Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Time and time again, I've stated that if people don't want remakes or sequels made, they should stop seeing them and instead venture into the world of independent film. Having said that though, the last time I saw an independent film myself must have been easily six months ago. So here's a review for an indie that I had my attention drawn to on Youtube; the Cure.
Right away, you can tell that the film is going for an avant-garde film approach which is telegraphed in its use of extreme close ups, scopophilia and fast editing. It is proud of the way it looks - and it has a right to be. For the most part it is a very nicely composed little piece, save for one inexcusable disregard for the 180 degree rule and a comically bad gunshot effect which is a phenomenon that seems to be THE calling card for self funded projects.
Still, despite these amateurish mistakes the majority of the shots are actually a pleasure to look at. We're presented with a good use of props and locations, good visual acting and some very atmospheric, fluid editing, which is made more commendable as this is definitely something you won't see very often at all from a Youtube submission. The plot is fragmented and although the basic premise is fairly simple some may find it hard to follow exactly what is happening, but what we are seeing here is avant-garde storytelling at work; you can't really expect a straightforward three act structure and if you do you might not be ready for this kind of movie.
Where the film is unfortunately let down however is the sound. What you're going to hear throughout is a distorted voice-over which often sounds insincere and worse still is the continuous background music, which goes through minimal change and doesn't add much to anything. So much attention is paid to the visuals that the audio frankly sounds neglected, and this becomes really apparent when you realize you've just missed about four sentences of the narration and have to backtrack to pick up what slipped past your attention.
So, give it a watch, but do it with the sound turned off.
Last thought; was anyone else reminded of the cover for Doug Naylor's Red Dwarf novel "Last Human" early in the film? If you have the book you know what I mean.

"Land of Plenty" is not a film. It is a tombstone for the directorial career of German Director Wim Wenders.
Many felt it in "The Million Dollar Hotel" and now "Land of Plenty" makes it perfectly clear; not only has Wenders lost it, he's actually turned into a BAD director, creating horribly weak and superficial stories and scenes.
One might argue that the "time you lose it" comes for every director, but Wenders' case is extreme. It's as if he completely forget everything he knew about cinema and started all over again - only to get sloppish results.
In a few words, this film does not deserve your time.
I resisted seeing this movie and I understand why it was not a big hit in theatres. "October Sky" feels and looks oh so familiar. And it is. All plot contrivances and emotions have been explored before in other films -- and possibly even better. But despite it's familiarity and resistance to all formulas Hollywood, this movie is winning and likeable at every turn.
Sputnik is the inspiration for this journey of the heart, mind and soul. Just as the characters from Steven Sondheim's musical MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG stood agape atop their apartment roof hoping it would launch their new generation ("What do you call it? You call it a miracle."), Sputnik has a similar affect on the young rocket boys of this true tale. While jaded townsfolk of their 1950's coal town dismiss the event, Homer Hickham sees Sputnik as his ticket out of a life in the mines.
Masterful direction and casting make the journey of rocket boy Homer and his pals seem fresh and new. Especially affecting are subplots concerning Homer's ailing young school teacher. Remarkable restraint is shown in depicting their delicate relationship. Also remarkable is the father / son supblot that anchors the film. Perfectly played all around. Even Homer's mom gets her moment without cliche or intrusion. Her ultimatum to her husband is both dignified and heatbreaking. "Myrtle Beach" says it all.
A major video chain I despise has a sign next to this film stating that you'll love this film or they'll refund your money. For once, I agree with them. You'll never look at the October sky quite the same again.

I don't know who wrote the script for this movie, but from the first moment on, I was irritated. Of all possible decisions they could make up in the mountains, why do they make the decision, which is the most dangerous of all? Why do the criminals act dumb, although they managed to get a huge amount of money out of a bank and get away with it? Why doesn't the main criminal land the helicopter, shoot Stallone, grab the money and fly away with the chick as a hostage? And there are more cases of illogical behavior. I'd give this movie 5 points for nice action and great landscape scenery, but due to the illogical behavior of the characters, I just can give this movie 1 point...
I have been a fan of this movie for years and years. Because of Teri Hatchers move into the forefront, I had to take the movie off the shelf and watch it. Why people back in 1991 did not see how wonderful this movie was in beyond me? Sally Field and Kevin Kline are beyond fabulous. Although I never have watching daytime soap operas, this movie kills me every time I watch it. The acting is second to none for a comedy and the writing is so smart. I highly recommend that you watch this if you haven't already. You will get to see Elizabeth Shue, Whoopi Goldberg, Teri Hatcher, and Carrie Fisher...to name a few...all give splendid performances.

When you pick a movie I hope one factor you will consider, are the actors in the movie using their fame to influence the moral fabric of our society in a positive or negative way? This is not a political statement this is a moral issue that effects are society. When a comedian/actor makes curl sexual and racist remarks about a teenager and her father we should ask ourselves (do I want to support that behavior)? In this case Mr. Foxx behavior tears at the social fabric that teaches our youth right from wrong, good behavior from bad that loving-kindness is better than hatefulness. Mr. Foxx should remember he is only entertainment and there is a lot of that out there for us to choose from. Saying sorry does not get him off the hook. It will not undue the hurt or remove the bad behavior he spreads to our youth. One way to stop this behavior is to stop being a fan of it. No longer see anything they are part of. We cannot change them but we can stop the fame we give them.
I loved this show from it's first airing, and I always looked forward to watching each episode every week. The plot, characters, writing, special affects were outstanding! Then the sci-fi channel screwed up yet again and canceled a very entertaining, well written show. I say bring it back, I know all of the actors would come back. I would suggest buying the DVD's, I am. I hope the sci-fi channels executives get word of these comments, and realize that they need to be more involved with their viewers. I only watch one show on that channel now, (Ghost Hunters), but I am fairly sure that shortly they will cancel that too.

I'm sure that the folks on the Texas/Louisiana border must have had a a good laugh or two when Paramount's B picture unit inflicted this one on the war time public. Very simply the area along the Sabine River where the film opens is cotton country just like the rest of the Deep South or at least the Deep South was post Civl War. No big cattle empires there, they're much farther west in Texas, farther than Richard Dix and Preston Foster could ride to set up their empire.
The film begins with the two of them partners in a riverboat and when Leo Carrillo tries a theft of their services by not paying them for hauling his cattle, they keep the cattle. And that's the beginning of the big Ponderosa like ranch they start.
Along the way Foster marries Dix's sister played by Frances Gifford and feuds with his much smaller neighbors. They also have some further run ins with Leo Carrillo.
Anyway, us easterners who like westerns usually don't bother with geographical trifles and it's still a good western from the production mill of Harry Sherman who produced all those Hopalong Cassidy westerns for Paramount. The climax is a blazing, and I mean that literally, gun battle that should have maybe been used on an A production.
But I wouldn't have any but western fans look at it.
Excellent pirate entertainment! It has all the good ingredients to keep one's attention -- an absorbing tale of intrigue, a fiery lady pirate named Spitfire Stevens (Maureen O'Hara) who's attracted to the irresistible Mr. Hawke (Errol Flynn) who is out on a secret mission of his own. They make a fine romantic pair onscreen -- sigh!
Anthony Quinn is the mean, bad pirate weaving his villainous web of divide and conquer. I noticed the very familiar face of Mildred Natwick playing a supporting role as Mrs. MacGregor, the protector of young Princess Patma (Alice Kelley).
There is beautifully filmed scenery of shorelines, ships, and the bay. Lots of action too of sword fighting clashes, ship battles, daring leaps of Errol Flynn (Robin Hood on board ship!). From the flaming redhead herself I once heard in an interview of Maureen O'Hara that she boasted great command of the bullwhip and could also outdo Flynn in sword fighting in those days but there'd be no need to put it to the test here.
Very enjoyable movie.

Pros: Nothing
Cons: Everything
Plot summary: A female reporter runs into a hitchhiker that tells her stories about the deaths of people that were killed by zombies.
Review: Never in my life have I come across a movie as bad The Zombie Chronicles. Filmed on a budget of what looks to be about 20 bucks, TZC is a completely horrible horror movie that relies on lame, forgetable actors whom couldn't act to save their lives and gore that's more gross than frightening. How does a movie like this even get made? Simply put, avoid TZC like a sexually-transmitted disease.
My last 2 cents: Humorously enough, this movie was made by a movie company called Brain Damage Films. They're brains must have really been damaged to come up with a craptacular movie like this.
My rating: 1 out of 10(If it were up to me, this movie would get the rating of negative bajillion)
I happened to catch this film at a screening in Brooklyn - it's difficult to describe the plot; it has a lot of wacky characters, but let's just say I'd have a hard time choosing which one made me laugh the hardest, I wouldn't know where to begin. Even the peripheral roles are well written and well acted.
There are numerous small touches that make it unique and very enjoyable, it has a few "devices" that pop up and add another hilarious layer. It is refreshing to watch; not some recycled stuff I'd seen many times before. If this film could reach a wider audience, I'm certain it would be a real crowd-pleaser, the story is so original and heartfelt.
There's a lot here to like, funny back-stories, mishaps and misunderstandings which set up the final act and dramatic conclusion. Cross Eyed is a very funny movie with a ton of heart; it's a touching story with fast paced comedy woven throughout. Definitely worth seeing!

There is so much that is wrong with this film, but to sum it up: Terrible acting- so bad it must have been on purpose. poor script - they may have had some good ideas but this was not the best way to present the story. ridiculously bad ending- in some cases the ending manages to save the film-not in this case. if you manage to sit through the entire film you will want to kick yourself at the end because the ending is not even worth waiting for. This is the worst film i have seen in a long time. It was complete torture sitting through this film, i would have appreciated someone warning me in advance. So do yourself a favor. Watch this film only if you have absolutely nothing better to do. Even then you will regret having put yourself through the unspeakable torture.
One of the best films I've ever seen. Robert Duvall's performance was excellent and outstanding. He did a wonderful job of making a character really come to life. His character was so convincing, it made me almost think I were in the theater watching it live, I give it 5 stars.

Oh my... bad clothing, worse synth music and the worst: David Hasselhoff. The 80's are back with vengeance in Witchery, an American-Italian co-production, helmed by infamous Joe 'D'Amato on the production side and short-careered director (thank heavens for small miracles) Fabrizio Laurenti directing . Marketed as a kind of sequel to Sam Raimi's Evil Dead series in Italy (that was dubbed "La Casa" in there), Witchery delivers some modest gore groceries and bad acting.
A mix of ghost story, possessions and witchcraft, the film bounces clueless from scene to another without letting some seriously wooden actors and hilarious day and night mix-ups slow it's progress to expectable ending, topped with some serious WTF surprise climax. (I just love the look on her face...) Surprisingly Laurenti manages to gather some suspense and air of malice in few - very few - scenes; unluckily for him, these few glimpses of mild movie magic go down quickly and effectively.
The plus sides are experienced, when the gore hits the fan. This department is quite effective and entertaining in that classic latex and red paint style of the 80's Italo-gore, when things were made 100% hand-made and as shockingly and vivid as modest budgets could allow. I could only watch with sadistic glee and few laughters all the over-the-top ways that obnoxious characters (and actors) got mangled and misused, one by one. I only felt sorry for Linda Blair, who apparently haven't been let to try any other than that good old possessed girl / woman role ever in his career, or so it looks like when checking out his filmography.
Well, folks - not much more to tell, and even less to tell home about. Don't expect too much when spending some rainy afternoon with this, and probably you'll experience at least some mild fun. It also helps if your rotten little heart pounds in the beat of 80's euro gore horror. And speaking of hearts - every movie that has David Hasselhoff getting skewered by a sizeable metal object and bleeding heavily around the room and corridors, MUST have it's one on the right place.
This is my truth - what is yours?
What could be more schlocky than the idea of private detectives getting involved with the women they're supposed to be spying on? And most of the dialogue as written is perfectly banal.
But the actors turn the dialog into something that makes sense. You can see real people behind the unreal lines. And the directing is wonderful. Each scene does just what it has to and ends without dragging on too long.
I showed this to several friends in the mid-80s because I was perplexed at how such bad material could be made into such a good movie. The friends enjoyed it too.

Unfortunately I have to agree with the critic written by halopes.
For a short film the cinematography, costumes, sets, sound, editing and everything else is very, very good. This might seem surprising at first but I was told that the technical crew working on this consisted of professionals, so the quality is to be expected. The problem, as usual, resides in the story itself.
Thing is, it's not really a story. To tell a story (or in cinema's case, SHOW a story) you need plot and conflict. You need things that happen to the protagonist: events. These events happen because the protagonist wants something and, for some reason, he can't get it. Tim Watcher has no problems or goals. He's a kind of supernatural entity who observes mankind. That's it. So what we have here is pure exposition. Instead of being shown a story, we're simply learning things about this Tim Watcher individual. Of course, considering the peculiar nature of Tim Watcher and the film's short duration, it's hard to give enough background about him so the movie resorts to Voice-Over Narration. In this case it's used in the worst possible sense which is to give information that otherwise we'd never glean. In fact, if it wasn't for the VO we'd think the character was just a kooky old man going around looking at things. To make it worse the VO also explains what's happening on the screen! The images we're shown are just decoration for the text we're listening to.
I could say that this short film would make a good video for a band or something, but because the images don't stand on their own it's impossible to say that. What's left obviously has value as a measure of the crew's technical capabilities (not incredible, but good) but fails to entertain, amuse, thrill or, at the very least, show a story.
Pinjar is a genuinely good film, with great acting, good narrative, good presentation, touching emotions, etc.
It seems to me that the quality of films that Bollywood is producing is quite improving these days, and this film is one evidence.
No Bollywood movie that I can remember of made such an impact on me - I was literally thinking about the movie for hours - marvelling at the various emotional situations that test the human in a human.
The film rests on the great acting of Urmilla Matondkar, and also some from Manoj Bajpai. Urmilla plays a girl in North India in the background of the partition, and all troubles seem sweet if compared with the problems she happens to face.
A must-see film. A technically superior Bollywood product, which I feel is comparable to the best movies coming out of other countries in the world.

"Wild Tigers I have Known." It will only be showing in big cities, to be sure. It is one of those films SO artsy, that it makes no sense what so ever, except to the director! I HATE those! And all of those oh-so-alternative/artsy people try DESPERATELY to find "metaphors" in what is EVIDENT horseshit.
There was NO plot, no story, no moral, no chronology, and nothing amusing or even touching. To me, it was a bunch of scenes thrown together that had nothing to do with one another, and were all for "show" to show how "artsy" and "visual" they could get. It was an ATTEMPT at yet ANOTHER teen angst film, but missed the mark on every level humanly possible. Then the credits roll! I was waiting for it to make SENSE! I was waiting for "the good part." I own about 60 independent films in my DVD collection, many of which could arguably be called "art house" films. This will NOT be amongst them. You will be very angry at yourself for paying to see this film, much less ever buying it on DVD.
Father of the pride is a pleasant surprise: It is funny, witty and features some great voice acting. The show is about the family of a Lion who is acting as the attraction of Siegfried & Roy shows. Indeed all of them are stereotypes but that's what makes them so funny. FOTP is not a kiddie-cartoon it includes some crude adult humor but in a very mild way. It is full of popculture references and celebrity cameos and most of them are very well executed. I'd say I'll give the show a 7 out of ten because it is nice fairly well executed but not very original, I've seen most of those stereotypes many times before, even in that particular order!

I'm a big fan of Lucio Fulci; many of his Giallo and splatter flicks are amongst my favourites of all time, but this made for TV movie is extremely sub par and not what I've come to expect from the great Italian director. The film is neither interesting, like some of Fulci's more tame Giallo's, or gory like the majority of his cult classics; thus leaving it lacking in both major areas, and ultimately ensuring that the film isn't very good. The film works from a plot that has been used many times previously, but still it's an idea that always has the chance of springing an interesting story just because it focuses on the theme of the afterlife, which is the ultimate unknown. This film focuses on Giorgio Mainardi; a man that isn't exactly well liked and after he dies of an apparent stomach hemorrhage, there aren't many people that are sad to see him go. This means that his ghost is trapped somewhere between life and the afterlife, and so he decides to try and get to the bottom of his death, and his only ally in this endeavour is his daughter.
The video that I saw this film on is proudly proclaimed that the film is "in the style of HP Lovecraft", and that's one of the most blatant attempts to sell a film I've ever seen. There is nothing even slightly reminiscent of the great horror writer in this tale, and the reason for that tagline would appear to be because of title similarity to the Stuart Gordon/Lovecraft film, 'From Beyond' - which is a lot better. The film does benefit from a distinctly Italian style, and the score is rather good. Unfortunately, however, Fulci has seen fit to positively roast every scene in it - and so the theme quickly becomes annoying. The plot plays out in a really boring way, and most of the scenes simply involve the ghost 'desperately' trying to find things out, or the daughter placing her suspicions over her family members. This movie was made for Italian TV, and so it's not surprising that it's all rather tame. There's a little bit of gore and a nightmare sequence with zombies; but this isn't the Fulci we all know and love. Overall, this film is extremely mediocre and not a good representation of Fulci's talents. Not worth bothering with, unless you're a Fulci completist.
My girlfriend and I have a thing for Robots. So I try to seek out movies that have robots. And this movie has robots. Big ones. They beat the clang and bang out of each other, with the fate of nations hanging in the balance. It's really cool. You have to forgive this movie its many shortcomings and just try to appreciate what the director and his crew of technicians were able to put on the screen while working with what was obviously a tight budget. It is very hard to dislike this movie. Because of those big robots. They looked like Transformers and they fought like pro wrestlers! It made my girlfriend smile. And that is good enough for me. And special mention must be made of veteran character actor Paul Koslo: as the maniacal Russian Villain, whether he is ruthlessly stomping on his helpless opponents after they've already surrendered or complaining that their close proximity to him in a bar has caused his vodka to taste "like blood" (a line he delivers with a deliciously campy sub-Bela Lugosi accent) he is clearly having a ball and the film benefits enormously whenever he is on-screen. This is a nifty little flick that deserves its cult reputation.

It is hard to make an unbiased judgment on a film like this that had such an impact on me at such a young age. This is with out a doubt the worst kind of exploitation film. I was unfortunate enough to see this film for the first time in my youth, Iwill never forget it. I thought it was the most horrible movie ever made. I then saw it again earlier this year and was once again horrified.
I am not a zealot or one to say what others should and should not see but I did take great offense to the way in which something as horrible as rape was dealt with in this movie. I love lowbrow cinema but this is just plain nasty. Rent some Rus Myer instead.