Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
This is a pretty strange movie. It does comes across as an exploitation film with over-the-top violence and unrealistic situations, but unusual for being constructed around rural characters at war with each other, as opposed to an invading 'other'.
The movie is an excessive stereotype of Vietnam veterans, in a long line of films that portrayed the vets of that war as dangerous psycopaths. Kris Kristofferson's last line is 'I ain't lost a war yet', as he meets his demise after wreaking a long trail of murder and destruction, including the town's chief of police and his brother's girlfriend in a particularly chilling scene. However, Kristofferson is a good enough actor, and charismatic enough, to carry this villain with a surprising depth. Vincent is clearly the golden boy, but with enough intensity layered over his clean cut goodness. The movie bears some plot resemblance to Winchester 73 where Jimmy Stewart tries to tolerate a criminal brother until being forced to act against him.
The movie has b-movie grade action, though the presence of Kristofferson, Vincent, a gorgeous Victoria Principal and Bernadette Peters give it an A-grade lineup.
I give it a 7 for being a long lost view into an American psyche of post-Vietnam/pre-Reagan introspection, paranoia, and confusion, and a movie industry that was willing to address such topics at that time.
Seen on the THIS channel, a great network that keeps playing lots of old movies of the 70s through 90s, regardless of political bent.

OK, a slasher movie. a very, very stupid slasher movie.
We got your stereotypical teenagers in a house thing going. We got a FBI agent that's seen Dirty Harry one time too many. "So what's the secret....punks?" We got about 4 different little camera shots and scene that make no sense at all. "Hey man, i'm fixing the sprinklers" ((that guy was my favorite part of the movie)) Suddenly there's a preacher tied up on a couch watching home movies, he gets killed.
they follow the killer into the middle of nowhere, with no cops. suddenly she's in a church, wearing a wedding dress. i swear this is the stupidest slasher movie i've ever seen.
This Movie has great fight scenes. Now its true that the acting is a little rough. But If I wanted to see a movie based on acting skills I would watch a Cheesy movie Like American Beauty. But If you want to see a movie with true martial arts in it and with Amazing stunts WITHOUT the use of wires and flying threw the air like so many movies around now which are over killing the matrix. Then Watch this. Now it's true the two main stars in the show where in the kid show the power rangers and another cast member of that show has a bit part in this movie. But hey the fight scenes are enough to make Jet Li p**s his pants. And the stunts are worthy enough for Jackie Chan to sit threw and admire.

This movie is about as underrated as Police Acadmey Mission to Moscow. This movie is never funny. It's maybe the worst comedy spoof ever made. Very boring,and dumb beyond belief. For those people that think this movie is underrated god help you. I give this movie * out of ****
Gene Tierney and Dana Andrews, who were both so memorable in 1944's "Laura, re-teamed for this excellent 1950 film-noir.
An embittered policeman, Andrews as Mark, can't get over the fact that his father was a hoodlum who died in a police shootout while trying to break out of jail. As a result of his bitterness, Mark doesn't know when to stop using his hands. It's this inability that leads to the accidental death of a small-time hood.(Craig Stevens)
In trying to frame gangster Gary Merrill, Mark unintentionally puts the heat on innocent cab-drive, Tom Tully, who is the father of Gene Tierney, who was separated by Stevens.
This is a well-thought out film dealing with the conscience of a basically decent human being.
The ending is not exactly upbeat as Mark will have to face the music. At least, he finally admits to what he has done.

The reviews I read for this movie were pretty decent so I decided to check it out. BAD IDEA! This is another movie about a ghost out for revenge against a group friends. The story is stupid, mix two parts Ringu with one part Prom Night, a sprinkle of I Know what you did Last Summer, and add a tiny dash of Single White Female - now blend until completely nonsensical. There is nothing new to this plot, and revisiting the clichés I've grown so fond of wasn't even entertaining this time. This movie jumps to and from the past too much, and once I made sense of it all I realized it still didn't make much sense. Characters go from sane to psycho killer in the blink of an eye. Speaking of characters, they are all your stereotypical favorites - the greedy selfish lawyer, the egocentric actress, the has-been baseball star, the video voyeur, the bitter girl, the spooky quiet chick, the 'nicer-than-nice' nice girl, a freakin' black cat... and I didn't care about any of them. Perhaps a better writer could have made the movie work, there were some decent scenes in it, but overall this movie was a mess. I should also mention a certain 'video tape' that would have been IMPOSSIBLE to shoot.
This movie isn't the worst Asian horror has to offer by far, but it is still pretty bad. If you just want to see some creepy images in the dark, or just want to laugh out loud at some over the top acting, or just want to yell "you're stupid!" at a movie screen, or just want to have another Asian horror flick up your sleeve when someone asks you how many you've seen - this movie is for you.
Those seeking a decent plot look elsewhere.
From the beginning of the show Carmen was there. She was one of the best characters. Why did they get rid of her?! The show not the same as before. Its way worse.
The best episodes were with Carmen in them. You can't replace someone from the beginning! That is like South Park without Kyle or Child's Play without Chucky! It's not right! The niece who replaced her is just, ugh! Awful. She doesn't fit into the storyline at all. She was one of the main characters, and the niece can't replace her. She was an awesome actress. Way better than the niece. Get her back, or you'll lose a TON of viewers.

This apology for a movie is about absolutely nothing! Rachel Griffiths must have needed the money. The film must have been made on a very low budget, because the lighting was non existent. I made a vow if I ever see Pete Postlesumthingor other I'll commit suicide. I'd be happy to know if there was 1) a plot or 2)a script. My biggest regret is I wasted my time watching this rubbish.
You know how Star Trek fans flocked to all the Star Trek movies, even the really bad ones? Why? To see their heroes in action one more time. That's the way I feel about Doc Savage. I am a major fanatic for the character, and the prospect of seeing Doc and his crew in an adventure was overwhelming. And the first 20 minutes of the film only heightened that feeling of anticipation. Then they decided to crib elements from a number of Doc adventures and throw them into this one movie, resulting in a somewhat disjointed film. There's a lot of promise in here, diluted by a number of unfortunate choices (the music, the "camp" elements, etc.) But the spirit of Doc is there, and that's what those of us familiar with Doc and his crew respond to. So, in my long-winded way, what I'm trying to say is that this is not a bad movie: it's just not as good as it should have been. And anyone who is a fan of Superman, James Bond, Indiana Jones, Buckaroo Banzai, and many other characters ought to check this movie out just to become familiar with the hero who provided inspiration for them all.

This is one of those films that I could only sit through once. Charlotte Henry is fine -- in fact, all the actors were fine. The problem was in the script, the dialog, the direction, the editing, the sets and the special effects. Granted, this was 1933, but it really creaked. Part of the problem is that actors like Richard Arlen, Gary Cooper, W.C. Fields and Cary Grant are not recognizable (there faces cried for a recognition that was not forthcoming). The movie just clumped along with no cohesion. Much of Lewis Carrols spirit, humor and continuity are missing. What a pity! It's such a great book. I would recommend Disney's 1951 version.
"Perhaps we can arrange a meet. " "Where are you now? " "I'm sitting in my office. " "I doubt that. " "Why would you doubt that? " "If you were in your office right now we'd be having this conversation face-to-face. "
Bourne remains street tough, and elusive. Only his inhuman resilience leads the film a little too far into fantasy. Conversation is macho, to the point with only shards of Bond type gallows humour. Its all about the action.
The feeling that there is something going on at another level to the world we live in is what the trilogy coveys so well. A scene set in Waterloo with a Guardian journalist does this to great effect. There is no meeting of worlds - you are in it or just a superfluous body.
If the shaky cam doesn't annoy you too much, enjoy this film and hope they somehow keep the franchise going.

But this movie was a bore. The history part was fine but the musical part was not. Not one song I cared about and no soundtrack to be heard.
If Sweet Jesus" was suppose to be comic relief it never work. If John Adams was suppose to be the obnoxious annoying one, the rest of them were trying to overthrow him in every scene.
Hancock and Jefferson were the only bearable characters in the whole movie.
The historical quotes and the debate about slavery in their historical context were interesting enough but not enough to overcome the lack of music in a musical.
Shouldn't you be humming the songs after a musical, except for a few chirps, nothing else was worth the breath.
this was a favorite Christmas Special that I wish that they would release on vhs or dvd , since my 33 RPM got lost,and any cassettes I made are also long gone.
I am not even a big John Denver fan but was very impressed with the music , which was mostly traditional favorites with a muppet spin ( esp Little St. Nick ! ) It also contained a few little known songs ( original ? ).
Even though it was done at the end of the '70's this show had a timeless feel to it. Hoping to find a copy soon !!!

This time we get a psycho toy maker named "Joe Petto" (get it?) who makes living, evil toys that kill people. He goes after the family who has the bad luck of just simply living in the same house where he and his mutant robot son "Pino" (again, get it?) used to live.
Easily the worst (and hopefully [presumably] the last) in this semi - series, this one and the previous one look like soft core porn movies, but without the sex and nudity. It's kind of like a low rent hybrid of "Halloween III", "Puppet Master", "Dolls" and bad home movies. Supposedly in 2000 they started to do a sixth chapter in the series, but it was abandoned and never completed. We can all only hope that it stays that way...
1/2 a star out of ****
/The first episode I saw of Lost made me think, i thought what is this some people who crashed and get chased by a giant monster. But it's not like that, it's far more than that,because their is no monster at all and every episode that you see of Lost , well it's getting better every time. a deserted island with an underground bunker and especially the connection between the people who crossed paths with each other before they crashed. That's the real secret.
This series rules and I can't wait to know what's really going on there I hope that they don't air the last 2 episodes in the theaters,this series deserves a 9 out of 10

Giving credit where it's due, only the technicolor, costumes and sets deserve any honorable mention.
This is undoubtedly the lowest point in BING CROSBY's long career at Paramount. The script is about as clumsy as you could possibly imagine and neither the casual Bing nor William Bendix nor Sir Cedric Hardwicke can do a thing about repairing it.
Bendix looks extremely foolish in a page boy wig. And poor Rhonda Fleming has a stock costume heroine role requiring her to look adoringly at Bing and little else except for warbling a couple of uninspired ballads in a voice probably dubbed for the occasion.
Just plain awful! Mark Twain's wit is not evident in any of the screenplay. Only die-hard Crosby fans can possibly appreciate this mess of a film given uninspired direction. Even the extras look as though they don't know what they're supposed to be doing.
Summing up: Dull as dishwater. Not recommended, even for children.
First things first, this movie is achingly beautiful. A someone who works on 3D CG films as a lighter/compositor, the visuals blew me away. Every second I was stunned by what was on screen As for the story, well, it's okay. It's not going to set the world on fire, but if you like your futuristic Blade Runner-esquire tales (and who doesn't?) then you will be fine.
I do have to say that I felt the voice acting was particularly bland and detracted from the movie as a whole. I saw it at the cinema in English, but I am hoping that there is a French version floating around somewhere.
Definitely worth seeing.

I'm guessing the writers have never read a book of any kind, much less a Dickens novel, and certainly not David Copperfield, and that they based their screenplay on another poorly written screenplay, possibly an adaptation of Copperfield, though just as likely anything else, from which they randomly discarded about a third of the pages and then shuffled the rest, along with some random pages from a screenplay that someone's eighth grade nephew had written for an English class, and for which he had received a failing grade.
If the casting was a bad joke - e.g., Richards as Kramer playing Micawber - which it was, then the direction and acting were the poorly- delivered punch lines. Getting beyond Kramer as Micawber, if possible, Ham was such a complete ogre, hunch-back and all, that I was half expecting at some point to see him being pursued by an angry pitch-fork and torch wielding mob of villagers. Uriah was almost as much of a clown figure as Micawber. Mr. Murdstone evoked about as much terror as that Muppet vampire from Sesame street. The actor playing older David was, I believe, actually a woman. In any case, looking perpetually as if he wished he could find a mirror to see how pretty he looked, and fancied that he looked quite pretty indeed, he could scarcely convince us that he was writing with a quill pen. And while we're on that subject, in one of the many gross inaccuracies perpetrated by the half-wit producers of this embarrassment, in the unnecessary shots of David writing his story he appears to be somewhere between 18 and 21 years old, when he should be in his forties. Perhaps the greatest transgression, although it's difficult to choose, was the invented showdown between David and Murdstone as he courted a third wife in Switzerland, preceded of course by the invented death of Murdstone's second wife. While they were at it it is a wonder they didn't send Heep to the guillotine, and have him deliver Sidney Carton's famous last words. It couldn't have made things much worse really. It might have been far far better.
There are literally thousands of small and large sins against literature throughout this miscarriage of art, and anyone who watches it runs the risk of severe and permanent damage to all aspects of their sensibility.
Yes this movie is predictable and definitely not award-material. But then it doesn't try to be anything it is not. A fun-filled romp with real funny one-liners, a stellar and very funny performance by Peter O'Toole, a grounding and down to earth performance from Joan Plowright. The band's performance was on the spot, each one playing their role in a deft, comical manner. The music was good though not great but filled out the movie nicely. From some of the negative comments I deduced that the subtlety of some of the humour went over their heads. A good example is the comment about the "strange baseball-like game", well my dear American, that was cricket -from which baseball is derived- and the explaining of it to the ignorant US band was very funny for those that do know cricket. Also no, you were not supposed to wince when Carl broke a window; it was funny how Lord Foxley said "oh yes!" to get more money for breakage and the manager said at the same time "oh no" also referring to the money. Jeez, it seems that every joke must be explained to some people... All-in-all I enjoyed it and had some great laughs! Well worth seeing.

A yawn-inducing, snail-paced disappointment, Inside Man tells the story of a detective (Denzel Washington) who is under investigation due to his possible involvement in a case of missing money. When a bank is robbed and hostages are held against their will by a mastermind thief (Clive Owen) and his team, the detective is assigned to coerce the thief to surrender  his one shot at proving he is innocent and worthy of his position. Enter a powerful woman (Jodie Foster) with secrets and intents of her own, sent to recover an item from the bank owner's safety deposit box that is stored within the bank, and you have quite the three-way dilemma. Unfortunately, all you get it set-up in the film, and nothing pays off in the end. Denzel Washington is at his most uninteresting in an ineffective and distastefully egocentric performance. The only saving grace for the film is its competent co-stars Jodie Foster and Clive Owen, who are much better than the film itself. In fact, Jodie Foster delivers the most surprising and high-caliber performance playing against type as a ruthless, cutthroat villain of sorts. Clive Owen isn't given much to do besides brood and pose, but the depth of his presence and his achieved acting ability more than make up for his underdeveloped role. It's strange that so much talent is wasted on this film of little impact or interest. You have to wonder what director Spike Lee was thinking while he was creating this film. The most perplexing aspect of Inside Man, however, is how much unwarranted praise it has received. For a film that seemed to have all the makings of a pre-summer blockbuster, this one falls horribly flat.
I watch Cold Case because of the real life experiences depicted. This one was very close to me and touched me deeply, so beautifully handled, thanks, Merideth. All the characters are well developed 3D especially Coop. The material is still difficult to approach, the US is far behind the developed nations of the world. only this kind of honest actual experiential portrayal and treatment makes an impact on the population. of course, not everyone sees things the same way but i am heartened that 3/4 of the men polled in the under 30 crowd voted the same as me 10. you're reaching the hard ones - i will forever reserve the "best episode" place for this episode. Please continue taking chances and accept my heartfelt gratitude.

Marie Dressler carries this Depression-era drama about a kindly bank owner, which recently aired on TCM during their April Fools comedy month. If you come with the expectation of big laughs courtesy the Dressler-Polly Moran team, you'll be disappointed, as this is really a very downbeat film. It's also very poorly made, surprisingly so considering it came from MGM. Leonard Smith's bare bones cinematography is strictly from the 'set up the camera and don't move it' school, frequently to the detriment of the cast, who find themselves delivering lines off screen (it's like a pan and scan print before such existed!) or having their heads cut off. The film doesn't even have a credited director, underlying the apparent fly by night nature of the production. Overall, it's an unsatisfying mess, with Dressler frequently over-emoting and only that bizarre, final reel dash to the bathroom to set it apart.
Five Deadly Venoms is not as bloody and violent as Story Of Ricky or Super Ninjas, but it features some of the best hand-to-hand fight sequences in Hong Kong film history. Director Chang Cheh creates what is considered by many to be his masterpiece. This movie launched the careers of the five men who play the venoms. Meng Lo plays yet another bad ass. He would go on to be in Super Ninjas. Kuo Chui who is Philip Kwok would go on to Story Of Ricky and Hard Boiled. Any chop socky fan can apperciate this. But I still think it ain't as good as Super Ninjas (also made by Chang Cheh). But all chop socky is good and this is one of the very best.

How cynical are the writers, to pander so. I may be an American citizen, but I don't need to see other Americans pat each other on the back for an hour and half in order to enjoy a film. I'm astonished that so few have commented on how utterly jingoistic, sentimental and trite the dialogue in this film really is. The historical inaccuracies of the film are not as gross and offensive as in "U-571" (which changes British submariners to American ones) but you still walk away feeling a little slimy. Really, the Germans in this film do nothing but admire the Americans between battle scenes! How sad, unnecessary! I'd just like to say to the writers: it's obvious to many of us that you can't capture real people, with real problems, under real pressure, and that you've taken some very well tested shortcuts. Lucky for you there will always be nationalist nutjobs to appreciate your sugar-coated tripe.
For anyone who wishes to get an impression of the Soviet view of modern Russian history this monumental film is a treasure. The story starts at the turn of the century (1900) in the yellowish sepia colours of old photographs which improves to black and white during the middle of the century and to full colour when the story approaches modern times (i.e. the 1960s).
The story focuses on a boy in a remote Siberian village, who is marked by the arrival and arrest of an anarchist during the czarist era. He later joins the Bolsheviks after the revolution and brings soviet communism to his village. His son, by the local beauty, fights the Germans during the Second World War. When he returns to the village, the oil industry takes off and we are treated to some Soviet economic idealism.
This film is long and slow, but utterly logic and very well made. It can be seen in three parts.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas was a wonderful little Christmas cartoon that anyone could easily enjoy, I never did see the reason for a remake. Not to mention a remake that was made with humans, the cartoon was just perfect enough, what's the purpose of this film? But it also seemed a little odd for Jim Carrey to be the Grinch. I mean he's a great comedic actor, but him as the Grinch? It just didn't make any sense to me. His performance was a little over the top and unintentionally laughable at moments. Not to mention some of the added dialog was a bit childish and not enjoyable. The whole story of the Grinch and Cindy Lou-Who was over done and wasn't needed. They actually just destroyed the story, period.
All the who's in Whoville are getting ready for their best Christmas season yet where everything is intended to go perfectly. But Cindy Lou-Who is curious and worried about the Grinch that lives above them and that he's not going to get as good of a Christmas as the other who's. He kicks her out and decides that he doesn't want Christmas this year and that in fact he should just steal Christmas all together to show the who's what his version of Christmas is all about. But soon he realizes that the who's may know that it's a little bit more than what is the materialized version of Christmas.
How the Grinch Stole Christmas wasn't needed and was a bit over the top. I really recommend that you stick with the cartoon just for the simple fact that this is a pretty disturbing version, at least in my opinion. The make up and presentation of the whole film was just a bit over done, not to mention that How the Grinch Stole Christmas! was more meant to be as a cartoon rather than a version starring Jim Carry. But at least this version makes you grateful for the Boris Karloff version that is played every Christmas.
1/10