Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I will never forget this film or the events that lead up to Jonestown in Guyana. It just seems so tragic but needs to be told. Powers Boothe give a commanding performance as the leader Rev. Jim Jones from obscurity until total madness. It would have won him an Academy Award easily if it was released in the movie theaters. It is the kind of mini-series you won't forget. You won't forget the images of the cult's brutality, control, and obsessiveness of it's leader. His rise and fall and the threat from the outside world to destroy what he considered to be paradise. The mass suicide is horrifying, almost unreal to anybody's imagination as to why so many people (900+) went willingly or resisted JOnes' orders. They don't make mini series like these anymore where we're left with out mouths open and hungry to know what happened to the others.

May contain spoilers.
I say that, but anyone savvy enough to be reading this can probably figure out every plot turn right from the start.
This is not a movie that I liked. I didn't hate it in the way of some movies that insult your intelligence, but it all felt too predictable on its trudge to the requisite happy ending. There were funny bits along the way to be sure, but few were original. At least it didn't go for the gutter.
Christina Applegate looks fresh, and Ben Affleck works hard. Their scenes together are actually the only redeeming feature. Everyone else is a cardboard cutout, including, surprisingly, James Gandolfini, who must have made this as a favor to someone.
All in all, it's a harmless, but not inspiring, 90 minutes.
I look at this page, and it seems disapproving to me to have to listen to someone ramble and rant at a real classic. Sure, I agree to let everyone have their opinion, but here's mine:
This movie should not be missed by any classic horror watcher, and should be seen many casual viewers around the world. Sure, it has lost some of it's flair and greatness with age, especially in todays world of CGI effects, but that's not why you should like it.
You should like it because it actually is a scary movie, even for today's standards. It's overall ickyness will creep you out just as much as the original audiences, so don't slam a classic if you haven't given it a chance. Watch it, but not with a critical attitude. Watch it to have fun, how it was originally intended.

The movie has a good start portraying an interesting and strong Shannon Lee and introduces two very simpathetic side characters through the first half. But later something happens and all the sudden Shannon turns into this straight faced, second hand bad girl and the movie gets lost in it's own context. The second half lacks any kind of charisma and is full of clichés, bad acting, a horrible plot and even worse stunt coordination. Not to mention the horrible actors they chose for the chechen mafia gang.
"Game of Death 2" was bad and clownified Bruce, but his daughter tops it making an even bigger embarrassment of herself than the double who played Bruce Lee back then. I truly believe that she can do much better than this and I hope she participates in a better production next time.
If you are a real hard core action fan and don't care about quality go ahead and see this movie. I was personally looking forward to it but just got terribly disappointed.
Night of the Twisters is a very good film that has a good cast which includes Devon Sawa, Amos Crawley, John Schneider, Lori Hallier, Laura Bertram, David Ferry, Helen Hughes, Jhene Erwin, Alex Lastewka, Thomas Lastewka, Megan Kitchen, and Graham McPherson. The acting by all of these actors is very good. The special effects and thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Devon Sawa, Amos Crawley, John Schneider, Lori Hallier, Laura Bertram, David Ferry, Helen Hughes, Jhene Erwin, the rest of the cast in the film, Action, Mystery, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!

A friend of mine bought this film for £1, and even then it was grossly overpriced. Despite featuring big names such as Adam Sandler, Billy Bob Thornton and the incredibly talented Burt Young, this film was about as funny as taking a chisel and hammering it straight through your earhole. It uses tired, bottom of the barrel comedic techniques - consistently breaking the fourth wall as Sandler talks to the audience, and seemingly pointless montages of 'hot girls'.
Adam Sandler plays a waiter on a cruise ship who wants to make it as a successful comedian in order to become successful with women. When the ship's resident comedian - the shamelessly named 'Dickie' due to his unfathomable success with the opposite gender - is presumed lost at sea, Sandler's character Shecker gets his big break. Dickie is not dead, he's rather locked in the bathroom, presumably sea sick.
Perhaps from his mouth he just vomited the worst film of all time.
I first saw this movie years ago and have continued to view it several times a year when I have an opportunity. It is on my list of favorite movies along with some of the classics. Should anyone tell you it is foolish or outdated, ignore them... this movie is for anyone who enjoys laughing and music. The dancing isn't as important in this film as in other Astaire movies so the comedy and acting shine through. See this movie if you can, it may be light but it is still completely amusing. So I know that many people hate black and white films, they think old movies can't really be funny, this movie should make them change their minds. No one I know can watch this movie without being at least mildly amused. The only problem with the film: Fred Astaire singing without dancing. He may be a great performer and capable singer but it just isn't fascinating and leaves a big hole in the middle of the story. The comedy gets a bit cliché at times but the vaudevillesque performances of G burns and G Allen are just perfect for the piece and can satisfy anyone looking for some easy laughs. Give this film a chance even if you don't like old movies, this movie can appeal to the ridiculous in any one.

American Pie has gone a long distance from the first. At first i believe the actors don't have a clue what their doing and instead it's just a remake of a college party gone nuts. Story sets out as two freshman college guys (featuring the young stifler) setting out the dreams of attending college just to experience the late night parties, sex and of course the booze. The plot is stupid and comes along way away from the original pie. In fact they didn't once again feature an apple pie somewhere in the film.
Luckily i work in a video store and can rent for free. But please remember it is a waste of time unless you enjoy brainless sex films with absolute nudity and insane drinking. I'm a teen myself and i believe even Evan almighty would've been a better choice instead.
Wow, this movie was absolutely brilliant. I really don't know why everyone says it has a slow pace. I thought the pace was perfect. The movie is about Michael Sullivan played by Tom Hanks with perfection who is a sort of hit-man/ killer working for John Rooney (Paul Newman). He disslikes this job but does it because Rooney payed for his house and helps him financially. He had nothing and Mr. Rooney gave him everything. But, his children are unaware that this is his job, and when one witnesses a cold blooded murder by him, he is placed in an awkward position. And when an atrocity occurs, he leaves with his son and is bent on revenge. They rob abanks and much more and build a bond. They're the perfect team. Hanks does a great job as always as well as Jude Law who plays his creepy role to perfection. This drama is highly recommended as it shows a beautiful story and greatly shows how the 1930s were.

Surprisingly enough does movie does have some redeeming quality in it when it moves toward its end. For the other part this movie is being a really bad and lame one, with a small budget, insultingly bad written script and everything that goes with it.
It's silly that with all the money going around in the Christian circles they never can seem to get sufficient funds to make a decent movie with. I'm not a religious, so I couldn't care less really but film-making does some like a good tool to reach a new audience for churches and getting people more interested and curious in reading the bible for instance. In that regard these movies always seem like a wasted opportunity.
The low budget does really hurt the movie and brings it down. It makes the movie laughable to watch with its effects and it just gives the overall movie a campy B-movie like feeling.
But what's hurting this movie more is its writing. The stuff that just happens in this movie is just insulting to the intelligence and then I'm not even complaining or talking about the religious aspects of the whole story. The way the movie progresses is just so improbable and the people within this movie do such highly unlikely things that it's being insulting to its viewers.
I also hated how the movie was being like a soap opera at times. Seemed to me that they simply had a hard time turning this into a full length movie and they added in some characters and dramatic developments just to fill things up. I just couldn't cared less really at times.
Still it needs to be said that the movie gets more solid and steady toward its end, when its story gets more focused on its essence. Still it remains predictable all but it prevented this movie from being a complete wreck to watch and as far as these type of movies are concerned, there are far worser one to watch out there, though I don't think this movie will win over any new souls.
4/10
I just don't understand why this movie is getting beat-up in here. Jeez. It is mindless, it isn't polished and it is (as I am reading) wasted on some. The cast of this movie plays their characters to the 'T' (If you watched Permanent Midnight and became a Ben Stiller fan then yes you will be disappointed). These are misunderstood, well-intentioned misfits trying to save the city/world with nothing but grit and determination. The problem is they don't realize their limits until the big showdown and that's the point! This is 3 times the movie that The Spy Who Shagged Me was yet gets panned by the same demographic group, likely the same people who feel the first AP movie pales in comparison to the sequel. I just don't get it. The jokes work on more then one level; if you didn't get it I know what level you're at.

This movie must have been the absolute worst movie i have ever seen. My sister and her boyfriend went to rent Zodiac (2007) and got this one by accident. thought it was a joke before the actual movie. this was terrible i was waiting for it to get scary and it never did. this movie had not actual facts about the real Zodiac killer. The filmmakers clearly didn't even bother to research anything on the killings... they only liked the name... so they decided to write a script about nothing true to its name. I am upset i didn't realize it wasn't the movie sooner. I try to like something out of every movie, i don't hate movies... ever... except this one. If you could have given it no stars, i definitely would have. 1 out of 10.
If the creators of this film had made any attempt at introducing reality to the plot, it would have been just one more waste of time, money, and creative effort. Fortunately, by throwing all pretense of reality to the winds, they have created a comedic marvel. Who could pass up a film in which an alien pilot spends the entire film acting like Jack Nicholson, complete with the Lakers T-shirt. Do not dismiss this film as trash.

Gene Hackman gets himself busted out of prison by a nameless government agency who want him for an assassination. It's a given of course that Hackman has the proficient skills for the job.
Nobody tells him anything though, he's given as the audience is given bits and pieces of information. That's supposed to be suspenseful, instead it's annoying and boring.
Hackman goes through with the mission, but the getaway is messed up and the guy at the top of this mysterious entity orders everybody dead to cover it up. So everyone in the cast dies and at the end you don't really care.
One of the other reviewers pointed out that the film was originally twice as long, almost three hours and got chopped down quite a bit. Maybe something really was lost in the translation, but I tend to think it was a mercy act on the audience.
A very talented cast that had people like Richard Widmark, Candice Bergen, Mickey Rooney, Eli Wallach, and Edward Albert is so thoroughly wasted here it's a crime.
And we never do find out just what federal agency was doing all this, the FBI, the CIA, the DEA or even the IRS.
This is a 'sleeper'. It defines Nicholas Cage. The plot is intricate and totally absorbing. The ending will blow you away.
See it whenever you have the opportunity.

This film was one of the worst I've seen in a long while.
It's a combination police drama and comedy about two Hollywood detectives, Harrison Ford and Josh Hartnett, investigating a shootout at a hip hop club.
The plot is contrived and there are way too many side issues going on. Ford is hustling real estate on the side (Martin Landau is one of his clients), Hartnett runs a yoga school where he's hustling chicks in his spare time, the two are under investigation by Internal Affairs, Ford is screwing the ex-girlfriend (Lena Olin) of the IA investigator and she's a psychic who has a radio show, the man who set up the killing at the club is a dirty ex-cop who shot Hartnett's father years ago.
Toss in the obligatory car chases and some lame attempts at humor, and that's about the gist of this turkey.
Who the hell rests at night whilst walking in the desert and travels in the heat of the sun, and these people are supposed to be professional trackers/journeymen!! Who the hell rests at night whilst walking in the desert and travels in the heat of the sun, and these people are supposed to be professional trackers/journeymen!! Who the hell rests at night whilst walking in the desert and travels in the heat of the sun, and these people are supposed to be professional trackers/journeymen!! Who the hell rests at night whilst walking in the desert and travels in the heat of the sun, and these people are supposed to be professional trackers/journeymen!! Who the hell rests at night whilst walking in the desert and travels in the heat of the sun, and these people are supposed to be professional trackers/journeymen!!

As a Hammer completist I was dreading the time when I would have to raise the courage to watch this film and the one following it, Holiday on the Buses. I had seen One the Buses the film and thought it one of the worst films I have ever seen. It was full of all the awful comedy that plagued British TV screens around the early 70's.
I am ashamed to say that there were actually parts of this film that I laughed at. I don't know if it was because I was now familiar with the characters and enjoyed some of the situations, knowing how they would react. I found Blakey particularly funny, although I could swear at no point in the trilogy does he say his catchphrase, "I'll get you Butler".
Having watched Holiday on the Buses the jokes were starting to wear thin and these three films could be compared to an early Hammer trilogy, Dick Barton, in that the second film made is the best (although this is probably the only way they could be compared).
The only people who would want to watch this film are probably fans of the TV series, who will no doubt enjoy this, and Hammer completists like myself. To the completists I would say that this film isn't that bad and I can certainly think of worse Hammer comedies.
The Ghost Train is a treat to those who appreciate the typical 1940's humour. It incorporates World War Two into the plot but not as much as I initially believed it would, and the characters are a unique blend who play their roles fairly well. Askey, playing the role of Tommy Gander, is what brightens the story up for the parts which could of been portrayed as boring or "dragging".
The story of the haunted station is actually spooky even for present day standards. It is unique and the way the characters communicate with each is fantastic to liven up the mystery which is The Ghost Train. Gander is basically a nuisance to all the other members while the rest get along fairly well. He is always centre of attention and can be dubbed as being "annoying" but that is by those who do not appreciate 1940's humour. His humour is innocent and childish which makes it sweet to watch.
If it was not for Askey/Gander, than this film would of been shorter in action, enjoyment and the result would be not as effective in my opinion.

This was a terrible film. There was no story line whatsoever. To top it all off, when they couldn't explain the blood and gore (the only good part) ... they threw in a few aliens! I hate when directors (or whatever) run out of ideas and then blame the aliens! Watch this film if you like. But don't say I didn't warn you. Two things: How could Vinny say "welcome" when he didn't have a tongue? Its a pity Mr Jones didn't have a bigger role. Second thing that bugged me, why were we shown Vinny Jones' boils and him cutting them off and putting them into blue liquid, then these have no further role. Why not? I don't like to be shown something and that has nothing to do with the story line whatsoever. In short. Bad story. I wouldn't waste my time - wish I'd have watched Mirrors instead.
Brian De Palma's undeniable virtuosity can't really camouflage the fact that his plot here is a thinly disguised "Psycho" carbon copy, but he does provide a genuinely terrifying climax. His "Blow Out", made the next year, was an improvement.

Well, first off, if you're checking out Revolt of the Zombies as some very early Night of the Living Dead (1968)-type film, forget it. This is about "zombies" in a more psychological sense, where that term merely denotes someone who is not in control of their will, but who must instead follow the will of another. The "zombies" here, as little as they are in the film, are largely metaphors for subservience to the state or authority in general, as in wartime. It is quite a stretch to call this a horror film.
The film is set during World War I. A "French Cambodian" contingent had heard strange stories about zombification--supposedly Angkor Wat was built by utilizing zombies--and there are tales of zombie armies easily overcoming foes. Armand Louque (Dean Jagger) brings back a priest who supposedly knows the secret of zombification, but he won't talk. So Louque and an international military contingent head to Angkor Wat on an archaeological expedition designed to discover the secret of zombification and destroy the information before zombies have a chance to "wipe out the white race".
One of the odd things about Revolt of the Zombies is that it seems like maybe writer/director Victor Halperin decided to change his game plan while shooting the script. The film begins as if it will explore the zombie/military metaphor, and maybe even have adventure elements, but after about 15 minutes, it changes gears and becomes more of a love triangle story.
Halperin does stick with a subtext about will and power (and a Nietzschean "will to power"). The film is interesting on that level, but the script and the editing are very choppy. This is yet another older film for which I wouldn't be surprised if there is missing footage, especially since some scenes even fade or cut while a character is uttering dialogue.
Amidst the contrived romance story, Halperin tries to keep referring to the zombie thread, but little of the zombie material makes much sense. Louque discovers the secret of zombification, but it doesn't mean much to the viewer. The mechanics of the zombie material are vague and confusingHalperin even resorts to using superimposed footage of Bela Lugosi's googly-eyes from his 1932 film, White Zombie, but never explains what it has to do with anything. There are big gaps in the plot, including the love story. Promising, interesting characters from early reels disappear for long periods of time. One potential villain is disposed of unceremoniously before he gets to do much.
If you're a big fan of old, creaky B movies, Revolt of the Zombies may be worth watching at least once--the acting isn't all that bad, and if you've got a good imagination, you can piece together an interesting story in your mind to fill in all of the gaps. But this is the second time I've seen the film, with the first only being about five years ago, and I could barely recall anything about it--so it's not exactly memorable.
These guys are anything but the Usual Suspects! They are a total bunch of likeable oddballs who you want to see get away with it,but they are so hapless that there is very little chance of that.No one is better than William H Macy at portraying the man with a big heart but down on his luck.This is probably his best performance since Fargo.Sam Rockwell played the meathead boxer to perfection,and the rest of the gang were uniformly good also.Luis Guzman brought some great comic relief as Cosimo,and George Clooney stole every scene in his cameo role.The heist scene at the end was absolutely hilarious.
The direction was also spot on by the Russo brothers.There was certainly a Coen brothers feel to the film throughout and it will be interesting to see how they will develop their careers.They have a long way to go to match the Coen's but this is an excellent start and I look forward to their next celluloid outing. ......."Yo mutha's a whore"!

As an avid fan of the Flashman books by George McDonald Fraser, I looked forward immensely to seeing Flashy on the big screen when this film was first released. Sadly it was a huge disappointment then - so I left it alone for 20 years before going back to watch it again, but it was no better the second time. Mr Fraser is a tremendously skillful writer, but I am not a fan of his film screenplay work with Richard Lester. The penchant for slapstick spoilt 'The Three Musketeers' for me and the same applies here. To me, the whole tone and feel of the film is wrong. The Flashman books are uproariously funny in parts, but they are adventure novels. There is much seriousness in the way the adventures that Flashman has - after all, he is involved in dangerous situations. This is conveyed in the novels, but not conveyed at all on film due to the its comedic style. It is a tremendous shame as it could have a great film had it been a more faithful adaptation of the style of the book. When I first read that the book was to be filmed, the article said that the film was to star Oliver Reed. I rejoiced, as Reed to me was the epitome of Flashman. How I would have loved to see him in the role. Malcolm McDowell is a good actor, but does not fit the visual image of Flashman created by the books (too scrawny looking! Flashman is supposed to be a big strapping fellow). Neverheless Reed was excellent as Bismarck. What kills the film is that it is made as a comedy. The only scene in which it creates the true atmosphere of the book is the scene in which Flashman kills de Gautet (Tom Bell). A great shame, as the production values, costumes, sets etc are superb and the casting is generally excellent - just about everybody in the film is well cast apart from Malcolm McDowell. Possibly the directorship of Richard Lester was responsible for the way the film is, as a recent radio adaptation of 'Flash For Freedom', adapted by Mr Fraser, worked quite well. Perhaps one day we may see Flashman done justice on screen.