Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I've recently watched this movie, in a lazy Sunday afternoon, with some friend of mine and we have a lot of fun! This movie is a masterpiece of trash. Try to watch it with this purpose! It hadn't been expected, of course, but the performance provided by the actors (and Alberto Tomba is absolutely the best), the weak script and the low-cost budget had created an amazing mix of foolish things. Tomba was just retired from alpine ski racing, where he was a dominant technical skier in the late 1980s and 1990s. Tomba won three Olympic gold medals, two World Championships, and nine World Cup season titles. Seriously about the director: nobody knows why Damiano Damiani he has signed this movie. All the other Damiani's directions are considerable.

Bela Lugosi plays a doctor who will do anything to keep his wife looking young and beautiful. To this end, he drugs brides during their wedding ceremonies to make it look as if they are dead so he can steal their bodies. I'm not exactly sure what he does with the bodies. I don't remember it ever being fully explained. All I know is that he extracts something from them and injects it in his wife. (I'll just guess that it's spinal fluid. Spinal fluid was all the rage of mad scientists in the 40s.) You can pretty much guess the rest from here.
There are a couple (well, really more than a couple, but I'll only write about two) of problems that I have with this movie. One is the way Bela is used. Sure, he does a decent enough job in his own overacting sort of way (BTW, the rest of the cast is simply abysmal). But, to have him hiding in the back of a hearse or having him creep into the female reporter's bedroom to do nothing is just silly. Also, why have him beat and/or kill every henchman he has? Is it to make him look evil? Well, someone who is kidnapping comatose brides doesn't really need to be made to look more evil.
The second problem I have is the idea of drugging brides. Why brides? Wouldn't any female under the age of 20 do? Watching Bela go through these gyrations to get his victims, I was reminded of the idiotic Fisherman in I Still Know What You Did Last Summer. In each case, there would appear to be an easier way of reaching your objective than employing a seemingly impossible plan that depends way to much on circumstances out of your control. (BTW, an alternate title for this movie is The Case of the Missing Brides. I guess that partially explains the need for 'brides'.)
If the Australian Post Office ever needed a promotional film for recruitment then this is it.This is one of those movies who's heart is in the right place and you can watch again and again. Miranda's performance is touching as it shows an aspect of Australia unimagined by many Europeans, in that it can be cold, wet and bleak, just like anywhere else and just like anywhere else what is important is the people that surrounds you. The characters in the movie are warm and welcoming and make the prospect of a career move into a 'dead letter office' a thought to be considered. Miranda has gone on to do bigger movies, but I hope she always keeps a thought inside for this one?.

Slackers is just another teen movie that's not really worth watching. Dave (Devon Sawa), Sam (Jason Segel) and Jeff (Michael C. Maronna) are about to graduate from Holden University with Honors in lying, cheating and scheming. The three roommates have proudly scammed their way through the last four years of college and now, during final exams, these big-men-on-campus are about to be busted by the most unlikely dude in school. The plot is very stupid and there's no reason why to watch this unless your looking to shut off you brain for a little while. Slackers is just a predictable teen flick that really adds nothing new to the genre. The comedy in Slackers is either hit or miss but there's no real true funny or original moment in the movie. Its really just a collection of gags and some are actually pretty funny. Though for every joke that works there's at least eight more that don't. The screenplay is full of penis and breast jokes that some high school and college students may enjoy. Even if they do they probably won't remember this film after awhile as its not a very memorable comedy. Jason Schwartzman plays the freaky Ethan and after appearing in some good comedies he has stoop pretty low. Jaime King and Devon Sawa are the other main stars but they do a rather poor job in this film. This is directed by Dewey Nicks and this is his first film so you can't blame him too much. The funniest character was probably Laura Prepon though, she's not in the movie very much. The film is very short at only 86 minutes long however, that may be too long for some people who don't really like this type of humor. Slackers isn't the worst film of 2002 but certainly is below average. When compared to other films in the genre there's a lot better out there such as Not Another Teen Movie, American Pie and its sequels , Scary Movie 1 & 2 etc. So unless you have seen most of them and you're looking for something new then Slackers might fit that bill but its better if you just watch something else. Rating 4.3/10 a below average teen comedy that's worth skipping.
I first heard about this film about 20 years ago when I was a kid in grade school(!), it just so happened that I was thumbing through the encyclopedias in the classroom one day, and under the entry for movies (or cinema, I don't remember), were several stills for different movies from mainstream to experimental, and one of them shown on the page was a still for OffOn. It really intrigued me, since it stood out the most on the page (it was a still from the film of the scene with the eye with other elements superimposed over it).
About 18 or so years later, the public library here where I live had available for checkout the whole 4-DVD set of "Treasures of American Film Archives" released by the National Film Preservation Foundation. So when I was reading the notes on the DVD cases for the set, I was quite pleasantly surprised to see that OffOn was on one of the discs. After all these years, I could finally see the film! After viewing it, it slightly wasn't was I was expecting it to be (it tended to be a more organic-looking film, not that that's a bad thing, but I was expecting it to have a more electronic aesthetic), but it was still an impressive film, IMHO, considering the techniques Scott Bartlett used to make the film, including hand-tinting the film itself, and using video equipment for some of the film's scenes (filmed off of a video monitor), giving it a more distressed, lo-res look.
Don't get me wrong, the techniques used in this film were quite ground-breaking for 1972. That's why it's still one of my favorite short/experimental films, and a creative inspiration for me as well...

I have seen most, if not all of the Laurel & Hardy classic films. I have always enjoyed there comical stupidly, even after watching it over and over again. This new film attempts to bring back the classic with two new actors who resemble both Laurel & Hardy, however fails miserably for various reasons. One of which is how out of place their cloths are (still early 20th century) however are both portrayed in the 90's setting. Some of the former dialogue was brought back, however it also fails miserably to come close to the classic series. This film could very well be the worst film I have ever seen and should be pulled off the shelf and locked away forever. The real Laurel & Hardy are surly spinning in their graves at such a bad imitation.
Jane Austen's Emma is an extremely enjoyable story at the worst of times and this production of the story is the best I have ever seen. Kake Beckinsale's Emma is irreproachable. Gwyneth Paltrow, (with the help of a good screenplay and excellent cinematography) is able to bring out the comedy effectively, she fails to make Emma likeable. Paltrow is not aided by the fact that her hairstyles are simply 'wrong' for the part (and I believe the era) and she looks positively ill in the empire line dresses. Kate Beckinsale, on the other hand, manages the comedy effortlessly and is still able to show what Mr Knightly (the most romantic of Jane Austen's heroes) actually sees in her. Mark Strong is a splendid Mr Knightly with the right mix of handsome looks, an appropriate age, chivalry, compassion and gentlemanly behaviour. Emma and Mr Knightly are supported by a cast of good actors and the production as a whole is quite delightful.

MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS...BUT DOUBT IT CAN ACTUALLY BE SPOILT!!.
Five Across The Eyes can be summed up in one word....Amateurish. This film tries it's best to be different from most films by the 'Blair Witch' type of filming....it doesn't work....it just ends up looking and feeling like somebody had a cheap video camera, a van and decided to make a movie. The story has no explanation, the protagonist is given no real motivation (and looks like a lesbian wearing a power-suit compared to the five girls) and there is no violence to speak of...just the sounds of screaming and crunching. The whole film takes place inside a van which means decent scenery is out of the question. The five girls really do their best with what they've been given but on the whole come across as pretty terrible actresses...although with the material given it's hard to judge if they can actually aCt....they spend THE WHOLE movie screaming, squealing and whimpering....so much that half the time it's hard to make out what was said and the cameras are so bad it's actually hard to tell who said it. This video paints itself as a violent torture film but is in fact just five girls in a van screaming in terror...that literally sums up the whole movie.....we then get to the end after what seems like 5 hours of constant screaming and all five girls are still alive... with one minus a finger. The only thumbs up(get it...finger....LOL) is for the poor actresses who tried hard and probably lost their voices(and their pride) after making this terrible movie. Do not judge this by the poster....you'll be very let down.
This movie was released by Roger Corman, so you know that the filmmakers didn't have much money to work with.
Although, some viewers may miss the subtleties in this movie because of the very typical "obsessed killer" type marketing approach, there are unique differences about this movie.
AMANDA, as played by the obviously talented Justine Priestley, is a complex character. Some people like these movies precisely because the violence can seem random, but here the ramifications of past abuse (dealt with in a realistic but tasteful manner) are what shape the psychosis of AMANDA. Surprisingly, Amanda redeems herself at the end with an act of love, where most of these movies turn into the typical, all out fight to the death and the evil character dies just as evil in the end as to begin with.
Some rough edges in this picture, but I have to give it 7 out of 10 stars based on its thoughtfulness and yes, originality as compared to the usual -- especially on a budget.

Seeing as the world snooker championship final finished in a premature and disappointing manner with Ronnie O`Sullivan defeating Greame Dott by 18 frames to 8 BBC 2 found a gap in their schedule and so decided to broadcast A WALK ON THE MOON a movie I had absolutely no knowledge off
I missed a few seconds of the title credits so had no idea Viggo Mortensen starred in it and thought possibly it might be a cheap TVM , certainly the opening with the mawkish Pearl and Marty taking their kids to a Summer camp has that sort of made for TV feel though the brightly lit ( Too brightly lit ) cinematography seemed to suggest this was a cinematic film and it wasn`t until the appearence of Viggo Mortensen as hippy guy Walker that I realised this was a cinema release , after all someone of Mortensen`s stature wouldn`t star in a TVM , I mean that`s like a legend like Robert DeNiro appearing in a straight to video film . Wait a minute , didn`t Bob .... ?
Some people on this site have mentioned that Pearl and Marty are an unconvincing on-screen couple and I agree . I can understand why Pearl would be attracted to exciting hippy guy but have no idea why Walker would be attracted to plain house wife Pearl . The sixties was before my time but surely if you`ve got the choice between hippy chicks and bored house wives it`s not really a choice at all . Mind you a lot of people took LSD in those days so I guess that explains it
I feel the major problem of A WALK ON THE MOON comes down to the fact it`s a romantic drama at heart ( Just like you`d expect in a TVM ) with several cloying coming of age scenes so why include a fairly explicit sex scene ? It jars with the rest of the movie and is possibly off putting to the menopuasal women who were 20 something in 1969 . I say possibly because the movie also seems to aim at a teeenage market with the coming of age scenes and those teenagers will probably be bored with the historical and social context of man walking on the moon and Woodstock . In other words A WALK ON THE MOON tries to attract many types of audience but will probably appeal to none of them
I saw Insomniac's Nightmare not to long ago for the first time and I have to say, I really found it to be quite good. If you are a fan of Dominic Monaghan you will love it. The hole movie takes place inside his mind -or does it? The acting from everyone else is a little rushed and shaky and some of the scenes could be cut down but it works out in the end. The extras on the DVD are just as great as the film, if not greater for those Dom fans. It has tons of candid moments from the set, outtakes and a great interview with the director. Anyone who has gone through making an independent film will love to watch Tess (the director), Dom and everyone else on the very small close personal set try to bang out this little trippy creepy film. It was pretty enjoyable and I'm glad to have it in my collection.

Almost as tedious to watch as it was to read, Evening is a gorgeously produced failure...until Meryl Streep walks in and quietly shows her other cast members how to act this kind of stuff. Vanessa Redgrave is shockingly off in her role as the dying Ann and Claire Danes is a cipher. Perhaps if Vanessa and Claire had switched roles we could have seen the vibrancy in the young Ann that gave her entrée to the rarefied world of the story and we could have imagined that the older Ann actually was dying.
I was hoping the addition of Michael Cunningham to the writing credits would smooth out the jumpy storytelling but alas. It gave me a headache.
Based on the idea from Gackt, Moon Child took place in a poverty-stricken country called Mallepa. In a futuristic timeline, the story followed the lives of the two main characters, Kei (HYDE) and Sho (Gackt) and their friends growing up together.
Despite some actions might be overly done or perhaps humorous, I strongly believed that this is a movie about friendship. Even amongst all the hardships between each character, in the end, each of them wanted to have someone on their side, to have friends.
Unlike most vampire characters, Kei portrayed a vampire that loathed the idea of having to kill in order to live. A vampire found friendship in the hand of a young boy, Sho who's not afraid of Kei. Regardless of what some might've thought, I see Kei as a fatherly figure to Sho. Kei was there throughout the earlier life of Sho, he took care of him, and taught him to live in a world where power between gangs controls their lives. On the other hand, Sho who perhaps can be seen as an innocent enthusiastic style young man, he grew up to be a man who realised that life isn't all about fun and games, that death exists and able to take away his loved ones.
I love the part where Lee Hom, the actor who played Son, first appeared on the screen. The way they met up was quite cool indeed. Son also has a big part within this movie, the fact that he's from a different race, a Taiwanese, made quite an impact to the friendship theme within the movie. The way how friendships were developed despite background differences was portrayed excellently in this movie.
I believed that each actor did a great job considering that this was their first time to appear in such big screen movie. Both HYDE and Gackt managed to act quite well and created quite believable characters. Unlike movies that had musician turned actors and filled the movie with songs, they've done great acting jobs! Moon Child really made an impact for me, it has given friendships a new meaning and consideration, that we have to appreciate every friendship in our lifetimes. The movie shows a lot of hope, despite all the bad things that happen in their lives, that there's always hope. Life can be cruel, that it seems hope doesn't exist anymore. It also shows a very strong sense of friendships between each other, even when Son became the enemy, Sho did have some sort of "fun" at their last battle. Every single one of them desired peace in the end, no matter how far apart they've become. The ending scene showed it to us.

I've always thought that Cinderella II was the worst movie I've ever seen, (followed by Peter Pan 2, and some other sequels like The Lion King 2 and the Hunchback of Notre Dame 2). All these movies are made with the same idea; because the movie has no plot, they try to make up for that by filling it with jokes. I'm not saying the jokes are bad, but they make up most of the movie. The first time I saw the movie, I would have given it a 1/10. But now I think about it, most kids don't care how good the original movie was, they just care that the movie is entertaining. I still think the movie was a bad sequel, but that doesn't mean it's horrible. Now I think it deserves a 3/10.
Never viewed this film and consider it a great Classic with great veteran actors. In the period that this film was made, people in America were different, there was no TV or all the modern things we have today, except the Radio and the starting out of great films being made in Hollywood. Sweet innocent tales of young romance between a young girl or guy was viewed differently than it is today. Ann Shirley,"Murder My Sweet",'44 played a young orphan gal who was called Carrot Top because of her red hair and found herself being taken into a home of two elderly folks, who were like two wise owls and watched over Ann Shirley. It was a small town and everyone knew everyone and if anything happened, the entire town found out about it within minutes. It is a down to earth film with nice decent people trying to help each other in a very very simple way of living. Today, it seems very corn ball and stupid, but believe me, this was the way people were in America during the 1920'. & 30's and they were a great generation that loved good family films.

Having watched 10 minutes of this movie I was bewildered, having watched 30 minutes my toes were curling - I simply couldn't believe it: The movie is really awful. In fact it is so awful, that I had to watch all of it just to be convinced(!). During this, I came to realize that it reminded me of a bunch of Danish so-called comedies from the 60's and 70's. The pattern is as follows: Take one extremely popular comedian, make a script putting this comedian in as many grotesque situations as possible, add a bunch of jokes (especially one-liners), and spice it up with a couple of beautiful young girls - film that, and you have a success! I wouldn't know if this movie was a success, but unlike the Danish tradition which died quietly (with a few great comedians) it seems that there is a market for this kind of movie in the US.
Every movie critic and metal head hated this movie but I enjoyed it. I saw this as a child on TV somewhere and was amazed by the scene where Sammi comes on stage and plays Trick or Treat by Fastway.
The movie itself was typical 80's, guy gets pushed around by bullies and enlists supernatural help to beat up the bullies but goes to far and has to be destroyed.
Matt from Melrose Place picks on Skippy from Family Ties so Skippy gets a record of Tony Fields from Gene Simmons to comfort him and all hell breaks lose, the highlight being where Tony sings (lip-synchs) and dances to a metal song before the shyt hits the fan.
There were a lot of errors and stuff but the music and the overall imagery was enough to keep my fists pumping 8 out of 10

Spoilers
Well, the one line summary says it all. Melville´s "Le samurai" is the original and there are elements of "Leon". And they are better - much better!
In the "Samurai" Alain Delon is a lonely warrior / professional killer who keeps a bird in cage and is stealing cars for his jobs (with so much suspense in these scenes!). Even the end is exactly the same: the samurai seeks death in dignity and is getting shot with an empty gun in his hand. The world has changed he realizes and there is no place for the samurai in it.
Delon is not killing so many people like the Ghost dog. But I guess Jarmusch liked "Leon" very much or even "Desperado" by Rodriguez. So he added this, too. And let me guess: the girl will become a professional like Ghost dog (like Natalie Portman in "Leon")?
So what was Jarmusch thinking after all? Where is the unique, the original thought in this movie?
I can´t see the point in making carbon (celluloid) copies.
A 4/10 rating by Macaulay Connor
I am glad other people enjoyed this movie, cause I know it doesn't have the greatest reputation and it made no money at the box office. I thought it was terrific and there are several reasons why - Bogdanovich directs with the lightest of touches, the cast (especially Coleen Camp) is perfect and the Big Bad Apple never looked better on film. You've seen worse movies!

I'm a big fan of movies that make you think. I'm still thinking long and hard about this one, fully seven minutes after the credits have rolled. What's really confounding my neurons is the attempt to fathom the relevance to the plot of the naked girlie fondling her slick oily body, made extra-tacky by being filmed on cheap video. This happens three times and I was certain it would be explained in the end. I put my trust in the film-makers that this lurid attempt to lure viewers would be justified. It was not.
The movie has to be the most apathetic I've come across in the genre. The sets look like a cross between a 1970s Dr Who set and someone's ill-formed idea of a sponge-painted living room. The lighting is unimaginative (if your sets are going to be that bad, at least film them in semi-darkness to hide the plasterboard and create some ambiance). Of the abducted quartet, the girl stands out as being particularly lame, but none of them is given a personality. The aliens' plans for world domination are just plain silly - all they need is a birth control pill and their problems are solved. Most of the movie consists of people running down corridors. Yes, it really is that exciting. The "ray gun" special effect is ... curious, to say the least (what use is a weapon that takes a 15-second concentrated blast to kill, and even then the guy comes back for more?). The script is like a bad episode of The A-Team, and the ladies' hairstyles come from the same era, so they look like school teachers instead of an advance team of murderous alien invaders. When we finally get to see what the aliens really look like, they're in suspended animation and never even get out of their boxes. The resolution of the story - traitor alien simply has a few words with invading fleet commander and without a second thought he heads home - is truly the sign of a writer who's never had an idea more complex than a Saturday morning cartoon (I mean the bad ones with no plot, action, or characterization) in his or her life.
But seriously, what is with the naked chick?! Was it really just so they could justify putting flesh on the DVD cover to boost sales?