Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
The story and the characters were some of the best I've ever seen. the graphics were good for the PS and the cut scenes and voice overs were amazing. I beat the game at least 3 times and loved every second of it. I felt the problems the protagonist faced were believable and realistic and i believe it deserves a sequel. or at least a remake. If they remade it for the ps3 i would buy the system for just that game and maybe mgs4 its amazing also the idea and execution of the dragoon system is enough to warrant a rental and on top of that ad the inventive although sometimes cheating(stupid buster wand) combat addition system and the plot makes this game a definite buy.

Franco Rossi's 1985 six-hour Italian mini-series of Quo Vadis is a very curious beast, creating an absolutely convincing ancient Roman world shot in matter of fact fashion (very few long shots, no big cityscapes), but playing the drama down so much in favour of allusions to classical literature and history that the story constantly gets lost in the background.
The shifting structure (much of episode one is played out via voice over letters) and lack of narrative urgency makes the full six-hour version simultaneously demanding and undemanding, and certainly far too often uninvolving, but it has something going for it. The two main strengths are the characterisation of Petronius (a thankfully dubbed Frederic Forrest, whose own voice would almost certainly flatten his dialogue) as a man whose spent so long looking for an astute angle to survive court life that he's become incapable of experiencing emotion, and Klaus Maria Brandauer's unique take on Nero as a wannabe actor whose every move and action is calculated on how his 'audience' will receive it. Elsewhere, Max Von Sydow briefly appears in a few episodes, being rewarded with the show's most impressive and genuinely moving scene here he encounters a child as he attempts to leave Rome. It's the kind of thing the show could do with more of, but it seems all too often to flatten every potentially emotional, inspiring or exciting moment under it's relentlessly low-key direction.
Unfortunately Francesco Quinn makes a staggeringly anonymous hero, blending in with the walls and coming over less as a Roman officer than that quiet, slightly gormless but inoffensive guy who works in the same office as you who never says much at office parties - you know, the one who you think is called Dave or something like that. The budgetary limitations are very visible once its Meet the Lions time for the Christians and Ursus battle with the bull is so determinedly low key that it just passes over you before the show just abruptly loses interest and suddenly ends.
Not a trip I can particularly recommend, I'm afraid, but if you do embark on it it's one not entirely without its small rewards.
And yet another run of South Park comes to an end. This wasn't as strong an episode as I'd hoped for, but Night of the Living Homeless was a stronger finisher then Stanley's Cup, Tsst, Bloody Mary, or Erection Day. It still can't hold a candle to Woodland Critter Christmas and Goobacks, but few episodes can.
Night of the Living Homeless is a spoof of the zombie genre, done in a way only South Park would think of. Instead of flesh eating zombies, the entities are homeless that request change and seem to survive off of it.
Randy and other residents are locked in the Community Center, though this time on the roof, where they can survey the scene. A particularly funny moment is when one member finds out his home is gone, and becomes homeless, leaving Randy no choice but to shoot him.
Meanwhile, the four boys set out to solve the problem, with the whole story behind the homeless takeover trying to convey a message, but being seriously uninspired. South Park is at it's best a lot of the times when it is being ridiculous. Matt and Trey played it safe this week, and didn't really critique the homeless problem, just lampooned it.
The shock moment of the episode comes when a scientist shoots himself in an attempt to avoid the homeless. This is the first time a suicide on South Park goes wrong, and we watch the poor man miss his brain and then attempt to shoot himself many times while he painfully dies. Another inspired South Park moment.
Overall, the episode was funny, but it was kept from being great by withholding any real commentary on the homeless and sticking straight with the zombie shtick. The ending is somewhat funny, but nothing new.
Now we must wait until October for the next batch of episodes. It's a long haul, but South Park must be applauded for it's run. The show seemed to be running out of steam last season, but now it's back in full form.

This is a wonderfully goofy example of a self produced, written and directed vanity project ...while I was working as a crew member John Carradine commented to me (before the burning at the stake sequence): "This is the worst piece of sh*t I've ever worked on ...and I've worked on a lot of pieces of sh*t." Also An interesting moment earlier when Jim Mitchum was having trouble with his lines and started cursing in the courtyard location of the Santuario (a religious shrine in Chimayó) - at which point one of the local "vato loco" low-rider onlookers growled "...show some respect man", which apparently caused Jim to remember where he was, as he then made a very profound and heartfelt apology for his inappropriate behavior. In any case the crew did the job on deferment and were never fully paid - but came away with plenty of particularly bizarre stories - like the night we caught the producer/director's 10 year old son entertaining himself by constructing miniature Burmese tiger traps for us to break our legs in. Like they say: "Ya gotta' love the Biz..."
If this is supposed to be a portrayal of the American serial killer, it comes across as decidedly average.
A journalist [Duchovny] travels across country to California to document America's most famous murderers, unaware that one of his white trailer trash travelling companions [Pitt] is a serial killer himself.
Rather predictable throughout, this has its moments of action and Pitt and Lewis portray their roles well, but I'd not bother to see it again.

EPSILON, a.k.a. ALIEN VISITOR, is not what I expected. This is a no-budget Australian film with no special effects other than speeded-up film and quick scene cuts. The female alien (who comes over immediately able to speak perfectly accented Australian) can "blip" from place to place or time to time and alter her perception of the flow of time to match the "faster" humans.
An elderly grandmother tells her two granddaughters about a story a wandering man told her 40 years before, when an unnamed "She" came to the planet naked and completely disoriented, unable to recognize which star in the sky she came from...She meets a man alone camping in the Australian Outback, apparently bewildering him. She is here by "mistake", and gets angry when she is told she is on Earth. The Earthlings are known as consummate despoilers of the environment and a metaphor for the most insulting thing imaginable to the rest of the universe: those who "breathe the foul air" but do nothing about it, sticking their heads under the sand like an ostrich. In another amusing metaphor, Earthlings are "frogs".
From there, it is entirely a film about dialogue, as the perplexed man tries to understand She's peculiar psychology and viewpoints, even as She calls him unintelligent and "quaint". The man begins to realize maybe it's humans who are irrational and not thinking straight. Yet, while waiting to be "beamed up" back home, She sees that this human is not entirely faulty in his thinking and even falls in love with him.
The dialogue about perspectives is in spots interesting, but it is all layered with a heavy-handed environmental message and a low-budget feel (there are only two main actors, who blip around various deserted scenes, and the evil despoiling humans on the planet are never seen at all). The environmental message offers no solutions, but paints one or two dire metaphors about what will happen to nature and man if something isn't done. The logic also doesn't hang together: the rest of the universe has "given up" on Earth, yet one space woman caught on Earth by mistake manages to effect some positive change by the conclusion of the movie. What would a battalion of aliens deliberately sent here manage to achieve against pollution and waste?
In the beginning of this film, one of the commentators says that he was told that he has two strikes against him: he is black and male. But in addition to that, he has a third strike: he's gay. "You're going to have to be stronger than you ever imagined," he is told. "Paris is Burning" is a documentary about gay black and Hispanic men who are tranvestites or transsexuals.
The miracle of "Paris is Burning" is that director Jennie Livingston takes a subject that could have very easily become a freak show and allows the people in it their humanity. We learn their views of homosexuality, men, women, their hopes, their disappointments, their dreams. Some of these dreams are so unattainable it's tragic. Many of the people are seriously in denial;
This is not a film for everyone. There are shots in this movie of nude transsexuals. If you have a problem with homosexuality, then this movie isn't for you. But if you do see this movie you'll realise "Paris is Burning" isn't really about men wearing women's clothes, it's about a group of people who are routinely marginalised and put down by society at large, and what they do to get a sense of community in their lives.
I've watched this movie four times since it was released in 1991, because it says so many things: it's a commentary about materialism in our culture, about gender roles, about rich and poor people, about the media and what it celebrates, about fame and adulation. "Paris is Burning" is one of the most humane, and one of the saddest, movies I've ever seen.

I've been going through the AFI's list of the top 100 comedies, and I must say that this is truly one of the worst. Not just of the 90 movies on the list I've seen, but of any movie I've ever seen. Drunks are funny sometimes, Dudley isn't. Liza almost made it worthwhile, but alas... just go watch Arrested Development if you want to see her in something good. Seriously, Dudley laughing and drinking is supposed to be funny? I would highly recommend almost ANY other movie on the AFI's top 100 comedies for more laughs than this. If you want to see a funnier "drunk", try The Thin Man. Funnier movie in general, any Marx Brothers movie will kill (especially if you're as drunk as Arthur).
Man, some of you people have got to chill. This movie was artistic genius. Instead of searching for reasoning or messages to justify it in your reality, why can't you understand that it is a work of fiction? A story. Entertainment, for God's sake (no pun intended). It seems to me that too many of the people on here are trying to be movie critics--and they're not doing to well. I'm so impressed by the movie and Bill Paxton's job at directing, that I'm going to contact him personally to tell him. Ya know, if you weren't trying to analyze the heck out of the possibility of the story line, you might just enjoy the film. Me and all of my friends did!

This movie was advertised on radio, television, magazines, etc. Almost every hour or every issue. So when we went to the Kinnepolis multiplex our expectations were very high. But oh boy, how sad this movie is! It is a movie in Hollywood style about a movie in a movie. Shades shows so clear we aren't ready to produce 'big Hollywood movies'. I am not a movie critic, but I think a good movie starts with a good script. And the script is a nightmare. Like my subject line says, it is nothing, and then looped. You could just stare to the television as well, without really seeing anything. That was the feeling we've got when we saw Shades. Shades is a BAD PRODUCTION!!!
I have to agree with most of the other posts. Was it a comedy? a drama? to me it leaned a little to much towards the comedy side. I could have been a great movie without the comedy and it was horribly contrived. Jamie keeps running into the Julio and whats his name. In New York, how many times do you run into someone you know in downtown Cleveland.And just how could Robert Pastorelli dig up Yankee Stadium to hide the gold. Again, a comedy or drama? But it was still entertaining especially for a Sunday morning. I enjoyed Kimberly Elise's performance, she certainly a beautiful actress and seems to take her craft seriously. She is a younger actress that is going to be viable.

This was a watershed event in my movie watching life. I went to see this in the theater when it came out. I was completely amazed at just how bad it was. Movies like this make you wonder who put the money up and who owed whom a favor - a very, very large favor. The special effects are absolutely first grade level, as in any first grader could have done them. Toy rubber bats on strings with no attempt to hide the strings, arrows that appear to be drawn on the film and look to be the shape of an arrow you'd find on a street sign, and a laughable story line. Ed Wood made masterpieces compared to "Conquest". Every film student should see this thing just so they'll know the very definition of a bad movie.
THE SOPRANOS (1999-2007)
Number 1 - Television Show of all Time
Everyone thought this would be a stupid thing that wouldn't go past a pilot episode. The Sopranos has become a cultural phenomenon and universally agreed as one of the greatest television shows of all time.
James Gandolfini plays the enigmatic New Jersey crime boss, Tony Soprano, accompanied by a stellar cast. Edie Falco is superb as the worrying, loving upper-middle class mother; Tony Sirico is tremendous as a superstitious, greying consiglieri who is often very funny.
While the show has often been criticised for the negative stereotype of Italian-Americans as mafiosi, and to an extent this is undeniable, I can see so many positives from the show. The portrayal of strong family values, friendships, love and compassion; could this be present in a coarse television show about gangsters? Yes. Furthermore, other burning issues are discussed such as terrorism, social inequality and injustice, homosexuality, drugs etc. This is no shallow, dull show about tough guys and violence. It has so much more. Many of the issues we see on the show are very real.
The writing which has been pretty much great has infused so successfully current issues and managed to imbred them within the characters' lives, which makes the whole thing more interesting.
Credit must go to David Chase who has created an excellent television treasure and to James Gandolfini, for envisioning, television's most complex and enigmatic character.
Simply exceptional.
10/10

With Goldie Hawn and Peter Sellers in a movie you figure this one won't go wrong. But what can I say? This was a horrible misfire. The movie is about Peter Sellers as an older gentleman who suddenly finds himself in a relationship with a really strange young not to mention attractive hippie in Goldie Hawn. The movie is incredibly disjointed and I did not understand anything about it. Peter Sellers and Goldie Hawn are very funny people but this movie does not prove it.
That song about arabella Cinderella' is pretty cool, but that is it. I only recommend this movie to people that like to watch an extreme novelty movie, this is almost the definition of one. I guess this movie more than anything else is a sign of the times, in terms of it's definite experimentalism and all around unconventionality, the problem is the quality is completely shot and the writing, not to mention the direction is just so out there.
Peter Sellers in particular is very hit and miss, he will go from Dr. Strangelove and Being There throughout his career, to dumb movies like this and the Magic Christian, which was very similar to this one in context and style, but that movie did have a few funny moments. This one is senseless, and I am sad that someone as great as Peter Sellers was in this movie. Not recommended for anyone.
Michael Is King. This film contains some of the best stuff Mike has ever done. Smooth Criminal is pure genius. The cameos are wonderful, but as always, the main event is MJ himself. He is the best, hands down.

this movie is not good.the first one almost sucked,but had that unreal ending to make it worth watching.this one has nothing.there's zero scare,zero tension or suspense.this isn't really a horror movie.most of the kills don't show anything.there's no gore to speak of.this could almost be a TV,except for a bit of nudity and a bit of violence.the acting is not very good,either.and don't get me started on the dialogue.as for the surprise ending,surprise,there isn't one.i suppose it could have been worse,although i don't see how.but then again,it is less than 80 minutes long,so i guess that's a good thing.although it felt a lot longer. apparently this is the cut version of the film.i found it for a very cheap price,but it still not worth it.if you want the uncut more graphic version,check out the Anchor Bay edition.anyway,this version of Sleepaway Camp II:Unhappy Campers gets a big fat 1/10 from me. p.s.if you watch this movie,you will probably be a bored and unhappy camper.if you are a real fan,you might want to pick up Anchor Bay's Sleepaway Camp(with survival kit) three disc collection containing the first three movies uncut and with special features
Branagh and Fishburne deliver excellent performances in this version of the Shakespeare classic. Branagh plays Iago better than I've seen the character played in film or on stage. Some might say this film is overly Iago-centric, but I disagree. Fishburne, the first black Othello in film history ironically, delivers a powerful performance. Fishburne has always been a good actor, but this performance as the Moor of Venice may be one of his best.
The one problem I have with this film, is the simple subtraction of a number of important scenes. Desdemona's character is given far less depth than she has in the play. In this film, she might as well not be added at all. One of the worst cuts made by Branagh in this film, was the subtraction of a conversation between Iago and Desdemona at the beginning of the second act. This part of the play shows that Desdemona may not be the innocent child she is portrayed as in this film. There were a number of subtractions that hurt the integrity of this film.
However, if you have not read the play, or seen a film version of Othello before, I recommend this movie. The story, cut or not, is still incredibly enthralling. The acting, as stated previously, is very good. If some important scenes had been added, and Desdemona's character been prioritized a bit further, this would be a great movie. As it stands, it's still an admirable version of the original. I give it a marginal recommendation.

Penn takes the time to develop his characters, and we almost care about them. However there are some real problems with the story here, we see no real motivation for the evil brother's behavior, and the time line is screwed up. Supposedly set in 1963, the music is late 60s/early 70s. The references and dialogue is 70s/80s. The potential for a powerful climax presents itself, and Penn allows it to slip away. But even with all these difficulties it is worth the watch, but not great.
Tarzan and his mate(1934) was the only Tarzan movie I didn't see when I was a kid. It sounded boring. Now I have seen it. I have seen the ape man(1932) about a hundred times and I keep a copy on my drive. It's a remarkable movie. It's almost flawless. Tarzan and his mate(1934) however, falters. It's not harmonic and it's parts tend to live a life of there own. The parts themselves are often very good and the action sequences are great. Big budget expensive. Tarzan himself is co-starring. Jane dominates. She have developed and have become a jungle girl so sexy I tend to forget about criticism and sing her praise instead. Well. She let her be duped by a crock who steels a kiss from her and later murder an elephant. She insists Tarzan to carry a bracelet who belonged to her father. Forever. The thing would split to pieces the moment he went about his businesses in the jungle. Stupid? Later someone founds it in the river. Well it's supposed to proof Tarzan is dead. Some cheap drama. The crocks who has an obvious interest in a dead Tarzan convince Jane that he is gone. She takes their words for granted and want to be taken away(to England). Stupid Jane seems to have forgot how tough Tarzan is, how hard he is to kill. The caravan is leaving and Jane go along. Again a pothole. She could easily make the caravan rest for a few hours or more, to pick up a few things and say goodbye to the jungle and her dead husband. She could be smart. She could dive where they found the floating bracelet, check the banks for traces. She can make fire in 15 seconds and swing in Liana's. Picking up traces shouldn't be too hard for jungle Jane. She could talk to the apes, and so on. If she get home to England without have done this she would become miserable. Jane is smart but cheap drama brings her down. And why on earth is she letting the kiss rapist get away with "I blame myself as much as you". A punishment for being vane perhaps? Nonsense. Struggle, a hard slap and telling Tarzan would be appropriate. Still. This movie is far from bad even if the potholes are many and sometimes deep. Just lean back and enjoy. It's Tarzan and Jane for God sake.

Linda Lovelace was the victim of a sadistic woman hater, Chuck Traynor. I don't understand how having sex with a dog (which is animal abuse, as well) can be found to be entertaining or funny. Linda Lovelace was a virtual prisoner who was coerced into making these films. I know some people will criticize this comment but I feel strongly that these types of films fuel the fire of hatred and further misogynistic feelings towards women. This society continues to portray women as sexual objects as opposed to human beings. We call ourselves "civilized" however I feel we have a long way to go before we can ever scratch the surface of being civilized.
Erotic cinema of the 1970's was tame compared to the triple X romps of today, which is good. Because there is a good story around the naked rituals and sex scenes. Of course, I wish that they had some vampire effects which they had at the time period and the sex did get in the way of the story a little. Plus some of the accents were hard to understand at time periods, but it's worth watching the unedited version then the edited up version which is titled THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING. But if you don't care for allot of naked women dancing and having sex, then this isn't the movie for you. However, I did enjoy it and I give it...7 STARS.

Basically this is about a couple who want to adopt a second child. At the adoption agency they meet a mouse (Stuart) and they decide to adopt him. If you think that this is stupid, hold it, because it's getting worse.
Stuart arrives to his new home, where he is treated like a human child. (Spare me!) The rest is pretty much the usual cliché, about family problems, jealousy from the elder "brother", and at the end all issues are resolved and they are all a "happy family". Boring and worn out as this is, it is also shown in the most blunt and unsophisticated way.
I don't know if the director believed that he was being creative by introducing a mouse to the cliché, or he was just trying to fill in minutes, but he only upgraded the cliché from boring to abhorrent.
Then why I gave a 3 and not a ZERO? Because of the family cat, who loves Stuart as much as the "brother". And because of some funny gigs, where Stuart makes good use of his small size.
On the overall I believe that the film would work reasonably well if: a. Stuart was a PET and not a "sibling". b. It had kept to the funny gigs, like Stuart trying to outwit the cat, and had left out boring clichés which don't even match with anything else.