Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
"Bruce Almighty" looks and sounds incredibly stupid, especially from the trailers. Nevertheless, I found in it a deeper message that actually made me like this film more. Bruce (Jim Carrey) is angry at God and is given divine powers by him to be God for a week to see if he can do a better job. Morgan Freeman plays a man symbolized here as God, and though it isn't his usual type of film or one of his best roles, he does excellent with what he is given to work with. Although crude at times, the film does have quite a few laughs, from Bruce parting his soup in half like the Red Sea and the customers' reactions to him, as well as Freeman's seemingly laid-back and wisecracking image of God. It is overly exaggerated at times, and there is some crude humor, but overall it manages to be somewhat funny. There is a decent supporting cast, such as Jennifer Aniston, Lisa Ann Walter, and Steve Carrell, which always helps. The end of the film proves to be very romantic and tear-jerking, and the message is clear, that we should do what God has called us to do and "be the miracle." The film is far from perfect, but still enjoyable, and far better than I and many people probably would have expected, especially if we see the deeper message of the film.
*** out of ****

I chose this movie by the cover which was a bad move. It wasn't funny at all and the main characters were obnoxious. The girl was beautiful but the story and the acting were terrible. It had absolutely nothing to do with surfing. Terrible movie with a surf "theme" that had nothing to do with surfing and no real surfers. Catherine Zeta Jones was beautiful and the movie will probably see a resurgence just becuase she is in the limelight now, being married with Gordon Gekko and all, but if you haven't seen it don't waste your time. A bad movie with GREAT surfing, REAL surfers and AMAZING, BEAUTIFUL cinematography was IN GOD'S HANDS.
This film provides us with an interesting reminder of how easy it is for so many to get caught up in the busy occupation of doing nothing. We as a people of African descent owe it to ourselves to make a change to this cycle of "all talk and no action" and start to realise in order to make a change, there needs to be less talk and more action. It is a powerful statement of the divisions of our people over small issues, and our failings to recognise the bigger picture and the need to unite in order to make a difference... Despite its reference to the black community, all viewers can learn something from the message this film seeks to portray.

I first learned of the Wendigo many years ago in one of Alvin Schwartz's "Scary Stories" books: according to that story, the Wendigo - after calling your name in the wind - drags you along, and then pulls you up into the sky and pulverizes you. While it sounds like a pretty bizarre notion, Schwartz's story turned it into a fairly coherent idea.
The movie "Wendigo" doesn't. It basically consists of every horror flick cliché: family moves to new house and strange things start happening, anyone who harms them is asking for it, and everyone had better listen to the old Indian guy. I've seen this stuff so many times that I no longer bother to count.
Anyway, avoid it. Patricia Clarkson and Erik Per Sullivan (Dewey on "Malcolm in the Middle") have done far better than this.
very few chess movies have been made over the last couple of years ,but this one is more than just a chess movie its a story about the need to be loved and the need to win it,John Toturro plays a psychologically challenged man ,nothing matters to him accept 64 squares and 32 pieces ,the game validates him as a person ,when he looses a game he looses the one thing that makes sense to him and John Torturro expresses this in a beautiful fashion,even the love of a woman was not enough to save him from his sad existence.It makes you wonder if there other Luzon's out there who obsess about the game,i am sure they are,if you are a chess enthusiast it won't hurt to watch it.Its an intelligent piece of work laid out properly and executed well,it achieves its objectives,unfortunately i doubt if there will be sequel.

I rented this movie because it falls under the genres of "romance" and "western" with some Grand Canyon scenery thrown in. But if you're expecting a typical wholesome romantic western, forget it. This movie is pure trash! The romance is between a YOUNG GIRL who has not even gone through puberty and a MIDDLE-AGED MAN! The child is also lusted after by other leering men. It's sickening.
Peter Fonda is portrayed as being virtuous by trying to resist his attraction to Brooke Shields, and her character is mostly the one that pursues the relationship. He tries to shoo her off at first but eventually he gives in and they drive off as a happy, loving couple. It's revolting.
I don't see how this movie could appeal to anyone except pedophiles.
I remember this movie from the 50s when I was in college. It is one of the funniest satires of American Westerns that I have ever seen. I'm only sorry that I have not been able to see it recently and that it is is not out on tape or DVD. It is a real treat.

'Utter Crap' pretty well sums up what this...."movie" was. I'd rather examine the colon of an African elephant with a penlight than sit through this again. I think I've wasted enough time watching this "movie" - I don't need to waste more by commenting on it further......
Fabulous film! Rented the DVD recently and was floored by this stunning piece of work. Douglas Sirk was a filmmaking genius and he gets performances out of Rock Hudson, Dorothy Malone (Oscar winner), Robert Stack (Oscar nominated), and Lauren Bacall that words cannot describe. Paul Verhoeven brilliantly payed homage to this film by having Dorothy Malone play Sharon Stone's murdering inspirational guru in his Basic Instinct. What a great joke!
By turns the film is hilarious, riveting, campy, biting, trashy, compelling, and eye rolling! It's definately the grandaddy of every tawdry big-and-little screen soap opera but none have had the dazzling style like you'll see here: the camera work is smooth and polished, the use of color is breathtaking, the opening montage set to the title song is beyond memorable, the one dimensional characters are unforgettable, and the final image will have you scratching your head as to how the censors back then let it make the final cut!
While most older, highly regarded films can sometimes be a boring chore to sit through, Written on the Wind contains so much and goes by so fast that it's actually a shame when it ends. Thank you to Mr. Sirk for crafting -and Todd Haynes for drawing attention to- what has now become one of my favorite films of all time! SEE THIS MOVIE!!!

I was always curious about this film because it is so tough to find, so when I stumbled upon it on Ebay I forked over the $10 and bought it, now I understand why its so rare! This film is SO bad, so terribly written and hopelessly low budget that the ending credits, which show all of the cut scenes where they fumbled their lines, are literally the movie's highlight. The film is about a psychic (Pettyjohn, cast for one obvious reason, her topless scene) whom uses her powers with an experimental machine to pull objects from another dimension into this reality. When she pulls in some kind of box like object the military nonchalantly throws it into the open back of a truck with one soldier to guard it, and gee, what do you know? SURPRISE! A kid in a foam-rubber monster costume pops out, instantly kills the soldier with a scratch across his face, then escapes to a nearby city. But rather than deploy half the armed forces of the county to find it and protect the public those in charge just leave it up to Pettyjohn and Ray to find it on their own, but no matter, this movie blows all its credibility LONG before then. This barely escapes being voted a 1 by me only because of unintentional laughs, somebody needs to alert the producers of "Mystery Science Theater 3000" if they don't know about it already! 2 out 10, really, REALLY bad!
by saying that,I mean that this is not a well made movie but it's a very good version of the real event and the best depiction so far.and if you are a WW2 buff then this is a treat for you,cause there are three out of four saboteur members playing roles in this movie. It's theater acting at best but then this is still as said before a semi documentary.
Me personally am a die hard fan of our nearly over-human heroes of the second world war,and there should be hundreds of these movies showing us what they did so it won't get forgotten by next generations.Cause nowadays kids doesn't read books,they watch movies.
So if you want a action extravaganza,rent Private Ryan,this is the truth about lingering pain,outrageous endurance and the will to fight when all seems lost.

Diana Guzman is an angry young woman. Surviving an unrelenting series of disappointments and traumas, she takes her anger out on the closest targets.
When she sees violence transformed and focused by discipline in a rundown boxing club, she knows she's found her home.
The film progresses from there, as Diana learns the usual coming-of-age lessons alongside the skills needed for successful boxing. Michelle Rodriguez is very good in the role, particularly when conveying the focused rage of a young woman hemmed in on all sides and fighting against not just personal circumstances but entrenched sexism.
The picture could use some finesse in its direction of all the young actors, who pale in comparison to the older, more experienced cast. There are too many pauses in the script, which detracts from the dramatic tension. The overall quietness of the film drains it of intensity.
This is a good picture to see once, if only to see the power of a fully realized young woman whose femininity is complex enough to include her power. Its limitations prevent it from being placed in the "see it again and again" category.
A fine western, following the fate of those who possess the prize winning gun, a Winchester '73. It has a great cast who give superb cliche characterisations with help from the usual effective story telling direction from Mann.

OK, I have watched the original French version. But I can't imagine this being better with subtitles.
All I have to say that this is the most boring movie I have seen in a long time. There are almost no redeeming qualities to this film. That's why I can't understand all the positive reviews. It might be realistic in a sense but some real stories are best left untold.
I usually like slow paced movies as long as it serves the purpose of the movie. Tarkovsky's Solaris is extremely slow paced but it allows introspection and sets the mood of the film for example. But in this case, the movie is just filed with mindless dialog that manage to tell us little about the characters. None of which I could identify with or care for. In a lot of the scenes I found myself thinking: "When are they going to shut up"? The acting was pretty bad. Not in an overacting obvious kind of way. But It seems none of the actors cared about their characters and they all looked like they wanted to be elsewhere in most of the scenes. This might be due to the uninspired dialog they were given. Also the whole flow of the movie felt quite mechanical. Going from one scene to the next. It seems this movie was just written (badly) but never directed.
This is one of the few films that I can say generated no emotional response from any of the scenes. No suspense, no fear, no anticipation, no sorrow, no introspection, no intellectual stimulation, no interest what so ever.
A perfect example of what I call an anti-movie.
A classy offering from Amicus, producer Milton Subotsky and director Peter Duffell ('The Far Pavillions' etc) turn in a classy, intelligent 'four-hander' with a strong cast (Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Jon Pertwee, Ingrid Pitt etc) all giving stylish performances, despite a low budget which results in a few 'un-special effects'. The most outstanding contribution, however, is that of the 7-year-old Chloe Franks who turns in chillingly effective account of her part which makes one's blood run cold. Only spoilt by the lurid title wished on the film by its distributors, this underrated release, a cut above the run-of-the-mill 'blood 'n' guts' shocker movie, is for those who appreciate a little thought with their horror.

Goodnight, Mister Tom begins in an impossibly exquisite village in the south of England where the sun always seems to shine. Before we have much idea of the period we hear a radio announcement of the declaration of World War II. Soon a train blowing clouds of steam brings refugee children from London and when shy little William is billeted with reluctant, gruff old Tom (who you just know will turn out to have a heart of gold) our tale begins.
And what a load of sentimental claptrap it is. In fact it's just the old odd-couple buddy formula. Aren't any new stories being written?
As I suggested there's hardly any period feel in the village and not much more in London apart from the odd old ambulance rattling around. And certainly no hint of the horror of the Blitz as London's citizens file politely into air-raid shelters. Even when the local schoolteacher's husband is declared missing presumed killed, he is later restored to life.
I found `Goodnight, Mister Tom' cliched and obvious and John Thaw's accent conjured up a picture of Ronnie Barker of the Two Ronnies with a straw in his mouth doing his `country bumpkin' accent.
Incidentally my wife enjoyed this movie for all the reasons that I disliked it and looking at fellow-imdb reviewers I seem to be in a minority of one.
"The Shop Around the Corner" is one of the great films from director Ernst Lubitsch. In addition to the talents of James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan, it's filled with a terrific cast of top character actors such as Frank Morgan and Felix Bressart .They're the type of character actors that Hollywood sadly no longer employs. In fact, the film itself is the kind of movie that Hollywood doesn't make anymore. (The makers of "You've Got Mail" claim their film to be a remake, but that's just nothing but a lot of inflated self praise.) Anyway, if you have an affection for romantic comedies of the 1940's, you'll find "The Shop Around the Corner" to be nothing short of wonderful. Just as good with repeat viewings. Enjoy!

Reading through all these positive reviews I find myself baffled. How is it that so many enjoyed what I consider to be a woefully bad adaptation of my second favourite Jane Austen novel? There are many problems with the film, already mentioned in a few reviews; simply put it is a hammed-up, over-acted, chintzy mess from opening credits to butchered ending.
While many characters are mis-cast and neither Ewan McGregor nor Toni Collette puts in a performance that is worthy of them, the worst by far is Paltrow. I have very much enjoyed her performance in some roles, but here she is abominable - she is self-conscious, nasal, slouching and entirely disconnected from her characters and those around her. An extremely disappointing effort - though even a perfect Emma could not have saved this film.
The film largely focuses on a bullying Robert Taylor as a ruthless buffalo hunter and the people who have to put up with him. Set amidst a hunt for dwindling numbers of buffalo, it portrays the end of a tragic era of senseless slaughter and is full of drama and remorse for both the buffalo and the Native Americans. Taylor is blinded by his hatred of Indians and his naivete that the buffalo herds will never disappear. In one scene, he shoots animal after animal, while in another he murders Indians and then eats the food they had cooking on their fire. Under this ruthless exterior lies an insecure person who is reduced to begging his comrades (Stewart Granger, Lloyd Nolan, and Russ Tamblyn) not to leave him. It's not the most pleasant of films and is weighed down by the drama it creates, leading to a dismal and very fitting conclusion in a blizzard.

This must me one of the worst takes on vampires ever conceived by men. How can one turn such a mesmerizing subject into a totally uninspiring story? Apparantly not such a difficult task... First of all, a conditio sine qua non of any vampirefilm is a dark and gloomy atmosphere with a nice sexy touch, this one lacks all these things.. Too much light - the spots! oh my god, why in the name of Christ/Judas was that about?
Every time Dracula came about he was devoured by light (in the script to keep him weak, for the record: just weak) There was only one scene that made it almost worth watching, near the ending of the movie (beatiful dancingscene with Dracula and his new conquest). I really enjoyed the first one, the Judas-twist was defintely original, but this one's just not good, not in any way. Hopefully the third one will cary the vampire-signature I like so much in other classics like Herzog's Nosferatu, Coppola's Dracula or even Interview with the vampire.
British comedies tend to fall into one of two main types: the quiet, introspective, usually romantic study and the farcical social satire. Settings, characters, and concepts vary but certain characteristics place the vast majority of shows into one of the two categories. Butterflies is perhaps the epitomé of the first type.
The scripts are very verbal, including long interior monologues by the main character Ria, a basically happy but unsettled housewife curious about what she might have missed out on when she embarked on a thoroughly conventional life. When she meets a successful but clumsy and emotionally accessible businessman (who makes his interest in her quite clear), she toys with the idea of finding out what the other path might have offered.
The acting and scripts are always on the money, which makes one's reaction to the show almost entirely a personal one: I was neither blown away by it nor turned off. My mother, on the other hand, adored this show. I think the degree to which one identifies with Ria's dilemma is the most important factor in determining one's reaction to Butterflies.

Unfortunately, this has been showing on Star Movies here in Thailand for the last week or so. It's complete rubbish acting. As another member said, this movie is a good example of 'how not to act.' I haven't seen a movie so poorly acted in a long time. The actors (can you call them 'actors'?) are completely flat and deliver their lines with the passion of a dead dog. I would say that in order to truly understand how bad the acting is, you would have to see the movie... but that would be akin to torture.
I cringe as the leading lady delivers her lines, and the rest of the cast with their accents (fake or contrived) is equally heinous. Another actress with the fake British accent was pretty, yes, but good lord was her accent terrible. Mix that with her (lack of) acting and you have a disaster. She should just have said nothing and I could have accepted her as the pretty girl. Oh my, we just got to the scene where the leading lady's lover says "Really me?" after a forced crying scene from her. Laughable. No, really, I just laughed out loud.
The sets and the art directors offer some saving grace to the film. Some of the sets are colorful and some of the scenes are rather nice (minus the actors).
The old magic potion lady? What?! Another member mentioned the 'modern' love song that was in the movie. Totally inappropriate for a period piece set some 500 years ago.
I understand the movie was considered 'Big Budget' in Thailand at the time of it's production. I would be seriously upset if I were the producer of this movie. Just goes to show that money does not necessarily make a good (or even mediocre) film.
I would give the King Maker a 1 out of 10, but the costumes and sets make save the film from such a rating. 2 out of 10.
Green Eyes is a great movie. In todays context of supporting our troops, it is interesting this movie showed the lack of respect soldiers received from doing their duty, during this period. From a historical view, the end of the Vietnam war left all of us with something to remember and learn from. Gene was very proud of this movie, and he deserved the credits he received from writing "Green Eyes". I agree, I do not understand why this movie is not shown more often, or at all. This movie is the kind of movie that should be shown on TV every year, much like the Wizard of Oz. The dedication of one man towards his lost son is entirely moving. I was a friend of Gene Logans and I was proud to know him. Rocky

First of all, let's get a few things straight here: a) I AM an anime fan- always has been as a matter of fact (I used to watch Speed Racer all the time in Preschool). b) I DO like several B-Movies because they're hilarious. c) I like the Godzilla movies- a lot.
Moving on, when the movie first comes on, it seems like it's going to be your usual B-movie, down to the crappy FX, but all a sudden- BOOM! the anime comes on! This is when the movie goes WWWAAAAAYYYYY downhill.
The animation is VERY bad & cheap, even worse than what I remember from SPEED RACER, for crissakes! In fact, it's so cheap, one of the few scenes from the movie I "vividly" remember is when a bunch of kids run out of a school... & it's the same kids over & over again! The FX are terrible, too; the dinosaurs look worse than Godzilla. In addition, the transition to live action to animation is unorganized, the dialogue & voices(especially the English dub that I viewed) was horrid & I was begging my dad to take the tape out of the DVD/ VHS player; The only thing that kept me surviving was cracking out jokes & comments like the robots & Joel/Mike on MST3K (you pick the season). Honestly, this is the only way to barely enjoy this movie & survive it at the same time.
Heck, I'm planning to show this to another fellow otaku pal of mine on Halloween for a B-Movie night. Because it's stupid, pretty painful to watch & unintentionally hilarious at the same time, I'm giving this movie a 3/10, an improvement from the 0.5/10 I was originally going to give it.
(According to my grading scale: 3/10 means Pretty much both boring & bad. As fun as counting to three unless you find a way to make fun of it, then it will become as fun as counting to 15.)