Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
"Moonstruck" is a lovely little film directed by superb story teller, Norman Jewison (In the Heat of the Night, Fiddler on the Roof, The Hurricane). The film is great on many levels. It shows a good slice of Italian culture, has a touching romance, and (best of all) is a hilarious comedy.
One thing I liked most about the film was the relative unconventional looks of the actors. Nicolas Cage looks positively odd for most of the film, and Cher... well, Cher always looks a little odd.
Overall, it's a fun film, and easy to recommend.
7.4 out of 10

Not only was this the most expensive Canadian film ever shot in BC, but easily the worst, never seeing the light of day. The director is not even Canadian, but British, and boy does it show. We are all made out to be a bunch of over-sexed dope fiends and morons. The spirit of what it means to be Canadian is absent, and this is supposed to be the reason we fund this bunk. Of course the British character is normal. The rest are a crop of sitcom stereotype - can you say "Norm!!"? The cinematography ranges from pretty postcard images to murky indoor silhouettes. The actors always seem to be fidgetting. Are they as bored as the viewer, or is this the directors idea of cinema? Avoid this mess and check out some of Bruce Mcdonalds films. A true Canadian boy with something original to say cinematically. You won't be compelled to walk out on HIS films after 10 minutes.
Two snipers travel deep in the jungles in search for their targets; a slimy South American drug-lord and a prominent general.
Moderately successful at building a brooding atmosphere, Sniper is by most accounts a very solid thriller, taking it's time, establishing it's characters and their plight and climaxing in some good action sequences. Director Llosa isn't always successful at maintaining the sombre mood and could have tightened the story somewhat; some detours here don't add up to much. But this film is far better than his Stallone/Stone travesty The Specialist.
Billy Zane, usually incredibly tiresome, does surprisingly well as the inexperienced Sniper teamed up with veteran Berenger. As for Berenger this film proved to be his last good big budget Hollywood venture. He can do these kind of roles in his sleep and he's very convincing here, reprising the role twice more in direct to DVD sequels.

This movie was the worst movie I have seen since "Date Movie." I was laughing through out the whole movie instead of being scared. It was funny how the snakes would search for particular section of the passengers body to attack for example, the eye, the tongue, the butt, the breast. If we have seen national geographic channel we know snakes wont stay clinched on the body once they bite. For each particular scene the snakes would bite the passengers and would stay on the body biting the person. I believe the producer did not study his information on snakes and their behavior. I cant believe I wasted my money on this movie.So I don't recommend this movie trust just wait until it is at the dollar theatre or rent it.
Imagine being so hampered by a bureaucracy that a one man spends 8 year's of his life, and has a mental breakdown trying to solve a mass murder case virtually by himself! The murder technique is clear, but a government unwilling to admit the truth let's a monster destroy dozens of lives. When I think my job is stressful, I merely remember the true story behind this wonder flick. The devotion to duty of the main character was masterfully portrayed by Rea. The comic (and almost tragic at times) relationship between Rea and the Sutherland character made this one of my favorite movies of the last 5 years. The catching of one of the worst mass murderers in history had me on the edge of my seat. While not nearly as well advertised and talked about as "Silence of the Lamb's", the plot was just as suspenseful. Rent or buy this movie today!

Warning Spoilers following. Superb recreation of the base in Antarctica where the real events of the film took place. Other than that, libelous!, scandalous! Filmed in Canada; presumably by a largely Canadian crew and cast. I caught the last half of this film recently on Global television here in Canada. Nothing much to say other than how thoroughly appalled I was at what a blatant piece of American historical revisionist propaganda it is; and starring Susan Sarandon of all people! I can only assume that Canadian born director Roger Spottiswoode was coerced to make the USAF the heroes of the film when in fact the real rescuers where a small private airline based in Calgary; Kenn Borek Air.
"Sandra, the Making of a Woman" is a standout among exploitation films, and is so for two reasons: (1) an excellent, yet effortless, performance by Monica Gayle, and (2) the fact that Gary Graver was at the helm of the project. These two talents, both of whom are quite underrated, make "Sandra" a film that should be seen.
Another key element of the film's success is its realism -- there is nothing fake or "Hollywood" about this set-in-California film. It is truly a slice of life. The modest house in which Sandra lives at the beginning of the film, the simple dresses worn by the character, the scene where Sandra wakes up in the morning to find Uschi Digart bouncing at her front door, and Sandra sits on the couch without make-up, while Digart tries to sell her some cosmetics, looking truly as if she just woke up (but nevertheless beautiful), the harmless weirdo Sandra picks up who likes to make love with her while he wears a bra, the one-room apartment into which Sandra moves --all of these elements of the film seem totally real, and as such, the viewer is drawn into Sandra's little world from the beginning and immediately becomes interested in her and wants her to succeed. Sandra also makes her case for free love with eloquence and dignity and she comes off with a lot of class.
This film could have easily failed in less competent hands, and could have gone off in any of the usual sexploitation directions, but the Garver/Gale team see to it that "Sandra" is not only the making of a woman but the making of an excellent film.

I am a 11th grader at my high school. In my Current World Affairs class a kid in my class had this video and suggested we watch. So we did. I am firm believer that we went to the moon, being that my father works for NASA. Even though I think this movie is the biggest piece of crap I have ever watched, the guy who created it has some serious balls. First of all did he have to show JFK getting shot? And how dare he use all those biblical quotes. The only good thing about this movie is it sparks debates, which is good b/c in my class we have weekly debates. This movie did nothing to change my mind. I think he and Michael Moore should be working together and make another movie. Michael Moore next movie could be called "A Funny Thing Happened on Spetember 11th" or "A Funny thing happened on the way to the white house".
The making of The Thief Of Bagdad is quite a story unto itself, almost as wondrous as the tale told in this film. Alexander Korda nearly went broke making this film.
According to the Citadel Film series Book about The Great British Films, adopted son of the United Kingdom Alexander Korda had conceived this film as early as 1933 and spent years of planning and preparation. But World War II unfortunately caught up with Korda and the mounting expenses of filming a grand spectacle.
Budget costs happen in US films too, only Cecil B. DeMille always had a free hand at Paramount after 1932 when he returned there. But DeMille nor any of his American contemporaries had to worry about enemy bombs while shooting the film. Part of the way through the shoot, Korda transported the whole company to America and shot those sequences with Rex Ingram as the genie in our Grand Canyon. He certainly wasn't going to get scenery like that in the UK. Korda also finished the interiors in Hollywood, all in time for a release on Christmas Day 1940.
The spectacle of the thing earned The Thief Of Bagdad four Academy Award nominations and three Oscars for best color cinematography, best art&set direction for a color film, and best special effects. Only Miklos Rosza's original musical score did not take home a prize in a nominated category. Korda must have been real happy about deciding to shoot in the Grand Canyon because it's impossible to get bad color pictures from that place.
The special effects however do not overwhelm the simple story of good triumphing over evil. The good is the two young lovers John Justin and June Duprez and the evil is Conrad Veidt as the sorcerer who tries to steal both a kingdom and a heart, both belonging to Duprez. This was Veidt's career role until Casablanca where he played the Luftwaffe major Stroesser.
Of course good gets a little help from an unlikely source. Beggar boy and thief Sabu who may very well have been one of the few who could call himself at the time an international movie star. Literally rising from poverty working as an elephant stable boy for the Maharajah of Mysore he was spotted by Alexander Korda who needed a native lead for one of his jungle features. Sabu captures all the innocence and mischievousness of youth as he fulfills the Arabian Nights fantasy of the boy who topples a tyrant. Not a bad message to be sending out in 1940 at that.
The Thief Of Bagdad holds up remarkably well today. It's an eternal tale of love, romance, and adventure in any order you want to put it.

It is hard to make an unbiased judgment on a film like this that had such an impact on me at such a young age. This is with out a doubt the worst kind of exploitation film. I was unfortunate enough to see this film for the first time in my youth, Iwill never forget it. I thought it was the most horrible movie ever made. I then saw it again earlier this year and was once again horrified.
I am not a zealot or one to say what others should and should not see but I did take great offense to the way in which something as horrible as rape was dealt with in this movie. I love lowbrow cinema but this is just plain nasty. Rent some Rus Myer instead.
Ok, so it borrows a little from "It's a Wonderful Life", but that was 44 years prior to this film, so why not a new attempt. Belushi is having a rotten 35th birthday. He didn't get his Wheaties, his coffee, and has lost his job. The capper is when his self described "big blue piece of sh**" car breaks down at the end of the day. He heads into an empty bar to call for a tow. While waiting, he's recognized by the bartender (Caine) as the kid who lost the town's championship baseball game 20 years earlier. This gets him to thinking how life would've been if he had won the game. He finds out when, unbeknownst to him, Caine serves up a motion potion in a glass that gives him a mansion, the prom queen (Russo) as his wife, and makes him president of the sporting goods company he's been canned from. Caine later reveals himself as the one who's responsible for this change, but Belushi is not entirely on board. He never fully adjusts, and in a plot development that doesn't kill the movie but is still odd, he tries to court his wife (Hamilton) from his real life, who is now married to someone else. The good move is that they don't spend too much time on it, as basically they rip of "Ghost", with Belushi constantly telling Hamilton things only she could know. It also brings in a hokey dramatic element, as two of his lovers kevetch in the shadows, new wife Russo, and his unbalanced lover Cox. But the keys to the film are the somewhat lengthy beginning, and cheery end. Also good work from the big and recognizable cast, as Belushi is very likable, VERY attractive ladies chosen, and Caine is perfectly easy going as the title guy. Strange that this was Belushi's second film of 1990 dealing with him getting an alternative lifestyle of riches, which was found in "Taking Care of Business". Though similar, both films are on the same level of laughs provided. So check this out for a fun exploration of "what if?"

Ronald Reagan and a bunch of US soldiers in a North Korean POW camp. They are tortured... We learn North Korean Communists are bad people... We learn Americans' beards grow very slowly during days of torture...
I tried to suppress it, but I finally burst out laughing at this movie. It was the scene when Mr. Reagan comes out from telling the Communists he wants to be on their side. Then, he asks for a bottle of brandy. Next, acting stone-cold sober, he takes a drunken companion, Dewey Martin, to get sulfur to cure Mr. Martin's hangover. Of course, the North Korean communist guard is as dumb as they come. So, the drunk distracts the guard while Reagan goes over to get something from a drawer, which is next to a bunch of empty boxes. I'm sure he boxes were supposed to contain something; but, of course, Reagan causes them to shake enough to reveal they are empty. Ya gotta laugh! I think "Prisoner of War" will appeal mainly to family and friends of those who worked on it - otherwise, it's wasteful.
* Prisoner of War (1954) Andrew Marton ~ Ronald Reagan, Steve Forrest, Dewey Martin
This movie makes me want to fall in love all over again!I am naming my next daughter "Adelaide". Just so that someone who sings like Ol Blue eyes can swoon her one day, and feel the butterflies I felt hearing it sung, and it wasn't even to me! I give it a 9/10

Making the film as dark and visually fuzzy as possible in order to cover up the budget deficiencies is an often-used strategy in low-budget horror films, but this one takes it too far. It is SO poorly lit and murky (and it takes place almost entirely at night, to boot) that you often end up virtually looking at a black screen (although perhaps the bad video transfer may also have had something to do with that). Alas, "murky" is also the best word to describe the movie's plot. The filmmakers throw in diverse (and unoriginal) horror ideas without any semblance of logic, and halfway through you get the feeling that they just about abandoned the effort to make a good horror film; you know it when you see characters who are supposed to be in mortal danger (or, in some occasions, even dead) making small talk....(*1/2)
Well, it definitely is unlike anything else directed by Lynch. No supernatural stuff, no violence, no profanity. Nevertheless, it is a beautiful flick. It's a little slow but perhaps that was intentional because it's the story of an old man's 6-week(that's my best guess for its duration) journey. The characters are everyday people and thus, they are believable. The performances are good and the final scene was incredibly touching. Everyone who has a sibling can relate to it. Lyle and Alvin don't even have to say anything. For a moment they are back in the old days and all the fighting is forgotten.

Oh my, this was the worst reunion movie I have ever seen. (That is saying a lot.) I am ashamed of watching.
What happened in the script meetings? "Ooooooh, I know! Let's have two stud muffins fall madly in love with the Most-Annoying-Character-Since-Cousin-Oliver." "Yeah, that'll be cool!"
Even for sitcoms, this was the most implausible plot since Ron Popeil starting spray painting bald men.
This video rocked! Eddie is one of the funniest comics I have ever seen. Not only does he have class, he makes some of the funniest observations on history and culture that I have ever seen. Eddie is the most original and most intelligent comic I've seen in a VERY long time. Tell all those other stand-ups to get off the stage and let this "executive" reign!

It was almost unfathomable to me that this film would be a bust but I was indeed disappointed. Having been a connoisseur of Pekinpah cinema for years, I found this DVD, drastically reduced, for sale and thought it was worth a shot. The opening few credits, iconic to Pekinpah fans, has the inter-cutting between man and animal, but here we have non-diegetic ambient noise of children playing in a schoolyard while a bomb is being planted. Fantastic suspense. Then, when the perps, Caan and Duval, travel to their next mission, Duval drops the bomb on Cann that his date last night had an STD, found only by snooping through her purse while Cann was being intimate with her. The ensuing laughter is fantastic, and is clearly paid homage to in Brian Depalma's Dressed to Kill, at the short-lived expense of Angle Dickenson. The problem with The Killer Elite is that after the opening credits, the film falls flat. Even Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia has stronger production value, a bold call for anyone who knows what I'm talking about. I use Pekinpah's credits as supplementary lecture material, but once they are finished, turn The Killer Elite off.
...this is, above all else, the typical Crown International Pictures drive-in (read "passion pit") programmer. The 1975 Sammy Johns hit record "Chevy Van" is heard repeatedly on the soundtrack (this movie has even been reissued with the title CHEVY VAN), despite the film's title vehicle being a Dodge. Danny DeVito makes only six minutes of on-screen appearance, but countless VHS reissues falsely credit him as the star of the flick. The movie is a comparatively sexist morality tale -- will Bobby find sexual satisfaction through the one-night-stand his customised van facilitates, or must he wait until Tina, the girl of his dreams, gives him the time of day? Still, it is representative of the prevailing carnal dream of male American high schoolers of the time, and on that basis alone THE VAN has, almost in spite of itself, become an artifact of the period that must be referenced in any honest retrospective of the period's popular American cinema...

THHE2 is entertaining in that you'll laugh a lot and cringe and probably say "oh sh*t!" and "get your face away from the goddamn hole you dumb**s" or things along those lines but I don't know if its really worth seeing- I was very annoyed throughout the entirety with the horrible military characters who don't seem to know the first thing about combat.
Yes there was more violence, gore, and a higher body count than the first one but I am still am debating whether that cancels out my feeling throughout the whole movie about how ridiculous it is (and not a good ridiculousness like Dead Alive or Feast). My time would have been better spent watching Aja's remake for the 5th time.
So go for some laughs, or go for some gore, but don't go hoping to come out of it satisfied.
A comedy gem. Lots of laugh out loud moments, the shop and pub scenes had me belly- laughing uncontrollably. The characters are recognisable and the dialogue well-observed - I know people like this! The humour is surprisingly gentle and the film (this may sound strange) puts me in mind of an Ealing Comedy. It's a quirky little film with lots of detail. It certainly takes a number of viewings. I've watched it a few times (I've been showing all my friends!) and notice something new each time - a bit of dialogue,something visual that I hadn't picked up on before. I could get really picky and find a couple of shortcomings in the film but I'm not going to because overall this is a great fun, feel-good film which is really worth a watch and which anyone with a sense of humour must enjoy. It is a film which will find it's friends and I hope there are a lot of them out there. Oh.... and It has a great soundtrack.

I think everyone was quite disappointed with this sci-fi flick. For one thing, it was directed by Tim Burton. Another thing, it's a remake of what is supposed to be a classic. I found it boring, gross, and ridiculous. If you've seen it, you know what I mean. Just about everyone at Imdb say it's crap and boy, are they right! If you haven't, avoid it. It's a snorer. 1 out of 10.
Terrific film with a slightly slow start - give it a chance to get cooking. Story builds in interest and complexity. Characters and story line subvert expectation and cliche at all the right moments. Superb New York City locations - gritty, real - are a fantastic antidote to the commercial imperatives of "Sex in the City" - in fact, the entire film is an antidote to the HBO/Hollywood notion of New York City , sex and relationships. It's a rare film that treats its characters so honestly and compassionately. LOVED IT! Great cast with notable performances by Steve Buscemi, Rosario Dawson, and her love interest (forgot his name!).

Wenders was great with Million $ Hotel.I don't know how he came up with this film! The idea of giving the situation after spt11 and the view of American Society is hopeful,that makes it 2 out of ten.But this is not a movie.Is that the best someone can do with a great idea(the west-east clash).There are important things going on in middle east and it is just issued on the screen of a MAC* with the fingers of an Amerian girl who is actually at the level of stupidity(because she is just ignorant about the facts).The characters are not well shaped.And the most important thing is the idea that is given with religion is somehow funny to me.At the ending scene Lana says lets just be quiet and try to listen.And the background music says "...I will pray".The thing is not about religion actually.But it ends up with this.How you are gonna see the truth if you just close your eyes and pray.The lights are already shining on the truth.Its just that nobody wants to see it. ps: "My home is not a place.It is people"The only thing that gets 10 out of 10 is that sentence.But it is wasted behind this film making. (by the way; as "someone" mentioned below ,Americas finest young man are not finest,they are just the "poor" and the "hopeless" ones who sign up for the army in need of good paychecks which is not provided by the government ! )
Disregard the plot and enjoy Fred Astaire doing A Foggy Day and several other dances, one a duo with a hapless Joan Fontaine. Here we see Astaire doing what are essentially "stage" dances in a purer form than in his films with Ginger Rogers, and before he learned how to take full advantage of the potential of film. Best of all: the fact that we see Burns and Allen before their radio/TV husband-wife comedy career, doing the kind of dancing they must have done in vaudeville and did not have a chance to do in their Paramount college films from the 30s. (George was once a tap dance instructor). Their two numbers with Fred are high points of the film, and worth waiting for. The first soft shoe trio is a warm-up for the "Chin up" exhilarating carnival number, in which the three of them sing and dance through the rides and other attractions. It almost seems spontaneous. Fan of Fred Astaire and Burns & Allen will find it worth bearing up under the "plot". I've seen this one 4 or 5 times, and find the fast forward button helpful.

This is at least the third remake of this movie so if while watching it, there is a sense of deja vu, don't be surprised. All they did was change the setting of the story and tell it differently but the differences are not significant. And it doesn't get any better because the plot is flawed to begin with. It never works. And like its predecessors, the acting is mediocre.
The plot has a unique ending which will surprise any one who has never seen the movie before but the ending doesn't fit the story. Had this movie ended ten minutes earlier, it would have worked and have been very satisfying and I would have thought it more worthwhile. But here is the spoiler and that in the end crime does pay because the criminal is not caught. I never like this message resulting from a movie.