Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Robert Stack never really got over losing a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role as Kyle in "Written on the Wind" to Anthony Quinn's 12-minute performance in "Lust for Life." Stack plays the deeply disturbed, alcoholic son of an oil tycoon. He has lived his life in the shadow of the friend with whom he was raised, Mitch, played by Rock Hudson. They both love the same woman, Lucy, (Lauren Bacall), who becomes Kyle's wife. Kyle's sister, Marylee (Dorothy Malone), is a drunken slut who's in love with Mitch. Their story plays out in glorious color under the able direction of Douglas Sirk, who really dominated the melodrama field with some incredible films, including "Imitation of Life," "All that Heaven Allows," "Magnificent Obsession," and many others.
Make no mistake - this is a potboiler, and Stack and Dorothy Malone make the most of their roles, Malone winning a Best Supporting Actress Oscar. There's one amazing scene, mentioned in other comments, where she wildly dances to loud music as her father collapses and dies on the staircase. We're led to believe that Marylee sleeps with everyone, including the guy that pumps the gas, because she's in love with Mitch. Mitch wants nothing to do with her. He's so in love with Lucy that, out of loyalty to Kyle, he wants to go to work in Iran to avoid temptation. I doubt he'd be so anxious to get there today no matter how much in love he was.
Hudson and Bacall have the less exciting roles here - Hudson's Mitch is the good guy who's been cleaning up Kyle's messes for his entire life, and Bacall is Mitch's wife who finds herself in a nightmare when her husband starts drinking again after a year of sobriety. Sirk focuses on the more volatile supporting players.
In Sirk's hands, "Written on the Wind" is an effective film, and the big scene toward the end in the mansion is particularly exciting. The director had a gift for this type of movie, and though he had many imitators, he never had an equal.

OK, forget all the technical inconsisties or the physical impossibilities of the Space Shuttle accidentally being launched by a quirky robot with a heart of gold. Forget the hideous special effects and poorly-constructed one-dimensional characters. Just looking at the premise of the story. The very reason for the film to exist in the first place, and you will see just how badly this film was pieced together.
I know 9 year olds that look at this insult to the intelligence and just laugh at it. The story is horrible. The acting is comical and the message its trying to show is incomprehensible. And whats worse, is that the cable Movie channels KEEP SHOWING IT! Its on twice a day every two or three days! Why does anyone in their right mind think that people would want to see this painful piece of celluloid multiple times, much less to see it at all?
My recomendation is dont even bother spending the energy to watch this thing. Its just not worth it.
When I saw that this film was only 80 minutes long, I thought we were in trouble. Condensing the gigantic W. Somerset Maugham novel down to a movie that clocks in at under an hour and a half seemed like a disaster waiting to happen. But you know, the movie's not half bad, and it even manages to retain much of what makes the book resonate so much with its readers.
I've heard many film buffs complain that Leslie Howard was a wet noodle of an actor, and he was, but I can't think of anyone more suited to play the role of Philip Carey than a wet noodle, for that's certainly what Carey is. Howard plays him well, which means you want to shake him and slap him upside the head repeatedly, then finally take him out and buy him a spine.
Ah, and then there's Bette, as the girl with whom Carey is obsessed and who brings his world crashing down around him. I didn't know what on earth the appeal of Mildred was in the book, and the movie stays true to that detail. But as played by Davis, she does become the most fascinating character in the story, and if she's nasty and unlikable, she's at least the most dynamic person on screen at any given time. Davis's performance here is credited with changing the course of screen acting, much as Brando's would do nearly 20 years later when he screamed out "Stella!!" in that little-known Tennesee Williams play, and it's not hard to see why. Davis is intense to the point of scary. She makes no effort to wring any sympathy from the audience, and she allows herself to look ugly and most unglamorous. Her appearance when Carey walks in on her late in the film to find her dead or nearly dead of an unnamed disease (though not much care is taken to hide the fact that it's an STD) is shocking. Of course, it helps that this movie squeaked out just before the Production Code went into effect; if it had been made a year later, you can bet things would have been a bit different.
Yes, much of the novel, and many of its most interesting parts, are left on the cutting room floor, and the story really does become about Carey and Mildred and not much else. I found that to be the least interesting and most tedious part of Maugham's novel, but it is the part that gives the novel its title and seems to be the part that readers are still drawn to now, so it strikes me as a wise decision on the part of the film makers that they chose to adapt the novel the way they did.
Grade: B+

Leonard Maltin compared this film to a Mel Brooks comedy. He was far too kind to Ms. Rivers, and far too cruel to Mr. Brooks. Not even the raunchiest Mel Brooks films are this tasteless, and at least they're genuinely funny. This picture deserves a place on the hundred-worst list.
For a film that's ostensibly about sex and leather, it doesn't have any right to be as oddly sweet as it is. The story of Bettie Page, a good Christian girl from the South who's momma wouldn't let her date until she married, who moved to New York and ended up becoming the most successful pin-up of her age, is driven by an outstanding performance from Gretchen Moll. Her Page can't quite reconcile the pictures that she takes (nobody's allowed to touch, it's all fun and respectful) with the pornography trials and supposed ill-effects that her images have on the world around her.
Page has been an inspiration to every burlesque artist since, not just because she had a figure to die for, but because she invested every picture with an innocent sense of fun that was uniquely sexy and simple at the same time. Rather like this film, in fact. Filmde in both black and white and glorious technicolour, it's a lovely way to spend a couple of hours.

Moron and girlfriend conduct some ritual to resurrect the dead, in attempt to prove that the dead can not be brought back to life. Not surprisingly, they do resurrect a dead soul who commences chopping them up with an axe, and the next day some college aged people are telling the story around a campfire. The guy with the axe turns up and starts hacking up the idiots telling the story. The group calls the cops, the cop sees blood splattered all over and thinks it's a mountain lion(!?) and soon after is axed by some deformed killer who may or may not be a ghost.
Moronic little splatter movie which was filmed in broad daylight but where several characters are carrying flashlights and talking as though it were the middle of the night, and wanting to send up a signal flare to attract attention. One guy has a gun in one hand and bullets in the other but doesn't bother to load it, then after he finally loads it, he has several opportunities to shoot the killer but doesn't bother to, because that would end the movie too early. Then he throws the gun away! Also detrimental is characters who show no emotion and don't look the least bit concerned after their friends are chopped up into pieces and lousy effects (the human heart looks like a piece of chicken meat, the car blown up at the end clearly was a model car) and awful dialogue and some really ugly female nudity doesn't help. And in the end it tries to get away with it's incoherence by saying that it was all the invention of the same college aged people telling campfire stories at the start of this movie.
Then the killer turns up for real in the last scene hacks them into pieces. Again.
Mediocre of it's kind, good only for some unintended laughs.
*1/2 out of ****
Great movie -I loved it. Great editing and use of the soundtrack. Captures the real feeling of Indian life, yet we can all relate. A well chose cast with some great characters. The movie develops all the characters so that you real care about them all and you feel like you know them. The use of the Indian music and drums in some of the soccer scenes is great and the direction really works as everyone comes off as real and natural. You just can't help but to root for Jess in this film! The acting was really good, even the tomboyish walk and body posture of both leading ladies is very convincing as a someone that played lots of soccer.

There has been a lot of love that has been put into Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr Fox", unfortunately all the love is for himself. Granted, there has been a lot of time and effort been put into making this ever so self-consciously quirky universe but if only the same time and effort had been put into the script to try and make it funny. The worrying thing is that I think it was, and this is the best that Wes Anderson could come up with.
The animation is good in the close-up shots of the animals, however when the camera is further away everything becomes really harsh on the eyes and to be perfectly honest looks like a bit of a mess. There wasn't really anything special about the acting either, with Wes opting to choose his buddies and big names over more specialised voice actors that could have probably made the film better. I'm pretty sure George Clooney's voice acting resume consists of two cameo appearances in South Park, one of them where he played a dog.
The film is too smug and trying way too hard to be clever and different and is typically, despite the film being set in England, all the good animals are typical Americans playing baseball, whilst the bad guys are stereotypical English with the most insulting English accents. I cannot stress how much of a waste of time this film is. I didn't laugh once.
The synopsis for this movie does a great job at explaining what to expect. It's a very good thriller. Well shot. Tough to believe it was Bill Paxton's directorial debut, though some shots do look EXACTLY like a storyboard version.
Still, there are a few shots that really look good and show some real imagination on the part of Paxton.
It's a solid story with some great twists at the end, several of them, all believable, all fun, and best of all, obscured well enough to make them true twists.
The child actors in the movie do a great, too. I'm usually wary of movies with kids in starring roles because all too often they come off as Nickelodeon rejects, but both these kids do a good job.
This movie is not gory. It's not very scary. But it IS very, very creepy.

I enjoy watching western films but this movie takes the biscuit. The script and dialogue is laughable. The acting was awful, where did they get them from? Music was OK i have to say. Luckily i didn't buy or rent the movie but its now disposed of.
I was geared up at the beginning when the stranger (martin sheen) started to tell his story. I have to admit i did enjoy the confrontation between Hopalong and Tex where Hopalong shot Tex's finger off and told him to practise for 40 years to reach his league. But thats where it all went pear shaped thereafter. I had to watch the whole film in the hope that it would get better, never did.
This was a delightful presentation. Hemo (blood) as a Greek god was so well played by the animation with vanity, arrogance, snobbish superiority and innocent wonder. The quote (or scene) I recall vividly is when Hemo tires of "all this plumbing ... you haven't learned my secrets at all" and threatens to storm out, the Scientist answers him in a single word "Thalassa" -- salt water which horrifies the Fiction Writer but mollifies Hemo and segues so neatly into the chemical aspects of blood.
Such a splendid blend of entertainment and information make this a classic as fresh and engrossing today as the day it was released. Stimulating the interest and imagination is fundamental to teaching kids to love learning.

This is blatantly a futuristic adaptation of Jules Verne's "Mysterious Island". The sound editing is pretty bad. You hear the dialogue on set and you hear the voices being recorded on a recording booth at the same time! This is an amateur film with actors from Boston and shot around New Hampshire. For those living in New Engalnd and who is reading this comment will be wowed with a capital W. This film is full of flaws. You get to hear the director's voice giving directions and giving out directions to the actress. "OK now stand up." As for the other characters. There is this guy who talks with his mind instead of his voice and this blue alien. The alien guy talks with a deep voice. When he is yawning or grunting when he is fighting you hear the actor's voice. As for the special effects, man! This was Brett Piper's early work for crying out loud! The creatures are good but the animation is jerky. Really jerky. Sort of like Karl Zeman animation in JOURNEY TO BEGINNING OF TIME (1955). The special effects are imaginative. Thge music is good. Bottom line, this film makes EQUINOX or PLANET OF THE DINOSAURS look like a Ray Harryhausen epic. Did you know MYSTERIOUS PLANET was a home movie and was on a shoes string budget? A must watch for aspiring film makers.
I've always enjoyed films that depict life as it is. Life sometimes has boring patches, no real plot, and not necessarily a happy ending. "A River Runs Through It" is the perfect name for this film (and Norman Maclean's novel). Life ebbs and flows like a river, and it has it's rough spots, but it is a wonderful trip.
Robert Redford brings a lot to the film. His narration has a friendly feel that fits the picture perfectly. As a director, he is restrained and calm, and captures some incredibly beautiful scenes. As for the acting, Craig Sheffer and Brad Pitt work surprising well as brothers. I don't know quite how to describe Tom Skerritt and Brenda Blethyn's performances, except that they truly feel real. "A River Runs Through It" is a wonderful film.
8.6 out of 10

Surviving Christmas (2004) Ben Affleck, James Gandolfini, Christina Applegate, Catherine O' Hara, Josh Zuckerman, Bill Macy, Jennifer Morrison, Udo Kier, D: Mike Mitchell. Dumped by his girlfriend, a hotshot yuppie doesn't want to be left alone on Christmas so he decides to return to his boyhood home, imposing on the dysfunctional family that now lives there and bribes them to pose as his family. An obnoxious and one-dimensional performance by Affleck, who mainly acts with a flashy smile, makes his character come off as a mentally unbalanced creep, but Gandolfini and O' Hara breathe some life into this mess. Even for farce, its silliness is lumbering, not much makes sense from scene to scene, and its sentimental messages are as phony as Affleck's grin. 91 min., rated PG-13. * ½
The performance of every actor and actress (in the film) are excellently NATURAL which is what movie acting should be; and the directing skill is so brilliantly handled on every details that I am never tired of seeing it over and over again. However, I am rather surprised to see that this film is not included in some of the actors' and director, Attenborough's credits that puzzles me: aren't they proud of making a claim that they have made such excellent, long lasting film for the audience? I am hoping I would get some answers to my puzzles from some one (possibly one of the "knowledgeable" personnel (insider) of the film.

Cut tries to be like most post-Scream slashers tried to be, a spoof of the horror genre that tried to be clever by referencing other famous horror movies. Now, I am not bagging 'Scream,' as I think 'Scream' is a very good horror movie that does a great job of blending horror and comedy. Cut fails on most levels. It has its moments but overall it just does not work out, not even as a "so bad it's good" movie, just a below average one.
The first five minutes or so are OK and set the story fairly well, apart from the fact that Kylie Minogue can't really act, and ironically she gets her tongue out, go figure. Go forward some time and a group of film students want to finish her film off, which is apparently cursed. And, as you have probably predicted, one by one the cast and crew are slowly picked off by a masked madman.
Unoriginal plot, poor acting and a predictable ending are a few of the elements that follow. There is plenty of referencing in the film, everything from 'Scream' to 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.' This isn't smart either, it feels as though the director wanted to feel smart and cool by mentioning other famous horror flicks ala Scream. For a slasher there is minimal gore and no nudity, which is a huge negative when it comes to a slasher that has not got a whole lot going for it. Really, I should be supporting this movie because I'm Australian and we're not as good when it comes to horror (we do have our gems, though) but Cut is definitely not one of them.
However, it did keep me watching for the 90 minutes or so, so that is something good at least. I would not recommend this to anyone apart from hardcore slasher fans, who may be able to appreciate what this film is trying to aim for, but if you are looking for a good movie, stay away.
2/5
I absolutely loved this film! I was hesitant to watch it at first because I thought it would be too painful. I remember how hard it was when John was shot. However, watching the "Two of Us" took me back to a happier time when he was still alive and there was hope and possibility. I think that the writer did an amazing job depicting what "might have been." Aidan Quinn was adorable as Paul and met the challenge head on. I was impressed with his accent and mannerisms. Jared Harris is also very talented and was quite believable as John. My favorite parts were the scene in the park and the rooftop scene - which was so poignant. The film left me with both sadness and satisfaction, both of which I feel are appropriate, given the circumstances.

This collection really sucks!
I rented it, thinking I´d really would enjoy some good fighting. Man this sucked! Quick flashy cuts, an extremely annoying speaker, and the fights them selves were heavily edited and shortened (I´m thinking especially of Jet Li´s fight in Fists of legend and Jackie Chan´s fight from drunken master 2).
And what´s the deal with those brawling streetfighters?! What´s so "cool" about that? I´ve seen more interesting fights on Martial Law!
This a stupid collection of cuts for stupid people.
Do not ever buy this film! Do not encourage the people who made this crap to make more of this crap!
Instead, go buy the movies the fights were from and wath the fights in their uncut glory!
Radio was not a 24 hour 7days a week happening when I grew up in the 1930s England, so Children's Hour was a treat for me when we had batteries and an accumulator to spare for the power. The few programmes I heard therefore made a great impression on my young mind, and the 3 that I recall still are "Toytown", one about all the animals at the Zoo, and --- Grey Owl, talking about the animals he knew, which he called his "brothers". It was only in recently that I learnt that Grey Owl wasn't a genuine "Indian", but the tribute paid by the Sioux Chief makes great sense to me "A man becomes what he dreams". Would that we could all dream as world changing and beneficial as Archie Grey Owl Belaney. Would that a new Grey Owl could influence world leaders to clean up the environment.

Okay, I remember watching the first one, and boy did it suck. After watching it, I just laughed it off and told myself, "oh boy, just another low budget B-movie. I'll never see a part 2 to this one." Then, about 1 1/2 years later, there came part two. It sucked even more. But, I just laughed it off again and said, "there's no way I'm ever gonna see a part 3 to this one." Then, about 1/2 a year later, part 3 came out. I was stupid enough to rent it and boy, I just snapped after watching it. God, I never actually realized how much movies can suck these days. Just save yourself $7.50 and don't rent the whole series. Trust me, it's worth every penny.
At first,this movie seems so bad that i almost fell in a trance the first time i saw it.It was like a bad dream.A cosmic bore.But i gave it a second chance,then another and another,etc...I finally got addicted to this film,due to it's dreamlike slow pace,wonderful natural sets,bathed in a mellow autumn light and especially the musical score,which is made of some 70's progressive rock and absolute exquisite folk songs by actor/singer/songwriter Derek Lamb(the Troubadour).You should notice the song about hazel wood,silver trout and lady vanishing in the air...,heard in the middle and near the end of the film.There are some carnal scenes in the beginning ,wich allow us to appreciate the natural charms of Elizabeth Suzuki.If that movie had been made by some "repertoire" directors like Bergman,Lars Von Triers or Jean-Luc Goddard,critics would have rolled on the floor,raving about that movie as if it were a cosmic masterpiece.I personally think this film is one million times superior to any of Fellini's cinematic sh#¤@t!Definitely not for the pretentious.

This film really got off to a great start. It had the potential to turn into a really heartrending, romantic love story with cinematography that recorded the love between "Harlan" and Tobe in long, poetic and idyllic scenes. It really didn't need to be anything more than that, and for a moment there I became excited that someone was finally making a beautiful film for its own sake, another timeless classic, a modern myth perhaps. Why, oh why, then mess it up halfway through by making the lead character (Norton)another psycho? Maybe I'm missing the point, but do we really need another film about psychos? Or is this need in Hollywood to portray the sick side of human nature indicative of a more general malaise in the movie industry? For a moment there, I was going to make a mental note of the director's name; now I'm left feeling indifferent. At least it should be added in the film's defense that all the actors seemed to invest in their roles. Also, Evan Rachel Wood is really lovely to look at and a good actress with lots of potential.