Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Laurence Olivier, Merle Oberon, Ralph Richardson, and Binnie Barnes star in "The Divorce of Lady X," a 1938 comedy based on a play. Olivier plays a young barrister, Everard Logan who allows Oberon to spend the night in his hotel room, when the London fog is too dense for guests at a costume ball to go home. The next day, a friend of his, Lord Mere (Richardson), announces that his wife (Barnes) spent the night with another man at the same hotel, and he wants to divorce her. Believing the woman to be Oberon, Olivier panics. Oberon, who is single and the granddaughter of a judge, pretends that she's the lady in question, Lady Mere, when she's really Leslie Steele.
We've seen this plot or variations thereof dozens of time. With this cast, it's delightful. I mean, Richardson and Olivier? Olivier and Oberon, that great team in Wuthering Heights? Pretty special. Olivier is devastatingly handsome and does a great job with the comedy as he portrays the uptight, nervous barrister. Oberon gives her role the right light touch. She looks extremely young here, fuller in the face, with Jean Harlow eyebrows and a very different hairdo for her. She wears some beautiful street clothes, though her first gown looks like a birthday cake, and in one gown she tries on, with that hair-do, she's ready to play Snow White. Binnie Barnes is delightful as the real Lady Mere.
The color in this is a mess, and as others have mentioned, it could really use a restoration. Definitely worth seeing.

Wonderful cast wasted on worthless script. Ten or so adults reunite at the summer camp they attended as juveniles. Could this ever happen in a million years? It's simply a fantasy, and a boring one at that. Do they become teenagers again? Do they reenact their pranks, games, good times? They may try but ultimately the answer is: No. Is there any intrigue? Any suspense? Horror? Comedy? None of the above. How anyone can be entertained by this drivel is beyond me. I wanted to like this movie; I tried to like this movie, but my brain refused.
Delirious, near plot-less mood piece and if it's more LSD inspired than the Devil then we must remember when it was made! After a startling SM opening (which even itself is not what it seems) we move to soft focus and dream or imaginings or remembering. Lots of literary and cinematic references and indeed this is the Franco film that Lang himself praised. Beautiful and mesmerising the film unfolds at a leisurely pace but has a richness within each fold. A rare movie to languish within. Old Jess could make 'em when he tried. Fine central performances too including the indomitable Jack Taylor and Howard Vernon. I haven't even mentioned the Lisbon locations - ah!

Be warned: Neither Zeta-Jones nor McGregor plays the main part as the poster would have you believe. Their roles are in fact minor.
The film stumbles badly between exaggerated comedy and realistic drama, with neither being really engaging. Especially I find it impossible to muster much sympathy for the main protagonist, not to mention his screwball friends and sex obsessed fiancé. The plot drags terribly, and I turned this one off after about 2/3 - unusual for me, as I like to finish what I start. The good acting and beautiful setting takes it from 1 to 2 stars.
2/10
"October Sky" is a film that will steal your heart, fill your mind with vivid imagery, and lift your spirit. The tale of Homer Hickham and his dream of creating a rocket seem so simple at first, especially when the film is set in a mining town, where the future is as clear cut as the lumps of coal in the mine. But Homer cannot follow in his father's footsteps. With the encouragement of Miss Riley,(a friendly teacher), members of his father's staff, and his friends, Homer attempts to make his dream a reality.
Yet as in any true to life story, there are many stops along the way. Director Joe Johnston lowers us into the coal mines, where we witness the chilling plight of miners stooped beneath a ceiling of rock. With lit helmets and bent posture, they resembled alien insectoids more than humans in the darkness. The hacking coughs of the miners and the blackened faces were a constant reminder of the danger the miners faced in their work.
Contrasting the mine shaft's lugubrious load are the images of Homer and his friend's rocket launches. Underneath the blue bowl of sky, rockets are placed upon a pad and launched into the stratosphere...And nothing can match the scene when Homer sees Sputnik for the first time.
Yet what makes the film so endearing is the relationship between the characters. Homer's father is a classic hardened man...but he has a soft side as well. We see that he does love his son, despite their many arguments. The love and support of Miss Riley is evident as well. Best of all, the film is uncomfortable. It doesn't tie everything up in a nice bow. It tears at you, lifts you up. It keeps an air of reality, which is important in a film like this.
This film can be considered a complete work. At first, I was disappointed that the film did not continue with Homer's life. I didn't want it to end. Then I realized...that's what a good film does to a person. If it has done its job, you won't want it to end. And "October Sky" accomplishes just that.

Andie McDowell is beautiful as the 40-ish woman whose late start at a serious relationship leads her to a considerably younger man and a subsequenet falling-out with 2 long-time best girldfriends.
Seeing a gigolo/gold-digger in the sincere young man, the "girl-friends", dead-set on terminating this "silly relationship", go over and beyond the call of duty in "helping out" their friend (who obviously is blinded by this gigolo's tricky game".
A short succession of situations is absolutely ridiculous. Far fetched no longer covers it. Without these unbelievable scenes, there may have been hope for a sweet love story. Instead, all the viewer is left with is an involuntary shaking of head -- these things just don't happen! Without giving away cliff-hanger details, I warn the viewer of having high expectations for this film; most (like me) will be very disappointed. On a scale of 1 to 10, this one ranks a weak 4 with me. There is much better material out there. This one isn't worth your time.
I'd even say some shades of Hitchcock...this is clearly better than MMM, which is seen as a guilty pleasure by some if not most Woody fans. By the way, did you know that Annie Hall was first conceived as a murder mystery? Anyhow, Woody reclaims some relevance in film comedy with this one. The plot turns are nice and tight. I will say that in the first 20 minutes or so, some of the actors are a little too hasty at delivering their lines, but stick around. Scarlett Johansson proves well-cast in the Diane Keaton-type role, and at no time is there any uncomfortable moments between her and the much older Woody. No one could imagine a more perfect actor for the role of Peter Lyman than Jackman.

It seems like anybody can make a movie nowadays. It's like all you need is a camera, a group of people to be your cast and crew, a script, and a little money and walla you have a movie. Problem is that talent isn't always part of this equation and often times these kind of low budget films turn out to be duds. The video store shelves are filled with these so called films. These aren't even guilty pleasures, they're just a waste of celluloid that are better off forgotten. Troma Entertainment is known for making trash cinema, but most of their films are b movie gold. However, some of the films they've put out they had nothing to do with making and some, like 'Nightmare Weekend,' didn't deserve any form of release at all.
Pros: The cast members do the best they can with the lousy material. Some unintentional hilarity. Moves at a good pace (Should at 81 minutes).
Cons: Awful writing, which includes putrid dialogue and countless plot holes. Poorly lit, especially the night scenes and the ending, which you can't make out at all. Doesn't make a lick of sense. Badly scored. Cheap and very dated effects. Total lack of character development and you won't care about anybody. This is supposed to be a horror film, but it's lacking in that area and isn't the least bit scary. Nothing interesting or exciting happens. Loaded with unnecessary padding.
Final thoughts: I never expected this to be some forgotten gem, but I never imagined it would be this bad. I don't know if it's the worst film ever made, but it's a definite contender. Troma should have let this film rot instead of giving it a release. Don't make the same mistake I did and let your curiosity get the best of you.
My rating: 1/5
I have to admit, I wasn't expecting much going into this film viewing in my Japenese film class, but this film really blew me away. The director does a wonderful job following through with the title of his film, truly portraying a picture of madness. I think the fact that this film is silent adds to the resemblance of madness, helping the viewer experience the characters inner world rather than the world outside his mind. This film just added to my feelings about foreign silent films vs. American, in that the foreign films work much more to exercise your mind and make you think rather than going for the fluffy film always with the happy ending, exercising the imagination very little.

At the end of this episode Holmes asks Watson not to record the case for posterity.For a good reason! The super sleuth left his little grey cells(sorry Agatha)at home for this tale. There is no deductive reasoning,no acute analysis of signs at crime scenes. Holmes bumbles along fifty yards behind the plot. The dastardly CAM is finally dealt to by an old frail-in a manner that would have made Charles Bronson's heart swell with pride-six bullets in the breadbasket.In an ensuing chase a pursuer gets hold of one of Watson's shoes.Mercifully the writer didn't decide to tack on the story of Cinderella to lengthen the film.The murderess,Holmes and Watson,escape scot free. Oh well,it is a bit of a change of pace in late Victorian London.A bit of sixgun law:-)
It was in 1988, when I saw "The Ronnie and Nancy Show" for the first time (on Austrian television). At that time, I was already a very big fan of Spitting Image (since when it won the bronze rose of the Montreux Film Festival in 1986). Of course I recorded every show on tape and watched it again and again - especially "The Ronnie and Nancy Show". I remember that scene when Ronnie stood in front of a painting of Abraham Lincoln (thinking it was a mirror) and said to himself "I need a shave". Or most amusing of all, when he played ball with his dog - but vice-versa!
It's such a shame, that Spitting Image seems to fall into oblivion; it was one of the most fantastic and most intelligent made TV-shows ever. Compared to other satirical broadcasts it was definitely the best of all.
Well, almost 20 years have passed since then, and I wish I could see the show again. Is it possible to purchase it from someone... somewhere?

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.
There's so many things to fall for in Aro Tolbukhin. En la mente del asesino (Inside the killer's mind), that it's very hard to talk about it without giving any kind of warning. Let's just say that this movie is like an exercise in cinema but really, really great done. It´s made with super 8, black and white shots, 35 milimeters, color, interviews, flashbacks. Aro Tolbukhin it´s like a movie made a documental or viceversa, which most peculiar aspect relays on the doubt that leaves you wondering, did he really ever existed? The movie follows the later life of an hungarian sailor that arrived in Guatemala, worked in a religious mission and then killed some people. An act for which he got caught and death penalty sentenced. The movie starts because some french documentalists got interested in this character so they interview him prior to his death. Nowadays, some more people got involved and make a deeper research of the character. The one we are witness of -the movie.
For the main part in the history we are guided by a semi slow phase to go look inside Aro´s mind, mainly in order to decode why he did what he has done. Nevertheless, the important thing is that the filmmakers never gives us a sided point of view; they left the judging for all of us and even as we may understand his actions, we clearly never justify them. So, the first half is based upon recollecting information; later things turn into Aro's childhood, giving the movie such an incredible new force (even tough never got weak or boring).
I don't mean -and don't want- to spoil anything; so the only thing left to say is that if by any chance you get this movie near you, believe me, the trip to see it is more than worthy.

Daniella has some issues brewing under her attractive exterior. She starts to lose her mind when she finds out about a distant relative (who she resembles) that was burned for being a werewolf. She goes a bit feral when she beads horny men and slashes out their throats. She does eventually find a man that helps contain her inner beast but when others ruin their bliss she extracts her violent and furry revenge.
'Werewolf Woman' isn't a very goof film but it does pose as a good crowd film. A fun time could be had by harping the bad acting / dubbing / translation and the just plain cheesiness of the production. But on it's own it moves slowly but does have ample nudity to keep you awakebarely.
Very good drama about a young girl who attempts to unravel a series of horrible crimes. She enlists the aid of a police cadet, and they begin running down a series of clues which lead to a traveling carny worker with a long police record. An ending which is guaranteed to keep you on the edge of your seat.

Watching this I mainly noticed the ad placements. DHL, Aquawhite Strips, Rockstar and more. It's one product placement after another. It's quite obvious how this movie got its funding. Jessica Simpson's "acting" is laughable. Any Dick shouldn't ever get work because he plays the same lame character. The "story" is just a backdrop for this very long commercial. I can't believe this movie was even considered for theatrical release. The longer you watch this movie the more you're embarrassed for everyone involved. The only minor saving grace is Larry Miller and Rachael Lee Cook, who gets almost no screen time as Jessica's cousin. I'm embarrassed I watched the whole thing. I would recommend avoiding this one.
The story of a drifter, his sheep ranch boss, and the boss's daughter is not for all tastes, but it's still very intriguing. It takes place in the beautiful country of New Zealand, amongst the scenery we've come to know so well through other films from this region.
This movie was the first time I had ever seen the excellent Mary Regan, and I've been a fan of hers ever since. The cast also contains Bruno Lawrence, who is probably best remembered by American audiences from the film "Smash Palace". Terence Cooper takes a turn as the ranch owner who pays a little too much of the wrong sort of attention to his daughter (Regan).
Sharply acted, with unforgettably shattering performances from all of its leads. I first saw this movie in extremely edited form on late night television here in America, but believe you me, the unexpurgated version is not to be missed.

It seems that the intention of the film was to show the aggressive (maffia-like) character of Russians, or at least of those Russians able to travel outside their big country; that it is too easy to rob a bank in England; and that British police is so inefficient that it cannot find the person who robbed the bank even when these subjects are leaving the country by air. In addition, Nicole Kidman and the supposed Russian colleagues spoke a language not yet identified anywhere, probably spoken by Aliens in the Ural mountains, but far to be the Russian one. So Nicole, if you really want to talk Russian, kindly go to Moscow or St. Petersburg and keep yourself busy learning Russian language grammar and its pronunciation.
I caught this film at a test screening. Was very surprised to find a really sweet and fun story. Well acted. Natasha Henstridge is the next Julia Roberts. The male lead was awsome. Very funny film. Takes place in the best locations in New York. Made me want to go there. I just saw "You've got mail" I thought "It Had To Be You' was a much better story. Fresher.
It was clean and great for whole family. I think it will do well. Audience I saw it with loved it. A definite recommend!

My grandmother took me and my sister out to see this movie when it came out in theaters back in 1998, and so we happily bought the tickets, the popcorn and soda, and walked right in to the theater and sat down to watch the movie. When it was over, the audience didn't applauded strongly, I remember that I heard a few people say that they didn't like it at all, I didn't like it, I thought that it was rather stupid, and not worth seeing. Eddie Murphy was hysterical in this, but apart from him, the whole movie was bad, I rarely laughed at the parts in this, I also remembered that the other people in the theater almost hardly even laughed. And what I really thought was bad was making the animals talk, because talking animals only exist in cartoons, in live action movies, they are totally a mutt! I said that apart from Eddie Murphy's hysterical twist he brings in, this movie is not worth watching, it is rather stupid.
I have seen Eddie Murphy in several of movies and I thought that he was funny in those, I have just said that he was the only funny part of this movie, I also have not seen Eddie Murphy in the really "great" movie, The Adventures of Pluto Nash. This movie is not a movie that I would really recommend that you see, because apart from Eddie Murphy, you probably are not going to like this, especially because of a lot the the talking animals in it!
I'll give this movie a rating of 3 stars out of a possible 10 stars.
I was able to watch this movie in its entirety and was deeply moved by it. I wasn't sure if it was really a comedy or a drama - it had elements of both. Mary Tyler Moore and Valerie Harper both looked wonderful - our image of 60-year-old women has certainly changed since Aunt Bee! They are vibrant, beautiful, sexy! The only drawback in this movie was that there was absolutely no mention of other characters in either the "MTM" or "Rhoda" shows from the 1970's. I'd have thought that since it was set in New York City (where "Rhoda" had been set) that at least some mention would have been made of her sister Brenda or that Julie Kavner would have appeared, assuming of course she was still in the Big Apple.
It is my hope that ABC will make this a series and bring back for guest appearances all the old casts of these shows. By the way, what was wrong with CBS doing this reunion, or an eventual series? Wasn't that the network that carried the "MTM" and "Rhoda" shows?

The over-heated plot of "Bonjour tristesse" is taken from a juvenile first novel by Francoise Sagan, which became a best-seller, though God knows why. For teenagers wanting to get rid of a potential step-parent it may have a certain appeal. Don't be taken in by the fact that David Niven plays the playboy father and Deborah Kerr the step-mother-in- prospect. Unfortunately, too much rests on the frail shoulders of Jean Seberg. She's beautiful and easily fulfills the image of a spoiled teenager. The problem is that she can strike poses but she can't act. Anyone who saw her as Joan of Arc in Otto Preminger's St. Joan -- Seberg's first film -- knows she was incapable at 19 of carrying a film. This movie, also by Preminger, fulfills the "promise" of the first. It was her second movie; she was now 20. What was Preminger thinking? That Niven and Kerr could compensate for Seberg's lack of acting capacity? Not a chance? Seberg's character is at the center of the story and, pretty though she is, convincing though she may be physically as a 17 year old, she can't meet the emotional demands of the role. I don't know if she ever became a successful actress in her short life because she did not have an impact on my consciousness in her later pictures. But anyone who thinks this film is better than mediocre needs a taste check. In spite of Niven and Kerr, this remains a juvenile story executed in juvenile fashion by a beautiful young girl who badly needed acting lessons.
Great acting, great movie. If you are thinking of building see this movie first. The dollar amounts may have changed but everything else is the same. The humor is true to life and emotions are those that anyone who has built has felt.

In my opinion, this movie's title should be changed from "Only the Brave" to "All About Lane". I went to a screening of this film a few months ago and was quite disappointed with the outcome. Although, I appreciate that the director made a movie about the men of 442nd - a subject matter that long deserved addressing in the film industry - the acting in some parts of film was quite stale. The performances of Marc Dacascos, Tamlyn Tomita, and Jason Scott Lee were all great. However, the director should have NEVER put himself as the main character in the movie. Sorry Lane, you are just not a film actor. Stick to what you're good at - theater acting. Gina Hiraizumi's performance in this film was also horrible. She should never have been given a speaking role and her looks were unfit to play the part of a Miss Nisei queen. There were other young actresses in the film who were naturally beautiful and whose performances were wonderful... Why weren't they cast for that role? Another major problem with this film were its action sequences. The Japanese-American soldiers don't look like they were fighting German soldiers... let alone anyone. Granted this was a low budget feature, but since this was a war-based film, isn't it important to show some actually fighting? This film was a worthy attempt, but definitely not worth a major distribution.
For his first ever debut this film has some riveting and chilling moments. In the best horror film fashion the pit of your stomach tightens every moment during this film. The ending is superb. The makers of Blaire Witch obviously watched this film it's ending wasn't an end but a beginning of the end. A great movie and only a piece of Japan's great as far as scare factor a perfect score it makes you think and scared out of your mind.

What kind of a documentary about a musician fails to include a single track by the artist himself?! Unlike "Ray" or countless other films about music artists, half the fun in the theater (or on the couch) is reliving the great songs themselves. Here, all the tracks are covers put on by uninteresting characters, and these renditions fail to capture Cohen's slow, jazzy style. More often, the covers are badly sung folk versions. Yuck.
The interviews are as much or more with other musicians and figures rather than with Cohen himself. Only rarely does the film feature Cohen reading his own work (never singing)-- like letters, poems, etc. The movie really didn't capture much about the artist's life story, either, or about his development through the years. A huge disappointment for a big Cohen fan.