Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
This movie about two Italian brothers who came to Germany with their family is just great!
It isn't an idealistic movie, I would say it shows life as it is or was in the 60s and 70s when the main story takes place. The characters are very nice but have also some "dark" sides, what makes you believe that these are real persons. Great movie with great actors to show that life is not funny all the time, but that you can find happiness with "fire and passion" as the main character Gigi would say.

How is it possible that a movie this bad can be made. Bad acting. Bad script. Just an embarrassment all around. This is just one bad cliché after another.
This movie actually has some big name stars in it. Unfortunately they're singers and not actors.
This movie made hardly any money for a good reason. The appeal of black cowboy movies just isn't there. It's a shame they didn't have a good story to tell.
This movie actually has some big name stars in it. Unfortunately they're singers and not actors.
This movie made hardly any money for a good reason. The appeal of black cowboy movies just isn't there. It's a shame they didn't have a good story to tell.
This film has a lot of raw potential. The script is sharp, the dialogue is (usually) excellent (though it could stand to lose the cheezy voice-overs), the direction and cinematography is surprisingly quite good, though some of the experimentation just doesn't work. The main problem here is David Duchovny. Once a geek-boy, always a geek-boy; and the sad, simple fact is that he's incapable of playing anything but Fox Mulder. He postures, he tries to be slick, he poses, he tries to be macho. In the end he just tries too hard. He overplays his character, he overspeaks his lines, and he's just outplayed in all ways by Timothy Hutton and Angelina Jolie, who are each in a class above him in terms of acting skill. Timothy Hutton was (as always) really good. There was a spotty moment or two where he over-dramatized his role, but you could tell he was having fun with it. He looked the part, and he became the character both physically and atmospherically. Angelina Jolie was also really good. She didn't have much of a role; in fact, I though she could have used a much stronger one...her character wasn't nearly developed enough, though she did remarkably well with what she had. And the chemistry between her and Hutton was apparent (gee, maybe that's why Uma left him...;) All in all, it was rough around the edges, but a solid effort by a good cast and great supporting roles. If David Duchovny hadn't ripped his role to pieces it would've been *that* much better. 7/10.

I'm not sure why Spike Lee made this train wreck of a movie and conned poor Stevie Wonder into eternally pairing his beautiful music with this theatrical mess. I also resent the way he uses profanity as a part of the normal prose of professional Blacks. The abuse of his hold on ethnic movie goers is a shame. Scenes which seem to be contrived out the blue and have nothing to do with the theme or sub themes, play as if some college kid wrote this. I especially detest the ludicrous scene where the two leads are playfully sparring for no reason at all and the cops come and rough up Snipes. The overacting of the leads makes one feel as if Spike has no respect for his viewers or he has no clue what a movie is all about. The final scene appears to be thrown in to justify the use of a sledge hammer to tack a point in. This movie also supports the myth that all people of culture use the F-word in casual conversation. I am hoping he will realize that the rest of his movies are in the same pool as this one where he is not growing as a film maker. I think his union with Scorcesee in Clockers was a wise move. He should stick to making documentaries like the Four Little Colored Girls. Shock movies do not an Oscar make.
This is a must see for independant movie fans, but it also holds up well against mainstream movies. I think we have the makings of the next Woody Allen or
Trentin Tarrentino here.
The budget is painfully low. No special effects whatsoever, and they seemingly used ambient lighting (shot in digital video.) -And yet this movie grabs hold of you and never lets go. The screenplay is somewhat bizarre, yet the actors and director pull it off with complete realism. It has humor, it has intrigue, and it has pathos, and it all works together.
No point in describing the details. If you want to see an independant
masterpiece, a virtual lesson in how to make a low budget flick that really works, see this one.
-Oh yeah, it's also REALLY entertaining.

This movie was two and a quarter excruciating hours. Someone please tell me what the point was?
I mean, I understand the historical setting. It's supposed to be about a ragtag group of Confederate bushwhackers (terrorists?) on the Missouri-Kansas frontier, taking revenge against all northern sympathizers and abolitionists during the U.S. Civil War. But aside from gratuitous violence there wasn't really much of a point to this movie. Perhaps it was a political statement? That war is really nothing much more than gratuitous violence? If that was the point it was done quite well, but I don't think that was the point. I think the producers really thought they were making a worthwhile movie here, but as far as I was concerned there was a complete lack of any plot. It seemed like I was watching a paperback novel come to life, with the characters looking like what you would see on the covers of such novels.
This movie should be burned along with some of the towns this gang torched!
I really enjoyed this movie. The script is fresh and unpredictable and the acting is outstanding.It is a down-to-earth movie with characters one cares about. It brought tears into my eyes a few times but left me with a great feeling afterwards.

A mummy narrates vignettes about men, women, and the sex between them. Huh? At the beginning, the mummy randomly asks the viewer, "Imagine having sex with this girl. Imagine having sex with this boy" about 37 times, while flashing pictures of half naked mod youths. Later, said mods boys pelt mod girls with...vegetables? If you ignore (or fast forward) through the mummy's rambling, the shorts aren't bad in their own right. I found a few of them rather funny. My personal favorite is one where the sexually-confused man tries to convince a girl to have sex with him while his pet lizard sits on the bed. This is one, well, bizarre movie.
A classy film pulled in 2 directions. To its advantage it is directed by Wes Craven. On the downside the TV film budget shows what could have been so much more with a larger budget. It moves along as Susan Lucci draws Robert Urichfamily into her clutches and trying to persuade him into the secret of her health club. His latest invention, a spacesuit which can analyse people or things becomes unexpectedly useful in his new neighbourhood. Anyone seeing this should pay attention to Susan Lucci. Her looks and performance had an unexpected repercussions a few years later. The actor, scientist and parapsychologist Stephen Armourae is a fan of this film and wrote a review of this film. Lucci became subject of a portrait by him followed as the basis for works of a sitter called Catherine. Lucci and Barbara Steele's portrait in 'Black Sunday' were used as references for the Catherine portraits which were immediately withdrawn by Armourae. Probably due to a personal nature between the artist and Catherine. So by seeing both films we can get an insight into another story and the appearance of unknown woman that would make an interesting film.

Pointless short about a bunch of half naked men slapping and punching each other. That's it. For about 5 minutes we see this. It's shot in black and white with tons of half-naked men running around slapping each other to the tune of dreadful music. It LOOKS interesting but there's no plot and really--the violence inherent in this got disturbing. Also the homo eroticism in this is played up but mixing it with violence was not a good idea. Some people who like avant garde material might like this but I found it incomprehensible, boring, stupid and (ocassionally) disturbing. Really--what is the point in all this? I saw it as part of a festival of gay shorts and the audience sat there in stunned silence. I really wish I could go lower than 1.
`Mad Dog' Earle is back, along with his sad-sack moll Marie, and that fickle clubfoot Velma. So are Babe and Red, Doc and Big Mac, and even the scenery-chewing mutt Pard. The only thing missing is a good reason for remaking Raoul Walsh's High Sierra 14 years later without rethinking a line or a frame, and doing so with talent noticeably a rung or two down the ladder from that in the original. (Instead of Walsh we get Stuart Heisler, for Humphrey Bogart we get Jack Palance, for Ida Lupino Shelley Winters, and so on down through the credits.) The only change is that, this time, instead of black-and-white, it's in Warnercolor; sadly, there are those who would count this an improvement.
I Died A Thousand Times may be unnecessary  and inferior  but at least it's not a travesty; the story still works on its own stagy terms. Earle (Palance), fresh out of the pen near Chicago, drives west to spearhead a big job masterminded by ailing kingpin Lon Chaney, Jr.  knocking over a post mountain resort. En route, he almost collides with a family of Oakies, when he's smitten with their granddaughter; the smiting holds even when he discovers she's lame. Arriving at the cabins where the rest of gang holes up, he finds amateurish hotheads at one another's throats as well as Winters, who throws herself at him (as does the pooch). Biding time until they get a call from their inside man at the hotel, Palance (to Winter's chagrin) offers to pay for an operation to cure the girl's deformity, a gesture that backfires. Then, the surgical strike against the resort turns into a bloodbath. On the lam, Palance moves higher into the cold Sierras....
It's an absorbing enough story, competently executed, that lacks the distinctiveness Walsh and his cast brought to it in 1941, the year Bogie, with this role and that of Sam Spade in the Maltese Falcon, became a star. And one last, heretical note: Those mountains do look gorgeous in color.

Yuck. I thought it odd that their ancient book on curses was made using a common script font instead of hand written. The acting is so apathetic at times and so over-dramatic at other times. Why would a "demonico" kill the two suspiciously quiet doctors who helped make him immortal? Just for the heck of it? And is it really necessary to show Lilith's motorcycle whenever she's out somewhere. We get it! You spent a little bit of money to rent some third rate crotch rocket. It doesn't mean you have to show it all the time! The "Faith's" lair looks like an old school Battlestar Galactica set with some last minute changes. There is a scene where we are introduced to a few people on a talk show for about 30 seconds before they are killed without apparent reason and without importance. Everyone is a throwaway character. Forgettable characters and an even more forgettable plot make this one of the most ill-conceived movies I've seen the SciFi channel come out with. Stay away unless you're into bad movies.
I saw this jolly little film at age 10/11 in 1979 when it was broadcast on CBS. I didn't know it had been in a theater at all. To rate it from a kids point of view I'd give it 4 out of 5 stars,because being a young boy at the time,it seemed a little "girlish".
The climactic scene where Gazooks tickles the daylights out of everyone was a bit disturbing at the time but you outgrow that sort of thing.
When I re-discovered it a Blockbuster Video in 1995,I had to revisit it! I still liked it despite the fact that it looked a bit "old". I don't know where the other reviewer on here got the idea that it wasn't on VHS.
It's out there. Might even be on DVD by now,at least I hope it is. I want to share it with my kids someday! 10 stars on here,it's still a great kids film. (end)
09/08/2009 : Finally found a VHS copy!! Woo-hoo!

We actually watched this twice in the theater because we could not believe how bad it was the first time. Maybe we'd missed something... nope, what's missing was missed from the beginning of preproduction. I actually went back to Robbin's novel to see if I could find the problem, and I discovered that what I thought was funny and exciting back in the day is now just so much disconnected and fuzzy-headed junk.
So, the initial problem with the film was deciding to do it at all, and the rest of the train wreck progressed from there. Absolutely nothing works - not a blessed thing. Some beautiful exterior photography gets steamrolled by random camera placement in interior shots. All of the actors look at least uncomfortable - Angie Dickenson looks positively mortified - except for Rain Phoenix, who gives the impression that she is too unaware to realize how awful her performance really is. The dialog is one, long, unwavering cringe. Scenes don't make sense from second to second, and the connections between them are nonexistent. And yet, the movie stumbles blindly on, convinced that it is saying something profound.
This is too bad to even be funny; it is simply excruciating. Gus Van Zant has done other good-to-great movies which I encourage you to see, and I'm happy he survived (and appears to have learned from) this mess.
This is a documentary I came across by chance on the UK TV channel More4 and I have to say I found it extremely interesting and thought provoking. I will also be seeking out the book that was the source material for this documentary. Basically this is Professor Jared Diamond theory on why certain parts of the earth's societies prospered and others did not. The argument he presents was new to me and argued about how the fortune of the right crops and the right animals that where able to domesticated is certainly a compelling one. As for the documentary itself it is well shot and well narrated with not to much of the re-created scenes that spoil many a modern documentary. Diamond also helps by not being to condescending which is a fault of a lot of intellectuals when trying to get a message to the masses. People have claimed his theory is Marxist but I do not buy this and see it more socio geologist. It was also refreshing to hear an theory on the evolution of society not based around religion. Highly recommended viewing.

I know slashers are always supposed to be bad,but come on,what the hell is this?It's like a bunch of 10-year-olds saved their lunch money and started filming this by the end of their week.
Anyway,six young people all go to the same house to get killed off screen.We have the brainy one,the slut,the other slut,the black guy,the killer,stereotypes like that.After one gets eaten by a shaking boat,the others all get stalked by some guy who wears a mask the people at the poor box rejected.There's one pretty decent murder somewhere in the middle,but then it's back to even more boredom,and especially more false scares.Seriously,we actually know it can't be the killer when a person gets attacked because the guy sure loves to take his sweet time for everything.
After every character you expected to die dies,the standard ugly blonde chick and her soon-to-be-boyfriend eventually get captured by the killer(they get like,pushed down and then faint)and the killer reveals himself.I think the writers of this movie just took a blindfold and a pen and put it somewhere on the list of characters.The motive is just lame and don't even get me started on the damn secret.The killer then of course takes way too much time to explain everything(and then about ten minutes extra in which he slices up his own arm for some reason)and eventually gets overpowered by a guy with a gun.Hey,no fair!
Really one of the most awful movies I've ever seen.I could enjoy myself more by watching a Lindsay Lohan-movie,I swear.I mean sure,most 80's slashers sucked as well but at least they threw in some T&A.This movie just has nothing going for it.
And I really mean that. I caught it last night on Vh1, and I was not expecting it to be so good. This is now one of my favorites. I must add that it has a killer soundtrack.

When I rented this I was hoping for what "Reign of Fire" did not deliver: a clash between modern technology and mythic beasts.
Instead I got a standard "monster hunts stupid people in remote building" flick, with bad script, bad music, bad effects, bad plot, bad acting. Bad, bad, bad.
Only reason why I did give it a 2 was that in theory there could exist worse movies. In theory.....
Episode two of season one is a delightful holiday tale of love, betrayal,...and a homicidal, escaped lunatic dressed as Father Christmas.
A woman (Mary Ellen-Trainor)has just murdered her hubby on Christmas Eve for his life insurance. What begins as a perfect crime begins a struggle to survive as a deranged, Santa Clause suit wearing psychopath (Larry Drake, perfectly over the top) threatens her life...as well as her precious young daughters.
This episode is warmly remembered by even those casually acquainted with the program. By the way,this particular reviewer watches it every Christmas on routine. Most notable for it's escalating suspense and narrative twists, And All Through The Houst is among Tales From The Crypt's best.

They sell it as a horror movie, it's supposed to be a thriller, but I found it pretty funny (comedy?, don't think so), I laughed the whole movie I think it was because of the ridiculous acting and plot. I don't blame the actors, I think they were not very good, but O.K. I think Cillian is a very good "bad guy" I loved his acting in Batman Beggins, and Rachel McAdams.. whoa! she's a beauty, and a good actress as well, but let's try to be a little objective here, the story mm mm... the direction mm mm... it lacks a lot of good suspense in fact is a really boring movie, but there's one good thing tho, it's a short movie, only 1 hour and 30 minutes (FOR ME IT WAS LIKE 10 MINUTES UNDER THE WATER!!!)
I just don't know why this movie is rated so high, and in rotten tomatoes, even higher, what's wrong with good, rational and objective criticism?
Okay, we've got extreme Verhoeven violence (Although not as extreme as other Verhoeven flicks), we've got plenty of sex and nudity, but something is missing...Oh, yes, it's missing the intelligence that Paul Verhoeven is known for in his sci-fi movies. I admire the way Verhoeven introduces the characters and how they have a sense of humor, but unlike most Verhoeven films, the movie itself doesn't have enough humor for it to fall into the comedy genre. The acting overall was above average compared to most slasher films.
What makes Hollow Man a good movie is not the story, not the cast or characters, but the amazing special effects work that would otherwise make a film like this impossible. The crew has truly made an invisible man, without the use of things like a floating hat suspended on piano wires and other practical effects (effects done on set). The most stunning effects scenes are not seen while Kevin Bacon is invisible, they are when Kevin Bacon is becoming invisible and visible.
The problem is that this invisible man story deserves to be more imaginitive. Here, it takes place at a lab for the most part. I would have enjoyed seeing the invisible Kevin Bacon robbing a bank and getting away with it, or let's say steal something from people's purses, or something like that. But what is shown is decent enough to make Hollow Man an entertaining movie. Grade: B

It seems as if in Science Fiction you have this periodic throwback to perform an odd phenomenon that appears in long serial novels. It's where the first novel (Dune, Ender's Game) blows you away with an actionpacked revolutionary story. The sequels however take that universe and lead you down the garden path to whatever new little social or political commentary the author wants to make. The Matrix is finally the film equivalent. The Matrix stands tall, alone, as an interesting film with an odd twist in the middle. Seeing this cash cow just sitting there, and wanting to explore other aspects of society, the writers and directors then lead you through what has to be some of the most painful monologues and non-action sequences in SciFi. While the visuals remain as stunning from the first movies, the new explorations of the characters falls terrible flat in the sequel. Watch for eye candy, not for deep thought.
4 out of 10, as registered by this fine website.
As a lover of the surreal (in art and film) I was pleased to discover this film on IFC. It is definitely a keeper. Most of the other reviews tell the general plot (not all correct) so I won't bother to bore anyone with that. The main thing is the alternate worlds concept which is brought on by Ana's impending illness, and the way she manages to link with someone else after being so "alone", and finally with her family, which I believe is still at least a little troubled. It only can be called a horror movie in that it has frightening scenes but is a fantasy (with a little hint of "coming of age" only because Ana is a pre-teen who "hates boys"). I heartily recommend it to those who appreciate the stretch of their imagination.

As many agree, Origin is a beautiful anime artistically. The music, graphics, and the world created are gorgeous and it really stands above most other modern animated works. However, if you are looking for more than this, than I suggest looking else where. The beauty stops short of its appearance, and when it really comes down to plot and characters, there's nothing special. Action is slow and minimal and the people are flat, corny at times, and do not act realistically. Not to mention the plot hole here and the plot hole there... So, in summary, oh my goodness, I've never seen an anime as beautiful as this one; and oh my goodness, it's like... -poke- people don't act like that. It took a GIANT step forward in graphics and music in anime, but it also took a few step backs to times of bad characterization, and unfortunately, there's not even that much action to make up for that...
This is a movie that i can watch over and over and never ever get tired of it, it has lot's of laughs, guns, action, crime,, good one liners, and a decent plot, with an over the top, Donald Sutherland in a rather comedic role as an Assasain. Tia Carerra looks as hot as she ever did and can act too, Thomas Ian Griffin is great in this as the lead character "Max" a DEA agent Diane is the FBI agent, played by Carerra, and John Lithgow from Frazier on TV, plays the bad guy,, "Livingston". The plot centers around Max and Diane trying to capture Livingston while they fight and argue with each other about who gets the money for the respective agencies, throw into the mix the Assassain Sutherland, who pretty much has all the good one liners, this is the perfect crime caper, there is the usual love story,, but played very differently than you would think by Carerra and Griffith. You also have the Russian mafia, Italian Mafia, and Chineese Mafia here thrown into the mix,, the film is shot in Boston,, where you have some great shots , and locals,, great photography and music in this film, this movie is just the epitome of a crime comedy,, it has everything that one could ever want. Check out Sutherland's toilet in a particular scene,, very unusual. this film is a riot and will make you laugh real hard 10 plus for me.

Don't get me wrong, Dan Jansen was a great speed skater. If there was one guy who deserved his gold medal at the Olympics it was Dan.
But how can it be possible that Bill Corcoran has made such a bad movie about the incredible Dan Jansen story, because the real Dan Jansen story is truly incredible! Especially when you look at this movie through the eyes of a sportsman everything is wrong, the way Matt Keeslar and the other actors skate, their technique, the dimensions of the speedskating oval, it is all wrong!
Shame on you, Bill Corcoran, Dan Jansen deserves better, a lot better!
1 out of 10