Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Man With the Gun is pretty much forgotten now, but caused a minor storm of media interest back in 1955 when Robert Mitchum turned down both Jett Rink in Giant (which had actually been written for him and which was subsequently substantially reworked) and Charles Laughton's intended version of The Naked and the Dead to make it instead. Despite some obvious production problems and some harsh lighting that occasionally renders both Mitch and Jan Sterling in unflattering tones, it's a terrific dark western that more than stands comparison with his earlier Blood on the Moon as his 'town tamer' sets to work on a town that never had the chance to grow up before getting run down by the local badmen before turning out to  possibly  be almost as bad as the men he dispatches. Certainly his way of dealing with news of a death in the family  burning a saloon to the ground and goading its manager into trying to kill him  doesn't inspire much confidence in his stability. As well as a good script and a surprisingly good supporting turn from the usually irritating but here well cast Henry Hull, it also boasts a strikingly good early Alex North score, which even includes an early workout for one of his tormented emotional cues that would later turn up in Spartacus.

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.
I am a big fan of the movie, but not for the usual reasons. I think Travolta and Winger performed at higher than average rates, I think the sets were representative of the location and the era, I liked the sound track and the Charlie Daniels Band. However, I think the photography was amazing! Since the interior scenes were filmed in the actual club and Gilley's had low ceilings--perhaps 10-12 feet high and the smoke that was supposed to simulate a "smoke-filled bar" hung 2-4 feet below the ceiling. The Camera managed to get shots through the smoke and focus on the actors, the bull, the bar, the women, the dancing, the low-level of light that actually was in the bar! What a feat! Sure there was auxiliary lighting, but in order to maintain the atmosphere of the bar, it had to be low-light shots. Ray Villalobos (the camera operator) was outstanding! He got some shots he had no hope of achieving and the impact of them brought a sense of reality to the film. Thanks, Ray--Great work!

Although this is "better" than the first Mulva (which doesn't say much anyways, I would rather watch paint dry) it still sucks. Do yourself a favor and avoid anything from these Low Budget Pictures guys. I was suckered into buying a few dvds to support some indy filmmakers and boy did I regret it. Some haven't even been officially "released" yet (not bootlegs-bought from the filmmakers themselves) and I can't even list how bad they all are. Avoid anything with Teen Ape or Bonejack in them as they do pop up in other small indy films that they are friends with. If you are friends of these guys, chances are you were in their movies and had fun making them. But for those that had to watch them? No way. Bad video, bad audio, bad acting, bad plot...etc etc. These aren't even funny. I gave this one a 2 only because Debbie Rochon is in it and that is about it. Maybe it doesn't even deserve the 2. About a 1 1/16th star to show it was slightly better than the first (which I wish I could have rated in the negatives). If you want a decent no budget film, go pick up something from LBP's "friends" over at Freak Productions like Marty Jenkins or even Raising the Stakes. Those are actually decent.
Small SPOILERS alert !!!
Good movie...VERY good movie. And I'm surprised to say that myself, because I'm not a big fan of vampires and the sound of the director's name Deran Serafian usually means bad news. Most of his films are below average action movies like Death Warrant and Gunmen. This was one of his first films and maybe he should have continued making horror movies instead of action. This movie really fascinated me. Good accomplishment, seeing no famous actors or big budget was involved. It really is the story that keeps you focused. Especially fans of the original Dracula myth will be satisfied. Sarafian lights up another aspect of the famous Bram Stoker story and remains rather loyal and true to the truth. It explains the life of the Roemenian Count Dracula and how he scared the Turkish army away by spearing dead corpses in front of his castle. Of course, that's where the reality and the "based on a true story" stops. The blood drinking and stuff all was invented by Bram Stoker.
In this movie, the count ( Vlad Teppish) emigrates to the USA and seduces tons of woman. And they're all pretty girls, I'll give him that. Overall, good acting by unknown faces, enough blood and gore to satisfy the more morbid horror fans and an interesting storyline. This film is really unknown and it was hidden on the darkest shelf at my local videostore. But it certainly is worth cleaning up the dust on the cover and put it in the VCR. Heck, it's a lot better than the famous Nicole Kidman movie with the same title. These two films have nothing else in common, but I blame that movie for stealing the attention away from this nice little picture. Check it out...my humble opinion on To Die For = 8.5/10

This is one of them movies that has a awesome video box but has wired camra work and unknown actors that speak with bad dialogue.Its so dark when the killings happen you can hardly see it plus the movie is hard to understand.The only star in this is WCW`s Vanessa Sanchez (Tygres in WCW before it folded) and she is a good actress. I like low budget film especialy ones that has errors because they are fun to watch but Severed unfourtunatly isn`t one of them.This movie is ok to see if you like voodoo and severed heads but this is no blockbuster but if you need something new to watch then rent Severed.
I remember watching this film on Saturday afternoon TV in the 1950s or 60s. It was well presented but I do remember there was a message of hope broadcast from transmitters secreted in lamposts in one of the last maniacal executions for impending liberation. I'm not sure that squares with the facts.
Still the film is well done. The German High Command reports wryly without emotion "The Russians are advancing down The Fredrich Strasse" as if all went according to plan.
it was my impression that this film and a later American made for TV knock-off was based on the British historian Trevor-Roper's account by a similar title Last Days of Hitler. I was surprised to see no credit to Trevor-Roper.
I agree the newest German film on the subject DOWNFALL was as well done as the classic. The American knock-off was a little flat.
Few figures have attracted as much attention from the cinema as Adolph. Yet I find it interesting that none of the many films and books that have come out ever speak of Hitler's double alluded to in passing in John Toland's magnificent historical piece.
Was gibs?

When I read the back of the DVD case, I thought that it sounded really interesting... so... I had my mom throw it into the pile of movies in the "4 for 20 dollars" section at Blockbuster. When we got home and popped in the movie... twenty minutes into it, we found ourselves turning to each other going "this sucks. Let's put in something else." I'll admit, a few of the lines from the friends at the café made us smile a little bit. But come ON, at least get some decent actors! Every once in a while in a movie, if the acting is bad and the movie isn't going at a painfully slow pace and actually seems interesting, I can gut it out and get a few laughs at how they're over(or under)doing their lines. But I can only take so much. Crying scenes looked like the actors were having hysterical fits of laughter, there was no delivery for their lines... amateur doesn't even come close to the acting in this film.
Anyone who came on here saying that this film was good had to have been on some REALLY good drugs while they were watching the movie. It's the most pointless thing I've ever had the displeasure of watching. DO NOT WATCH OR BUY THIS MOVIE!!!!!
I know that you've already entered this in film festivals (or at least I think you have, I may just be making that up) but I think this should get "best animated short film" in every one. Bravo. I can't wait for the full film. I realize that you may not hear this often enough because of the bizarre nature of your animations, but hear it now and accept it as the truth. Kudos, my friend. Okay, now I'm just trying to get ten lines of text... Though I still mean it. And here comes yet another -SHOE!- and I cannot stop here yet. This is extremely annoying and yet at the same time I have nothing better to do. In fact, I'll probably watch all of your movies in yet another spasmodic "Jason Steele Marathon." I do have a lot of those.
-R

Heavily re-edited and often confusing, the original screen version of Man On Fire was at least ten years out of date when it was made and the passing years haven't made it any better. This is the kind of movie that producers with too much money and too little experience make to get attention and everyone else does just to pay off their outstanding alimony or their drug dealer, with Scott Glenn's bodyguard going out on a limb to rescue his 12-year-old charge, the kidnapped daughter of a wealthy Italian family. An interesting cast - Joe Pesci, Brooke Adams, Danny Aiello, Jonathan Pryce - have all done better, the action is sluggish and sparse and only John Scott's exceptionally fine score (part of which turned up in the last reel of Die Hard) makes a positive impression. One case where the remake (made by Tony Scott, the original choice of director for this version) is an improvement.
The beautiful story of Stardust is written by by Neil Gaiman (writer of MirrorMask) and it's really a good story. I think it would appeal to any Labyrinth, Princess Bride or 10th Kingdom fan and yet it's totally unique and stands up on it's own. And I feel the film adaptation of this story has a far better ending than what was presented in the original novel by Neil Gaiman. I won't spoil it for you.
The main character, Tristan (Tristran in the novel), is the son of a mortal and a faerie slave kept by a witch in the realm of faerie. The story begins in a town near a wall that separates the magical world from the human world. When there is a falling star Tristan promises to retrieve it for a girl he is infatuated with. He is unaware that the star has taken the form of a girl in the fairy world and that there are others after her too. Three elderly witches who want to use her heart to become young again, and some bickering princes.
It's a really good story. It has humor and magic and beautiful, surreal scenes and visuals. It's charming and I feel it can be watched by children and adults of all ages. It's simply magical. It's a true classic fairy tale, the likes of which I haven't seen in cinema since the 1980s.

The killings in this movie isn't that bad, but for sure the movie is. It's even worse than that. It's not even worth the wear it might cause when you slide it into your DVD-player.
Not even the wear it causes on your shoulders carrying it from the DVD-store, not to speak of the money and time you spend renting and watching it. Horrible.
It's beyond understanding how anyone could say anything positive about this movie. It was just a bare masochistic tendency of mine that caused me not to stop watching, add to that the group pressure from my co-watchers.
The manuscript is awful, the directing even worse and the acting is plain despicable.
I hope you don't see this as a spoiling your fun, i'd rather see it as a fair warning: Do not waste your time watching this garbage!
I have seen this film three times now, and each time I see it, it becomes more personal and more emotional to watch.
The acting is amazing, which is not hard to believe since it is Daniel Day Lewis, who is an amazing actor. Brenda Fricker is the surprise wonder in it, though. She captures your heart as the mother of a physically disabled boy, who is not able to walk, or speak until he is in his late teens.
I can't say enough good things about the movie, but I will stop here. I recommend it to anyone who enjoys movies that are based on actual events, or just enjoy good dramas in general.

The Priyadarshan/Paresh Rawal combo has been golden before with the likes of HERA PHERI and HUNGAMA so I went into the movie (at an Indian multiplex) with high hopes, especially after the slick promos. Unfortunately, like HULCHUL before it, this movie was a huge disappointment.
Like others have commented, the premise of the movie, which was already stale to begin with, just gets stretched on and on without any development or additional layering. After a while, you just want the movie to end so you can go home (if I had been watching this at home, it would have been much easier to cut my losses). Akshay Kumar's performance is average at best and John Abraham should not try doing comedy again. The comedy aspects of the movie overall were pretty week. I only remember giggling like twice the entire movie. Definitely no sidesplitting belly laughs that consumed me in HERA PHERI or even to a lesser extent in AWARA PAAGAL DEEWANA. Paresh Rawal had a few of his expected classic moments, but overall, because his role and character wasn't given much room to grow, he didn't make much of an impact in this film.
Neha Dhupia, who makes only an appearance in the movie, was fun to look at while she was on screen. And some of the songs are fun. Especially the opening and closing songs of ADA and KISS ME BABY, respectively. Otherwise, you're better off just passing on this movie.
Basically, this movie is one of those rare movies you either hate and think borders on suicide as the next best thing to do, rather than having to sit through it for two hours. Or, as in my case, you see it as a kult hit, one of those movies wherein the humour, the plot, the acting, is actually very hidden but for those of us willing to go looking for it, trusting the director well, the reward is: U laugh your A.. of !! The fact that U have to find the things mentioned above, actually makes the movie even more funny, because u get the impression the director isn't even aware of how funny his movie is, which doesn't seem likely and therein lies the intelligence at the helm of this magnificient project called : Spaced Invaders !!

I just finished watching this on TV and what can I say but this is the worst film I have EVER seen! I'm embarrassed to be from Melbourne, where the film was made. Diabolical acting, amateurish makeup effects and a REALLY bad soundtrack. As for the plot, well, thats even MORE stupid! Some of the scenes just left me stunned as to how bad it was. There's a reason they put these types of films on late night TV - because they're utter rubbish! Avoid at all costs.
There's something compelling and strangely believable about this episode. From the very beginning, an atmosphere of tension is created by the knowledge that a certain planet is going to explode within a few hours. Kirk, Spock and McCoy have beamed down to evacuate the inhabitants, all of whom seem to have left already for parts unknown, except for an elderly librarian.
The librarian's polite but cryptic advice about where all the citizens have gone to is interrupted by a crisis in which all three Enterprise crew members find themselves unexpectedly hurled into different eras of the planet's past. Kirk finds himself in a time period resembling 17th Century England, while Spock and McCoy are stranded in a desolate, frozen waste.
The intercutting between the two stories, and the different hazardous situations the men find themselves in is superbly handled, with return to the present an unknown chance, while the minutes are counting down to the planet's explosion.
Imaginative writing and fine acting characterize this episode, with a touching performance by Mariette Hartley as a woman exiled to the Ice Age, and Ian Wolfe as the urbane Librarian. Somewhat reminiscent of the classic episode City On The Edge of Forever, this time travel story is a rich and compelling finale to the series, which concluded one episode later. This has to be one of the best of the whole series, especially remarkable given the generally lesser quality of the third season overall.

My kids picked this out at the video store...it's great to hear Liza as Dorothy cause she sounds just like her mom. But there are too many bad songs, and the animation is pretty crude compared to other cartoons of that time.
Went to see this finnish film and I've got to say that it is one of the better films I've seen this year. The intrigue is made up of 5-6 different stories, all taking place the very same day in a small finnish town. The stories come together very nicely in the end, reminding, perhaps, a bit of the way Tarantino's movies are made. Most of the actors performed very well, which most certainly is needed in realistic dramas of this type. I especially enjoyed the acting by Sanna Hietala, the lead actress, and Juha Kukkonen. I noticed btw that IMDB has got the wrong information about Sanna. Her name, as you might have noticed in my review ;), is NOT Heikkilä, but Hietala.

Okay first of all, I didn't sit down to watch the premier of a "Star Trek" Series to see a cowboy flying around in space. this is how a normal Enterprise episode works
1 Archer finds a nebula or something aloung the lines of that and wants to take a closer look but it might destroy the ship.
2 he sends a shuttle into the nebula and and the shuttle get damaged...
in all of the episodes I have seen, all of the problems are happening because of Archer's stupid mistakes. Oh and did you see the preview of one episode showing Archer and T'pol kissing?!?!?!?!?!?!? I was planning to watch that episode but after that I totally gave up on Enterprise and turned to TV right off. Come on!!!! This is star trek!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also what was with the banana slug?? In one episode, Hoshi had a banana slug but had to leave it behind for some stupid reason. Okay fine, little dumb to bring you pet slug in space but whatever. Okay that was what I thought until they left it on a desert planet!!!!! A BANANA SLUG CANNOT LEAVE IN A DESERT!!!!!!!!!!!! How dumb are these writers
Any ways, just saying if Enterprise is on DON'T WATCH IT!!!!!
The Straight Story is the tale of an old man who decides to visit his sick brother who lives across the state line. He decides to make the trip on his lawnmower as he can't drive and he wants to make the rip by himself. The film beautifully depicts his journey and the lives he touches along the way.
Richard Farnsworth turns in a beautiful performance as do the rest of the cast, most notably Sissy Spacek in an endearing performance as his daughter, and Harry Dean Stanton in a small but infinitely crucial role.
At first I felt that a story of an old geezer trip across the country side would be dull but I soon discovered that Lynch with all the insights in to the man life makes this a movie I would recommend to anyone.

I do not believe all the praise for this movie. The play and movie were a ripoff of Sleuth. Michael Caine wishes he were Olivier, and Reeves wishes he were Caine. Caine even had the nerve to do a remake of Sleuth with Jude Law playing his original part. Jude Law? You mean the one that did the remake of "Alfie"?
This movie was made during a period of Caine's career when it was obvious he needed to pay off gambling debts. He would do anything for money. He would star in such award winning movies such as this, and "Beyond the Poseidon Adventure". What seems to be driving the praise for this movie is Reeves death. He deserves better than to be remembered for this lousy movie. And so does Caine. This movie can be found in the $5.97 bin at Walmart. Along with gems like "The Island", and "Blame it on Rio".
What can I say that hasn't been said about "The Haunting"? It has everything that would make a great picture. Wonderful sets, moody music, and sound design to die for were all in place. The screenplay, though, sometimes boggles the mind in such a weird, surrealistic way. The entire team must have forgotten to read it through, maybe because they were too busy creating cg effects and building gothic sets to notice how weak the plot was. Each member of the cast gives a worthy performance, although with little conviction to the material at hand. Lili Taylor has the most to do while the others mostly react to her. But that's about it. All I can say is that it was a slightly enjoyable two hours, but you will definitely want more. A lot more.

This is the biggest load of crap that I have seen in a long time. The last time I hated a movie so much was whilst watching "28 Days later" and "Magnolia". There is absolutely no point to this movie, except to see some really sick and twisted sex/rape scenes, Gillian Anderson relieving herself on the side of the road, and every single sentence of dialog having to use the "F" word at least a couple of times in it. It has extremely cheap acting and is very low budget. My friend and I eventually turned off the movie after about half an hour. We had tried to give it a chance, but nothing could save this crud. DO NOT WATCH IT!!!
A meteor drops from the sky and reawakens a plesiosaur that long ago used to terrorize the area around Crater Lake . As the monster eats the locals they try and find away of killing the monster.
Recent attempts at sending up old horror and science fiction films like Lost Skeleton of Cadavra and Alien Trespass are kind of rendered moot when you have films like Crater Lake Monster available for screening. It's the sort of film that those films spoof and send up only this is the real deal. Its everything those films try to be only with out the tongue in cheek and its so much more fun because of it. This is a real drive-in sort of film that had the unfortunate luck of coming just as Star Wars changed the way we look at special effects. The monster, a mix of stop motion and a life size head, is a charmingly quaint little beast. The filmmakers spoil the audience with frequent shots of the monster and its mayhem. Sure its clear that its all fake, but isn't movies about suspension of disbelief? Actually I think its about really cool monsters, which this has.
I like this movie in a low budget drive in sort of a way. If you want a real authentic drive in monster movie look no farther. This would be perfect for a double or triple feature with similar lake monster films (Boggy Creek etc.)

Carly Pope plays JJ, a newly promoted Food Critic whose flamboyant, overbearing mother moves in with her. JJ, aghast at this turn of events, then blackmails restaurant owner, Alex, to entertain her mother in exchange for "maybe" reviewing his dying restaurant. Alex predictably falls for the daughter while warming to the mother. There are numerous problems with this movie, the characters are universally 2-dimensional. JJ is a self-serving, hateful character, her mother superficial and shallow. JJ's colleagues at the magazine are bitchy and opportunistic. The underlying message of an over-50 woman unable to make it on her own, without male assistance is bad, bad, BAD. The acting is uniformly dull, the script uninspired. The films only saving grace is the setting of New York City. I would so NOT recommend this film.