Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I ran across this movie at the local video store during their yearly sidewalk sale. While scanning thousands of videos, hoping to find a few cartoon movies for sale, I came across this movie. I read the back of the movie and knew it was God's hand at work for me to purchase this movie. You see, I have a sibling group of three foster (and soon to be adopted) children living with my family. Immediately my foster children made a connection with the three children starring in the movie. The movie helped them better understand their own circumstances. For the first time, also, the oldest of the sibling group (7 year old/female) decided to open up to me a little bit about her past and the trauma she had experienced. She has been fighting the entire trust issue. This is also the first time I had seen her cry. After watching the film, I asked her what it meant for a child to be adopted. She replied, "It means to be happy." A must see for families who are fostering children and are considering adoption. It certainly opened the lines of communication with us.

A chemical spill is turning people into zombies. It's up to two doctor's to survive the epidemic. It's an Andreas Schnaas film so you know what the par for the course will be. Bad acting, horribly awful special effects, and no budget to speak of. The dubbing is ridiculous with a capital R and the saddest thing is that I feel compelled to write one word about this piece of excrement, much less the ten lines mandatory because of the guidelines placed on me by IMDb. My original review of merely one word: Crap wouldn't fly so I have to revise it and go more in to how bad it is. But I don't know if I can, so.. wait I think I may have enough words, or lines rather to make this review pass. Which is cool, I guess. So in summation: This movie sucks balls, don't watch it.
My Grade: F
I have seen the freebird movie and think its great! its laid back fun, about time the British film industry came through with something entertaining!! its good how the guy who met them at the service station gets mentioned way into the film in the news agents, nice touch. The acting was convincing (i am a biker) they reminded me of some good times i have had in the bike scene. It was good to see the film director getting in on the acting, well done jon ! At the end a new crop gets mentioned, in Ireland is this the foundation for a 2nd film? hope so keep them coming. Great film , well written, realistic characters !

Ludicrous violations of the most basic security regs are only the beginning. It's hard to see how they achieved such abysmal trash on such a low budget. I turned it off once, then got curious to see if it could get any worse. It did.
"Shall We Dance?", a light-hearted flick from Japan, tells of an overworked accountant and family man who is attracted to a dance studio by a beautiful woman he see's from the train during his daily commute. What he finds in the studio are lessons in dancing and, most of all, himself. Funny, poignant, and utterly charming, "SWD" is an award winning film well worth a look by more mature viewers. (B)

Considering the risk of showing same-sex relationships before the late 1980's, Personal Best could have done better to play the same-sex relationship between Hemingway (Chris Cahill) and Donnelly (Tory Skinner) as a more than experimental phase of Cahill's life.
It seems to me that the creators of this movie threw in the same-sex relationship between two fairly attractive women in order to attract viewers. Also consider the 90 seconds of exposing the crotches of several women jumping backwards over a high jump pole. This random scene had VERY LITTLE relevance to the movie and it appeared as though this was done merely to keep the audience interested in this bland movie. I suppose the producers were trying to counteract the boring plot and the even more boring setting of the movie (the 1980 Oregon Track and Field Competition).
This review may seem harsh, but it is the truth. The exploitation of young Muriel Hemingway's body and the same-sex relationship ruined any credit that I would have given to this film.
Pepper Thompson
I love cartoons. They can show things that films with 'real' actors and scenery cannot - though computer effects are changing that more and more. They can push the boundaries of satire ('The Simpsons'), good taste ('South Park'), spectacle ('Aladdin'), or reality ('Toy Story'). There are some good examples of this in 'Ice Age', such as when we see a motley herd of now-extinct mammals migrating across countryside, chatting like old friends. Such scenes are a pleasure to watch, as we get the feeling of both the familiar and the strange at the same time, usually in a way that makes us laugh. While Ice Age is not as good as the top animated movies of all time, it's a really fun film. Sit back, enjoy the deliberate anachronisms, the lovely backgrounds and the belly-laughs.
The story follows Manfred the grumpy mammoth, Sid, an idiotic sloth, and Diego, a sabretooth tiger, as they take a human baby back to his tribe - for very different reasons. On the way, naturally, they have a whole lot of problems. Also popping up throughout the journey is Scrat, history's unluckiest rodent, who is desperately trying to bury an acorn for the winter: in glaciers, on top of dead trees, in ice-caves. His opening scene is a classic.
It's a simple story with a very predictable end and a middle that is just a series of funny incidents with some character-building moments thrown in, but some of the scenes, such as the nappy-changing or the dodos, are hilarious, the animals are likeable and it looks good. There is one quite touching moment too, when cave paintings of mammoths come to life in front of Manfred's eyes.
Not a must-see, but good for a fun hour or so.
7/10

Holy freaking God all-freaking-mighty. This movie was so bad, I thought I was on drugs. In a bad way... The character acting is the poorest thing I've seen in quite some time. This movie was more akin to Lord of the G-Strings, IMHO(it's a real movie). Most of the movie appeared to be done on a horrible green screen. My favorite part was when they are in the carriage, and you can tell there's no horse. They're fleeing from alien monsters, and going about the same speed as a swift jog. Then it switches to a far-shot with a ridiculous CG horse. And the CG in general seems to be sub-par to 1992's Beyond the Mind's Eye. I mean, Come on, really. It felt like a horrible episode of Hercules, only without Kevin Sorbo there to save the day. Worst. Movie. Ever.
It has been about 50 years since a movie has been made about romance and mysticism. The only two movies I can think of is "Enchanted April" (1992) and "The Enchanted Cottage" (1945). Both movies used wonderful actors not stars. In both movies, all the actors gave their best romantic performances.
"Enchanted April" is about four English women after WWI who are unhappy with their lives and find happiness in Italy while on vacation. It is amazing "Enchanted April" was made in 1992. It stands out as an enjoyable classic.

This movie is just plain bad. It isn't even worth watching to make fun of it. The lunatic professor is just plain annoying. Even suspending disbelief to allow for invisibility (which I glady do for the sake of good bad movies) and allowing for exceedingly stupid victims in a horror movie, this movie asks for even more than that. If you are looking for women's locker room shower scenes, and random sexual encounters, get a porn, if you are looking for a good-bad movie, get something else. If you want to simply waste your time on an annoying bad movie, rent this.
I didn't give this movie a perfect score in order to be honest in comparing to great classics like "Citizen Kane" and "Seven Samaurai." However, this movie is so all-around wonderful, it's a real shame it scores so poorly for the general IMDb voter. However, the IMDb voter leans to the geeky, and "Paulie" doesn't qualify for that.
The only acting criticism I might suggest is that Hallie Kate Eisenberg didn't portray the perfect stuttering child. I'm sorry, but asking a 6 year-old child to out-do Dustin Hoffman as the Rainman is asking for the impossible in film-making.
Moving past that minor complaint, the movie has the best of many films: buddy road-trip, con-games, hero as friendly party-animal (party-bird?), Disney-like humor for young and old, etc. What's not to like? Tony Shaloub wears his role like a pair of comfortable jeans. That's normal for him, it seems. ("I'm Russian... I LIKE long stories.) I don't like mangoes, but he almost makes me want to go out and buy one. Watch the movie and that will make sense.
Buddy Hackett and Cheech Marin make very appropriate appearances in the film. Roles that are quite fitting to what we all know about them. I have always found Jay Mohr to be a bit slimy, and his on-screen role fits that as well. The only surprise to me was finding that Jay was also Paulie's voice. In the end, even that works well; put Parrot and anti-Parrot together as a team and it creates a magic of its own.
If you are trying to find a film for you and the kids that is neither insulting nor boring for either, "Paulie" is a perfect candidate. I will, however, admit that a happy moment colors my review of "Paulie." I was on a road-trip during a major heat-wave. The car's air-conditioning died, half the restaurants had dead cooling (as did our hotel) and I said, "let's watch a movie where there is working air-conditioning." So we did. So for 100 minutes we were cooled, amused, and given a heart-warming experience. When I saw it recently on VCR under less emotional circumstances, I realized just how well this movie was made.
It's a sleeper film you won't regret watching.

This is the worst sequel on the face of the world of movies. Once again it doesn't make since. The killer still kills for fun. But this time he is killing people that are making a movie about what happened in the first movie. Which means that it is the stupidest movie ever.
Don't watch this. If you value the one precious hour during this movie then don't watch it. You'll want to ask the director and the person beside you what made him make it. Because it just doesn't combine the original makes of horror, action, and crime.
Don't let your children watch this. Teenager, young child or young adult, this movie has that sorta impact upon people.
It takes a very special kind of person to make a movie that is so wretched, beguiling, disgusting and repulsive, but make it in a way that also makes it brilliant and the quintessence of personal cinematic liberation. Crispin Glover, in all of his "out there" antics and predispositions, truly made something that is unique. In a world that has become starkly partisan, this film seems to evade the standard lines of creativity and art and effectively startle everyone.
Right off the bat, the film takes on a rather distant paradigm (if there really is a model at all) and initially shapes it with the likes of Shirley Temple in front of a swastika and naked women pleasuring a man with cerebral palsy. It's rather shocking stuff, but if you had the opportunity for the Q&A sessions after the screenings, it clearly opens up a bag of worms that leaves you wondering whether this is art or just the lowest common denominator. In either guise, you sense the tremor that this film will ultimately cause. It will never be accepted, not even by the supposed auteurs of the world who boringly speak about the human condition. You may not like it, but it is certainly something worth watching.

Utterly predictable silly show about a man who has killed his wife by mowing her down when driving and claimed he had blacked out. Why was he still driving a car? Why did he still feel able to drive a car having killed his wife with one? This question has not occurred to the writers. The story then witters on about a psychologist and her failing marriage which is tied into the failing marriage of wife-killing blackout driver. An omniscient mother and one dimensional child are thrown in for good measure, and the whole builds up to a predictable denouement and crashing finale. Are police psychologists so easily taken in? Deadful writing that the actors do their best with, but they are doomed to failure. This is on a par with a Harlequin Romance. Don't waste your time watching this one unless that's what you are aiming for.
This movie scared heck out of me when I was just a kid. It's no "Citizen Kane" but it has its moments. The arm ripping scene is good. The plot is good even if characters aren't - could have something to do with the acting. Put some top name people in the roles and then see what you get. This was one of those shoot, edit (what little there was) and distribute in a couple of months type of movies. This is classic low budget sci-fi and deserves it just due. I rated it a 9 based other films of this genre and age.

(Some possible spoilers)
I'm not too sure what Dreamworks was thinking when they decided to plunk $80 million down on this extremely tired and lame animated flick. They probably thought the spectacular animation would be more than enough to bring audiences (mostly families) to see it in droves. Well it seemed to work for the opening weekend, it made $26 mil., roughly and has made $38.1 mil. total (an estimation for this weekend). But I think audiences that came during the weekend saw pretty much the same thing I did, when I saw and they spread the word. This is one majorly lame movie, apart from the animation everything else, mostly the script seem to be done by a three year old.
The movie is only about 80 mins. long, but it feels like a three hour epic. A few sticking points for me are, well the irritating narration is one of them, and it's so obviously written. At one point he escapes from some captors and even though you can see the horse is obviously scared, up pops the narrator (the voice of the talented Matt Damon) to clear up any misconceptions (which would only happen in the simplest of mindsets.
Another one is the constant pop up of Bryan Adams songs, now I'm a fan of his music, I think he's good, but come on did Dreamworks really think audiences would be able to handle 8-9 of his songs throughout such a short movie, I certainly couldn't. Finally and here's a spoiler, a horse gets shot at point blank range by a member of the calvary, no less, she (the horse) then falls into a raging river, Spirit (the focus of the movie) tries to save her, but they both go over a waterfall that must have at least a 50 foot drop, well later in the movie near the end we see that this horse is alive and well. Now I know this is a kids movie, but even that little amount of realism is unacceptable.
To sum up, this is a really lame movie, I'm not saying kids won't enjoy it, but anyone else will be checking their watches just waiting for this tripe to end. Definitely on my Top 10 worst list of this year. -** out of 4 stars.
Carol, the young girl at the center of the story, is transplanted to a foreign land, Spain, at the height of the Civil War conflict in the late 30s. For this girl, everything is new, in it's foreignness. The war and her father are her constant worries, while she has to immerse herself in a provincial culture that is years behind what she has in New York.
Imanol Uribe directs this film by the numbers. Carol's family is obviously divided, while Carol's mother is married to someone that is an air force pilot with the leftist faction, the rest of the family's sympathies are with the Franco and the fascists that won the conflict.
The story adds nothing to what has already been told, much better, but it's an easy film to watch. Northern Spain's magnificent landscape is shown. Don't expect a lot of action since most of what happens revolves around Carol and the young boys she befriends.
Clara Lago plays Carol with sincerity and innocence. Maria Barranco is Carol's mother Aurora, the one that went away to America. Rosa Maria Sarda is Maruja, the teacher who befriends Carol. Carmelo Gomez, plays Alfonso, the man that Aurora left behind when she left for America. This actor, who usually has lead roles in most Spanish films, doesn't have anything to do, as he remains an enigma throughout the movie.

I just watched this movie and I've gotta say that with such a great premise and great talent this turkey just lays there!!! A friend lent me this movie and I watched with an open mind mainly because he had such high praise for the story.
Well, the movie started off with Kevin Costner as a fighter pilot retiring... why? Why did they make him a fighter pilot? He was supposedly going to be hired by Anthony Quinn's character to be his new pilot... well, we never see Costner go near a plane for the rest of the movie!
Costner runs into a Texan (James Gammon) selling a horse to a big Mexican businessman and Costner tags along for a ride. Without knowing what happened, Gammon is beat to near death and Costner drives him to the meeting, which happens to be with an associate of Quinn! But, nothing comes of it... nada, zilcho! Why did they have Gammon's character? Why did they have the horse sale with the Quinn associate if nothing was to come of it?
Also, after they leave Costner for dead, they make Madeline Stowe's character become a whore, then she attacks one of Quinn's men that was paying for a turn... she stabs him with his own knife, and the next thing she's been moved to a convent! No explanation as to why she was moved, or when it was done!
Too much talent wasted on such a weak script and poor editing!! I only watched this because a friend owned it and let me watch it... I'm going to throw it at him for the 2 hours I wasted of my life watching the blasted thing!
I watched 'Speak Easily' one night and thought it was o.k., but missing something. Maybe Buster Keaton strangely speaking threw me off, or the labored line delivery of a leading lady. The next day I kept thinking about the movie, though. I couldn't get Durante's song out of my head, I kept trying to better remember Thelma Todd's first scene, I considered that maybe Keaton did do some funny falls and physical comedy. The next night I watched a scene with Thelma Todd as a conniving chorus girl trying to impress Buster and Jimmy with her sex appeal. A very funny scene, the actors excellent, their faces, their eyes, their silly expressions. So I watched another scene, their show is opening on Broadway. Buster in his blissful innocence botches every act. Again, I was laughing out loud, appreciating Keaton's clowning and tumbling. So the next night I watched the whole movie again, and this time I see it for the first time: It's Stupendous! It's Sensational! It's Sublime! Three great comedians! Todd dances! Durante sings! Keaton speaks! Sure it ain't poifect...but there's a lot of laughs in this picture.

Having listened to and enjoyed Harvey Bernhard's Omen II commentary I was shocked to discover he was also behind this absolute piece of rubbish. It's like a really bad TV movie you might glimpse in the middle of the day when you have the flu and are too ill to reach the remote. I think at the bit where Michael Lerner is confronted by what I can only describe as a high school cast of Les Miserables my mouth hung open in disbelief. And then my mouth was going up and down because I was laughing so much. Dire. I don't know why I have to write a minimum of ten lines, I have made my point succinctly, there's nothing clever about all this modern verbiage.
This film was in one word amazing! I have only seen it twice and have been hunting it everywhere. A beautiful ensemble of older screen gems who still have that energy. Judy Denchs ability to carry the whole film was amazing. Her subtle chemistry with the knight in stolen armour was great

Where do I begin? I wanted to enjoy this movie, and I did. Still, I wanted to be able to enjoy it for being another zombie film that was worth my loot, and it wasnt. This was a different kind of enjoyment. This was unhealthy, a perverse glee that I partook in watching one of the most ridiculous films Id seen yet. And I dont much care for whatever Fulci's excuses were, there was no excuse for this film going how it went. This was a bad film all the way around, yet I still cant give it below a 4 out of ten, which is what I gave it, because well...at least I was able to laugh at this misfit of a movie.
I had to imagine these zombies, that were all over the ceilings of these buildings everywhere...had to imagine that they were either bored as hell so they crawled up on the beems, and perched themselves high on stone erections, or they saw the fleshy living motley band of jerk-offs coming around, so they took it upon themselves to stage numerous aerial ambushes. Hell, what else is there to do when youre dead?
I had to laugh at some zombies performing what looked to be martial arts swings, kicks, and jumps, and some shambling about like traditional meatlovers. I feasted my eyes on a floating head that was never explained. I watched in pure horrific delight as the land they were in, the Phillipenes, was absolutely engulfed in fog, heavy doses of fog, and that the ponds were as they were boiling castle moats. I had to even cringe when I saw that the design for a cure for this plague was sketched on a chalkboard as an octagon with lines stretching from each angle, with "Dead One" written in the middle. I had to ask myself...if the science of curing zombies is that easy, then I wonder if I could come up with a little something to start a zombie outbreak here!
All in all the effects were overboard, the dubbing horrid, Im sure the original acting as poor, the story absurd, the zombies inconsistent, even in a bad way they couldve all been similar, and the women ugly, but I found myself enjoying this thing. It was a fun watch. It turned out to be a very very bad film, and I would not recommend this thing unless one is into bad directorial exploitation films, but still, again I say...it was worth a good laugh. I crave zombie films no matter what, but when this had Fulci's name attached to it, it shouldve been much better. Let me dare say, Zombie Holocaust was better.
Dana Andrews is one of those actors that I've probably seen in a dozen films, but who has never really registered for me. Often stolid, taciturn, playing the same kinds of roles and looking somewhat like the similarly underrated Glenn Ford, he's an actor that takes some effort to really appreciate; but once you hit the right film....
And this is it. Preminger's moody look at New York's underbelly is as dirty and seedy as just about any 50s noir, and Andrews is in his element as too-tough cop Mark Dixon who just doesn't know how to play the game to get ahead: he hates criminals too much to always play by the rules. Early on in the film, he accidentally kills the witness to a murder involving an illegal crap game set up by a mobster who Dixon hates for personal reasons, and he spends the rest of the film trying to cover up his involvement and bring the mobster to his kind of "justice". Along the way he gets involved with the estranged wife of the man he killed (Gene Tierney) and also has to try to get her father off the hook for the murder.
Stunningly photographed by Joseph LaShelle, with hard and sparkling dialogue by Ben Hecht and a truly powerful ending with elements of tragedy and found grace in just a minute or two of time, this is another noir for the ages and might be my favorite Preminger film thus far -- it's every bit as good as the more-heralded Laura.

I thought maybe a film which boasted a cast including Peter O'Toole, Susannah York, Michael Craig & Harry Andrews might be worth watching. Alas, I was wrong. Utter pretentious nonsense from beginning to end with both O'Toole and York overacting wildly. I watched it twice and still have no idea what is was about. I've a feeling O'Toole plays the Laird of a Scottish castle who has a drink problem and likes reliving childhood games with his sister (York). He is also barking mad. But apart from that, your guess is as good as mine.
The film has no redeeming feature whatsoever. I can only assume the cast and director were blackmailed into making this dreary, unimaginative, stagy piffle. Clearly a waste of the time of a talented cast and director. Risible.