Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
In what is arguably the best outdoor adventure film of all time, four city guys confront nature's wrath, in a story of survival. The setting is backwoods Georgia, with its forests, mountains, and wild rivers.
The director, John Boorman, chose to use local people, not actors, to portray secondary characters. These locals imbue the film with a depth of characterization unequaled in film history. No central casting "actors" could ever come close to these people's remarkable faces, voices, or actions. I don't recall a film wherein the secondary characters are so realistic and colorful. As much as anything else, it is this gritty realism that makes this film so amazing.
Another strength is the film's theme. Nature, in the wild, can be violent. How appropriate that the setting should be the American South. Very few places in the U.S. are, or have been, as violent as redneck country. In a story about Darwinian survival of the fittest, the film conveys the idea that humans are part of nature, not separate from it.
"Deliverance" is very much a product of its time when, unlike today, Americans expressed concern over a vanishing wilderness. The film's magnificent scenery, the sounds of birds, frogs, crickets, and the roar of the river rapids, combined with the absence of civilization, all convey an environmental message. And that is another strength of the film.
At an entertainment level, the tension gradually escalates, as the plot proceeds. Not even half way into the film the tension becomes extreme, and then never lets up, not until the final credits roll. Very few films can sustain that level of intensity over such a long span of plot.
Finally, the film's technical quality is topnotch. Direction and editing are flawless. Cinematography is excellent. Dialogue is interesting. And the acting is terrific. Burt Reynolds has never been better. Ned Beatty is perfectly cast and does a fine job. And Jon Voight should have been nominated for an Oscar. If there is a weak link in the film, it is the music, which strikes me as timid.
Overall, "Deliverance" almost certainly will appeal to viewers who like outdoor adventure. Even for those who don't, the gritty characterizations, the acting, and the plot tension are reasons enough to watch this film, one of the finest in cinema history.

It's hard to praise this film much. The CGI for the dragon was well done, but lacked proper modelling for light and shadow. Also, the same footage is used endlessly of the dragon stomping through corridors which becomes slightly tedious.
I was amazed to see "Marcus Aurelius" in the acting credits, wondering what an ex-Emperor of the Roman Empire was doing acting in this film! Like "Whoopie Goldberg" it must be an alias, and can one blame him for using one if he appears in this stinker.
The story might been interesting, but the acting is flat, and direction is tedious. If you MUST watch this film, go around to your friend's house and get drunk while doing so - then it'll be enjoyable.
"Twelve monkeys"'s got all the elements to become Terry Gilliam's masterpiece. An outstanding screenplay, a sustained rhythm, clever sometimes ironic dialogs. Moreover, he had a good nose about the cast. "Twelve monkeys" is also the first movie where Bruce Willis stands back from the kind of character he used to play in his previous movies. Here, a jaded and hopeless character which you could nickname a prisoner took over from a fearless and invincible hero (as it was the case in "Die hard"). No matter how he tries, he's a prisoner of the time. The movie contains a very thrilling end too. It's got a real dramatic power. But this terrific movie is also a reflection about man, the dangers he dreads (notably, the ones that could cause the end of the world and here, these are virus that can create illnesses). No matter how long it will take, "twelve monkeys" will be estimated at its true value: one of the masterpieces made in the nineties.

I saw this movie on t.v. this afternoon and I can't see how anyone can sit through this piece of trash. It's not funny at all and it takes your I.Q. down a few notches. I know this movie is for kids, but that doesn't mean the writers should take their intelligence for granted. I bet that writers were sitting around a large wooden table and figured that a) The word "poop" equals big laugh. b) A four foot tall kid can dunk on a ten foot tall basketball net. c) Kids should always fight kidnappers armed with guns because the kidnappers will fall for anything and d) 3 months of karate training is all you need to beat up so-called "ninjas" with swords. One good thing I can say about this movie is it contains the weakest suburban "gang" in the world that couldn't scare anybody. Maybe the guys at MST3K could use this movie for a good laugh. Don't bother with this lame-ass excuse for a movie.
This is a fascinating account of the hunt for the Soviet Union's first known serial killer. I had tuned in, just expecting a half-decent TV movie, but found myself drawn by the compelling way the story was told. As others have said, there is much to admire here that is sadly lacking in many big screen releases.
Much of the credit must go to Chris Gerolmo, whose intelligent screenplay and direction draw the viewer in, until it is impossible not to feel emotionally involved. The acting by the whole cast is also superb, especially that of the two leads, Stephen Rea and Donald Sutherland. Their convincing portrayals give their character arcs a great deal of credibility, and the scene where they have their first committee meeting after Perestroika is genuinely touching.
If you prefer your crime films with a bit more depth and a little less sheen, I strongly recommend you look out for 'Citizen X'.

If it wasn't for the bad dialogues and script. I mean, the direction was really in touch with it's subject. The actors were doing good at bringing their characters to life. But in the end, the thing that was really missing was a solid script to hold all the pieces together. I would highly suggest not to watch this. Unless you're a Al Pacino enthusiast like I am and will watch everything he is playing in. Even if the result lately are rather poor. This is, after S1m0ne, a second very bad movie for this actor that once knew how to choose roles.
After watching the trailer I was surprised this movie never made it into theaters, so I ordered the BluRay. I had a great time watching it and have to say that this movie is better than some major animation movies out there. Of course, it has its flaws but I can still really recommend it. The animation is well done, very entertaining and unique and the story kept me watching it all the way to the end. Some of the backdrops are just drop-dead gorgeous and you can see the French talent behind it. I thought that Forest Whitaker's performance feels a bit lifeless but that is how the character Lian-Chu is depicted in this movie. So overall, thumbs up, I liked it a lot and I hope it is successful enough for all the studios involved to continue making great movies like this. I would recommend to give it a chance and be surprised how great a movie can be with such a small budget. Hektor alone is worth watching the movie since some of his moments are Stitch-like hilarious.

Jason Lee does his best to bring fun to a silly situation, but the movie just fails to make a connect.
Perhaps because Julia Stiles character seems awkward as the conniving and sexy soon to be cousin-in-law.
Maybe it is because she and Selma Blair's characters should have been cast the opposite way. (Selma Blair seems more conniving than Julia would be).
Either way this movie is yet another Hollywood trivialization of a possibly real world situation (that being getting caught with your pants out at your bachelor party not stooping your cousin), which while having promise fails to deliver.
There are some laughs to be sure and the cast (even if miscast) do their best with sub grade material which doesn't transcend its raunchy topic. So instead of getting a successful raunch fest (ie Animal House or American Pie) we are left with a middle ground of part humor and part stupidity (ala Meatballs 2 or something).
Actually, I never bought into the metal was satanic and stuff, but this movie kind of played on that idea. Though certainly not a movie to take seriously or to rate really high, it does serve its purpose in that it entertains while it is playing. The story has a metal band burned to death in their hotel, one of their fans has a dream to this effect and said band starts to go on a kill spree from beyond the grave. So yes, a bit of "Nightmare on Elm Street" plot going on here. Granted Freddy never molested a girl in a car before. There was another movie featuring a heavy metal band in it, but it was very different in how it played out as it had a band that kind of took over a town of kids and made them crazy. This one simply has the one fan of the band kind of helping the killer spirit at first then trying to stop him. Nothing to gruesome in it as I do not remember all that many gory kills. Quite frankly, the scene I do remember most is the scene of the girl wearing the headphones and then being molested by some creature incarnation of the band. Nothing great, but a nice time filler.

I'll admit I've only watched a handful of episodes, but each one seemed completely different from the next. It seems after the first season, the producers decided to completely retool the show, drop characters, introduce new ones, and rewrite the entire show dynamic.
As you have probably surmised already, the show is about quirky, unpredictable teenager Holly (Amanda Bynes) who moves in with her high strung sister Valerie (Jennie Garth) in New York City. Decent enough premise: odd couple + fish out of water + high jinx.
While I miss the sitcoms of yore, this show unfortunately misses the mark on funny repeatedly, and it's sad because they have some decent talent.
On top of everything, they insisted on changing the show (Val was living with a cast regular bf one season, then he was suddenly gone, so she opens a bakery? what?) When things change that drastically, you get the feeling that even the *show* knows it's bad. I mean, completely new sets, characters written off and new show regulars!
On a side note (this is just nitpicking), I know this is a television show and not real at all, but Val and Holly end up living in a HUGE loft duplex (there are stairs) with a terrace... in MANHATTAN! Are you serious!?
I have watched this film twice now and think its quite good for the limited equipment used to create this film. (filmed in 1947) Dr. Heyerdahl explains his theory about the migration of south American Pre-Colubian Indians to the Polynesia's islands by way raft fell of large balsa trees. This documentary follows Dr. Heyerdahl and crew as they select balsa trees in Equidor and float with them down river to the pacific for assembly in Peru. They launch off on a 101 day sea adventure testing the strength of their primitive raft surviving only by means available to natives of that era. See for yourself, a real adventure!

The plot is so manipulative, counting completely on the most uncredible and unthinkable decisions of the adults in each and every parenting decision. The children are super as far as charm and delivery of the lines but as I say, the whole plot depends on each and every adult being complete idiots, and therefore in THAT case, making more sense out of their actions (and at the same time being the only way to explain the boys actions of total mistrust). Why would sweey charming little boys take a baby from the shore? How did the baby get to the shore and at the same time account for it being the LAST place to be searched? Why would the 2 boys NEVER be informed an instead at the same time a baby is missing nobody gives a fig about them running around with food and diapers with all that commotion going on and literally every other place it searched? There is just no possible justification to ask the audience to believe this. Asking to believe it would then do to trial (even the informal setting) is too insulting to bare.
I read thru most of the comments posted here & all I can say it that most of these posters have major problems in life. This show, unlike most game show, was fun. Mr. Shatner, whose brill in ALL that he does, was again the hit of the show. He's genuinely bubbly personality shines like a beacon where ever he goes. He's fun & makes you smile & that's exactly what the show does also. The dancers & questions, the round-about fashion they're presented only add to the shows appeal. And even though there's a Great deal of money at stake it's fun. The pressure (stress) that exists in most game shows does NOT exist here. Several people who posted messages complained how much time is waisted with the dancers & choosing questions, &c, like Millionaire doesn't have similar time wasters. All I can say is most of you have missed the whole concept. The idea here is to have FUN & ENJOY yourself. There's something for everyone. Qustions to test your knowledge, eye candy (the dancers), suspense, Mr. Shatner's wonderful fun-filled personality... well if that doesn't perk-up guys up then I feel bad for you; and if that's not enough, YOU CAN GET RICH! I really miss the show. Out of ALL the games shows that have ever been on, & to be quite frank, I HATE game shows, this is the one I really liked & truly miss. The only other game show I ever liked was Match Game.

A repressed housewife (an annoying lisping Angie Dickinson, whose body double treats/horrifies us with an extreme closeup of her delicates) is sexually bored by her husband and decides to branch-out. This directly results in a string of murders that soon involve a high-class prostitute (Nancy Allen, clearly I am in the wrong business if SHE can bring home $600 a night) and her psychologist (Michael Caine). If you are going to watch De Palma rip off (excuse me, "pay homage to") Hitchcock, watch "Sisters" instead of this. "Dressed to Kill," while loaded with style and technical skill, is one of the tackiest thrillers I have had the displeasure of sitting through. The plot is absurd and tired. It does feature some surprisingly effective jump scares and nasty graphic murder sequences that should please any horror fan, as long as they can get past the silly story line, that must have been dated even in 1980.
this is the best sci-fi that I have seen in my 29 years of watching sci-fi. I also believe that Dark Angel will become a cult favorite. The action is great but Jessica Alba is the best and most gorgeous star on TV today.

This movie is one of the most awful movies ever made.How can Jon Bon Jovi play in a movie? He is a singer not an actor, What?Is he killing vampires with his guitar? And what about the dreadful plot? O my God this movie really sucks. In the end is the Queen of vampires played by the eternal vampire Arly Jover (Blade) surrounded by an army of vampires, but when the "fantastic" slayers arrive only 4 vampires are left!! What happened with the other 10-15 vampires? They run out in the sun??? And what about the "Grand Finally" when Bon Jovi blows her head with a shotgun??? That's really a "NOT" . In "Buffy the vampire Slayer" in 100 episodes not a single vampire is killed with A SHOTGUN??? This really is a lack of originality!
Before Nicholas Cage was a big action star, he was a great actor. This lesser-known movie is where Cage gives one of his best performances. "Red Rock West" was a low-budget, almost un-known film, but is one of my favorite movies of all time. I discovered it walking down the video store aisle, and wanted to see Cage and Hopper (Who also is great in the movie) appear together. Go get this one, and I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

I guess I only have myself to blame for the gigantic disillusion that is "Entrails of a Virgin". You already know not to expect a cinematic masterpiece when you see a juicy and proudly promoted title like this and the first impression only gets extra confirmed when noticing the film is a mid-80's production from Japan. Now, there are quite a lot of demented and sick filmmakers active in Japan, but Kazuo Komizu surpasses them all with his thoroughly depraved and sickening trilogy revolving on nothing but aggressive sex and the sadistic abuse of young girls. Not even attempting to tell a story, "Entrails of a Virgin" simply presents a hodgepodge of UN-arousing semi-pornographic sex and truly poor gore-effects that wouldn't even please the most undemanding fan of cheesy 80's horror. Images of a bunch of photographers and their fashion models are inexplicably intercut with scenes of a filthy pervert having crude sex with a seemly under-aged girl. He dumps her not even a minute after climaxing (typical) and she begs him to stay, even if she has to share him with other women. I don't get it. Is this supposed to represent a general male fantasy? Because it's really clichéd and wrongful. Anyways, back to the bunch of horny photographers and docile models. Surprised by upcoming fog on their way home, the group entrenches themselves in an abandoned country house where they have more appalling sex and eventually fall victim to a ridiculous sex-demon who kills them all. The acting performances are amateurish, the dialogs inane and primitive and Komizu's direction is weak and uninspired. I can tolerate all that, including the woman-unfriendly portrayal of sex, but I came too close to turning the film off during the indescribably mean-spirited wrestling sequence. One of the males brutally hits, kicks and throws around one of the girls and calls her a filthy whore until she literally pees her panties and cries with agony. This sequence is, in my humble opinion, the absolute low-point of Asian exploitation cinema. One to avoid and maybe even boycott.
Paul & Grace Hartman are my husbands grandparents. They were both deceased when we met so watching old movies is a good way to see them and their work. I have always enjoyed old movies and was very happy to discover that this was also a very good one.

Suppose you've been on a deserted island the last ten years. Haven't heard of Scream and left when Halloween part 1 entered the cinema. Then this movie would have been a blast and a completely new vision on the horror scene.
At the moment, a 2.7 rating is on IMDb and it doesn't deserve a that low appreciation. Slashing all the way, like "I know what you did", and a who-is-it that when getting to the end convinced me of that who-and-why.
No big surprise, just a nice flick to watch with a cola, popcorn and no urge to get a difficult plot, deep characters. If the video rental is out of the top titles, you can take it without a risk, but don't expect a masterwork. I've seen a lot worse.
Embarrassingly, I just watched this movie for the first time, 13 years after its release. It's a story that any father or brother can relate to... one brother is a bit 'wild,' the other brother is the typical older child. Craig Sheffer is a little too unemotional as the oldest brother, but Pitt is amazing, and Skerritt is perfectly cast as the father. The fishing scenes that were filmed in Montana are absolutely breathtaking... I had no idea that fly fishing could be so attractive. The movie closely follows the book, with only a few modifications to make it more appropriate for a movie format. Unlike most book to movie stories, this one measures up. It's a perfect movie for anyone who wants a quiet night with a powerful and somewhat emotional movie.

How has this piece of crap stayed on TV this long? It's terrible. It makes me want to shoot someone. It's so fake that it is actually worse than a 1940s sci-fi movie. I'd rather have a stroke than watch this nonsense. I remember watching it when it first came out. I thought, hey this could be interesting, then I found out how absolutely, insanely, ridiculously stupid it really was. It was so bad that I actually took out my pocket knife and stuck my hand to the table.
Please people, stop watching this and all other reality shows, they're the trash that is jamming the networks and canceling quality programming that requires some thought to create.
In an era of such awful cartoons, I am rather in shock to see a movie with such good morals make it to the IMDB Bottom List for Animated movies.
This movie does contradict the first. I won't deny that. However, when I was in the target age group for this movie, I didn't even notice, nor would it have mattered if I did. The people who made it may have used "New Generation" to note that this is another way the Care Bear Family could have began. Perhaps we are meant to decide for ourselves how the Care Bear family truly began.
This was my favorite movie at age 3-6, and it did not scare me or confuse me at all.

I came away from this movie with the feeling that it could have been so much better. Instead of what should be a gripping, tense story of a boy's fight for survival in the wilderness, it comes off as a National Geographic documentary meets Columbia sportswear ad.
The film begins with Brian (Jared Rushton) preparing for a journey by plane to see his father. His mother fortuitously gives him the curious choice of a hatchet as a going-away gift (what's wrong with a Rubik's Cube?), little knowing how badly he will soon need it. Once in the air, the plane's pilot (a blink-and-you'll-miss-him cameo by Ned Beatty) suffers a fatal heart attack, leaving Brian helpless as the plane crashes into a lake. Extremely lucky to walk (or rather swim) away virtually unscathed, Brian must find shelter, food and hope for rescue.
Here is where the main problem with the movie begins. By the very nature of Brian's solitude, Jared has very few lines to speak, and so the film ought to have compensated by ratcheting up the tension of each scene. Instead, he is shown walking around, sitting around, and so on, with only a minimal sense of danger. As a result, too much reliance is placed on flashbacks to the parents' troubled marriage as the source of tension. These scenes merely get in the way and don't particularly add much to the story. Even worse, occasionally Jared  his face covered with mud - lets out a primal scream or two, which conjures up unfortunate parallels to `Predator.' Speaking of unfortunate, we could have done with being spared the sight of his mullet, but it presumably helped keep him warm at night.
Another disappointment is Pamela Sue Martin in a totally ineffectual performance as the mother. Both she and the father have very little impact in the movie. For instance, we are never shown how they react to news of Brian's disappearance, how they might be organizing rescue attempts, and so on. This is just one source of tension the film-makers would have done well to explore instead of spending so much time on events that happened before Brian embarked on his journey.