Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Possibly the best movie ever created in the history of Jeffrey Combs career, and one that should be looked upon by all talent in Hollywood for his versatility, charisma, and uniqueness he brings through his characters and his knowledge of acting.

I have been watching horror movies since I was 5 years old, beginning with Childs Play.Since then, I have seen good horror movies and bad, but this is without question, the DUMBEST movie I have ever seen! The actors did all they could with the material. The plot was just idiotic. Plus , it was just all gore. I can stomach a lot of blood, but that was just ridiculous! In one of the scenes, a character gets stabbed in the rear end and choked with his intestines! Plain Stupid! Another problem with this movie is that its boring and probably the slowest movie ever made. The end of it is just dumb. But then again, it goes with the rest of it! At the end, when the girl gets away from the cannibal/ancestor, she receives help from a old lady. The old lady is making tea, but when she turns around to talk to the girl, the girl attacks her! She turned into a cannibal! Retarded movie.
This is quite an amazing film to watch. Using digital technology, the director, Rohmer, has literally encrusted his living actors into painted backdrops. Most of the time this works brilliantly, especially at the start where the film is like a pop up story book come to life. It is less successful in a few scenes, where it limits camera angles (they had not painted the side of some of the buildings for example) but it is a very interesting way to film a historical film which is as much about our own misconceptions and limited views of history as History itself. It is narrated using the memoirs of the Duc d'Orleans' ex- mistress, Grace Elliott. So, an event usually claimed as one of their own by Marxist historians, especially in France, is here told from the point of view of a female aristocratic foreigner. Inevitably a different point of view emerges -there can be no objective representation. The use of the memoirs device does give the film a rather episodic quality. Personally, I found the story line around the King's death the most interesting. A staunch Royalist she is shocked when the Duc votes for the King's death (a basic knowledge of the French Revolution is probably helpful to follow the dialogue between Grace and the Duc here. He was Louis's cousin and had himself elected to the Assembly, where he promptly changed his name to Philip Equality). The filming of Louis's death is masterly. Grace and her maidservant are in Meudon, out of Paris, watching from a hill with a telescope. We do not see the execution, we only hear the maid's commentary, like Grace. The most dramatic event of the Revolution happens off screen. Grace cannot bear to watch her king be killed. Her view is that of an aristocrat. Any justification of Louis's death is literally beyond her vision. This is powerful, keenly intelligent film making. The love story between the duc and Grace is insinuated, never told, and is powerfully moving (tho the Duc does seem a bit of a pompous fool at times; what does she see in him? No accounting for taste). The undercurrents of madness (simply existing being enough to be a suspect) that sweep individuals along in a time such as the Revolution are illustrated as Grace's life is turned upside down, her house is searched daily, yet she still orders her servants to cook her food and is incapable of dressing herself! If you have any interest at all in a subtle, well told film, making clever use of new technology to tell an old tale, or the representation of a pivotal moment in Europe's history narrated by an aristocratic foreign woman, its ultimate outsider, then this is well worth your time. It is a little slow in places but your patience is amply rewarded.

Jamie Foxx is fun but this movie has been done before. The bad guy plays a "malkovichian" character from "In the Line of Fire". The cops will do anything to find the bad guy - and of course the good guy has two sets of bad guys and one set of cops after him - all the while he is just trying to turn over a new leaf...
Its time to pay tribute to the great Charton Heston after his recent passing but this film is not the one. His other films of a past generation were BEN HUR, THE TEN COMMANDENTS, OMEGA MAN and PLANET OF THE APES were his better works.
This film made in 1973 attempts to prophesies a future earth , in 2022, that is so overpopulated that the human race has been manipulated by authorities to eat a universally produced food product called "Soylent Green" which is manufactured with Human flesh. This bizarre and implausible film was as ridiculous at the time of its release as it is now and assumes India's population which would be about 2 billion by that stage would be then meat eaters without knowing it.
Charlton Heston's character this supers secret international conspiracy that world powers have concocted to meet the nutritional demands of overpopulation by using cannibalism.
Unfortunately for the producers of this film the Green message they deliver is not the Greens Party of today's ethos thank god. Cannibalism was practiced by the indigenous populations in New Zealand , Fiji and Borneo up until only 40 years before this film was made but has been long abandoned by human civilization.
Another silly prediction in the film is that women become quasi sex slaves turning back the tide of radical feminism which was on the rise in 1972 when this film was made.
The film was stupid then and is as silly now but does contain a very unmemorable last film performance by the late and great Edward G. Robinson but still no a valid reason to revisit the film other than for academic reasons.
This is a dud of a film and I wouldn't even recommend it to baby boomers or Charlton Heston fans. All the other reviews of this film I have read all sound the same referring to a dystopian society in the future of which the centralised theme only seems to involve the USA in which an ecological disaster has occurred.
The only merit in the film is that earth does face overpopulation.

Extremely poor action film starring the ever wooden Dolph Lundgren and Brandon Lee trapped in a sidekick role that never seems to gel. The action is at best average, a bit of nudity chucked in and yes Tia Carrera does use a body double!
The set-up is the usual renegade cop forced to break in a new partner on a big case, the makers at least try to give the formula a twist making Lundgren the cop with Oriental values and Lee the modern city slicker but there is zero character development making it almost comical, Lundgrens oriental warrior outfit for the big showdown has to be seen to be believed. The action sequences are by the numbers and Lee(who would go on to make the excellent The Crow) is never given the scope to show off any particular martial arts brilliance. But given his illustrious parentage he must have been under a hell of a lot of pressure and was far better served not having to live up to his father by taking on a very different role in The Crow which showed what a unique actor he may have become if not for his tragic and early death.
Unless your a hardcore Lundgren fan or a fan of poor 80's style action movies (think Cobra etc.) then avoid.
Poor 3/10
A very realistic portrait of a broken family and the effect it has on the kid caught in between. As a child of divorced parents I was totally relating to events in the film. Also - a really cool zombie twist which I thought was VERY ORIGINAL. I'm tired of the same old stuff in movies. A very realistic portrait of a broken family and the effect it has on the kid caught in between. As a child of divorced parents I was totally relating to events in the film. Also - a really cool zombie twist which I thought was VERY ORIGINAL. I'm tired of the same old stuff in movies. A very realistic portrait of a broken family and the effect it has on the kid caught in between. As a child of divorced parents I was totally relating to events in the film. Also - a really cool zombie twist which I thought was VERY ORIGINAL. I'm tired of the same old stuff in movies.

I went on a visit to one of my relatives a while back, and we popped by a theatre, so we'd thought we'd go in and give this film a go. What a mistake! This film is awful in every department. I'd never heard of the film before, and literally everyone still hasn't. No wonder, this is as rank as it gets. It's a comedy, so it says, well the only thing funny is the ability, or lack of it, of the director to make such a film. Getting so close to Christmas, this should be titled how to under-cook a turkey in nearly one and a half hours - or however long it was, as I walked out. At the end of the film, you'll come out feeling as though you've been food poisoned on a sick turkey, and regret you wasted your time on such dribble. Who knows why such things get made. Some people had walked out from the theatre before the film was well over, and I blame myself for not walking out a lot earlier. It really annoys me that you pay good money to see something decent, and all that you come out and see is a poor TV movie that should be showed at 2 o'clock in the morning, in fact, it's that bad, day time TV shouldn't be showing it. What else can a say...probably not enough bad words could do it justice.
This is one of the greatest 80s movies!!! It sticks out like a "turd in a punchbowl"!! I can't believe Mad Magazine denounced it or whatever. And yet, they proudly put their name on a show with "Stuart", "I-speak-a-no-enlish Chinese lady" and "UPS guy on speed". What's up with that? And, I LOVE Ron Leibman-he's foxy!! Wonder why he had his name removed from the credits? It was his funniest role that I know of. Of course, he's not nearly as foxy as he was in Norma Rae. But, in my opinion, this movie is right up there with National Lampoon's Vacation. If you liked movies such as Porky's, Fast Times, Last American Virgin, or any of the other 80s teen-focused movies, you'll love this one!! Rent it and you'll see what I mean!!

I read all these reviews on here about how this is a such a good movie. Jeez, this movie was predictable and pretty boring. The acting was below average most of the time, especially by Mckenna. I haven't seen a more pathetic attempt at making someone "badass" in a movie. Oh man, this movie was a letdown. I also read somewhere this might be a cult classic. I know there are followers of the director, but this movie was just a average piece of film.
The script was lame, for the most part the acting was lame, this movie was lame.
Oh and pray for the guy that used to be in Cheers. He looks really bad.
The best actor in this movie was probably the guy in Office Space, and he was only in this movie for about 8 minutes.
4/10
This movie re-wrote film history in every way. No one cares what anyone thinks about this movie, because it transcends criticism. Every flaw in the movie is easily overcome by the many amazing things the movie has going for it. It is an extremely beautiful movie, and I doubt many of us will see anything like it again. I've seen it more times than I care to count, and I still become transfixed every time, with a feeling which is hard to describe. One for the ages.

Unless you understand wretched excess this movie won't really mean much to you. An attempt was made to interject a bit of humanity into a cold and bleak period consumed by alcohol and drugs -- it doesn't work.
When Salma Hayak does her big disco number her voice is so obviously dubbed it is pathetic -- the producers could at least have gotten someone that sounded remotely like her.
The documentary that has been playing on television lately is far superior and gives a much truer view of that period of our history.
No one, with the exception of Mikey Myers, could be accused of acting; however, he does an incredible job.
I saw this film when I was a young child on television (thank-you Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) and had nightmares about it for years afterwards.
Trnka was one of the mentors for Bratislav Pojar, one of Canada's National Film Board's best animators. Pojar was, in turn a mentor and collaborator for the great Drouin. If you like Trnka you should see "Night Angel".
The symbolism is obvious, but deftly used. The oppositions of beauty and life (the plant) are placed in opposition with the anonymity of the gloved hand. The poor puppet hero is condemned despite a lack of political agenda.
What I most remembered was the feeling of oppression in the decor. The small room where the action takes place is the character's entire world. The invasion by the hand is a complete violation of that world.
Beautiful and haunting film. I found a copy of this and other wonderful shorts by Trnka at the public library and showed it to my own kids. A must see.

You know what you are getting when you purchase a Hallmark card. A sappy, trite verse and that will be $3.99, thank you very much. You get the same with a Hallmark movie. Here we get a ninety year old Ernie Borgnine coming out of retirement to let us know that as a matter of fact, he is not dead like we thought. Poor Ernie, he is the poor soul that married Ethel Merman several years ago and the marriage lasted a few weeks. In this flick, Ernie jumps in feet first and portrays the Grandpa that bonds with his long lost grandkid. We have seen it before. You might enjoy this movie but please don't say that you were not warned.
I don't give a movie or a show ten very often but this show touched a nerve in a way no other show has. I found the entire series on mysoju.com and thought the premise looked interesting so I took a look see. I wasn't disappointed in what I saw; I was moved. This story stays on the tender side as the main characters move us through the scenes. Sumire Iwaya, played thoughtfully by Koyuki, shows us human nature as she wants to keep troubles from being shown. No one really wants to lay their soul out in front of a perspective mate. So instead she substitutes a human, played by an adorable Matsumoto Jun, as a pet. This pet is like any other creature we would consider a pet. The difference; he can retaliate in the same way, after all Momo is a man, not a dog. As he is treated like a pet, he reacts to situations how a dog might react. She spends time with the new boyfriend, Momo gets jealous. It's when she realizes that her pet isn't just a pet that the sexual tension between the two starts to become thick - Momo is a dance prodigy. Her thinking slowly changes as we start to get a glance at his own thoughts. Matsumoto takes us from seeing a character who is very one dimensional in the beginning, to two dimensional when we see he's a dancer, to a three dimensional character when we see him start to fall for his master as a man, not as a dog. In my opinion, it's worth watching this story just to see this character develop. Plus Matsumoto plays Momo with such tenderness you almost start to wish you had one too. Neither wants to think about the future and how their relationship will change, but as Momo (the name she gives him as one would name their new puppy) states  we both knew this wasn't going to be able to last. Watch this show with a open mind, it's worth it.

I bought this film on DVD so I could get an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. Thankfully, Mike, Crow, and Tom Servo are watchable, because the film itself is not. Although there is a plot, a story one can follow, and a few actors that can act, there isn't anything else. The movie was so boring, I have firmly confirmed that I will never watch it again without Tom, Crow and Mike. As summarized above, however, it was better than the film featured in the MST3K episode that preceded it; Mitchell.
I was going to give it an 8, but since you people made 6.5 out of a lot better votes, I had to up my contribution. The river Styx was pure genius. Sure, Woody was his perennial stuff, but at least his role was appropriate. The first half hour was really hilarious, and then the rest of the movie was easy to watch. The dialog was clever enough, and Woody's card tricks at the parties, along with the reaction from the upper crust, were fun to watch. This was much better than the newspaper critics made it sound out to be. And a plus, a little Sorcerer's Apprentice to go along with it. And of course, did you notice that Johansen is getting a bit frumpy? Charles Dance is always entertaining, as was Hugh Jackman.

I'm still trying to decide if this is indeed, the worst film I have ever seen - A very disturbing problem with this film is that real scientists are interviewed, but their footage is edited to make it look as though they support the ideas of the many BSers who populate this film. The BS to signal ratio of the interviews is about ten thousand to one - at the end, the interviewees seem to be saying, "We want you to _think_ !!", but they themselves are too lazy to do simple research about things they assert as fact.
If you feel that you are open-minded, and wish to expand your consciousness, please be open-minded enough to read some actual books about quantum theory: "Einstein's Universe", Nigel Calder (a slim volume, not a challenge), "The Cosmic Code", by Heinz Pagels. If you can't bring yourself to read a book, please don't complain to reviewers about being "open-minded".
To recap, this film is just unbelievably bad.
You know what's a really good film which questions the nature of reality? "Thirteenth Floor", directed by Roland Emmerich, with Craig Bierko, Gretchen Mol, Vincent D'onofrio. Smart, sexy, thought-provoking.
This movie has very good acting by virtually all the cast, a gripping story with a chilling ending, great music, and excellent visuals without significant special effects. It is interesting to note though that, like so much science fiction, its predictions for the future don't appear likely to come to pass as early as depicted. That's not to say we're out of the woods yet, but 2022 is now obviously too soon to be in this condition. It shares this failing with a fairly illustrious list of science fiction classics: "1984", "2001: A Space Odyssey (compare its space station with our International Space Station) and Isaac Asimov's "I Robot" (positronic brains were to have been invented in the 1990's).

If I could give it a zero, I'd change my mind and give it a -10 instead. Absolutely horrible movie with no movie plot, doesn't make sense of what is happening. Just PLAIN BORING. Please don't waste your money on this one. Pleaseee!!! This movie could have done so well if it truly depicted the real zodiac killer's story, but nopes, I didn't feel anything but disgust while watching it. Do yourself a favor and rent some classic movies instead, its better to watch a movie you've already seen like 3-4 times than watch this crap! I don't understand why people even bother to make such movies when they know its not going to do well. Zodiac killer should be called 'Boriac killer' instead!!!
Just came back from the first showing of Basic Instinct 2. I was going into it thinking it would be crappy based on preview critics and I was pleasantly surprised! If you liked the original Basic Instinct I think you will enjoy #2 just as much if not more. Great story that always keeps you wondering and thinking. The music is superb, reprising the original's theme. Don't go expecting Academy Award material, go to see it for enjoyment and fun. That's what movies are designed for -- escapism. I can't think of a better way to escape than to escape with Sharon Stone who is as sexy as she ever was. Am thinking about going to see it again this weekend. Go see it!

This film is about a Japanese woman who has an obsession with calligraphy on skin.
The plot is absolutely bizarre. I fail to see any "sensual" or "erotic" undertones. The plot turns an ancient art form into a fetishistic pornography. In addition, the scenes that are filmed in Hong Kong are certainly portraying bad parts of Hong Kong, such as the airport in the middle of the city, poor living conditions and noise pollution. Throughout the whole film, I keep thinking that "The Pillow Book" is insulting the Japanese culture and the Hong Kong environment.
"The Pillow Book" is a perverted, yet boring film. Seriously stay away from it.
This is a great film. If this is any indication, than Hong Sang-Soo really is "Asian cinema's best kept secret". It's very similar in style to Tsai Ming-Liang and Hou Hsiao-hsien, and covers a lot of the same ground as them thematically, but I think I actually enjoy this more as a whole than any single one of their films. The overt minimalism is slightly less pronounced here than in their work, although it still completely fits that style (the camera never moves even once), and somehow I found the film less self-consciously "slow" than Tsai Ming-Liang or Hou Hsiao-hsien, which I think is part of the reason I enjoyed it more. Plus, it doesn't keep it's subjects quite as detached as Hou does. I felt like the film was also somehow more "complete" and less open-ended (just barely) than some of their work, although that's not to say it had much of anything resembling a forward-moving plot. I would have a hard time believing that Sophia Coppola wasn't directly influenced by this film for "Lost in Translation" (scenes of a young woman wandering around by herself, and languishing in her hotel room wearing punk panties can't help but seem familiar).

Make no bones about it. There are a lot of things wrong with this movie. It's clichéd the whole way, not very funny, predictable, and illogical. Let's start at the beginning: characters. There's the boring, luckless guy - giving Stiller another notch in his boring, luckless guy belt - the allegedly wild, but in reality just fairly normal, love interest - whom Aniston plays well, but really needed no effort to do so - the fat, jovial friend, and then the assortment of clichés: an annoying daredevil Australian guy, a confident Spanish guy, etc. The storyline: the beginning is slightly unusual, but thereafter goes into the standard any-movie style, with every plot turn as predictable as your average knock-knock joke. The biggest problem was that Stiller's character's "development" really seemed to come from nothing - like your average school play, the writers knew where he started and where he ended, but didn't put enough stock into properly telling the middle bit. Finally, the alleged 'jokes' were nothing but highly watered down versions of standard gross-out humour; there was a regulation chunder scene, sweaty fat men, etc.
In conclusion, the simple fact about this movie is that learning the meaning of the word 'shart' was the only good thing. Hamburg really dished up a dog's dinner here, and the sugar coating of Stiller and Aniston may have lured the viewers, but the taste left at the end was just as rancid.
Final comment: This film may have been dreadful, but Aniston still picked a better between-Friends-seasons movie than Kudrow's odious 'Marci X.'