Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I was privileged to have seen some snippets from Aardman's original run of this show in the UK. It was always fun and always funny. None of the charm has been lost in translation--it's as fresh as the people interviewed--whether some of it is scripted or not, as has been rumored, is beside the point. It's always entertaining.
Aardman Animations shows great imagination in the characters used for each voice, the single aspect that I probably love most about the show and its concept (the hostility between the pandas, the porcupines discussing fear of needles, the painting ape). Regulars really grow on you as well, such as the horse and donkey teens from Maryland, most every married couple (the parrots, the insects, and the cats to name a few) and child-voiced character, and I've really come to dig the ferret! Monday's finally become a day to which to look forward.

Oh man, I know what your thinking: "With a title like that, I can't go wrong!" Uh yes you can. I too, loved the title, but man I hated the stupid kid that played "Satan's little helper" I hated the mom too, and the sister/daughter, and her boyfriend - I hated all those people! Man, it was agony watching this sometimes! The ONLY reason this doesn't get 1/10 is becuz condsidering the low budget, they did OK. But oh man did I hate those actors, so stupid! I knew it was going to be bad, I guess they saved a lot of money on just using halloween masks for the killer, and the Jesus costume at the end was really stupid too. Oh the agony, do not watch!
It was originally meant to be a film that Gene Kelly would star in, but when the makers couldn't get him they got "the greatest actor in the world", and the result is pretty good. Basically Nathan Detroit (Frank Sinatra) is having trouble doing what he does best, setting up a high stakes crap dice game, because he needs $1000 to get the place. So to get the money he needs, he has a $1000 bet with old friend Sky Masterson (Marlon Brando) that he can't get Sergeant Sarah Brown (Great Expectations' Golden Globe winning, and BAFTA nominated Jean Simmons) to go with him to Havana. Meanwhile, Nathan is having trouble trying to get rid of the woman who wants him to ask her hand in marriage, Miss Adelaide (Vivian Blaine). Also starring Robert Keith as Lieutenant Brannigan, Stubby Kaye as Nicely Nicely Johnson and B.S. Pulley as Big Jule. An interesting romantic comedy musical, with Brando singing all his own songs, and Sinatra being smooth and cool. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design and Best Music for Jay Blackton and Cyril J. Mockridge, it was nominated the BAFTA for Best Film from any Source, and it won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical/Comedy. Frank Sinatra was number 43 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, Marlon Brando was number 30 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, he was number 11 on The 100 Greatest Sex Symbols, he was number 4 on 100 Years, 100 Stars - Men, Sinatra was number 35, and Brando was number 1 on The World's Greatest Actor, "Luck Be a Lady" was number 42 on 100 Years, 100 Songs for , the film was number 23 on 100 Years of Musicals, and it was number 36 on The 100 Greatest Musicals. Very good!

What a bad, bad film!!! I can't believe all the hype that has been lavished on this pretentious, amateurish excuse for a real movie!! I left the theater before the end, stunned by how bad the direction and camera-work of that movie were!! And to read adoring paeans that claim there is truth and reality in this film when all it is in reality is a brazen attempt at pulling the wool over the eyes of reviewers and festivals by being cheap and tawdry.
At least this film showed me once and for all that the Sundance Festival has become a complete joke and that being shown here is more a label of bad film-making than anything else.
Avoid at all costs. You'll want your time back! I know I did.
The filming is pleasant and the environment is keenly realistic. I liked that it boldly redresses conceptions of the many difficult moral and social morays of the 1930's Chinese-mainland countryside as well as more basic human questions - I felt I could get a real sense of the times, recreated even in splendid shots of traditional Chinese theatre and in purist depictions of street living. It seemed worthwhile to experience. The interwoven role which Buddhism plays is probably the most true-to-form - both in its menial and in its philosophic aspect, perhaps the most effective that I've seen in Chinese film. Casting is great. Images are memorable. Acting is solid enough. Thematically puerile but still rich enough to compliment the vehicle of its expression.

When I saw this movie, I couldn't believe my eyes. Where these hilarious creatures, dustbin muppets with big pointy teeth, really meant to be scary? Or where they designed to have a good laugh (I sincerely hope so). If you watch carefully you can even see the strings operating them (better; dragging them across the screen). The whole was rather funny than scary and I had a good time watching the movie because I was amazed by its overall incapacity to have only one good part. It is one big joke from beginning to end and I believe this movie belongs into a new category: So unbelievable crappy you'll be laughing from beginning to end. (I'm not even gonna try to comment on the acting or all the other things)
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!

Horrible waste of time - bad acting, plot, directing. This is the most boring movie EVER! There are bad movies that are fun (Freddy vs. Jason), and there are bad movies that are HORRIBLE. This one fits into the latter. Bottom Line - don't waste your time.
Extremely interesting and intriguing movie. The similarities to David Lynch (who is even quoted literally by the presence of red curtains in the film) and the novels of Franz Kafka (the house keeper in this film is called Mrs. Grubach, as is the one in Der Prozess...) are clearly present but in this case are accompanied by clear references to the colonial past of Belgium in Africa. The exact content of the movie I can not clearly describe: this colonialism is an important part, as is the inability to cope with such a past, but the personal memories of the main character are a central issue as well, and his quest for social contact and love. These are the symbolic themes I deduced from the movie, but in fact they're no more than impressions.
But even if you just try to follow the linear story without these symbolic backgrounds, you still will discover an extremely fascinating movie filled with splendid imagery (beautiful close ups of beatles, larvas and other nasty insects are alternated with great dream sequences and also the dark atmosphere lends the film extra style). Maybe you can say that I didn't quite 'get' the film, but I have been watching like hypnothised for 1.5 hour, deeply impressed by the visual quality and the fascinating mysteriosity.

I'm going to have to disagree with the previous comment and side with Maltin on this one. This is a second rate, excessively vicious Western that creaks and groans trying to put across its central theme of the Wild West being tamed and kicked aside by the steady march of time. It would like to be in the tradition of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", but lacks that film's poignancy and charm. Andrew McLaglen's direction is limp, and the final 30 minutes or so are a real botch, with some incomprehensible strategy on the part of heroes Charlton Heston and Chris Mitchum. (Someone give me a holler if you can explain to me why they set that hillside on fire.) There was something callous about the whole treatment of the rape scene, and the woman's reaction afterwards certainly did not ring true. Coburn is plenty nasty as the half breed escaped convict out for revenge, but all of his fellow escapees are underdeveloped (they're like bowling pins to be knocked down one by one as the story lurches forward). Michael Parks gives one of his typically shifty, lethargic, mumbling performances, but in this case it was appropriate as his modern style sheriff symbolizes the complacency that technological progress can bring about.
Based on Christy Brown's autobiographical novel, this endearing film tells the story of his life, him being affected by cerebral palsy and being considered basically not a person by everyone including his mother. Amazingly, he teaches himself to draw and write using his foot, which is the only part of him he can control. An amazing story of courage with a truly amazing and unforgettable oscar winning performance by Daniel Day Lewis. 9 of 10

I thought this was a sequel of some sorts, and it is meant to be to the original from 1983. But a sequel is not taking the original plot and destroying it.
I actually had very little expectations to this movie, but I just wasted 95 minutes of life. No suspense - I actually feel clairvoyant, poor acting, and so filled with technical errors, so I as a computer geek just couldn't believe it. They have tried to make it a mix between a generic war movie and 24 hours. But this is not even worthy of a low budget TV movie.
Do not see this movie, this is a complete waste of time. Instead get the original. The theme is still valid. Don't let to much power into a machine. And the acting and plot is far more exiting and compelling.
Okay, first of I hate commenting on this thing but I felt like I had to stand up for this movie. So many people were bashing on it and I felt like people who might want to see it should get a second opinion.
First off, Bend It Like Beckham is not meant to be the most profound movie of the century. If that's what you're looking for go somewhere else. Just because it is an independent film does not mean it has to be artsy. It's supposed to make you feel good and you're supposed to have fun watching it and those two things are handily accomplished.
Secondly, the acting though not "Halle Berry in Monster's Ball" is still good. The movie doesn't need acting like that honestly so don't look for it. It's a family movie. If that's what you wanted you wouldn't or shouldn't even be looking into this movie honestly.
Lastly, It has a really cute story. I think it's thought out well and it's entertaining to watch. It's also very true to life for the most part for that culture so if you want to sit down and watch a movie that you can enjoy and feel good about when you're finished. If you're looking for something with deep thought out plot lines and big dramatic scenes this is not for you.
-Lyndsay

Slashers.....well if you like horrors its definitely one to see, otherwise don't even bother.It is completely obvious that this film has an extremely low budget, For instance it looks as if the entire film has been shot in a warehouse somewhere, and on numerous occasions you will see the mike boom shadow and the camera mans shadow, trust me you wont need to look for them.Also try to ignore the cheesy actors, if thats what you call them!!The basic outline is a few people decide to go on a game show where they have to survive a night in a big maze due to their being 3 killers on the loose and whoever live's at the end gets rich. Now there is something about this film that keeps you watching and rarely do you find that with a cheap budget horror these days,For example when i watched it i thought to my self i would'nt mind having a go at this game! especially for $12.000.000. so anyway i would recommend you watch it and make up your own mind.
Popular radio storyteller Gabriel No one(Robin Williams,scraggy and speaking in hushed,hypnotic tones) becomes acquainted and friends with a fourteen-year-old boy from Wisconsin named Pete Logand(Rory Culkin),who has written a book detailing sexual abuse from his parents. To boot,Pete has AIDS and this compels Gabriel further still,since his partner Jess(Bobby Cannavale,good)happens to be a survivor of HIV himself.
He also acquaints himself with Pete's guardian,a woman named Donna(Toni Collette,brilliant!)and when Gabriel decides he wants to meet and talk to the two of them in person and goes to Wisconsin,he discovers some secrets he was(naturally)not prepared to find.
Based on real events that happened to Armistead Maupin(who co-wrote the screenplay with Terry Anderson)and directed by Patrick Stetner,this film moves a lot faster(90 min.,maybe a few minutes longer)than one might think a movie of this genre would run. That's good in that it keeps the action and storyline lean and clear. It's bad in that it leaves various holes in the plot and doesn't sew-up any of the plot openings or back-story. I'd rather not go into any great detail except to say that,if you are not familiar with Mr.Maupin's works or his personal story,you feel a little bit out of the loop here. Still,the performances by Williams( I would've loved to heard more of his narration,personally),Collette,Cannavale,Culkin and much of the supporting cast(the Waitress at the restaurant Collete's Donna frequents does a great job with what small part she has!)are top-notch and the mood established here--namely,the chilly,lonely dark exteriors of Wisconsin and New York--give a terrific framing for this story. It may have ends that don't tie together particularly well,but it's still a compelling enough story to stick with.

But it does have some good action and a plot that is somewhat interesting. Nevsky acts like a body builder and he isn't all that attractive, in fact, IMO, he is UGLY. ( his acting skills lack everything! ) Sascha is played very well by Joanna Pacula, but she needed more lines than she was given, her character needed to be developed. There are way too many men in this story, there is zero romance, too much action, and way too dumb of an ending. It is very violent. I did however love the scenery, this movie takes you all over the world, and that is a bonus. I also liked how it had some stuff about the mafia in it, not too much or too little, but enough that it got my attention. The actors needed to be more handsome...The biggest problem I had was that Nevsky was just too normal, not sexy enough. I think for most guys, Sascha will be hot enough, but for us ladies that are fans of action, Nevsky just doesn't cut it. Overall, this movie was fine, I didn't love it nor did I hate it, just found it to be another normal action flick.
I was really looking forward too seeing this movie as it has been advertised as a must-see movie for people that love movies about nature. The movie shows different climates and the animals associated with them by starting at the North Pole and going down south as the movie progresses. The footage from this movie is often breathtakingly beautiful and I many times wondered how on Earth they could have taken some of the shots under water or in the sky. However beautiful, a large part of the footage I had already seen in the TV series 'Planet Earth', narrated by David Attenborough. I found Attenborough's narration of Planet Earth to be much better than the narration of Earth. 'Earth' is an easier movie. It skips much of the scientific detail that Attenborough covers in his 'Planet Earth' series. For instance, Earth will tell you that a tropical sea is an ideal nursery for a young humpback whale, because there are few predators. Planet Earth will tell you that a tropical sea is a good nursery, because the water is low in oxygen and doesn't contain enough nutrients to support very large animals, like large sharks, etc. To me, that's an important difference. That, together with Attanborough's far superior voice make Planet Earth a far better documentary than Earth. Still, however, I think Earth is worth watching for the beautiful footage and the fact that it's easier to understand makes it interesting for children too.

I didn't think the French could make a bad movie, but I was, clearly, very wrong. As has been said before, this film essentially uses its title character as a point of departure; its portrayal of her life and person have little or nothing to do with the real Artemisia Gentileschi.
The script is awful -- pretentious, stilted, and vapid -- and its rewriting of the facts is unusually offensive even in a genre that all too often makes its living by distorting, rather than retelling, history. Along with some fairly decent set design, Valentina Cervi's physical charms are the primary asset of this movie, and it's obvious from the beginning that the filmmakers were aware of this too; they waste no time in contriving various "erotic" sequences which have far more to do with titillation than with plot or character development. Unfortunately, the appeal of seeing a pretty young girl in a state of feigned sexual arousal cannot, and does not, sustain this movie. The acting is unremarkable, and the score is all too generic despite an interesting chord or two. The cinematography is OK, and there are some pretty colors, but there are also some pretty ridiculous sequences using distorted-lens effects more appropriate for a 1960s freakout movie than a costume drama. In any event, the script leaves the camera dwelling all too often on Artemisia's body, and all too seldom on her paintings.
All told, a near-complete failure. It's not intelligent or tasteful enough to be a serious film, and it's too slow and pretentious to work as soft-core pornography. So the French can fail, after all!
Very good drama about a young girl who attempts to unravel a series of horrible crimes. She enlists the aid of a police cadet, and they begin running down a series of clues which lead to a traveling carny worker with a long police record. An ending which is guaranteed to keep you on the edge of your seat.

I was in second grade, 12 years ago. I remember it clearly. We were learning about space. All little kids want to go to space, right? Well, after I saw this, I was so scared to death that I would 'accidentally' get flung into space by some psychotic robot with a one track mind. I had no idea that this was a movie. I thought it was some news program or something. I guess it was my own version of when people were freaked out by the radio program 'War of the Worlds.' So, recently, I get this movie again to watch, realizing my favorite actor, Joaquin Phoenix was in it (then known as Leaf Phoenix). I can tell you, I was laughing at the dramatic parts and laughing even harder at the acting. I mean, when Andy is in space, she moves in slow motion, did you ever notice that? I don't think being in space makes you talk that slow or think that slow.
The best part is when Andy is knocked unconscious by the oxygen tank, and begins to float backwards as the security doors close. Little Max is trying to pull her in. Suddenly, we get a major close up on Max's face as he shouts (in slow motion) "Whaaaaatttt'ssss happpeniiiinngggg?!?!?" I had no idea.
I'm so glad I happened to see this video at the store. I was looking for some happy movies and this one turned out to be a true gem. I loved that the movie, a love story of sorts, wasn't about some beautiful twenty-somethings; rather, it's a story of some beautiful sixty-somethings, who used used to be twenty-somethings. It's a good, well written, and wonderfully acted story with fabulous WWII band music thrown in as well. It's also got a delightful surprise in it for Scottish castle lovers. It left me smiling and ready to watch it again, which I did a couple more times before I turned it in. I highly recommend it.

Follow-up to 1973's "Walking Tall" continues the real-life drama surrounding Tennessee sheriff Buford Pusser, but this installment plays like a lame TV-movie. Bo Svenson takes over the lead role from Joe Don Baker, but he's much too mild for the part; he comes off like an ambling country singer with a bat instead of a guitar. Good supporting actors like Richard Jaekel, Luke Askew and Robert DoQui end up with very little to do. I would give the film one-star strictly on its good intentions, but the screenplay is a transparent and lazy mass of routine predicaments and the production is cheapjack. Followed in 1977 by "Final Chapter-Walking Tall" and in 1978 by the television film "A Real American Hero".
And a rather Unexpected plot line too-for the era: there is Plague in the City of New Orleans-and only Richard Widmark can stop it! Elia Kazan's trademark subjects: waterfronts, working men, crowds, fugitives, blue collar folk, violence on a backstreet-are all showcased here.
Jack Palance is quite effective as the ice-cold mobster out for a big score, Zero Mostel as Dom Delouise somewhat miscast but certainly watchable as his go-fer. I enjoyed Barbara Bel Geddes as the stalwart, cool wife-I thought she and Widmark were a believable couple.
He himself always reminds me somewhat of Sinatra-in the face and in the intense quiet manner-and that is meant as a compliment if anything. I'd never even heard of this movie, and yes, you have to admire Widmark's performance. I also enjoyed Paul Douglas-he seemed to play this role many times, they make an unlikely but effective team.
The plague itself is a McGuffin-and you gotta know it's not exactly done the way it would have been in Real Life-rather small-scale at the least no?-but I found it carried the plot along nicely.
Check this out. It's good. *** outta ****

Not the greatest film to remember Paul Naschy by.
Gaston (Guillermo Bredeston) is probably the worst swordsman I have ever seen. Zorro would be ashamed! His only salvation came as the competition was just as bad.
This film is described as adventure and horror. Forget the horror - there is none. No nudity, no blood, no monsters; just a Robin Hood adventure against an evil Baron (Paul Naschy) who wants to be King.
The main feature of the film was seeing Graciela Nilson, who only made four films in two years and disappeared to our regrettable loss. Where did she go?
I found this movie quite by accident, but am happy that I did. Kenneth Branagh's performance came close to stealing this movie from Helena Bonham Carter, but their strong chemistry together made for a much more enjoyable movie. This movie brought to mind the excellent movies that Branagh made with Emma Thompson. Carter's star turn here as a disabled young women seeking to complete herself was as good a performance as I have seen from a female lead in a long time. Portraying a disabled person is hard to pull off, but with basically only her eyes to show her pain about her situation in life, she made it so believable. If this movie had come out after the current wave of movies with beautiful women "uglying" themselves up for roles (Charlize Theron, Halle Berry), I fell sure Carter would have had strong consideration for an Oscar. If you run across this movie on cable late at night as I did, trust me, it is worth the lost sleep.

This was talked about to death by the critics when it honestly isn't that great. Sure, "CHAOS" and "INSIDE MAN" are literally the same movie, just with variations in suspense. But I found "CHAOS" more enjoyable because it was fast paced kinda like the silly film "Swordfish." The reason this film is more popular is because this got released in the States and "Chaos" was aired all around the world at film festivals and foreign theaters, but has yet to find a distributor in the U.K. and U.S.A.
It's true that this film makes lots of tributes to classic films like DOG DAY AFTERNOON and other Spike Lee films, but that doesn't mean that it is a pleasant film to watch.
Watch it if nothing else is on T.V., but you'll probably get bored with after awhile.