Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I saw this movie last night after waiting ages and ages for it to be released here in Canada (still only in limited release). It was worth the wait and then some. I am a very avid reader of Margaret Laurence and was excited to see that this novel was being turned into a film. I actually ended up liking the movie better than the novel. I liked that the character of Bram Shipley was a bit less harsh, and that there seemed to be more of a love story between Hagar and Bram, which made the scenes at the end of Bram's life that much more moving. The loss seemed stronger. Hagar was not any more likable on film than in the book, but Ellen Burstyn was a genius in this role. She WAS Hagar through and through. Christine Horne was brilliant and has many more great things ahead I am sure. Her scenes with Cole Hauser were electrifying. I could go on and on, overall a 9 * out of 10. Fantastic and can't wait for it to come out on DVD, a must own for my collection!

I cannot believe how popular this show is. I consider myself an avid sci-fi fan. I have read countless sci-fi novels and have enjoyed many sci-fi movies and TV shows. I really wouldn't even consider this true sci-fi. Every episode I have sat through was like a lame, watered down version of a Star Trek episode, minus anything that might make it interesting or exciting.
It's basically a bunch of people standing around in ARMY fatigues, talking about something boring, who occasionally go through the Stargate and end up on a planet that looks just like Earth, with people who look and sound just like Humans! It seemed extremely low budget. The characters are all forgettable one dimensional cutouts, and the many attempts at humor fall flat. It reminds me when you see a commercial with a famous athlete in it, trying to be funny, but he is not. It is just sad.
The movie was terrible as well. There is so much you can do with a portal through space, yet every place the ARMY people go is BORING! This shows no imagination! I actually thought the TV series "Alien Nation" from a few years back (based on the movie Alien Nation) was much better. That show actually had good story lines and decent characters. I wasn't crazy about "Alien Nation", but compared to this overrated crap, it was great!
Also, unlike the great new "Battlestar Galactica" series, "Stargate" copied the look and feel of the lame movie too closely! They should have at least updated the cheesy "toilet flushing" special effect of whenever somebody goes through the Stargate.
We loved the movie. I am a mother to two little men. I love having a movie I can watch with them where men have integrity and character. Moveis where money is not the most important thing. And family's are forever and love means more then words.
I do wish we saw more of the Davis family. But over all I loved it left me with the same feeling the others did "please don't be over". We both wish actors would not change.The new actors were good replacement tho.
My 9 year old son loved this movie too. asked me to go buy them all. He is a movie critic so for him to say this tells me something. Family should all see this move buy it for friends . Help bring back a time of values. We will be Reading the books now that we are hooked. really hope to see more. Be Blessed happy moving

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.
I have, "Things to Come," on D.V.D. and it's very clear compared to my VHS version. The audio is fair, but can be hard to understand at times.
I liked the movie so much that I searched for a copy of the book and found it.It gave details of why some things happened. The best things about the movie are the small things that I didn't notice at first. Such as, John Cabal playing with a toy airplane at a Christmass party, like it was a dive bomber, out dateing sea power by naming a battleship,"Dinosuar." Ships sunk by air-power, an undeclared enemy sneak attack by airplanes. Swept flying wing planes. Strong rolls for the women through the entire movie.
There are more, see the movie to enjoy them.

I have to finish watching a movie once I start, regardless of how bad it is. This movie was agonizing to sit through. The "sparkling" bullets, the reporter with "ninja" like moves, the way the bad guys shoot hundreds and hundreds of bullets and only seem to hit innocent bystanders, the predictable outcome and all the bad acting was just horrible. Like the girl who finds the reporter in her friends apartment and goes from "what the heck are you doing in here (holding a bat)" to "hey, you're cute, wanna @#$%!???" in like 1.2 seconds.... Just bad.... Save yourself an hour and forty minutes and go play with your kids (or dog)!
I have seen the short movie a few years ago. After that I watch all sequels. The first one is really not the best - but it's the most popular one. I've already watch the making of Guinea Pig 1. It's really great what these guys did. Also the sequels are excellent in the special effects. Take your chance to watch it!

*WARNING* Possible spoilers below
The film is more boring then anything else. There seems to be some attempt to build tension through badly lit shots of empty rooms and empty lawns, but none of it works.
MST3K did a fairly good job with it, but on its own the movie is mostly tedious.
Funny moments:
When the fake skull rolls out of a pile of ashes, the wife becomes hysterical and woozy while the husband (who is trying to drive the wife crazy) says in a deadpan voice "There is no skull there, there's no skull."
When the real ghost-skulls have the husband caught in a pickle, as if trapped between first and second base.
Wow. Something of a surprise. Though flawed, it is far better that I expected.
The brand new space liner Arcturus with some 3,000 passengers is in the final days of its sixteen day trip to Jupiter. Without warning, the ship's Cerebral (central computer) sounds a disaster alarm and orders everyone to evacuate.
Soon, there are only a handful of people remaining including one of the ship's astrogators (Penny), the captain (Cary), and the director of the shipping line (Kenyon).
It turns out that the alarm was false and that the main Cerebral is acting
erratically. The remaining passengers and crew must escape the ship and
avoid personal conflicts in order to survive.
The film starts out very well. The opening commercial is a very nice touch. There are obvious parallels to 2001: A Space Odyssey and to the historic
sinking of the Titanic. The film does slow down at times and has pacing
problems, but is generally well made and well acted.

There was a genie played by Shaq His name was Kazaam, and he was whack His rhymes were corny, this lines were bad some stupid kid cryin over his stupid dad bad actin, bad casting, bad special effects whats next? this movie sucks Prolly didn't make 20 bucks he lives in a boombox not a lamp hurts like a cramp like a wet food stamp...
Yeah, you get it, a stupid rhyming genie who can't act, in a stupid movie with horrible special effects. Oh, and its confusing as hell. I'm not even gonna go on. Let's just say, it belongs in the "its so bad, its funny" category. Watch it once with your buddies and get a good laugh. But don't expect anything spectacular.
No other movie has made me feel like this before... and I don't feel bad. Like, I don't want my money back or the time that I waited to watch this movie (9 months) nor do I feel bad about using two hours of a sunny summer day in order to view this ______. The reason I say "_____" is because no matter how hard I wrack my brain I just can't seem to come up with a word in ANY of the seven languages that movie was in to sum it up. I have no idea what was going on the entire time and half way through the movie I needed a breather. No movie has ever done this to me before. Never in my life have I wanted cauliflower, milk, and baguettes this much. Thank you. - Ed
Uh. *clears throat* No words. No thoughts. I don't know. I truly don't know. - Cait

The first half of this movie is a pure delight. Novel. Funny. Wonderful performances. A close knit brother and sister living in Manhattan fall for the same woman! Adult. Bright. Witty. What more could you ask. As a romantic comedy this starts refreshing. It heads into unexplored territory. And then it falls apart.
It goes from being a universal adult comedy to a coming-of-age coming-out-of-the-closet story that has been done many times before. What a disappointment. As a people film it begins with such promise. Why does it need to turn into such a pedestrian "I am who I am" film. The freeze-frame ending shot of Heather Graham's jumping in the air to celebrate "her happiness at finding herself" underlines the banality of the last part of the film.
It could have been different. It could have been magical. It ended up being the same old same old.
It seems that it is becoming fashionable to rip "Basic Instinct 2," to the point that a significant part of the audience (including critics) found it terrible even before it was released. It seems even more fashionable to trash Sharon Stone wholike all of usis now fourteen years older, andunlike most of usstill looks wonderful. First comments on this movie were so vicious that I had to see for myself. In my opinion, this sequel is not nearly as good as the original film, but is not as bad as most comments pretend. Michael Caton-Jones is not Paul Verhoeven, neither Henry Bean and Leora Barish are Joe Eszterhas. "Basic Instinct 2" is just an entertaining, average thriller, and besides the addition of Jerry Goldsmith original score, keeps little resemblance to its predecessor. Even Stone gives her character a different dimension, creating a lustful, devilish Catherine Trimell, who can perfectly well rank among other monsters like Hannibal Lecter. She is an intelligent actress who is not afraid of taking risks and can play with camp at her leisure. Unfortunately, she seems to be the main target for those who enjoy trashing this flick. She became too successful, too much of a main icon, and like all those actors who have reached that level, her time has arrived and she is now bound to be destroyed by Hollywood audiences.
The rest of the cast is outstanding, giving performances that are far better than the material deserves. David Morrissey is a much better actor and by far more interesting than Michael Douglas: his acting is flawless, giving a dense, complex dimension to an otherwise one dimensional character. Since he has more screen time and is the axis of the movie, he can keep your attention from beginning to end.
I am not recommending "Basic Instinct 2" as a great movie; I am just expressing my disagreement with most of the comments on this site and my conviction that agendas other than the movie itself are shaping the opinion of most spectators.

The only reason I watched this film was because I had recently read Robert Hough's less than perfect, but interesting, fictionalised account of the life of Big Cat trainer Mabel Stark. Beaty appears as a character in the book, in a less than flattering light.
I hadn't realised until checking the movie out later on the IMDb that it was originally a serial. Whoever edited the original running time of 233 minutes down to the 68 minuted version available on DVD has done a hell of a good job. The shortened version plays just as well as any B movie of the period despite the many 'duh-what?' moments. For instance are we really expected to believe our hero dug that twenty foot deep tiger trap in a morning without even getting his jodhpurs dirty? Looking over the chapter titles I see that number five is titled "Gorilla Warfare" and number eleven is called "The Gorilla". There were no gorillas at all in the movie. I guess that's where some of the cuts were made.
Historicaly interesting.
We always watch American movies with their particular accents from each region (south, west, etc). We have the same here. All foreign people must to watch this movie and need to have a open mind to accept another culture, besides American and European almost dominate the cinematographic industry.
This movie tell us about a parallel world which it isn't figured even for those who live in a big city like São Paulo. All actors are improvising and they are very realistic. The camera give us an idea of their confuse world, the loneliness of each character and invite us to share their world.
It's a real great movie and worst a rent even have it at home.

I have a piece of advice for the people who made this movie too, if you're gonna make a movie like this be sure you got the f/x to back it up. Also don't get a bunch of z list actors to play in it. Another thing, just about all of us have seen Jurassic Park, so don't blatantly copy it. All in all this movie sucked, f/x sucked, acting sucked, story unoriginal. Let's talk about the acting for just a second, the Carradine guy who's career peaked in 1984 when he did "Revenge of the Nerds" (which was actually a great comedy). He's not exactly z list, he can act. He just should have said no to this s--t bag. He should have did what Mark Hamill did after "Return of the Jedi" and go quietly into the night. He made his mark as a "Nerd" and that should have been that. I understand he has bills to pay, but that hardly excuses this s--t bag. Have I called this movie that yet? O.K. I just wanted to be sure. If I sound a little hostile, I apologize. I just wasted 2hrs of my life I could have spent doing something productive like watching paint peel, and I feel cheated. I'll close on that note. Thank you for your time.
Offbeat and rather entertaining sleeper concerning two very different brothers who are both not only so-called "fire starters" (think Stephen King's snore-fest of a book with the same name), but also forever at odds with each other over a woman who has a rather nasty habit of being a pyromaniac! Good special effects (especially towards the end), quirky performances from a pretty talented trio of actors and topped by a really interesting and oddly appropriate soundtrack ultimately make "Wilder Napalm" a unique treat of a film to watch...if you can find it that is! On a personal note, I was fortunate enough to snatch it up (so to speak) from the two-dollar bin at my local video-rental store. (*** out of *****)

***SPOILER*** Do not read this, if you think about watching that movie, although it would be a waste of time. (By the way: The plot is so predictable that it does not make any difference if you read this or not anyway)
If you are wondering whether to see "Coyote Ugly" or not: don't! It's not worth either the money for the ticket or the VHS / DVD. A typical "Chick-Feel-Good-Flick", one could say. The plot itself is as shallow as it can be, a ridiculous and uncritical version of the American Dream. The young good-looking girl from a small town becoming a big success in New York. The few desperate attempts of giving the movie any depth fail, such as the "tragic" accident of the father, the "difficulties" of Violet's relationship with her boyfriend, and so on. McNally (Director) tries to arouse the audience's pity and sadness put does not have any chance to succeed in this attempt due to the bad script and the shallow acting. Especially Piper Perabo completely fails in convincing one of "Jersey's" fear of singing in front of an audience. The only good (and quite funny thing) about "Coyote Ugly" is John Goodman, who represents the small ray of hope of this movie.
I was very astonished, that Jerry Bruckheimer produced this movie. First "Gone In 60 Seconds" and now this... what happened to great movies like "The Rock" and "Con Air"? THAT was true Bruckheimer stuff.
If you are looking for a superficial movie with good looking women just to have a relaxed evening, you should better go and see "Charlie's Angels" (it's much more funny, entertaining and self-ironic) instead of this flick.
Two thumbs down (3 out of 10).
I am actually outraged at the comment I read stating that this movie was "boring" and the beautiful scenery was marred by the black and white footage. It was made in 1925!!!! I think it absolutely incredible for it's time!
The journey that these people had to go through is utterly remarkable. It took them a week just to cross a river. The women carried their children in heavy wooden cradles on their backs climbing up a solid sheet of rock, sometimes barefoot in the snow. I would like to see Anybody do that now!
I thought it was a wonderful film with some truly amazing shots and an incredible story.

I've had to change my view on the worst film in the world having just seen this one. THIS IS IT!
Make no mistake this film is awful.
Here's a list of reasons:
Hopeless storyline (despite being based on a true story). Dreadful acting (what was Judge Reinhold thinking) Unbelieveably bad stunts. Childish dialogue. Non-existent continuity. Lack of atmosphere.
Get the picture?
A stupid young man becomes obsessed with a woman--so obsessed that he loses perspective and common sense. An evil magician approaches him and informs him he can give him great wealth that he can use to win the lady's heart IF he agrees to give him anything he wants that's within their room. The dumb guy agrees and the magician steals the man's reflection out of the mirror--and bad things naturally occur as a result.
If this film had been made just a decade later, I am sure I wouldn't have been so charitable in reviewing and scoring this film. After all, the film's plot is a bit vague in spots and the acting is, at times, a bit stilted. However, when you consider that in 1913 "full-length" films were rare--and often only 20 to 30 minutes long! Plus, the whole idea of a complex story like you get in this film is very unusual--as stories were very short and broadly acted. So, given the limitations of the time, this film is pretty good and is one of the earlier horror films known.

This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen!!!!
I can honestly say I have never seen a movie worse than this one!!!
AND I MEAN NEVER!!!!
I'm a BIG fan of "B" horror movies. As you may imagine.... I've been exposed to some of worst that the movie industry has to offer.
I was lured to this movie by it's title. I mean c'mon... what true fan of horror wouldn't be intrigued by a title like "Vampires vs. Zombies"??? Images of the "undead" battling each other to the "undeath" danced in my head. I thought to myself... "this I've got to see"!!!!
Well.... sorry to say.... "this I wish I hadn't seen"!!!!!
This movies title is very misleading to say the least. There was no vampires fighting zombies. In fact, there is no plot!!!! If you were to ask me what this movie is all about I could honestly tell you I have no idea!!!
There was no plot!!!!
There was no story!!!!
This movie absolutely makes no sense at all!!!!
At the end of this debacle... I found myself feeling sorry for the poor souls who had invested their money into this project for they surely have no business sense!!!
Having heard of Modesty Blaise before, but never having read a novel or a comic strip, my wife and I liked the film a lot. It delivered, in a captivating way, a good introduction to the character and her background.
Although it has some action flick elements, it is much more an intimate play, excellently written. Sadly, this is also, where a major drawback of the movie is revealed. An intimate play lives on the capabilities of its actors and unfortunately only half of the cast delivered. While Alexandra Staden did an excellent job as Modesty Blaise, her counterpart Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau - as the villain Miklos - did not. Smiling his way through the plot as if it is an extend toothpaste commercial, he fails to build up an atmosphere of anxiety that would have made the movie a masterpiece. The supporting cast is somehow similar, from some stereotyped gangsters and sluts to decent performances from Fred Pearson as Professor Lob and Eugenia Yuan as Irina.

With the exception of FAMILY, this new season is worse than Season One. I can't imagine what they are thinking. As a fan of horror, can tolerate a lot of gore and mindless mayhem, but this series gets worse with each outing. I can't imagine how disheartening it must be for the actors and crew to go to work each day, toiling to churn out such crap. STORY! Is that too much to ask for? CHARACTER! How can we give damn about the fate of ANYONE in these stories? If we are not engaged, who cares if they get carved up or whatever? Almost every episode ends with mindless blood letting, going for gross out shock without any sense of revelation or conclusion or REASON why we have been subjected to an hour of bloodletting. Even Dante's effort this season had some disturbing sexist violence and wandered off to a pointless conclusion. Ironically, the production values and performances tend to be up to speed, while the content is utter crap. I have great hopes for Exec Producer's Garris's VALARIE UNDER THE STAIRS, but we shall see.