Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Some critics found this film bleak, but for me there was enough good humour and optimism to overcome this impression. For example, the quietly positive and stoic character of the daughter is the still centre of the film, often counterbalancing the unhappy aspects of the setting and plotline.
The film is full of original ideas and characters, and the final outcome is not predictable: I felt it could've gone either way.
By the way, many reviews I've read mention the effective use of black and white, but the print I saw, shown on the SBS TV network here in Australia, was in full colour.

It's not really about gymnastics; swap out the occasional training montages and it could just as easily be about archery, or microbiology, or a booger-flicking tournament. Instead, like every other Rocky/Flashdance derivative that flooded the 80s market, it's about conquering adversity with stick-to-it-iveness, rendering all social/personal realities irrelevant by your lonesome - with love interest standing by of course. Ronald Reagan top to bottom, in short; so as a piece of cinema it's down to the details. Some of the actors are quirky enough to liven things up - especially the love interest, brought to you by none other than Mr. Keanu Reeves, warming up for Ted; heroine Olivia D'Abo's hateful alkie dad and big-hair stepsister are more interesting than the sickly mom or her utterly inert bitch-nemeses/teammates, one of whom appears to be made of porcelain. It's my instinct to be appalled by the comic-relief black guys, but on the other hand at least they're in the movie. But D'Abo doesn't quite convince with her awkward-girl shtick, and in the absence of any other narrative focus the lack of interest in the gymnastics themselves really does matter; it's all just bodies hurtling around, and not only is the outcome of the big tournament a foregone conclusion, it's all performed by an obvious double.
Daniell Steel's Daddy, what a refreshing story. This movie glorified the importance of the family and the importance of parents in the lives of their children. How rare is that? In these times of "Heather has two Mommies" (or what ever, you fill in the blanks) it is easy to see why this theme is not for everyone. With the father's roles being prominent I was hoping this would be another Daniell Steel Saga. How disappointing to have it end. Every character was important and did a fabulous job carrying their role. I would have loved to see each character develop over the years. I loved this movie, it is one I will defiantly watch every time it's on. Good story, good acting, and I hope this isn't a spoiler, but no obtrusive sex or bad language. Yes it touched my heart. Warning, get the Kleenex ready. What I find sad is that this side of family life is rarely depicted today in our entertainment, be it Television or. Movie's. Daniell if your listening, You Go Girl, give us more.

Falls into the film category of "Way too ridiculous in the dialogue and execution departments to be taken seriously". Whereas Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the Thirteenth or My Boyfriend's Back know they are bad, Scarecrows doesn't. Evil Dead set such a high standard for the comedic horror on a budget genre, that Scarecrows is simply out of place.
Suspicions of inexperience are immediately at play as there are no hints of noise or vibration in the hull and cockpit of an airborne plane. The repeated display of a picture of 3 men just screams for a story arc, but nothing comes. Although the men are obviously the scarecrows, there is no explanation.
Knowing this film is too serious for it's own good may produce some grins. I don't recall if Joe Bob Briggs ever previewed Scarecrows, but I believe that he wouldn't stoop this low. However, with an IMDb rating of over 6, there are many people that disagree.
This is the Columbo that got directed by Steven Spielberg at an early point in his career. It's nothing sensational but some small hint of great things to come for Spielberg can be seen in this movie. The movie is basically in the same style as most of Spierlberg's '70's movies and TV works. So that means that some characters tend to show some quirkiness's and no I'm not just talking about the Columbo character alone. The kind of character quirkiness which perhaps can be best seen in the 1975 Spielberg movie "Jaws". But other than some small hints of typical early Spielberg elements, you can't call this movie the work of- and fine example of a rising director star. Not that its bad, of course it isn't but as I said earlier, it also isn't anything too sensational.
This movie began really well and very promising but after it's fine opening, in which as always the murder occurred, the movie became sort of more slow and also dull to watch. Dull because it's mostly a Columbo movie by the book that doesn't have real memorable moments in it, not dull because it's a boring movie to watch.
The murder itself was quite ingenious and the concept of having a crime story writer murdering his writing partner showed some great and interesting potential. The story however didn't really explored all of its possibilities. At least that's the feeling this movie left me with.
The movie was still a good one to watch nevertheless thanks to the character of Jack Cassidy, who thinks he's smarter then Columbo, due to his mystery/crime writing experience and tries to give him all kinds of possible hints, leading away from himself. But of course Columbo knows better and he is his number one suspect from the first moment on but he as usual plays the game along.
The movie does have a good overall style and uses some fine camera position and editing. Funny to see that also most of this was all mostly consistent with Spielberg's later work, especially some of the camera-angles.
A fine and perfectly watchable Columbo movie but don't let the name of Spielberg attached to it rise your expectations for it too highly.
7/10

I own this movie. I bought it for $3.99 at a fairly major video retailer in order to do some "indie"" type movie research since I had just finished my own feature and was editing it. Now when I feel down about my skills as a first time director I just sit down with a plate of cookies and Severed. Within minutes I feel great!!!
I hate to down talk another filmmaker so I'll just use constructive criticism. 1. Find good actors. Take the time. It really helps. 2. When shooting video, over light your scenes and darken in the computer later on in post. 3. Closeups are better for Video. 4. When an actor enters a scene, wait a bit before
having them speak so that we know what's going on and who's talking. 5. Never show the back of a door while we wait for someone to come open it. Damn well worth the $3.99
The True Horror would be getting the reviews Severed has here on IMDb. And you have to give these guys credit... they did get distributed.
Sudden Impact is the 4th of the Dirty Harry films and one of the best traits of these films is that they don't really degrade in quality from one film to the next. Thus, Sudden Impact provides another thrill ride through the life of Dirty Harry Callahan. This time Harry attempts to solve a series of murders while on vacation. Harry's always on the job it seems. Clint Eastwood plays Harry as he plays all his men of action, slow, deliberate, and without fear. As the first of the Dirty Harry films to be made in the 80's, Sudden Impact lacks a bit of the 70's feel that characterizes the first three films. This doesn't mean that it's quality is any less. Bottom Line: Brimming with intensity and action, Sudden Impact is another worthy addition to the Dirty Harry series.

Let me put it another way: balls. Or, how about bollo*ks. This is truly awful, more embarrassing than those it attempts to satirise. Julia Roberts is a skilled actress, and usually her work is of the highest standard. This movie is so lacking in direction even she struggles to look proficient. Normally she is the consummate professional, yet I swear that in her eyes, there were signs of bewilderment and despair.
The one thing that might have rescued this move was the idea about the director (Chris Walken) turning the movie into a secret documentary about the actors. Unfortunately, that theme wasn't explored to it's full potential. Too little, too late.
Zeta Jones was wooden, Cusack was Cusack, and Crystal should stick to acting. The two talented ex-Buffy stars had different experiences - Green hopelessly mis-cast, and Balfour under-used. Well done to Julia for just about preventing this from being the worst movie ever made.
My friend had the idea of watching the animated LOTR after seeing the Peter Jackson Return of The King. So I finally bought it off e-bay, thinking right from the start it was going to suck. Actually, it really wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. The animation was good for its time, they used a unique method of blending live action with animation to create some interesting effects, and the guy who did the voice for Frodo sounded somewhat like Elijah Wood.
Not the greatest adaptation of a book, but trust me, I've seen a lot worse. It skips quite a lot of things, since both Fellowship and The Two Towers are compressed into one two hour movie. Definatley worth a watch, kids might like, but still, absoutley no comparision with the Peter Jackson trilogy.

This movie was terrible. The plot sucked, the acting was bad, the editing was inept and this movie makes me want to poke my eyes out. I wish I had the time I spent watching this movie back. The balloon scene was stupid, the Mormon jokes are really old, the soundtrack sucked, I saw no chemistry between the two leads, it's full of stereotypes, stupid local "celeb" cameo's..most noted was Del "I'm going to drive as fast as I want to.." computer idiot. What is worst is that these actors had to play themselves on the spiritual side and even they screwed that up. This movie help create a long line of lackluster efforts to mainstream LDS beliefs into Hollywood. I.E. The RM, Church ball, etc. etc. I would forgo watching this movie and instead run head first into a brick wall. You will be more entertained than watching this poor excuse for a show.
I just found the IMDb and searched this film and I was moved almost to tears by the comments of all the people who saw this film as I did when 6 or so years old in 1967?. I saw it before the Jungle Book so I was Eagle Boy for a few hours and then Mowgli for the next year. I burst into tears at the cinema when the boy turned into the Eagle and always wanted to see the film again. When we got home we had a Roast chicken dinner and I got the wish bone and guess who I wished to be? My dad then said 'I bet you wished to be an Eagle' and of course we all know that wishes are broken if someone guesses so more tears and a little resentment to this day for not being able to fly away...

Sly Stallone is hardly the finest actor in the world but compared to his brother, Frank...well, roll out those awards now! Mullet haired, muppet Frank seems to think that every part he plays, calls for him doing the role as an American/Italian Wise-guy refugee from the 'Godfather.' Please, somebody make him an acting offer 'he can refuse!' This film just stinks the place out, even by the terrible overacting in this, Frank still steals the acting dishonours. All the people compensate for their lack of talent by shouting their lines and throwing their arms about, gesticulating wildly in a style that went out of fashion back with silent films.
The plot, what there, is, makes no sense as a meteor lands and turns all the women into sex-crazed nymphets but as this is 15 certificate film, that just means they strip to their underwear and make moaning sounds like dogs on heat. What happens in the end, I'm not quite sure as I was losing the will to live long before the film finished.
Avoid this like the plague and watch 'Deep Impact' for a reasonable film about a meteor about to hit the earth.
N.B. Point of order: when one of the female leads strips down to her underwear, she has her knickers/panties under her suspenders/garter belt, it's knickers over the suspenders to allow women to go to the toilet with less fuss. A trivial point, perhaps, but shows how dumb this film is when they can't even get this right!
I was on France, around March 05, and I love to go to this Film Festivals. I knew about this Cinémas d'Amérique Latine de Toulouse, but I've never went to it. I decided to go and then I caught Cero y van 4.
The film is stunning. It doesn't caused the impact on me like with the Mexican users, because it was french-subtitled but it's still shocking.
This film is a satire about urban violence, about kidnapping and crime on the streets in Mexico. It is a crude portrait of the city. Of a Metropolis. Secuestro Express, with a stunning Mia Maestro, which was also a satire of kidnapping, almost, but with a more serious tone has, and I think so, some kinda connection with Cero y van 4. A, sort of, redemption story and that how much is too much? Man on Fire, that was stunningly strong, was also, not a satire, but a crude portrait into the streets of Mexico. Or it is like The Brave One. A film that shocks and hits you in the guts very hard. This is like The Usual Suspects, it has some plot twists and turns, but that makes it even more believable. Verdict: A film that shocks and makes you believe that there's no security on the streets anymore. Stunning dialogue, impressive direction and astonishing performances. Cero y van 4 is a film that you won't forget soon. Leaves you shaking and stunned.

I make a point out of watching bad movies frequently, and the sci-fi channel original movies tend to be one of the best sources for these movies you can find. As such, I'm sure you can imagine my disappointment when I saw Sands of oblivion. The acting was uncharacteristically sub-par, as opposed to the woefully disgraceful display sci-fi usually has in store for us. There are a few cameos made by people you'd most likely recognize, although you may not know their names by heart. The CGI special effects are minimal, and as such, one of the largest sources of comedy in a sci-fi feature is lacking. Sure, there are some funny moments like when a guy gets beheaded by a bulldozer, or when the main character leaves his friend to die in order to save a girl he's known for a couple of days, but overall, it ends up just not having you rolling on the floor with laughter, and I consider that a major disappointment.
If I was rating it on a 10 star scale made specifically to judge made-for TV movies, I'd probably give it a 4, maybe even a 5. A real shame that I may have to wait 'till the next sci-fi original movie to get a good laugh, and I really hope that this movie isn't part of some overall quality increase in sci-fi original movies.
"Radiofreccia" is still a good surprise in Italian cinema. The film is based on a book of Italian songwriter Luciano Ligabue, who also directs the movie and writes the music score -of course.
The film is a portrait of north Italian province life, in the Emilia Romagna region. We're in 1975, the time of the first free radios -one of the boys of the movie creates "Radioraptus". Youth wishes, friendship, love, sex, individual dramas and unemployment are among the themes, but the film speaks also about drugs -Freccia, the main character, is a victim of heroin slavery.
Without being boring and moralist, the story flows very well; the spontaneity of actors is strong and the way of directing as well. Obviously Luciano "Liga" Ligabue is neither Fellini nor a movie professional, first of all he's a musician. But he succeeds in making a good product. Unfortunately he'll not repeat the success with his second movie "Da zero a dieci" -not good at all.
In "Radiofreccia" actors are generally not very famous, the only star is Stefano Accorsi -one of the most popular young Italian actors. See in a small role another Italian songwriter -Francesco Guccini, he's the nice communist barman and football trainer!

Boring, long, pretentious, repetitive, self-involved  this move felt like a bad date. Worse, the tedious art-school direction -- with a heavy-handed use of the whirling shot that gets so overdone it almost made me throw up - is constantly screaming to be noticed. Add the thinnest of plots and virtually no dialogue, and the film begins to feel like a four hour epic about 30 minutes in. It gets worse: instead of dialogue there are poorly written voice-overs AND quotes and songs that comment all too obviously on the characters. Really loud opera music too. Blame it all on the director.
The actors are all quite good. The lead actor Miguel Angel Hoppe is particularly suited for film stardom. He and the other actors have some tender erotic moments. Even these start to get boring after 5 minutes however, and one wonders if the director is auditioning for a Bel Ami porn job. The stunning college campus architecture as a location in Mexico City is inspiring. How come universities in the US are so bland (SFSU, UC, etc.)? But wait for the DVD on this film. You'll want to use the fast scan button  a lot.
Years ago many big studios promoted serial films that were shown in movie theaters's in between the actual features along with a Newsreel of current events, plus cartoons, especially on a Saturday afternoon. (The parents loved it mostly) "The Return of Chandu" was a 12 episode serial where Chandu,(Bela Lugosi),"The Mysterious Mr. Wong",'34 is a magician with super natural powers and travels to the island of Lemuria to rescue the kidnapped princess of Egypt,(Nadji)Maria Alba,"Dr. Terror's House of Horrors",'43. Princess Nadji is held captive by the black magic cult of Ubasti, who believe that she is a reincarnation of their long-dead goddess Ossana. These 12-episode serials take you way back in time and are very well produced, considering we are talking about 1934 !

Let me start by saying how much I love the TV series. Despite the tragic nature of a middle-aged man seemingly unable to pursue his dreams because of his overbearing, manipulative father, it was incredibly light-hearted and fun to watch in practice. In my opinion, it is without doubt one of the greatest British sitcoms of all time. The TV series has my 10 out of 10 rating without reservation.
This movie spin-off on the other hand is a true tragedy in every sense of the word. Hardly any of the essence of the TV show is transferred successfully onto film. This movie has a very dreary, depressing tone that almost moved me to tears on several occasions. Seeing Harold being beaten up in a pub (and not in a comical way) is not my idea of comedy but is most definitely one reason why fans of the TV series will not like this movie. The movie was painfully unfunny except for the scene where Albert bathes in the sink and is seen by a neighbour.
The romance between Harold and Zita is completely out of tone and it makes me wonder whether the producers of this movie ever bothered to watch the TV series. In the TV series, Harold always went after respectable girls, not strippers.
Albert's reactions to the remarks made against him by Harold's girlfriends were absolutely priceless in the TV series. In the movie, Albert says virtually nothing when such an opportunity rises.
Most movie spin-offs of British sitcoms tend to be quite dull, with the notable exception of the ON THE BUSES films (which in some respects were actually better than the TV series itself!). But, STEPTOE AND SON has to rank right at the very bottom of the pile, even below GEORGE AND MILDRED.
My advice - skip this one and see the second spin-off, STEPTOE AND SON RIDE AGAIN instead. It has a much lighter tone, is more faithful to the TV series, and is actually very funny.
This is NOT as bad a movie as some reviewers, and as the summary at the IMDB page for this movie, say it is. Why? First is the fact that in 1984 the movie makers were daring enough to confront, as one of the plot elements, the issue of domestic violence -- so reviewers who complain about the plot are sadly missing one of the main points! Second, without the plot element of Prince's movie relationship with his abusive father, the musical climax wouldn't work as well as it does -- so those reviewers who say that only the music is good have, once again, missed one of the points -- specifically, WHY it is so good...because all of the music in this film has a plot element backdrop that makes the music more effective. Third, give this movie a break! For first-time movie producers and director, this is just not that bad! There are far worse movies out there by accomplished movie people!! And last, the reviewers who say that the music is "good" have also missed the point -- check out the range of stylistic musical treatments, the variety, the musicianship, and the stage performance of Prince -- truly one of a kind, going musically where no one else was going during the 1980's, and with a style seen in the work of other artists (clothes and movement: which costuming elements came first, Michael Jackson's or Prince's? Also, see if you can spot the splayed fingers sweeping in front of the eyes that Prince does in this movie, long before Quentin Tarentino's "Pulp Fiction"). As the sum of its parts, not a bad movie at all.

I'm usually not one to say that a film is not worth watching, but this is certainly an extenuating circumstance. The only true upside to this film is Cornelia Sharpe, looking rather attractive, and the fact that this film is REALLY short.
The plot in the film is unbelievably boring and goes virtually nowhere throughout the film. None of the characters are even remotely interesting and there is no reason to care about anyone. I'm not sure why on earth Sean Connery agreed to do this film, but he should have definitely passed on this one.
The only reason I could see for seeing this film is if you are a die-hard Sean Connery fan and simply want to see everything he's done. Save this one for last though.
Well, if you by some miracle end up seeing this despite my review (or any of the other reviews on this site), then I hope you enjoy it more than I did. Thanks for reading.
This movie is great. Simply. It is rare that you find a comedy with levels, and this is a bloody good example of such. When I saw this movie first, as the credit rolled, a friend and I looked to one another and asked... 'did you just catch that?' For those doubters, look at the levels. See the comparisons between Vick and the people in the club, the DNA! See the diverse characters, each jostling for position, and if you see nothing else, see the connection between the cure of Vick and the path through the film. IT'S ALL IN VICK'S HEAD! The opening line about Vick's world. The closing scene with the camera going into Vick's head, and inside, a whole universe! Thoroughly quotable, wonderful cartoon gangsters, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful!

First of all, Jenna Jameson is the best actress in this movie, and she's just awful. This movie has every horror move cliché in imagination, and all badly played. The over-sexed teen couple. The comical(not)horny jock. The snotty cool chick. The creepy local color guy. The parental-type couple. The virginal chick who amazingly never dies in these films. The dialogue is so painfully awful and delivered with the depth of a wading pool. It's almost like you're wishing that they'd all die sooner. I saw the rough cut of this film a while ago, but somehow, this just got worse. Sure, the funniest thing in here is the ghoul trying to eat Jameson's implants, but that hardly rates even a rental of this dog. Avoid at all costs.