Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
This is probably one of Brian De Palma's best known movies but it isn't his best. Body Double, The Fury and Carrie are better movies but this movie is better than Blow Out and Obsession. De Palma is very influenced by Hitchcock and this movie is a take off on Psycho. Angie Dickinson is a bored housewife who is thinking of having an affair and after her psychiatrist, played by Michael Caine, turns down an offer, Dickinson meets a man in a art gallery and she winds up sleeping with him. After this point it's best you don't know what happens but there is a murder and Nancy Allen is a call girl who gets a look at the killer. Dennis Franz is the detective on the case who really doesn't trust Allen and she has to find the killer herself. It's a pretty good movie but isn't one of De Palma's best.

When you get your hands on a British film you expect some sort of quality. And when it comes to acting, camera work, lighting etc; this film does the business. It's done by highly skilled craftsmen. That alone can bring you an enjoyable one and a half hours. But when you look under the layers of professionalism, you don't really find anything. Apart from making you feel good and advocate a drug liberal view, there's really nothing there. The script is mediocre, the plot is predictable and the ending must be one of the worst east of Hollywood. In all it's English cosiness, it's just a shameful and cynical attempt to make another "Full Monty". Why they made this film? I haven't got a clue, apart from making money of course.
I see a lot of really negative posts by people who wrote in August, though the movie was not released in the US, at least, until the middle of September. Maybe these are unhappy expats living in S. Korea who saw it early. I am in the US and just saw it today. I thought the special effects were excellent, better than the trailer. The story was non-Western, but I think we are all used to this from many other movies. It wasn't at all hard to follow. The acting by the leads was weak, but other people were quite good. There was humor throughout, too. I rated it at 8 because I had a good time watching it, which is what I went for.

If you merely look at the cover of this movie, it's cool. DON'T. The movie itself put me to sleep. It was slow paced, had minimal violence and a poor use of suspense. The acting was bottom feeder material and the plot, while it would've been cool for a different movie, was poorly shown here. They even kill the only likeable character in the whole film! I give it a 2 out of 10 because the only thing that was good was the plot twist at the end. Other than that, you might want to save yourself from this movie trash.
Hilarious, evocative, confusing, brilliant film. Reminds me of Bunuel's L'Age D'Or or Jodorowsky's Holy Mountain-- lots of strange characters mucking about and looking for..... what is it? I laughed almost the whole way through, all the while keeping a peripheral eye on the bewildered and occasionally horrified reactions of the audience that surrounded me in the theatre. Entertaining through and through, from the beginning to the guts and poisoned entrails all the way to the end, if it was an end. I only wish i could remember every detail. It haunts me sometimes.
Honestly, though, i have only the most positive recollections of this film. As it doesn't seem to be available to take home and watch, i suppose i'll have to wait a few more years until Crispin Glover comes my way again with his Big Slide Show (and subsequent "What is it?" screening)... I saw this film in Atlanta almost directly after being involved in a rather devastating car crash, so i was slightly dazed at the time, which was perhaps a very good state of mind to watch the prophetic talking arthropods and the retards in the superhero costumes and godlike Glover in his appropriate burly-Q setting, scantily clad girlies rising out of the floor like a magnificent DADAist wet dream.
Is it a statement on Life As We Know It? Of course everyone EXPECTS art to be just that. I rather think that the truth is more evident in the absences and in the negative space. What you don't tell us is what we must deduce, but is far more valid than the lies that other people feed us day in and day out. Rather one "WHAT IS IT?" than 5000 movies like "Titanic" or "Sleepless in Seattle" (shudder, gag, groan).
Thank you, Mr. Glover (additionally a fun man to watch on screen or at his Big Slide Show-- smart, funny, quirky, and outrageously hot). Make more films, write more books, keep the nightmare alive.

I'm easily entertained. I enjoyed "Hot Shots" and "The Naked Gun" and their many sequels, even when most people found them unbearable. I've even managed to enjoy most Pauly Shore movies. There is only one movie that I've seen that I can honestly say was bad...and this was it. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I do remember sitting in the theater thinking, "This is a dumb movie. Why did I see this?" It's honestly the only movie that I cannot recommend.
A remarkable piece of documentary, giving a vivid depiction of a country deeply divided within itself (for further evidence, check out some of the comments on IMDb...!). Compares extremely favourably with Oliver Stone's "Comandante" (which is mainly an in-depth examination of Fidel Castro's nostril hairs). I don't know whether Chavez is everything he presents himself as being, or yet another in the long line of populist Latin-American "caudillos". Nor do I know whether he will be able to make good on the huge expectations he has clearly built up among the poor majority of Venezuelans. It's hardly reasonable to expect a film like this to be able to answer such questions - but I've certainly now got a pretty vivid idea of what's at stake, and what it feels like to be caught up in the middle of a coup. Someone says in the film "we're making history", and that's exactly what the film feels like it's capturing. Outstanding stuff.

Cedric Kahn's films have been character-based, rather than action-based (I'm thinking of L'Ennui and Feux rouges) so it is jarring to see this series of really expert car chases interspersed with some plodding attempts to give character to Succo. I don't find Stefano Cassetti to be an interesting actor; he reminds me of pro athletes who are coaxed into movies, like Bret Favre. That blank stare looks like a really vicious deer caught in the headlights. A real actor would have forced us to reflect more on Succo's personality, rather than admiring his skill at carjacking.
The little acting there is comes mainly from Isild le Besco as the needy schoolgirl Succo takes by storm. The interview at the police office is a marvel of bland obstinacy with a little fear of the future blended in. Le Besco apart, there is little to recommend this film.
A very good adaptation of the novel by amrita pritam. Urmila and manoj bajpai have given their best.
there is a natural flair in the movie and i felt it right through. It looked like bollywood finally gave away it's glamor and had some quality artists performing on screen.
Content wise, the movie depicted very much what exactly happened during partition by showing the sufferings of a particular family and also shows that trust in one's life goes beyond religion.
The best part was they did not make it a drama with a lot of tear shedding and melodrama.
I simply loved it.

I went to see this film with fairly low expectations, figuring it would be a nice piece of fluff. Sadly, it wasn't even that. I could barely sit through the film without wanting to walk out. I went with my two kids (ages 10 and 13) and even they kept asking, "How much longer?" After lasting until the end, I just kept wondering who would approve this script. Even the reliable Fred Willard couldn't save the trite dialogue, the state jokes, and the banal plot. I'd suggest that whoever wrote and directed this movie (I use the term loosely) should take an online screen writing class or drop by their local community college for a film class. At the least, there are many books on directing, screen writing, and producing movies that would teach them something about structure, plot, dialogue and pacing.
This film is one of the few quality films of 2000 and definitely one of my best. The scenario is based on the novel by Vladimir Nabokov and the transfer to the big screen is absolutely brilliant.
The photography of the film is excellent as is the acting of both Turturro and Watson. Turturro definitely gives his best performance to date proving he's worth much more than what we thought. Watson also performs brilliantly.
The story is about a phenomenal chess player (Turturro) which is also extremely eccentric in his everyday life. The film is presented in a non linear time, with multiple flashbacks of Luzhin's childhood. Through those, the complex character of Luzhin is described.
I have nothing more to say, but to suggest this film to anyone.

I'd have to admit that the draw of this movie is director Eduardo Sanchez, who helmed the wildly popular and successful Blair Witch Project. Besides, this is an alien movie of sorts, and sounded something like Stephen King's Dreamcatchers, one of those movies that the critics hated, but I enjoyed.
But nope, unfortunately I felt that for the most parts, Altered is a waste of time, so I shall keep this review short. Premises are always promising, and Altered's no different. It tells the story of a group of men who experienced strange encounters when they were younger, and as usual, others will take you as a nutcase imagining stuff. Stories about alien abduction always have to deal with probes into the orifices, so I shall not go into details, but you get the drift it's damn uncomfortable, and something you'd like to forget.
What if you're given a chance for revenge? That is, you manage to successfully hunt down, and capture one alive. What will you do? For this group, it's a gleeful payback time, or so they thought. And this is where the movie begins to develop into a snoozefest, with bad, uninspiring dialogue, and even worse acting. Even if it's low budgeted, there aren't many redeeming factors, be it strength of storyline, or any help from the cast in making their characters just a tad interesting. It's the standard cardboard fare from a vanilla plain script, coupled with some cheap scare tactics employed.
What's good though is the makeup. Much effort has been put into making some of the stuff which I shan't mention, because that'll spoil just the few elements of what makes this movie tolerable. Other than that, there are the usual cheap special effects, blood and gory moments which is nothing you've never seen before.
Watch this only as a last resort. Compared to the other monster movie in town - Feast, this one is less fun, and takes itself too seriously. Bogged down by an uninspiring direction, you've been warned.
I remember watching this in the 1970s - then I have just recently borrowed a couple of episodes from our public library.
With a nearly 30 year hiatus, I have come to another conclusion. Most of the principals interviewed in this series - some at the center of power like Traudl Junge (Hitler's Secretary),Karl Doenitz (head of Germany's navy) Anthony Eden (UK) - are long gone but their first hand accounts will live on.From Generals and Admirals to Sergeants, Russian civilians, concentration camp survivors, all are on record here.
I can remember the Lord Mountbatten interview (killed in the 1970s)
This is truly a gem and I believe the producer of this series was knighted by Queen Elizabeth for this work - well deserved.
Seeing these few episodes from the library makes me want to buy the set.
This is the only "10" I have given any review but I have discovered like a fine bottle of wine, it is more appreciated with a little time...

I like Billy Crystal, and I thought it would be fun to watch this film, since I know he admired Alan King and they would be funny together. I thought I had seen all Billy's movies but couldn't remember this one, and now I know why. It's so full of clichés and phony emotion; you can smell each scene coming (and going!). Billy doesn't even get to be funny very often. He's too busy trying to cry fake tears or show his angst at how badly his father let him down. Alan King himself is fairly likable, as is the subplot about being an extra in the movies. But what a coincidence that Billy just happens to visit his father just as a major health crisis takes place, etc. etc. Or that two busy doctors can just shut down their practices to moon around in LA. And when the end comes, boy, does it come quickly! Almost as though the writers realized they had painted themselves into a corner and the only way out was to do a death scene. Mostly disappointing with a few glimmers of good humor.
Reese Witherspoon plays Dani, a young country girl that falls madly in love with the new 17 year old neighbor, Court, played by Jason London. Court tries his best to make Dani realize that the difference in their ages would make a love relationship improbable. Soon the nubile charm of Dani starts winning over Court's will. Next enters the meeting of Dani's older sister, played by Emily Warfield, and the beginning of a short lived love/jealousy problem.
Tess Harper and Sam Waterston round out the cast. This is a fresh, free spirited; but heartbreaking drama that touches down deep. Feel free to cry.

This movie was so poorly written and directed I fell asleep 30 minutes through the movie. The jokes in the movie are corny and even though the plot is interesting at some angles, it is too far fetched and at some points- ridiculous. If you are 11 or older you will overlook the writing in the movie and be disappointed, but if you are 10 or younger this is a film that will capture your attention and be amazed with all the stunts (which I might add are poorly done) and wish you were some warrior to. The casting in this movie wasn't very good, and the music was very disappointing because it was like they were trying to build up the tension but it didn't fit at all. On a scale of 1-10 (10 being excellent, 1 being horrible) the acting in this movie is a 4. Brenda Song is talented in comedy, but with this kind of movie, in some of the more serious scenes, her acting was laughable. When she made some of her "fighting" poses, I started laughing out loud. I think the worst thing about this movie is definitely the directing, for example, the part where her enemy turns out to be the person the evil villain is possesing, how her voice turns dark and evil, I think that was incredibly stupid, and how Wendy's (Brenda Song)teachers were all her teachers at school being possessed by monks, that was pretty ridiculous to. So to sumamrize it all, a disappointing movie, but okay if you're 10 or under.
The basic hook here is: Lincoln Is Slow. It is his slowness that represents his thoughtfulness and deliberation, making him a Great Leader who is here engaged in single-handedly civilizing the American frontier through the grand instrument of Law. All that John Ford hooey and more, including one lurking slave and extraneous Death By Injun. However! The 'slow' conceit is also at the center of one brilliant piece of movie-making, funny and moving at extremes. The history may be bunk, but the telling of it suggests a view of history as process that inspires some excitingly true-seeming moments. Check out Henry Fonda's big introductory stroll across the deck, his shockingly beautiful second visit with his girl by the river, his dalliance with Mary Todd on the porch, and the priceless business that follows 'Ma'am, we've got to hurry!' Things do thin out once we settle into the big courtroom drama; but Fonda is priceless throughout.

"It appears that many critics find the idea of a Woody Allen drama unpalatable." And for good reason: they are unbearably wooden and pretentious imitations of Bergman. And let's not kid ourselves: critics were mostly supportive of Allen's Bergman pretensions, Allen's whining accusations to the contrary notwithstanding. What I don't get is this: why was Allen generally applauded for his originality in imitating Bergman, but the contemporaneous Brian DePalma was excoriated for "ripping off" Hitchcock in his suspense/horror films? In Robin Wood's view, it's a strange form of cultural snobbery. I would have to agree with that.
Here's a decent mid-70's horror flick about a gate of Hell in NYC that just happens to be an old brownstone. Seems like there's lots of gates of Hell around, but of course this unwitting model happens to decide she needs some space from her boyfriend/fiancée and so she just happens to pick one, which is disguised as a nice and reasonably priced apartment. She meets several strange neighbors, and even attends a birthday party for a cat. Upon meeting with the Realtor because she hears strange noises at night from upstairs, she finds out that she and an old priest are SUPPOSED to be the only tenants. Whoa! Then who are all these weirdos? Her boyfriend (a slimy lawyer, played by Chris Sarandon) starts poking around and finds that things are not what they seem, not by a long shot. This has some decent creepy scenes and the idea of the creaky old folks that are her "sometimes" neighbors being other than what they appear is fairly intriguing. A bit of decent gore and even a parade of less-than-normal folks towards the end make this a decent watch, and while I've seen this many times on TV the uncut DVD version is much better, of course. Not a bad little horror flick, maybe a good companion piece to "Burnt Offerings". 8 out of 10.

This sword-&-sorcery story of an appallingly brutal and callous "hero" vanquishing an evil king is worthless in almost every detail. The acting is horrible from the leads to the supporting roles. The leering, gloating glee with which the director shows the hero smearing blood around is absolutely disgusting; nor is it redeemed by any justice to his cause, since he is as bad as the people he's fighting. Z-movie editing is abundant, including a scene where a character "dies" from a sword thrust that very obviously missed completely!
The movie is clearly banking on the charms of the female leads, Barbi Benton and Lana Clarkson, who are paraded around mostly naked throughout the movie. As a 20-something male, I will not pretend that female flesh on the screen doesn't attract me. But the treatment of their characters is so degrading and the sex scenes so casual and joyless, that I couldn't enjoy even this aspect of the movie.
Most cheesy movies of this era are at least somewhat redeemed by a light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek feel (the sequel is better in this regard), but DEATHSTALKER seems to take itself completely seriously as heroic fantasy. No way! Avoid at all costs!
Rating: 1/2 out of ****.
As the Godfather saga was the view of the mafia from the executive suite, this series is a complex tale of the mafia from the working man's point of view. If you've never watched this show, you're in for an extended treat. Yes, there is violence and nudity, but it is never gratuitous and is needed to contrast Tony Soprano, the thinking man's gangster, with the reality of the life he has been born to and, quite frankly, would not ever have left even knowing how so many of his associates have ended up. Tony Soprano can discuss Sun Tzu with his therapist, then beat a man to death with a frying pan in a fit of rage, and while dismembering and disposing of the body with his nephew, take a break, sit down and watch TV while eating peanut butter out of the jar, and give that nephew advice on his upcoming marriage like they had just finished a Sunday afternoon of viewing NFL football. Even Carmella, his wife, when given a chance for a way out, finds that she really prefers life with Tony and the perks that go with it and looking the other way at his indiscretions versus life on her own. If you followed the whole thing, you know how it ends. If you didn't, trust me you've never seen a TV show end like this.

I have seen already fantastic stories, but the premises of this one are so unbelievable that it comes very close to being ridiculous. A rich and young guy undergoes a heart transplant the day after his marriage, and he is somehow witnessing his own surgery and the plot of his surgeons to kill him. Even if there is a medical explanation to such a phenomenon what next happens is a mixture of dialog among ... say ... souls? ... maybe and real life where the dedicated mother will do everything to save the life of her son. There is no shade of suspense or thrill, just a combination of a bad and simplistic plot with a series of coincidences that can never happen in life.
This is not to say that the film is completely lacking quality - actually first time director Joby Harold does a decent job in directing a good team of actors that includes Hayden Christensen at his first major role after having taken off the Anakin Skywalker costume, fabulous Jessica Alba and super-gifted Lena Olin. All would have deserved a better story.
The tighter the drama, the better the film of sister rivalry! This little gem was mainly promoted as a comedy upon its release in Sweden, so I'm glad to find that wasn't the whole case. Funny bits on small-town bickering are there to enjoy, surely, but the drama takes center stage, as the story progresses. And not just family drama, it also raises poignant questions on respecting differences of peoples' lifestyle choices.
Great character ensemble with many superb and moving dramatic scenes that score credibility points; and they're not just scattershot, but hold everything in place. It just makes me assume that if Ingmar Bergman had made this (the drama would suit him!), the international attention probably would have been immediate.
7 out of 10 from Ozjeppe.

I'll say it again: this movie was totally lame. Kids will like it, sure, but adults...doubtful. The whole thing was basically a rehash of the original, which is to be expected, since they pretty much explored the whole concept in the first movie, but still, did they have to completely rehash the entire movie? I mean, everything is re-done from the Little Mermaid. The worst part of it is Morgana "Ursula's crazy sister" who appears out of nowhere and threatens Melody, which is ridiculous since Triton is there with his magic trident. Why didn't Triton do anything about it? Because the plot required him to do nothing. I could go on, but I won't. The whole thing is a shameless attempt to rake in more money from the Little Mermaid, and was obviously thrown together without any thought, because they knew it would sell. Overall it is a terrible waste of time.
This film was seen by my wife and I when it came out in 1978. It was a revelation to us. We actually thought that we were the only gay and lesbian couple who had ever married and had children. Obviously we were wrong. Love may come from where you don't expect it and maybe don't want it. But we both chose that love anyway.
And no, it never changed our sexual orientation. That kind of stuff is for the Christian wackos.
When we were young we both had affairs, but never with the opposite sex. As we aged we stopped having extramarital affairs.
This story is not far fetched. However, the suggestion that they became heterosexuals seems pretty unrealistic to me. My wife and I have been sleeping together for the last 40 years. We are still gay. End of story.

Greenthumb Grace is left penniless after her husbands death so she turns to ganja-growing in order to pay the bills. It sounds promising and the ever-reliable Brenda Blethyn doesn't disappoint but the material is sitcom-thin. There's actually a scene where Grace asks her young gardener to "Give me one" (a toke) and he thinks she's asking for sex and acts all awkward. Yes, it's humour so twee a nun would be bored. Saving Grace doesn't seem to know what it wants to be: the stunning cinematography and stately pace evoke memories of Ryan's Daughter whilst the light-hearted whimsy of the country townsfolk could be lifted from any episode of Antiques Roadshow. It does speed up after the first hour but by then it's too clichéd to care. The climax manages to be unpredictable only by introducing the most shameless Deux ex Machina I've ever seen.