Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Very possibly one of the funniest movies in the world. Oscar material. Trey Parker and Matt Stone are hilarious and before you see this I suggest you see "South Park" one of the funniest cartoons created. Buy it, you will laugh every time you see it. Pure stroke of genius. If you don't think its funny then you have no soul or sense of humor. 10 out of 10.

And that is the only reason I posses this DVD. Now I haven't seen the first Nemesis film, but I did check the info out of it and I here by say: What? Why? Because in the first film Alex was male. But then again the first one was set in the future, so maybe this Alex is brand new one and the scientist just happened to make Alex female this time. Who knows, at least it wasn't addressed in the film in any way.
Here's a quick summary of the plot: Alex, still a baby then (or how ever you want, as it was, is, in the future) escapes with her mom using a special time vessel and ends up in the 80's Africa. There mommy gets killed and Alex (Sue Price) grows up in a African tribe. Then the tribe gets slaughtered by a cyborg from the future and Alex then runs and hides and finally she kills the cyborg. So there. Does sound familiar, doesn't it?.
Terminator isn't the only film being ripped here, Predator gets its fair share too and I think the first Fly movie, the Vincent Price one, gets special nomination for giving a solid base to build up your cyborgs head from.
Lets see, what else? Okay, the film was quite standard small budget flick, but it did have bad special effects for a mid 90's film. It would have looked okay for a 80's flick how ever. Biggest problem is the plot. Things just happen and the viewer is barely interested. Nemesis 2 isn't the crappiest piece of cinema I've had pleasure (?) to watch but it does come damn close.
I won't say a thing about acting, because let's be honest here: did anyone expect Oscar worthy performances here? Oh well... at least I did find Sue Price hot in that amazonian warrior way.
A "real" movie rating: 2/10 There isn't a lot of pros about the over all quality. And despite of the very basic plot the film it self makes very little sense.
A camp movie rating: 4/10 I did get occasional laughs from the sheer badness of the film, so it does have small merits in it.
Running Man isn't a great movie, in fact it's kinda silly. But it delivers what you want in an Arnie movie and that is action and entertainment. I don't see how anyone couldn't enjoy this picture, it's so silly and over the top, that it almost makes fun of itself. By the way, this is probably one of the most quotable Arnie movies out there.

I didn't even knew this movie existed until shortly after seeing Blade: Trinity, I was messing around on the Trinity board when I saw some user mention how the Wes Craven series is a lot better then the 'crap' that's Blade, So I did my quick research: Checked the scores on IMDb & RottenTomatoes for Dracula: Ascension, and somewhere along the search I found out that this is a sequel to Dracula 2000. I also noticed that within the Wes Craven Dracula boards there was a real strong following for this movie which is a big contradiction to the scores I was seeing.
Now let's take a quick personal recap here. I remember seeing Dracula 2000, and I remember not liking it at all, and then seeing the scores of Dracula: Ascension just lowered my expectations even more, but then again, I'm the type of person that truly needs to watch the movie myself (any movie) so that I can form my own opinion.
A couple of things I went in knowing when I started watching this movie was that it's low budget, so because of that, I'm going to have to ignore a lot of the v/fx and just figure it's going to compensated by story & acting, I was also slightly impressed by some of the casting in this movie (Jason London, Roy Schieder & Jason Scott Lee)
Oh geez This movie was CHEESY! But cheesy can be entertaining at least, I found it pretty fricken laughable, the bad audio synch from the re-recording of dialogue in a FEW scenes, the stupidity of the characters in this movie. Sure they all knew about vampires and some of the basic things, Luke even had a book on it, but did it prevent them from wanting to purposely get 'infected'? Nope, this is worst then slasher flicks where the girl has to get out of the shower and check out the noise she hears with nothing more than a towel on.
I also must've blinked at some point, because I'm not sure how 'Dracula' got clothes on his body, especially since he's big wild and angry & I figure if I was in that situation, I wouldn't want to be the one dressing him.
So the movie ends like any middle movie of a trilogy it doesn't, instead it's a 'Cliff Hangar' where I now get to wait for the 3rd installment 'Legacy'. Oh the entertainment value of Cheesy movies.
A must for any punk rocker, this is the movie that made The Ramones a household name back in the early 1980's (when it first appeared on premium cable stations). This was one of the first and best of the American Punk Rock movies, with a cult classic status up there with The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Originally the producers wanted Cheap Trick as the stars, but the release of the "Live At Budakon" album had just made them superstars and too hot an item to be in a low budget movie. Very good luck for the Ramones who were looking to break out of the underground punk rock world and into the mainstream market (which sadly never happened until after the bands demise). The band, Dee Dee especially, always disliked the movie through the 80's but the fans always loved and could recite most of the movie while waiting to get into Ramones shows. This movie, like most classics, is stupid fun with some classic Ramones footage in their heyday. Don't expect more, you won't find it. It's great fun, so enjoy it. Another Allan Arkush classic movie in a similar vein is Get Crazy, featuring Lee Ving from the legendary hardcore punk band Fear.

This could have been the gay counterpart to Gone With The Wind given its epic lenght, but instead it satisfied itself by being a huge chain of empty episodes in which absolutely nothing occurs. The characters are uni-dimensional and have no other development in the story (there's actually no story either) than looking for each other and kissing. It's a shame that an interesting aesthetic proposition like having almost no dialog is completely wasted in a film than makes no effort in examining the psychology of its characters with some dignity, and achieving true emotional resonance. On top of that, it pretends to be an "art" film by using the worst naive clichés of the cinematic snobbery. But anyway, if someone can identify with its heavy banality, I guess that's fine.
Ghost Train is a fine and entertaining film, typical of the better British comedy chillers of the 1930s and 40s. The antics of comedian Arthur Askey are not as funny as they once apparently were, but this can be overcome by viewing him as a period piece or a curiosity.
For a low-budget wartime production, Ghost Train is atmospheric, effective, and it provides some genuine suspense. Great fun for a dark (and, yes, stormy) night. Lighten up, take off the critic's hat, and enjoy.

Maya is a woman without any interests. She just dreams her life away and wonders, why she does not feel fulfilled. This could be an interesting topic. That would need a good story, a nice setting and good dialogues. It doesn't have any of these. This movie is totally boring. There are only lengths and no climaxes.The only climax is Shahrukh Khan. But although I am a huge fan of his, I couldn't stand this movie. Even he can't make this movie exiting. The movie is not as bad as "King Uncle" and if you're an Art-house fan or like it slow, you might maybe like it. It's not funny, it's not interesting, it's not catching. My recommendation: Don't watch it.
In Brooklyn a century ago, the rivalry between Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie and their competing volunteer fire brigades leads to Brodie's famous bet that he can jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. This is a story which will be familiar to a lot of people through a Bugs Bunny spoof, "Bowery Bugs" from 1949.
This generally very enjoyable film would probably be more widely available if it were not for the notorious and unsettling scene involving some Chinese tenement dwellers -- a time capsule of antediluvian racial attitudes, giving the film a great deal of historical interest, in my view.

This is easily the worst movie i have EVER seen. I'm not exaggerating, I told the guy at Blockbuster that they should take it off the shelves. The only thing interesting about this movie is the box. On the box it says "from the director of the boogeyman" so I figured...eh whatever, if this was made recently I'm sure the directing at least won't be TOO bad :-\, but after I saw the movie and looked at what "boogeyman" they were talking about, it's some nonsense from the early 1980's that he made. Great way to rope in unsuspecting viewers.
ANYWAY, I think that they just liked the name "Zodiac Killer", and didn't bother to research any of the actual Zodiac's crimes or his MO, or even the years that he was active. All of the crimes they talk about have nothing to do with the Zodiac and the "stories" about the original Zodiac take place several years after the actual Zodiac's crimes did. They also compare the Zodiac to "Vampire of Dusseldorf" Fritz Haarman throughout the movie and talk to Fritz's "son" quite often. The Zodiac and Haarman were nothing alike, and it makes more sense to compare him to BTK who also shot people, not a man who killed people by chewing through their necks. None of the Haarman facts are correct either, just a bunch of jumbled nonsense. His son even says "Don't forget, his name was Fritz Haarman with 2 t's"...His actual name just has one! I think that the writer/director simply typed in a google search for serial killers and the quickest ones that came up were the Zodiac Killer and Fritz Haarman. "Ooh those sound like cool names, let's make a movie about them without doing any outside research! great idea!"
Perhaps my favorite inconsistency in this movie is the way that the experts as well as the young killer describe suffering from DSM-IV and getting cured of it. "I was also diagnosed with DSM-IV and have since recovered", etc. For those of you who don't know, DSM-IV is the psychological manual for mental disorders. If anybody suffers from the book itself then they must have some SERIOUS problems! Haha.
Anyway, my point is that this goes on the bottom of my top 5 worst movies of all time list, and it's rare that a movie ever reaches that point. But, if you are interested in watching a totally non-fact based story about serial killers that happens to be nothing more than boring, full of inexperienced actors, and not completely rational, I'd say check out this movie.
...Oh, and I liked how the killer "tear gassed" a few of his victims with dry ice. Nice touch...
do you still love woody allen's humor and sense of the absurd? do you wait patiently for movies that get the plot going in the first five minutes instead of making you wait around? if so, you will adore this comedic murder mystery. it has all the elements of a good mystery: sharp plot, a handsome suspect, romance, and intrigue, mixed together with enough laughs and winks at fate to keep even the most jaded of movie goers happy.
with beautiful people and gorgeous homes and landscapes to ogle, this frothy movie is just the thing to take your minds off your troubles. as woody might say, what's not to like?

Some funny bits, but come Bill! A film? Quoting Zeitgeist? Keep the TV Show and the interviews, but a film? I'm probably overreacting but what a unnecessary provoking film... I don't know. I laughed, disagreed, agreed... this film is very confusing and inconsistent.
Bill's a funny guy... but also very cocky... Bill's rhetoric is similar to Bill Hicks, a brilliant comedian. But like many comedians, the borderline between comedy and preaching can be annoying. I think that the major problem in this film is his lack of sensibility. This might be just a personal taste, but comedy that constantly demeans somebody cannot be taken as truth. Bill is obviously emotionally reactive to religious fundamentalism. I agree with Bill that religious fanaticism is not sensible, but the response to it cannot be sensible. It will create unnecessary turmoil. We can do better than just react to fundamentalism. His conclusion is that "we don't know" and he fervently tries to convince the spectator that nobody knows anything, to the point that the agnostic community has been concerned with his lack of serious research in comparative religion. His humility that he only knows that he doesn't, is a contradiction as he tries to insist that all religious thought is non-sense.
I had great trouble seeing bits of Zeitgeist, the movie in Bill's film. All the astrotheology-influenced non-sense that simplifies all religions as the same is simply disappointing. Zeitgeist has provoked a lot of controversy and has messed up the validity of so much of the valuable Religion Studies scholarship. It is very sad how wrong facts have been tossed around with no reliable scholarly sources. Astro-mystic sources that reduce everything to "the stars say it all" seem to be from the Middle Ages. This film is a confusing statement from a confused "agnostic". Agnosticism is far more complex and philosophically academic than defending every single issue as "we don't know".
This film is an obvious proof of how postmodernism has been able to oversimplify and generalize major issues in human history.
Watch the film (it has hilarious interviews and bits) but PLEASE do not behave like Bill. You cannot expect anybody to have a mature conversation if you are making sardonic comments in every other line. His arguing techniques are demeaning and insulting, provoking emotional reactions rather than rational and logical argumentation.. There needs to be a more mature way of dealing with these issues.
With all of the violence on TV and in the local news, it is refreshing to have a show that has no violence or adult language, yet is still entertaining. My children look forward to watching with us every week. Each of us have a favorite chef and favorite judges. We all enjoy Elton Brown. We enjoy learning about the background of the main ingredient, unique vegetables and seasonings. We play along at home to guess who the winner will be.
It is a great hour of entertainment, as well as informational. Best of all in our hussle, bussle life, it is an hour the family spends together.

I rented this one on DVD without any prior knowledge. I was suspicious seeing Michael Madsen appearing in a movie I have never heard of, but it was a freebie, so why not check it out.
Well my guess is that Mr. Blonde would very much like to forget he's ever taken part in such a shame of a film.
Apparently, if your script and dialogs are terrible, even good actors cannot save the day. Not to mention the amateur actors that flood this film. Too many non-native-English-speakers play parts of native-English-speakers, reading out lines from a script that should have been thrown away and not having been made into a movie. It's unbelievable how unbelievable all the lines in the movie sound. The music is awful and totally out of place, and the whole thing looks and sounds like a poor school play.
I recommend you watch it just so you would appreciate other, better, movies. This is why I gave it a 3 instead of the 1 it deserves.
The first hour or so of the movie was mostly boring to say the least. However it improved afterwards as the Valentine Party commenced. Apart from the twist as to the identity of the killer in the very end, the hot bath murder scene was one of the few relatively memorable aspects of this movie. The scene at the garden with Kate was well shot and so was the very last scene (the 'twist'). In those scenes, there was some genuine suspense and thrills and the hot bath murder scene had a nasty (the way slashers should be) edge to it. The earlier murders are frustratingly devoid of gore.

I watched the entire movie recognizing the participation of William Hurt, Natascha McElhone, and Desiree Nosbusch. I'm glad that I had no idea of the presence of Peter Weller. At the end of the movie I said "THAT was Peter Weller?" Kudos to Mr. Weller for an outstanding performance. Weller played a major character, and his performance was such that I didn't even recognize him.
Overall the plot was bad, the writing was bad, and the performances, aside from those of Nosbusch and Weller, were subpar. The scenery and setting were interesting, and Weller was amazing.
4 stars, of a possible 10.
"Atlantis: The Lost Empire" was everything the previews indicated it would be. It is not often you find that. Most of the time, the previews show only the best parts and then the rest of the movie is terrible. Not so with this one. I was pleased with the original plot, even though the sub-plots were not. The animation was not break through like "Shrek" but it was good, none the less. The plot and the story line were well presented and there were only a few slow spots in them. This keeps you interested. I found myself enjoying this one. "Atlantis" gets and keeps your attention. You also have to think a little bit, but not too much. Once you think about it a little, you can figure out what needs to happen but you really don't know for sure how it is going to happen.
The casting was also good. Michael J. Fox, as Milo was an excellent choice. His personality fits nicely. The gruff natured Commander Rourke was also well chosen with James Garner. His character reminded me of his performance in "Maverick" which I also liked. I really liked the casting of Claudia Christian as Helga Sinclair. Her ability to play a no nonsense personality makes the film more interesting. It's just too bad she is a villain.
Over all, definitely worth you while (8 out of 10).

this is just a terrible 'comedy' -- it really is a bad film. there are no funny elements. no jokes that are funny. i don't know how some people can claim this dismal short film could be 'smartest' or 'quality.' perhaps if its the only film that a person has seen you can make that claim of the brothers. but, i have seen thousands of better films: namely leonard part six (now, that's funny)! i don't know how the brothers is even considered eligible to be listed on the internet movie database: its more like a home video than an actual film.
jokes aside, just skip this film. a root canal is more enjoyable that this cliche-ridden unfunny material.
The tweedy professor-types thought they had it all figured out. Today's peoples who inhabit Polynesia descended from migratory Asians, intrepidly moving from the Far East, island to island, eastward into Tahiti and all the other exotic tropic isles of the South Pacific over thousands of years. But the established thinking just didn't sit well with young Norwegian ethnographer Thor Heyerdahl. If that explanation were true, how come some folks born and bred in those islands have traditions, artwork, and physical features resembling not those from Asia, but South America? How can the vegetation of Ecuador, Peru and Chile look so much like what you'd find on the island several thousand miles away? Is it just a coincidence that the Islanders point out to sea in the direction of South America and say that is where their ancestors came from, led by Tiki, their equivalent of Adam? Meanwhile, how is it Norwegians speak of Scandanavian forerunners who were chased from the South American continent they had colonized, and, together with some of the native peoples they befriended, set off over the sea -- heading WEST? It's all too much to be a coincidence to Heyerdahl. With an amazing amount of moxie, a handful of crewmen, and the local know-how for traditional raft-building, an expedition begins. It's as much a trip into the human imagination as it is a pseudo-scientific demonstration that such a journey is possible with only the very basics of tools and seamanship. The Oscar-winning documentary may be dated in its tone and Anglo-ethnocentric approach, but it soars with a spirit of adventure besting even the space program that launched a decade later, as men are willing to risk it all to test a theory they think is true. Wonderful. Do yourself a favor and read the book first. It is an amazing page-turner and the perfect setup for the newsreel-style movie.

This movie was made-for-TV, so taking that into account, I'm not going to rip into it as hard as I would a feature film. The script is sub-par, but it does succeed in being mildly humorous in spots, whether it means to be or not. The acting is mostly over-the-top, but that is true for many lower-budget movies.
The aspect of this movie that I really hated, though, was that 90-95% of it is shot on film, but in random places, there will be 5-10 seconds where the footage is shot on video. You can tell because there is less contrast, the colors are less vivid, and the footage is clearly 30 frames per second instead of film's 24 frames per second. I'm not sure if maybe these scenes had to be shot later and at that time they didn't have the money to shoot on film (I assume this is why, anyway), but it is disorienting and really makes the film look shoddier than it had to look.
Anyway, I've definitely seen worse movies, but I definitely wouldn't say that I enjoyed this movie and I can't recommend that anyone see it.
I think I read this someplace: Joe Johnston (director of the film and also one of the guys who founded Industrial Light and Magic for work on the first Star Wars film) and one of his producers or something were racking their brains for a title for the movie, "Rocket Boys" (I guess) was lacking something.
One day they were messing with a PC program that forms words from other words (ie: you type in a word or series of words and it mixes the letters up and forms other words) I think the technical term is an "anagram"
Anyway, they typed in "Rocket Boys" and sure enough what comes back is "October Sky". They were shocked to say the least. The title summed up everything in the movie since the movie revolves around Sputnik. At first Homer Jr did not like the idea, but he warmed up to it after the "movie poster paperback novel" came out and took off.

I cant describe how terrible this movie is. Am i the only one here who finds the way its animated totaly disgusting? The Men of Rohan look 100% fake with their poorly colored hair, that doesnt even come close to matching what the actors look like. The orcs looked terrible. Why does gandalf walk with a bad limp? Why cant they pronounce things correctly? Saruman isnt Aruman. There were other what sounded like terrible pronounciation*sp* of Tolkiens characters. All and all im glad the studio who made this pulled the plug out from the sequal, it was just a terrible terrible adaptaion. Go watch the hobbit cartoon for a better cartoon of Tolkiens work. Hell, even the cartoon version of ROTK is better then this dribble. 2/10
This is simply the funniest movie I've seen in a long time. The bad acting, bad script, bad scenery, bad costumes, bad camera work and bad special effects are so stupid that you find yourself reeling with laughter.
So it's not gonna win an Oscar but if you've got beer and friends round then you can't go wrong.

This is only the second time I've felt compelled enough to comment at imdb about a film. The first time was for probably the best movie I've ever seen and that was for Memento.
Seeing Darkwolf is at the other end of the scale compared to Memento, as in the worst film I've had the misfortune to see. Apart from the two scenes containing naked women there is nothing in this movie to raise it from the trash-pile that it is.
Let's see, apalling effects, cliched script, bad acting and about 90 minutes too long. My wife and I laughed through most of it in disbelief at how bad. Amazingly I watched it to the end, how I did that I don't know! AVOID!!!