Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Simply but imaginatively filmed studio-set performance short, a perfect match of music and images that defines the very coolness of cool and the hipness of hip. The precise visual and musical arrangements give the lie to its claim to be a record of a jam session: what it is, is a pop video - every bit as stylised and knowing as that implies, and all the better for it. Among the very best music films ever made, and almost certainly the most cinematic. These cats are solid gone, daddy-o ...

Never see this movie.
It tries to be a spoof on scifi/thriller films of the 1950s and 1960s but all it succedes at is making you wish really badly that you were watching one of them and not it.
It is very lame. A spoof has to have some aspect which has some above par quality to it. This movie does not have any such aspect.
Save yourself. It's too late for me but... just don't watch it.
That Certain Thing is the story of a gold digger (Viola Dana) from a tenement house. Her mother uses her to take care of her two brothers, but they are a loving family. Although Dana's character has the opportunity to marry a streetcar conductor, she refuses and holds out for a millionaire. Everyone makes fun of her for her fantasy, but are surprised when one day she really does meet a millionaire, son of the owner of the popular ABC restaurant chain. The two marry hastily, but the girl's dreams of wealth are shattered when the rich father disowns his son for marrying a gold digger. However, she truly loves her new husband and the two are unexpectedly successful at making it on their own.
A rare glimpse of movie star Viola Dana, this film is a lot of fun. Dana's role is accessible, natural, and entertaining. She displays a knack for comedy as well as an ability to do drama.
The mechanics of the film are a lot of fun too. The camera displays sophisticated late silent techniques like mobility. The title cards are also incredibly clever.
If you like films like My Best Girl, It, or The Patsy, you will enjoy this film.

Well this just maybe the worst movie ever at least the worst movie i have ever seen. They have tried out these 666 child of Satan the anti Christ kinda movies about 1000 times and none of them is good and this just maybe the worst of them. They think that it's going to be better movie as more they use that fake blood. This movie doesn't have any idea in it, actors and filming is just terrible. Cant even make out that 10 line minium of this movie. Really nothing to tell about but that it's just horrible. How they can make movies like that in their right mind just can't understand that. This cant be a Hollywood movie, is it? Just don't go watch this use your money more wisely.
Grey Gardens is shocking, amusing, sad and mesmerizing. I watched in amazement as Ediths Jr. and Sr. bickered and performed while reminiscing of their past. Their existence in a dilapidated mansion, (which they had not left for more than fifteen years) is both a comedy and a tragedy. This is a film you will not soon forget.

Or maybe that's what it feels like. Anyway, "The Bat People" is about as flat as a rug, bland as a sack of flour and as exciting as a rock...and as intelligent as all three combined.
Okay, plot in a nutshell (fitting vessel, that...): a doctor (Moss) gets bitten by a bat while checking out a cave with his wife (McAndrew) and subsequently turns into a bat - well, not exactly a bat but a bat-like creature that looks more like a werewolf who kills his victims in a first-person camera viewpoint....
But then there's the business of the sheriff (Pataki), who is about the WORST kind of sheriff: the hick kind. He hassles people, he leers at married women, he steals handkerchiefs from haberdasheries (the FIEND!), he smokes with one of those cigarette holders in his mouth and talks at the same time, making him look and sound like Buford T. Justice in "Smokey and the Bandit" and (this is the worst part)... HE'S THE MOST LIKEABLE CHARACTER IN THE WHOLE FILM!
The whole film, though, is just TV movie-of-the-week-like crapola (guano, in this case). It's an AIP, for crying out loud! What did you expect, Oscar caliber stuff?
And what else can you say about a film that not even MST3K can save?
How about...no stars for "The Bat People", full version OR MST3K version!
By the way, if there's ever a sequel for this movie, I'm burying my TV.
Sure, he became rapidly uneven after this film, but from "Knife In the Water" up till "The Tenant", Roman Polanski could always be counted on to deliver something fascinating and unique. Despite many running themes (alienation, paranoia), no two of his films are really alike. The story of this is somewhat similar to his own "Repulsion" from ten years earlier, but the tone is completely different. "The Tenant" manages to balance darker than dark absurdity (I'm a bit hesitant on calling it humor, even though the protagonists bizarre behavior and dialog was occasionally funny) with some truly suspenseful paranoia. Polanski was always a master at building unease, and moments in this film are almost unbearably creepy. The overall weirdness of the film is also a plus.
In addition to Polanski's exquisite as usual direction, the rest of the cast and crew offer great contributions. Polanski the actor is often overshadowed by Polanski the director, but his performance here truly captures his characters awkwardness and sense of being an outcast. The themes of social discrimination make this film more than just strangeness for the sake of being strange. The rest of the cast offers strong performances also, especially Isabelle Adjani's sympathetic turn, and Melyvn Douglas and Shelley Winters' appropriately annoying ones. "The Tenant" is often underrated because of how ready people are to heap praise on both "Repulsion" and "Rosemary's Baby", but its just as brilliant as either of those classics. (9/10)

METAMORPHOSIS I am working my way through the Chilling Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and METAMORPHOSIS is the seventh movie in the set. Released in 1990, METAMORPHOSIS seems to be a remake of "The Atom Age Vampire," which also featured a scientist striving for similar results. Set in modern times, METAMORPHSIS is not my kind of horror movie.
A university researcher is working to crack the human genome in order to create a serum that would prevent aging. Pressured by the administration to publish his papers; and, produce some results (or risk losing funding), the scientist decides to use himself as a guinea pig! At first thinking that he suffered no adverse side effects, he eventually discovers that the serum has indeed altered him in the most unexpected manner!
The acting is stilted; and, the performances left me with a much diminished interest in the film. The score is pandering. And, the science behind the experiments and their findings is not only fallacious; it's absurd; it's ridiculous  at best.
As others noted, the end turns into a 30+ minute gag, which is seemingly endless. Without giving too much away, I'd call this one, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde meet the Creature From the Black Lagoon meets Home Alone."
I remember seeing this movie shown several years ago on the Lifetime TV network and thought it was an interesting story. Several years later I see it again and fall head over heels in love with this movie. The story behind the movie is fascinating in and of itself. The cast just makes it that much more appealing. Meryl Streep is definitely at the top of her game in this picture. She nails Mrs. Chamberlain's mannerisms, the accent, and even look. She shows the pain, hurt, surprise, and anger that Lindy had to endure, and in the process it's hard to remember that it ISN'T Lindy. In my opinion, this performance of Meryl's was better than her Oscar-winning turn in "Sophie's Choice", and should have garnered her her third Oscar. Sam Neill is perfect as Michael Chamberlain, and for some surprising reason, wasn't recognized by the Academy with at least a nomination. In all, this movie only receive ONE Oscar nod (Streep's for Best Actress.) However, it did receive several Australian Oscars and nominations.
Definitely a top-rate movie: it tells a great story and you get great performances from the entire cast.

This is exactly the type of film that frustrates me the most. Great cast, great director, great story potential, then they ruin it all with a screenplay that goes nowhere...and says nothing while going there! There is no depth here whatsoever. No depth of characters, no depth of plot, no depth of surprise, suspense, or common sense. We know what's happening, we are told how they plan to fix the problem, they fix the problem, throw a surprise at us near the end that fails to generate any suspense, then they end the film abruptly. Wasted opportunity.
On the plus side, Glenn Ford leads a cast of UK (and one French) actors who are all fantastic, doing an incredibly impressive job with the one-dimensional writing they were given. One of the absolute favorites is Herbert Walton as "Old Charlie", who provides some wonderful bits of humor and warmth to a dark and serious film. I also thought the film had a great look to it...all shadows and fog...very film noir in feel.
Even though the actors do the best they can and the directing is enjoyable, it still just isn't enough for me to recommend spending the time to view the film. There are far better Glenn Ford movies out there: The Big Heat, Gilda, Affair in Trinidad, etc.
I just read the comments of TomReynolds2004 and feel I have to jump in here. I understand he doesn't like the film, but his reasons are not evident. My feeling regarding this film is that it is not afraid to travel the darker roads of loneliness, failure, disappointment and sorrow. Each of these two people, as portrayed, have plenty of reasons to be bitter and angry, yet find tenderness and comfort in each the other. Only great acting could make this work without becoming an emotional quagmire, sentimental and sappy. I really became interested in these people because of their overwhelming humanity given to them by such strong performances. I have every reason to dislike Jane Fonda for her Vietnam era actions, but personal feelings apart, she is fabulous in this role. Robert DeNiro is superb as a man whose intelligence and goodness begins to fail him in a world indifferent to his abilities. This is the first I have seen DeNiro using tenderness rather than toughness to sell a character and I really like it. This film was a big surprise when I first viewed it and I look forward to seeing it again.

Don't get me wrong, the movie is beautiful, the shots are stunning, and the material is dramatic. However, it was a big disappointment and I actually left very angry at what Disney had done.
BBC's Planet Earth was all of the above and more. It was subtle. It had an overall feeling of balance and showed the full circle of life and death. There was tragedy and triumph, loss and gain. It was balanced.
Disney's edit of Earth is none of this. They tried to make it a movie us Americans would talk about. They made it DRAMATIC. They put an over the top musical score there to frighten us. They made predators evil. They made WALRUSES evil. They showed every encounter as negative. It tried to be suspenseful and succeeded, but at the expense of the lesson of balance. The movie was an hour and a half of negative portrayal and only about 10 minutes of positive.
I am all for preventing global warning, but this was over the top political and environmental junk.
That's another thing, I went to see it on the big screen, but was disappointed in the picture quality. It looked better on my TV at home.
If you want to see something like this and get the whole picture, go out and buy, rent, or borrow the BBC's Planet Earth series. It is better lessons, better sound, and (if you have Blu-Ray)better picture quality.
This is my favorite show. I think it is utterly brilliant. Thanks to David Chase for bringing this into my life.
Season 1
1. The Sopranos: 5/5
2. 46 Long: 4.5/5
3. Denial, Anger, Acceptance: 5/5
4. Meadowlands: 4/5
5. College:
6. Pax Soprana: 5/5
7. Down Neck: 4.5/5
8. The Legend of Tennessee Moltisanti: 5/5
9. Boca: 4.5/5
10. A Hit Is a Hit: 3.5/5
11. Nobody Knows Anything: 5/5
12. Isabella: 5/5
13. I Dream of Jeannie Cusamano: 5/5

How a director of Altman's experience could ever expect us to want to spend time with, or to care about what happens to, a lead character who is neurotic, a whiner, a jerk with no redeeming qualities -- that is the central puzzle about this profoundly confused piece of work. A monstrous piece of trash. In addition to this crippling flaw, the plot line requires serious concentration to follow. The setup that the Branagh character walks into is so obviously a setup from the start that we are inclined to wonder whether the writer and director have totally lost respect for their audience. This latter issue is at the core of the film: it represents directorial self-indulgence with profound contempt for the taste, values, and intelligence of the viewer. Very unusual for Mr. Altman.
Patrick Watson
This movie is completely ridiculous. Not only is the plot atrocious, but the acting is horrendous. The special effects are asinine and the entire movie is set in a post-apocalyptic desert. Yet, it is by far the most amusing movie ever given permission to be produced. It is 101 minutes of laughs due to the fact that we all know there will be no fuel in the year 3000, or any El Camino's. There are also other aspects which I will not spoil, just because they are what makes the movies so wonderfully moronic. I highly recommend this movie, just because of its utter idiocy. I have no idea who would watch this expecting it to be a high quality feature, but if a good laugh is what you need, watch Exterminators of the Year 3000!

This really was a waste of time...the movie has a weak plot, the story is fragmented and ends very abruptly with many loopholes....though the animation is top notch.
Once the movie started, I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt by telling myself that it might get interesting in the later stage, but it was never unique. This same plot has been played over and over again, but what made it worse was that the major plot hole was the whole story on how to kill the baddies...The writer could have done so much more with the entire concept, but seemed that he or she did not have their heart in it and wanted to close the movie as soon as it started.
Overall, too much hype but not able to deliver.
New York has never looked so good! And neither has anyone in this movie. While the script is a bit lightweight you can't help but like this movie or any of the characters in it. You almost wish people like this really existed. The appeal of the actors are what really put it over(John Ritter, Colleen Camp and the late Dorothy Stratten are particularly good.) Go ahead and rent or buy this movie you'll be glad you did.

A resurrected wrapped monster goes on a murdering binge. A lunatic is seeking revenge against living members of a previous expedition. Universal seems to be running out of wrapping as well as new ideas. Most of the budget was probably spent on Lon Chaney Jr. to star as Kharis, the Mummy.
Other players are George Zucco, Wallace Ford, Turhan Bey, Dick Foran and Elyse Knox.
How much longer can this madness continue?
It takes patience to get through David Lynch's eccentric, but-- for a change-- life-affirming chronicle of Alvin Straight's journey, but stick with it. Though it moves as slow as Straight's John Deere, when he meets the kind strangers along his pilgrimage we learn much about the isolation of aging, the painful regrets and secrets, and ultimately the power of family and reconciliation. Richard Farnsworth caps his career with the year's most genuine performance, sad and poetic, flinty and caring. And Sissy Spacek matches him as his "slow" daughter Rose who pines over her own private loss while caring for dad. Rarely has a modern film preached so positively about family.

When you're making a thriller about witchcraft, I believe you should do everything you can to help the audience suspend its disbelief in order for the movie to work. Some pictures ("Rosemary's Baby", for example) have accomplished this; others (like "Necromancy") haven't and the potentially scary material comes across as corny and goofy. This film does have some atmospheric moments, but about half the dialogue is hard to make out (sometimes it's poorly recorded, at other times just incomprehensible) and Orson Welles, who gets top billing, has a role that is so BENEATH him that you have to assume he was desperate for the work. Or maybe he was simply having fun.....(*1/2)
Belushi at his most ingratiating and Courtney Cox before Friends has a small role. I often think Belushi is under-used in Hollywood and this film role is one of his best. For those of you who watch his TV show, this is a very different and likable character. The movie itself is not earth shattering, nor is the message new but rather it is sweet and endearing. The supporting cast of familiar faces and unfamiliar names is a perfect balance although Lovitz's whining can get tiresome, and Michael Caine's charming spiritual guide has a slightly sinister if not well-meaning edge. Hamilton, as Belushi's wife is unfortunately two-dimensional and one wonders why he married her. In addition, Renee Russo is wasted and not terribly convincing at the "prom queen" who got away. Nevertheless, a nice way to spend two hours.

It's kind of fascinating to me that so many reviewers consider this a masterpiece. I am not a dullard as far as quality films go, and I will agree that from a technical filming standpoint, as well as for several of the characters portrayed, the film is in an award-worthy class. But there is no sense (for me) of this film actually going anywhere; I mean, taking the viewer anywhere. It is a series of mood scenes, perhaps remarkable as such, but I want more from a film. I look for story and movement and a fulfillment of arrival, none of which did I find in this film. Yes, it might be considered poetry on film . . . but there is much poetry that I cannot live with for the same reason: that it paints pictures without going anywhere.
One thing further to be said is that it documents a mid-century English childhood, which is necessarily limited in its universality. I was personally appalled at what a young British boy had to live through, in that time and place. Having grown up in America just a decade earlier, I can authoritatively say that the contrast is immense. I cannot help wondering if this contrast has had some effect on those reviewing the film so favorably. In other words, could there be a tendency to judge the film entirely on its 'filmic magic' (which I acknowledge is there) and completely ignore its lack of relevance to the nature of one's actual recalled experience?
Has Al Pacino ever been in a bad movie? His name seems to be an imprimatur for top notch cinema. This is as good a performance as he's ever given. Pacino is an American Olivier. And this is a political thriller as good as they get. There are no good guys and no bad guys. But the system has its inexorable effect on the people who think they're running it. Not only is Pacino's performance compelling --- the eulogy at the dead child's funeral is awesomely powerful --- the film has a fast paced, gritty realism to it that enhances the fine performances without resorting to gimmicks. This outstanding portrait of big city politics also manages to provide two hours of superb movie watching without undue violence, overheated sex or gutter language. There is murder. There are bad people. But they come across effectively without crossing the line. A film like this restores my jaded faith in Hollywood. I don't award many tens. This one richly deserves it!

From the stupid "quaint African natives" travelogue footage with our badly-superimposed principals acting as narrators, to the horrible fake ears which transform docile Indian elephants into African elephants, to the utter lack of any logic at all, to Maureen O'Sullivan's incessant whining of "Tarzan! Tarzan!", there is nothing about this movie which deserves classic status.
4/10
After seeing this film I feel like I know just a little bit more about the USA. David Lynch is synonymous with shock value and weird for weirdness sake, and indeed these elements are not missing from The Straight Story. However it is in a light that I have not witnessed from Lynch before. We begin with a simple family living a quiet life but end up with an array of absurdly interesting characters with depth in their lives that cannot be apparent from their introduction. Especially moving was the bar scene with two WWII veterans discussing the events of fifty years ago and how it still affected their current lives and emotions. If you are looking for Wild at Heart or Dune, don't look here. But if you are looking for real people with real stories this is the film for you.

This movie is just plain terrible!!!! Slow acting, slow at getting to the point and wooden characters that just shouldn't have been on there. The best part was the showing of Iron Maiden singing in some video at a theater and thats it. the ending was worth watching and waiting up for but that was it!! The characters in this movie put me to sleep almost. Avoid it!!!
What a lovely heart warming television movie. The story tells of a little five year old girl who has lost her daddy and finds it impossible to cope. Her mother is also very distressed ..only a miracle can alleviate their unhappiness.Which all viewers hope will materialise. Samantha Mathis is brilliant as the little girl's mum ,as she was as the nanny in" Jack and Sarah",worth watching if you like both Samantha Mathis and happy; year tear jerking movies! Ellen Burstyn is, as, always a delightful grandmother in this tender and magnificently acted movie. Jodelle Ferland (the little five year old) is charming and a most convincing young actress. The film is based on a true story which makes it so touching."Mermaid" is a tribute to the milk of human kindness which is clearly illustrated and clearly is still all around us in this difficult world we live in. "Mermaid" gives us all hope ,by realising that there a lot of lovely people in the world with lot's of love to give. James Robson Glasgow Scotland U.K.

1st watched 2/2/2003 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Jim Kammerud & Brian Smith): Drab and un-spectacular supposed sequel to the original classic animated `101 Dalmatians.' Yes, the movie continues where it ended in the first one, but the problem is that it plays out much like the original. One of the great things about the original was the pacing of the story, which this one doesn't have. The animation is also very un-spectacular for Disney and all we get is the same characters going thru the same kind of story all over again. When is Disney going to stop boring us with sequels and re-do's etc.. etc. Probably when we stop renting or buying this mediocre fare that they have put out.