Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I must admit, out of the EROS MOVIE COLLECTION, this has to be the one that I love the most as well as one other that I have also reviewed. The story is something that really keeps you watching. A lot of the EROS films have a plot that looks like a hammer broke it in pieces before production when you watch it. All centering around sex, and who can get with how many different people come the end of the film. And oh dear god, never watch one of these films when someone pulls out a gun. It does not work that it is almost laughable, but you do not want to waste the energy to do so.
"Losing Control" is exactly as its name comes on. The protagonist, the leading character (the wonderfully talented and beautiful Kira Reed). The control is the control a person has over their senses, their body and feelings. And one man changes everything for her, makes her a different woman almost. But the mirror is shattered at the same time. This makes for a great film that I wish I had come up with first!!
10/10

This film is too skeletal. It's a fairly low-budget film (I hope!) which excuses it somewhat, but the lack of a decent cast and a fleshed out plot hurts it too much. Phillips is quite believable in his role as a torn-apart son of a well-off family who's searching for himself (though his family is...er...well, a little too white...), but the rest of the cast is grasping at straws. Every moment that has potential is ruined by excessive melodrama, and there are *way* too many sub-plots (which is an obvious sign of plot-deficiency. They needed filler...) I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone who isn't either a hard-core Phillips fan, or who has absolutely *nothing* to do. 4/10.
I was first introduced to "Eddie" by friends from "across-the-pond" who know I like intelligent humor. I prefer comedians who can be thought provoking while entertaining such as George Carlin and Dennis Miller. In 'Dress to Kill' Eddie provides the same type of social observation humor that stimulates your thoughts on a subject all the while causing your side to split at the same time. There is a wide range of subjects in this stand-up and they are simply hysterical. The piece on how to decide on Englebert's stage name will leave you in stitches!
Thanks Andrew and Catherine! ... and "Do you have a Flag?"

Man, I really find it hard to believe that the wonderful Alan Ball had anything to do with this mess. Having seen the first two episodes thus far, I think I can safely say this show isn't going to be on my must see list. It's just got so many things working against it.
None of the actors cast are particularly good. Anna Paquin as the lead character Sookie, is just awful. I remember her being better in a lot of other things I've seen her in so maybe it's just the writing. She's not really much fun to look at either, there are moments where to be honest she looks downright ugly. The actor who plays Bill is marginally better, if only because his character is supposed to be sort of wooden and aloof. The other actors do their best but with the cliché characters with difficult to perform accents they are given it's a tough job. Tara is an absolute misery to watch, Rutina Wesley absolutely murders the accent. It's like nails on a chalkboard bad. Almost as awful is Nelsan Ellis, it's difficult to understand what he's even saying sometimes. Both his character as well as Tara's also seem a bit racist to me. I don't know, having a character say 'whycome' on an HBO show that isn't The Wire just seems a bit odd. Rounding out the cast so far are Sookie's doddering grandmother, her sex addict brother, and the only bit of genius casting I've seen in William Sanderson as the sheriff.
The story seems to be meandering towards it's destination at this point, with no real worry about keeping the viewer interested. The romance stuff is very Dark Shadow-sy. Although this show ups the camp factor from something like those old Dark Shadows episodes times about ten. At times it seemed so campy to me, that I just have to assume it was intended to be. But unlike a show such as Buffy, that pulled camp off masterfully, this show does not. Out of place with the campiness is the extreme gore and graphic sex of the show. I'm not averse to either of these when they are done well, as they have in many other HBO shows but here at least they prolonged rough sex scenes involving Jason Stackhouse seem a bit over the top and pointless.
About the only nice thing I can really think to say about this mess is that I liked the opening title sequence. HBO has had a string of bad luck with their shows lately, I hope they cancel this after the first season and try to get something better on the air.
"Hatred of a Minute" is arguably one of the better films to come out of Michigan in recent years. Not to say that it's a brilliant film by any means, but it's definitely worth a watch.
"Hatred" chronicles the sordid adventures of Eric Seaver (played by director Kallio), a formerly abused child now grown up, and starting to listen to his evil side.
"Hatred" is very nice visually. The shots are creative, and the lighting is approporiately moody and interesting to look at. This film actually has an element of production value to it, unlike other recent Michigan releases like "Dark Tomorrow" and "Biker Zombies." Subtle dolly shots and stylized shot composition show good use of this film's $350,000 budget.
However, "Hatred" stumbles in the same places that so many other local films do, and that's in the story and character department. Essentially, things just kind-of happen. Eric Seaver doesn't evolve at all. Basically, he's always been crazy, it's just that people are starting to notice. The film just wanders along its merry way with very little development. Also, the ending is very abrupt.
However- since this is a horror film, since when do we care about plot? We just want to see people die, and "Hatred" certainly delivers. As the body count mounted, people in the theater started cheering "Kill her! Kill em' all!" When people scream back at the screen, it's always fun.
That's the place where "Hatred" succeeds. It's fun. And in the end, that's all that really matters.

Don't listen to the misleading title "Werewolf Woman". The Europeans are well known for putting an emphasis on sex and nudity over actual scares in their horror films, but this one here is just a bit too much. "Werewolf Woman" seems to have a sleazy sex scene copped off with the title character going crazy and brutally killing her partner. Fun the first few times, but a hundred minutes of this becomes very monotonous quickly. Shes not even a werewolf, but a schizo chick whose ancestor was hanged for lycanthropy. The film can't even decide its tone, with the first ten minutes (a flashback) being legitimate supernatural horror (I thought I was in for a trash classic after these) to a rather poor character study of the female being repeatedly abused and tortured to a revenge thriller. At the end, the director insists this is based on a true story. Yeah, all right.
To be fair, there are a few entertaining aspects of the production. The title werewolf woman is a looker and there are a few nice gore effects and nude scenes. However, these become rather monotonous quickly. Also, the dubbed dialog is pretty hilarious in a camp fashion, especially the worlds most swinging doctor (he drinks on the job). Unfortunately, the film becomes pretty irritating fast. There's no actual plot or anything else really. Its a shame, because reading a description I felt the film had some real potential. "Werewolf Woman" is far overlong, slow moving, and a bit too pointless, even by the standards of the exploitation genre. (4/10)
This is not a "loose", but a precise, faithful remake of 1958 Monicelli's classic "I Soliti Ignoti" with Toto', Mastroianni, Gassman, Cardinale etc. And that's the reason is good, it copies all the funny characters and the plot, even in details (like the scene where the photographer steals the camera from the local market).
I have watched the superb old version many times and I knew by heart all the gangs and the ending but I still enjoyed "Welcome to Collinwood", which has its own freshness and atmosphere. It is interesting to see how the life and ways of the little thieves in 1950's Italy are adapted to 2002's USA. Things haven't changed much. 8/10.

What's happening to RGV? He seems to repeat himself in every movie. Has he run out of creative ideas? If he has, time to take a back seat. Went to see the movie with great anticipation - of course not once did I imagine it would be anywhere near the original. I knew it wouldn't, the promos said it all. But even then I thought it would be a great RGV treat, after all isn't he the same guy who directed Sathya and Company? Or is he? I have my doubts after watching Aag. I am not going to talk about the plot or the story, as most of it is taken from the original, if you are really dying to go and see this one, you could play a fun game with friends: identify the scenes from the original one and give ratings of your own! So Veeru becomes Heero (how corny is that?), guess Heeru wouldn't sound that great. Ajay Devgan is quite a disaster as Heero, the comedy is strained and the slurred talk that really was effective in Company sounds fake. The chemistry between Heero and Gunghroo (Nisha Kothari) doesn't exists at all. In fact the more charming Nisha tries to be the more irritating she becomes. This reaches a peak by the end. Raj is in fact not bad as compared to the others, he is a guy to watch in the future. I was really disappointed with Amitabh Bachchan as Babban, he looks like a caricature of Gabbar Singh. There is a scene where he is drinking something from a bowl all covered in a shawl, instead of inspiring fear he looks like a beggar with his bowl. The only performance that really stood out was Mohan Lal as Inspector Narasimha. I am afraid I don't have the patience to write more.
This movie has problems in its presentation, may even be offensive to people who are looking for temporal and cultural faithfulness, but it challenges the watcher to reflect on a variety of issues. One of these is the nature and character of the relationship between Jesus and Judas. Another is that of the historical nature of the Bible and faith. And third, is the humanity of Jesus. The tension of the Christ-betrayer relationship is developed and held through the movie. Judas' passion is presented as a darker parallel to that of Christ. When Judas takes his own life, the viewer can sense the angst. Peter's denial and guilt, however moving, are not as powerfully portrayed as the Judas drama. Chris Sarandon offers a novel and provocative Christ, whether believable or not. I would like to find this movie on DVD or even VHS, to use in study or discussion groups.

This movie really shows its age. The print I saw was terrible due to age, but it is possible that there are better prints out there. However, this was not the major problem with the movie. The problem was that although the film was made in 1933, it was essentially a silent film with only the barest of dialog scattered (only a few sentences) in the film in the most amateur fashion. Sometimes the characters' backs were turned or they were talking with their hands over their faces--all in a pathetic attempt to obscure their lips and "cleaverly" (?) hide the fact that the film was dubbed. Well, its true that this Czech film would need to be dubbed into many languages but to do it this way was really stupid and obvious. It just looked cheap.
Overall, the film looked low budget and silly. It's really a shame though, because there was a grain of a good story--a young woman who marries an older man who is either gay and/or has no interest in women. But in the 21st century, few people would really be willing to sit through this archaic mess. EVEN with a few glimpses of the naked (and somewhat chunky) Hedy Lamarr, it isn't worth all the fuss that accompanied the film when it debuted. Even by 1933 standards, this film was a poorly made dud. About the only interesting thing about the film is to see how different Lamarr looked in 1933 compared with the glamorous image Hollywood created when she came to America--she looks like 2 completely different people.
It's such an incomplete looking and technically inferior film, I don't see how it has gotten such rave reviews. For technical problems alone, the movie can't rate a 10 or anything near it.
This is the kind of picture John Lassiter would be making today, if it weren't for advances in CGI. And that's just to say that he'd be forgotten, too, if technology hadn't made things sexy and kewl since 1983. _Twice..._ has got the same wit, imagination, and sense of real excitement that you'd find in a Pixar flick, only executed under the restrictions of the medium c. 1983. Innovative animation techniques combine with a great script and excellent voicing to produce a movie that appeals on lots of levels. It should be spoken of in the same breath with _Spiritited Away_ and _Toy Story_.

Just recently, I've been obsessing over and anticipating this movie so much that I almost had to see it. Well, having just seen it today, the 5.8 rating is completely understandable. I think that if you anticipate something so much that it becomes a dire need, it turns out not to be worth it.
Sure, The Hills Have Eyes 2 has its moments. It has a very cool and well-developed storyline that ties in well with the actual product itself, but the whole thing is so self-indulged that it becomes so hard to follow. And if it weren't for Wes Craven's production on this film, it wouldn't be anything to do with The original remake.
But the whole thing makes you go "Is this supposed to be horror or COMEDY?" because there are lots of ridiculous, randomly placed jump moments and stupid one liners (I.E. "There's a hand in the sh**er!" or "You motherfu**er! I'll kill you all damn sons of b**tches!") and the acting (God don't even remind me how bad it was.
STORYLINE: (this part contains spoilers, beware!) The movie begins with a woman giving birth to a mutant baby (ooh la la!), and then the screen fades to black with the movie's title appearing, and a monologue. Then we go to this office where there are randomly placed war veteran mannequins. We find that this is for this one scientist keeping track of people looking for mutants. The box to keep track of audio feeds is gone, and everyone dies! After that tone-setting opening, you'd expect more.
Then, we go to this one team of military recruits training in Baghdad. As the captain parades them "A good job at stupidity", their last day of training is in New Mexico, the desert where the family in the last THHE had stayed because they were stuck. While in training, things go ultimately wrong, people die, and... do I need to tell you any more? Because right now I have the attention span of a goldfish just forcing myself to sit here and type this.
The thing that's wrong with THHE2 is that it just dosen't work. No flashbacks here, and the ending is pretty safe... but with a twist! A stupid one, that is. I'm pretty sure the Ultra Super Director's Cut with a holographic cover and a ticket to The Hills Have Eyes 3 will showcase all of it's alternate endings, but at this point, I'm not sure if I care.
So by all means, if you loved the first THHE so much it's almost a sin not to see this, then by all means, see it. But if else, then, Avoid at all costs. It's for your own good.
3/10
This is NOT as bad a movie as some reviewers, and as the summary at the IMDB page for this movie, say it is. Why? First is the fact that in 1984 the movie makers were daring enough to confront, as one of the plot elements, the issue of domestic violence -- so reviewers who complain about the plot are sadly missing one of the main points! Second, without the plot element of Prince's movie relationship with his abusive father, the musical climax wouldn't work as well as it does -- so those reviewers who say that only the music is good have, once again, missed one of the points -- specifically, WHY it is so good...because all of the music in this film has a plot element backdrop that makes the music more effective. Third, give this movie a break! For first-time movie producers and director, this is just not that bad! There are far worse movies out there by accomplished movie people!! And last, the reviewers who say that the music is "good" have also missed the point -- check out the range of stylistic musical treatments, the variety, the musicianship, and the stage performance of Prince -- truly one of a kind, going musically where no one else was going during the 1980's, and with a style seen in the work of other artists (clothes and movement: which costuming elements came first, Michael Jackson's or Prince's? Also, see if you can spot the splayed fingers sweeping in front of the eyes that Prince does in this movie, long before Quentin Tarentino's "Pulp Fiction"). As the sum of its parts, not a bad movie at all.

An uninteresting addition to the stalk 'n slash cycle which dominated the horror genre in the 1980's. This was filmed as Pranks but released as The Dorm That Dripped Blood which is an obvious steal from the 1970 horror anthology The House That Dripped Blood. Daphne Zuniga is the only recognisable face in the cast and this was her first horror movie (she has also appeared in The Initiation and The Fly II).
Star Trek: Hidden Frontier is a long-running internet only fan film, done completely for the love of the series, and a must watch for fans of Trek. The production quality is extremely high for a fan film, although sometimes you can tell that they're green-screenin' it. This doesn't take away from the overall experience however. The CGI ships are fantastic, as well as the space battle scenes... On the negative side, I could tell in the earlier episodes (and even occasionally in the newer ones) that some of the actors/actresses are not quite comfortable in their roles, but once again, this doesn't take away from the overall experience of new interpretations of Star Trek. The cast and crew have truly come up with something special here, and, as a whole,I would highly recommend this series to fans of The Next Generation and Deep Space 9.

This film might have weak production values, but that is also what makes it so good. The special effects are gross out and well done. My favorite part of the movie had to be Chrissy played by Janelle Brady. She is super hot and also has a good nude scene. Robert Prichard as the leader of the gang is hilarious, as are the other members. This film is actually trying to make a point, by saying that nuclear waste plants are bad. 4/10 Fair comedy, gross out film.
Yes, I call this a perfect movie. Not one boring second, a fantastic cast of mostly little known actresses and actors, a great array of characters who are all well defined and who all have understandable motives I could sympathize with, perfect lighting, crisp black and white photography, a fitting soundtrack, an intelligent and harmonious set design and a story that is engaging and works. It's one of those prime quality pictures on which all the pride of Hollywood should rest, the mark everyone should endeavor to reach.
Barbara Stanwyck is simply stunning. There was nothing this actress couldn't do, and she always went easy on the melodramatic side. No hysterical outbursts with this lady - I always thought she was a better actress than screen goddesses like Bette Davis or Joan Crawford, and this movie confirmed my opinion. Always as tough as nails and at the same time conveying true sentiments. It is fair to add that she also got many good parts during her long career, and this one is by far the least interesting.
The title fits this movie very well. It is about desires, human desires I think everyone can understand. Actually, no one seems to be scheming in this movie, all characters act on impulse, everybody wants to be happy without hurting anybody else. The sad fact that this more often than not leads to complications makes for the dramatic content into which I will not go here.
I liked what this movie has to say about youth, about maturing and about the necessity to compromise. The movie I associate most with this one is Alfred Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt, it creates a similar atmosphere of idealized and at the same time caricatured Small Town America. The story has a certain similarity with Fritz Lang's considerably harsher movie Clash by Night, made one year earlier, where Stanywck stars in a similar part. I can also recommend it.

Revolution is a terrible movie, I don't care if you're a history teacher, news writer, Al Pacino fan, there's no way this movie can possibly earn a legitimate '10'.
The key point to the plot is Tom Dobb (Al) trying to get money from a note he got for radical patriots taking his boat. Everything revolves around that note. Tom's son joins the army to make up for the note, making Tom join the army as well, they go on an adventure trying to get out of the army, years later the war is over and they can finally turn in the note for their boat. The End.
It had a few battle scenes, and they were pretty mediocre at best. Transistions between scenes used "five months later" and magically put the characters in some famous historical battle. The love story is a joke, and the movie as a whole is just hard to follow. So save your "Notes" and watch the Patriot instead.
In this movie the year 2022 looks much like the seventies. This is amusing at first, but soon the viewer perceives how very different that decadent futuristic world is despite the appearances, how many things that we take for granted could become unavailable.
Characters often interact in a peculiar way, with no tact or manners or respect. I believe this is intentional, not bad acting. After all, who witnessed the social changes in the 60s and 70s may well assume that by 2022 an overpopulated city's inhabitants behave like that.
I didn't like most of the action scenes, apart the death of the priest: too cheap even for the seventies. The plot isn't too polished. But the great scenes and ideas - like the death of Sol, the way rioters and dead bodies are dealt with, the "furniture" - outweigh the shortcomings of this film.
8 out of 10.

What does the " Executive producer " do in a movie . If I remember correctly it's the person who raised the financial backing to make the movie . You might notice in a great number of movies starring Sean Connery that he is also the executive producer which meant Connery himself raised the money since he is a major player . Unfortunately it should also be pointed out that a great number of movies " starring Sean Connery were solely made because he managed to raise the money since he's a major Hollywood player , it's usually an indication that when the credits read that the executive producer and the star of the movie are one and the same the movie itself is nothing more than a star vehicle with the story/screenplay not being up to scratch
PROTOCOL follows the saga of one Sunny Davis a kooky bimboesque cocktail waitress who saves a visiting dignitary and as a reward gets made a top diplomat . Likely ? As things progress Ms Davis ( Who has problems being able to string two sentences together ) finds herself in more outlandish and less likely situations . When I say that PROTOCOL stars Goldie Hawn who is also the film's executive producer do you understand what I'm saying about the story/screenplay not being up to scratch ? Exactly