Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Second-feature concerns a young woman in London desperate for a job, happy to accept live-in secretarial position with an elderly woman and her son. Thrillers about people being held in a house against their will always make me a little uneasy--I end up feeling like a prisoner too--but this rather classy B-film is neither lurid nor claustrophobic. It's far-fetched and unlikely, but not uninteresting, and our heroine (Nina Foch) is quick on her feet. Rehashing this in 1986 (as "Dead Of Winter") proved not to be wise, as the plot-elements are not of the modern-day. "Julia Ross" is extremely compact (too short at 65 minutes!) but it stays the course nicely until a too-rushed climax, which feels a little sloppy. *** from ****

I rented this movie because I was browsing through the horror movie section for those movies that no one's heard of and could be a possible gem. I saw this and, since I'm a fan of violence and gore, I got it. It got the rating of EM which means: Extremely Mature. Thinking that this rare and high rating was totally meant for violence and everything else, I got it. The warning on the box said: Extreme Violence, Extreme Langauge, and Nudity. The "extreme violence" struck my fancy. The movie ended being a pretty tame slasher flick. It had one or two gory scenes but I've seen worse in a PG-13 movie. Of course the amount of gore in a movie isn't all that counts, right? You have plot also. Well, the plot was boring and there nothing really special about it. Don't rent it. I speak the truth. I can't imagine how someone could really enjoy it to the point where they say: "I'm gonna rent that again." It had it's moments where it kept you going but I'm never going to see that film again.
Keep in mind I'm a fan of the genre but have only recently seen this film for the first time. How I've overlooked it all this time is a wonder to me. To me this is a better film then the much lauded "High Noon". It's a great western with excellent acting and a great story. The DVD is in beautifull black and white with outstanding cinematography. If you like westerns or James Stewart this film is not to be missed.

Watching this film for the action is rather a waste of time, because the figureheads on the ships act better than the humans. It's a mercy that Anthony Quinn couldn't persuade anyone else to let him direct any other films after this turkey.
But it is filled with amusement value, since Yul Brynner has hair, Lorne Greene displays an unconvincing French accent, and the rest of the big names strut about in comic-book fashion.
This is just about in the same league as `The Black Cat', although I'd give this a 9 rather than a 9+. That's praise indeed for a film that has been so badly underrated that it is amazing!
`The Invisible Ray' is part horror, part drama and certainly part sci-fi. For a movie made in 1936 the sci-fi elements were a good deal ahead of their time. The mixture of horror, drama and sci-fi are a perfect blend, while the acting on the part of Lugosi and Karloff couldn't be better.
Director Lambert Hillyer captures a lot of elements that James Whale did so often. What I'm saying is that this film is eerie and well shot. The scene with the gargoyles outside of Lugosi's room is a perfect example of the mood. It's a standout moment in the film, which is so sadly missing in today's movies of the genre.
As with `The Black Cat' and `Island of Lost Souls', I can't understand why this film has yet to be released on DVD. When you consider some of the junk that's already been transferred to DVD it's that much more puzzling.
Anyway, watch this film if you get the chance. When it's released on DVD grab it fast and put it in an honored spot within your DVD library.

This whole film should have lasted 45 minutes - maximum. Although an interesting concept/theme, it really did not develop as a story. Once the initial idea of a brave (stupid?) bomb disposal expert (cowboy?) are introduced, and this happens very early in the film, the rest is repetitious. Characters were not explored, and aspects of the location and politics were ignored. There was some nice insight into the appalling difficulties faced by troops in such a foreign environment, and the difficulties in differentiating between friend and foe. But the way in which the unit operated stretched belief! Individual performances were good, and special effects were adequate, but not enough to overcome the basic lack of content.
I still liked it though. Warren Beatty is only fair as the comic book hero. What saves this movie is the set, the incredible cast and it offshoots a mediocre script. I really expected something more substantial in the terms of action, or plot but I got very little. The main reason to watch this movie is to watch some of the biggest stars in Hollywood at the time in such an unusual film.
The one person who did a terrible job and did not even belong in this film was Madonna. She did not belong in this movie and her acting job was pretty bad. The movie at some points just stood still. You expected something more and you got nothing. Al Pacino plays a really bad dude and he does pretty good. He and Beatty do make an excellent good guy and bad guy.
It is also interesting to see Dustin Hoffman, and Warren Beatty in a film other than Isthar. I did not see Ishtar but I heard bad things. The thing about this movie is it is good, but it could have been so much better. I liked it as a child because I thought it looked cool, and visually the movie is amazing, the sets are incredible, the writing is only fair, and with such a cast in the movie I would expect a little better anyway.
SPOILER
I especially thought the finale was not big enough. It was interesting but for such a grand scale film I just thought it could have ended with a little more of a bang. The reason to watch this movie is the atmosphere. The movie only uses the 7 comic book colors making it all that more excellent visually anyway.
The costumes and makeup were flawless as well. The facial makeup for the villains was great. Beatty is just not up to such a bigger than life character. Still, this is a good movie that could have been much much more. It is to me better than Batman, the other comic book adaptation that came out close to the same time. Of course that movie was much bigger in terms of gross.

(A possible spoiler or two)
"Soul Survivors" is quite possibly the worst theatrical released movie ever. Nothing makes sense at all, there's some plot about a girl who has strange visions of people who may or may not be dead. The entire movie is just a bunch of random shots of things that don't really tie together, by the end of the film.
Tha acting is non-existent, the camera work is jerky and the script is so confusing, it just makes the movie even harder to watch.
I kept waiting for something to tie the movie together but nothing came. Definitely the worst film of the year. -****1/2 stars.
This is comedy as it once was and comparing this with the two remakes, THE MONEY PIT and ARE WE DONE YET?, only points out all the more how the 40's movie makers had a flair for comedy which has since, regretfully, been lost.
I was 15 when I first saw this and even at that tender age, there was much I could laugh at. Now of course being familiar with adult frustrations, I see a whole lot that I missed as a youth.
The three main actors...Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas...interacted perfectly, but the core of the movie lies in the frustrations encountered in achieving a dream. It's never as easy and free of unseen complications as one envisions.
All in all, this is a classic comedy which still stands above the attempts to remake it.

Having endured this inaccurate movie I will admit that it is a more modern telling of the story than previous versions. Yet, it is so inaccurate and has has been made so politically correct that it made me mad after watching it. Davy Crockett was very poorly represented by Billy Bob, who I thought would have probably been better cast as Sam Houston given both men's love of oratory. I think self-absorbed Dennis Quaid(an actual Texan) would have been a perfect Crockett and it would have definitely fed into his starved sense of self-worship. As a Texan and a true believer in the Texas mindset I feel Davy Crockett was the quintessential Texan even though not born here. Our unofficial motto is "It ain't braggin' if it is a fact" was made for Crockett. And that last scene at the Alamo where Crockett is the last survivor has to be the biggest insult to Davy Crockett ever made. To even suggest that this giant of a man and seasoned fighter would allow himself to be taken alive is ridiculous. Three different eye witness accounts place him dead amid the bodies of a dozen or more dead Mexican soldiers after undoubtedly fierce hand to hand combat. Finally, that lame ending to the movie supposedly depicting the battle of San Jacinto as a mutual battle of 600 Texicans vs 700 Mexican Soldiers when there was actually closer to 1,500 well trained Mexican regulars. Every Texas school kid who pays attention in their first Texas history class knows the battle took the Mexican Army by surprise during siesta time and the Mexican army was so confused they could not form ranks and fled as they were not trained to fight frontier style hand to hand.
Man on Fire was hot. I love a classic tale of good ol' revenge, and what better cause for revenge than the kidnapping of an innocent little girl.
The writers did an excellent job in this movie of building the relationship between Creasy (Denzel Washington) and Pita (Dakota Fanning) so that the viewer would understand and actually feel the drive Creasy had to rescue Pita. It was also good that Creasy wasn't a choir boy type trying to rescue Pita through the "proper" channels, but instead used torture tactics and street smarts. Some may say, "Torture is wrong regardless," and you may be right, but when you see the pain Creasy goes through due to the loss of Pita and the sheer passion he has for getting her back, you can't help but side with Creasy and pull for him to be even more merciless. There would be no progress if Creasy used diplomacy to deal with the different nefarious gangsters and criminals and he knew that.
Creasy's quest ended with the return of Pita to her mother and Creasy dying in the vehicle of the bad guys. But Creasy's death did not diminish the effectiveness of the movie, it in fact enhanced it by showing that Creasy was willing to die to get Pita back. His death was noble in fact.
Denzel does an excellent job as do the writers. This movie deserves good marks because it definitely was a good movie.

Definitely, definitely the worst film I've ever seen, no questions asked! Contradictors of this opinion might argue that this title should not be judged by the same criteria as others, since it's an independent, low-budget film, but c'mon already  the amateurism and meager innovation is horrifying.
Agreeing with everything that has been said about this film, for example the mind numbingly weak acting (when it's this bad you take another go at shooting the scene, god damn it), the thing I found the most annoying was the total lack of common sense in the script, assuming such a thing existed during the production. There was an obvious absence of a dialogue with respect for the viewers, the girls switched personalities several times and they seemed to show absolutely no sing of any rationality or even brains - five relatively fit girls against one slight female psychopath  gang up on her, why don't you?
The only thing that can be regarded as somewhat of a conquest for this title is the camera not leaving the van at any time thus the viewer seeing everything from inside it - which is, as the rest of the film, a good idea executed exponentially dreadfully.
oh and by the way, this movie is NOTHING like The Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield or any other title filmed with a hand-held camera  this is an effect and not a trait! Used cleverly it can be breathtaking, but in this case it's an excuse for inadequate cinematography.
Joel schumacher Made a heck of a choice when he decided on this cast and this script. The story is well written and well laid out, and this entirely new cast of 10 or 12 central characters was absolutely brilliant. It seemed that there were 6 "leads" and about a half dozen supporting, and by far this is the best thing about the movie, the fresh young faces of tomorrow. It has been a long time since hollywood has touched the controversial vietnam war films,which says something for the"story that needed to be told"(as stated by schumacher) and Tigerland lands in that handful of top war movies period. Yet it can not be labeled as a war movie because it seemed to be based more on the human spirit of Bozz and the others. I Think anyone who just wants to see a good film with out all of the special FX, but just good, gritty drama should go see Tigerland, obviously Shumachers Best works in the past 8 years.

If you're looking to be either offended or amused or both, you'll probably have to look elsewhere. LMOTP really isn't even very thought provoking beyond rehashing the usual silly clichés. At the end of the second episode I felt a little embarrassed that I actually sat through the contrived mess.
Beyond the thinly veiled gimmicky premise thats attracted all the initial attention to it in the first place it's just another lame, innocuous and anti-septic attempt at commentary and entertainment that the CBC typically excels at producing. And once the "ZOMG MUSLIMS IN RURAL CANADA ROFLMAO!!" hype wears out its welcome, the show is likely to follow into the ether of cancellation because it's so shallow when judged on its merits alone.
Unless you're obsessed with Muslim culture in the west and/or are easily amused by the most minute idiosyncrasies on the subject I really don't see how LMOTP is enjoyable beyond satisfying the curiosity that stemmed from the hype. Other shows have better addressed the issue of cultural/ethnic dichotomy in western multi-ethnic societies. LMOTP will never rank among them in entertainment or insight.
Directed by Samuel Fuller, who also wrote the screenplay, Pickup on South Street is a tough, brutal, well made film about a pickpocket (Richard Widmark) who inadvertently aquires top-secret microfilm and becomes a target for espionage agents. Also involved are Jean Peters as a tough broad who is used as a courier by her evil ex-lover Richard Kiley. It's film-noir at its best and although the performances are very good its grand character actress Thelma Ritter who steals the movie. As Moe a weary street peddler selling neck ties (and who also sells information) she is terrific in a role that brought her another Oscar nomination. Its amazing that Miss Ritter was nominated six times for an Academy Award and she never won. This should have been the role that copped it for her!

This is the only movie I have ever seen that has prompted me to write a critique on any internet site, and that is a significant statement from someone who likes "The Attack of the Monolith Monsters." This movie is perfect for anyone who wants an inoffensive movie. It is devoid of sex and violence, for example. I believe that this movie is safe for children of all ages. This movie is perfect for anyone who does not want to be entertained, challenged, or stimulated in any way. Adults could easily catch up on their sleep in front of the TV while the kids watch this movie. Don't be surprise ,however, if you wakeup to find the kids have turned the TV off and started a board game. As an adult who enjoys being entertained, who enjoys everything from the mundane to the fantastic in realism, drama, comedy, and action, all of those adult things that reflect real life on earth and/or stimulate the imagination, this movie has nothing to offer.
A young woman (Jean Simmons) is convinced by her scheming and dangerous aunt (Sonia Dresdel) and uncle (Barry Jones) that she's losing her mind and in very delicate condition that requires their supervision which turns out to be more like manipulation, as they try to keep her as far away from outside human contact as possible. The only other person she sees is the estate caretaker, a lascivious character played by Maxwell Reed, whose caught the wayward eye of the middle-aged aunt. All of this, the aunt and the caretaker, the butterfly expert uncle who has a serious underside to him, and the susceptible niece in the middle, would have made for a darker and more sinister film. As it is, a frame-up for a murder sends Trevor Howard (a fired government secret service agent who took a job at the estate cataloging butterflies) and Simmons across the countryside escaping police, catching headlines of "Police Net Closing In" over her front page photo, hopping on buses, and winding up in Liverpool, where they meet some wonderfully cast characters, and finally face down the greedy and murderous aunt and uncle.

Jean Luc Godard's Marxist polemic is as close to unwatchable a film as you're likely to see from an internationally respected filmmaker. Bits of political theater, mind-numbingly boring and interminable, are interspersed with the making of "Sympathy for the Devil", featuring the Rolling Stones in the studio.
The process of the song's development, from Mick Jagger playing a demo on acoustic guitar, to the backing vocals being recorded towards the end, is fascinating, and it's worth renting this film just to see the bits with the Stones. Almost half the movie is devoted to this, so thanks to the miracle of chapter stops, you can skip all the bizarre political skits and just watch the Stones put a song together.
When I had this on laserdisc, I valiantly attempted to watch it all, but I don't see how anyone could get through it. I finally gave up and just chapter-skipped my way to the Stones segments.
Leon was fantastic as always, this time playing Little Richard in his early years. The movie showed a fully fleshed out Little Richard without neglecting to fill the show with lots of great music. My only complaint is that the ending was a little abrupt - I was hoping for a 2-parter!

I didn't know this was a silent movie with narration. I don't care for silent movies - the corny humor, flickering lighting and film, etc. I'm sure that attributes to the low score I assigned it. It was about chapter 8 before I found any interest in this story and had I had popcorn I may have thrown it at the screen. Maybe this appeals to the sci-fi crowd? The only thing missing was a zombie scene and a brain transplant. I went with two other people on a Friday night and there were a total of 6 people in the entire theater. Isabella Rosselinni narrated this movie - the one enjoyable aspect of the movie. No one left commenting how much they enjoyed this nor appreciated the unusual approach to telling this story. I cannot recommend this movie.
Writer-director Brian De Palma is best known for his string of films that have been called, somewhat unfairly, "Hitchcock imitations." Contrary to popular belief, De Palma doesn't rip-off Hitchcock; he borrows story or character elements that may have been seen in a Hitchcock film and then expands on them in a more violent, modern way. Like Hitchcock, De Palma is known for mixing blood-soaked death with macabre humor.
"Dressed to Kill," made way back in 1980, is, perhaps, De Palma's most well-known Hitchcockian film, and it's probably his best as well. The story involves a cross-dressing serial killer stalking both a burnt-out housewife (played by Angie Dickinson) and a street-wise hooker (played by Nancy Allen).
Yes, it will remind you distinctly of "Psycho," but De Palma's flick is just as technically ingenious and darkly creative. The museum sequence is particularly well-scored and edited; the elevator stab scene is also one of the most uniquely shot murders ever put on film. "Dressed to Kill" may not be a complete original, but I'd say it's definitely worth your time. Rated R. 105 minutes. 9 out of 10.

I admit to having been a fan of the original stage production. I never saw the movie version until very lately on cable, and watched it with anticipation, to see my memories brought alive again, because I adored the original show. Imagine my dismay.
This has to be the worst translation of a Broadway show to film ever made. They changed the story, they changed the songs, they lost the soul. I was expecting a trip down memory lane, singing to the extraordinarily touching Music and the Mirror, At the Ballet, and Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen. Not! Not only did they adulterate the music to an almost unrecognizable point, but they messed up the storyline, adding songs and exterior plotlines (hello Cassie and Michael Douglas) not present in the original, and injecting "drama" where it wasn't necessary. The original had enough pathos on its own. If you were a fan of the original Broadway show, don't bother. I'm sorry I wasted my time, and diluted my memories, watching this tripe.
It is no wonder this movie won 4 prices, it is a movie that lingers to any soul, it isn't a wonder why it took Paul Reiser 20 years to finally give in and talk to Peter Falk about his idea. I can understand every part of it, this is a movie that will make you cry just a tear, or thousands.
Story: 10/10 When Sam kleinman gets a letter from his wife about her leaving him to find something else his son and him take out on a road trip to find her, and while they do that they find something lost, Friendship, family, and affection for each other. At the beginning you know whats going to happen, but none soever the story is not that easy to figure out from beginning to end, it is a ride between a father and his son, and a husband and his wife. It is no wonder it took Paul Reiser 20 years to write this beautiful romance/comedy.
Actors: 10/10 Well you cant say anything else that what i about to say, hey it is with Peter Falk in it, he is a legend everything he does in movies are magic, when you use Peter Falk in a romance/comedy what do you think you get? A perfect outcome, it is no wonder this movie is that perfect and won that many prices. As the son Paul Reiser does an excellent job, although he isn't a great actor always that doesn't mean that this didn't work actually Peter Falk and Paul Reiser plays the perfect Father and Son, the rest of the cast is good enough but you don't see them as much so just say they do what they shall to get this to shine even more.
Music: 10/10 It doesn't always work when using music sometimes it just doesn't fit but that is not the thing in this movie, the music is perfect in tune, it makes the movie even more compelling. This part of the movie will shine off as good as the other parts, a great soundtrack for a Romance/Comedy thats for sure.
Overall: 10/10 There are so many Romance/Comedy movies out on tapes, DVDs, Blu-ray and what not, but this movie is one of the special ones. it doesn't happen everyday that you can create a story like this, it takes years thinking about this and the fact is that actually what it took to make it, a great piece that should be bought and kept into the human soul, see it when you get old and see it with your father at a old age, i think then this movie will spark like no other ever made.

I saw this movie at a 'sneak preview' and i must honestly confess that I do not like films with Meryl Streep that much. This picture was the worst. Half the theatre did not return after the break halfway the film. I couldnt blame them, if this wasn't a true story there had been absolutely no need for the second half of the picture. Just before the film goes forward in time about ten years I myself was expecting the credits to appear.