Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I am decidedly not in the target audience for this film. I am a man nearly 50 who has only recently stumbled across the world of independent film. This happened quite by accident, with the discovery of a movie called Clerks late one night on television. The first two things I noticed about that film were that it was 1) technically amateurish and 2) brilliantly written. When I read an interview with the director in the local paper and he said that one of his influences was Clerks, I started to get interesting. When he said his main influence was The Station Agent, a movie I'd seen on DVD a week prior, I decided I had to go and check it out. The result could be described along the same lines as Clerks, although the two films are nothing alike content wise. Both films suffer from technical gaffes that are overcome through amazing writing. Whereas Clerks is a day in the life of a man who has nothing in his life at all and is afraid to ask tough questions about himself and his situation, Less Like Me is about a man who seemingly forces himself to be constantly busy, he's always running one way or another, filling his life with little things so that he will never have to deal with the big ones. The themes and ideas of this film are strong and poignant. I can tell from watching it that not much has changed since I was growing up, young men still have the same problems they always have. The writer dresses up these problems and themes in the modern vernacular, crafts wonderfully honest characters, and has them do completely believable things. As far as indie cinema goes, this may not be perfect from a technical standpoint, but from an artistic one, it is very close.

The storyline was okay. Akshay Kumar was good as always and that was the only good thing about the movie. Kareena Kapoor looked bad. There was so hue and cry over her size zero but she did not looked good leaner. I don't know why the hell did Anil Kapoor accepted such a bad role. There was nothing much to do for him in the movie. Just because it is a Yashraj film does not means that an actor should accept the role however bad it is. Said Ali khan was alright. I think that it is high time that Indian directors and producers start thinking of Indian customers as intelligent lot. What are we ? fools!!!! What do they think, they will show 2 men taking on a SWAT squad to teeters and we will believe them. Is the Indian police so stupid that they are trying to nab some criminals.... they take an entire squad of 100 + policemen and no one was there to surround the palace. The action was crap and I have never seen such bad action. Akshay Kumar was between a circle of 30-40 policemen all shooting at him..... and he shooting back at them. None of the policemen's bullet touched him but he killed all the policemen. Crap. CRAP.
I think the fight director who thought of this scene should take retirement.
I strongly recommend NOT TO SEE THIS MOVIE.
Little Edie and Big Edie are characters that anyone can feel compassion for. Even though their house was filthy, this is somehow understandable considering their mental illness. On the message board a poster wrote that "Little Edie has the coping skills of an eight year old." This reminded me of when in the dramatized 2009 version, Big Edie says to Little Edie, "If you're stuck, it's only with yourself!" These women had everything; beauty, talent, intelligence, firm belief in their opinions and actions. Perhaps if Little Edie wasn't so hard on herself the first time things didn't work out, losing her hair, her job, and the love of her life, she would have made it. This somehow ties into what I believe is her mental illness: her inability to pick herself up when times are hard and see that good times lie ahead. The world will never know what have happened if she didn't listen to her mom's plea, "Come home, Edie! Let me take care of you!"
Yet these understandably insecure women somehow manage to be brilliant, heartbreaking, and lovable, even in their extremely filthy home. These women were extraordinary, and their interaction with each other bring humor and sadness. When Edie had one of her emotional breakdowns, dwelling about what could have been, or about how she wants to get out of her home because she feels like a little girl, one gets the intense urge to hug her and tell her that "everything will be okay!"
Great documentary!!
9/10

i think that new york is a big fake, i mean her whole guidelines of this show is stupid. i enjoyed flavor fl av more better, she acts like a slut, and a hoe put together. her mother is out of this world, i think she is the devils daughter. i mean what does she think she is doing these men already have girls and i believe once you have been with her you will be to ashamed to go back to your girl. she is nasty, spoiled and a big fat fake.the show is very interesting to watch, how much money is she getting to do this awful show, and whats up with her mother,i thought her and new york did not get along, but now it seems as though she is just as fake as her crazy daughter.and where is the so called husband, he is no where to be found,i would not to be with them either.
I rented this movie this past weekend, cranked up the surround sound system, and got some great sound from special affects. This movie is a great movie rental, the special affects where enough to scare my fiance, but I noticed some looked suprisingly computer generated. I didn't go to the movies and see this, but its a scary late night don't feel like going out movie. I would recommend it!

Being born in the 1960's I grew up watching the TV "Movies of the Week" in the early 70's and loved the creepy movies that were routinely shown including "Crowhaven Farm", "Bad Ronald", "Satan's School for Girls", "Kolchak the Night Stalker", etc, but this one is just plain dumb.This is obviously the writer's trying to capitalize on the horrific Manson murders from a few years earlier. The movie stars Dennis Weaver of "McCloud" and "Duel" fame as a father who takes his family camping on a beach. The family encounters some hippies who for some reason decide to terrorize the family. The reason for this is never explained, and Weaver's pacifistic stance is hard to swallow. For God's sake, call the police, beat the hell of them or something, just don't sit there and whine about it. The acting is pretty lame, the story unbelievable, etc. Susan Dey looks cute in a bikini but that's about it. Ignore this if it ever airs on TV.
This is a great British film. A cleverly observed script with many quotable lines, which captures perfectly what magic mushrooms can do to a man over a weekend. As per usual Phil Daniels is excellent along with that most under rated of British actors Geoff Bell. Peter Bowles with a joint hanging out of his mouth is a casting masterstroke and Gary Stretch with his brooding looks brings something strangely atmospheric to the piece. Although it seems to be billed as a biker movie, i think it will find an audience outside of this, purely on the premise that a lot of people have been there done it and got the t-shirt. also A great original soundtrack with a blinding version of Freebird. This really could be a 21st century heir to the famous Ealing comedies. Like the weed in the Welsh fields: it's a grower!

This one features all the (bad) effect of Prior's cheap-o movies, but is so overtly racist, nasty and unpleasant that it is difficult to give this piece of dreck any redeeming feature. Unless you plan to enlist in the Marines, skip this one. Oh, and even if you do, avoid it at all costs.
Documentary starts in 1986 in NYC where black and hispanic drag queens hold "balls". That's where they dress up however they like, strut their stuff in front of an audience and are voted on. We get to know many of the members and see how they all hold together and support each other. As one man says to another--"You have three strikes against you--you're black, gay and a drag queen". These are people who (sadly) are not accepted in society--only at the balls. There they can be whoever and whatever they want and be accepted. Then the film cuts to three years later (1989) and you see how things have changed (tragically for some).
Sounds depressing but it's not. Most of the people interviewed are actually very funny and get a lot of humor out of their situations. They're well aware of their position in society and accept it with humor--just as they should. We find out they all live in "houses" run by various "mothers" and all help each other out. The sense of community in this film is fascinating.
When this film came out in 1990 it was controversial--and a big hit. It won Best Documentary Awards at numerous festivals--but was never even nominated for an Academy Award. Their reason was "Black and hispanic drag queens are not Academy material". Fascinating isn't it? Homophobia and racism all together.
Seen today it's still a great film--and a period piece. It just isn't like that anymore--the NY they show no longer exists. The balls are still held but not in the spirit we see here. Also drag has become more "accepted" in society (for better or worse). And I've heard the houses are gone too. That's kind of sad. I WOULD like to know where these characters are now--I know two died of AIDS but I have no idea about the others. And what DID happen to that 13 year old and 15 year old shown?
Still, it a one of a kind documentary--fascinating, funny and riveting. A must see all the way! A definite 10. Where's the DVD???

1) I am not weapon expert, but even i can see difference between U.S. army riffles in WWI and WWII. In movie we can see privates, armed with "M1 Garand" (invented in year 1932!), not authentic "1903 Springfield" (aka "Silent Death"), who privates use until WWII. Difference - M1 can load 1,5 times more ammunition and 3 times more fire rate! M1 was semi - automatic, Springfield requires reloading after every shot. Little difference?! 2) German army uniforms has borrowed from 1940 Year too. Especially - helmets. German helmets until end of WWI have significant pike on top, we cannot see even one in movie. And if we make little additional search in archives - how much truthful is this "True Story"? I am surprised, how much "truthful" can be film directors in a pursuit of cheap propagation.
Of all the movies of the seventies, none captured to truest essence of the good versus evil battle as did the Sentinel. I mean, yes, there were movies like the Exorcist, and other ones; but none of them captured the human element of the protagonist like this one. If you have time, check this one out. You may not be able to get past the dated devices as such, but this is a story worth getting into.Then there are all the stars and soon-to-be stars. My absolute favorites were Eli Wallach, Sylvia Miles, and Burgess Meredith. Then there are the subtle clues that lead to what's going on too. Pay close attention. I had to watch it four times to catch on to all the smaller weird statements like 'black and white cat, black and white cake'. Plus, the books are really good as well. I'm just sorry that they're not going to turn the second book into a film. It's so scary that it would outdo this movie.

Final Score (an average of various classic cinematic qualities- acting, visuals, creativity, payoff, humor, fun, ect):
4.3 (out of 10)
Had "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" come out a few years ago it would have seemed like a bold, serious new direction in Disney animation. However, it comes just a year after the innovative and nearly genius "The Emperor's New Groove" and marks a step back in freeing Disney from it's repetative "Disney Formula". I'm a big fan of the feature length Disney animated films. Have to see them all love it or hate it. "Atlantis" is an animated throwback to "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and similar live-action sci-fi adventures of the 50s and 60s. Problem is that this version hardly contains one original idea. It feels like a remake of something, even more so than actual Disney remakes(Tarzan, The Hunchback of Notre Dame). The characters are little more than a walking cliches of the usual suspects that typically populate these type of films (the oddball mechanic, the gung ho general, the sassy tough women). Beyond Milo Thatch (Fox) and Rourke (Garner) the supporting cast is flat-out obnoxious. The movie also suffers from it's succinct pace. Instead of fleshing it out into an epic story, Disney jams a lot in the usually brief running time brushing over opportunities to develop...suspence, characters, anything really. They thow us into this new and wonderous world and barely let us get our barings. The awkward pace sometimes makes confusing what is a relatively simple story. The animation is dark and dreary and cheap. This thing looks like a slapped together saturday morning cartoon. Let's hope they haven't forgotten that 2D traditional animation can still be wonderous. "The Iron Giant" among others proved that.
Negatives: The visuals, pace, and sheer lack of originality.
Positives: Quite possibly the coolest death scene for a Disney villain in a long time. It's the creative highlight of the movie.
Recently when i was shopping, i saw the box-set of Americian Gothic, and i thought 'I remember that!' I used to set my alarm to get back up & watch this when it was on CH 4 in 1996 at 1.30am (i was 14). I remember it mostly because it was really scary and weird, no person could ever be as frightening as Lucas Buck (with a B!!) No one ever was anyway.
What annoyed me though was they did the same thing to the box-set as when on TV. Episodes in funny order, I kept thinking when does Dr Matt leave??? - they made it so confusing.
However this is not the writers, producers or directors fault (its TV people in background the money makers They still do the same - Just look at shows like Carnivale and Farscape they don't like originality in studios!!!!!)
To finish - If you've not seen this and you call yourself a Sci-Fi Fantasy, Horror, supernatural drama..Fan = YOU MUST. They even said the same in SFX when reviewing the box-set.

I am a fan of the Nightmare series but this one is horrible. The deaths are so trendy. If you were to watch this 20 years later the whole nintendo scene is outdated. I did like the flashbacks. I think they should have just made a prequel about when he was still alive. That would have been more interesting. This is a movie you can take or leave. Depends on how much spare time you have.
This movie should be required viewing for all librarians or would-be librarians. All of the best lines are directly related to librarianship. The public library vs. academic library argument is a classic argument waged among librarians and library school students. It also breaks many librarian stereotypes. Librarians might even be capable of having fun -- even if they don't *usually* have sex in the romance languages section! (The best movie about librarians? Desk Set, with Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy, of course.)

The first part of Grease with John Travolta and Olivia Newton John is one of the best movie for teens, This one is a very bad copy. The change is only in the sex. In the first one the good one was Sandy, here it's Michael. I prefer to watch the first Grease.
What a stunning episode for this fine series. This is television excellence at its best. The story takes place in 1968 and it's beautifully filmed in black & white, almost a film noir style with its deep shadows and stark images. This is a story about two men who fall in love, but I don't want to spoil this. It is a rare presentation of what homosexuals faced in the 1960s in America. Written by the superb Tom Pettit, and directed by the great Jeannot Szwarc, we move through their lives, their love for each other, and their tragedy. Taking on such a sensitive issue makes this episode all the more stunning. Our emotions are as torn and on edge as the characters. Chills ran up my spine at the end when they played Bob Dylan's gorgeous, "Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now," as sung by the Byrds. This one goes far past a 10 and all the way to the stars. Beautiful.

Oh God,what an idiotic movie!Incredibly cheap with fake special effects(the creature is played by one guy in lame costume)and stupid plot.All dialogues are unbelievably bad and these actors(HA!HA!HA!)...they're simply ludicrous.For example I have never seen so annoying characters like in this junk(these dumb kids or pregnant woman with his husband and many more).All in all,this is a great entertainment if you're drunk.Avoid it like the plague.Am I drunk?I don't think so...
Yes, some plots are a bit hard to follow, and The Bill does have a tendency to get violent, but it is actually an engrossing show, that I try not to miss. A vast majority of the episodes are very exciting and quite tense, and the acting is fairly good, though I do miss Roberta Taylor as Inspector Gina Gold and Todd Carty as Gabriel Kent. I will admit, I prefer the older episodes to the newer episodes, and it is a bit of a shame that the programme is now after the watershed, as I found it easier to watch when it was at 8.00. Still, why I like The Bill is because not only it is engrossing, but the cliffhangers at the end do make the next episode unmissable. It is true though, that it is more melodramatic than it was, but I really like this programme as a programme that doesn't try to take itself too seriously. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Whoa. In the Twin Cities, we have a station that shows a "Big Bad Movie" Monday through Friday. Tonight's nugget was a film with Carrie Fisher called "She's Back" about a really annoying woman who ends up getting murdered when thugs break into her house. Bea (Beatrice) comes back to haunt her husband. She wants him to seek revenge on her killers, hence "she's back". And she won't let him rest until he does so. She irritates him endlessly... and the viewers, too! This movie is truly one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Hey, I like bad movies, though (my fave movie is Xanadu). I was really shaking my head throughout the whole film, wondering who thought this would be a good idea for a movie. Bea is just so annoying. The plot is silly; the acting is bad; the story... well, you get my drift. Anyway, if you wanna see a really bad movie - really really bad movie, check this one out. You won't be disappointed. Heh.
After reading the book, I happened across this DVD at Wal-Mart for 3 bucks and thought, sure, what the hell... I got the DVD and watched it last night. When I started watching it, I checked the run time and it was about 90 minutes. I thought, OK cool... It seemed to run rather slowly, knowing the story and how much of it there was. By the time I got to the actual killings, I was like, "how much time does this have left?" Checked. "One minute?! What the hell?!" I felt incredibly cheated, thinking that the movie only progressed through a third of the overall story.
But then, I happily noticed that the DVD's scene selection menu included a part 1 AND a part 2. I still had another hour and a half to go! I then sat very happily and enjoyed the second half of the movie, even more so than the first.
I admit that I have not seen the 1967 original film (despite my sincerest desire to), I have however read the novel and felt that this was a fairly descent film, for a two-part TV miniseries, that is. I think the casting of the role of Perry was completely wrong and a few minor inconsistencies jumped out at me, but still very well done. The first half drags on a bit, while the second half is much more gripping. I think they should have proportioned the movie more like Capote did his book: 1/3 before the murders, 1/3 after, and 1/3 after the killers are arrested. Instead, the film makes it more 1/2 before the murders, 1/4 after, and 1/4 after the killers are arrested. Again, this makes the second half more exciting, but at the same time, less compelling while making the first half drag on and on...
Now I look back and realize I have just made the same mistake about making things drag on and on, so I will shut the hell up. Go watch the movie and make up your own damn mind!
Nick Houston

Don't even waste your time, let alone pay rental for this piece of dreck! How it got made is beyond me. (I don't know why there's a minimum of 10 lines... I've already summarized this trashy movie, but, oh well...) The acting was awful, like they all needed lessons. The plot was weak, the ending... Feh! I think the cinematography was the only thing that didn't totally suck... well, maybe the sound was minimalistically OK. The one good thing is, if they could make this movie, even make some money with it, there may be hope for any screenwriter with a REAL idea. So, you-all take heart! I guess the same holds true of actors... if these people actually got paid, then you can, too!
Debut? Wow--Cross-Eyed is easily one of the most enjoyable indie films that I've watched in the past year, making it hard to believe that Cross Eyed is the writer's debut film. I mean--I logged onto IMDb to find more films by this writer...because Cross Eyed has that unique signature --you want to see what else this writer might have to say. These days, its rare to see a movie that is well-written, well-directed, well-edited and well-acted. For me--Cross Eyed encapsulates what movie making should be about--combining the best of all film elements to create a clever, artistic and poignant tale. More, please.

Take your basic Frankenstein flick, inject some Reanimator (but not the good parts), and you have Doctor Hackenstein. Certainly, this was obviously inspired by aforementioned films but it never materializes as anything special on its own.
A scientist accidentally kills his wife, so the whole movie takes place over the course of one night as he attempts to revive his wife. To revive his wife, he decides to chop off body parts from some women that have become stranded and, coincidentally, decide to stay the night at his place.
I can't really say the acting is bad, nor is the directing. Everything here is just way too standard. What little attempts there are at humor actually work (check out the scene when Hackenstein keeps hiding behind his deaf assistant because she would undoubtedly be very upset if she saw him clutching a woman and a needle), but that's hardly enough to recommend this film. The music is decent, what blood that's there is decent, and the cast looks quite good. And for half of the time, I was even entertained by this film. But I never felt like this was anything more than a time waster. Avoidable.
Try Frankenhooker instead.
Right, then, he's absolutely brilliant. But you must be intelligent and quick to understand his humor. He covers (attacks?) all sorts of topics, such as the first moon landing, Easter/Christmas, transvestitism, movies, and Herr Doktor Heimlich.
For those of you are averse to swearing, this isn't for you. While some of us punctuate with commas and periods, he uses the f-word. Also, if you can't laugh at yourself, never watch this; you will feel the fool.
Incidentally, I've watched his other stuff and even saw him perform live, and this is by far his best work. He simply shines.
What might go so far as to say he is Glorious.

It's interesting to see what the director tried to do with this film. But the problem is that it's not very good. There was nothing really original in the film and while the plot was well presented, the main characters were all a bit to shallow and you didn't bother for any of them.
Rather bland (and sometimes downright bad) photo leaves a bit to be desired but I guess you can't expect to much from people who are just doing a low budget film for the heck of it. It's unfair to review the film and compare it to other high-budget films. But alas, that is what one must do. On its own, it's not very good. And compared to others, it's still not very good. But it is not without its good points! I liked the plot. It was built up rather nicely and tied together well at the end. Sometimes in the really dark scenes, it managed to build up a creepy feeling as well.
However in the end the film fails to impress. The characters are pretty much non-existent and we don't care for any of them. Any of them might die, but it's possible to pinpoint the final "survivor" from very early on.