Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I teach Japanese for an online high school and I include cultural activities so that the students can learn about the country as well as the language. And watching "Gung Ho" is one of the requirements. The students can either buy or rent the movie. Stereotypes or not, this helps the students to see that other people view the world and their lives differently than we do. Many of my students have told me that they enjoyed the movie so much, they are going to get a copy for themselves. It is really interesting to see what we value in this culture and what they value in their culture. I just wish I could get a cleaned-up TV version. I'm not really into the crude language the auto workers use all the time.

I just read a review defending this film because it had a low budget, now my take on things.
The CGI monsters was reasonable well animated but was implemented in the worst possible way. The fight scenes weren't even fights it was just one shot of an actor then one shot of monster with very interaction at all. When the monster did interact it looked like it was done in paintshop pro. In my opinion if you have a low budget you should use models and puppets. They may not look as fancy but at least they interact, just look at Peter Jacksons early films.
As for the acting Beowulf did an descent job but the rest of the cast were either not trying or they forgot where they where.
The script seemed confused to me. One minute they would be talking as if it were a modern day setting the next you get drama club Shakespeare speech. I'm not say it should be all 'ye' and 'that it be' but you need to find a cohesive balance so the lines sound like they come from the same person.
I did notice one part near the start when Beowulf was quoting the old testament which would have been find had he not spent the rest of the films talking about the gods and portents.
In short, this film is a very slightly polished turd, but a turn none the less.
When I first saw the Romeo Division last spring my first reaction was BRILLIANT! However, on future viewings I was provided with much more than masterful film-making. This picture has a singular voice that will echo throughout the annuls of film history.
The opening montage provides a splendid palette which helmer JP Sarro uses to establish his art on this canvas of entertainment.
Sarro truly uses the camera as his paintbrush while he brings us along on a ride that envelops the audience in a tremendous action movie that goes beyond the traditional format we have become accustomed to and dives deeply into dark themes of betrayal, revenge and the importance of companionship. This movie is any director's dream at its very core.
However, Sarro was not alone in this epic undertaking. The writing, provided by scribe Tim Sheridan, was just as breathtaking.
The dialogue was so precise and direct that it gave the actors such presence and charisma on the screen. Specifically speaking, the final scene (WARNING: SPOILERS!!! SPOILERS!!!) where Vanessa reveals herself to be one of the coalition and a villain all the time, is written in such a dark tone that it is one of the most chilling endings I have ever seen. Sheridan is the next Robert Towne.
In a final note it is obvious that this production was no small feat.
Therefore much praise must be given to producer Scott Shipley who seems to have the creativity and genius to walk next to Jerry Bruckheimer. Never before have I witnessed a production so grand with so much attention directed at every little detail. A producers job is one of the hardest in any movie and Shipley makes it look easy.
All in all this film combines creative writing, stunning production and masterful direction. This is the art of film at its best. When the ending of the film arrives the only thing that is desired is more.
The Romeo Division is groundbreaking, a masterpiece and, most importantly, The Romeo Division is indeed art.

I've seen a lot of crap in my day, but goodness, Hot Rod takes the cake. I saw a free screening in NY the other night. I can only hope they show the funny version to the paying customers. The big laughs were sparse, the plot was uninteresting, and the characters were one dimensional at best. One highlight is a hilarious dancing scene with Adam Samberg. It was priceless and was the only scene I truly had a hearty laugh at. Other than that, I can only recollect randomness and dead air. SNL & Samberg fans may be disappointed. I know I was expecting more from it. But it short, I definitely would not recommend attending a free screening or paying to watch this film.
"The Mother" is a weird low-budget movie, touching at least two uncomfortable themes not usually explored in the cinema: denial of love of mother for their own son and daughter, and lust and passion in the third age.
The characters are awful: May is a disgusting old lady and I believe it is impossible to feel any kind of sympathy or sorrow for her. She confesses that she did not love her son and her daughter. She cheated her husband twice with an intellectual. She steals the beloved man of her daughter, not to protect her from a guy without moral, that does not love her, but just because she feel horny with him. She is trying to organize her life after the loss of her husband in the worst possible way, destroying her daughter delusions. Paula, her daughter, is a fragile loser, who accepts her life the way it is. Her brother Bobby is a man who lost his savings because of his wife, who insists in having her shop, a terrible business indeed. Darren is an amoral addicted jerk who does not like anybody, even himself.
The acting and direction are excellent: the actresses and actors have outstanding performances and the direction is very precise. I liked this movie, but I recognize that it is recommended for very specific audiences. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Recomeçar" ("Re-Start")

Based on Tom Wolfe's satirical novel that was praised by all (i have not read it yet) Tom Hanks stars as a wall streeter who accidentally kills a black boy while lost in a bad part of NYC Willis stars as the reporter who starts Hanks on his downward spiral.. The characters are very thin and there seems to be no empathy for anyone in this movie and for a comedy or a satire there arent a lot of laughs either..Melanie Griffith had her breasts done during filming so a fun thing to do is to see if her boobs change size during different parts of the film..This will keep your mind off other things like the lack of script or humor.. On a scale of one to ten..3
I really liked this movie, it was good, and the actors were brilliant! Leon Robinson, who played Richard, and many other classic singers, is very good at his job, when you see him in a musical movie, you know that it is going to be good! I would suggest that people watch this heart warming, sad, and special movie, if they want to know more about Richard! Outstanding! Fresh!

Lordi was a major hype and revelation in 2007 because they won the Eurovision Song Contest with a (not-so-heavy) metal song called "Hard Rock Hallelujah" and appeared on stage dressed like hideous monsters. But, let's face it, their victory most likely had very little to do with their great musical talents. The Eurovision contest gradually turned into one big political circus over the years and Lordi probably just won because their song finally brought a little change and  even more importantly - because their whole act sort of ingeniously spoofed the whole annual event. The absolute last thing Lordi's first (and hopefully last) horror film brings is change and ingenuity. "Dark Floors", based on an idea of the lead singer and starring the rest of the band in supportive roles, is a truly unimaginative and hopeless accumulation of clichés. The immense budget ("Dark Floors" supposedly is the most expensive Finnish film ever) definitely assures greatly macabre set pieces and impressive make-up art, but what's the point where there's no story that is worth telling? The film takes is set in a busy hospital where a bunch of people, among them a father and his young daughter with an unidentifiable illness, become trapped in the elevator during a power breakdown. When the doors open again, the floors are empty and it looks as if the hospital lies abandoned since many years already. Trying to reach the exit, the group stumbles upon several morbid and inexplicable obstacles, like eyeless corpses, screaming ghosts and Heavy Metal monsters emerging from the floors. The only three points I'm handing out to "Dark Floors" are exclusively intended for the scenery and the adequate tension building during the first half of the film. For as long as the sinister events don't require an explanation, the atmosphere is quite creepy, but as soon as you realize the explanation will a) be very stupid or b) never come, the wholesome just collapses like an unstable house of cards. Lordi's costumes never really were scary to begin with (except maybe to traditional Eurovision fans) and, in combination with a story more reminiscent to Asian ghost-horror, they just look downright pathetic and misfit. With all the national myths and truly unique exterior filming locations, I personally always presumed Finland  The Land of a Thousand Lakes  would be the ideal breeding ground for potentially horrific horror tales, but I guess that's another disillusion on my account.
This movie is a brilliant lesson on Japanese history set in at the end of the Tokugawa Shogunate shortly before the Shogunate lost a big battle against the loyalist, who wanted the emperor back on the throne to rule Japan. Really, I had to read a lot of history to get the entire background.
Shintaro Katsu (also known as the original Zatoichi) gives a superb performance as Izo Okada, one of the four Hitokiri(=Human Slayer) of the Bakumatsu. He is a simple samurai who looses all of his wealth. In order to have a good life he becomes a retainer of Takechi Hanpei (played by Tatsuya Nakada = Ryonosuke out of Sword of Doom). Hanpei is a ultra-nationalist politician who lets his band of Hitokiri assassinate a lot of high ranking pro-west politicians in order to achieve his political goals. Izo Okada follows his leader without really questioning what they are doing. As long as he has money to go and drink and spend at his whore. Okada's killings get more and more brutal in the course of the movie and he is proud to have a reputation based on fear wherever he goes.
It is a splendid portrait on the life of a simple samurai who gets caught up in political affairs and is really to naive to realize what is happening. First after being betrayed and tortured and always having talks with Sakamoto ( who is a samurai who rejects violence) does he change his ideas and views on life. But too late....
Watch the movie to see the end of Izo Okada...
Shintaro Katsu and the rest of the staff give a brilliant performance. Each actor reaches up to their role. The sword-fights a very unique and fast...probably faster than several movies nowadays...
Check it out if you have the chance!!!

OK, I have been a huge fan of the Black for a long time and was DISGUSTED after seeing this film. Let's name the problems...First this film has much of the same crew that the first two had. It has also been called the PREQUEL to the original Black Stallion. Why is it that they can't get Shetan's dam's name correct or her color?? In The Black Stallion Returns, we learn the Sagr was the Black's CHESTNUT mother and in this film she is a gray mare name Jenny?!?!?!?!? WTF? And it's set in Africa in 1946 and 1947...I could be wrong but the first one was set in the 1940's as well when the ship wrecks. Time line doesn't sound quite right to me. Also, as a goof, there is a friesian in the beginning of the movie that is supposed to be Shetan's father...upon further notice it appears to be a gelding. Ben Ishaak is the only character that remained to even make this film appear to be related to the previous two in any way. Might be a cute family film to some but it's my biggest movie disappointment of the year.
Prior to seeing Show People, my impression of silent comedy was essentially slapstick, and slapstick only. I could not imagine how screen comedy could be possible without relying heavily on spoken word or numerous pratfalls. But this masterful film proved me wrong. Davies, in my view, was probably the greatest comedic actress to come along prior to Lucille Ball. I mention Lucy primarily because Davies' mannerisms and facial expressions reminded me of her to the point that I wonder if Davies wasn't one of Ball's primary influences. This is coming from a 21 year old who had never before seen silent comedy, and I must say that no matter how much of the period-specific references you actually get (I didn't, apparently), you will not be bored by this movie. You will probably even laugh more than you would at most talkie comedies. This is not only my favorite silent comedy, but easily among my ten favorite comedies of all time.

In sum, overlong and filled with more subplots than swiss cheese has holes! The director and co-writer says he wanted to mix genres - in this case drama and comedy. Well, at least here, these two mix like vinegar and oil. To boot, the comedy is not very funny and juvenile. Additionally, the film is not really realistic. Liberties are taken regarding the legal system in committing French Citizens against their will and the apparent ease of absconding with drugs in French Hospitals. I watched this film on my big screen TV at home and found myself shouting at the film to move on. Eventually toward the end I fast forwarded the final long speech one of the main characters makes to his ex-lover's son. By that time I was worn out by the preposterous confused plot that deals with a dead lover, marriage of convenience and a nutty ex-lover. At times the plot diverts to the families of the two main characters and then reverts back to one of them - either Ismael or primarily Nora. To the detriment of the audience, viewpoints keep changing from Nora and Ismael, her ex-lover confined against his will in a psychiatric hospital. There probably are two potentially interesting films here neither of which are well developed. The epilogue does not really wrap up many of the sub-plots and seems to want the viewer to believe Nora somehow will find happiness although given her circumstances in real life the chances are equivalent to a snow ball's chance in hell. The actors do their best and are appealing, but this is not enough to overcome all the glaring faults of poor writing, editing and lack of focus.
Having read many of the other reviews for this film on the IMDb there is ostensibly a consensus amongst purists that this film is nothing like the books upon which it is based. Upon this point I cannot comment, having never actually read any of the protagonists adventures previously. However, what I can say with certainty, is that it strikes me that many of the said reviewers must have surely undergone a sense of humour bypass; Let's be honest here - this film is just so much fun!
OK..so I must concede the point that the film apparently is not representative of the character/s but let's put this into a clear perspective..do the same individuals who are carping on about this film also bemoan the fact that the classic 1960's Batman series does not remain faithful to the original DC comic book character? Or perhaps is there STILL unrest in same persons that the 1980 film version of Flash Gordon was too much of a departure from the original series?
The point is, yes this film is incredibly camp but that's precisely its charm!
Former Tarzan, Ron Ely plays the eponymous hero in this (and bears more than a passing resemblance to Gary Busey to boot!) and is backed up by a great supporting cast who all look to be having a ball with their respective roles. Also look out for a very brief but highly welcome appearance by horror movie favourite Michael Berryman.
Best scene? Far too many to choose from but check out the hilarious facial expressions adopted by the waiter when Savage and his men commit the ultimate faux pas of ordering coke, lemonade and milk at a formal occasion! Also the often noted scene near the end of the film wherein Savage tackles his nemesis Captain Seas utilising various martial arts disciplines which are labelled on screen!  Priceless!
Simply put, the film doesn't take itself at all seriously and is all the more fun for it. Great fun from start to finish! (and you'll be singing the John Phillip Sousa adapted theme song for days afterwards guaranteed!)

I think that movie can`t be a Scott`s film. That is impossible. Do you remember Blade Runner? And Alien? Two greats movies versus a one. I hope didn´t see ever it. good bye!!
Three girls (an all-female media-crew, including cult-actress Barbara Bach, no less) visiting a small town to cover a festival, end up renting rooms in a house they should have avoided like the plague. Well-made little shocker, suffering a bit from some redundant dialogue-scenes and a rather thin plot-line (that doesn't do very well in hiding its secrets). One underlying theme in particular is quite disturbing (as in: vintage shock-material), and this is basically what the film thrives on. Performances & cinematography are pretty much above par (compared to many other late 70's/early 80's films in the same vein), but what really makes me recommend this film is the fairly long climax-scene in the basement-setting. From the moment that "Keller Junior" character was introduced, his performance made my jaw drop open and it didn't close until the end of the film. A very pleasant surprise to see actor Sydney Lassick (who was funnily wacko in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's nest", and now utterly demented in "The Unseen") take on one of the leading roles.

My first question after seeing this film was, "Why is the title LIAM?" If the intent was to tell a story from the boy's perspective, it was not carried out well. Of course there was the formulaic use of camera angles in the boy's scenes, but much of the crucial action took place outside of his field of view. Having a "main" character unable to speak (obviously suggesting the mute, powerless position of a child) makes it difficult to give that character much depth.
Melodrama is defined as: "dramatic or other literary work characterized by the use of stereotyped characters, exaggerated emotions and language, simplistic morality, and conflict" LIAM fits this definition to a T. The viewer is hit over the head with the typical stereotypes of the fire and brimstone Catholic Church in the stern school marm and the well-fed priest squeezing money from parishioners. (A stereotype which is becoming very tiresome.) What's more--the Jewish characters are money lenders and factory owners!
Much of the film was predictable...Who didn't think that we'd see Theresa scrubbing the toilet after her mother had told her "No daughter of mine will scrub another woman's toilet!" I'm a fan of British realism if it's done well. In my opinion, LIAM is not.
I have been a Jodie Foster fan ever since we were both kids, from her Disney years. I loved her tomboy antics in films like Candleshoe.
"Foxes" was such a huge departure from all of that.
Where other young female actors of that era turned to sexual puerility disguised as comedy ("Little Darlings", anyone?), Jodie went for a depressing and tragic tale of teens dragged to their demise by the powerful allure of temptation and addiction.
This was not Disney. This was not Porky's. This was not "Halloweed". This was a dark & powerful story of the destruction of young lives. Sadly it's a tale that still plays out on a daily basis all over the country, this film could be replayed (with a current soundtrack) and still be wholly relevant.
It's not the best film ever made, it is tired at some parts, not all the performances are particularly outstanding. But Jodie Foster continued to show her chops as a real adult actor (a trend started when she was very young in Taxi Driver).
7 out of 10 Barky

While exploring some caves with his wife, a doctor is bitten by a bat which causes some alarming side effects...
Occasionally creepy atmosphere and some decent (though under used) makeup effects don't save this B horror flick from being a sub-par tale of man-becomes-creature. The Bat People aka It Lives By Night suffers from its senseless story that's awkwardly plotted and lackluster in pacing. The plot never seems to go anywhere much and the movie never offers an explanation for what happens, or even a satisfying conclusion for it all. The cast is fairly mediocre in their performances.
Still I give the film some points for its haunting theme song and nice filming locations. The makeup work of the late Stan Winston is pretty good too, but it doesn't get much of a showcase here. A missed opportunity for sure.
Definitely one of the lesser man-creature flicks out there.
* 1/2 out of ****
Shot on an impossible schedule and no budget to speak of, the movie turned out a lot better than you would expect, certainly much more true to the Peter O'Donnell books and comic strip than the previous two films. You can read the strip currently in the reprints from Titan Books, or in Comics Revue monthly. It is one of the greatest adventure comic strips of all time. The movie isn't great, but unlike most low budget films it makes the most of what its got, and it holds your interest. On the DVD extras, the interview with Quentin Tarentino, who is obviously stoned, is a gas. Some people have faulted Tarentino for associating his name with the film, but without him it would never have been made. He is a Modesty Blaise fan, and picked a good writer and director. All things considered, worth 8 stars.

Very bad film. Very, very, very bad film. It's a rarity, but it defenitly is not worth hunting down. This Italian Jaws rip-off makes little sense most of the time, and no sense the rest. The "alligator" is not at all convincing, and many of the sub-plots go nowhere. If it's at the local video store, you may want to watch it if you're a fan of monster movies, but it's not worth hunting down.