Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I think that people are under estimating this incredible film. People are seeing it as a typical horror movie that is set out to scare us and prevent us from getting some sleep. Which if it was trying to do then it would deservedly get a 1/10 but i viewed this film with a few friends and we found it very entertaining and though it was a good movie after all it does have Stephanie beaton. This is the reason why i think that it deserves the 10/10 for the pure entertainment of the film.
The general view on this movie is that it has bad acting, a simple script that a 10 year old could produce and that it cant be taken seriously and people are rating it low because of this. But i see this as a thoroughly entertaining masterpiece...that has a hilariously funny script which is made even more entertaining by the actors and although not very serious it is very entertaining.

Killer Tomatoes movies have this special kind of humor - you either love it or hate it. I personally like it, but in this fourth movie the feeling is gone. The tomatoes aren't the same, jokes are lame, even the actors aren't as funny. Because that's the only thing this kind of movies are supposed to be - funny.
So now following the plot made to laugh, is annoying. They really shouldn't have done the fourth part to the Killer Tomatoes trilogy.
This is my favorite of the older Tom & Jerry cartoons from the early 40's. The original version with Mammy Two Shoes is on the Tom & Jerry Spotlight Collection 2 set, disc one, and showcases the wonderful detailed animation of the early cartoons. The gags on this one aren't all madcap Avery style, but more subtle and aimed at anyone who's ever stayed up late watching scary movies (or radio programs)! Tom is listening to a creepy radio show, and Jerry decides to play a number of tricks to spook him. The nine-lives gag is well done here, and I don't know how many times I tried to make a vacuum and a sheet that scary when I was a kid. When Tom's owner is awakened by the ruckus- Mammy was NOT the maid, it was HER house- she gets one heck of a surprise, with a big laugh. Get your pause button ready, it's worth it!

... You can't exactly shove her out of the way, because she's old; and if you were being charitable you might say that the ponderous gait she ambles along with isn't really her fault. Nevertheless, in these circumstances it's often difficult not to become irritated when you find yourself dragging your heels in her wake. So it is with "The Pallbearer", an attempt to do something 'different' with a romantic comedy that in this way is chiefly hamstrung because the venue is all wrong; sort of like showing off your 'breakdancing' skills at a grandparent's funeral.
To further extend the metaphor (perhaps unwisely!); like the old lady, one starts to feel with the set-up of the film that its demise cannot be far away. Sure enough, this particular 'death' is agonizingly protracted, slowly chipping away at our reserves of empathy in tiny little increments, as depressingly we come to the realisation that the proceedings are only headed in one direction: Downhill. Its laboured attempts at 'humour' can be seen coming a mile off - again, not unlike the grim inevitability of death!
Returning once again to the image of 'dragging heels', the main character, Tom, is shown to ceaselessly repeat this action throughout his life. If there are indeed degrees of 'pathetic', then this sap is possibly a good few notches ahead of Schwimmer's other - more famous - role. To find oneself in the awkward position of having to align audience sympathies with a character even MORE 'clueless' than Ross is certainly a tough ask even for as 'able' a comic performer as Schwimmer, but I guess he can find fault with himself for signing on to some seriously 'echoing' situations in the first place.
How will he ever escape his most famous portrayal if he's picking scripts where the characters could almost be 'interchangeable', even if the situations aren't? A man with a longstanding high-school crush on someone he hasn't seen for years. Sound familiar... ? Paltrow is nothing else if not bland in her 'Rachel' role, but all of this going over old ground would perhaps be forgivable if the noticeable DIFFERENCES present weren't so incongruous as well. Unfortunately, the romantic element is so well-worn it's threadbare, and the 'backdrop' is so inappropriate that it seems the best way to describe the resultant film is as something of a 'stiff'... ! 2/10.
I remember watching "Gung Ho" as a child with my mother, and wondered why she would always cry in the last few minutes. I, of course, found the entire movie hilarious, particularly the mannerisms of the characters. It wasn't until I was much older and watched it again that I realized how much deeper this show actually is.
Michael Keaton and Gedde Watanabe shine in their roles as the reluctant mediators. Keaton ceases to amaze me with his real-life style of line delivery, and Watanabe adds humor and pathos to the mix. I also thought that Patti Yasutake (Umeki) was simply fabulous in her role as the comic relief.
I think this movie is one of the most underrated films of the 80s. We can all learn a lesson from the merging of the American and Japanese workers in this film...sometimes you really *can* have "the best of both worlds." And now I understand why my mother felt the way she did in those closing moments. I'd rather have one of those cars, too.

This so called remake is terrible. I went to see this tonight.. on the first day as the anticipation and hype was too much for me to handle. But within the first half an hour, we knew that this is a disaster. It not only does not match the hype created but also insults the original blockbuster. The script had loopholes, the editing was untidy quite a few times. Mohanlal who is an excellent actor did an okay job. Amitabh was alright.. the director wanted to portray how evil his character is but he went a bit overboard which resulted in it being forceful. Ajay who is especially smooth in these kind of roles was also a disappointment. Lets not even get started about the new guy Prashant.. one wouldn't be proud to start off a career with something like this. Rajpal Yadav who was thrown in for a few laughs couldn't even get a smile out of anyone because of his forceful humor and the shrill voice. Nisha Kothari proved that she is one of the worst actresses we have today. All in all, RGV who I thought was one of the most talented and gifted directors India has had.. failed miserably. He took up such a huge challenge and responsibility to remake what is known as the best Hindi movie ever and made a mess out of it.
Of course, the story line for this movie isn't the best, but the dances are wonderful. This story line is different from other Astaire-Rogers movies in that neither one is "chasing" the other. The dancing of Fred and Ginger is what makes this movie.

This movie was the worst movie I have seen since "Date Movie." I was laughing through out the whole movie instead of being scared. It was funny how the snakes would search for particular section of the passengers body to attack for example, the eye, the tongue, the butt, the breast. If we have seen national geographic channel we know snakes wont stay clinched on the body once they bite. For each particular scene the snakes would bite the passengers and would stay on the body biting the person. I believe the producer did not study his information on snakes and their behavior. I cant believe I wasted my money on this movie.So I don't recommend this movie trust just wait until it is at the dollar theatre or rent it.
This is a truly magnificent and heartwrenching film!!!! Ripstein's locations are spectacular, extremely detailed and well lit, the dialogue is extraordinarily García Márquez, no doubt about it. Fernando Luján and Marisa Paredes give us outstanding performances as the colonel and his wife.
You must see it!!!

This was a big disappointment for me. I think this is the worst Mastroianni-movie ever made. Cosmatos tries too hard to make this movie a masterpiece and that makes this movie a typical "art"-movie. I give 4/10 for this movie.
This sweeping drama has it all: top notch acting, incredible photography, good story. It is often compared to "Braveheart" because both movies take place in historical Scotland. Even though I love Braveheart, I think this is the better of the two films. Jessica Lange gave an incredible performance (should have been nominated for an Oscar). Liam Neeson is fantastic in the title role. Tim Roth plays one of the most evil, despicable, characters in film history (he was nominated for an Oscar). John Hurt is excellent as Lord Montrose, another dislikeable character. I am always amazed at the incredible range of characters that John Hurt can play. This is a story of a dispute over money between Rob Roy and his clan, and Lord Montrose. Rob Roy is a self made man, who will not solve his problems with Montrose if it violates his sense of honor. Montrose, who, inherited his title, has no sense of honor. And that is basically what this story is all about; honor of the common man versus corruption of the nobility. This movie is very entertaining, it should appeal to all. It has romance, action, beautiful scenery, and has a exciting plot. One of my favorite films.

Leave it to geniuses like Ventura Pons, the Spanish director, to convince the higher ups in his country to subsidize this misguided attempt of a film. The sad state of the film industry in that country is a product of trying to make a film out of such thin material. Most of the pictures that are made in Spain fall under two categories: those about the Spanish Civil War, that love to present past history as the writers deem fit. The other type of films show the viewer with a lot of gratuitous sex because the 'creators' don't have anything interest to say.
As the film opens we get to watch Pere's penis as he attempts to cut it off and place it in one of the platters at a party. Later on, Sandra will show all she has been given for the audience to admire. The story of Pere's attraction to Sandra, a married woman that seems to be happily married, is false from the start.
Our only interest in watching the film centered on an earlier, better made picture by Mr. Pons, "Amic/Amat", but alas, it has nothing to do with the mess we are punished to watch in this venture. As far as the comments submitted in IMDb, all the negative votes come from Spanish viewers, which speaks volumes coming from them!
I have to hand it to the creative team behind these "American Pie" movies. "Direct To DVD" typically is synonymous with cheap, incompetent film-making. Yet last year I was pleasantly surprised when I found myself thoroughly enjoying the DVD sequel "The Naked Mile". The filmmakers took advantage of the opportunity to deliver a raunchy, yet funny little film. This year they offer up the followup, "Beta House". This is the honest truth, "Beta House" makes the first few "American Pie" movies look like "The Little Mermaid".
This is no holds barred, tasteless, laugh-out loud fun. Sure, the story is a bit thin, but that's the beauty of the whole thing. Within the first 10 minutes we're introduced to the all the main characters, the new supporting characters, get a handful of raunchy gags, meet the villains, and establish the general plot-line. With all that out of the way, the movie becomes a no-limits ride. The gags are a plenty, and they DID NOT hold back in this one. I'm talking male semen, urine, dildos, chicks-with-dicks, sex with sheep, female orgazim sprays, and plenty more. Not to mention the fact that not a minute goes by without boobs or a sex scene.
Returning from "The Naked Mile" are John White, Jake Siegel, Steve Talley, and Eugene Levy (in a similar supporting role as the last few films). The entire cast does fine work. Steve Talley (Dwight Stifler), in particular, has a great energy and screen presence. I predict good things for him. The film is also loaded with great movie references for those who keep their eyes open. By far the biggest laugh of the film for me was "The Deerhunter" parody. Classic.
The bottom line is, if you're a fan of the series, you'll feel right at home with "Beta House". It really pushes the limits of good taste, but in the end is pretty damn funny.

This "film" is one of the most dreadful things I have ever seen.
Please do yourselves a favor and avoid this incompetent concoction.
Shaking the camera and having your actors adopt scowls does not count as "direction", which this film needed in droves. Not that the writing was all the wonderful, rather we were left with a bunch of completely artificial characters directed in that most artificial way (the pseudo-documentary "style" prized by those who don't know how to direct).
This film gives the impression that it was done cynically to appeal to critics who don't know the first thing about film-making (which is most of them).
Just terrible. It says a lot about Sundance and what it's become that Victor Vargas was showcased there.
I finally purchased and added to my collection a copy of "Show People". I cannot comment any more than what previous viewers have stated and to the characters, plot and overall quality of this film without repeating their own words. Seeing the cameo, out-of-character appearances of so many M-G-M silent stars is worth the viewing in and of itself. I really like the scene where Marion Davies plays herself and is encountered by herself playing the main character of the movie, Patricia Pepoire. Make sure you read her lips as there is no title card indicating what she is saying when she sees Marion Davies but it is something to the effect of "I don't think I like her!" Pop the corn, pop in the tape and get ready to go back more than three quarters of a century in movie making history. Enjoy!

The Russian movie, "4," follows the lives of three (not four) strangers who meet one night in a local bar. One is a musician, one a frozen meat seller and one a call girl.
"4," I gather, is intended to showcase the dreariness and hopelessness of life in post-Soviet Russia (the characters have to make up stories to make their lives appear more interesting than they really are), but the movie is so incoherent and boring that I seriously doubt very many people will be able to sit all the way through it. There seems to be a suggestion running through the film that the shadowy Russian government is up to some shady doings behind the scenes - operating secret cloning facilities, selling decades-old frozen meat etc. - but the movie is so formless and incomprehensible that I doubt anyone could figure out what anybody's really up to here.
Despite decent acting and a few incisively directed scenes, "4" is a two-hour long endurance contest that should be avoided at all costs.
Andie MacDowell's facial expressions are great again in this movie. When you enter 40 and have been single for a while (or all your life) you may feel you are wasting away. The movie is a sweet reminder that love can be found just anywhere if your antennae is acutely active. I liked the quick sexual encounter, which must be out of character for a normally reserved school teacher (MacDowell). Her ex-student is cute enough, still carrying a crush on his teacher for so long.
There are some parts that I thought rather unrealistic or unpractical, though. For example, at a scene where the other women's jealousy override and a scene was set up to make Andie MacDowell dump the young man, would a mature police officer (the other friend of MacDowell) allow her friend to do such a sinister act? Is it so easy for anyone to not stop in front of a car? Of course accidents happen all the time, but I hoped to see the heroine get happily married with the first man she got involved with (that was the hardest part to believe!! For such a beautiful woman to stay single for so long??)...
Maybe the movie producers are aware of the fact that many romance between an older woman and a younger man do not last for long. Beside they know that a happy ending would not appeal to the public, especially to jealousy women over 40, who are waiting some miracles to happen. The sad ending with a glimpse of hope for the sad woman who lost her true love is sweet, but if the man continued to live, would that last? For how long? Nobody knows. Nonetheless, it's a movie to make you want to watch it again sometime later.... a year later maybe.

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with the majority. I found Spike Lee's latest a wee bit boring! Although he was trying something different, i.e. not just documenting the rise and fall of the serial killer, I don't think it worked too well.
There's really a bit too much going on - Vinny (John Leguizamo) and Dionna's (Mira Sorvino) relationship, Ritchie's (Adrien Brody) lifestyle and then the local mafia types. The story is good, but at the end thats all you have - 2 or 3 stories. With such a provocative killer could Mr Lee not have put more into that side of the film? >
There are some good points though. All scenes with the 'Son of Sam' killer David Berkowitz look very nice (colour saturation etc...)and the acting is pretty good throughout.
Overall I felt that the different stories would of worked well on their own or else without the killings. It just wasn't strong enough in the end.
This movie is so misunderstood it is not even funny. If you think of seeing this one for the shootings.. stay clear. This one deals with the effects and trauma that the survivors must endure. Even the detectives are seeking the answer we all do...WHY? Fantastic acting from the two leading ladies as we see how those we ignore are affected by the very same things we are affected with. Yes the language is harsh at times, but it suits the characters well. There are some loose ends left or unanswered, but all movies have these. The major issues are dealt with and this movie makes a major statement about how all of us adults feel after such major incidents. Highly recommended for teens and adults.

Demi Moore's character in the movie was selected for the SEALs because of her looks. That was a bad start and the movie went down from there. The plot was totally unbelievable. The will to make it in a tough military unit is not enough. This movie did not convince me of a woman's physical ability to perform the types of tasks required.
Trying to pretend that women and men are basically the same is an insult to everyone's intelligence. The differences between the sexes are what makes life interesting.
Eyeliner was worn nearly 6000 years ago in Egypt. Really not that much of a stretch for it to be around in the 12th century. I also didn't realize the series flopped. There is a second season airing now isn't there? It is amazing to me when commentaries are made by those who are either ill-informed or don't watch a show at all. It is a waste of space on the boards and of other's time. The first show of the series was maybe a bit painful as the cast began to fall into place, but that is to be expected from any show. The remainder of the first season is excellent. I can hardly wait for the second season to begin in the United States.

This had a great cast with big-name stars like Tyrone Power, Henry Fonda, Randolph Scott, Nancy Kelly, Henry Hull and Brian Donlevey and a bunch more lesser-but-known names with shorter roles. It also had Technicolor, one of the few movies made with it in 1939.
Now the bad news.......regrettably, I can't say much positive for the story. It portrayed the James boys in a totally positive light....and Hollywood has done that ever since. Why these criminals are always shown to be the "good guys" is beyond me. This film glamorizes them and made their enemies - the railroad people - into vicious human beings. The latter was exaggerated so much it was preposterous. Well, that's the film world for you: evil is good; good is bad.
Hey Hollywood: here's a news flash - The James boys were criminals! Really - look it up!
A chemist develops a fabric that never gets dirty or wears out, but it is seen as a threat to the survival of various industries. In this delightful Ealing Studios comedy, Guinness is marvelous as the mild-mannered but persistent chemist. Greenwood, with her sensual voice, plays the love interest; Parker is her harried father. Thesiger is amusing as a patriarch of the fabric industry. While telling an engaging story, the film also raises some intriguing questions about science, the economy, and politics. It is adeptly directed by Mackendrick, who would go on to make "The Ladykillers" and the sublime "Sweet Smell of Success" later in the 1950s.

Murders are occurring in a Texas desert town. Who is responsible? Slight novelties of mystery and racial tensions (the latter really doesn't fit), but otherwise strictly for slasher fans, who will appreciate the gore and nudity, which are two conventional elements for these films.
Dana Kimmell (of FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 3 infamy) stars as the bratty quasi-detective teen.
*1/2 out of ****
MPAA: Rated R for violence and gore, nudity, and some language.
Such a film of beauty that it's hard to describe. Maybe it's the absence of superfluous dialogue, or maybe it's the absolutely stellar soundtrack, or maybe it's just Meena Mumari's feet, but it's a joy to watch this movie again and again. I've never seen another Indian movie that comes close to it, and few from any country rival its perfection.

I found this film to be an interesting study in cause and effect but little more than that. The basic plot follows the lives of a handful of people and how their actions (deliberate and otherwise) effect the lives of the others. The film's premise holds great promise but I feel it fails to deliver on its promise. Too much time is spent telling the audience about chaos theory and too little time actually showing it. As a result, I never got a true feel for any of the characters and never made a good connection with them emotionally. By the end of the movie, I had a "so what" attitude about all of them. A stronger direction in character development would have made this movie great, but as it stands it is merely so-so
Serials were short subjects originally shown in theaters in conjunction with a feature film that were related to pulp magazine serialized fiction. Known as "chapter plays," they were extended motion pictures broken into a number of segments called "chapters" or "episodes." Each chapter would be screened at the same theater for one week. The serial would end with a cliffhanger, as the hero and heroine would find themselves in the latest perilous situation from which there could be no escape.
The audience would have to return the next week to find out how the hero and heroine would escape and battle the villain once again. Serials were especially popular with children, and for many children in the first half of the 20th century, a typical Saturday at the movies included a chapter of at least one serial, along with animated cartoons, newsreels, and two feature films.
The golden age for serials was 1936-1945. This was one of the best of the era.
Zorro has been seen in many films, but Reed Hadley ("Racket Squad", The Undying Brain) was excellent in the role.
The action is constant, and we are led chapter by chapter to the ultimate end where we find out the identity of the evildoer.
Zorro triumphs, as he always does.

I am a huge Charlton Heston fan. He is without a doubt one of the greatest actors of all time, but what was he thinking when he made this movie. Normally if he made a bad movie I could blame it on the screenwriter or director, but in this case it's all him. The suckiness of this movie is all his fault. It proves that not even Heston can make a Shakespeare story interesting. I wasted 2 and a half hours of my life on this snooze fest and I'll never get that time back. This is by far THE WORST Heston movie that I've ever seen. If you are a Shakespeare fan maybe you'll find this movie entertaining, but if you're not don't waste your time, you'll regret it in the long run.