Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Larry Fessenden has been thrashed by most of the comments on this forum. Well, the worst mistake, evidently, is the marketing of the movie and the way the DVD might have been targeted. Obviously, this is not a true horror movie, at least, not for people expecting anything that will be gory and instantly satisfying.
"Wendigo" is basically a film that seems to be told from the mind of the young Miles. Things that are not readily understood by children tend to stay in their young minds and ultimately dominate their fears and the menacing world they can't comprehend. It is obvious that Kim, the mother, is a psychologist, but she has no clue to what is going on in the mind of her son. This is also a story of alienation. It's clear that the father, George, is a distant figure, perhaps a workaholic, who seems to be living in a different world.
Miles' fears reach a point of crisis during the week end in the country. That part of New York state, with its winter landscape, barren trees, play havoc on the little boy's imagination. It doesn't help that he encounters a strange figure in town, it creates even more doubts in his young mind. Ultimately, Miles' world comes crashing down on him and he can't do anything, even evoking the Wendigo spirit.
The film is well paced and acted. Patricia Clarkson is excellent, no matter where movie she is in. Jake Weber is perfect as the distant father who has an opportunity to come closer to a son he doesn't understand. Erik Per Sullivan, as Miles, conveys the inner turmoil within him. I thought he was extremely effective since the whole movie is Miles own take on what's going on around him. Finally, John Spredakos is perfect as the menacing Otis, a man who resents the world for the way he has turned out.
Instead of putting this movie down, future viewers should approach it with a open mind.

It was one of those late night "It's there" I saw it things. Sometimes they are great. This one was awful, but it really shouldn't have been.
The movie had a really good cast. How can you fail when you have Charlsten Heston and Jack Pallance? We're talking Oscar winner turf here. It had good special effects. It even had some really good tits! And I mean nicely shown, full breast with full nipple and at one point even some beaver. But it didn't compensate for the one missing ingredient - a story! The plot was ludicrous. I don't mean the "solar crisis" sun exploding stuff, but that was bad enough. It was the rest of the stuff - the oh so stupid and totally predictable evil corporation stuff. Man that just STANK! No amount of good acting or cool space ships or fight scenes could get around that one.
I have seen the same cast members be incredibly good. I have seen wonderful science fiction movies that had miniscule casts and budgets. All the difference is in the writing.
It ran 8 seasons, but it's first, in early 1959, and it's last, in the autumn of 1965, were shorter than seasons 2-7. CBS chief William Paley canceled Rawhide's production after watching the 1st show of season 8, in September, 1965, because he disliked the series without Eric Fleming as Gil Favor, who had departed after season 7. The last new episode aired in November, 1965. The lone 1966 CBS broadcast, on January 4, 1966, was a rerun.
I have often wondered why Rawhide didn't switch to color filming for it's last season? Most of the big westerns of the 1960s had gone over to color by 1965. CBS was broadcasting in color that autumn, for many of their sitcoms, but westerns like Gunsmoke and Rawhide remained in black and white. Gunsmoke was the last western (and last prime time network series to switch to color) on September 17, 1966, for the episode Snap Decision.

I just want to make one thing clear- I love Michael Vartan! But this film really lets him down. His acting is still superb, he's still as charming as ever, and he still looks great. But the film itself is a load of rubbish! Natasha Henstridge, I'm sorry to say it, comes over bit manly... you're constantly waiting for her to run off with her best friend, who's own sub-storyline is a little weird. Myself and my family (who sat down and watched the film with me) were also put off by the soundtrack to the film; at times the music just didn't fit with what was going on in the scenes. However, even this was not the worst aspect of what I found to be a very disappointing film. I could forgive the leading lady's butch-ness, I could forgive the freakish characters that were thrown in to the mix, and I could forgive the poor choice of musical accompaniment, but whose choice was it to cut out the whole middle section of the film and skip straight to the end??? The ending was obviously planned from the beginning but how it gets there is left untold. If you're a Michael Vartan fan skip this film: buy yourself a poster instead.
Well, was Morgan Freeman any more unusual as God than George Burns? This film sure was better than that bore, "Oh, God". I was totally engrossed and LMAO all the way through. Carrey was perfect as the out of sorts anchorman wannabe, and Aniston carried off her part as the frustrated girlfriend in her usual well played performance. I, for one, don't consider her to be either ugly or untalented. I think my favorite scene was when Carrey opened up the file cabinet thinking it could never hold his life history. See if you can spot the file in the cabinet that holds the events of his bathroom humor: I was rolling over this one. Well written and even better played out, this comedy will go down as one of this funnyman's best.

Watch the Original with the same title from 1944! This made for TV movie, is just god-awful! Although it does use (as far as I can tell) almost the same dialog, it just doesn't work! Is it the acting, the poor directing? OK so it's made for TV, but why watch a bad copy, when you can get your hands on the superb original? Especially as you'll be spoiled to the plot and won't enjoy the original as much, as if you've watched it first!
There are a few things that are different from the original (it's shorter for once), but all are for the worse! The actors playing the parts here, just don't fit the bill! You just don't believe them and who could top Edward G. Robinsons performance from the original? If you want, only watch it after you've seen the original and even then you'll be very brave, if you watch it through! It's almost sacrilege!
Never viewed this film until recently on TCM and found this story concerning Poland and a small town which had to suffer with the Nazi occupation of the local towns just like many other European Cities for example: Norway. The First World War was over and people in this town were still suffering from their lost soldiers and the wounded which War always creates. Alexander Knox, ( Wilhelm Gimm)"Gorky Park" returns from the war with a lost leg and was the former school teacher in town. He was brought up a German and was not very happy with the Polish people and they in turn did not fully accept him either. As the Hitler party grew to power Wilhelm Grimm desired to become a Nazi in order to return and punish this small Polish town for their treatment towards him which was really all in his mind. Marsha Hunt,(Marja Pacierkowski),"Chloe's Prayer", played an outstanding role as a woman who lost her husband and was romantically involved with Whilhelm Gimm. There are many flashbacks and some very real truths about how the Nazi destroyed people's families and their entire lives. The cattle cars are shown in this picture with Jewish people heading to the Nazi gas chambers. If you have not seen this film, and like this subject matter, give it some of your time; this film is very down to earth for a 1944 film and a story you will not forget too quickly.

The TV guide calls this movie a mystery. What is a mystery to me is how is it possible that a culture that can produce such intricate and complex classical music and brilliant mathematicians cannot produce a single film that would rise above the despicable trash level this film so perfectly represents. This is Bollywood at its best/worst, I honestly cannot tell the difference. Nauseatingly sweet, kitschy clichés on every level, story-line, situations, dialog, music and choreography. To put it bluntly, you must be a retard to enjoy it. I watched it to satisfy my cultural curiosity, but there were times when I had to walk away from it, because I could not take it any more. The only redeeming quality of the movie is the exquisite beauty of the leading actresses.
So, not being a poet myself, I have no real way to convey the beauty and simplicity of this documentary. The effortless motion of Goldsworthy, as he molds natures beauty into his own work is captivating. Watch him stick reeds together in a web hanging from a tree in a close up for a few minutes while he speaks of his work, and then receive the payoff when the camera cuts to the wide shot. Be amazed by the ease with which he operates and then realize the futility when a slight breeze knocks down the entire web.
The genius of Goldsworthy seemingly knows no bounds as his inspiration is nature itself. It is in the essential change of nature where his work, though complete in its own sphere, is made whole.

As myself and my other half are big fans of trash horror we couldn't resist getting out a movie that contained both of the greats we were thrilled! However for a 2004 movie with a rip off cover of Freddy Vs Jason this is a disgrace! The worst film I have ever seen but worth a look for a laugh if you are able to sit through it!
The acting is awful the effects...well I could do better on my camcorder in fact its so bad they only bothered to put make up on the zombies faces and left out neck, hands etc. No story line, weird flashbacks that make no sense and terrible script!
"you broke my tooth!" from one vampire "you broke my cigar" was the response from the human who looked like uncle Jessie from Dukes crossed with Santa!
Wow. What a wonderful film. The script is nearly perfect it appears this is the only film written by Minglun Wei,I hope he has more stories in him.
The acting is sublime. Renying Zhou as Doggie was amazing -- very natural talent, and Xu Zhu was a delight - very believable as the jaded old traditionalist.
The soundtrack was very effective, guiding without being overwhelming.
If only more movies like this were made whether in Hollywood or Hong Kong- a family friendly, well acted, well written, well directed, near perfect gem.

I usually talk a bit about the plot in the first part of my review but in this film there's really not much to talk of. Just a mish-mash of other FAR better sword & sorcery epics. Lack of cohesiveness runs rampant as does banality. Even the main villaness refusing to wear clothing other then a loincloth is pretty boring as she pretty much has a chest of a young boy.Mildly amusing in it's ineptitude at best and severely retarded at it's worst. Lucio Fulci was scrapping the bottom of the barrel here and it shows.
My Grade: D-
DVD Extras: Posters & Stills galleries; Lucio Fulci Bio; and US & International Theatrical trailers
Eye Candy: Sabrina Siani is topless throughout (some may consider that appealing, I did not); various extras are topless as well
This is an extraordinary film, that tricks you constantly. It seems to be heading toward cliche at several points, and then something astonishing will happen that genuinely startles. It would give away too much to say much more, but stick with this film and you will be richly rewarded. William Haines is absolutely delightful - he is certainly a star that deserves to be re-discovered. The gay subtext in his relationship with Jack Pickford is amazing - there is even a scene where Haines rubs Pickford's chest (Pickford has a cold). Both actors play this sub-text subtlely and with great depth of emotion, so that there are moments that are very moving. And I never thought I could get so involved in a football match as I did in this movie - and I don't even understand the rules! Also excellent is Francis X. Bushman's son Ralph as Haines' rival for the girl (yes, it's not completely a gay movie). Wonderful silent classic - a great example of Twenties commercial cinema with an edge.

Once in a while in Indian cinema there comes along a movie like Sholay that changes the way the audience perceives a good movie. And den just once in a while(hopefully) we have a RGV ki Aag that breaks all the standards and creates one of its own. A standard so low, it can never be broken. Ram Gopal varma manages to take a melting pot of talent and create a dish so stale u can smell it from a distance. To take a classic like Sholay and assassinate it is totally unforgivable and I can't believe he almost called the movie RGV ki Sholay. Although Sholay had a lot of folklore elements in it, the movie managed to build on its plot by merely defining the characters so distinctively that they lived on forever. What Aag does is take these characters and mess them up so badly u'll need a contest to pick the worst. The realism element is totally missing and what the movie ends up providing is a bunch of "actors" parading along in a plot less and seemingly unrelated set of events. One star for this film is a ridiculous waste of a vote. its time for RGV to wake up to the reality of his failure and conjure up another "different" plot that can be categorized under cinema.
Before I see on this film, I see a lot of comments, which everyone has a great view of the film good or bad...
What I really want to point out is the acting on Woody Harrelson behalf, he may not be in many parts of the film, but when he appears or even the intro, I was astonished by Will Smith's and Woody Harrelson "message" they tried to create and maybe slip the entire plot until the end to really understand what is going on.
I am not a very sentimental person, I believe that a good deed should not have remorse or pity behind it. But a act to show redemption, there is not many films that in my point of view can show this. This is one of them that can.
I agree with one person that commented about this film showing acts of "suicide" is a downfall, however I do not believe that is the "message" the film is trying to send, but "sacrifice". A bit to the extreme, but that is the message in MY opinion.
This film has potential. The acting it is worth every penny, the script is unbelievable. from a person that doesn't really like watching drama films... if you like drama this is a must go watch.

Hated it. If you believe that everyone in the South is dumb, morally bankrupt, stupid, violent, a religious nut, or a child molester, then this film may be for you. Everyone is poor and seemingly ignorant. In one scene, two older men are talking in a general store and one mentions that he had molested a set of sisters before they could tie their shoes. The man seemed proud of his actions, and the other man clearly took it as a normal part of life. Very nice. A teenage girl walks the back roads looking for her sister and no one offers to help her -- despite an obvious limp and lack of food or water (no backpack, etc.). Strathairn's character is not only thoroughly disgusting and slimy, but he is shown to be a religious believer who (typical for Hollywood) reflects the vile nature of Christians. A scene in the movie is highly reminiscent of the end of Cape Fear (the one with DeNiro) -- Bible verses being spouted by the bad guy. I am from the Great Northwest, but found this film offensive because of the wonderful people I know who are from NC, WV, AL, MS, KY, TN, etc.
Atlantis: The Lost Empire has some of the best, smoothest animation and cleverly written dialogue of any Disney movie I've seen. And I was convinced of that in the first 15 minutes. I especially love Don Novello's voice work on Vincenzo Santorini and Phil Morris as Joshua Strongbear Sweet. Too bad the whole film seems to move at about double the pace that would be appropriate - at least in the first act. One important aspect of any Disney movie is a satisfying antagonist - which Atlantis doesn't provide. He's average at best. Halfway through the movie there's a mediocre twist. That's all. It's a great movie nevertheless. Everyone should check it out.

I wanted to give Drawing Blood the benefit of the initial doubt. The opening moments, with a naked woman sprawled out and an painter, Diana, about to paint her and then sucking her blood to drain out so she can use it for her art, give the impression that this could be a kick-ass artsy-vampire flick. Turns out this initial impression turns out false. Oh, Troma, the mark of some kind of lack of quality: sometimes they'll offer up something that is trash but funny and with at least some competence to the junk-food craft (or, sometimes not). This is a case where it's not even a whole lot of fun to watch since its attempts at humor (i.e. the protagonist's father is an old vaudevillian who does Jimmy Durante impressions?) are weak at best, and any unintentional laughs are undercut by Sergio Lapel's bargain basement direction.
And it's not without him trying, oh Lord no. He does try a lot, which is a big part of the problem. He and his producers had money for lights, sure, but the way they're used in the movie made I, a former student filmmaker and aspiring director, sulking in my seat: if I saw this in a theater I would have to blind my eyes in many instances, and would wonder whether or not his DP understood really the basic 3-point lighting set-up. While this, along with a very lackluster sound design (or just lots of random loud humming like in the art gallery scene), shouldn't be something that comes to attention during a Troma release, it should be something *basic* that a filmmaker can tackle even if the script isn't very funny or scary (and it isn't) or if Lapel does a weird mixture of songs placed at bizarre moments.
It's not a good movie by any stretch, and perhaps if you're a vampire die-hard (or just a vampire period) it might have some appeal as a low-rent bargain basement alternative to Near Dark, or as a slight improvement over, say, 1972's Blood Freak. You have better ways to waste your time, overall.
Talk about a dream cast - just two of the most wonderful actors who ever appeared anywhere - Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith - together - in "Hot Millions," a funny, quirky comedy also starring Karl Malden, Robert Morley, and Bob Newhart. Ustinov is an ex-con embezzler who gets the resume of a talented computer programmer (Morley) and takes a position in a firm run by Malden - with the goal of embezzlement in mind. It's not smooth sailing; he has attracted the attention of his competitor at the company, played by Newhart, and his neighbor, Maggie Smith (who knows him at their place of residence under another name), becomes his secretary for a brief period. She can't keep a job and she is seen throughout the film in a variety of employment - all ending with her being fired. When Newhart makes advances to her, she invites Ustinov over to her flat for curry as a cover-up, but the two soon decide they're made for each other. Of course, she doesn't know Ustinov is a crook.
This is such a good movie - you can't help but love Ustinov and Smith and be fascinated by Ustinov's machinations, his genius, and the ways he slithers out of trouble. But there's a twist ending that will show you who really has the brains. Don't miss this movie, set in '60s London. It's worth if it only to hear Maggie Smith whine, "I've been sacked."

I have never seen such terrible performances in all my life.
Everyone in the entire film was absolute rubbish.
Not one decent actor/actress in the whole film, it was a joke.
Reminded me of drama at school...
This is a nice little movie with a nice story, that plays the most important role in the entire movie.
It's a quite intriguing dramatic story, with also romance present in it. The story is being told slowly but this works out all too well for its build up. The characters are nice and portrayed nicely by its actors. Normally I'm not a too big fan of the Asian acting style but the acting in this movie was simply good.
Of course the movie is quite different in its approach and style from other genre movies, produced in the west. In a way this movie is more advanced already with its approach than the western movies made during the same era.
I only wished the movie its visual style would had been a bit better. For a movie that is considered a kind of an art-house movie this movie is certainly lacking in some well looking sequences. This was obviously a quite cheap movie to make and it got made quite generically. Not that this is a bad thing, it just prevent this movie from truly distinct itself and raising itself above the genre.
But oh well, this movie is all about its well constructed story and characters that are in it. In that regard this movie most certainly does not disappoint.
8/10

I usually like zombie movies, but this one was just plain bad.
The good parts: Girl swimming topless with thong bottoms, Sonya Salomaa's topless, and Ona Grauer's boobs jiggling in a skimpy top when she ran.
The bad part: too much video cuts, too much Matrix slow motion (it drags the action), not enough blood and guts, bad acting, and no story. The only other person in the theater was smart and left right after the topless swimming scene. A total waste of $6 and time. I give it a 2 out of 10.
THis movie shows us once again, how genius the Japanese directors are and were. This movie could be seen as a sort of a "Silent - Movie Tetsuo". Well Eisenstein...:)

Can anybody do good CGI films besides Pixar? I mean really, animation looked antiquated by 2006 standards and even by 1995 Toy Story standards. Or maybe they spent all their budget on Hugh Jackman. Whatever their reasoning, the story truly did suck.
Somehow, Hugh Jackman is a rat - a rat that is flushed down a toilet. Yeah I know, seems stereotypical. But then the sewer mimicked the ways of London - to an extent. Throw in a promise of jewels (????) and an evil(??) frog and you get a pathetic attempt at entertainment.
I would like to say something entertained me. Maybe the hookup in the movie? Or maybe the happily-ever-after rat relationship. But nothing did. It had the talent, but it blew up. D-