Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
"Sandra, the Making of a Woman" is a standout among exploitation films, and is so for two reasons: (1) an excellent, yet effortless, performance by Monica Gayle, and (2) the fact that Gary Graver was at the helm of the project. These two talents, both of whom are quite underrated, make "Sandra" a film that should be seen.
Another key element of the film's success is its realism -- there is nothing fake or "Hollywood" about this set-in-California film. It is truly a slice of life. The modest house in which Sandra lives at the beginning of the film, the simple dresses worn by the character, the scene where Sandra wakes up in the morning to find Uschi Digart bouncing at her front door, and Sandra sits on the couch without make-up, while Digart tries to sell her some cosmetics, looking truly as if she just woke up (but nevertheless beautiful), the harmless weirdo Sandra picks up who likes to make love with her while he wears a bra, the one-room apartment into which Sandra moves --all of these elements of the film seem totally real, and as such, the viewer is drawn into Sandra's little world from the beginning and immediately becomes interested in her and wants her to succeed. Sandra also makes her case for free love with eloquence and dignity and she comes off with a lot of class.
This film could have easily failed in less competent hands, and could have gone off in any of the usual sexploitation directions, but the Garver/Gale team see to it that "Sandra" is not only the making of a woman but the making of an excellent film.

The first 30min of the flick was choppy and hard to know just what was going on (unless you read the book - which I had not).
If you can stick with the first half, the second half is sweet - predictable, yes, but sweet none-the-less.
The way it was shot one would think it was produced in the early 80's, not 2005.
No stand-out moments, bland, but it moved along without boring me.
I would like to know why Keaton selected this role, her part would have been better cast with a player more at the level of the other actors to keep the balance.
Domestic Import was a great movie. I laughed the whole time. It was funny on so many levels from the crazy outfits to the hilarious situations. The acting was great. Alla Korot, Larry Dorf, Howard Hesseman, and all the others did an awesome job. Because it is an independent film written by a first-time writer, it doesn't have the clichés that are expected of other comedies, which was such a relief. It was a unique and interesting and you fall in love with the characters and the heart-warming story. I heard it was based on a true story? If so, then that is hilarious (and amazing!). I highly recommend this movie.

Children love dinosaurs. It's somewhat part of their culture. But they've got The Land Before Time. The original. At least that movie had heart. This. This movie is just plain pathetic. Just because kids love dinosaurs doesn't mean you can just slap together any old story and show it to the children. This movie has no plot, the whole premise is stupid, and it's more by the numbers stuff. Not as soul sucking as Theodore Rex, but it's lightyears away from being a Land Before Time.
This is a truly classic movie in its story, acting, and film presentation. Wonderful actors are replete throughout the whole movie, Miss Sullivan, and Jimmy Stewart being the foremost characters. In real life she greatly admired, and liked Jimmy, and indeed gave him his basically first acting roles, and helped him be more calm with his appearance on the set. The "chemistry" between the two was always apparent, and so warm and enjoyable to behold. She was such a beautiful, young woman, and so sweet in her personality portrayals. The story of these two young people, and how they eventually come together in the end is charming to watch, and pure magical entertainment. Heart warming presentations are also given by the other supporting actors in this marvelous story/movie. I whole heartily give Miss Sullivan a perfect 10 in this Golden Age Cinema Classic, that has a special appeal for all generations. A must see for all!

"Washington Square" is a flat, shabby adaptation of the short novel by Henry James. Indeed, the novel is very good, but far from the level of James' masterpieces. Moreover its simple, eventless story seems unsuited to make it into a film (although William Wyler, with his "The Heiress", gave in 1949 a beautiful version of the novel).
Anyway, the movie completely betrays the spirit of this work of the great American writer. In the novel, the heroine Catherine is shy, not very attractive and somewhat clumsy, but nonetheless she is a sound, intelligent young woman, and she's not as naive as it may seem. Her attachment for her father is dignified and respectful, with no morbid sides in it. Along three quarters of the movie, Catherine (Jennifer Jason Leigh) just seems to be mentally retarded, poor thing. In the last quarter, she suddenly (and incredibly) becomes intelligent, aware of her dignity as a woman, and all that.
The director Agnieszka Holland has added two vulgar scenes to the story. The first, when the nervous child Catherine has, well, troubles with her vesica. The second scene, when we see on the background a sort of open-air brothel, with prostitutes taking their customers behind tents, and so on. Nothing could be more contrary to the spirit and artistic ideals of Henry James. It is notorious that the writer was extremely decent and demure even for the standards of the Victorian age. I defy anyone to find any coarseness anywhere in the thousands of pages of James' huge literary production. I really was particularly annoyed by these two scenes.
Yes, I know that a director needs reasonable freedom in the screen adaptation of a novel. But if a director utterly ignores or misunderstands the art of an author (here Henry James), I don't see the point of using his work to make a bad movie.
The acting is adequate to the movie: poor and flat, in spite of the talent of Albert Finney and Maggie Smith. "Washington Square" is definitely a non-recommendable film.
This movie is simply wonderful! It's got it all: laughter, sorrow, beauty, poetry, truth. All in a simple yet intense story--like life! You won't get distracted for a second.
10/10
P.S. Somebody tell Hollywood you need a good story to make a good movie, and there are so many good stories out there.

And a self-admitted one to boot. At one point the doctor's assistant refers to himself as Igor.
Working with the increasingly plausible idea that computers could be used to replace or reconstruct brain functions, this movie doesn't spend enough time exploring the premise. Most of the screen time is split between girlfriend-in-a-coma domestic strife and chasing down the brain donor's killer. It attempts to be a sci-fi/drama/thriller but fails to deliver on any of the three.
As a Frankenstein remake this one is missing everything that made the original good. Nobody calls the doctor insane or even threatens to kick him out of the hospital. The transformation scene consists of a coma victim opening one eye and the amazing computer that makes it happen isn't even shown. When the experiment works there is no praise, and when it starts going wrong there is little reaction.
Any suspense over who the killer might be is shattered by progressively showing him in the same room with all of the possible suspects. Finding the killer is as easy as opening one file and interviewing one person.
San Francisco as a setting is both overplayed and underused. The opening sequence hammers home the point that this is happening in SF, a cable car plays a significant role, the leads live in a hilltop Victorian, Pier 39 makes an appearance, and the final showdown happens at Golden Gate Park. More specifically along ten feet of cliff side at the park - just enough to keep the bridge in the picture at all times. Once the obvious scenery bases are rounded no other attempt is made to explore the city.
The acting is the only saving grace here. Keir Dullea shows a good range and pulls off a couple of genuinely emotional scenes. Suzanna Love portrays recovery from a coma well. Tony Curtis only gets a handful of lines and twice as many evil guy stares with most of the Frankenscience explained away by his assistant. The little blond kid hits his cues fairly well also.
I also gave it one extra star for the scene where the husband drives south from the bridge, it cuts to a U-turn in an unrelated parking lot, and then he's instantly back on the bridge driving north. It takes a whole lot of something - bravery, ignorance, deadlines - to try and slip that one by the viewer during the one single car chase.
An original uncensored print of this amazing film was discovered in 2004 in the Library of Congress, and has been shown in a few specialized theaters around the world in 2005. According to current reviews that I've found online, the original has all of the nastiest dialog and innuendos intact; they were later either removed or completely re-shot by the studio prior to initial release, in order to pass the New York state censors. I have also read that a DVD is "expected in 2006" and one can only hope! If we're really luckily, it will include comparisons between the 2 versions. Note that the released censored version was originally available on Laserdisc, which I have seen. Stanwyck rules!

If you appreciate the renaissance in Asian horror, don't bother with Gawi. The film scarcely deserves mention alongside A-list work such as Ringu, A Tale of Two Sisters, Cure, and Ju-On (or even such good material as The Eye or Inner Senses). Those films brim with subtleties, unexpected imagery, rich characters, and a decidedly non-Western take on what's frightening. Gawi is strung together with the leftover limbs and organs of everything that has made American horror lousy for the past twenty-five years.
The film tries to blend Asian ghost story and Hollywood slasher flick, but it's a bad fit. One aesthetic is bound to smother the other; guess which? Having no story of their own to tell the filmmakers loot Ringu for an evil-child subplot, but the situation is hopeless. Clichés, crap characters, witless plotting, a dull ghost, ho hum.
This is one of the best films I have seen in years! I am not a Gwyneth Paltrow fan, but she is excellent as Emma Woodhouse. Alan Cumming is superb as Reverand Elton, and Emma Thompson's sister, Sophie, is hysterical as Miss Bates. And check out the gorgeous Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley; what a gentleman! Whoever said you need sex and violence in a movie to make it good has never seen Emma. I think that is what separates it from so many others--it's classy.
If you're looking for a film that you can watch with the whole family, or looking for a romance for yourself, look no further. Emma is that movie. With a beautiful setting, wonderful costumes, and an outstanding cast (have I mentioned the gorgeous Jeremy Northam?), Emma is a perfect ten!

Well, I had to sit down at the computer and write down the review immediately after watching this puddle of ooze. Why? Because I have to let it be known to all of you just how bad this movie is. It's unbelievably bad. Just to let you in on how bad it is, I'll offer this little detail about the movie. During scenes of mayhem, which usually consists of people shooting or kicking zombies, they intercut scenes from the video game. Yes, you heard me right. This movie really sucks. In fact, it makes me think about the fact that it costs ten dollars these days just to get into the theaters these days. And to see corn filled crap like this? There is no story to speak of and the movie basically has nothing to offer other than the occasional boob shot and really cheap kills. I'm really disappointed with this, knowing that I watched it. OK, I'm dumbstruck. It's so bad I can't even find the words. RATING: ZERO out of *****.
This movie captures the absurd essence of an overbearing American patriot actor -- one that believes his work (and politics) are as crucial to the American people as the opinions of the President himself. Alan Bates captures this mindset perfectly as Michael Baytes, and I will immortally remember Bates as this character. This is a movie for Canadians and Americans alike. It is a valuable piece of cinema, that which is able to take its audience through the magic of making a film and reveal just how easy it is for the producer and director to lose complete control to the will of the actors and innumerable outside forces. Wonderfully, "Hollywood North" does not suffer from the subject that it portrays: Peter O'Brian directs with precision and complete control, and commands both the serious 'behind-the-scenes' portion of the movie, and the movie-within-the-movie, "Flight to Bogota" with clarity and insight. If you are at all interested in the wit and strength of Canadian cinema, "Hollywood North" is a great place to start.

Battlestar Gallactica was so great because it had tight writing, a great look, excellent actors, and interesting stories... AND yeah, had hot men and women running around in and out of uniform.
Caprica was just lazy. Lazy writing. Actors smoking up a storm to give them "character." Outdoor sequences that ruin the feeling of being somewhere else (yes, that is a Ford Focus sitting in the background). Lots and lots of teenage angst. LOTS of gyrating naked women (but in the background. Which I'm sure will be cut for the series) and a token view of some men in towels. None of the actors except Polly Walker took my attention at all. At an hour and a half, I was still wondering when it was going to be over.
So what exactly is it that's supposed to bring me back? The science fiction? It's awfully light on that. The actors? Besides Polly Walker's fine turn, there isn't much interesting being done here. There aren't even any "hotties" in the cast, except for maybe Esai, although for the younger set he's pretty old, since he's over 25.
I loved BSG. I was skeptical when I heard about Caprica, and unfortunately, I think I'm right. I predict a very short run for it as a series unless they really sharpen their pencils over at SciFi and get to work making this more than The OC on another planet.
I am a big fan a Faerie Tale Theatre and I've seen them all and this is one of the best! It's funny, romantic, and a classic. I recommend this for all ages. It's great for little kids because it's well, Cinderella and great for adults and teen because it's funny and not over the top. I watched it when I was little and I still watch it now. It has great lines that my family and I quote all the time. The acting is great and it never gets old. If you like fairy tales and romances you will love this. I've watched many a Cinderella movie in my time and this is the best of them all. (Sorry Disney) I highly recommend this movie and all the Faerie Tale Theatre shows. They all appeal to all ages and are all unique and very entertaining.

I can sit through this movie once, but I doubt I could make it through a second time. Mildly entertaining mainly for the physical presence of Lindsay Lohan. The fun of Matt Dillon(think Something About Mary), and the re-emergence of a more serious acting Micheal Keaton. This is not the fun romp The Love Bug was but it is watchable. One of my main detractions from the movie was the fact that Herbie had evolved into R2D2 antics for the most part. I was bored with the headlight eyes effects about the second time of the 30 or so times they were used and the bending front fender caused the same reaction from me. Go see this with your little ones, i.e. the "single digit bracket" kids and don't expect a lot from this film.
_X
This is a beautiful, rich, and very well-executed film with a rich and meaningful story. Basically, it tells how an old master story teller needs to find a (male) heir to carry on his craft, but ends up not getting what he expected in his very male-dominated world. The characters must then deal with their situation and the old master must grapple with the conflict between his desire for a companion and heir and his and society's traditional notions.
The story is fun, emotional, and complex. The exploration of the characters, their lives, and emotions, is rich and compelling the character development is strong while the characters are complex and not one dimensional at all. The film expertly conveys the old man's emotions and his desire to find an heir, and compellingly shows how he and the kid handle the situation. There is also humour, sometimes quite subtle, at appropriate points. The film also examines the good and bad of traditional Chinese culture, creating further interest and depth to the film.
The directing, acting, and scenery are all outstanding. Added to the other strengths, this creates rich and convincing visual images and compelling, real characters. As a result, the film evokes strong empathy for, and feelings about, the characters.
Some have claimed that the ending weakens the film, but I do not necessarily agree. Perhaps it could have been stronger with a different ending, but any improvement in the overall film would have been rather small.

The soul of an ancient mummy is transferred to one of his followers so that he might punish everyone involved in the desecration of his tomb. The soul transference makes the young man age at a tremendous pace until he himself resembles a mummy. One by one, the blood is drained from those involved in the dig.
To be as brief as possible, Pharaoh's Curse is quite the lackluster affair. While the movie does present a few good, original ideas (blood sucking mummy's, soul transference, interesting make-up effects, the arm ripping scene, etc.) and a few atmospheric moments, the direction and pace are the very definition of plodding. To make matters even worse, the first 15 of the film's relatively short 66 minute runtime consist of nothing much more than padding. I usually go for these slow moving mummy movies, but Pharaoh's Curse tests even my patients. The cast helps very little. With only one exception (Ziva Rodann is the lone bright spot  wish the movie could have focused more on her mysterious character), the cast is as dull as the screenplay. Finally, I don't know whose idea it was to put the mummy-looking servant in what appears to be pajamas, but it's a laughable, ridiculous look for a creature that supposed to instill fear in the audience.
Despite my mostly negative comments on the Pharaoh's Curse, I'm going to rate it a 4/10. Not a good rating to be sure, but generous given all the problems I have with the movie.
For what it is, this is a pretty good movie. I like both Johns -Stamos ("Full House")& Stockwell ("Christine", "Top Gun"). They both give strong performances. The love interest is OK, but this is more of a guy's movie than a good date movie. I love Harleys, and I hated seeing them paint over the "14 coats of hand-rubbed lacquer" with good old Army Olive Drab. There is a small history lesson here in that Harley-Davidson motorcycles played a key role in WWII. I don't know if the training was quite like this bunches! The movie kept my interest all the way through without getting slow anywhere, with good riding action sequences. I love looking at the demographics of the vote history - one 18 year-old man gave the movie a 10 (true bike lover, I guess). I wouldn't give it a 10, but I did give it an 8. I do not weigh every movie with the same scale. There are movies that were big-budget, with great actors, that you expect to be good so when they fail they fail big. (Star Wars - Episode I is my best example) I loved the first three SW movies, but I thought Episode I was weak in comparison. So it gets a lower rating from me than this movie. I expect more from George Lucas.

This "movie" is such a bad work! Nothing seems to even try and be realistic. Plot is weak, acting - miserable, actors wondering around like in a 1st year production, trying very hard to act with no chance at all from the beginning. What a flop! What a waste of time, money and effort to all concerned including the audience. Well, as in any thriller, here too are murders, corpses and blood. Just imagine someone who 5 minutes ago, committed a murder with a knife, and came out calm and smiling, not to mention clean as a whistle, as if slashing one's throat is done by a virtual agent. Also, this murder was supposed to be done by a tiny fragile woman on a high strong male, and she cut his throat!!! Did she ask him, politely, to bend down for her? Much more stupidity of that same kind is going on and on leaving the audience wondering if this meant to be a joke which just turned out to be a bad one. Continuity is another huge problem as for instance: The eager-hungry groom is lying in bed, waiting for his virgin-bride to get out of the bathroom and after a long while, falls asleep(!?!). Next scene opens with the young couple entering the reception-area, asking for guidance to scenery spots! NOT A WORD ABOUT LAST NIGHT??? Such a waste of time even to try and write about this low-low supposed-to-be "movie".
Now I had the pleasure of first viewing Contaminated Man when it premiered on TV back in December of 2000.
An infectious disease expert (William Hurt) looses his family when an unknown disease enters his home and kills them. Now some years later he is now in Russia or someplace. I'm not sure where exactly, all I know is it takes place somewhere in that area. Anyway, because of budget cutbacks at an infectious disease laboratory, they are forced to lay off most of their workers. One of them, a disgruntled security guard named Joseph Muller (played Peter Weller, best known for his role as the indestructible Robocop) goes in there and demands that they give him his job back. He needs this job because he is divorced and he needs it to pay child support. So he goes in there, a fight breaks out, and some things get knocked over, dangerous things. It's soon discovered that Muller has been infected with a deadly pathogen. In fact it's so deadly, one drop of his blood will kill a person in matter of seconds. Soon word gets out and the disease expert (Hurt) is called in to investigate and he later teamed up with an American reporter. Now Muller is determined to get home to see his wife and son and will stop at nothing even if he has to infect the entire Russian population.
Now as I said before this film is a lot like Falling Down. We have a disturbed person (Weller here, Michael Douglas in Falling Down) who will stop at nothing to accomplish there goal even if they have to kill a few people in the process. Next we have a hero-type person (Hurt here, Robert Duvall in Falling Down) who is both sympathetic and determined to stop the antagonist.
Contaminated Man is in fact a very good film with a good story line and some very good performances.
8/10

The movie never becomes intolerable to watch. And to tell it straight, it has nothing to show either, except maybe part-sexy Alicia Silverstone in a nerdy non-sexy character in revealing quite-sexy dresses. The story is very easy to follow or there's nothing to follow -- you can see in either way. There is no suspense, little action, unimpressive dialogs, unsatisfactory sensuality, same boring locations and very bland acting. Kevin Dillon is totally worthless. Silverstone... well, I didn't concentrate too much on her acting, I confess. Yet as I said earlier, if one has nothing to do except watching a movie, this won't look so bad. 4/10