Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I love this show. Period. I haven't been watching very long, probably only about six months or so, actually, but it is now my favorite show and probably will be for quite a while. I love all of the characters, except I don't really care for Donna. I'm not completely sure why. I just..don't find her funny, and I don't think Laura Prepon is a very good actress. Other than her, I find the rest of the cast pretty good. Kurtwood Smith and Debra Joe Rupp, who played Erics parents, were extremely funny. Topher Grace is also a great actor. Unlike a lot of fans, I did not completely hate the 8th season. I still watch it, and it does make me laugh. But, if you compare it to the shows earlier seasons, its..not good. Randy is horrible. The finale was decent, nothing amazing, but good. =] I do think it would have been better to cancel the show after Ashton and Topher decided to leave, but oh well. I have the fourth season on DVD, and someday I hope to have all eight seasons on DVD. Some of its most hilarious episodes, in my opinion, were 'Dine&Dash', 'Grandmas Dead', 'Red&Stacey', and 'Streaking', but I love every episode I've seen so far, which is most of them, I think. =] 9/10 stars, I would definitely recommend it. =]

Way to go ace! You just made a chilling, grossly intriguing story of a necrophiliac cannibal into a soft, mellow, drama. Obviously a movie called Dahmer would be one of two kinds: Horror, or documentary right? This was neither. It wasn't close to any detailed facts, (in fact it barely had any substance at all) It wasn't really morbid or scary or didn't even try to be very disturbing.(as if you would've had to try!!) What the hell was this writer/director thinking?? Here's one of the most REAL examples of sick serial killers ever and we get badly shot, poorly acted gay bar roofie rapes and lengthy droning flashbacks to alone time in his old parent's house. I think Jacobson was actually trying to present (or invent) 'the soft side' of j.Dahmer.
I find it very intriguing that Lee Radziwill, Jackie Kennedy's sister and the cousin of these women, would encourage the Maysles' to make "Big Edie" and "Little Edie" the subject of a film. They certainly could be considered the "skeletons" in the family closet. The extra features on the DVD include several contemporary fashion designers crediting some of their ideas to these oddball women. I'd say that anyone interested in fashion would find the discussion by these designers fascinating. (i.e. "Are they nuts? Or am I missing something?"). This movie is hard to come by. Netflix does not have it. Facets does, though.

Finally i thought someone is going to do justice to H.G. Wells's classic , not another version set in the wrong locale or era , but one based firmly on the book . Well it definitely follows the book pretty closely , and that is the only plus to this mess.
This is 180 Min's (yes 3 hours) long , the book is only around 150 pages .
If Timothy Hines had the nerve to come on here and say "if you can do any better ..." i would say "yes , i could" and i have never used a video camera or been to any sort or drama school in my life.
I paid good money to get this crap over to the UK from the USA , do not make the same mistake as me .
The director and two stars of LAURA (1944) were reteamed for this solid policier: Dana Andrews is the son of a criminal who becomes a cop to cut all ties with the past but cannot keep his inherited violent ways in check while interrogating suspects and, one night, he goes too far; Gene Tierney is the estranged wife of his victim, a decorated war hero who has become involved with the town's leading racketeer and Andrews' No. 1 nemesis, Gary Merrill (who had himself been the protégé of Andrews Snr.)! As usual with Preminger, this is a well-crafted movie with a notable opening credits sequence and enlivened by a good cast that also includes Karl Malden (as Andrews' incumbent superior), Tom Tully (as Tierney's motor-mouth taxi driver dad) and Neville Brand (as Merrill's chief thug), with notable support also coming from Craig Stevens (as the slimy, wife-beating victim), Bert Freed (as Andrews' sympathetic partner) and Robert F. Nolan (as Andrews' stern outgoing superior). Having already been warned by the latter to mend his ways or else, Andrews panics and impersonates Stevens for a couple of hours following his murder to put the police on the (in this case) wrong tracks of Merrill; however, after Tully becomes the prime suspect (by which time Andrews and Tierney are romantically involved), the cop goes by himself in Merrill's lair fully intending to get bumped off and 'frame' the racketeer for his own murder! Clearly, the protagonist is a complex character and Andrews rises to the challenge with a first-rate characterization that is typically complemented by the in-house Fox noir style.

I can't believe that so many are comparing this movie to Argento's. His work is far more imaginative and vicious--and a lot more fun.
The director simply lacks the ability to build real tension. The murder scenes--and let's face it, that's what this genre is all about--aren't interesting. It was not hard to guess who the murderer was, and I really didn't care when it was revealed. The cinematography isn't memorable, and the much-praised 19th century Gothic atmosphere just didn't draw me in. Several of the actors are quite good (especially the headmistress and the sadistic girl who lords it over the younger students), but they're given very little to do.
Yes, there are undertones of incest, sadomasochism, and lesbianism, but amazingly, they add very little spice or suspense.
If you're looking for a good horror movie, look elsewhere.
This movie does a great job of explaining the problems that we faced and the fears that we had before we put man into space. As a history of space flight, it is still used today in classrooms that can get one of the rare prints of it. Disney has shown it on "Vault Disney" and I wish they would do so again.

can any movie become more naive than this? you cant believe a piece of this script. and its ssooooo predictable that you can tell the plot and the ending from the first 10 minutes. the leading actress seems like she wants to be Barbie (but she doesn't make it, the doll has MORE acting skills).
the easiness that the character passes and remains in a a music school makes the phantom of the opera novel seem like a historical biography. i wont even comment on the shallowness of the characters but the ONE good thing of the film is Madsen's performance which manages to bring life to a melo-like one-dimensional character.
The movie is so cheesy that it sticks to your teeth. i can think some 13 year old Britney-obsessed girls shouting "O, do give us a break! If we want fairy tales there is always the Brothers Grimm book hidden somewhere in the attic". I gave it 2 instead of one only for Virginia Madsen.
This is a romantic comedy with the emphasis on comedy for a change. As usual the lovers--Sally Field as almost-over-the-hill soap opera queen, Celeste Talbert; and Kevin Kline as marginally employed and marginally talented actor, Jeffrey Anderson--are working at cross purposes, seemingly unaware that they are madly in love, etc. Owing a little to Bette Davis's Margo Channing in All About Eve (1950) and a whole lot to the slapstick theatrical tradition, Sally Field goes over the top towards hilarity as she malaprops her way to love and happiness. Kevin Kline, one of the more underrated leading men of recent years, is also very good and very winning as he manages to be handsome, vulnerable, egotistical and lovable all at the same time.
The misadventures center around Celeste's fear of losing her audience as she has entered her forties, and reach the crisis point with the arrival of her niece, aspiring actress Cori Craven (Elisabeth Shue) who turns out NOT to be her niece, with ensuing plot complications. Cori manages to get a small part in the soap opera as a homeless deaf mute before discovering her true relationship to Celeste (and to Jeffrey Anderson as well)--but never mind.
As a romantic counterpoint or foil to the leads are Robert Downey Jr. (soap opera director, David Barnes) and Cathy Moriarty (Montana and Nurse Nan). David Barnes is oh so hot for her, but she cares only about one thing: getting rid of Celeste so that she might shine more brightly on the set. To this end she gets Barnes to do all sorts of things to wreck Celeste's career, but through happenstance and/or a perverse logic, all his attempts go awry, much to the delight of the viewer.
Whoopie Goldberg plays Rose Schwartz, the show's chief writer and Celeste's alter-ego and confidant while Carrie Fisher has a modest part as the hard-as-nails producer of the show.
I thought this was funnier than the only other spoof of the soap opera world that I have seen (Young Doctors in Love 1982 which burlesqued TV's General Hospital and was pretty good). Soapdish is funnier with a daffy script and plenty of laugh-out-loud one-liners and terrific performances by Field, Kline and Downy, Jr. But see this for Sally Field who is outstanding.

If it wasn't for the bad dialogues and script. I mean, the direction was really in touch with it's subject. The actors were doing good at bringing their characters to life. But in the end, the thing that was really missing was a solid script to hold all the pieces together. I would highly suggest not to watch this. Unless you're a Al Pacino enthusiast like I am and will watch everything he is playing in. Even if the result lately are rather poor. This is, after S1m0ne, a second very bad movie for this actor that once knew how to choose roles.
If you know the story of Grey Owl, you'll love the movie! Annie Galipeau is a great actress, and Pierce is better than never in Grey Owl. But in this movie there's no real scene of action. I think this movie should be nominated at the Oscars! Welll go see this movie, it's A CLASSIC!

First of all, as a long time student of the Titanic disaster and member of several Titanic clubs, I feel entitled to comment on the film. I don't really care how many awards and accolades the film won, but to me it is still an absolutely awful film. Cameron had the resources to make a 'proper' semi-documentary film of the disaster but unfortunately chose to turn it into a po-faced romantic mush. The fact that so many people around the world fell for it only shows, to my mind, the sad state of taste and common sense that movie critics and audiences have these days. Whoever said that all movies should have a hero and heroine falling in love? In fact most real events are anything but romantic and the Titanic disaster certainly was not one. I feel that it needed a better script and director with a semi-documentary approach and as little artistic license as possible. I almost threw up in the last sequence where the 'dead' lovers meet among the other lost passengers and crew who break out in applause. Is this an intelligent film? Ask yourself.
For his first ever debut this film has some riveting and chilling moments. In the best horror film fashion the pit of your stomach tightens every moment during this film. The ending is superb. The makers of Blaire Witch obviously watched this film it's ending wasn't an end but a beginning of the end. A great movie and only a piece of Japan's great as far as scare factor a perfect score it makes you think and scared out of your mind.

OK i will admit, it started out very pleasing and good, but then it just dropped downhill, i cannot believe Sarah Michelle Gellar could have even finished reading the script after about 5 minutes into the movie, the only reason i actually sat through the whole movie, was i wanted to see the twist at the ned, and to my surprise, well, folks i cannot even tell you if there ven was one, because the end just leaves you confused, and then the credit role, i was like what the hell? this did not deserve a theater run, i am sorry, but it didn't i mean it was horrible, the only reaso i gave it a 4 is because it had a few jumpy parts...thats it! you can watch it, im not telling you not to, hey you might even like it or even love it! but if you hate it, don't say i didn't warn you!
Nicole Kidman is a wonderful actress and here she's great. I really liked Ben Chaplin in The Thin Red Line and he is very good here too. This is not Great Cinema but I was most entertained. Given most films these days this is High Praise indeed.

i just saw Dick Tracy and I thought it was terrible. The paintings in the background of the cities looked awful. Also the mob characters looked too weird. Warren Beatty didn't do an awful job as Dick Tracy but it was definetely not one of his better performances. Madonna should just stick to singing. Glenne Headly did a good job in this movie. I gave this movie a 2/10 just because of the amazing acting by Al Pacino. It wasn't a high note in his career but he still did a good job.
In New York, the family man dentist Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle) meets his former roommate and friend Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler) by chance on the street. Charlie became a lonely and deranged man after the loss of his wife and three daughters in the tragic September 11th while Alan has problems to discuss his innermost feelings with his wife. Alan reties his friendship with Charlie and they become close to each other. Alan tries to fix Charlie's life, sending him to the psychologist Angela Oakhurst (Liv Tyler), but Charlie has an aggressive reaction to the treatment and is send to court.
"Reign Over Me" is a good drama about loss, friendship, family and loneliness. The September 11th is irrelevant to the plot; it could be a car accident, a fire or any other tragedy, as well as the sexual harassment of Donna Remar, played by the gorgeous Saffron Burrows, to Alan. But the family drama works, supported by the great performances of Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle. Liv Tyler is quite impossible to be recognized, I do not know whether she is using excessive make-up to look older, but her face is weird. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Reine Sobre Mim" ("Reign Over Me")

Very bad acting, and a very shallow story. Not even a decent B-Movie
Events that were suposed to be shocking like humans geting on board an alien ship were boring and very lame.
This is one of the worst sci-fi I've ever seen. I saw the 5.0 stars and decided to watch it since i like the genre, but it sucked so bad.
Now there's really very few good movies on ALIEN subject, I think because most of them are low budget
I give it 3/10
I LOVED this movie! I am biased seeing as I am a huge Disney fan, but I really enjoyed myself. The action takes off running in the beginning of the film and just keeps going! This is a bit of a departure for Disney, they don't spend quite as much time on character development (my husband pointed this out)and there are no musical numbers. It is strictly action adventure. I thoroughly enjoyed it and recommend it to anyone who loves Disney, be they young or old.

Well, what to say...
Having seen the film I still have to wonder what the hell the point of it all really was?? V.Dodgy camera moves in the courtyard at one point... I had to look away from the screen, I was feeling physically sick... Round and Round and Round.... You get the idea...
VERY VERY Strange accents at many points.... "Those that should know, know"
Unless your getting in for free, or being paid to watch it, or your partner is about to make you paint the house or something.. then forget it...
This film is as good as it is difficult to find. The film's hero (and writer and director) is Simon Geist- a man "with an agenda." He creates a fake magazine just to have the authority to interview the swine of Los Angeles- the actors, the models, the musicians- who believe that their own defecation doesn't smell. With clever dialog, Zucovic succeeds in doing this. Sure, the budget for this film was probably what he paid for a used car, but this film is so solid and so well written that it works very well. Any person who can reenact Edward Munk's 'The Scream' in the reflection of a silver trashbin at a local coffee house should be nominated for some type of award. Give this film a chance and listen to what it says... because they HAVE been making the same car since 1986... it's called 'the car.' Bravo, Zucovic, bravo!

The film is severely awful and is demeaning to rape victims. On the surface, it may be a daring film about rape but if you dig beneath the surface, what lies is a not-so-positive message about rape. Aishwarya the rape victim is shown to be a helpless victim who cannot cope all because she is a WOMAN. She needs a MAN to help her. When the society makes jibes about her and throws comments at her, she does not stand up for herself. It is all left to Anil Kapoor to do all the talking while Aishwarya does all the crying.
The director (Satish Kaushik) went down the wrong path by portraying a rape victim as weak and submissive. What would have been more effective is portraying a strong woman who rebels against her enemies in a courageous way. The director is famous for being chauvinistic. His films are usually full of weak women but he tries to hide them in controversial roles. He needs to learn that just because the role is controversial, it does not mean that the character herself is strong.
The most degrading scene in the film is when Aishwarya 'cleans' herself after just being raped. She does it to please her father who thinks that she is now dirty. Though it is commendable that Shah shows the stigma against rape victims in such a stark light, what he does not show us is whether Ash's father was wrong for making his daughter do such a thing. Thus we are left with a confusing message about rape.
The comedy too is not needed in a strong subject film like this. Even more so, the comedy is simply not funny. Ash is wooden in her role while Anil Kapoor does nothing but shout. The music is mediocre except for the title track, which is beautifully picturised (the only bright point of this film). Sonali Bendre's role is disappointing and pointless. Overall, what could have been a great movie to remember ends up being an awful mish-mash that will give some viewers severe indigestion.
One reviewer notes that it does not seem to matter what Welles actually says or does, he moves you. I concur. He was and remains a unique force in film. More than a triple threat who could act, write and direct, he had a genius uniquely suited to film. One can consider whether in an earlier age he would have been a painter. This film certainly reinforces that impression. A musician, a theatre actor, an heir to Shakespeare? hard to tell but I am very grateful that his time cam with film and he have him captured on film. I like the accent. I like the face, the size, the style, the mind and the games. I love all of his movies and wish there were more. I particularly love how other actors interacted with him on film. Many were never better or at least somehow different with him because he was o firmly there. Even towards the end when his beauty was ruined, perhaps by his own intent, he was impossible to ignore and he made every scene he was in. Rita was a gorgeous blonde -- a Lana Turner look alike but perhaps even lovelier and even then the eye goes to Welles and one wishes for another minute, another film, another hour in his company. That is why we all wish we could come upon the lost scraps cut from his films because we know, we all know, that there is not part of him not worthy of our time. Watch it and be grateful for the chance.

Redline is a knockoff of Fast & Furious, without any of the redeeming qualities. It doesn't need to have a convoluted plot with multiple twists and surprises, but it needs SOMETHING! This is the equivalent of a porn film, where the storyline and dialogue consist of 60 seconds at the beginning and the same at the end. Except that this is worse, because you don't get your money's worth. Mind-numbingly boring, impossible race sequences, and a terrible waste of expensive beautiful cars, which almost acquire negative points for having appeared in this movie. Sure, she's hot, but who's that desperate for an on screen female? I feel like the director sat there with a hat full of dialogue and plot snippets, and shook an 8 ball every time they switched scenes. No serious person who races or knows anything about it would watch this movie and enjoy the race scenes.
In 1948 this was my all-time favorite movie. Betty Grable's costumes were so ravishing that I wanted to grow up to be her and dress like that. Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., was irresistible as the dashing Hungarian officer. Silly and fluffy as this movie might appear at first, when I was eight years old it seemed to me to say something important about relations between men and women. I saw it again the other day; I was surprised to find that it still did.

I didnt think it was possible, but i have found film worse than 'Body Melt'. This film is really really bad! And what makes it worse is that its another Australian film...
Shot on what looks like VHS, and with a terrible 80's rock soundtrack, it just keep getting worse and worse, which is hard to believe seeing how bad the beginning is (skinned male hanging up-side-down in a white tomato sauce sprayed room anyone?).
And why do their accents keep changing? From bad New York drawl, to prissy english, then pure Aussie! And it happens to the whole cast!
This film also claims to have won some film festival on the cover (i believe it was the Utah Film Festival). This has to be a lie because no-one in their right mind would nominate this for anything (perhaps the Golden Rasberries but i thinks its too bad for that aswell).
Come on guys! This film has to be number 1 on the bottom 100!!! It has to be ten times a bad as those films already on there.
Well done to the "film" makers of this trash, for proving there is a reason not to see films..... 0/10