Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I am not going to lie, this is a great movie. I saw it about 4 months ago at my local theatre. I saw it a second time, and I was somewhat bored in the slow scenes. Sid (the sloth) is not all that flattering, but Diego (a mountain lion, I think) is really good in the movie. The animation is outstanding, and the story has a touching ending. It is worth taking kids 10 and under to, but teens would probably find it a tad bit boring. Also, the uniqueness in the characters is so interesting. Like I said, it is a pretty good movie, but I would rate "Toy Story 2" or "Shrek" higher. 8/10

If I could i would give ZERO stars for this one, but unfortunately i have to give one...
There is no single scene I could laugh about... but the game didn't make me laugh either. So if you're some ill retarded folk, go to your local cinema, watch this movie and give it 10 stars, like some people here already did.
but for me... in a movie where children are shot dead to achieve humor... good taste goes over the edge... this was the third time i wasted my time to see a Boll movie and it was definitely my last!
0/10... i'm ashamed of being from the same country as Uwe Boll!
PLEASE PLEASE KEEP HIM FROM MAKING MORE MOVIES!!!!!
I'd never heard of this movie, but boy was I surprised when I caught it on TV. Great cast, great acting. Excellent movie! How can a movie with William H Macy, Neve Campbell and Donald Sutherland go wrong? I wonder why I never heard of it before.

I only watched this movie because I was so impressed with Olivier Martinez in SWAT. But this is no SWAT. SWAT had a plot and some likable characters and made sense. Bullfighter had none of these.
I should have realized that it couldn't possibly be any good, after all, the always painfully bad Michelle Forbes had a starring role.
One poster here called the movie incoherent. Another called it the worst movie ever. Both gave the movie far too much credit. I am so glad I got it from the library for free, yet I still feel ripped off.
IMDb needs to include a "0" in the "rate this film" vote, just for movies like this one.
Principally it is the story of two men who were part of the Portuguese revolution. It was easy to understand the contest, but usually directors starts from a historical fact to speak about something else, or they shows also the period before or after this fact, here everything happen during that couple of days when the revolution acts. It could also be seen as a kind of documentary. The movie focalize to these two people, showing as normal they were, not like common heroes, because the revolution come from people. Although it was made from military army from the title you can understand that they were just "capitaes" as the main characters. Nice colors and lights during the whole movie, excellent work for the director being her first movie, she doesn't fall to the banal way. Well shown emotions and passion of people and crowd. The character of Maia (main one)is well-made and there is also a good interpretation for Stefano Accorsi, able to show Maia's limits, this not-being an hero.

Cafe Lumiere is a beautifully photographed nullity. Unacquainted with the work of the director, I am well-acquainted with the filmmaker he is supposedly paying tribute to - Ozu Yasujiro. While not even approaching Ozu in greatness, Hou has communicated nothing of Ozu's depth of emotion and concentration on meaning within a closed space. One of the things he misses entirely is Ozu's attention to character - we are not even "introduced" by Hou to his lead character (a perfect blank page). There are no medium or close shots of his people. One of the DVD extras offers interviews with the actors and gives us precisely what Hou doesn't - a good look at their faces.
There was a great Spanish film by Bardem called Nunca Pasa Nada, which translates to something like "Nothing Ever Happens". That would be a far better title to this pointless exercise. All through the film we are given clues about an obscure Taiwanese composer some of whose work we hear on the soundtrack. But the clues, like everything else, add up to nothing. Unless you're a trainspotter, this film has nothing to recommend it.
Having read some of the other comments here I was expecting something truly awful but was pleasantly surprised. REALITY CHECK: The original series wasn't that good. I think some people remember it with more affection than it deserved but apart from the car chases and Daisy Duke's legs the scripts were weak and poorly acted. The Duke boys were too intelligent and posh for backwood hicks, the shrunken Boss Hog was too cretinous to be evil and Rosco was just hyper throughout every screen moment. It's amazing the series actually lasted as long as it did because it ran out of story lines during the first series.
Back to the movie. If you watch this film in it's own right, not as a direct comparison to however you remember the TV series, then it's not bad at all. The real star is of course the General Lee. The car chases and stunts are excellent and that's really what D.O.H. is all about. Johnny Knoxville is his usual eccentric self and along with Seann William Scott as Cousin Bo the pair make this film really funny in a hilarious Dumb-And-Dumber sort of way the TV series never achieved. The lovely Jessica Simpson is a natch as Miss Daisy, Burt Reynolds makes a much improved Boss Hog and M.C. Gainey makes a believably nasty Rosco P. Coltrane, the way he always should have been.
If you don't like slapstick humour and crazy car stunts then you wouldn't be watching this film anyway because you should know what to expect. Otherwise if you want an entertaining car-action movie with a few good laughs that's not too taxing on the brain then go see this enjoyable romp with an open mind.

Dumb is as dumb does, in this thoroughly uninteresting, supposed black comedy. Essentially what starts out as Chris Klein trying to maintain a low profile, eventually morphs into an uninspired version of "The Three Amigos", only without any laughs. In order for black comedy to work, it must be outrageous, which "Play Dead" is not. In order for black comedy to work, it cannot be mean spirited, which "Play Dead" is. What "Play Dead" really is, is a town full of nut jobs. Fred Dunst does however do a pretty fair imitation of Billy Bob Thornton's character from "A Simple Plan", while Jake Busey does a pretty fair imitation of, well, Jake Busey. - MERK
Melvyn Douglas and Joan Blondell co-star in "The Amazing Mr. Williams," a 1939 mystery/comedy that's quite good, although forgotten, probably due to the number of incredible films that came out in 1939.
Douglas plays a talented police detective married to his job, while his girlfriend waits for a wedding that is constantly postponed. What happens in this film is no exception - he's called to a murder scene just as he's about to walk down the aisle yet again.
Both stars were excellent at comedy, worked together well (and often), and help make this battle of the sexes fun. Edward Brophy and Donald McBride are on hand for excellent support.
As you can read in other reviews, Melvyn Douglas doesn't make much of a woman.
Entertaining if a little on the long side.
One of the comments here trashed Melvyn Douglas, one of our greatest actors. He literally floated effortlessly through dozens of films as the other man and the best friend before coming into his own in films as an old man. He wasn't lazy, but rather, a very hard-working actor (who made it look easy) who had a Broadway career simultaneously with his film career. He just wasn't cast as a leading man in films or given very challenging roles under the studio system. I challenge anyone to see his devastating performances in "Hud" and "I Never Sang for my Father" and call him lazy or make reference to his smirk.

Actress Patty Duke wrote an insightful, funny, rough-hewn book about her career as an actress, her crazy-quilt love-life, and her manic depressive episodes and suicide attempts which almost put her away for good. With this rich material to draw from (and Patty playing herself in the final act), one would think a crack TV-director like Gilbert Cates could bring it all together on film, but "Call Me Anna" is a pale shadow of Duke's autobiography. For those who haven't read the book, the sketchy narrative (leaping forward in time) isn't absorbing, we are never allowed to get our bearings with what's happening, and the production seems stunted by a low budget. The actors are miscast, and the value of having Duke herself finally appear does not pay off--the film's phony reality is so thick at this point that Patty can't bring stability to the scenario. It appears as if the producers were sincere enough (and consciousness-minded) to anxiously steer the film towards Duke's ultimate diagnosis and mental freedom, but they left out many dramatic opportunities in the process.
"The Color Purple", is truly amazing. There is none like it, and I don't think there ever will be. It's a roller coster of emotion and pain that the viewer takes on. The actors are flawless and the directing is superb. I absolutely loved it. A movie has never made me so happy. It is beautiful, that's the best way to explain it.

with this ABC family attempt of the hit blockbuster "cheaper by the dozen" comes an obnoxious amount of corny dialogue, shallow plot lines, and cheesy comebacks. With about two good actors among many wanna-be's, this movie was a major disappointment. Its a Hollywood-wannabe ditto of an already bad plot. Then, because they needed a lot of actors, that meant that they'd probably be more lenient. So the acting wasn't five-star. The plot moved fairly fast, and the twists were bad and had horrible timing. The junction of characters and the "end relationships" were also too mushy and clichéd for me. Spare yourself and rent something better.
A longtime fan of Bette Midler, I must say her recorded live concerts are my favorites. Bette thrills us with her jokes and brings us to tears with her ballads. A literal rainbow of emotion and talent, Bette shows us her best from her solid repertoire, as well as new songs from the "Bette of Roses" album. Spanning generations of people she offers something for everyone. The one and only Divine Diva proves here that she is the most intensely talented performer around.

Let me be really clear about this movie. I didn't watch this movie because of the plot, I watch it for the saucy sex scenes. That being said, this movie is so god damn awful I flip between pure joy of seeing a godly body of Traci (Mandy Schaffer) and cringing my eyeballs out for the disaster of a plot.
Spoiler Alert The first scene of the movie already had me cringing.. you see a woman painting something by the lakeside, in pure bliss and serene, then a beautiful girl approach and ask if she could paint beside her. When they both finished, they show each other what they had done... and the woman painted A VINEYARD WHEN SHE IS FACING INFRONT OF THE LAKE. What kind of screwball director would make this kind of mistake?? And in another scene, Traci gets to kill her teacher's lover by smash him with the sail pole, and then she swims away, and none of the town's police suspected her once. I mean HELLOOOOO? MANDY DID NOT WEAR A GLOVE DID SHE? HER FINGER PRINTS ARE ALL OVER THE GOD DAMN BOAT!! After that, it gets worst, whenever Mandy is around, there is the "chilling" sound effect played which sounds like a cat in hissy fit. It's also a real pity Rosanna Arquette's is in this movie. I feel real sorry for her to have to star in this super low budget soft-porn no brainer. Same goes for Jürgen Prochnow, who also has the misfortune to star in this movie. All in all, 2/10.
And I'll tell you why: whoever decided to edit this movie to make it suitable for television was very ill-advised. EVERYTHING CONCERNING DRUGS IS CUT OUT AND COVERED UP!!! How do they do it, you might ask? Well, they don't do it very well, that's for sure. Anyway, instead of the marijuana which Cheech and Chong are supposed to have in their possession, they are said to have diamonds! Still, the characters go around in a haze of marijuana smoke stoning others along their way with no explanation whatsoever!

One of the worst films I have ever seen. How to define "worst?" I would prefer having both eye balls yanked out and then be forced to tap dance on them than ever view this pitiful dreck again. Somehow, One-Hit Wonder Zwick manages a film that simultaneously offends Elvis fans, Mary Kay saleswomen, Las Vegas, gays, FBI agents and the rest of humanity with any intelligence with a shoddy, sloppy farce so forced it deserves to be forsaken ed. How Elvis Presley Enterprises could allow the rights of actual Elvis songs to be used in a film with a central premise that seems to be "The only good Elvis Presley Imitator is a dead one" is beyond me. The worst part of this mess - and that takes some work - is the mangled script: In 1958, Elvis' words and songs that he would speak/perform in the 1970's are quoted! Worst special effect? That Oscar would go to the moron who decided that Elvis' grave, potentially the most photographed/recognizable grave in the world, resembles a pyramid with a gold record glued atop and is situated in the middle of a park somewhere. Potentially, this film's biggest audience would be Elvis fans. However, the rampant stupidity (Nixon gave Elvis a DEA badge, not FBI credentials...and I could go on and on) actually undercuts THAT conventional wisdom. Ugh. I used the word "wisdom" to describe this stupid movie. This is truly a horrible, horrible film.
'Iphigenia' is the great achievement of Michael Cacoyannis. This masterful play is masterfully adapted for the screen and brought to life by a wonderful cast. Cacoyannis achieved the impossible. He managed to film a Greek tragedy to screen without losing its effectiveness and importance. A stellar greek cast helps him in this. Newcomer Tatiana Papamoschou is extremely impressive as Iphigenia. Equally impressive is Irene Papas ,who even though she sometimes seems over the top, it is very realistic. A wonderful Greek film, beautifully adapted and directed by Michael Cacoyannis, with an excellent music score by Mikis Theodorakis which is ideal in every scene.
P.S. Rumours say that the film lost the best foreign language film Oscar by only 1 vote!!!

***SLIGHT SPOILERS***
A hunchback 15-year-old boy kisses a very cute 15-year-old girl and eventually he has sex for the first time. After the act, he lays in the bed with her not touching her. The next day he concludes that he does not like sex much and does not want to try it again for at least a few years.
This is seemingly a fine opening for a teleplay about a boy discovering his homosexuality, or perhaps a medical drama about a post-pubescent teen with a severe hormone deficiency.
However, as the plot develops what emerges is a story of a 15-year-old father who is supported and encouraged by his overbearing mother.
At one point, his mother preaches to her co-workers who are not as understanding as they might be, "Every step of the way in this, my son has been amazing... I have never been more proud of him..."
The young father's older sister, who otherwise is cold towards her brother, begins to show pride in her sibling, "You have been cool about this," as she gives him an encouraging warm hug.
The 15-year-old father wants to be a father. He wants to be a parent.
Why not? We see the "new" baby a few minutes after birth -- it appears to be a healthy, happy 4-month-old infant. Just as babies were born on TV in the 1960's and 1970's.
Once the young father is a parent, he has found happiness. He insists he will be the one to change the dirty diaper. We see the 15-year-old father sincerely happy holding his baby while the teen's busy=body mother is peaking over his shoulder. Fade to black.
I thought the children in the show did a very good job. I especially enjoyed the performance of the Emma character. Well done! The stunts were pretty good for a low budget show. I was able to follow the movie and enjoy it without having to look at my watch every 5 minutes.I enjoyed the scenes with the tooth fairy and the burning of her. The ghostly apparitions of the children's souls being released was also good. Another good point of the movie is that it kept moving along. There wasn't a lot of slow scenes. The adult leads were also believable and therefore helped to keep the show entertaining. All in all an enjoyable night of movie watching.

I have read the whole 'A wrinkle in time' book and then saw the movie. The movie contained all the elements in the book but since the book was 190 pages and the film was 2 hours it felt really crammed in with too many effects and bad acting.
A wrinkle in time is about a girl named Meg, Charles Wallace, and Calvin must team together to find Meg's father and get off the island Camazotz.
The beginning of the film is really a stinker. The acting is awful, the direction is laughable, and so far the situations aren't necessary. I really was crushed to see the same person Madeleine Engle that wrote the book and created the movie, made a great book, and a terrible film. The acting is worse than any straight-to-video acting. Yes, I got to admit there was cool effects. But seriously they were all done terribly and not serial in any way possible. If you read the book you will be crushed by the movie. I wish could give it a 0 but sadly I can only give it 1. A half could have been useful.
I remember being terrified of movie blood when I was younger, and gradually getting less so, until getting jaded enough, as I'm sure many other viewers have become, so that the barrage of gory films produced in last few years have entertained me but not scared me or made me squirm. "The Dentist" turned that around.
The setup seems simple: a mentally unstable dentist wreaks havoc on the insides of mouths, and perhaps bodies as well. A clever twist, though, is that the dentist is the film's protagonist, so instead of being some one-dimensional bad guy with no clear motivation, his development is the most extensive of any character and he is very human and believable. The viewer thus feels sympathy for him as well as his victims, and instead of hoping for justice to come to him, I found myself hoping he would somehow find a way to cover up his tracks and return to a normal life.
What really "makes" a horror movie is the violence. And "The Dentist" does it better than any other film I can think of. First off, the film has tons of tension, which is something that modern gore films tend to lack. In one scene (), the dentist is emotionally distraught and has to see a young child patient for the first time. As he reaches into the child's mouth, you hope that, for the dentist's and the child's sake, the encounter ends without injury. I won't spoil what happens. Second, when the gore does come, it hits all the worst, squirmy nerves. Once again, I won't give anything away.
Of course, being a movie that you've never heard of, it does have flaws. Most importantly, it's exclusively for horror fans. Also, as another reviewer mentioned, by taking place over a span of just a few days, we don't really get any background on the characters. And the tension drops a little bit during the very end. But really, the fact that we would even want to know background about the characters is evidence to how good it is, and the bulk of the film is solid enough that any small lapses in tension can be forgiven.
It's strange, after years of being accustomed to movie gore, to suddenly want to cover my eyes at the sight of blood. "The Dentist" made me scared and thoroughly uncomfortable, and for this it earns my full approval.

Another cult strikes again. This isn't a spoiler, because the REAL ending comes after you research the folks who brought this overly-long, pseudo-scientific infomercial...Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.
When any religion/philosophy needs to hide behind an OZ-like screen of deceit, I walk away. Thank Ramtha I watched a borrowed copy of this movie on the recommendation of a "friend"...to have wasted precious resources on this New-Age lobotomizer would have been tragic. I can only hope that they "truly believe they can walk on water" enough to take that guidance to it's "logical" conclusion...in other words; walk, drown...or shut up :-) As a movie...it deserves a strong "1" on it's entertainment value, especially for creating the most dislikable character in film history (the photographer's roommate...eeeeeek!). If you must see this film, borrow it from one of the brainwashed folks who recommended it.
As Peckinpah did with STRAW DOGS, and Kubrick with A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, director John Boorman delivers an effective film about Man's violent side in DELIVERANCE, arguably a definitive horror film of the 1970s. Burt Reynolds, Jon Voight, Ned Beatty, and Ronny Cox portray four Atlanta businessmen who decide to take a canoe trip down the wild Cahulawassee River in northern Georgia before it is dammed up into what Reynolds calls "one big, dead lake."
But the local mountain folk take a painfully obvious dim view of these "city boys" carousing through their woods. And the following day, continuing on down the river, Beatty and Voight are accosted and sexually assaulted (the film's infamous "SQUEAL!" sequence) by two vicious mountain men (Bill McKinney, Herbert "Cowboy" Coward). Thus, what started out as nothing more than a lark through the Appalachians has now turned into a nightmare in which our four protagonists come to see the thin line that exists between what we think of as civilization and what we think of as barbarism.
James Dickey adapted the screenplay from his own best-selling book, and the result is an often gripping and disturbing shocker. Often known for its "SQUEAL!" and "Dueling Banjos" sequences, DELIVERANCE is also quite a pulse-pounding ordeal, with the four leading men superb in their roles, and McKinney and Coward making for two of the most frightening villains of all times. A must-see film for those willing to take a chance.

This film's basic premise is a political cartoon. I suppose for those who know nothing about the realities of the military this is probably a "feel-good" film on gender equality. Indeed a recent commentator stated: "it lets women know that they can do anything they want to do." What claptrap! No one, man or woman can do anything they want to do, and unfortunately Demi Moore "buffing" up for SEAL Hell Week in the early 27 week BUD/S program by a few sessions at the local gym and her desire alone to be a SEAL is simply not going to make it so. There is approximately an 80% dropout rate in what is arguably THE roughest military training program - those are the ones who voluntarily drop out, can't compete on a physical level, suffer frequent physical injury during the training or can't handle the psychological harassment. I never got beyond the shallowness of the contrived, purported message of this film. In the real world, Demi wouldn't last the first 24 hours in this harsh and sustained physical training. Wishing alone won't do it. Skip this film as wishful thinking, and better spend your time reading "The Warrior Elite" by Dick Couch (Crown, New York 2001)for the best description as to what really goes on in this training. Ring the bell, Demi!