Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
hi I'm from Taft California and i like this movie because it shows how us little town people love our sports football is the main thing in Taft and this movie shows just how important it is i personally think they should make another one but instead of actors use us kids to play the games well show you our determination we've beat Bakersfield every game for the past 6 years and since I'm a senior next year its my last chance and then its college we've had running backs lead the state and I'm next if you want to know me I'm kyle Taylor and i average seven to eight yards a carry and about five times a game ill break away on a 75 or around that yard run so check us out at our website and go to our sports page bye

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?
Kazan's early film noir won an Oscar. Some of the reviews here go into extraordinary detail and length about the film and its symbolism, and rate it very highly. I can almost see where they are coming from. But I prefer to take a more toned-down approach to a long-forgotten film that appears to have been shot on practically no budget and in quasi-documentary fashion. Pneumonic plague is loose in the streets of New Orleans, and it is up to a military doctor (Widmark) and a city detective (Douglas) to apprehend the main carrier (Palance). The film is moody, shot in stark black and white, and makes very good use of locations. Widmark is wonderful as usual. Forget the symbolism (crime equals disease, and disease equals crime) and just enjoy the chase. It is not always easy watching a film like this now that we are well into this new century, as it is of a particular style that was very short-lived (post WWII through the early 1950s) and will unlikely be of interest to the casual film watcher. For those who will be watching this for the first time, sit tight for the big chase at the end. It is something else, and frankly I don't know how they filmed some of it. I can say it probably took as long to film the finale as it did the first 90 percent of the movie.

I really tried to like this movie but in the end it just didn't work for me. I have seen most of Kitamura's output and have found it to be very variable. Alive, like all of his films has an interesting plot, some nifty sequences and a fair amount of creativity. However, these qualities are in painfully short supply in Alive. The plot is cool if not all that original and could have made for a pretty ace film. Unfortunately, the pacing is painfully slow and the film takes an age to get going, before reaching fairly predictable places. The action is just about passable, with the final fight pretty cool, and the earlier one about OK. The earlier one is also marred by overspeedy camera-work, making for less coherency. There are some neat visual effects and some interesting ideas floating around in the dialogue but the film still drags badly. The characters are neither well fleshed out nor well acted and the setting and general color scheme is drab and boring. The film is not completely terrible and has some points of interest, perhaps judicious use of the fast forward button could improve it. With about twenty minutes taken off the run time this could be a pretty decent sci fi thriller. But the full length film is dull. Only recommended to very patient and determined Kitumura fans.
This- and not a certain slightly overrated Southern Soap Opera-was the greatest epic to come out of Hollywoods greatest year, 1939.I will not not restate the obvious-Cary Grant,Victor McLaglen( who WAS a Bengal Lancer), and Douglas Fairbanks Jr. give superb comic performances.However, I want to note two other, less understood elements of this masterpiece. The Magnificent final battle sequence, as the wonderful Sam Jaffe climbs laboriously up to the pinnacle of the temple to blow his bugle and warn the regiment, is simply grand. It never fails to enthrall me. Yet another underrated element in the film is Eduardo Ciannelli's performance as the Guru. This is no Fu Manchu caricature, but an well drawn, articulate, historically informed ( "Have you ever heard of Changruputra Maurya?He defeated the armies left in India by Alexander The Great")villain. Indeed, one can see parallels between this mystical, evil nationalist and a certain well known figure of the thirties( A German, not an Indian). Gunga Din, anti-Nazi tract? Not quite. But still, a tremendous, funny, moving epic.

DEATHSTALKER is perfect for B-fantasy movie fans; this barely 80-minute travesty of film-making features everything hecklers can ask for--non-existent plotting, terrible acting (save for at least a raspy-sounding old lady), laughable scripting and schlock editing, and bargain-basement style background settings. There are no characters that come across as likable or interesting (in particular, the lead doesn't have ANYTHING appealing about him), and the actors assembled barely do anything to rise above the F-grade material. If that's not enough, then how about the lack of a compelling plot (which this movie has nothing of the sort) to make DEATHSTALKER qualify as a major turkey? I was also offended that the women in this movie barely serve any purpose other than to 1) be topless and/or scantily clad; 2) get raped; 3) have sex with the hero; 4) all of the above. In addition, the background music is hideous; a bizarre mess of electronic noise, cheesy choral bursts, and blaring orchestral cacophony. Ear numbing and eye numbing all in one packed with nary a thing to keep one interested, DEATHSTALKER is probably best suited for folks looking for something to laugh at (and believe me, there's plenty of that in here). Otherwise, I do not recommend this 100th-grade CONAN wanna-be to anyone in the least.
David Duchovny plays the lead role in this film.Now a lot of people upon finding that fact out wouldn't even bother watching it.Very unfair to say the least.David made his name on the x-files and is a decent actor. Dr Eugene Sands(Duchovny)is a drug addicted doctor struck off for malpractice.By sheer accident he becomes a private doctor for criminal millionaire Raymond Blossom.However the FBI take an interest in using Eugene to snare Blossom. Angelina Jolie is cast in the supporting role of clare-the gangsters moll.She puts in a solid performance. Timothy Hutton playing Blossom is superb and immersed himself deeply into his character. Duchovny himself isn't as bad as many people would think and in the end i would rate his performance his credible.His familiar monotonous tone and straight face is present but dosen't detract too much from the film

I gave this a four purely out of its historical context. It was considered lost for many years until it popped up out of the blue on Showtime in the early nineties.
Moe is the straight man and Larry and Curly act as a duo. Spade Cooley has a couple of numbers. I guess it had something to do with working on a ranch. I'm not quite sure because the plot was so minimal nothing really sticks in my memory. I vaguely remember it being a western musical comedy. Even the Stooge's seem to be going through the motions. Overall there's nothing much really to recommend here.
If you're not a Stooge fan then don't bother. If you are a Stooge fan, then stick with the shorts.
This film was seen by my wife and I when it came out in 1978. It was a revelation to us. We actually thought that we were the only gay and lesbian couple who had ever married and had children. Obviously we were wrong. Love may come from where you don't expect it and maybe don't want it. But we both chose that love anyway.
And no, it never changed our sexual orientation. That kind of stuff is for the Christian wackos.
When we were young we both had affairs, but never with the opposite sex. As we aged we stopped having extramarital affairs.
This story is not far fetched. However, the suggestion that they became heterosexuals seems pretty unrealistic to me. My wife and I have been sleeping together for the last 40 years. We are still gay. End of story.

These kind of movies where a psycho of one variety or another tries to damage the reputation (and eventually eliminate altogether) some naive person in order to take over their life. Fatal Attraction, Pacific Heights, The Hand that Rocks the Cradle, Single White Female, and a thousand made-for-TV movies are some examples of this. But while a few, especially Fatal Attraction and Pacific Heights could offer at least some extremely paranoid, suspenseful characters or a few plot twists, Unlawful Entry plays everything by the book. And were it not for the notoriety of its stars (Kurt Russel, Ray Liota, and Madeline Stowe), this movie would sink to mediocrity faster than a Danielle Steele miniseries.
Russel plays Michael Carr, an incessantly naive guy who calls on the help of a pair of officers when someone breaks into his house and tries to attack his wife (Madeline Stowe). Unfortunately, he quietly vents his anger about feeling so helpless in the situation to the wrong cop (Ray Liotta), a typically psychopathic villain with no limits for his power. At first empathizing with Carr (probably only pretending to do so), the cop befriends the couple. But soon enough, the cops wants Carr out of the way so, destroying the guys life nearly any way he can (which is pretty easy when you're a cop, and when you're the cop who has installed the guy's security system in his house) in order to take over and presumably, get his wife. It seems less ends-oriented, and more like the cop just wants to prove his power. The wife is more like a trophy, in other words, than an end. And the story plays out entirely by the book, you can probably predict every occurrence before it happens on the screen if you've seen enough of these movies. From the "shocking" moment our main, naive character realizes he is a victim of credit card fraud (perpetrated by the psychopathic villain) to the turn-around-he's-not-really-dead finale.
This will be a different kind of review. I've seen this movie twice on TV and would like to have a copy because it talks about Panama City and the beach in the winter time which is my favorite time to be there. It was the first movie I'd seen by Ashley Judd and she was great and I've enjoyed every other thing I've seen her in. Sundance's reaction made an impression on me too, as did the director, Victor Nunez, who has directed and written several movies about Florida. This movie speaks to me and I've seen nothing with which to compare it. The plot speaks less to me than the surroundings. Well, I told you it would be a different kind of review.

Lynn Hollister, a small-town lawyer, travels to the nearby big city on business connected with the death of his friend Johnny. (Yes, Lynn is a man despite the feminine-sounding Christian name. Were the scriptwriters trying to make a snide reference to the fact that John Wayne's birth name was "Marion"?) Hollister at first believes Johnny's death to have been an accident, but soon realises that Johnny was murdered. Further investigations reveal a web of corruption, criminality and election rigging connected to Boss Cameron, the leading light in city 's political machine.
That sounds like the plot of a gritty crime thriller, possibly made in the film noir style which was starting to become popular in 1941. It isn't. "A Man Betrayed", despite its theme, is more like a light romantic comedy than a crime drama. Hollister falls in love with Cameron's attractive daughter Sabra, and the film then concentrates as much on their resulting romance as on the suspense elements.
This film might just have worked if it had been made as a straightforward serious drama. One reviewer states that John Wayne is not at all believable as a lawyer, but he couldn't play a cowboy in every movie, and a tough crusading lawyer taking on the forces of organised crime would probably have been well within his compass. Where I do agree with that reviewer is when he says that Wayne was no Cary Grant impersonator. Romantic comedy just wasn't up his street. One of the weaknesses of the studio system is that actors could be required to play any part their bosses demanded of them, regardless of whether it was up their street or not, and as Wayne was one of the few major stars working for Republic Pictures they doubtless wanted to get as much mileage out of him as they could.
That said, not even Cary Grant himself could have made "A Man Betrayed" work as a comedy. That's not a reflection on his comic talents; it's a reflection on the total lack of amusing material in this film. I doubt if anyone, no matter how well developed their sense of humour might be, could find anything to laugh at in it. The film's light-hearted tone doesn't make it a successful comedy; it just prevents it from being taken seriously as anything else. This is one of those films that are neither fish nor flesh nor fowl nor good red herring. 3/10
The 700 Club gives a great perspective on world events. Some have described it as disingenuous or cheesy. I find the program to be informative and inspirational. It is only natural for many to throw mud on a program that has proved to be so successful. There are very few shows that can point to a 40 year track record of success in the world of television media and The 700 Club is one of them. While Mr. Robertson may have been wrong to say that someone should be assassinated, I find it curious that so many people will literally trip over themselves to hop on the bandwagon of criticism. I have certainly said some foolish things in my life. I would certainly be willing to forgive Mr. Robertson since he puts out a great show.

Misty Ayers had a smoking body, and that's all this movie was about. Pure exploitation flick. I started playing a game with myself, counting the number of times they looped the stock orchestral music. And of course the music is completely unrelated to the scenes. Case in point: casually walking into a room and saying "Hello" was scored with chase music from a roman epic. I'd like to know why this film sat on the shelf for 11 years before being released. What I learned from this movie: that women's low-rise panties existed in 1954. I'm talking Sigourney Weaver in the original Alien movie panties. At least 20 of the first 30 minutes is Misty leisurely taking off and putting on her clothing (except for bra and panties, sadly). Also includes horrendous dubbing, leading to a "Look out! Godzirra!" effect.
If you want a serious laugh pain, watch this movie, and the things Bruce inflicts on his fellow newscaster. The deleted scenes are priceless. I don't know why they didn't include them in the original movie. It can't be because of time, since the movie is only 101 minutes long. Morgan Freeman is a brilliant actor, who has been overlooked for too long. Jim Carrey needs meds!

Bela Lugosi plays a doctor who will do anything to keep his wife looking young and beautiful. To this end, he drugs brides during their wedding ceremonies to make it look as if they are dead so he can steal their bodies. I'm not exactly sure what he does with the bodies. I don't remember it ever being fully explained. All I know is that he extracts something from them and injects it in his wife. (I'll just guess that it's spinal fluid. Spinal fluid was all the rage of mad scientists in the 40s.) You can pretty much guess the rest from here.
There are a couple (well, really more than a couple, but I'll only write about two) of problems that I have with this movie. One is the way Bela is used. Sure, he does a decent enough job in his own overacting sort of way (BTW, the rest of the cast is simply abysmal). But, to have him hiding in the back of a hearse or having him creep into the female reporter's bedroom to do nothing is just silly. Also, why have him beat and/or kill every henchman he has? Is it to make him look evil? Well, someone who is kidnapping comatose brides doesn't really need to be made to look more evil.
The second problem I have is the idea of drugging brides. Why brides? Wouldn't any female under the age of 20 do? Watching Bela go through these gyrations to get his victims, I was reminded of the idiotic Fisherman in I Still Know What You Did Last Summer. In each case, there would appear to be an easier way of reaching your objective than employing a seemingly impossible plan that depends way to much on circumstances out of your control. (BTW, an alternate title for this movie is The Case of the Missing Brides. I guess that partially explains the need for 'brides'.)
My comment would have been added to the RELEASE DATE section, but I couldn't find a place for it. I was really surprised to see that this movie was released in the U.S. in Feb., 1955. I saw it in a "first run" theater in Washington, D.C. in March, 1958. Wonder if it was re-released, or some problem? In my opinion, this movie is very light entertainment, but has some classic characters. John McIntyre does a bang-up job as a corrupt judge/entrepreneur/thief. Walter Brennan does basically the same role he did in Red River years earlier. And, in my opinion, James Stewart gives as fine a performance as he ever did. I have seen this movie a half dozen times or more, and never tire of seeing parts of it again. The photography and scenery are splendid, and it offers a remarkable amount of entertainment in one hour and thirty-six minutes.

To compare this squalor with an old, low budget porno flick would be an insult to the old, low budget porno flick. The animal scenes have no meaning nor do they represent this man and his crimes even in the broadest sense of abstractions. The synopsis on the back of the DVD case says in part, "gripping retelling of the BTK Killer's reign of terror." This is NOT a retelling. A retelling would suggest that you are being told the truth of what happened or how or why. None of these things are true. I'm an enthusiastic studier of serial killers and have seen some pretty crappy movies about them and honestly, this IS NOT one of them. This isn't even about the BTK killer. Save yourself some time and a few bucks and rent Dahmer instead. THAT serial killer movie is accurate and true. However, if you just HAVE to see this movie for yourself, check it out for free at your local library and even then, you'll still feel cheated.
This is one of the movies of Dev Anand who gave great yet distinct movies to Hindi movie industries such as Jewel thief and guide. The story is short (if you ask me what is the story), plot is simple- a brother seeks for his lost sister. Sister has joined the hippies who smoke from pot and chant Hare Rama hare Krishna. Yet the movie portrays few of the significant events that the world experienced in 70's.Hippie culture, their submission to drugs, freedom ,escaping duty, family, and adopting anything new such as eastern (which was new for whites) religion. They have been handled perfectly. Zeenat gave her best and Dev as usual was remarkable. Songs are the best used (unlike they are abused for the sake of having songs) in this movie. They have not been spoiled.One perfect example is 'Dekho o deewano...Ram ka naam badnam na karo'. Each word in the song is very philosophical and meaningful. The end is tragic but that is not the essence of the movie. Overall Devji who does believe in making different movies has been successful in showing what he wanted to show here. A must see to experience hippie culture and beautiful Nepal of 70's.

I stopped by BB and picked up 4 zombie flicks to watch over the weekend. Now, I understand that the effects will be cheesy, the acting will be sub-par, and the sets will be suspect. So I'm not expecting much. But it should at least have a story. Stories don't cost a thing except time.....apparently, they didn't have any time either.
"Zombie Nation" had 5 zombies that appeared near the end of the movie that all looked like new wave hookers. The picture of the zombie on the front cover NEVER appears in the movie. It was absolutely agonizing to watch and had nothing to offer the genre.
The running time is only 81 minutes but it felt like 2 hours. According to my wife (who could only hear the movie since she was on the computer in another room), it sounded like zombie porn....which if you think about, sounds kinda gross.....but it wasn't even that good.
The only suggestion I can make is that maybe the writer tried to do too many things and ended up with an incoherent mess.
It ended up being a free rental and I still feel ripped off. I rated it a 1 out of 10 because IMDb won't allow me to use decimals.
I have to say, Seventeen & Missing is much better than I expected. The perception I took from the previews was that it would be just humdrum but I was pleasantly surprised with this impressive mystery.
Dedee Pfeiffer is Emilie, a mom who insists her daughter, Lori (Tegan Moss), not attend a so-called graduation party one weeknight, but Lori ignores her mother's wishes and takes off for the party anyway. When Lori does not come home, Emilie knows something is wrong and she begins to have visions of her daughter and the events that led to her disappearance.
Seventeen & Missing is better than so many other TV movies of this type, as it is not so predictable. Pfeiffer is the reason to see this movie, and most of it comes off as believable. This LMN Original Movie premiered last night. 10/10

I couldn't wait to see this movie. About half way through the movie, I couldn't wait for it to end. All of the (white) actors were delivering their lines like Woody Allen had just said, "Say it like this..." Then they said their lines on screen like they were trying to imitate Woody Allen. It was so annoying. We all know how Will Ferrell really talks, and he doesn't stumble over his words like Mr. Allen. The comedy portion of this film was just as boring as the tragedy and definitely never funny or even entertaining. I must admit that I have never been a major Woody Allen fan, and this movie definitely has not converted me. I think that his writing was just as bad as his direction. This movie will go down as one of the worst 10 movies I have ever seen.