Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
This film Evil Breed: The legend of samhain contains very little thought or effort. It is ridiculed with specs of ultra fast "slasher" style death and plain disgusting acts of death. The acting was rated a D as the actors show very little ability, and the stupidity of them in the film is too questionable. The way they portrayed what people their ages act like was incredibly different. The odd split of porn is fit in thought it really doesn't offer much, and any area that is respectable but is quite quickly run down with absolute gut wrenching death. Example is the poor fellow whom is disemboweled from his anus, and the scene lasts for about 5 minutes. It is terribly obvious of how little of a fight the kids put up. This film is a good choice for someone who likes to watch some awful deaths and practically torture.

How can a movie with Amy, Posey and Raechel have NOTHING funny in it? Believe it or not 'House Bunny' did this better and funnier. Hopefully the principals had a good holiday and got some money - this movie is an embarrassment to all of them. It is a cliché from beginning to end. Clichés can work well with a script, or at least an idea. This movie does nothing but use cliché after cliché rather than ideas or script. It uses the preexisting persona's of the actresses rather than develop characters. Bad, sad, and rubbish. Now I apparently have to have ten lines of text for a comment. Really? Why? As an IT ops manager this is another example of sloppy coding.
I can see why this film was Oscar-nominated for Best Live Action Short, as it was constructed masterfully. Even if you don't particularly like the Blues (though to me, this sounded much more like jazz), you can easily appreciate this film. It is simply very well made, though for the life of me, I can't see why director Gjon Mili only got to direct one film--this one. In other words, the film is nominated and yet the director didn't get any sort of career boost. As for the black performers, I could understand this not causing their careers to shift into high gear, as unfortunately most of white society have indifference (or worse) for blacks or "that kind of music".
If you do watch this film, if you aren't particularly enjoying the earlier portion, skip ahead to about the 5:50 mark--where it picks up considerably. When the lady stopped singing and the performers began to improvise, the pace improved quite a bit.

Well, the artyfartyrati of Cannes may have liked this film but not me I am afraid. If you like the type of film where shots linger for so long that you wonder whether the actor has fallen asleep or the cameraman gone for lunch then it may be for you. A large part of it is like this with short sojourns into the realm of unpleasantness. I did not find it shocking nor disturbing as some other reviewers have - simply a little distasteful and pointless. The only reason I did not give this one star is that the acting is commendable ans the film is fairly well shot. The plot, however, has little to recommend. A large part of the film just shows a grumpy woman teaching or listening to piano, which might appeal to some people. But lest you think this is harmless enough be prepared for some snatches of pornography and sexual violence just to wake you up with a bad taste in your mouth. Not recommended.
In Iran, women are officially banned from men's sporting events. In June 2005, the Iran's national soccer team has an important game against Bahrain in the Azadi Stadium for the qualification of the World Cup. A group of Iranian girls and lovers of soccer dresses like boys and unsuccessfully attempts to enter in the stadium being arrested.
Soccer (and Flamengo's team), beach and movies are my greatest passions; therefore I loved this little gem about a group of girls and their passion for soccer. The director Jafar Panahi, from "The White Balloon", "The Mirror" and "The Circle", shot this movie on the day that Iran defeated Bahrain and qualified to the World Cup in Germany. The dramatic and funny adventure of these Iranian girls is one of the most delightful movies I have ever seen. My vote is nine.
Title (Brazil): Not Available

I happened to spot this flick on the shelf under "new releases" and found the idea of a hip-hop zombie flick far too interesting to pass up. That's how it was billed on the box, anyhow, and I thought to myself, "What a great idea!" Plus there's a "Welcome to Oakland" sign on the cover, too. How could I resist? Unfortunately, the hip-hop part only lasted for as long as the opening theme. Neither hip-hop music nor hip-hop culture had much of a role in the movie. Having lived in Oakland myself, I know that there are many aspiring hip-hop artists there, so the low budget of this flick was no excuse not to have a fitting soundtrack. Any number of struggling artists would have jumped on the opportunity to contribute to this flick. Why the Quiroz Brothers didn't take advantage of this is beyond me.
Once the film got rolling, it was a completely typical zombie movie with a cast that just so happened to be completely black and Latino. You might think that this would put an unusual slant on the movie... but it didn't. Somehow, the Quiroz Brothers vision of "urban culture" boils down to drive-by shootings and dropping an F-bomb in every line in the movie. The rapid-fire use of the word "fuck" is probably this movie's most distinguishing characteristics; there were single lines that contained the word three or four times, and no line didn't contain it at least once. I'm not at all squeamish about swearing in a movie, but the feeling here was that it was the result of a lack of ideas on the part of the writers (also the Quiroz Brothers), and the script was generally very poor.
The film was generally a disappointment. It would have been interesting to see a genuinely "urban culture" zombie flick, but "Hood of the Living Dead" doesn't deliver on that count. The characters in the movie could just as easily have been white or eskimo or anything else. There was no distinct flavor to the movie. It's just another run-of-the-mill low budget flick with bad acting, lousy writing, amateurish direction, bland cinematography, a cheap soundtrack, and nothing at all to recommend it.
This is one of the greatest 80s movies!!! It sticks out like a "turd in a punchbowl"!! I can't believe Mad Magazine denounced it or whatever. And yet, they proudly put their name on a show with "Stuart", "I-speak-a-no-enlish Chinese lady" and "UPS guy on speed". What's up with that? And, I LOVE Ron Leibman-he's foxy!! Wonder why he had his name removed from the credits? It was his funniest role that I know of. Of course, he's not nearly as foxy as he was in Norma Rae. But, in my opinion, this movie is right up there with National Lampoon's Vacation. If you liked movies such as Porky's, Fast Times, Last American Virgin, or any of the other 80s teen-focused movies, you'll love this one!! Rent it and you'll see what I mean!!

Yowza! If anyone who loves Laurel and Hardy can watch this movie and feel good about it, you're a better person than me! This movie, while a great attempt at 'imitating' Laurel and Hardy through appearance, sound and routine, falls very short of honoring them, or even being a movie of any substance. I blame Larry Harmon. Dialogue is torn from old L+H movies and planted in unrealistically, the plot is muddled with useless characterization of the other needless co-stars, Pinchot's accent was bizarre for Stan, and while Sartain did an excellent job with Ollie's accent, he tried too hard to create the wonderful mix that was Mr. Hardy. Where was a (good) musical number? Editing is choppy, acting is stiff, lines are horrid, physics are -implausable- (although perhaps they were TRYING to give it that feel of cheap sets?), and overall it's a terrible thing to witness. It's even more painful to watch than ATOLL K, where the legendary duo did their last film in awful 1950's era writing and photography. Do yourself a favor and watch as much of the ORIGINAL Laurel and Hardy films as you can, and learn how things WERE. You know what a MAGNATE is, don't you? Stan Laurel did not perpetually reply with semi-moronic quips at every sentence.
I pity anyone who thinks that THIS was a decent update/honor of the boys. Where was THE CLASSIC THEME SONG?!? Why ruin 'Here's another fine mess'? Why skip 'any the wiser'? Why was there a pointless gaggle of co-stars?! WHY MISS GULCH FROM THE WIZARD OF OZ???? WHY MUST LARRY HARMON BE IN IT? WHY BOZO!? And did THE LEARNING CHANNEL help fund the thing?
I mean, really. Fart jokes, for God's sake.
FART JOKES.
This is a film that on the surface would seem to be all about J.Edgar Hoover giving himself a a big pat on the back for fighting Klansmen,going after Indian killers, hunting the famous gangsters of the 1930's, fighting Nazi's in the US and South America during world war 2 and Commies in New York during the early 1950's. Of course in 1959 we did not know about Mr. Hoover's obsession for keeping secret files on honest Americans, bugging people like the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr, but worst of all,his secret love affair with his deputy director,Clyde Tolson( If you want to know more about that subject, I suggest seeing the film Citizen Cohn). Hoover aside, This story of a life in the FBI as told by Jimmy Stewart makes for a decent, but dated film. Vera Miles as his devoted wife is also good. But Jimmy is the movie. As much as Hoover controlled production and always made sure the FBI was seen without fault, Jimmy Stewart gave the film a human side,quite an achievement considering Hoover was always looking over his shoulder. The background score is also pleasant. I have read recent online articles suggesting that this is a forgotten film. Jimmy Stewart was one of the greatest film stars of all time and none of his films should be forgotten. TCM was the last network to show it a long time ago and I hope they show it again.

First, IFC runs Town and Country, and now this. The difference between that stinker and this Pink Panther rip-off is that Town and Country was watchable. This isn't.
I can only surmise that the cast signed up for this so they could goof off in Europe on somebody else's dime. Belushi is especially irritating. His scene with Candy (doing a Z-grade Dom DeLuise) was torture. Speaking of torture, five minutes of the talentless Shepherd, and I bet the prisoners at Gitmo would crack like walnuts!
The real "Crime" (besides this being green-lighted) is Shepherd's character: a mousy wife who takes a Monte Carlo casino for a half-million bucks! If you buy that, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in!
Famous was "famous" for their tension and release style of cartoon where the semi-main character is in terrible peril, only to be rescued by the hero at the last second. This particular Casper is the only one I can remember where death actually takes a hand. But even in death, there is still a happy ending.
The constant in Famous Studios cartoons is that "virtue always triumphs". Popeye always gets to his spinach in time, Baby Huey always out-foxes the fox, Little Audery always "learns her lesson". And some FS cartoons ARE really dark and depressing.
You have to give them credit. as much as I love Looney Tunes and "Tom and Jerry" I don't think anyone was putting out a better cartoon product at that time than Paramount. Color, animation, music (the great Winston Sharples), editing, voices. They were consistent and a glowing example of the best that the art form had to offer.

Just looking at the sets, staging and editing it is easy to tell this project lacked a proper budget. Maybe Bela Lugosi is meant to take your mind off of things like that. Young brides drop dead at the altar after saying "I do". Their corpses are stolen by a renowned horticulturist Dr. Lorenz(Lugosi)and a couple of his freakish minions as his aging wife(Elizabeth Russell)needs injections of the glandular fluids of the young virgins to remain forever young...forever beautiful. An eager local cub reporter(Luana Walters)realizes that each missing bride wore the same rare orchid to the altar; an orchid in which Dr. Lorenz would be most knowledgeable. A typical horror movie storm brews making a visit to the Lorenz estate a bit spooky; especially with a dwarf and a slobbering hunchback on the premises. Other players: Angelo Rossitto, Tristram Coffin, Minerva Urecal and Frank Moran.
Another comedy about a plucky little country struggling through the jungle of the modern (for the forties) global world with only native wit and pluck to guide them, this is a fine entry in the Ealing cannon. Terry-Thomas sparkles as usual in the lead, as a feckless ministry man led to the brink of disaster when a nation he is supposedly in charge of starts attracting the interest of the world, Ian Bannen makes a great romantic lead, Peter Sellers puts in one of his quieter performances as a corrupt politico and the uber-suave John Le Mesurier plays against type as a rugged revolutionary leader. Lots of fun is had by all, especially the viewer; perhaps not in the very top echelon of Ealing classics, but pretty high up.

slow, incomprehensible, boring. Three enthusiastic words that describe the movie of the book. This is surely a case where the movie should never have been made at the expense of the book. The best part of the movie was the scenery, excellent. The worst part was the slow moving interactions of the actors which combined with endless meaningful glances. The editing is abrupt and patchy. However, despite this, the actors worked very hard at least trying to be a little believable with a terrible script. It was startling that although set in Peru there was hardly a person of Peruvian descent wandering about the set - even in the flashback scenes depicting Peru in the 17th century. If you have any sense of history, try to avoid this movie.
I went to a small advance screening of this movie on July 19th, knowing no more than the names of a few of the actors and that it was a fantasy/adventure quest of some sort.
The plot line really is nothing like I have seen, and a unique story is certainly appreciated with everything else that is currently in or coming soon to theaters. In spite of what first impressions may give, it isn't cheesy, corny, tacky, or ridiculous, and is actually highly entertaining and funny. The flow is quite well done, nothing seems rushed or dragged out. The soundtrack, for lack of better words, is magical and adds much to the film, as opposed to simply filling the silence as often happens in movies or TV. And even though I might have known what was coming at points, I still couldn't bear to stop watching the screen; to my knowledge, not a single person left the theater during the entire movie.
My one gripe is that there seems to be almost no marketing for this film, and as brilliant as it is I can't figure out why.

I had no real expectations going into this movie and I'm glad. Even if I had expected it to be bad I would have been disappointed.
Where to start? First, I think 15% of the movie consisted of stock footage of stationary scarecrows in a dark jungle-field. I get it. There's scarecrows. I think the title "Scarecrows" was sufficient.
Second, not a damn thing is ever explained regarding the scarecrows and paranormal occurrences. There's too many times where I was left going WTF?
Third, the movie takes itself seriously. I'm all for a B-movie with buckets of blood, screaming women, and senseless violence that is the result of a simple psychopath or ancient curse. But those movies often know they're B-movies and even flaunt it, like Dead Snow (hilarious Scandanavian zombie flick) or Evil Dead 2. But this movie seems oblivious to its crapdom.
Finally, there should of been more blood and/or nudity. Yea, I said it. If you're going to have a crap horror movie, make with the killing. And if you're going to have one hot and one semi-hot girl, one of them needs to show some side-boob at a minimum.
So, like the summary says, skip "Scarecrows" and just poke yourself in the eye. You'll thank me.
I never really watched this program before although it came highly recommended by members of my family. Funnily enough, my girlfriend lives in Hadfield (the filming location) and she pointed out a few landmarks when I first visited.
This got my interest going so I bought the 1st series on video and sat down to watch. Besides recognising some of the locations, I found myself not in the least bit surprised. Once again the BBC were responsible for producing another example of the finest comedy in the world. TLOG easily ranks up there with Red Dwarf, Fawlty Towers and Monty Python as probably the best.
Suffice to say I am hooked on the program now. The characters are superb and show unusual depth while retaining a scarily realistic edge. The look and feel of the program is perfect and reflects the sometimes bleak feeling of the North (no disrespect to Hadfield which I have found a very welcoming and warm place).
I only hope that it continues its originality throughout its run (which based upon the 2nd series which concluded its rerun in the UK last night, it certainly is).
Well done the BBC!!

Ivan Reitman is something of a savior. The most tired plots (Ghostbusters, Evolution) come to life in his skilled hands. Even his occasional flop (Six Days, Seven Nights) show signs of life and humor that make it worth viewing. So I was disappointed that Reitman could not take a fairly original plot (man dumps superhero, superhero gets superpower-fueled revenge), and shape it into something enjoyable. "Girlfriend" is an exercise in pointlessness. The one-trick pony plot is long in the tooth after the first 20 minutes. The film can't decide whether to be romantic comedy or superhero drama. The result is a film the flip-flops between both, with neither aspect being very well done. Uma Thurman is tops, as usual, and Luke Wilson pulls off his role too, though his slacker antics quickly grow tired. What's even more maddening is that, in certain scenes (such as when a very turned on Uma knocks a headboard through a wall), you sense a witty, raucous Reitman opus practically screaming to get out. But seconds later, the magic is lost, gone as quick as the superheroine whose movies disappoints in almost every way.
I've seen this movie at theater when it first came out some years ago and really liked it a lot. But i still wanted to see it again this year to check if it is still good compared to movies coming out now, and i wan tell it's one the best movies i've ever seen in my life !!!!!!!!!!!!!
What you need to know is that you don't have to miss any minute of this movie, if you don't completely follow the action you will get lost and you will not understand the end.
The end is what makes this movie so good, you can't expect it.
Congratulations to the Producer !

This movie start quite gruesomely with a female being bound and psychologically tortured. There's male full frontal nudity, dead animal parts, dogs licking nipples, the female loosing control of her bladder. All shot in a gray cold color. Effective, but a little too much. We then move on to seeing the BTK killer's youth as well as the present and his history of crimes. The tension is entirely psychological and the scenes of the killer entering the homes of his victims and talking to them lasts for quite a long time and it's creepy. Here we don't see fancy or good imagery, it looks as if shot with your home camera. It doesn't look horrifying, but in a way seeing a criminal engage his victims for quite some time before killing them is quite unusual and chilling. What this movie doesn't have is any drama, really. There are some cop scenes every once in a while, but there's no excitement in terms of them finding the killer. There isn't much of an arc to this story. This could have been an effective psychological thriller, a study of madness. Unfortunately, the movie is filled with real slaughterhouse footage. It's dispersed throughout the movie and comes on suddenly again and again. Sometimes you don't know it's coming and don't have enough time to look away. And that I have to reject. I'm all for low budget horror movies but I don't tolerate animal suffering. It was unnecessary, excessive, and comes without warning. I'm glad that Lionsgate releases stuff that no one else does, but they should have passed on this movie or edited out the animal gore. Stay away from this garbage.
Sure, for it's super imagery and awesome sound, it's a great home theater "show off" disk, but this is also a touching drama as well as an informative documentary. The parallel stories that are intertwined throughout this film will keep all viewers interested. Young, old, boys and girls alike will find that deep down, we are all fans of the automobile, especially the high performance indy machines that are the result of generations blood, sweat, tears, ingenuity and perseverance. The Mark Knopfler and Ry Cooder sound track is perfectly matched to the visuals and the content. I don't want to give away the ending, but the final driving sequence to Quincy Jones' "Days Like These" just might bring a tear to your eye. Enjoy it!

I cringed all the way through this movie. First of all, the idiotic plot has little to do with Parson's own story. Hollywood has attempted to create a kind of comedy car chase movie. Imagine "Englebert Sings Hendrix".
Do not take anything about this movie to be accurate. The name Parsons in the title and stealing of his body is just used as springboard for a low budget chase movie, a blatant attempt to grab a few bucks from the Parsons legacy and his fan base. Gram's father had long since been dead in 1973, the other global characters are fictional, none of this has anything to do with Grams life or death.
If you are a Gram fan, I advise you to not see this movie. I wish I hadn't. It's saddening to see something special be treated as such disgracing fodder. I'd swear I could hear Gram turning in his grave while the movie was playing. If you are not familiar with Gram's life and legacy, do not take anything in this movie as being representative of Gram.
I cannot say enough bad things about this movie. If Gram were alive and saw this movie, he would kill himself. Then again, maybe he'd be afraid to if he knew this movie were to result.