Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
"And All Through the House" is a special crypt episode not only because it's from the first season, but this episode was the first one I saw! I remember as a young man being on vacation with my parents that summer in 1989 in our hotel room in South Carolina on HBO I saw this episode and I was buried to the Crypt right then and forever! I had always been a fan of horror-suspense series and liked monster movies, and with this series started by HBO I again had fearful pleasure. This episode being the first one I saw is memorable for me and one of my favorites, it's just so enjoyable with a nice twist. "And All Through the House" has a nice cozy setting on a snowy Christmas Eve, which is a perfect way to get you relaxed for holiday chopping! Well anyway you have Mary Ellen Trainor(who by the way plays in several warner brothers works, usually small parts) as a greedy philandering wife who takes care of her hubby while waiting on some money and a new romance. Only like most horror series things take a turn for the worst and bad people get what they deserve. The odds are greatly stacked when a maniac dressed as Santa escapes from a local nut house, making for a late holiday chopping on Christmas Eve! As from the old E.C. comic lessons, you learn bad people get what they axe for! Well this tale ends with a perfect holiday scream! Also this tale was in the 1972 movie and featured Joan Collins, this is without a doubt one of my favorites and probably one of the classic crypt episodes of all-time!

Having been forced by my children to watch this at least 10 times for each of the last 2 Christmases, I feel adequately qualified to pass judgment on this version of Dr. Seuss' classic tale, and well... it's not very good. First off, following a classic act like Chuck Jones' animated TV special is going to be difficult for anyone, but this interpretation is so heavy-handed and padded as to be positively numbing. I will concede that there are a handful of inspired gags, but overall the film comes off as a calculated cash grab, at the same time as it is supposedly decrying the commercialisation of Christmas. Jim Carrey is typically over the top here, but that is completely at odds with the character of the Grinch. As characterised by Boris Karloff, he was a slow burn; methodical and sly. There is no method to Carrey's madness, and that is only the most obvious error made. Talented actors like Jeffrey Tambor and Christine Baranski are utterly wasted here. Why, Universal, why? I mean , I understand that Tony Hopkins will take just about any role offered (much like his countryman Michael Caine), but this one needs to be filed under "Films that should never have been made." This does not bode well for the Cat in the Hat, an even thinner tome that Universal is prepping for this Christmas. I get the feeling that I will be making the same recommendation for that one as I am with this one: skip it, and either read the book or watch the TV special. This is 2 hours you can never, ever get back.
I see a lot of really negative posts by people who wrote in August, though the movie was not released in the US, at least, until the middle of September. Maybe these are unhappy expats living in S. Korea who saw it early. I am in the US and just saw it today. I thought the special effects were excellent, better than the trailer. The story was non-Western, but I think we are all used to this from many other movies. It wasn't at all hard to follow. The acting by the leads was weak, but other people were quite good. There was humor throughout, too. I rated it at 8 because I had a good time watching it, which is what I went for.

Words can't simply describe how awful this film is. I watched it on video last night, and I simply could not believe what I was seeing. Basically, "Snakeeater" is about an ex-military man (Lorenzo Lamas) and his search for his kidnapped sister who has been held captive by Deliverance-style Rednecks. The film's acting, writing, direction, photography, and editing are deplorable along with a song called "Soldier" that has to be one of the worst theme songs of all time!
However, there is one treat. "Horshack" (Ron Pallio) from "Welcome Back Carter" is in the film playing a laughable bad guy. Otherwise, please avoid this mess at ALL COSTS.
A number of factors make it easy for me to state that I still think this is the most important science fiction film ever made, despite some of the acting, outdated dialogue etc.
First, there is the scale of imagination in describing the Krell, a humanoid race native to the planet, now all dead, who were 1 million years more advanced than Earth humans(us), and their technology, particularly the 8,000 cubic mile machine.
Second, there is the music and sound effects, which are inseparable from each other. It creates an eerie, unearthly feeling, unlike "2001", which had traditional classical music.
Third, its "monster" is not only the most powerful and deadly ever envisioned, it's also based on real science and doesn't break the laws of physics and biology.
Finally, and most importantly, Forbidden Planet is the only movie ever made that attempts and, more incredibly, succeeds in making an honest, intelligent and mercilessly logical statement on the limits or ceiling of human (or any other biological entity's) development, no matter how long we survive as a species.
In other words, it predicts our inevitable destiny.

Begins better than it ends. Funny that the russian submarine crew outperforms all other actors. It's like those scenes where documentary shots...
--- SPOILER PART ---- The message dechifered was contrary to the whole story. It just does not mesh.
I have read over 100 of the Nancy Drew books, and if you are not bright enough to catch on yet, Nancy Drew the movie was of a YOUNGER Nancy Drew, not the 18-year-old that doesn't go to school that all of the books are about. This was when she was sixteen. So naturally, she would of not as been as smart as the one in the book considering she is only in the 10th grade. Other than that, I thought the movie was very cute. It was clean and appropriate for everyone. It was funny at times. I thought Emma Roberts did a great job. She was articulate, in character, and cute. I liked the awkwardness that Nancy and Ned had around each other because they obviously were not old enough to be in a serious relationship like they have in the books. It was a cute, PG movie that I throughly enjoyed because I, unlike most people my age, enjoy movies without sex, drugs, or profanity.

Where to start, this movie started badly and ended badly! It consists of extremely poor acting and unrealistic effects that had me cringing in my seat, seriously, my cat could have acted better than this lot.
Some of it was actually laughable because it was so unbelievable, i would of rated this lower but they haven't got anything else! So, heed my warning and unless your so bored your close to suicide and would like a good reason to continue with your suicide mission, don't bother with this one. I'm still in shock that this could actually be released to the public, this should be a crime and all involved should be arrested. I gather you've got the gist by now so i'll leave it up to you to decide.
in one of Neil Simon's best plays. Creaky, cranky ex-Vaudeville stars played by Walter Matthau and George Burns are teaming up for a TV comedy special. The problem is they haven't even SEEN each other in over a decade. Full of zippy one liners and inside showbiz jokes, this story flies along with a steady stream of humor. Good work also by Richard Benjamin as the harried nephew, Rosetta LeNoire as the nurse, and Howard Hesseman as the TV commercial director. Steve Allen and Phyllis Diller appear as themselves. Trivia note: The opening montage contains footage from Hollywood Revue of 1929 and shows Marie Dressler, Bessie Love, Polly Moran, Cliff Edwards, Charles King, Gus Edwards, and the singing Brox Sisters.

I went to see this film based on the review by Siskel and Ebert; not only did I get duped, but I took some friends along, and had to spend the rest of the day profusely apologizing for making them sit through this pointless crap. After this, I never went to see a movie based solely on Siskel & Ebert's advice.
This is one excellent Sammo Hung movie. Actually, this is a great piece of Hong Kong action cinema. The story tells the story of pedicab drivers in Macao looking for love and getting mixed up w/ a vicious pimp. The performances are excellent and the characters are all likable and well-defined. The story is involving and has enough romance, drama, comedy, and suspense to keep one watching between fight scenes. Sammo Hung proves here that he's probably the best fight choreographer in the business. The action is simply amazing, esp. the fight w/ Lau Kar Leung and the finale. Billy Chow and Sammo Hung are amazing. A must see for any fan of action.

I always wrote this series off as being a complete stink-fest because Jim Belushi was involved in it, and heavily. But then one day a tragic happenstance occurred. After a White Sox game ended I realized that the remote was all the way on the other side of the room somehow. Now I could have just gotten up and walked across the room to get the remote, or even to the TV to turn the channel. But then why not just get up and walk across the country to watch TV in another state? "Nuts to that", I said. So I decided to just hang tight on the couch and take whatever Fate had in store for me. What Fate had in store was an episode of this show, an episode about which I remember very little except that I had once again made a very broad, general sweeping blanket judgment based on zero objective or experiential evidence with nothing whatsoever to back my opinions up with, and once again I was completely right! This show is a total crud-pie! Belushi has all the comedic delivery of a hairy lighthouse foghorn. The women are physically attractive but too Stepford-is to elicit any real feeling from the viewer. There is absolutely no reason to stop yourself from running down to the local TV station with a can of gasoline and a flamethrower and sending every copy of this mutt howling back to hell.
Except..
Except for the wonderful comic sty lings of Larry Joe Campbell, America's Greatest Comic Character Actor. This guy plays Belushi's brother-in-law, Andy, and he is gold. How good is he really? Well, aside from being funny, his job is to make Belushi look good. That's like trying to make butt warts look good. But Campbell pulls it off with style. Someone should invent a Nobel Prize in Comic Buffoonery so he can win it every year. Without Larry Joe this show would consist of a slightly vacant looking Courtney Thorne-Smith smacking Belushi over the head with a frying pan while he alternately beats his chest and plays with the straw on the floor of his cage. 5 stars for Larry Joe Campbell designated Comedic Bacon because he improves the flavor of everything he's in!
I happened to borrow this movie from a friend knowing nothing about it, and it turned out to be an outstanding documentary about a journey on an ancient vessel across vast expanses of the ocean. Thor Heyerdahl had developed a theory that the ancient Incas in Peru managed to travel thousands of miles across the ocean to Polynesia, based on certain relics that are found in both places, certain types of ancient sea-going vessels that we know they had available, analysis of ocean and wind currents, and the knowledge that the Incas did, in fact, travel in some undetermined amount at sea.
In order to test his hypothesis, Heyerdahl and his crew construct a vessel as closely as possible to what the ancient Incas had available, using only balsa wood and other materials available at the time, and set out from Lima, Peru's capital, to try to reach the islands of Polynesia, some 5,000 miles away.
His theory, like so much about ancient history, is impossible to prove with 100% certainty, but the coverage of their journey provides for strong support that he is right. The film is really little more than narration of footage taken during the 100+ day expedition, but it is a very detailed description of what it was like and the trials and tribulations that they faced. I often wish that Academy Award winning documentaries were easier to find, and this one from more than 50 years ago is still as interesting and informative as I am sure it was when it was first released.

The plot of The Thinner is decidedly thin. And gross. An obese lawyer drives over the Gypsy woman, and the Gypsy curse causes him to lose and lose weight... to the bone. OK, Gypsy curses should be entertaining, but the weight-losing gone bad? Nope. Except Stephen King thinks so. And Michael McDowell, other horror author and the screenwriter of this abysmal film, does so, too. The lawyer is not only criminally irresponsible, he is fat too, haha! The Thinner is like an immature piece of crap for a person who moans how he/she has never seen anything so disgusting than fatness. Hey, I can only say: Well, look at the mirror.
B Movie? Yes. DIY? Yes. First Movie? Yes. But Aestheically A+. This movie definitely had some bad sound/editing/lighting/acting/etc. etc. problems. However, this movie has many positive things about it. First off, the most annoying character dies first! Second, its made to be a parody/funny B Rated Horror movie. The comments our killer makes to his victims left me and my friends rolling around on the floor laughing.
The problem is a lot of people try to take every independent movie and expect it to be a masterpiece. Take it for what it is, a bunch of kids right out of high school made their first movie. For what it is, just that, it is really good.

Amateurish in the extreme. Camera work especially overwrought - documentary camera operators needn't spin around ALL THE TIME.
The script is truly inane, and the acting is even worse. On top of that, the story is disjointed and meandering - with some gaping holes in logic. At one point the lead wishes to get thrown in jail in order to rub shoulders with suspected Al-Quada operatives, and thus get an interview with Osama. I found the story entirely unbelievable as a result of so many flaws. The "filmmaker"/lead role really portrays a rash, idiot frat boy. The only item of interest really, is that the filmmakers did in fact film on location. It's truly a shame they wasted their opportunity to make something interesting.
Who financed this crap?
This movie resonated with me on two levels. As a kid I was evacuated from London and planted on unwilling hosts in a country village. While I escaped the bombing and had experiences which produced treasured memories (for example hearing a nightingale sing one dark night for the very first time) and enjoying a life I never could have had in London, I missed my family and worried about them. Tom is an old man whose wife and child have both died and who lives alone in a small country village.As an old man who is now without a wife whose kids have gotten married and live far away in another province, I am again sometime lonely. The boy's mother is a religious fanatic with very odd ideas of raising a child. Since a deep affection has grown between old Tom Oakley and this young lad, Tom goes in search of him and finally rescues him from very odd and dangerous circumstances. At the end of the story there is great tension since due to some bureaucratic ruling it seems that the child is going to lose someone who has developed a loving relationship with him.

This bogus journey never comes close to matching the wit and craziness of the excellent adventure these guys took in their first movie. This installment tries to veer away from its prequel to capture some new blood out of the joke, but it takes a wrong turn and journeys nowhere interesting or funny.
There's almost a half-hour wasted on showing the guys doing a rock concert (and lots of people watching on "free TV"--since when does that happen?) Surely the script writer could have done something more creative; look at how all the random elements of the first movie were neatly tied up together by a converging them at the science presentation. Not in this film, which pretty much ended the Bill & Ted franchise. The joke was over.
The Grim Reaper is tossed into the mix, for whatever reason. This infusion, like the whole plot, is done poorly and lacks sparks for comedy or audience involvement. There's a ZZ Top impression, hammered in for no reason. There's lights, smoke, mirrors, noise. But nothing really creative or funny.
Skip this bogus thing.
This shorter movie is the epitome the expected results when the imbecile runs the asylum. It is sad how the futures of these young people were rolled down a craps table when neither Saddam Hussein nor the people of Iraq, God rest the souls of the 350,000 plus that have been killed, had anything to do with terrorism nor al-Quida.
Following this movie the astute viewer will need to pick up or download a copy of "Loose Change." This movie is available free on the internet, until the Bush cabal locks it down, by googling-up the very title, as indicated in parenthesis.
God Save our country. This will not be done by following the Christo-fascists that controlled the Halls of Congress for over 10 years prior to November, 2006!

Just picked up this film for a buck at National Wholesale Liquidators, and after watching it, I feel like I got ripped-off.
I don't know that I've seen a worse film than this. Honestly. And I would never write a negative review of a film had I not such enormous respect for the subject matter, that is, Stephen Foster and his music.
First, what is it? It's a musical biography? Yeah, lot's of tunes by Foster then interspersed here and there are these pseudo-Broadway-Jerome Kern-type numbers that reek more than the Mississippi delta. I mean, somebody got PAID to write this drivel? Secondly, the REAL story of Foster is a fascinating one. Why not even come CLOSE to it? Thirdly, what did they have on the great Ray Middleton to get him to do this film? Pictures of him with small boys?? With communists? What a waste of a great talent.
So, friends of Foster, and the truth, and good entertainment, be afraid... be very, very, afraid.
.......Playing Kaddiddlehopper, Col San Fernando, etc. the man was pretty wide ranging and a scream. I love watching him interact w/ Amanda Blake, or Don Knotts or whomever--he clearly was having a ball and I think he made it easier on his guests as well--so long as they Knew ahead of time it wasn't a disciplined, 19 take kind of production. Relax and be loose was clearly the name of the game there.
He reminds me of guys like Milton Berle, Benny Hill, maybe Jerry Lewis some too. Great timing, ancient gags that kept audiences in stitches for decades, sheer enjoyment about what he was doing. His sad little clown he played was good too--but in a touching manner.
Personally I think he's great, having just bought a two DVD set of his shows from '61 or so, it brings his stuff back in a fond way for me. I can remember seeing him on TV at the end of his run when he was winding up the series in 1971 or so.
Check this out if you are a fan or curious. He was a riot.

Even for the cocaine laced 1980's this is a pathetic. I don't understand why someone would want to waste celluloid, time, effort, money, and audience brain cells to make such drivel. If your going to make a comedy, make it funny. If you want to film trash like this keep it to yourself. If you're going to release it as a joke like this: DON'T!!! I mean, it was a joke right? Someone please tell me this was a joke. please.
It seems a lot of IMDB comments on this film are biased, in the sense that they try to compare it to an older version. True, "HOLLOW MAN" is a remake of sorts of "THE INVISIBLE MAN", but that's where the similarities end. "HOLLOW MAN" is an entertaining movie,period. If you watch a movie with the intention of finding as many flaws as possible, then you shouldn't watch movies in the first place. True, some movies are plain horrendous and unbearable, but "HOLLOW MAN" manages to entertain and make you think what YOU would do if you were invisible and if you had your ex getting laid with one of your friends. Kevin Bacon stars as a eccentric scientist who, along with a team of collaborators, discover the way to make animals invisible. Now his mission is to make them visible again. When this team of young scientists (working, as you might guess, for the Pentagon)think they have the formula for making animals visible again, Kevin bacon volunteers to be the first to try the new experimental drug. After that, of course, things go wrong, as Kevin Bacon remains invisible for the rest of the movie and is obliged to wear a latex mask, so his collaborators know where he is. Feelings of paranoia and desperation begin to take over Kevin's character, and when he finds out that his ex girlfriend AND collaborator (Elisabeth Shue) is having a torrid affair with another of the young scientists in the team, he finally snaps. The movie then turns into a hybrid of "ALIEN" and a slasher flick, but that's not saying it's a bad turn. There are scares and chills and the movie moves at a nice pace. The special effects are top notch (a quality always prevalent in ALL of Paul Verhoeven's films)as we get to see some "body reconstitution" sequences never seen on a movie before. If there's anything to complain about, perhaps, is the predictability of the situations herein; by the first hour of the movie you KNOW Kevin bacon will make the jump from being weird and eccentric to being a homicidal lunatic in the end. And the ending is a bit abrupt, but despite this, HOLLOW MAN is still worth watching. If you want to know what a TRULY bad movie is, then waste your money on "FEAR DOT COM" (With Stephen Dorf) or the even worse THE UNTOLD (or "Sasquatsh", with Land Henriksen). Now THAT is "hollow"! 8* out of 10*!

Sorry. Someone has to say it. This really is/was a dull movie. Worthy perhaps, but dull nonetheless. I nearly cried with boredom when watching it. The acting is pretty dire, the story drawn out and predictable, the score and camera-work totally standard and unexciting. It's one of those movies you are not allowed to hate (becase it is about disabled people) but hate it I suspect nearly everyone does. It is interesting that critics have been so kind to this movie. I suppose they too are not allowed to be objective. This was made to win awards - which I remember it duly did. But it was neither interesting nor entertaining. I haven't seen the play so cannot compare.