Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I only saw IPHIGENIA once, almost 30 years ago, but it has haunted me since.
One sequence particularly stays in mind, and could only have been fashioned by a great director, as Michael Cacoyanis undoubtedly is.
The context: the weight of history and a mighty army and fleet all lie on King Agamemnon's shoulders. An act of sacrilege has becalmed the seas, endangering his great expedition to Troy. He is told he must sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia to Apollo in order to gain the winds for the sails of the Thousand Ships. He initially resists, but comes around, and tricks his wife Clytemenstra to bring their daughter to the Greek camp in order to marry the greatest of all warriors, Achilles.
Clytemnestra and Iphigenia arrive, find out about the sacrifice, and rage to the gods for protection and vengeance. Meanwhile, the proud Achilles discovers that his name has been used in this fraudulent, dishonorable way. He climbs a hill to tell Iphigenia that he will protect her.
The shot: The camera circles the two young people, without looking directly at each other. They bemoan their fate, and the weakness of men that deceive their loved ones and lust for war. Suddenly, they gaze at each other and, for one moment, we feel both their power and beauty, and the unstated--except by the camera--irony that in another time, another place, they perhaps could love each other and be married. It is a sharp and sad epiphany that lasts only for an instant.
What direction! What camera! What storytelling!

Is it a coincidence that Orca was made two years after Jaws? Orca isn't exactly a "Jaws rip off" but it is obvious that it tried to profit from Jaws's success. First of all Orca in my opinion was a bad movie, not terrible but definitely not good, average at best.
The plot is basically a male killer whale (orca) after seeing its mate and its unborn calf killed by a fisherman seeks revenge. I couldn't stand to watch this movie again. The direction of this film is poor and when compared to Jaws it looks like the director, producers, and writers were almost talentless.
As for the acting, it was very average and believable, however the actual characters aren't the least bit likable. The effects were alright for its time and the footage of the killer whale looked pretty good.
The violence is confusing, bloody, and not recommended for more sensitive people. The music is overdone and very loud, drowning out the sound effects and irritating at times. I hated the way they exaggerated the intelligence of the killer whale (killer whales don't mate with only one mate as depicted in Orca).
Overall this movie was bad/poor in my opinion, because of the reasons listed above. Some people may appreciate this film more because of the concept of vengeance amongst animals and humans so I'm not going to bash this movie and I can understand why some people may like it.
My Rating: 3.5/10 (but for its concept possibly a 5/10)
This is my fourth Joe McDoakes short that I've seen and so far the funniest one. In this one, Joe takes voice lessons from a record impersonating Charles Boyer and Ronald Colman. When he goes to Warner Bros. Studio (the company behind this series, incidentally), he asks Jack Carson for directions which gets both confused. Then he encounters actor George O'Hanlon (who's also McDoakes) who speaks in his more normal voice that's not too far from his later Geroge Jetson and gets to the set where he automatically upsets the director. I'll stop there and just say how funny I found the whole thing and was fascinated by the movie star cameos provided near the end. The final scene was especially a hoot so on that note, go to YouTube if you want to watch So You Want to Be in Picutres!

There is only one thing essential to thorough appreciation of The Indian Runner. Unzip your trousers. Peek inside. Is there evidence of a Y chromosome? Okay, you'll do.
This film has all the male requisites: blood, guns, car chases, fond women, death, multiple tattoos, cigarettes, liquor, violence, pyrotechnics -- what have I left out? -- oh, yeah, blowtorches.
As a woman, I seriously hope Sean Penn regards this as a `when I was a child...' kind of effort. Since he both wrote and directed the thing, he's nearly solely responsible. An uneven cast (Viggo Mortensen as usual demonstrating brilliantly how the job's supposed to be done) tries to save Penn. Too late. The lines and action are there. Even devoted, skilled acting can't change those.
I found this movie puerile and silly, as well as predictable. The dialogue staggers along -- Sandy Dennis has my respect for trying to breathe life into a woodenly maternal monologue without motherly authenticity. Then she dies. After a bit, so does the protagonists' father, played by Charles Bronson. Their absence is hardly noticeable.
At intervals, the pyrotechnics, etc., noted above appear to liven things up and scare the audience into thinking something significant is occurring.
If you're male and under 25, you may adore this film. Plan to return to it at 35. Think you'll still like it?
I don't think so.
I'm biased towards any movie that paints a luxuriant picture of Italy - in my opinion the most romantic country in the world. Unfortunately the movie was rather short, unusually so for a period piece, and a little sparse on the cinematography aspect. However, the excellent story makes up for it. The four ladies embark on a much-needed relaxing vacation with problems on their minds. Over the course of the movie, they realize their problems and begin fixing them. They believe San Salvatore, the castle they stay in, has an enchanting effect on people. "It's a tub of love," says Lottie Wilkins. You can watch their gradual change from dissatisfied to exuberant as the Italian seaside works its magic on them.
All their problems and their solutions are plausible. The actresses were great. The background music seemed very appropriate for an romantic Italian locale. All in all, a 10/10 movie for me.

1975's MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE is an amazing and wonderful film to watch. This isn't because the fighting is particularly inspired or because the film makes any sense at all. It's because the film is so silly and so over-the-top that it is a camp classic--bad, but enjoyably bad. The film stars a blind guy who has a Frisbee-like device on a chain that chops off people's heads as he expertly throws this at his foes! Who cares that the physics are impossible or that the film features such silly things as fighters with 12 foot long papier-mache arms or that the guy was blind! It's just a ball to watch from start to finish--and one of my favorite "bad" films and great to see with friends.
Because of this film, I was eager to see THE FATAL FLYING GUILLOTINES (1977), though sadly it turned out NOT to be a sequel but a bit of a knock-off--taking many of the ideas from the original but neglecting to make the film as coherent or watchable. Sure, it's silly fun, but it never comes close to MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE in entertainment value. Like the original film, there are these weird flying devices that sever heads, but they are quite different--with circular saw blades and almost a mind of their own. There also is no blind guy but instead are a bunch of baddies who really have no depth nor does the audience understand exactly what's occurring in this English-dubbed version, as the plot is completely incomprehensible. However, at the same time, some of the martial arts action is very good. While not up to the high standards of most Bruce Lee or Sonny Chiba films, the action is worthwhile despite the ludicrous and often confusing plot.
Overall, this is a film that martial arts fans may like (despite its many, many, many, many shortcomings), but also one that others will probably turn off or laugh hysterically at instead of enjoying the action because the film is just so ludicrous. BUT, most importantly, it never comes close to being as funny or watchable as MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE. Too bad.
Somewhat too long and going over the top towards the end, this comedy is an utterly delightful, never condescending or ridiculing look into the problems of a "power man", who likes to wear women´s clothes at nite.
Julie Walters is lovely as always, but Adrian Pasdar is utterly credible and steals the film. He (she)is absolutely gorgeous in high heels and silk stockings.

Dear Richard, I know we all loved you on Home Improvement with Tim Allen. But seriously, do you not have anything else to do besides lame sequels to Air Bud? I would have thought Tim might have actually give you a bit role by now or even becoming his personal assistant. I know that seems ironic, but the pay benefits are much more rewarding.
Everybody would see you around Tim and instantly think "Tool Time". You would even get roles with Bob Vila more often. Instead, you appear for 10 minutes with a Golden Retriever and smiling. I know there wasn't much of a script, but you could have added to it. I mean, come on. Tim owes you one.
But seriously, this movie does nothing for the Air Bud line. Quite the contrary, the fake talking puppies are cornier than actually seeing the dogs play sports. The original was better. And you, Mr. Richard Karn, know that more than anybody.
This is an "F" movie.
Lovely piece of good cinema. This is one of those films that you see smiling and you do not know why. Well, one of the reasons could be that we are before one of the most surprising directors today, and he is able to film emotions.
When you are watching the film you can feel what Mr. Straight was feeling when he took the decision to go to visit his brother with his "marvellous" John Deere. What changed in his mind?, what changed in YOUR mind when you watched this film?
A beautiful fraternal love story.

I think i watched this movie, but don't quote me, as i may have fallen asleep during watching it as it didn't exactly "grip my excitement and imagination." At least i know i watched enough of it to know i won't be watching it again soon. Or ever.
Jeez, talk about lame... Really lame. Totally lame. It wouldn't even appeal to a six year old. It basically had NO worthwhile dramatic impact. Zilch. Nada. Just shlock turned into dreck. Comedy? That was supposed to be comedy? Ya coulda fooled me-ee-ee...!
Now, if the aliens had been insatiably carnivorous like in the movie "Critters", we could have had the human characters do something a little more profound than be overly smugly cutesy... like yelling and screaming and running for their lives so they wouldn't be eaten so the story could be something more exciting than watching paint dry.
Don't bother watching this. It's not worth the effort. You can find something more interesting to do. Like watching paint dry. Or falling asleep.
Good movie, very 70s, you can not expect much from a film like this,, Sirpa Lane is an actress of erotic films, a nice body but nothing exceptional savant to a pornographic actress from the body disappears, but the '70s were characterized a small breasts and a simple eroticism. Not demand a lot from these films are light years away from the movies today, the world has changed incredibly. The plot is simple and the actors not extraordinary. And the brunette actress has a single body, has one breast slightly bigger. Be satisfied. Papaya also is not great but at least these films have a certain charm ... Download them again but then again who knows what you pretend not to them.

this video is 100% retarded. besides the brain cell killing acting and plot, it's way too long. don't waste your money at the video store. i actually was mad that i sat through this garbage and spent money on it. just absolutely awful.
I imagine Victorian literature slowly sinking into the mire of the increasingly distant past, pulled down by the weight of its under-skirts. Along comes television: at its best, it has a redemptive power, and with dramatisations like those the BBC produce so finely, Victorian literature gets a new stab at life. The religious themes, the moral overtones, may be increasingly ill at ease in a world no longer easily shocked, and acquainted with cohabitation, affairs and domestic violence. But those old, well-told stories have enduring power, and this is one's a hidden gem.
It's hard to gauge today just how forceful, feminist and extraordinary Ann Bronte's masterpiece, "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall", actually was. Emerging from the primeval slime of restrictive corsets  bodily, mental, societal  her heroine, Helen Huntingdon, escapes a miserable marriage, flees brutality and alcoholism, braves not only her abusive husband's fury, but society's pinched intolerance and malicious gossip, to wreak change in her life. She pays a price; but retains her self-respect; she falls in love along the way; she emerges battered but victorious, and strong. I just love watching women like these on screen.
The actors are superb  the best Brits have to offer. The love story is beautifully handled, with real passion and feeling by well-matched actors. Tara Fitzgerald inhabits every aspect of the complicated heroine, and as has been said here by other reviewers, no less sharply defined and beautiful a face could survive that petrifying hairstyle. Toby Stephens, striking sparks off her, contributes just the right combination of headstrong, handsome youth and passionate, yearning vulnerability. Rupert Graves (one of my favourite British actors ever) enjoys himself as the charismatic villain (so much so that you're almost with him at the end. No one's perfect). The supporting cast ably create a world into which you sink without feeling that coarse compromises have been made to modern tastes, and without having felt preached to. Another BBC classic, highly recommended: this is how romantic literature should be dramatised.

I don't understand how "2 of us" receive such a high rating... I thought that the first half dragged on and the second half didnt make sense, followed by an unresolved climax which was not worth the trouble. However, I did like Jared Harris' performance of John Lennon which was worth the wasted 2 hours.
If you have seen Dogtown and Z-Boys or have any interest in seeing the real, non-caricature, "Real American" side of America then Riding Giants will hit deeper than anything you've seen before.
This film is "unreal", a facile term if ever there was one, but hugely appropriate if you can derive any form of literal meaning out of it - it is a 100% factual documentary, but with all the drama of an opera, and the completely apparent sense of love, expert and knowing instilled by Stacy Peralta's direction and narration, this film expertly leads you from swell to big wave while keeping you completely enthralled in everything you are being given the privilege of seeing.
This film is a symphony, crafted as well as Beethovens 9th, beginning beautifully with its prelude in Hawaii, tugging deeply on human emotion in Santa Cruz and finishing with uproar, triumph and crescendo in Laird Hamiltons feats, again in Hawaii.
Like classical music; like Beethoven's 9th, Ride of the Valkyries or Barbers Adagio for Strings, this may be the only piece you like, but it's worth it. Trust me.

Those familiar with the two previous Cube films pretty much know what they can expect: a small group of people trapped inside a bunch of booby trapped rooms, paranoia, bad acting... This one is a bit different though. Roughly half of the film takes place outside the cube, where we get to watch the people watching the people inside the cube (or at least five of them).
I guess Cube Zero aspires to explain what the deal with the cube is, but you really don't get to know much more than what was covered in the two first films. Sure, there's sort of an explanation in there, but it feels pretty lame compared to what was suggested in the first film.
Cube Zero looks rather cheap (as did its predecessors), and the fact that it shows more than just a couple of empty rooms only emphasizes this feeling. I also fell pretty confident in saying that there's no risk that any of the actors will win any awards in the foreseeable future. They have brought back the traps from Cube 1, though, (by that I mean that they're almost the same ones, which is a bit of a shame).
I know that many people kind of appreciate this film and its ties with the first one, but I just feel that it's a completely unnecessary contribution to a franchise that wasn't that great to begin with. [1/10]
This is a wonderful movie about the struggle of the Mormons and their final settlement in Salt Lake, Utah. The beginning and the ending are especially powerful, and the message is one we all have to be reminded of - God doesn't talk, but he communicates, if we would only listen. As I am writing this in the midst of the horrors going on in New Orleans and the surrounding area due to Katrina, I was especially moved by the Mormons having to leave everything behind and move on after Joseph Smith was assassinated. People came to this country to escape religious persecution, and yet they could not. The struggle of the Mormons to cross the country, the cost in lives, the hardship they suffered was truly awe-inspiring, demonstrating their tremendous strength. As far as the actual beliefs of Mormons, this is not heavily gone into, and polygamy is mentioned but is not a centerpiece of the film at all.
The cast is top-notch, though others who have commented know more about the actual characters and can talk about how true the portrayals were. But as actors, Dean Jagger, Mary Astor, Brian Donlevy, John Carradine, Jane Darwell all do excellently with the script they were given.
Though the film could have easily stood on its own (and certainly does today) Tyrone Power and Linda Darnell were added to the cast to get the crowds into the movie theaters to see a film about the Mormons. Power is magnificently handsome as a young Mormon, and Darnell, as Zina, is not a Mormon but stays on with the family after her father is killed. Power does not have much to do until the end of the film, when he has a big scene, and Darnell (still a teenager at the time of the filming) has even less, though they make a lovely couple. Their fate is left unclear regarding her conversion, and one does wonder about the polygamy in their case. You can't beat either one for eye candy, however.

Terrible film with Frank Sinatra as Tony Rome. Here, he gets involved with a dead woman below the sea.
Rome is soon hired to find out what happened to a woman. Naturally, it's the woman below the sea. Her room mate, Lainie Kazan, soon winds up dead on the floor.
An aging Richard Conte plays a police officer and friend of Rome. When a local club owner gets killed, the blame falls on Rome and there becomes an interesting chase scene. That's how bad this picture is if you have to depend on a chase scene to supply the action.
Raquel Welch plays the beauty up to her neck in intrigue. Her acting leads a lot to be desired.
Martin Gabel is a retired hoodlum whose son is trying to outdo him.
By the film's end, you don't know why the girl was murdered. Don't even bother to ask.
This movie shows life in northern Cameroon from the perspective of a young French girl, France Dalens, whose father is an official for the colonial (French) government, and whose family is one of the few white families around. It gives a sense of what life was like both for the colonists and for the natives with whom they associated. It's a sense consistent with another movie I've seen about Africa in a similar time period (Nirgendwo in Afrika (2001)), but I have no way of knowing how realistic or typical it is. It's not just an impression -- things do happen in the movie -- but the plot is understated. The viewer is left to draw his own conclusions rather than having the filmmakers' forced upon him, although the framing of the story as a flashback from the woman's visit to south-western Cameroon as an adult provides some perspective.

I've seen a lot of stupid plotlines in my time, but this one is among the worst. After catching some disease in space, an astronaut comes back to Earth and starts melting. He then goes on a rampage, killing people (how is beyond me; I just watch them, I can't explain them.) This is the kind of movie that shouldn't have been made in the first place.
It's not well shot, well written or well acted but it has to be the most addictive show I've seen since Twin Peaks. Every single revelation is timed so well that you have to see the next episode to get any kind of closure. They have even slowed down the pace of the show where they only reveal tiny amounts of information per episode however it feels like they've just told you everything you wanted to know. However some of the acting is just about awful and some of the duologue is downright brutal. Some characters are very two dimensional. The more experienced actors like Locke and Ecko really stand out over actors who play Jack, Kate, Sayid and so on. The development of the show can also be very frustrating as the following episode may not show what the previous episode lead up to. Annoying side plots have become part of the story that sometimes tell you nothing. However, the second season has developed to a point where back stories reveal more about the island than they had previously. All in all its a great show but not perfect.

This film is predictable; it is more predictable then a Vinnie Testaverdi pass, when he huts the ball for the Jets. One saw the ending coming up halfway through the film. The politics reminds me when I was back east. Many people know when the fix is in. I gave this four because of the acting, but the story is lame.
Beautiful film, pure Cassavetes style. Gena Rowland gives a stunning performance of a declining actress, dealing with success, aging, loneliness...and alcoholism. She tries to escape her own subconscious ghosts, embodied by the death spectre of a young girl. Acceptance of oneself, of human condition, though its overall difficulties, is the real purpose of the film. The parallel between the theatrical sequences and the film itself are puzzling: it's like if the stage became a way out for the Heroin. If all american movies could only be that top-quality, dealing with human relations on an adult level, not trying to infantilize and standardize feelings... One of the best dramas ever. 10/10.

while being one of the "stars" of this film doesn't necessarily give me sage insight, i do know quite a bit of what was first there...and what ended up on the screen. i remember seeing the original cut of "incoming freshman" and being very pleased. it was funny, sexy, raunchy, all the main requirements of a drive-in film. you have to remember this was shot and released before all the rest...animal house, porky's, etc...so in its own way, this flick was truly ahead of its time. for whatever reasons, the film was given to the main distributors who editing out half the original film, and then edited in (should i say "shuffled?") THE most random scenes ever. the fat guy, the people with goat heads....what the heck was all that?! i'm sure it was put in for additional T&A, but it was so slowly paced, it caused anything going on prior to it to grind to a screeching and painful halt. but all in all, it's a fun memory for me...especially in that i'm able to say that the worst movie i've ever seen...i'm in!