Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Citizen X tells the real life drama of the search for a serial killer dubbed "The Rostov Ripper" This great film shows the long journey it took to try to apprehend a killer. The film shows how politics may haver helped the killer to continue his rampage for over 12 years. (Possibly over 50 victims, mostly women and children) The performances of Stephen Rea as the lead detective and Donald Sutherland as the overall investigation lead was superb. Jeffrey DeMunn as the Ripper Andrei Romanovich Chikatilo. This is the type of film which will mesmerize you and immediately have you on the internet researching the real case. This a film not to be missed. It debuted I believe on HBO and never did get a theatrical release to my understanding. Great film

Sunshine is a European import set in Hungary between 1880 and 1980, it's the epic story of Hungarian Jews, the Sonnenschein family. This name literally translates to Sunshine. The family has humble beginnings, then is prosperous, becomes upwardly mobile, changes it's name, and hopes to assimilate into Hungarian society so successive generations can advance professionally. The story is told through the eyes of the eldest son in each of three generations; Ralph Fiennes plays these three roles. For those who missed the WW-II and the Holocaust in Europe, the Sonnenschein' approach to life doesn't work out very well.
Sunshine is being acclaimed as an artistic success, but it is an opportunity missed. The story line, dominated by world history, is predictable and transparent; this is reinforced with voice cover narration and newsreel footage. The family 'plot' lurches from one predictable event [ie. the Hapsburgs, WW-I, WW-II, Fascism, Communism, etc.] to the next with little continuity, depth or detail. The Jewish assimilation theme is unfocused, and important sub-themes [the 'secret' diary and family philosophy] that could have given the family character and credibility are l ost until the very end. Alternatively, the filmmakers provide generation continuity using common themes of incest / infidelity.
Ralph Fiennes exhibits flashes of brilliance but his performance is far from award winning material. The "3 for 1" casting format is a viewer distraction and feels more like a cheap cinema gimmick than good theater. Sunshine is basically Hungarian "History Channel" material. It has the look and feel of Winds of War morphed with Forrest Gump morphed with Something About Sex.
Two great comedians in a great Neil Simon movie based on his hit play.
Great combination, especially when the comedians in question are Matthau and Burns. Small wonder why Burns won an Oscar for this; he's as sharp and as funny as ever. And Matthau is every bit his match, if a tad more crotchety.
This is familiar Simon territory: two old vaudeville partners reunite for a TV special but still can't stand one another after all these years.
It's a delight to watch these two pick at each other, their scenes together make this film an absolute delight. Myself, I especially enjoyed the "knock, knock, knock / ENTER!" scene. And if you're a fan of either Burns or Matthau, you'll enjoy it, too.
In fact, you'll enjoy the whole movie.
Ten stars. Put a little "Sunshine" in your life.

My guess is that this director/writer had something to say. Let's see, what it could have been... a. Frog storms would be creepy? b. can I get someone like Tom Cruise to say the "C" word many times and look like a bad Patrick Rafter? c. Cast my wife and get her to say the "F" word every 2 seconds. This aside I really liked the beginning and the frog storm. The rest was a relentless, over-long (under-edited), over-indulgent failure. Glad so many of you enjoyed it!
Having enjoyed Joyce's complex novel so keenly I was prepared to be disappointed by Joseph Strick's and Fred Haines's screenplay, given the fabulous complexity of the original text. However, the film turned out to be very well done and a fine translation of the tone, naturalism, and levity of the book.
It certainly helps to have read the original text before viewing the film. I imagine the latter would seem disjointed, with very odd episodes apparently randomly stitched together, without a prior reading of the text to help grasp the plot.
It's amazing to see how "filthy" the film is, given that it was shot in Dublin in 1967. The Irish film censors only, finally, unbanned it for viewing by general audiences in Ireland as late as 2000 (it was shown to restricted audiences in a private cinema club, the Irish Film Theatre, in the late 1970s). Joyce's eroticism is not simply naturalistic and raunchy, it offers many wildly "perverse" episodes. Never mind that so many of these fetishes were unacceptable when the book was published in 1922 - they were still utterly taboo when the film was made in 1967.
It is astonishing and heartening to watch the cream of the Irish acting profession of the 1960s, respected players all, daring to utter and enact Joyce's hugely transgressive text with such gusto.
Bravo!

I have always wanted to see this because I love cheesy horror movies and with a title like this, I was sure "The Incredible Melting Man" would be a lot of fun.
It really wasn't. I mean, the acting was entertainingly bad, the script contained some classic bad lines and the special effects looked like someone had sneezed all over the lead actor, so I should have loved it. Unfortunately it's really draggy between these highlights. I decided to watch the last half of the movie while doing my tax return. That's how boring this film is.
Nevertheless, if you love bad movies you will enjoy the dramatic exit of the Fat Nurse, and the stellar acting of the guy who plays Dr. Ted. To be fair to the poor man, he does have to deliver some amazingly inept lines with straight face - like the conversation he has with his wife on tracking down the I M Man:
"I'll find him with a geiger counter." "Is he radioactive?" "Just a little bit."
Yes, the plot has Dr. Ted wandering about trying to find a superstrong zombie killing machine armed only with what looks like a mini-Dyson. He's a brave man. Unfortunately his plan fails when he finds a big lot of goop on a tree. "Oh god - it's his ear!" says Dr. Ted to the audience. I'm so glad he cleared that up.
I realise I'm making this movie sound rather fun. It would be if it were only 10 minutes long, but unfortunately it goes on and on, and the Incredible Melting Dude just dangles about making a sticky mess when he should be eating more people in my opinion. I think if you were truly stoned you would probably love it, just don't have pop-tarts during the movie, because the lead actor really does resemble one near the end.
The legendary Boris Karloff ended his illustrious career by making four cheapie fright flick clunkers in Mexico. This is the token moody period Gothic horror entry from the bunch. Karloff gives a typically spry and dignified performance as Matthias Morteval, an elderly eccentric patriarch who invites several of his petty, greedy and backbiting no-count relatives to his creepy rundown castle for the reading of a will. Pretty soon the hateful guests are getting bumped off by lethal life-sized toy people who populate the place. Onetime Mexican sex symbol Andres Garcia of "Tintorera" infamy portrays the dashing police officer hero and Julissa looks absolutely ravishing as the sole likable female character. The clunky, plodding (non)direction, trite by-the-numbers script, ugly, washed-out cinematography, ridiculous murder set pieces (a gross fat slob gets blasted right in the face by a miniature cannon!), overwrought string score, morbid gloom-doom atmosphere, largely lousy acting (Karloff notably excepted), cheesy mild gore, poor dubbing and rousing fiery conclusion all lend this enjoyably awful lemon a certain endearingly cruddy and hence oddly amusing ratty charm. A real campy hoot.

I gave Timecop a perfect 10, I gave this 1
It's story is very boring, and it has only little to do with the original Timecop. Lots of things from Timecop was scrapped, and they put in new stupid stuff instead. This story is taking place in 2060 (if I remember correctly), but for some reason the timetraveling is now more dangerous :confused:
And the action scenes are nothing to be happy about, well most of them aren't... only the first one is great... and there aren't many action scenes at all, and they're all pretty short
At one point in the story, the main character travels through time about 5 times within a few minutes... no wait, make that two times...
In short: Don't waste time watching this movie, it's not worth it
ROAD TO PERDITION can be summed up by Thomas Newman's score . It's haunting and beautiful but you're aware that this music is similar to Newman's other work and while listening to the soundtrack you're reminded of SCENT OF A WOMAN , MEETING JOE BLACK and THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION you're reminded of other films as the story unfolds on screen . As the Sullivans drive round America trying to escape from a psychotic hit man you think of THE GETAWAY , Irish gangsters is MILLER'S CROSSING whilst the subtext of guilt and redemption can be summed up by Coppola and Leone's gangster epics. Despite having a seen it all before feel this shouldn't be taken as a heavy criticism of Sam Mendes film which I repeat is haunting and beautiful and the only flaws that work against it is a very slow opening twenty minutes and I was slightly confused as the events that caused Michael Sullivan to be betrayed . But if you stop to consider how much of a sentimental mess Spielberg might have made with the story that revolves around a father and his twelve year old son running for their lives you can't help thinking what a superb director Mendes is
ROAD TO PERDITION is a film where the entire cast give flawless performances . I've never been all that keen on Tom Hanks but he's every bit as good here as he has been in any starring role , probably better . Paul Newman plays a character with an Irish accent but at no point did I believe I was watching an American screen legend putting on a false accent - Newman's performance works due to the subtle body language , his character is torn up by guilt but Newman never milks it or goes over the top . While never upstaging Newman who gives the best performance in the movie the two Brit supporting actors Craig and Law are also very memorable as American gangsters and while Law will still have a long career as a leading actor one wonders how Daniel Craig might have progressed as a character actor if he hadn't decided to become James Bond , a role which heralds the end of an actors career

It seems evident from this adaptation that he did not. Not only did he leave the plot behind, he made up his own! The things that he chose to leave in were so ridiculously unbelievable that I was happy he chose to leave out some of the most important parts of the novel. The plot was hazy, inconsistent and choppy to say the least. I don't want to say anything mean-spirited about the actors, but they can't act! Dickens is difficult, of course, but this is pathetic! Micawber was nothing more than a mid-nineteenth century Kramer, and the less said about Betsy Trotwood the better! If you want to see the real Copperfield, watch the wonderful 1999 BBC adaptation. As for the screenplay writer,I think he read the Cliff's Notes!
Since Educating Rita, Julie Walters has been one of my role models, and her performance in this as a woman who helps the man she loves get in synch with his feminine side is magnificent. I would never have believed her character in the hands of a lesser actress, but Walters pulls it off with gusto and panache. Adrian Pasdar gives his best performance to-date in the male lead.

It saddens me to rate a movie with a lot of my favorite actors, locations and genres, i.e. Douglas, Sutherland, Washington, D.C. and political thriller, but 'The Sentinel' really hits a low. It's like they had a great idea up front, signed the right cast and had some great city shots and then took a holiday letting the remaining crew improvise the rest. And I wish I could blame it on yet another bland performance from Basinger (not only do I feel she's one of the worst actors in Hollywood, but I'm still steaming more than a decade later that she was the only one, and definitely the only bad actor in the film, to win an acting Oscar for 'L.A. Confidential.') But she wasn't the only problem. Sutherland, who I love as Jack Bauer on '24' once again playsJack. I miss his old 'A Time to Kill' or 'A Few Good Men' days. Douglas certainly took a hiatus from acting and phoned this one in. Plot: Someone, some Secret Service traitor, wants the President dead and Douglas is (haphazardly) being framed. Will someone believe him? Actually, no spoiler here: as quickly as they came up with that subplot half-way through, it's over before you know it. And why did someone(s) want the President dead? Is that to be revealed in the sequel? Too many plot holes, too many doors opened and never closed and too predictable 'The Sentinel' is. If you only see one movie a year, you may not know who the mole is, but anyone who's familiar with these types of movies or even just seen one 'Law & Order' episode you'll know in the first few frames. Was it terrible? Not really, the cinematography was good, and despite Sutherland playing Jack again, he's still got it.
This was different, that's for sure. Just look at the cast! Talk about oddballs.
William H. Macy and Ben Stiller were the stars, although a bunch of actors almost share the spotlight, in this farce about superhero-wannabees. The most outrageous was played by Paul Reubens of "Pee Wee Herman" fame.
There is lots of humor, garish colors and no lulls. It's a pretty entertaining, lightweight comedy with nothing but goofy characters, all of whom want to be heroes a la Superman, Batman, Spiderman, you name. They have talents in strange areas, however, that the real heroes don't (and don't want to!). It's silly, but you know that going on.
It's also a film you can watch in installments and not really miss any continuity. It's a long movie for one so hectic, so taking a break here and there is okay. The language was tame so kids could enjoy this, too. In fact, I don't recall any swearing in here, except the guy in the theater next to me who kept uttering, "What a dumb, f---ing movie." I thought it was fun two hours but I'd rather watch it on DVD and take a few breaks.

This movie is not only a very bad movie, with awful actors --or presumed actors--, a bored direction and a story unattractive, it also copies exactly an scene from the excellent "giallio" "Torso", directed by Sergio Martino in 1973 (two years before), one of the most celebrated psycho-thrillers of Italian cinema and a cult-movie around the world. In "La Sanguinusa conduce la danza", the director replays the bed scene between the black girl and the white girl, with an peeping-tom watching from a window of the bedroom. Naturally, the scene in Rizzo's movie is ridiculous and inferior to the softness and charming in Martino's film. To put another black girl, another white girl and another peeping-tom replaying the scene is simply the most appropriate way of prove that Rizzo's movie has no ideas, no originality, no taste, and nothing at all. I think that such things are an offense to spectator.
"The Shooter" was a different type of film for Michael Dudikoff. Although normally associated with action flicks that incorporate martial arts, this film , because it was a western, enabled him to display that he is a far more capable actor than certain formula story lines have allowed.
The major problem, of course, is that the film does not allow any solid character development. The fleshing in is really left to the viewer . We can only guess at the sadness that has made the Shooter, whose real name is Michael Atherton, the killer that he is- a killer, mind you, that a little town, terrorized by a local bully, welcomes as a hero who can release it from its misery.

I really, really wanted to like Julian Po. I think that Slater is underrated as an actor, and that many of the supporting players here are better than they are given a chance to demonstrate in this film. I realize this is based on a short story which I have not read. So, I do not know if what I see as the film's faults originated with the story, or were imposed on it by the director/screenwriter. The premise is wonderful, and I loved the voiceover, confessional tone the opening narration strikes. But then...? Nothing! Several of the cliched local characters ask Julian pointblank to explain his intention to commit suicide. One could argue that he doesn't answer, because it's none of their business. But Julian is the one who, under only token pressure, blurted out his intentions in public. Then neither Julian nor the director/writer, despite the fact that the Julian character is keeping a tape recorded journal for God's sake, seem inclined to provide anything beyond the scant initial information on Julian's life. He says he was a bookkeeper. He says his family moved around when he was a child, due to his father's job. So what? There are several interactions with the locals which seem designed to illuminate Julian's purpose. But none of them go anywhere, because Julian seems to regard all these dopey locals as if they were aliens from another planet, as if he were the ultimate (and only) sane one among them. This might work as an allegory, if Julian Po had any defining characteristics or anything approaching wisdom to impart. The closest he comes to revealing anything about himself is in the scene in which he purposely humiliates the naive, religious wife of the mechanic. And what this scene reveals is not anything that would inspire empathy for Julian. I can only see the Julian character --as rendered--as selfish, petty, and totally condescending. Sort of matches the attitude of the director of this half-baked, contrived film. And poor Michael Parks, an actor who once had so much promise, is given nothing to work with here.
Gorgeous Techicolor production telling the unusual tale of the romance between a woman of strong religious faith and a Trappist monk who has left his monastery, breaking his vows. The film opens at a convent in Europe, where a former student prays - a lonely beauty in black named Domini (Marlene Dietrich). She is advised by the Mother Superior to go to the desert and "find herself", and lose her grief over her father who has recently died. In the train car on the way into the Sahara she sits opposite a very, very troubled man (Charles Boyer) - our former monk. She's soon at a hotel near a palm-treed oasis where she again sees our mysterious troubled man as he is stumped over what to do when confronted by a very seductive dancing girl. Domini becomes friends with him, though knows nothing of his past - romance soon to follow.
This film is sentimental, melodramatic, and different (in a way, almost surreal and even a bit campy) - I found it to be quite fun and entertaining. The photography in this is really interesting - it is full of extreme facial close-ups and beautiful color shots of caravans of horses crossing the desert, silhouetted figures against a sunset sky. Marlene Dietrich gives a nicely done, though restrained, performance here and looks gorgeous. Charles Boyer - not usually one of my favorites - is actually pretty good in this, I think the part sort of suits him and he looks quite young and handsome too. Basil Rathbone is fine here, except given very little to do. Another great orchestral score by Max Steiner helps keep the drama rolling - all in all, a very enjoyable film.

I caught this film on AZN on cable. It sounded like it would be a good film, a Japanese "Green Card". I can't say I've ever disliked an Asian film, quite the contrary. Some of the most incredible horror films of all time are Japanese and Korean, and I am a HUGE fan of John Woo's Hong Kong films. I an not adverse to a light hearted films, like Tampopo or Chung King Express (two of my favourites), so I thought I would like this. Well, I would rather slit my wrists and drink my own blood than watch this laborious, badly acted film ever again.
I think the director Steven Okazaki must have spiked the water with Quaalude, because no one in this film had a personality. And when any of the characters DID try to act, as opposed to mumbling a line or two, their performance came across as forced and incredibly fake. I honestly did not think that anyone had ever acted before...the ONLY person who sounded genuine was Brenda Aoki.. I find it amazing that this is promoted as a comedy, because I didn't laugh once. Even MORE surprising is that CBS morning news called this "a refreshing breath of comedy". It was neither refreshing, nor a breath of comedy. And the ending was very predictable, the previous reviewer must be an idiot to think such things.
AVOID this film unless you want to see a boring predictable plot line and wooden acting. I actually think that "Spike of Bensonhurst" is a better acted film than this...and I walked out half way through that film!
Two warring shop workers in a leather-goods store turn out to be secret sweethearts as they correspond under box-number aliases. Within this simple idea and an everyday setting, Lubitsch produces a rich tapestry of wit, drama, poignancy and irony that never lets up. Stewart and Sullavan are perfect as the average couple with real emotions and tensions, and the rest of the well-developed characters have their own sub-plots and in-jokes. Although wrongly eclipsed by Stewart's big films of 39/40 (Destry, Philadelphia Story, Mr Smith) this is easily on a par and we enjoy a whole range of acting subtlties unseen in the other films.

The first one was different and funny. This attempt should have never left the studio. This movie does not make you laugh. It is a weak attempt at gross out humor. The movie picks out current and old movies to rip-off. This time the jokes seem used and overdone. The audience that I saw it with only re-acted to Hannibal dinner scene and was otherwise asleep.
"Girlfight" is much more of a coming-of-age-story than it is a fight flick. And what a relief to have one in an urban school, with naturalistic, realistic Latinos and believable use of Brooklyn project settings.
It made me realize that virtually all Hollywood high school movies are set in luxurious suburbia or small towns. (Even the somewhat comparable "Love and Basketball" which focused on teen African-Americans was set in suburbia.) While these kids share some of the same peer problems, those issues shrink compared to the other struggles of these kids, where high school graduation could be the major accomplishment of their lives.
The feminist element here is riveting in its originality, as you hold your breath to see if she can have a relationship--and a victory-- on her terms. A lots of audience sympathy goes to the guy who is challenged to rise to a gender-bending-expectations situation.
The movie does drag a bit here and there, but this is no cheap thrills "Rocky" fight movie, as the practices and fights have complex outcomes, and all the relationships--especially with fathers and father-figures-- take more center stage than the center ring.
There were lots of interesting music credits listed at the end, but I hadn't really noticed the songs.
(originally written 10/7/2000)

That is quite an outdated movie which aims to showcase the youth's yearning for freedom in some dehumanizing British school. Oh yes it's like in the army, you learn to obey and do what you're asked to. Yes the young dream of something else but it breaks their dreams and sweeps away their optimism on the threshold of life. Great.
Basically that's how you could sum up the nice intentions in If... Nice intentions that arouses no cinematographic challenges: the result is a declamatory movie. Do you see how boring I mean?
At least that oldie helped Kubrick cast McDowell in A Clockwork Orange, a movie with a truly powerful social satire and no self-indulgent sentimentalism.