Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Excellent, pre-code amoral tale with Barbara Stanwyck as the newly inspired (by writings of Nietzsche!) to drive out her sensitivities and exploit herself, use men to her advantage. Not really fair on the German philosopher but interesting that this was the year Hitler came to power. Stanwyck, even in this young version doesn't do a lot for me but she certainly performs well here, ever driving herself and the film forward. Not as much flesh on display here as one might have expected but plenty of risqué situations and astonishing quips and innuendo. Great fun, if not a particularly attractive presentation of men and I suppose in all honesty not a very attractive view of the gold digging female. Still, that's life!

I found it very very difficulty to watch this after the initial 5 minutes of the film. I managed to stomach 45-50 minutes before switching it off in disgust and watching Monster House instead (which, by the way, is great fun).
The story has massive holes in it. The plot line is hugely over stated and dull, the acting is awful, especially from Justin TImberlake who should really stick to what he is good at (looking daft and singing like a castrato). Morgan Freeman looked incredibly uncomfortable, especially when made to dance around to rock music for no apparent reason half way through the film after him and Timberlake meet. Freeman and Timberlake's characters seem to be supposed to have some sort of father/son relationship of sorts or something, which simply isn't evident at all apart from the fact that; though Freeman's character seems to have nothing but contempt for the ignorant and rather stupid character of Timberlake, he never the less pulls out all the stops to help him uncover a completely ridiculous cover up.
It would take some incredible suspension of disbelief to give any credit to the story line, which is simply absurd and blown out of all proportion.
Don't watch this film, it is a pure waste of time.
The biggest reason I had to see this movie was that it stars Susan Swift, an outstanding and all-too-underappreciated actress. Time travel movies usually don't interest me and neither do movies about witchcraft, but this movie was fascinating and creepy. It didn't rely on outrageous special effects and it didn't focus so heavily on the time travel that the viewer gets lost and confused. This was a really creative movie kept simple and focused with great acting by all.

I am a big fan of old horror movies, and since I am middle aged, old to me is a movie made before 1970 with most being made in the 1920's to 1960's period. I am not a big fan of more modern horror movies, with one exception being Creepshow 1, which I thought was great. I could reminisce about the stories there but I really really enjoyed the monster in the box story with Hal Holbrook, and also the one about the really clean guy was a great ending. All the stories were great though. So why did I like them so much? The characters had some decent development, the lines were very plain about who was good and who was bad, the horror bits were heightened with a close up of a face aghast with fear, and the funny bits were really funny! This sequel is either greatly lacking of these elements or they are totally absent! I am writing this only having watched it partially because the movie was a complete waste of time and I turned it off to do other things like write movie reviews on IMDb.com, lol. When George Kennedy and an old Dorothy Lamoure get top billing it's telling you something.....4 of 10. Also, Romero's expertise is hard to find here, they must had told him to tone it down to a PG standard (I don't know what this was rated at but it looks PG to me), and that's not a good thing for a movie with nothing else going on. It's shown on the Encore cable channel if your dieing (yuck yuck) to see it.
Elia Kazan, one of the best theater directors this country ever had, showed he was equally at home with movies. With "Panic in the Streets", Mr. Kazan gives us an early version of what would come later, with perhaps his master piece, "On the Waterfront", although both movies share only the water setting, for they are different visions about different subjects.
Mr. Kazan shot on location in New Orleans. The adaptation by Daniel Fuchs of the Edna and Edward Anhalt stories that are the basis of the film, is remarkable in that it takes us to places that no tourist dared to see when visiting "The Big Easy". One of the big assets of this film is the magnificent black and white cinematography by Joseph MacDonald that shows New Orleans at its best. Also the music by Alfred Newman and the song by Billie Holiday gives the proceedings a nice touch.
This film, could have been shot in New York, or another Northern big city because it presents us with characters that speak more like "broklynese" than maybe a Southern accent one might hear in that part of the country.
One thing comes clear in the movie, Jack Palance, making his screen debut, smolders the screen every time one sees him. He was so intense! At the same time, this tough guy shows a tender side of him when he goes to see his sick partner, who unknown to him, is stricken with a fatal disease. Blackie, comforts this man caressing his sweaty face and running his hands through the dying man's greasy hair with abandon. Notable also, was the fact that Mr. Palance and Mr. Mostel appear to have been doing their own stunts, something so refreshing because both actors make it seem real.
The film also presents a normal side with the introduction of the Reed family at the beginning of the film. We see a family man painting furniture with his young son. Later he and the wife discuss how it appears they can't make ends meet with his salary, something that many families have to deal with on a daily basis. Richard Widmark, playing a normal person is not as effective as when this actor plays more cunning and intense people. Barbara Bel Geddes, as the wife, sounds as though she's a suburban woman from Connecticut.
The film is enjoyable thanks to Mr. Kazan's direction and the excellent cast working in the movie.

Salvage is the worst so called horror film I've ever seen. There is nothing remotely horrific about it. It doesn't deserve to be in a genre so fine. First of all i don't see how so many people can think this piece of crap such a great movie. If I wrote something as boring and utterly ridiculous as this i would be laughed at and too embarrassed to subject others to the stupidity of it. Second: the acting is terrible and the lead actress is excruciatingly ugly. Third: the story sucks, its been used before, and the excuse that its a cheap movie is no excuse. Read the summery on the back of the case, it reveals the whole story. I do not recommend that you watch this movie unless you have 80 minutes to waste on something that will leave you regretting that you watched it. I feel really bad for those Crooks and the irony of their name. All hail Anthony Perkins!!!!!!!!!
I am a VERY big Jim Carrey fan. I laughed my ASS off during Liar Liar and Ace Ventura. I also like him in his serious movies, especially Truman Show. This one is a cross between his VERY funny side, and his serious side. He is of course VERY funny in this movie, but there are parts that are very serious, and he pulls it off with a lot of ease. he is truely a multi-function actor.
As for the rest of the cast, I was happy with Jennifer Aniston's acting. I think she is more than just a couple of nice tits and great ass. Morgan Freeman makes a VERY cool God. As for Steven Carell, his limited scenes are VERY funny, especially in the anchor scene.
Overall, I would have to rate this a 9. Good acting, funny script, and some very serious situations make this a very good film.

I have been an environmentalist for years and was really looking forward to this show. I had it set to record all episodes because I thought I could really learn some great new things. I probably could if I could get past Rachelle.
I'm sure a lot of this is staged to seem like a reality show and appeal to that class of viewer. It doesn't work for someone who's really interested in improving the planet.
This show should be called Nagging with Rachelle.
Since Ed is such a great font of information, maybe a second show that's really serious about the environment would be a good idea. Dumbing things down is not necessary for some of us.
I no longer record episodes or watch the show, but do let me know if a real green show may be in the works.
Funny, sexy, hot!!! There is no real plot but you needn't anyone...
so the naked or almost naked girls and the typical fights between college-cliques need no development!
All in all the whole seems to be known from simply every film in this category but the reissuer reached the goal that this film can be recognized out of thousand others.
Last thing I've got to say. Unbelievable funny!
You've got to see it!!!
And if you are young and you want know more about the female body you've got to see it twice

This film actually works from a fairly original idea - I've never seen nymphs that were thrown out of heaven in a horror movie before anyway. However, the way that it executes this idea isn't original in the slightest; we follow a bunch of kids that, for some reason decide to go on a trip into the forest. The fact that the forest is inhabited by these nymphs make it more interesting than merely another forest filled by rednecks/nutcases/zombies etc; but really, the monsters are just a variation on the common horror in the woods theme. Many films of this ilk don't have a single good idea - and it would seem that this one has worn its brain cells out with just that one. The only real asset that the monsters bring to the table is the fact that they're beautiful women that the characters lust for, rather than being hideous grotesques that they want to run away from. This is good up until a point; but it soon gets boring, and the almost complete lack of any back-story surrounding the central monsters ensures that the film is never going get itself out of the 'horror trash' category.
It's been years since The Evil Dead made the woodlands a prime horror location, and in spite of films like The Blair Witch Project; it still makes for an excellent horror setting. This is one of the film's major assets, as the forest presents a good impression of the unknown - the only problem is that Forest of the Damned doesn't ever seem to have much up its sleeve. The death sequences show a distinct lack of imagination, and the fact that all the characters are clichéd in the extreme doesn't help, as you're more likely to be looking forward to seeing them get killed rather than hoping they can get away. The cast is made up of kids mainly, but there is a role here for Tom Savini; who unfortunately doesn't get to have fun in the special effects department. The only real highlight the film has where personnel are concerned comes from the nymphs themselves. The naked ladies tend to look great, and if it wasn't for them, this film would get very boring very quickly. There's nothing to recommend this film for really; but if you want a daft little horror film that harks back to the style of eighties woodland flicks, you might find some enjoyment here.
One of my favorite movies to date starts as an adventure through the wild side of a team of four men from Atlanta. The idea of living the Chulawasse river before it's turned into a lake comes from Burt Reynold's Lewis, who unconsciously drowns his fellas into their worst nightmare. But if the first half of the film appears rather like an action movie, the second half carries the viewer into a totally different story, with our men forced to make a decision that (they know) will change their lives forever. In very bad ways. At the end of the movie, each person is gonna be forced to deal with the scars of what had just to be a quite week-end on the river but muted into a fight for survival. The movie (except some pretty evident goofs) is very well directed and beautifully shot into a paradise of nature that steals your breath. The photography is excellent as well. Voight, Reynolds, Cox and Beatty are all excellent in showing how a single event can ruin in different ways four different lives only tied to the same mistake.

From the start, you know how this movie will end. It's so full of clichés your typical NRA member will not even like this movie. I give it 2 out of 10, only because of the acting of William Benton. I can't believe people voted 6+ for this movie. It's so biased towards a 'certain point of view' (once a thief...). People aren't born bad. Neither are they born good. They are born with a clean slate. It's society, parents and education what makes them who they are. And if they take the wrong turn, somewhere down the line, it certainly isn't going to be the American penal system that gets them back on track! Anyway, avoid this movie like the plague. I bet you have better things to do with your time than waste it on this piece of crap.
I love this movie, but can't get what is in this movie tht is not to like. People who don't like this movie must be Richard Roeper and Roger Ebert. But I can't believe that is Mr. Carrey behind all that makeup. And I am sure that most of the actors and actresses in the movie has made film before this. And there is a new face in the movie. Taylor Momsen who plays Cindy Lou Who. As the opens, the Grinch (Jim Carrey) comes out of hiding. And causes some mean fun to the whos in Whoville. Sicne we know that the whos love Christmas. While The Grinch does not like christmas. And even makes fun of little Cindy Lou Who (Taylor Momsen) who is the daughter of the town's postmaster (Bill Irwin). The movie was directed by Ron Howard. And the narrtor's voice is done by Anthony Hopkins. And Jeffrey Tambor (Muppets From Space) is cast as the mayor of whoville. Who doesn't like talking about the Grinch close to Christmas time.

How good is Gwyneth Paltrow! This is the right movie for her... too bad she's completely out role. I haven't read the book by Jane Austen, but I can't believe it is so superficial and the characters aren't much more than caricatures. It wasn't probably that easy to reduce in 2 hours of show about 600 pages of the book, but I had expected more than just seeing old pieces of furniture and tea cups. I was taking a sigh of relief every time I saw an actor who didn't overstep the mark of overacting (a couple of times).
One of the best movies out there. Yeah maybe the cinematography wasn't the greatest, but an excellent plot and concept. Great for the time and brilliant and creative ideas. Something different from the usual movies and great fun. One of my favorites and would recommend to anyone who likes creative and imaginative movies. Post World War 3 and fighting in gigantic robots, the actors gave a great performance and made it all worth while. The sets are not amazing, but simple and worked for the overall look of the film. This movie is very hard to find on DVD, but also on VHS. Check it out cause I have loved it since it came out. Not a mainstream flick and not like anything you've ever seen. Take a look and think like a child. It's a great view and very fun.

Whatever happened to British TV drama? From John Major through Tony Blair, the focus of the genre appears to have shifted from social realism to smugly normative women-focused tales about the piddling domestic problems of nice middle class professionals.
(Or perhaps TVNZ doesn't buy the good stuff? Please let that be what it is...)
The writer's long career in soaps probably explains why the dialogue is made up mostly of stale clichés. Niamh Cusack's performance is strong on meaningful looks, each held by the director for at least half a dozen beats longer than they deserve. Baleful looks, however, are a poor substitute for depth of character, if the writer has failed to provide such material for actors to work with.
Of course this is theoretically a thriller, about a murder investigation; but that's not as important as the central character's failing marriage and its attendant problems. Is Cusack's character's husband a complete bastard? Will her son be utterly traumatized by the marriage break up? Making these the central issues isn't a sign of insight -- it indicates a profoundly narcissistic identification by the writer and director with a character who should be getting on with her job.
Lynda La Plante knows how to write this stuff so that it feels as if it matters and involves viewers other than housebound neurotics ; evidently Paula Milne isn't up to the task.
Of all the versions of the Odyssey (or of any Greek mythological story for that matter), this in my opinion is the best of them all. Almost true to the original storyline - with some minor deviations and omissions, e.g. the absence of Scylla & Charybdis and the fact that Eumaeus the swineherd recognizes Odysseus in disguise in his hut - realistic acting and authentic scenery and costumes all contribute to make this a truly memorable masterpiece,not some Hollywoodish sword-and-sandal B-flick. Notwithstanding the fact that the dialogue and subtitles are completely in Italian, if one is familiar with the storyline, he can still make heads and tails of what is going on and what the actors are saying (provided you have a good handy text of the Odyssey at hand). At least I did, and so much so that it has inspired me to study the Italian language to better appreciate the movie even more.

I passed this one on the shelf a few times, looking at the myriad of huge positive quotes (with tiny names) on the front and wondering if I was missing something. The other night it was on one of the movie channels, and I tuned in. I missed nothing.
I must admit that I only watched the first 30 minutes. Perhaps the movie becomes comedy gold after that. Given the slow, plodding pace and complete lack of laughter in the first 30, I seriously doubt it.
The lead character starts the movie in classic "I don't know how to start my movie" style, with a long, tiresome monologue about how he doesn't want to get sued. It's not funny. It's not even remotely funny. Others have commented on the "San Franclisco" bit; ok, a small chuckle the first time he says it. Then he grinds it into the ground, smiling at the camera like it's the funniest thing ever written. Get over yourself. In fact, I think the talking to the camera bit was the reason I instantly disliked the film. Don't assume familiarity with your audience. Familiarity is _earned_, much like respect.
From there you basically have a fat whiny guy talking in a very effeminate way about his dull life as a temp. I didn't realize he's Jewish; it's a discredit to Jewish comedians to call this "Jewish humor". It's just unfunny humor. Just because you're Jewish doesn't mean you have a knack for the comedy. A WASP, Spalding Gray, does a better job of self-analytical humor than this guy, so obviously it's not about ethnicity.
If one of the bits I had seen had worked, I might have stuck around. But some schlub going on about how much he loves the names of the women he works with, then listing them for five long minutes, doesn't make a great movie.
This is an obvious attempt to capitalize on the popularity of "Office Space". Don't let yourself become a victim of target marketing. Just say no to "Haiku Tunnel".
"The Days" is a typical family drama with a little catch - you must relate to the character's emotions in every way possible in order for you to truly appreciate the show.
[Possible Spoilers For Those Who Are Unfamiliar With the Show]
The story, obviously, for all the people who has watched the show, is the world of Cooper Day, the middle child of the family. He records his days with his family and hopes to become a rich and famous writer one day because of his observations. His family includes a mother, a father, a perfect sister, and a genius-little-brother. The first episode, which is going to sound a bit stupid since John Scott Shepard has created this situation - both the sister and mother gets pregnant. That's the first situation the writer hits. Then the father quits his job at the law firm. The youngest son gets a panic attack. The middle child gets in a fight with the sister's boyfriend. This is all in a day's work.
[/Spoilers]
I admire this show. I don't know. It's a bit crappy but I like it. First I thought the camera-work was a ripoff but then I got used it and started to like it. I liked the quiet conversations under a dark light. I liked the intimate feeling of the show. I liked the low-budget style. I liked the acting. I admire the story. Then I find myself wanting a second season of The Days. I slowly became a fan of it as the 6-episode airing on ABC came to an end. It's a really good show and it's nothing like The OC. The two have nothing in common. So I hope fans will stop comparing them.
And if you can relate to either Abby, Jack, Natalie, Cooper or even Nate, you'll like this show. A lot.

I rated this a 3. The dubbing was as bad as I have seen. The plot - yuck. I'm not sure which ruined the movie more. Jet Li is definitely a great martial artist, but I'll stick to Jackie Chan movies until somebody tells me Jet's English is up to par.
I remember having a pretty low regard for a venture like this when it was first released. James "Not Jim" Belushi, a hammy kid actress, and a cheesy title in a John Hughes formula. You couldn't have paid me to see it 15 years ago. But, I got caught up watching it while wasting away a Sunday afternoon, and it hits me on a couple of levels. The fairy tale (part Pretty Woman, part reverse Pretty Woman), the very vulnerable, Elizabeth_Perkins_in_Miracle_On_42nd_Street -like performance by Kelly Lynch, the escapism. Over all, it gently pulls some very nice strings. It's pretty hard not to fall into the story, develop a crush on Kelly Lynch, identify with James Belushi, dislike the stiff bad guy boyfriend, and laugh at the Curley Sue lines. Has all the ups and downs, with a happy ending, and the kind of message you want to hear. Go ahead, waste your time on this movie, it's worth it.

Originally aired as an ABC Movie of the Week. This involves two young innocent female college students who are railroaded into a prison camp in a little Southern town. They aren't allowed phone calls and nobody knows they're there. What follows is rape, torture, beatings, humiliation and degradation leading to a very disturbing conclusion.
The TV version was (for its time) grim. No nudity and the beatings were pretty tame but the overall feeling of sleaziness wore one down. The unrated version is even worse--there's plentiful nudity, the violence is extreme and, in one particularly disgusting sequence, we see a crying female prisoner forced to strip while a lesbian guard "uses" her. YUCK! There's nothing wrong with exploitation films but this one just goes over the brink. You get the feeling that the filmmakers enjoy having these poor women being tortured and degraded--all this is shoved in your face like you're supposed to enjoy it. The needlessly downbeat ending doesn't help.
I'm giving it a 3 because the acting is good--but that actually makes the movie harder to watch. A sick, sleazy film. Not recommended.