Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I found Grey Garden's to be a gripping film, an amazingly intimate
look at too eccentrics who basically have the right idea: forget
society and live in a delapidated house with no heating and a huge
brood of cats and raccoons, persuing their own interests rather
mundainly, all the while chattering at the camera.
Big Edie and Little Edie are the two crazies that the Mazles Bros.
have chosen to document. They seem like characters out of a
Fellini film, only stranger, if that makes any sense. Old Edie is
almost fully bedridden, a pile of papers, clothes and dirty dishes
growing around her. Little Edie is even more interesting. She
prances around the house, always wearing a baboushka-like
headdress around her head, completely covering her hair. We
never see her hair throughout the film, nor do we ever get a hint
that she still has much. At age fifty eight, though, she is still
beautiful and full of life.
In Grey Gardens, we get the sense that both of these women's
lives have become much less than what they once were. Little
Edie is probably the sadder of the two. While her mother, in her
earlier years, got married, made a family, lived luxuriously and
even made some recordings (the scene where, at 77, she sings
along with a recording of "Tea for Two" she made decades ago is
one of the films best scenes), Edie left her promicing career as a
model to take care of her ailing mother. At 58, she still longed to
find her prince charming. If anything Little Edie is still a little girl,
full of dreams of glamour and fame, and of domestic and romantic
bliss, that have yet to be fulfilled.
Highlights of the film include the opening moments, where Little
Edie explains her outfit to the camera, the "tea for two" sequence,
the birthday party, the climactic argument, the grocery deliver
scene, and the scene in the attic. The whole thing is incredibly
candid and unpretencious. And it's made all the more remarcable
since it's all real.
I suggest seeing Grey Gardens back-to-back with the Kenneth
Anger short Puce Moment. The Criterion DVD is $35.00, but it's
worth every penny.

Horrible acting, horrible cast and cheap props. Would've been a lot better if was set as an action parody style movie. What a waste. Starting from the name of the movie.
"The Enemy" Naming it "Action Movie" would've made it better. (contributing to the parody effect). The cop looking like a 60 Year old player, the blond girl just having the same blank boring look on her face at all times. Towards the end of the movie him and her are working together to take down the bad guys and every time they exchange words it just feels like the cheap lines given before a sex scene in a porn movie. Horrible. Don't waste your time.
This is a splendidly done simplistic film that explores a theme, and gives each viewer something different that they take from it. The premise is simple: an unnamed celebrity actor (Morgan Freeman) decides to research for an upcoming role by visiting a store and watching people. He takes particular interest in the cashier at the "10 Items or Less" lane (Paz Vega), who he finds an amiable, strong, and curious presence.
Both actors play off each other brilliantly and bring solid dimension to characters in what is a character study. Not a conventional character study; they each represent entire worlds. The cashier's life is mired in a harsh and frustrating "real world," while the actor is so enmeshed in his fantasy existence that he can't do simple tasks like remember phone numbers. He readily admits he's putting on a face when he talks to people, and the whole point of researching real people shows he's not one of them.
But not only is the actor inspired by real people for his work; we see the reverse process as well. Several characters recognize "Him," and make reference to how he has inspired them with his movie roles.
The cashier's favorite song "Al Pasar la Barca," about how a girl refuses to hide behind beauty and prefers instead to pay (ie: do honest work) for boat passage, couldn't have been chosen better. It parallels with the Vega character, the only store employee with any brains or ambition, who is willing to work hard to succeed. (That's quite an aspiration, for somebody who looks like Paz Vega.) It's an odd little film, probably made on a shoestring. If you don't mind slow pacing and a "talky" approach, this film will entertain. The characters are perfectly contrasted, and the effective acting makes them endearing. A nice watch.

This movie is an embarrassment to film-making. I can't believe it was even listed as a comedy - not funny. Not only was the script atrocious, but the casting people should be shot. Gail O'Grady is just a great actress, but beyond that... %99 of the rest of the cast...ouch. Pretty much everyone else...wow it is hard to even...wow. Here is the number one rule about comedy "DON'T TRY TO BE FUNNY". There are a lot of very talented actors in Canada who can do drama and comedy - none of them were used in this film. Canadian nepotism and casting directors are helping to perpetuate bad film-making in Canada. I realize this is technically a "US" film, but look at the director, actors, location, etc. I just saw this on Bravo - they should be ashamed that they bought the rights to show this film. Again, there are a lot of great films out there that can't get airtime and they show this crap.
An adult, realistic, cruel, dark story, like a second part of "les roseaux savages" (the wild reeds), plenty of beauty and sadness, ellipsis and silences, shadows and little sparks of hope. a man searching for a warm companion, a better life, a sincere attitude.

This is possibly the worst of all the Columbo movies. Andrew Stevens' acting is poor as the villain, and the plot is weak. In fact none of the cast seem able to act other than Peter Falk, who puts in a creditable performance as the Lieutenant.
Kept my attention from start to finish. Great performances added to this tremendous film. Mr. Pacino once again gives us another brilliant character to enjoy.

I have to finish watching a movie once I start, regardless of how bad it is. This movie was agonizing to sit through. The "sparkling" bullets, the reporter with "ninja" like moves, the way the bad guys shoot hundreds and hundreds of bullets and only seem to hit innocent bystanders, the predictable outcome and all the bad acting was just horrible. Like the girl who finds the reporter in her friends apartment and goes from "what the heck are you doing in here (holding a bat)" to "hey, you're cute, wanna @#$%!???" in like 1.2 seconds.... Just bad.... Save yourself an hour and forty minutes and go play with your kids (or dog)!
the photography was beautiful but i had difficulty understanding what was happening... was there a lot of symbolism?... the 2 goldfishes - do they mean something in Thai culture? there's not much plot, not much happens and it just meanders along. no real start, no real middle and no real end. rather unsatisfying really.
It was difficult to get into the characters as you never felt you got to know them...it was difficult to know which scenes were imaginary and which were real. The move felt chaotic and disjointed. I don't know what the pang brothers were hoping to achieve. Maybe if I were Thai it would make more sense...

In a far away Galaxy is a planet called Ceta. It's native people worship cats. But the dog people wage war upon these feline loving people and they have no choice but to go to Earth and grind people up for food. This is one of the stupidest f#@k!ng ideas for a movie I've seen. Leave it to Ted Mikels to make a movie more incompetent than the already low standard he set in previous films. It's like he enjoying playing in a celluloid game of Limbo. How low can he go? The only losers in the scenario are US the viewer. Mr. Mikels and his silly little handlebar mustache actually has people who STILL buy this crap.
My Grade: F
DVD Extras: Commentary by Ted Mikels; the Story behind the Making of (9 and a half minutes); 17 minutes, 15 seconds of Behind the scenes footage; Ted Mikels filmography; and Trailers for "The Worm Eaters" "Girl in Gold Boots", "the Doll Squad", "Ten Violent Women" (featuring nudity), "Blood Orgy of the She Devils", & "the Corpse Grinders"
`Bruce Almighty' will sweep the Academy Awards with a record 14 Oscar wins! It will surpass `Titanic' as the highest grossing film of all time! Jim Carrey's illustriousness will be at such a supreme level that he will announce his presidential candidacy for the 2004 White House playoffs. Almighty then! These grandeur fantasies would only transpire if the filmmakers (Carrey included) would possess the powers of God. That very same premise is the paramount ingredient in Carrey's new laugh riot `Bruce Almighty'. Carrey plays Bruce Nolan, a televison reporter who is so utterly obsessed in being the main anchor that he holds God to total culpability for his own contretemps. God, heavenly played by Morgan Freeman, grants Bruce the `Gift of God'(his powers) in order to challenge him if he can do God's job any better. Obviously, Bruce gets `carreyed' away with his newfound blissful faculties and uses them selfishly. Carrey is back in his habitual almighty comedic form in `Bruce Almighty'. Jennifer Aniston was not `mis.pittiful' as Bruce's girlfriend. However, my premier kudos goes to Director Tom Shadyac for not letting the dog out of the house for #2, and showing us the most hilarious doggoned bathroom scene of all time! `Bruce Almighty' is not the most in-depth Carrey film, but it is still an almighty chuckling exhibition of `Carreyism'! **** Good

I mean, really... either i suddenly lost my sense of humor or this is just a really bad movie. It's stupid, ridiculous and just not funny AT ALL.
Since i saw the preview i knew it wasn't going to be a great movie, i just didn't think it was gonna be that bad...
What happened to the good old times when you could find clever funny lines at any movie? When the actors didn't have to play ridiculous roles in attempt to be funny?. Now we find ourselves with movies like this one, Borat, Little Men, Scary Movie 4 where i could not find the funny parts!!
Just skip this piece of garbage
P.S. (sorry for my English)
The first thing I thought after watching "Mystery Men" was how could this movie be so unpopular? I found this movie so adorable and funny that it's status as a bomb defies logic. Well, I hope that in the future it becomes a cult hit, and you can count me amoung it's fans.
Simply put, and without giving too much away, this movie does for comic books what "the Princess Bride" did for fairy tales and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" did for classic cartoons. That should give you a more accurate idea of the tone of the movie then the marketing commitee it was unfortunately signed to (this is one of those cases like "the Iron Giant" where the studio had no clue what it had on it's hands). Rent it the next time you're in the mood for something a little offbeat. You won't listen to the BeeGees in the same light ever again.

This was a new alltime low among westerns. The writing is excruciatingly bad, characters are impossible to emphasize with and are either disgusting or bland, the violence is appalling and technically not very convincingly executed. And Tobey Maguire shows us the flip side of his talent, sleepwalking through his part with those expressionless eyes and that raspy voice of his that here betrays only mannerism. 'Ride With the Devil' is among my five worst movie experiences ever, a western never to be surpassed in the negative respect.
One thing I always liked about Robert Ludlum thrillers is just when you think you have it figured out, it goes in a completely different direction. There are so many twists and turns in this film that I have a sore neck from watching.
One thing I also like about director John Dahl (Kill Me Again, Rounders, Unforgettable) is that he can be depended upon to direct and, in this case, write (with his brother Rick) a good story.
Now, add Nick Cage, Dennis Hopper, Lara Flynn Boyle, and J.T. Walsh to the cast and you have a story that will keep your interest even if they are playing characters that all of them have perfected. Dahl seems to bring out the best in folks, and this will keep you interested, and guessing, until the very end.

... and I have seen some bad ones.
I have nothing good to say about this movie. The acting is poor by Jennifer Tilly - as to be expected. Daryl Hannah does an OK job, but nothing close to being able to save this movie.
The biggest flaw in this film is that the plot is so weak - though based on a good premise - that the writer resorted to the "stupid heroine trick" to create a contrived suspense. When all Daryl Hannah would have to do is hide, she runs out in front of her pursuer. The hospital scene is absurd. Without exposing too much of what passes for a plot, I think it would be difficult for a bloody petite woman to carry a pregnant from a hospital without being noticed. Lame. Very lame.
Save yourself some time and pick out another flick.
War is hell. But this documentary of WWII is heaven.
Not only is this series a breath-taking, almost-exhaustive look at the Second World War, it's a poetic masterpiece told clearly and superbly by Laurence Olivier.
This documentary series defines the genre. It's sweepingly long, no doubt, but you will enjoy all of them and want to come back for more and more. (I have the series on DVD and I probably watch the series three times a year).
Truly, this is an impeccable bit of film-making. Other than Olivier, the best part of the series is listening to the veterans tell their stories; whether it be about an actual battle or about finding a hog to butcher so they could have something delicious for supper.
I'm going to go watch it right now (again, my... 11th time).

This British pot-boiler has one thing going for it: the young men are uniformly good looking. The older men are opinionated, right-wing Thatcherites whose behavior brings back all the acrimony of the Reagan/Thatcher years. Young or old, however, morals in this three-part mini-series are universally suspect and no one comes off particularly well.
Nick is a handsome young gay man fresh out of Oxford. It is not pivotal to the story, but he has an extraordinarily beautiful head of hair which makes watching this drivel much easier. Nick comes to London with a friend, whose father Gerald is a rich conservative politician, and babysits his sister Cat while the family frolics in the south of France. They neglect to inform him that, when upset, Cat cuts herself with an assortment of knives and other kitchen implements. Nick mistakes their self-serving 'gratitude' for affection and moves in, finding out too late just how much they despise and patronize him. Inexplicably, Nick lives in this house for four years but, as the plot depends on this point, it's best not to question it.
While Nick is most pleasing to look at, he is unbearably obsequious. His coy subjection to rich bigots soon had me climbing the walls. Deeply closeted except to Cat (she guesses his big secret on sight), he does like a little anonymous sex just so we know he is actually gay. Though it hardly seems possible, Nick takes a lover who is even more closeted than he.
Supercilious Tories scorn and insult the two blacks in the film, so imagine the venom which spews forth when Nick's sexual orientation is reported in a tabloid. Gerald, in true Tory fashion, has become involved in several personal and financial scandals, so the revelations about Nick add to his embarrassment. This gives Gerald one final opportunity to roundly castigate the hapless boy.
Except for one brief moment of indignation, Nick takes the abuse heaped upon him in silence and tacit agreement. Denial, self-loathing, naiveté, or ignorance? You decide, if you can manage to sit through this whole thing without throwing something at the set.
This animation TV series is simply the best way for children to learn how the human body works. Yes, this is biology but they will never tell it is.
I truly think this is the best part of this stream of "educational cartoons". I do remember you can find little books and a plastic body in several parts: skin, skeleton, and of course: organs.
In the same stream, you'll find: "Il était une fois l'homme" which relate the human History from the big bang to the 20th century. There is: "Il était une fois l'espace" as well (about the space and its exploration) but that one is more a fiction than a description of the reality since it takes place in the future.

yeah cheap shot i know, but this movie is a great example of how a collection of signifiers of 'deepness' (political turmoil, love/lust) can be combined haphazardly to great critical acclaim (see also 'american beauty'). kaufman's movie plods along with gratuitous sex scenes interspersed with often painful dialog sequences (in one scene i counted three different 'generic European' accents affected by the actors) and displays of state might run amok, yet fails to tie them together into the coherent meditation kundera offered. and in its over-long three hours it manages almost completely to gloss over franz,the missing fourth piece in the love triangle that lies at the heart of the plot, and in this manner sacrifices the novel's central mechanism of displaying the spectrum of emotions and of power relations that obtain in love affairs. it also fails to even include token screen time for tomas' son, used in the novel to exemplify some of the political points kundera was making in the novel. combined with the overweening soundtrack, these flaws make this movie's three hours unbearably weighty in tone yet light in content.
One woman, by herself in a house for 45-minutes of screen time, doesn't sound like a formula to hold you on the edge-of-your-seat... but FUTURE SHOCK is truly as thrilling as they come! Writer / star Vivian Schilling takes on those little fears we all suppress, and enlarges them to terrifying proportions, so don't watch this film alone!

Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes is a "parody" of bad monster movies which ends up being worse than the movies it spoofs. The (very meager) story tells of tomatoes who revolt against those who treat them badly. Basically,they spin and growl (yes,they growl) and the next thing you know the person is covered in ketchup. The actors are no-names who never made movies after this,so there would be no point to name them. There's a guy who's hired by the governement to try and stop the menace of tomatoes. He's accompanied by a black guy who's master of disguise and a girl and a guy who dives. Anyway, there's another woman who spies on the first guy that works for the government. if this isn't making much sense to you, you understand. This movie never would have been very good in the first place, but it even lacks the fun of laughing at stupid attack scenes. The movie is horribly cheezy, which although being the whole point,really really hurts what could've been a (reasonably) entertaining movie. At one point, a giant wax tomato "slides" on an unconcealed plank of wood with wheels on it! Maybe I would've recommended the movie if it would have enjoyable camp value, but even this is lacking from this terrible movie. 2/10
A vastly underrated black comedy, the finest in a series of grand guignol movies to follow 'Baby Jane'. Reynolds and Winters are mothers of young convicted murderers (a nod to 'Compulsion') who run away to hide in Hollywood. They run a school for would-be movie tots, a bunch of hilariously untalented kids attended by awful stage moms. Debbie, in her blonde wig ('I'm a Harlow, you're more a Marion Davies' she tells Winters) leads the tots at their concert and wins a rich dad, Weaver. She also does a deliciously funny tango and, over all, gives an outstanding performance, unlike anything she'd done before. The atmosphere is a fine mix of comic and eerie. It looks wonderful with great period detail (30's). Lots of lovely swipes at Hollywood and the terrifying movie tot. Micheal MacLiammoir has a ball as the drama coach: 'Hamilton Starr', he purrs, 'two r's but prophetic nonetheless'. See it and love it.

No wonder that the historian Ian Kershaw, author of the groundbreaking Hitler biography, who originally was the scientific consultant for this TV film, dissociated himself from it. The film is historically just too incorrect. The mistakes start right away when Hitler`s father Alois dies at home, while in reality he died in a pub. In the film, Hitler moves from Vienna to Munich in 1914, while in reality he actually moved to Munich in 1913. I could go on endlessly. Hitler`s childhood and youth are portrayed way too short, which makes it quite difficult for historically uninformed people to understand the character of this frustrated neurotic man. Important persons of the early time of the party, like Hitler`s fatherly friend Dietrich Eckart or the party "philosopher" Alfred Rosenberg are totally missing. The characterization of Ernst Hanfstaengl is very problematic. In the film he is portrayed as a noble character who almost despises Hitler. The script obviously follows Hanfstaengl`s own gloss over view of himself which he gave in his biography after the war. In fact, Hanfstaengl was an anti-semite and was crazy about his "Fuehrer". But the biggest problem of the film is the portrayal of Hitler himself. He is characterized as someone who is constantly unfriendly,has neither charisma nor charm and constantly orders everybody around. After watching the film, one wonders, how such a disgusting person ever was able to get any followers. Since we all know, what an evil criminal Hitler was, naturally every scriptwriter is tempted to portray Hitler as totally disgusting and uncharismatic. But facts is, that in private he could be quite charming and entertaining. His comrades didn`t follow him because he constantly yelled at them, but because they liked this strange man. Beyond all those historical mistakes, the film is well made, the actors are first class, the location shots and the production design give a believable impression of the era.