes a deal to rent the family there for Christmas. I really liked the lawyer scene where they sign a contract. That was funny.
So, he makes silly requests of the family and even writes scripts for them to read. Of course, the family has a hot daughter for the love interest. And he learns that the holidays aren't so bad after all.
Also, the whole doo-dah act was funny, especially when they replaced the first one with a black guy, and the girlfriends's parents didn't even say anything about it. And the parts where doo-dah is hitting on his "supposed daughter." FINAL VERDICT: I thought it's worth checking out if you catch it on cable.
Spectacular Horror movie that will give you the chills once you get settled with it. The atmosphere is very creepy and stylish, the score is chilling, but the best about the movie is it's performances. It's rare to get scared by performances and this movie's solid acting plays an important part in the scare factor.
The story is very interesting and gets your attention since the first minutes. Though the woman in black does not have much screen time, she makes the necessary appearances to chill the audience in some brilliant scenes. The dialogs are very descriptive and make your imagination work and that's when it becomes really scary.
If you have the chance, watch this on theater it's a totally different experience but as scary as this movie.
This is one of the best Ghost movies ever and it's directed for people that want to get scared.

I am a big fan of Stephen King. I loved The Running Man. So obviously I was very excited that someone had made a film of it. And when a local network showed the film, I was in heaven. I was all ready for a night of fun!
The first indicator that something was wrong was when I noticed that someone had cast Arnold Schwarzenegger. I could simply not believe that a man who got famous for films filled with runnin' an' shootin' could play a more cunning part, as was described in the book. I still was convinced that this would be a good film, however. Who knows, maybe Arnold had some hidden talents?
Well, he didn't. I soon found out that the only reason he was even cast was because someone had re-written the entire story to MAKE it about fightin' an' shootin'. Yup, it was a standard Arnold-film: hero is done wrong, hero solves problems by flexing his mighty muscles and scaring everyone away and hero gets the girl.
I was stunned. This is NOT what the book said at all. I know that books can't be put on screen literally, but this didn't even have ties to the book. Stephen King should have openly denounced any affiliation with the film and he should have forbidden using the title The Running Man for this shameless waste of film. I don't say it often, but this film was BAD. If I weren't at home watching, I'd have tossed rotten tomatoes at the screen. Once again: bad.
(Note that I used 'someone' a lot. I did this because I'm sure a lot of people are ashamed to have worked on this and I don't want to embarrass them even further by naming them here)
A common plotline in films consists of the main characters leaving the hustle and bustle of the city behind, and finding themselves in the tranquility of nature. In Power of Kangwon Province, we are shown two stories of individuals doing just that, trying to find themselves through a trip to the popular Korean parks in the mountains of Kangwon Province. However, rather than epiphanal moments, we have two characters whose trip into nature was just another form of escape.
The pace of this movie is slow, contemplative. We learn in the end what really brought each to Kangwon Province and we learn how they're connected. For those who want Hollywood glam and for a movie to give them a definitive answer, this movie will not satisfy. But for those who want a movie that leaves them thinking, wondering, affecting them years after, this movie will more than satiate that longing.

This film was absolutely...ugh i can't find the word oh wait... crap! I mean when it started i was like yeah this looks good and then after it was so boring. I nearly fell asleep and it had nothing to do with the fact that i caught a late showing because it was utter filth. Ram Gopal Varma has tried his best but the cast could never live up to the cast of the original Sholay i mean what was he thinking doing a remake. What was he trying to do? Be like Sanjay Leeli Bhansani and win all the awards next year like he did for Black? Ajay and that other guy were good especially the other guy who played raj because out of all of them he was the one to look at. What was Amitabh doing? He's destroying his own dignity by doing all these stupid films. First Nishabd then Cheeni Kum then Jhoom Barabar Jhoom and now this i mean hes got to gather a bit of his money and move as far away from Bollywood as possible before he loses all his respect and I'm telling you he's already past half his way. I mean all this is really good for the other actors like Shah Rukh Khan who's getting a really good name now because of the recent downfall of Amitabh. I never really liked him because he thinks he's God and i just knew Abhishek was going to be in that movie.
If you want to save your £17.75 and spend it on something good go watch Heyy Babyy because that's just the funniest movie ever and it's number one in the charts!
How I got into it: When I started watching this series on Cartoon Network,I have to say that I've never seen anything like this,and it was the best. But when I started collecting the series on VHS,and years later on DVD part of Bandai's Anime Legends collections. It was amazing,and truly worth watching. It had a lot of exploding action that will blow you out of your seat. And of course,the theme songs "Just Communication",and Rhythm Emotions" were the best.
Characters,and Gundams: My favorite characters in the show were:Heero,Duo,Relena,Treize,Lady Und,Noin,and Zechs. My favorite Gundams in the show that I liked the most are the Wing Zero,and Epyon,and of course the Altron,and Deathscythe I,and II.
Meaning of the show: What this series also tells us that in real life,wars are very hard and we can sometimes win,or lose. But peace can also be hard to obtain,and I do believe the Gundam pilots are doing the right thing,and are trying to obtain world peace.
But however,this show is truly the best of the best. So in closing to this review,after you watch this show,see the Movie Endless Waltz.

That this poor excuse for an amateur hour showcase was heralded at Sundance is a great example of what is wrong with most indie filmmakers these days.
First of all, there is such a thing as the art of cinematography. Just picking up a 16mm camera and pointing it at whomever has a line does not make for a real movie.
I guess we have to consider ourselves lucky the director didn't pick up someone's camcorder...
Second, indie films are supposed to be about real people. There's nothing real in this film. None of the characters come across as being even remotely human.
What they come across as being is figments of the imagination of a writer trying to impress his buddies by showing them how "cool and edgy" he is.
Sorry, but this is not good writing, or good directing.
What is left is a husk of a bad movie that somehow made its way to Sundance. Hard to believe this was one of the best films submitted...
In any case, it made me loose what was left of my respect for the Sundance brand.
This is an OK adaptation, but not as good as the TV version. The actors are generally alright but I found Jeremy Northam rather wet as Mr Knightley, particularly compared to Mark Strong in the TV version. Gwyneth Paltrow is OK and her English accent is pretty good but again, I preferred Kate Beckinsale's Emma. There are excellent support performances from Toni Collette, Juliet Stephenson and Sophy Thompson.
The script is often played too much for laughs, the book is a comedy, but there are too many set-piece gags here, and also the Frank Churchill subplot is almost completely absent.
My biggest criticism is the scenery. It is far too lush. England has never been like this. It looks like a chocolate box. Only Americans would make it like this.
Despite these criticisms I enjoyed this film but would recommend the TV adaptation more.

It was Jon Pertwee who said " It`s very difficult to be funny but very easy to be silly " . Well if that`s the case PASTY FACES is " Very easy " . David Baker ( As Director /Screenwriter ) and his cast seem to be under the impression that comedy involves stealing scenes and style from superior Britcoms like LOCK STOCK.. and TRAINSPOTTING , using a completely underdeveloped script and jumping up and down speaking in a very fast voice very loudly . Alan McCaffrey especially suffers from this type of OTT performance but not enough to ruin the film because there`s not enough of a film to ruin .
PASTY FACES is terrible on all fronts especially scriptwise . I couldn`t understand why it ended the way it did , it just seemed to stop in a very abrupt and silly manner . Oh and other glaring errors are that you need a visa to visit the USA and a green card in order to work there - This film would have you believe you can get off a plane and start a new life in America without any authorisation - that you still get paid to donate blood in America - People who I know in America , and who donate blood tell me payment for donations stopped several years ago - and that you can buy any type of weapon from a gun shop . As far as I know gun laws in America differ from state to state but no gun shops sell anti tank guns over the counter . So we`ve got a very erroneous view of America from a very unreal and oh so unfunny film . Maybe this is revenge for BRAVEHEART a very Hollywood view of the Scots ? Perhaps , but this doesn`t stop PASTY FACES from being a crap comedy
Yes, it's another great magical Muppet's movie and I adore them all; the characters, the movies, the TV show episodes (it's the best comedy or musical TV show ever) and all the artists behind it. But here they did such a rare fatal mistake and I'm surely talking about the weird ending !!
I think it's very dangerous to involve that much, in American drama, and end a love affair by marriage !! We, as all the poor viewers, feel so free or maybe happy for the absence of its annoyance, peevishness and misery ! So we all enjoy these stories which gather 2 cute heroes as couple in love without the legitimate bond like Mickey Mouse and Minnie, Superman and Lois Lane, Dick Tracy and Tess, etc. So with all of the previous couples and their likes I bet that you feel safe, serenity and peace. Therefore when you look at what the makers of this movie had already done you'll be as mad as me !
They made the weak miserable creature (Kermit) marry his daily nightmare, the most vexatious female ever (Miss Piggy) ! This is a historical change by the measures of the American entertainment's industry ! And it was pretty normal to have a negative impact upon the audience whom just refused to bless or believe or being satisfied with that sudden marriage (even the pathetic frog didn't have the time or the proper opportunity to think or to decide anything !). Therefore no wonder at all when you know that this movie is the most failure one in their cinematic serious, grossing only 25 millions vis-à-vis 65 millions earned by the first one (The Muppet Movie  1979) five years earlier !!
Simply in this movie they took Manhattan, and my rest too !

If I accidentally stumbled across this script in textual form i would read it and maybe laugh. I would not, however laugh at the points in the film where the director would seem to want me to laugh. Although I am still not altogether sure where these are. I don't care if this is Woody Allen, this writer cannot write dialogue, or at least he cannot knowingly write dialogue then draw performances from actors capable of drawing laughter from even the most ticklish of clowns. For example:
(paraphrase) "I'm an art historian, i'm looking to get a job in an art gallery."
OK, so it states the fact but honestly, do you know of any art historians who would say that? How would you answer?
"Really? An art gallery? who would've thought it?"
The entire script is littered with the kind of tawdry quasi-intellectualism that i would not have expected from such a respected character writer. I admit that I have no knowledge of Allen's other work and, judging by this one i don't want to start learning. The characters are loathsome without exception, an attempt to illustrate that we all suffer from the human condition? Or really really poor character writing? You be the judge.
I admit it's very silly, but I've practically memorized the damn thing! It holds a lot of good childhood memories for me (my brother and I saw it opening day) and I have respect for any movie with FNM on the soundtrack.

I feel like I've just watched a snuff film....a beautifully acted, taut, engrossing and horrible thing! A two hour litany of perversion in the most basic and all inclusive sense of the word, sexual violence and torture, rape, decapitation, incest, corruption, live burial, and abuse, abuse, abuse. No redemption whatsoever. And I WAS entertained. I couldn't stop watching. What does this say about me, about the people who make and act in this sort of thing, and a world that has become so desensitized that eventually real snuff films will be the norm. And I'm neither puritanical nor humorless, I don't try to hide from the existence of darkness, and I definitely have not led a sheltered life, but I am ashamed of myself. AND I'm sorry to see my British cousins dragging the subject-matter sewers the way my own tribe does. It doesn't have to be cozy, but does it have to wallow in vicarious sadism?
Delightful film directed by some of the best directors in the industry today. The film is also casting some of the great actors of our time, not just from France but from everywhere.
My favorite segments:
14th arrondissement: Carol (Margo Martindale), from Denver, comes to Paris to learn French and also to make a sense of her life.
Montmartre: there was probably not a better way to start this movie than with this segment on romantic Paris.
Loin du 16ème: an image of Paris that we are better aware of since the riots in the Cités. Ana (Catalina Sandino Moreno) spends more time taking care of somebody else's kid (she's a nanny) than of her own.
Quartier Latin: so much fun to see Gérard Depardieu as the "tenancier de bar" with Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara discussing their divorce.
Tour Eiffel: don't tell me you didn't like those mimes!
Tuileries: such a treat to see Steve Buscemi as the tourist who's making high-contact (a no- no) with a girl in the Metro.
Parc Monceau: Nick Nolte is great. Ludivine Sagnier also.
I've spend 3 days in Paris in 2004 and this movie makes me want to go back!
Seen in Barcelona (another great city), at the Verdi, on March 18th, 2007.
84/100 (***)

This movie is flawed on many fronts. Like many before it, it portrays more of the mythology of the Alamo than the history. The production is poor, overall giving the impression of a welfare project for lots of actors who might have otherwise had to work on Hollywood Squares. This to me was the greatest flaw - I know the ages and general personalities of the real Alamo protagonists and the geriatric ensemble of TV actors chosen to portray them never let any hint of believability intrude.
As a native Texan, I grew up with the mythology. I later learned more about the history. I can accept a decent production from either perspective (although I prefer more historical accuracy), but this never gave me a chance to enjoy it. Even John Wayne's or Fess Parker's versions had more life than this stolid mess, while being only slightly less accurate.
Very disappointing - avoid it.
A lot has been said about Shinjuku Triad Society as the first true "Miike" film and I thought this sort of description might have been a cliché. But, like all clichés, it is based on the truth. All the Miike trademarks are here, the violence, the black humour, the homosexuality, the taboo testing and the difficult to like central character. Shinjuku is however, one of Miike's most perfectly formed films. He says in an interview that if he made it again it would be different, but not necessarily better. I think what he means is that the film possesses a truly captivating energy and raw edge which seems so fresh that although he might be able to capture a more visually or technically complex movie he could not replicate or better the purity of this film.
As you might expect, the violence is utterly visceral, gushing blood and gritty beatings are supplemented by a fantastic scene in which a woman has a chair smashed over her face. (Only a Miike film could let you get away with a sentence like that.) The film has a fantastic pace, unlike Dead or Alive which begins and ends strongly and dips in the middle. Dead or Alive also deals with similar issues, Miike is clearly concerned about the relations between the Japanese and Chinese in the postwar period and this emotive subject is handled well here, the central character really coming to life when you begin to understand his past.
I cannot sing Shinjuku's praises enough. I do not want to give away too much. This is Miike before he began to use CGI to animate his films and is almost reminiscent of something like Kitano's Sonatine. The central characters are superbly realized and the final twist guarantees that as soon as the film has finished you'll be popping it back on again to work it all out.

Any film which begins with a cowhand shagging a female calf can't promise much. As for the stereotyping of the kibbutz as it was 50 yrs ago, well I was there and it just wasn't like that. OK every kibbutz had just a small piece of something shown in the film (like youngsters raiding the kitchen at night) but you can't show the whole kibbutz as being full of all those - shall we say - naughty traits. Each kibbutz had its own problems, but hardly any kibbutz had all of them. The views of Israel were great. I still remember my youth in that Garden of Eden called the Emek (valley). Yes, and the acting was good too, so you see it wasn't all black - just a wrong portrayal - probably on purpose too.