Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I watched part one two days ago and today I saw part two. Of course the two parts are worlds apart so I am a little shaken by all that I just saw. I felt consumed by the knowledge of the inevitability of Che's death; for me, it clouded the entire movie. I suppose that is exactly what Soderbergh wanted us to feel, the slowly evolving inevitability of his death. Part Two was so downbeat compared to, again an inevitability but in Cuba it was positive and in Bolivia it was so negative. The politics of the movement in Bolivia were only alluded to but rarely confronted didactically. For me the memorable scenes were all at the end of the film: the confrontation with the jailer and the milder talk with the Bolivian official where that official questions Che about the failure of the peasants to support his revolution. I had not considered the national differences playing as much role as they did in the conflict, Argentine versus Bolivian. I thought Soderbergh dealt admirably with the inevitable problems of supply in a revolutionary struggle; how do you get food without antagonizing the peasants who do not have enough themselves. I was struck by how hard it would be to try something as Che tried. I guess it is all in the timing; is there sufficient anger against the government to begin the movement; in Bolivia there wasn't. Che realized the terrible corundum of revolutionists in his letter to Fidel read at the beginning of the film: If not now, when, 50 years from now. A very thought provoking and well done film; make every effort to see it.

Ok first of all, this movie sucks. But lets examine why. The proposition that a machine is capable of transforming matter into energy, storing it, and then transporting it and reasembling it is at the least intriguing. But that's as far as they take this premise. Instead of delving into what could happen if someone made this kind of machine, they break the damn thing. This could have been a good premise. Living with the responsibilty of this kind of power, and dealing with the constant temptation, ie.. the invisible man. But no.. they break the damn thing. And Lembach wants to leave. So then the doctor jerry-rigs the thing back together, and trys to transport himself. Only to have it goofed up by his beautiful but dumb secretary, (duh). Which wouldn't happened if Lembach hadn't decided to leave. So now he is roaming the country side killing people because his little experiment failed, and they wouldn't give him money. Wah. Then to make the movie worse, throw in a dry British relationship between the two semi-competent professors hired to assist him. Between their loving sessions, they make a couple of half-hearted attempts to find him while he kills off half of London. All of this could have been headed off by not breaking the damn machine, which would never have happened if Lembach hadn't left. This movie tried so I give it an honest 2 stars for effort, but it would have been better if they hadn't broke the damn machine, making Lembach leave, making him try it again. Damn you Lembach!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There's no way to confront 'Zabriskie Point' from a rational standpoint or attempt to describe it using words and conventions you'd use for other movies. This is because it isn't a movie. It's an idea and a feeling that the filmmakers have that somehow got turned into an object as mundane as a film. What we see are not the unfoldings of a plot, but rather a sequence of events that we don't see in films every day but only imagine happening as the background we ourselves will supply when we hear about some tragic event in the news of or from friends. We we see is our imagination of people that are abstractions to us- no one we know, but we've doubtless heard of them in a book or on TV or somewhere. So what do we see? Events. We see people arguing, driving, and inevitably, escaping. Only the escape is from something intangible- it is the collective situation and cruelty that the mass of a civilization has allowed to exist though laziness, or...human nature. Set in late 1960s Los Angeles, our players act against and in response to the self-inflicted miseries of modern existence. These creatures are effectively blank slates that can display any trait we can imagine if we desire. Although the actions taken might be seen as criminal or irresponsible, , the characters are not themselves criminals. They are human beings seeking a return to a familiar, non-manufactured existence that is beyond the normalcy they experience everyday. Not that they are ever happy or sad, but they achieve a type of self actualization when they move beyond and away from the suicide of modern living. They only achieve true life in the natural world, even though that is the next victim of modern existence. At the end, 'Zabriski Point' is a eulogy of humanities attachment to the natural world. As even the most desolate pieces of the earth succumb to our notions of progress, we lose our souls on the path to death of the human spirit.

Bad plot, bad dialogue, bad acting, idiotic directing, the annoying porn groove soundtrack that ran continually over the overacted script, and a crappy copy of the VHS cannot be redeemed by consuming liquor. Trust me, because I stuck this turkey out to the end. It was so pathetically bad all over that I had to figure it was a fourth-rate spoof of Springtime for Hitler.
The girl who played Janis Joplin was the only faint spark of interest, and that was only because she could sing better than the original.
If you want to watch something similar but a thousand times better, then watch Beyond The Valley of The Dolls.
I get tired of my 4 and 5 year old daughters constantly being subjected to watch Nickelodeon, Disney and the like. It all seems to be the same old tired cartoons rehashed over and over again. When my daughters couldn't go to the fair this afternoon because one of them was sick, I wanted them to just relax and rest for a while. I flipped the TV on and in searching for something different, I flipped the channels. My finger stopped channel surfing the moment I heard Harvey's voice. I adore every single solitary thing this man has done and when I saw that he was doing voice-over work for a little duck ... well, I couldn't change the channel! My daughters were instantly mesmerized by the cartoon and the more we watched the show TOGETHER, the more I grew to love it along with the message that was being portrayed. It's not necessarily a proponent for "gay rights" but rather for anyone who has ever been ostracized as a child for ANYTHING. I had friends who were picked on for one thing or another .... too fat, too skinny, too feminine, being a bully, not being smart enough, only having one parent .... you name it! Kids, as a rule, can be very very cruel to one another so I was happy to see an entertaining cartoon that actually conveyed a LIFE MESSAGE to its audience. My girls already accept others as they are and don't pick on others for being different. My older daughter actually stands up for her friends if they're picked on (one happens to have a single Mom and that little girl is picked on quite often -- it warms my heart when Kassie stands up for her!).
So, those of you who are condemning this show because you feel that it's an advocate for "gay rights" or are being forced to "accept certain views", you clearly and completely missed the point of this poignant little cartoon.
And if you need it explained to you .... well, you need more help than any television show could ever offer.

A lot of people seemed to have liked the film, so I feel somewhat bad giving it a bad review. But after sitting through 96 minutes of it, I feel I have to do so. Where the heck is the plot in this film?! I must have missed it, I was waiting for the storyline to unfold and nothing happened. Sure the ending was "somewhat shocking" but they didn't build up to it. I forgot who was who half of the time, so they didn't really develop the characters. The acting was so-so, most of the time it was believable, but I was able to see through it most of the time. So... without giving anything away, I must say that unless you like the actors in the film, there is no real reason to watch this movie. I could be mistaken, but I just didn't understand why there was so little, or too much of the film. I can't decide which one that would be, so I say judge for yourselves. I don't even know if renting it would be a good idea, the cost and all...
Plot: 0/10 Characters: 1/10 Acting: 2/10 Overall: 3/10 I feel like that's too high really, I am staying with my vote up at the top.
Saw this film on DVD yesterday and was gob-smacked and flabbergasted. The unaffected acting of DDL just blew my mind, and I was surprised by the whole cast and its superb acting. All of the character were so authentic to me, I really took DDL for Christy Burns and Brenda Fricker for his mom. Go and see it! You'll cry your heart out, but you'll experience a wonderful catharsis! Besides, it teaches you one important lesson: Determination is everything. You may be a cripple in the poor suburbs of Dublin, but when you are headstrong enough you will have no problems at all. If you can only operate your left foot you are still good enough to be a painter or a writer. The worst thing you can do when you are mentally challenged is to indulge in self-pity. It won't get you anywhere and the only person who'll pity you will be yourself.

I know a few things that are worst. A few. It had a couple of funny scenes. It is a movie not appropriate for kids but, only a child would find this movie hilarious. This is definetly a movie that you would like to use a free rental coupon for. Don't waste your money just to laugh a couple of times.
This movie is all about subtlety and the difficulty of navigating the ever-shifting limits of mores, race relations and desire. Granted, it is not a movie for everyone. There are no car chases, no buildings exploding, no murders. The drama lies in the tension suggested by glances, minimal gestures, spatial boundaries, lighting and things left -- sometimes very ostensibly -- unsaid. It's about identity, memory, community, belonging. The different parts of the movie work together to reinforce the leitmotifs of self and other, identity, desire, limits and loss. It will reward the attentive and sensitive viewer. It will displease those whose palates require explosive, massive, spicy action. It is a beautifully filmed human story. That is all.

So this was an HBO "Made for TV Movie" eh? Is that an excuse for such a pathetic plot and terrible acting? Such a shame to see Jim Belushi reduced to a role so repetitive (shot at, survived, lies, beaten up, survives, shot at, lies and so ad infinitum. Call that a script? As for the Brits, embarrassing to see Timothy Dalton's pathetic (or was he just taking the p***, depends how much he was paid I guess?) attempt at a Southern Sheriff). As for that other Brit, the bleached blond one, what a w***er! There is a trend towards glorifying these "English speaking" (sic) super-violent thugs lately, perhaps thanks to Mr. Madonna's two movies succeed in entertaining and justify the violence by skillful use of irony and humour, like Pulp Fiction does. However, this movie discredits and devalues the genre. definately one to miss.
This movie is awesome. If you take it too seriously, of course you will hate it; however, it's quantity of "dudes" and "right ons" brings laughs and faint memories of about 15 years ago. I like its ability to make me simply chuckle at obvious jokes and silliness, and its ability to make me want to watch its precursor, "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" (1989). If you are looking for a film full of multifaceted jokes, and totally mature humor, don't watch it; however, if you want a film that is humorous and silly, yet intelligent and engaging, you will enjoy it. I actually wish more of this sort of picture showed up in today's theatres. And hey, it's Keanu Reeves acting the way everyone parodies him as acting...right...doesn't get much better than that :)

Ned aKelly is such an important story to Australians but this movie is awful. It's an Australian story yet it seems like it was set in America. Also Ned was an Australian yet he has an Irish accent...it is the worst film I have seen in a long time
Writer/director Henry Brommel has done a wonderful job with his film, "Panic," from the year 2000, and that includes his choice of cast: William H. Macy, Tracy Ullman, John Ritter, Neve Campbell, Donald Sutherland, Barbara Bain, David Dorfman. Brommel has cast Ullman and Ritter in decidedly un-funny roles, and the offbeat casting is a welcome change from what we normally see.
"Panic" is the story of a hit man, Alex (Macy) who actually works for his father (Sutherland). He covers his true profession by doing mail order work; by all appearances, he and his wife (Ullman) and their son Sammy (Dorfman) are a typical suburban family. Unhappy with his life, Alex seeks the help of a psychiatrist (Ritter), telling only his mother (Bain). In the waiting room, he meets a young woman (Campbell) to whom he is immediately attracted, which complicates his situation further. His mother breaks her promise and tells his father about the psychiatrist. When Alex receives his next assignment, he discovers that he is to kill his psychiatrist.
This is a profound story of a gentle, good man made into a killer by a monster of a father, with his mother's knowledge, who kills to please his father but also can't stand up to him and quit. His rage is so deep-seated that he has lost emotional attachment to just about everything and everyone except his son - and it's finally his son who wakes him up out of a nearly lifelong repression. When it's time for "Panic" to moves, it does - quickly.
"Panic" doesn't seem panicked at all. In fact, it moves very slowly. But it moves slowly not because it's poorly made - the slowness is deliberate, mirroring Alex's own psyche slowly coming out of the fog. By making a decision about Sara, the Campbell character, and by seeing his mark, his own psychiatrist, as a living, breathing human being, Alex starts to make the connections between what he does and who he is -and how they don't jive. And the difference between the two could lead to the loss of another psyche, Sammy's.
William Macy gives another brilliant performance, as a loving father, a distant husband, and a cold killer, the child of two monsters who never cared a damn for his feelings or desires, a man who realizes finally that he has to step up to the plate or have the cycle repeated.
This is not the kind of drama that plays well in a movie theater. It's too adult, too small, too subtle, too character-driven, and too good.

"Houseboat Horror" is often regarded as the worst Australian film ever made and described as a typical slasher film,which carried the promotion 'See the movie that can't get an Academy Award'.An underground disco band members begins to die slashed to death by burned maniac as they are attempting to shoot a music video on a remote lake in the Australian outback.Badly acted and written slasher flick with zero suspense and annoying characters.It certainly delivers the gore:heads are split in half with a machete,throats are cut and a woman is killed with a horseshoe.If you like cheesy slasher movies you can give this one a try,but you have been warned.At least it's better than Swedish "The Bleeder".4 out of 10.
This movie is about two guys who made up a sport on the spot trying to get 2 get the hot chick. BASEketball becomes a nationwide sport. Joe Cooper (Trey Parker) is the beloved captain, but is hated when he loses the NBA to some other rival team. He meets the girl of his dreams Yasmine Bleeth, and in the end they kiss. the first time i saw this movie i wet my pants it was so funny. a definite must see for all comedy fans. If you love south park you'll love this! Maybe don't watch with kids it is bit inappropriate for little dudes. some duds give it 6 1/2 out of ten, i give it 11 out of ten. i like coop he rocks i gotta go bye bye thanks for reading this

(spoilers)Wow, this is a bad one. I did a double take when watching an old Star Trek episode the other day-it was the one where everyone gets infected with that space sickness and then go a bit nuts-and there was Stewart Moss, a.k.a the unlikable 'hero' of It Lives by Night! He played the first crewmember infected, who dies from terminal depression. All I could think was that he'd watched his own movie too many times, that's what caused the depression. This movie is full of truly unlikable people. There is no redeeming character in the film, not one. It's very hard to feel bad about Dr. Beck's turning into a bat(or whatever he actually turned into), because you just don't like him. And you don't like his shrill, bony wife, or the nasty sleazy Sgt. Ward, or Dr. Mustache Love...So why would you invest any time or energy in this movie? Where there is no empathy with the characters, there is no reason to bother caring about it. Not to mention the horrible cinematography, which made it look like they'd filmed the movie through urine, and the five cent bat special effects, many of which appeared to be pieces of paper thrown into a fan to simulate hordes of bats flying. Not the worst film I've ever seen on MST3K, but down there in the bottom ranks, definitely.
I can only echo the praise of the other reviews here. It's a delightful film with a feelgood factor that it achieves without crossing the line into soppy sentimentality. Naturally sweet - no added sugar.
One small point: it seems to me that the mild objections raised about Ustinov's character Pendelton being able to walk in and defeat the system security ignore the fact that Pendelton is clearly a genius/savant at this sort of thing. Yes, the film was pretty computer illiterate, but it did show Pendelton 'studying computers' at his flat, and I believe the implication was supposed to be that his gifts allowed him to simply engulf the whole subject, practically overnight.
There were a few odd moments when it appeared in some scenes that Gnatpole was trying to test Pendelton's knowledge and call his bluff. I'm not sure whether we were supposed to believe that Pendelton cunningly weaselled his way out of these situations, or whether he was actually knowledgeable enough to pass the tests - it was a little unclear.
Certainly he had to know enough to set up the dummy accounts. Presumably Wallach and Ustinov were relying on their own rather foggy notion of how computers worked in those days, and in order to understand in detail what they were getting at, it's necessary to know quite what their concept was. They knew there was something about 'procedures' which was important; they thought that the 'smart light' could actually control security, rather than just indicate its state; they thought that the (dumb) user terminal's features would strongly influence what could be done on the mainframe itself - though apart from things like graphics feature I don't see it meself.
Mostly, I think they tried to avoid the subject of actual computer operations as far as they could, and they did that rather well. Allowing them a bit of artistic license, I don't think their efforts had any flaws worthy of note.
CD

Just Cause is one of those films that at first makes you wonder quite why it was so heavily slated when it came out - nothing special but competent enough and with an excellent supporting performance from Ed Harris. Then you hit the last third and everything starts to get increasingly silly until you've got a killer with a flashlight strapped to his forehead threatening to fillet Sean Connery's wife (a typically mannered and unconvincing Kate Capshaw) and kid (a very young Scarlet Johannsen) in an alligator skinner's shack.
The kind of movie that's probably best seen on a plane, and even then only once.
As is well-known among long haired youngsters who are incredibly interested in this Herr Graf's silent rants, during summertime aristocrats like to travel to exclusive and distinguished places in order to avoid the heat as well hordes of coarse people taking their ease. Such bizarre travels around the world also happen in "Three Ages", a charming and elegant piece of silent work directed by old hands, namely Herr Buster Keaton and Herr Eddie Cline.
Obviously this German count liked most the first segment focused on the Stone Age due to the affinity that this aristocrat feels about that ancient time. preferring that to the second segment which takes place during the glory of Rome (It should have included the cause of the fall of the Roman empire, that is to say, Barbarians, or the same thing, Germans). Of course, the third segment takes place during modern times but this Teutonic aristocrat thinks that even 100 years ago should qualify as modern.
The leitmotiv that moves Herr Keaton and his companions to travel and endure the strange and hilarious happenings during three different ages, is the search for love, a very complicated subject to understand for aristocrats who prefer the search for money and self interest. Every time that "Three Ages" is shown in the Schloss theatre, it is always a pleasure to watch a funny, witty silent film (even for a serious German count), an oeuvre full of gags and gadgets, puns, pratfalls and acrobatics, visual and astounding technical tricks, an absolute silent delicatessen that is perfect to allow one to endure the various and coarse summertime severities.
And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must flirt with an old Teutonic heiress who doesn't look her age.
Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien http://ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com/

Martin Weisz, who directed the solid "Rohtenburg", will be taking the heat, with Wes Craven, for another shabby "The Hills Have Eyes 2". The memory of the legendary original, which boasted an unbelievable storyline and a dog having a flashback, will be erased forever by this more technically polished remake (in name only). A bunch of National Guardsmen (and women) are sent to a desert research area surrounded by hills filled with mutants. One by one the weekend soldiers are picked off. That's it. There is some hardcore violence and a reasonably brutal rape scene, but there is precious little else to get excited about. The film's "heroes" are the usual bunch of clichés and the mutants, a far cry from Craven's original "family", mostly resemble Brian Thompson from "Cobra" coupled with some creatures Stan Winston had left over from the "Wrong Turn" shoot. Much of the action takes place in caves, ala "The Descent", and is well shot by Sam McCurdy. A laughable aspect is Wes and Jonathan Craven's addition of a sympathetic mutant who skulks around his cave like Leatherface in Hooper's original "Chainsaw". Weisz will be blamed for this dull debacle, but he's not really at fault because he does his best to maintain suspense and squeeze some freshness out of the contrived situations. Not a fan, unfortunately.