Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
What can be said, really... "The Tenant" is a first-class thriller wrought with equal amounts of suspense and full-blown paranoia. It's an intricately-plotted film--every detail seems included for a reason--even though the plot seldom makes sense, and much of it is never even addressed in an objective manner. Therefore we are left with the increasingly unstable Trelkovsky (Polanski)--a meek Polish man who has obtained an apartment due to the previous tenant's suicide--to guide us through a world of escalating fear and uncertainty. After an apartment-warming party thrown by a group of obnoxious coworkers, Trelkovsky comes under increased, seemingly inexplicable scrutiny by the fellow occupants in his building; the rest of the film chronicles his mental deterioration and gives us a thorough mindfu*k on par with the later efforts of David Lynch. "The Tenant," however, is more brooding and sinister, laced with unexpected comic relief, fine performances, and a truly haunting score. It's a movie that's better experienced than described, so hop to it.

Watching That Lady In Ermine I was wondering what Betty Grable was doing in a project that seemed to be aimed for Marlene Dietrich to do. Someone over at 20th Century Fox may have decided one sex symbol is as good as another. Darryl F. Zanuck should have known better.
Betty plays a 19th century Italian countess whose domain has been invaded by a troop of Hungarian Hussars captained by Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. Her ghostly ancestor whose portrait hangs in the palace hall along with the rest of her distinguished family tree, sees no small resemblance in Doug now and another invader some 300 years earlier whom she dealt with when armies failed.
Besides that the current Betty has just been married to Cesar Romero and the invasion has come at a most inopportune moment, before things have been consummated. That's going to give anyone a bad attitude, I guarantee.
Fresh, wholesome all American Betty is NOT the actress to do seductive and mysterious. Marlene Dietrich might have put this over, but with Betty it falls flatter than yesterday's presidential candidate. She and Fairbanks have no chemistry at all, though Doug is as charming as ever and someone I can watch in anything.
Frederick Hollander and Leo Robin wrote the score for this film and This Is The Moment got an Oscar nomination for Best Song. That Lady In Ermine's one chance for Oscar glory fell to Buttons And Bows.
Ernest Lubitsch died midway during the film and Otto Preminger finished That Lady In Ermine. I can't believe Lubitsch had Grable in mind for the lead here. Neither will you if you see That Lady In Ermine.
Maybe not the most original way of telling a story, we've seen all this before in many movies.. but.. I liked it October Sky alot anyways. It got something, Great directing and good acting by all parts, especially Laura Dern(the teacher) and Chris Cooper(the father). I wanna be a rocket-engineer!:)

Quentin Crisp once stated that when things are shown too beautifully, one is a romantic. When things are show unbearably grim, they are realistic. And when something gets the ironic treatment, they're spot on. Unfortunately for Leon de Aranoa, he falls into the second catagory. This director has obviously tried too hard to make a Spanish "Ken Loach" type movie, without being able to capture the comedy, and warmth between the characters, that elevate Loach movies from merely being 'depressing'. Los Lunes al Sol, is just that, only depressing. Things are unrealistically grim. The characters ultimate moments of misery all reach a climax at the same point, and if the glum story isn't enough, Aranoa washes the tale over with a visually grey and grimy colour palette. The films was ridiculously over-rated at the Goyas. A movie that shows empathy for the weaker citizens in society, in this case unemployed harbour workers, does not automatically make for a good movie, even though I would be the first to sympathize with the fates of these people. This movie only manages to make me grow disinterested in their fate. In 21st century Spain, unemployed people do not live like beggars, and the public transport ferries have decent restrooms, and it's hard to come across a bar with so few punters and such little happiness to be encountered in it. Leon de Aranoa obviously doesn't have a clue about working class Spain, and does it no favours. Pretentious is the only conclusion I can draw. The scene where the men watch a football match for free, has been directly copied from a film which deals much more 'realistically' with the subject of the 'poverty' trap, namely "Purely Belter," which is afar more engaging, humorous, and yet sad.
Just as the new BSG wasn't what fans of the original series were expecting, Caprica may not deliver what fans of the new BSG were expecting (for the most part). It is a very interesting, if not somewhat self-involved show, or at least the pilot is.
If you're looking for the big CGI thrills of the (new) BSG, you'll be sorely disappointed. If you liked the drama, you'll probably find something you like and maybe even identify with.
The storyline does examine on how the Cylons were developed, why Adama hates them and the origins of a monotheistic society. The writers also manage to tackle humans 'playing God(s)' and the creation or re-creation of 'human' life. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I found it to plod along in some parts and too preachy in others, but all in all it was promising. A small part of me wishes (or hopes) there might be some minor inklings of BSG in there (aside from the back story I mentioned), but that would probably convolute the storyline too much. Like BSG, I'll have to wait and see if Caprica grows on me, but it's way too early to tell.
It would really easy to chalk this up as a failure if you compare it to the previous series, but I'm willing to give it a chance. Overall, I thought it was interesting enough to make me see how the actual series is before 'throwing in the (proverbial) towel'.

This is the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen quite a few movies. It is passed off as an art film, but it is really a piece of trash. It's one redeeming quality is the beautiful tango dancing, but that cannot make up for Sally Potter's disgustingly obvious tribute to herself. The plot of this movie is nonexistent, and I guarantee you will start laughing by the end. Especially where she starts singing. It's absolutely unreal.
The first time I ever saw this movie was back in the 1980s as a wee lad. My dad actually recorded it off the TV. I must have watched is over 20 times, before the relatively recent release on DVD.
I of course bought and watched the DVD and was taken aback by how much the dialogue had changed. In the first version, which I still have on VHS, the mood of the film, thanks to the dialogue, was actually very dark. However the new version, featuring Van Der Beek et al, is more comic.
To put it another way, it's like watching the original US release of Akira with that dub, before watching the remastered version with the literal translation of the Japanese.
I'm in no way complaining, the story and quality of animation are not detracted from, but it does raise the question of whether Miyazaki intended for a lighter or darker narrative and theme in his film.....

I was curious to watch this movie. A lot of people seem to be excited. I also have my beliefs. I believe in Jesus Christ but I'm opened for any kind of views or opinions. It doesn't matter for me, if Jesus existed in the way it's written in the bible. If Maria was a virgin or not, or all the other similar pagan coincidences. What matters for me is the idea of salvation, the idea of love as the only way to find peace in this world.
What made me angry is when somebody takes a sentence, present it as a fact but without showing the context it was written. For example, they showed in this movie following sentence big: "Those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me" Jesus (Lukas 19:27) What they didn't tell you is the context. Jesus told a story about an evil king. There is no passage in the bible where Jesus supports killing. He is love! After quoting the bible wrong they present us yelling people (pseudo-christians) filled with hate. The majority of viewers don't check the informations presented so they start thinking Jesus=hate=not good for me or for anybody else. This is pure manipulation people. Please use your brain. Don't take everything as a fact they tell you in this movie. We destroy our own basis, our civilization if we start dismantling Jesus in this way and the message he brought to us. You saw off the branch you're sitting on.
On rare occasions a film comes along that has the power to expand the mind, warm the heart and touch the very soul. "LOU" is such a film. I got "LOU" from my wife who got it from a neighbor who is in the film business. She watched it for a second time with me. We were both enthralled. Her as if for the first time again.
"LOU" is a magical piece designed to send you back to the moment at which all of your dramas started taking place. It does this while being relentlessly entertaining. Bret Carr's acting and pacing as a director do not let you look away from the screen. He crafts a character which disarms with a bugs bunny like, stuttering innocence, but warmly carried with such underplayed sincerity that you forget you're watching a movie. When the epiphany hits during the brilliant climax, I saw my wife in tears for the second time.
As a life coach, I facilitate individual growth and transformation, and this film is a "must see" for life coaches and anyone seeking their own personal growth and transformation. It is a brilliant, creative masterpiece with the power to change lives!

I usually enjoy Loretta Young's early movies: her acting back then was light and breezy, and she sure knew how to wear clothes. But this one is just a loser from the word go except for a funny supporting turn by Glenda Farrell. Young is a hatcheck girl who talks her writer-husband (Paul Lukas) into becoming a championship bridge player. It's not the most cinematic of games, and the long, talky middle part in which their marriage falls apart just about kills the film.
There's one interesting bit though. As Lukas and Ferdinand Gottschalk start their climactic game, a series of quick shots show airplanes, trains, football games, even a diver in mid-air, freezing in anticipation of the event. It's the earliest use of a freeze frame I've seen in an American film. Wish the rest of it were that inventive-and funny.
I enjoy all the versions of this story but this one is my all time favorite. George C.Scott gives a depth to the Scrooge character that the others do not give. The movie shows more about why he becomes so bitter. The changes in Scrooge appear gradually as he encounters the different ghosts and the incidents that they show him.
This movie has the best Tiny Tim by far. He is the right age rather than being played by someone who is almost a teenager as in the other films. Anthony Walters still has all or most of his baby teeth.
David Warner is wonderful as Bob Cratchit. He is such a versatile actor. He portrays a man who clearly loves his family. He plays the role with dignity neither as a wimpy man cowering under Scrooges'thumb but as a man who gracefully puts up with it because he has a family to provide for. Susannah York and the other actors do a fine job of bringing the characters to life. Edward Woodward is the best Ghost of Christmas Present I've ever seen. Most often he is played as a jolly Santa type character. In this he shows anger at Scrooges attitudes and really makes Scrooge reconsider.
The costumes and the sets really bring the London of Dickens time to life. A wonderful movie.

I love killer Insects movies they are great fun to watch, I had to watch this movie as it was one of my Favourite horror books by Shaun Hutson.
I have met him and I wish I did listen to him as this movie was terrible like he Said it was,after he said that I was still dying to see how bad it was.
The plot: People are dying mysteriously and gruesomely, and nobody has a clue what the cause is.
Only health worker Mike Brady has a possible solution, but his theory of killer slugs is laughed at by the authorities.
Only when the body count begins to rise and a slug expert from England begins snooping around does it begin to look like Mike had the right idea after all.
This movie as the most overacting you ever see a movie! Slugs in this movie are fast (Then normal) and it looks like they fast forwarding the scenes!
This movie is nothing like the book at all, the book was ten times scarier, ten times gory and had a lot more story to it!
I didn't like this movie at all! As I am huge fan of Slugs the book and second book called Breeding ground! Both of books are Great
Read the book then watch the movie, you may like more then I did Give this 2 out 10
As the story in my family goes, my dad, Milton Raskin, played the piano for the Dorsey band. After Sinatra joined the band, my dad practiced with him for hours on end. Then, at a point in time, my dad told Sinatra that he was actually to good to be tied up with such a small group (band), and that he should venture off on his own. By that time Sinatra had enough credits 'under his belt' to do just that! Dorsey never forgave my dad, and the rest, as they say, is history.
I have some pictures and records to that effect, and so does Berkley University in California.
I have seen just about every Sinatra movie more times than I wish to say, and his movies never get old . . . Thank you Frank

I would have liked to write about the story, but there wasn't any. I would have liked to quote a couple of hard hitting dialogs from the movie but "hinglish" is only funny for like 5 minutes, after that its overkill. I would have liked to swoon over the 'keep-u-guessing suspense' but it was as predictable as... um mm, a Yash raj movie (?). I would have liked to talk of the edge-of-the-seat action, but I don't like cartoons much.
*sigh*
All in all, this movie is perfect for: 1. people attempting suicide - I promise it'll push you over the edge 2. Sado-masochists- this movie is way more effective than the barbed wire that Silas guy in the Da-Vinci code wore. 3. People researching alternative ways to spread terrorism - I swear the audience leaving the hall seemed to be in a mood to kill someone 4. Movie Piraters: More power to them. If any movies deserves to not have the audience spending money to watch - this is it. 5.Barnacles, most types of plankton & green algae - Because almost all other living things would require an IQ factor somewhat greater than what the movie offers. Afterthought: The director of the movie, obviously, is a species of his own. ( And i hope to god that he is the only one of his kind..one is enough)
Things that could have made this a better movie: 1. A story 2. A choreographer 3. A Screenplay writer 4. A stunt coordinator 5. A story (Did I already say that?) 6. A director - preferably one who is not mentally challenged (although even one who was challenged could have done a better job) 7. Anil Kapoor=Bubonic plague - Avoid at all costs 8. A statutory warning - "Watching Yash Raj movies is Injurious to your mental health" ?
Things I liked about the movie: 1. Kareena Kapoor - For obvious reasons 2. The English sub-titles - "Mera Dil Kho Gaya" becomes - "My heart is in a void" , "Chaliya Chaliya Chaliya" turns into "Im a flirt, Im a lover, Im a vagabond" ..priceless.
In short, Tashan to me, is like the opposite of a Rubrics cube - The cube is supposed to increase the IQ of the player, Tashan promises to lower your IQ, and that.. in a mere 2.5 hours! Woot!
*sigh*..But thats just me. I could be wrong You've been warned anyways.
I never saw this movie until I bought the tape last year. I was enthralled and entertained. It has all the elements of what I love to see in a Sci-Fi story, in a book or on the screen. There's social commentary, speculation, and a good story.
There's something eerie, and amusing, watching a 1936 view of the 'distant future' of the 60s and 70s.
I think it's a must see, and not only for Sci-Fiers.

The film is about Sir Christopher Strong (MP--member of Parliament--played by Colin Clive) and his affair with the Amelia Earhart-like character played by Katherine Hepburn. Up until they met, he had been a very devoted husband but when he met the odd but fascinating Hepburn, he "couldn't help himself" and they fell in love. You can tell, because they stare off into space a lot and talk ENDLESSLY about how painful their unrequited love is. Frankly, this is a terribly dated and practically impossible film to watch. Part of the problem is that in the Pre-Code days, films glamorizing adultery were very common. Plus, even if you accept this morally suspect subject, the utter sappiness of the dialog make it sound like a 19th century romance novel...and a really bad one at that. Sticky and with difficult to like characters (after all, Clive's wife is a nice lady and did no one any harm) make this one a big waste of time. About the only interesting aspect of this film is the costume Hepburn wears in an early scene where she is dressed in a moth costume! You've gotta see it to believe it--and she looks like one of the Bugaloos (an obscure, but fitting reference).
First I was caught totally off guard by the film's initial lyricism and then I became totally enchanted with the unfolding story and engrossed with the brilliant directing. The characters were all fully developed, not bigger-than-life but just like the people we live among anywhere we are in the world, in Sweden, in Turkey or in America, all completely believable human beings with foibles and nobility. Hollywood could learn so much from this beautiful film. It shows that there is no need to go into every little detail behind every action to bring out the whole theme clear and bright, and that shows the brilliance of the director! Hearfelt thanks to Kay Pollak and the wonderful cast for this superb treat!!

So I had heard from a few people that this film had brought them to tears in the theater. As I watched it for the first time I was expecting another romantic, tear-jerking Barbra Streisand film; Something like The Way We Were. I was certainly wrong. The chemistry between the two main characters, Esther Hoffman and her John Howard, was nonexistent, making it impossible to get attached to the characters. There wasn't anything romantic about it. Streisand's character fell for an alcoholic drug addict who couldn't sing a single note without making me want to hit the fast-forward button. At one point her character finds her husband in bed with another woman and she forgives him about five minutes later. There's nothing romantic about a deadbeat rock star and a woman who can't seem to realize it until he actually dies. Parts of the movie seemed to drag on and on, and I kept asking myself when it was going to end.
The death of John Howard was completely predictable. There was totally obvious foreshadowing of his reckless behavior early on in the movie, and when he died I felt no emotion whatsoever. It wasn't a tragic accident, it was him basically being an idiot. Not to mention throughout the movie I was distracted by his hideous beard.
The only parts of this movie worth seeing are the Streisand songs. The ending of the movie when she sings "With One More Look At You/Watch Closely Now" was my reason for giving this film a whopping 3/10. Those 7 minutes were the only part of the movie I actually felt an emotion other than irritation and anger.
I absolutely LOVED this film! I do not at all relate to all the other comments I have read about it. I was COMPLETELY enthralled through every second!
I found the story gripping, the acting intense, and the direction spot-on. I would literally jump every time the phone would ring close to the end of the movie. Even though there was nothing "scary" about the story itself, I was soundly on edge through the whole movie - and for the rest of my evening.
I found that there were so many perfect choices made...the casting, the script, the little bits of humor sprinkled in it. There were so many points where the film could've gone for the cheap thrill, but it never did, and that for me put this movie above so many of the mediocre thrillers that have come out lately...and for the last number of years.

Primal Species (1996, Dir. Jonathan Winfrey)
International terrorists get a surprise when their cargo turn out to contain living dinosaurs. The army commando team now have to think fast, if they want to prevent the extinction of the human species, instead of the reptiles.
You look at the cover and you gain your first impressions of the film. That is pretty much it. The acting is only just acceptable from a few characters. The story is poor, with the whole film based on the army and the marines trying to kill the dinosaurs. This film came out three years after 'Jurassic Park'. Instead, this film looks to have come out 13 years before 'Jurassic Park'. The dinosaurs costumes are so poorly made, and i do mean costumes. There are obviously people dressed up, and this film makes no attempts at hiding this. A scene when a dinosaur runs down a corridor is created in a way, in which it looks like someone is riding the creature. The is one good thing, which comes out of this film. The short running time. At only 1 hour and 15 minutes, it doesn't waste too much of your life, but still try to avoid it altogether.
"It's like a Friday the 13th Nightmare." - Officer (Brian Currie)
This movie is the best horror movie, bar-none.I love how Stanley just dumps the women into the lake.I have been a fan of Judd Nelson's work for many years, and he blew me away. Its a blend of horror, and drama ,and romance, not so much comedy. His evil, yet charming look captured me right then and there. That look in his eyes, I will never forget. There's something about him, I cant describe.

This was by far the worst low budget horror movie i have ever seen. I am an open minded guy and i always love a good horror movie. In fact, when I'm renting movies i specifically look for some good underrated horror movies. They are always good for a laugh, believe i know, i have seen many. But this movie was just so terrible it wasn't worth a chuckle. I was considering turning it off in the first five minutes... which i probably should have. There is nothing good about it, first and foremost, the camera crew suck3d A$$. The intro was stupid just like the ending. Acting and special effects were terrible. Please I'm begging you, do NOT watch this movie, you will absolutely hate it.