Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I just want to say that I am so glad somebody finally spilled the beans on this movie. Bravo "The Spaz", Bravo! This movie is a ridiculous farce of film-making. Especially for a student film! I just want to give credit to the Spazz for taking the absurd amount of time a care to find such a rare picture, and then TO COMMENT ON IT! Most people I know don't have that kind of time, especially so few will end of reading it. Kudos to you sir! Anyway, the movie follows a thin storyline that is at the least unbelievable and just plain silly. I understand the idea behind creating a satire of Charlie's Angels but why hire such atrocious actresses! Also, what kind of director has himself act, write, produce and also edit the picture! Choose one job and put all your love into it man! It's such a shame because I hear he made a good movie about a killer toothbrush. Again, thanks to the Spazz for pulling back the curtain on this film, people like you are a rare find.

The minute the forward started, I knew we were in for trouble! The premise is laughable at best. The story line was even worse, if that is possible.
The acting was stiff and the actors gave off a sense of inexperience. You expect more from the likes of Slater, Reid and Dorff. Lines were delivered as if from a robot. And I'm sorry, I like Reid but she was VERY unbelievable as an archaeologist. Slater and Dorff picked a lousy film to try and stage their comebacks.
The continuity was off through out the entire film. The creatures weren't bad, but they really weren't good either.
Bottom line, I want that ninety minutes of my life back. They can keep the money, but give me the time! What a waste.
When I heard this film was directed by Ang Lee, I made sure to see it. This Taiwanese director burst into fame with "The Wedding Banquet" and "Eat Drink Man Woman" a few years ago and then moved on to "Sense and Sensibility" and "The Ice Storm". Now, he turns his attention to another American icon -- the Civil War.
This story takes place in Missouri, a Union state with Southern sympathies. These never officially joined the Confederate army. Instead, they formed outlaw bands, called "bushwhackers", grew they hair long, and sometimes would confiscated Union uniforms which they wore over their regular clothing.
The movie depicts their moral dilemma, the high drama of the times, and their supposedly heroic missions of killing storekeepers and farmers who aided the Union. There are no stars in this movie, unless you consider "Jewel" the singer, well cast as a young confederate widow as a star.
Tobey Macquire is cast as a young German farm boy who is derided for his heritage because the Germans were supposed Union sympathizers. This young man is an excellent actor, full of fresh faced youth whose performance encompasses his wonder and subtle realizations as he's exposed to the horror of war.
Jeffrey Wright is a freed slave who travels with the bushwhackers because of his loyalty to the young man who bought him his freedom. He gives a fine and understated performance.
Some of the acting, however, is wooden, especially in the long conversations they have about morality. And their costumes are too new. And the "southern gentleman" theme of manners and hat-tipping and politeness to women comes across as a bit much -- especially since they make it a point to murder all the men who they pull from their women's arms, then burn down the stores and houses.
While I don't think that this will go down as one of Lee Ang's "great" movies, I did find myself fascinated by it, in spite of the slow parts and its excessive length of 140 minutes. I was interested in what was happening next and felt empathy for each of the characters who all came across as real and imperfect human beings caught up in the forces of history.
Not as much action as the usual war movie, but yet still recommended -- especially for Civil War buffs.

The movie starts out as an ordinary comic-hero-movie. It´s about the boy who is picked on, has no parents and is madly in love with the schools #1 girl. Nothing surprises in the movie, there is nothing that you can´t guess coming in the movie. Toby Mcguire shows us that either he is no good actor or that no actor in the world can save a script like this one. Maybe kids around the age of ten can enjoy the film but it is a bit violent for the youngest. You can´t get away from thinking of movies like X-men, Batman and Spawn. All of those titles are better. I almost walked out the last 20 minutes! One thing that could have been good though was the computeranimation, BUT not even that is anything to put in the christmas-tree! So my recomendation: Don´t see this film even if you get paid for it!
Grey Gardens is shocking, amusing, sad and mesmerizing. I watched in amazement as Ediths Jr. and Sr. bickered and performed while reminiscing of their past. Their existence in a dilapidated mansion, (which they had not left for more than fifteen years) is both a comedy and a tragedy. This is a film you will not soon forget.

I read the book Celestine Prophecy and was looking forward to seeing the movie. Be advised that the movie is loosely based on the book. Many of the book's most interesting points do not even come out in the movie. It is a "B" movie at best. Many events, characters, how the character interact and meet in the book are simply changed or do not occur. The flow of events that in the book are very smooth, are choppy and fed to the view as though you a child. The character development is very poor. Personnallities of the characters differ from those in the book. The direction is similar to a "B" horror flick. I understand that it would take six hours in film to present all that is in the book, but they screen play base missed many points. The casting was very good.
D.W. Griffith could have made any film he wanted to after the enormous financial success of 'The Birth of a Nation'; he chose to make the most technically ambitious film to that date, 'Intolerance.' He took a risk with such innovations in film montage and form, and the well-known financial train wreck resulted. Buster Keaton doesn't take that kind of a risk with 'Three Ages,' a parody of 'Intolerance.' This is Keaton's first feature-length film of his own (he only acted in 'The Saphead'). He had the fallback plan of dividing the three episodes in this film into three separate shorts, which Griffith did do with 'Intolerance.' Keaton didn't have to. Chaplin had already succeeded with feature-length comedies, so if Keaton was taking a risk here, it was completely calculated.
Chaplin had already done a parody of another film, too, with 'Burlesque on Carmen' (1915). Keaton appears to allude to that film, as well. The wrestling scene in the Ancient Rome episode references the swordfight that turns into a wrestling match in Chaplin's film. The comical distance from the plot of both scenes is the same, too. Furthermore, Chaplin's film imitated the glossy style of DeMille's 'Carmen,' and Chaplin's film seemed a tribute to that film. Keaton doesn't attempt the radical editing, narrative structure or monumental nature in his parody, but it seems respectful of 'Intolerance' nonetheless. At least, the stories aren't told completely straightforward as in other post-'Intolerance' films, such as Dreyer's 'Leaves from Satan's Book' (Blade af Satans bog, 1921) and Fritz Lang's 'Destiny' (Der Müde Tod, 1921). There is some mild jumping back and forth between episodes.
Where Keaton did take risks, however, is in his physical, daredevil comedy. That's Keaton unintentionally failing to jump across buildings in the modern episode. Reportedly, he was convinced to alter the scene rather than attempt the jump again. And, it wasn't just Keaton who took risks; the anachronistic baseball gag, for example, was rather dangerous. Thus, although in a different way, Keaton, like Griffith, took risks with his big film. And, I think they both succeeded.

My sincere advice to all: don't watch the movie.
Don't even go near to the theater where this movie is being played!! even a glimpse of it is bad for health. serious. no jokes. it's 3.30 am in the morning. and i returned from this crappiest movie on this universe. FOUR HOURS DAMN!!! I am proud that i survived after all of it! If this is called survival.
i am highly frustrated. annoyed. disappointed. it was sheer waste of time! money went in drain! no plot. Hope i wake up tomorrow sane and with no memories of this night!! RUBBISH MOVIE.
Happy Republic day to one and all :)
Here is the explanation screenwriter Pamela Katz gave me for why MvT introduced JG as a specific character in the film:
"...the historical record is very clear: Joseph Goebbels was directly responsible for the release of the Rosenstrasse prisoners, so we needed a way to get Goebbels himself into our film... For a woman like Lena, a woman from an aristocratic family with connections, it wasn't unthinkable that she would make an attempt to go to the top. The idea of getting to Goebbels wasn't impossible for her, so that became our hook."
Those of you who insist on seeing an actual sex act here can read my new thread below & then fire away.
Jan Lisa Huttner FILMS FOR TWO

the more i think about it, there was nothing redeeming about this
movie. i saw it 9 months ago, so my memory might have made it
worse than it was, but i do know it was at least as bad as a 4 out of
10.
after seeing the movie, i met the director. he seemed so clueless
as to what he was doing or what he had done, and as far as i
could tell, he didn't care for the film either. even he agreed that he
didn't really know what he was doing, and he was forced to do
certain things because it was filmed digitally.
i felt that the movie was trying to hard to fit in to the formula that it
built for itself: "9 people all have to be connected in some way. how
can we get from point 'A' to point 'B'" so in order get from the
prostitute we see in the start and back to her at the end they 10
minutes on each character's relationship to another person. it
makes one feel choked by the 2 demensional, badly drawn
characters.
I just remembered the one redeeming part of the movie... Steve
Bouchemi there is one scene where he is amazing. that's it. as i
say... 4 out of 10.
In an alternate 1950s, where an outbreak of the undead (caused by a mysterious 'space-dust') has been contained through the use of special electronic collars, a young loner, Timmy, finds a friend in Fido (Billy Connelly), his family's recently acquired domesticated zombie.
Fido quickly becomes a surrogate father to Timmy, whose real dad is unable to adequately express his love for his son (or for his hot-to-trot wife, played by the gorgeous Carrie-Anne Moss) having been psychologically scarred as a child (when he was forced to shoot his own father, who tried to eat him!).
Timmy runs into a spot of bother, however, when his putrid pal's collar goes on the blink, and he attacks and kills an elderly neighbour. With the authorities on Fido's trail, trouble brewing with a pair of local bullies, and his mother forming a bond with their undead house-help, will Timmy be able to hold on to his new found friend?
A refreshing take on the whole zombie schtick, Fido is a thoroughly entertaining, deliciously dark comedy that should appeal to anyone with a slightly twisted sense of humour. Taking the Romero zombie-verse and transplanting it into 1950s small town America is a stroke of genius, and the result is simply one of the most original films to tackle the whole 'reanimated dead' theme that I have seen.
Connelly's Fido is a cinematic zombie worthy of inclusion in the Undead Movie Hall of Fame, along with Day Of The Dead's Bub, and Return Of The Living Dead's Tarman; it is not often I feel empathy for a walking corpse, but The Big Yin's performance is so fine that I actually found myself rooting for the big blue bag of pus! The rest of the cast also give commendable performances, with young K'Sun Ray (as Timmy) and Ms.Moss deserving special mentionsRay, because, for one so young, he puts in a particularly assured turn, and Moss because she is so bloody yummy!
This is the third zombie film that I have watched this week (the others being the somewhat disappointing Planet Terror and the rather fun Flight Of The Living Dead), and, to my surprise, it is also the best. Director Andrew Currie has given fans of the genre something truly original to treasure and is a talent to be watched in the future.
8.5 out of 10, rounded up to 9 for IMDb.

I rated this a 3. The dubbing was as bad as I have seen. The plot - yuck. I'm not sure which ruined the movie more. Jet Li is definitely a great martial artist, but I'll stick to Jackie Chan movies until somebody tells me Jet's English is up to par.
1985 was a good year for films - maybe even great - but this one missing out on a gong went a long way to convincing fans that ol' Oscar is little more that a hood ornament for good party members.
11 nominations and not a single title: such was the Academy's disdain for one of their greatest directors; and one who had to wait another 8 years before whatever prejudices had prevented them from handing him the statue before allowed them to give him 7 for Schindler's List, which is, arguably, not as good (and I'm half-Polish).
Don't get me wrong, Schindler was a classic. And I'm not knocking 'Out of Africa' (which won that year) either; but it was, in my mind, a class behind this one: an epic story of suffering and hope that brought me to tears - and I'm not a big cryer.
Maybe it was the music (superb), or the cinematography (sumptuous), but more likely simply the acting: Whoopi, who proved to all of us that she was much more than just a comedienne; Danny Glover, who I'd never heard of before; and, of course, Oprah.
The rest is history; but, at the time: who knew?

I never heard of this film til it played as part of a Robert Mitchum retrospective at the National Film Theatre in London. Almost 60 years on the cast list looked tasty to say the least with seven names - in addition to top-billed Mitchum - in the public domain; Charles McGraw, not long off The Killers, Barbara Bel Geddes, long before Dallas and arguably still better known as the daughter of Theatre Set Designer Norman, Walter Brennan, who needed no introduction, Frank Faylen, the sadistic male nurse in The Lost Weekend and the much nicer small-town mensch in It's A Wonderful Life, Robert Preston still a decade away from Harold Hill in The Music Man with Tom Tully and Phyllis Thaxter making up the numbers. Alas, most of them were wasting their time. I looked in vain for any 'signature' scenes given that it was Robert Wise on bullhorn. By this time he'd made around a half dozen films and had still to find a style. The story is our old friend the range war and Mitchum must have thought it was barely a cut above the Hopalong Cassidy oaters on which he'd cut his teeth. There are no new twists - if you don't count the unbelievable scene when Mitchum accuses Preston of sleeping with Thaxter to gain information about her father's plans to move his cattle. This is perfectly true but how did Mitchum KNOW? We've seen or heard nothing to indicate how he discovered it. On balance not a lot to be said for this.
Fox's epic telling of one a America's greatest pioneering efforts comes to DVD with some truly outstanding "Extras". BRIGHAM YOUNG (The "Frontiersman" was added for the European release), telling the story the great pioneer leader, who under inspiration brought members of the Mormon faith (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)out to the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, after mobs murdered their prophet/leader, Joseph Smith (played by Vincent Price), was brought to the screen in 1940, just as America was about to enter World War II. It was a daring move on Fox chief, Darryl F. Zanuck and it was a breath of fresh air to the Mormon people, as this was the first film attempt to favorably show their faith on the screen. Now Fox, working with James D'Arc, curator of the excellent Motion Picture Archives at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, has brought this film to the DVD format in an outstading edition. Mr. D'Arc, who some years ago did his doctoral dissertation on the film, has provided one of the most in depth commentary tracks ever done for a DVD. He seperates the fact from the fiction and lets listeners understand why this films was so much appreciated by Church Leaders even though embellishments to the truth run throughout the film. One of the fun bits of information deals with Dean Jagger, the actor who plays the title role. Many years after the film he married a Latter-saint woman and was eventually converted to the LDS faith. There is much to be learned from D'Arc's knowledge and it is great to have this as part of the DVD! There are over 100 pictures from the Fox & BYU Archives included on the disc, plus newsreel footage of the incredible premiere at seven theatres in Salt Lake City. Thanks FOX for another outstanding DVD -- and thank you, James D'Arc for your great commentary!

Perhaps the biggest waste of production time, money and the space on the video store shelf. If someone suggests you see this movie, run screaming in the other direction. Unless, of course, you're into self-abuse.
The question is, can a movie this entertaining really be considered a "bad" movie? My husband and I picked this up at a used video store for 99 cents simply because of the title and the fact that the box had the words "Vestron Pictures" on it (Vestron has been highly regarded as a mark of quality ever since I first acquired the legendary films "Suburbia" and "Class of 1984"). We were not expecting a movie as full of win as this one was. Your basic plot as is follows: Grange, this goombaesque thug from planet Earth, robs "the bank of the Moon" and is sentenced to a penal colony on a remote planet (I don't even remember the planet's name) to mine for bauxite and other minerals. The "governor" of said colony and the owner of the mine are exploiting the prisoners for labor. Walker, a bounty hunter (apparently one of only three on the whole planet) reminds the prisoners that there is no escape, because there's only one shuttle out of the whole planet and they'd have him to deal with. Then there's the nameless "Colonel", a retired bounty hunter who suffers from a haunting reoccurring nightmare. Much of the movie centers around "futuristic" car chases (dunebuggies with plywood slapped to the sides) with explosions galore. The planet itself looks suspiciously like Hemet, CA or one of those other dusty Inland Empire outposts. But what makes the movie truly shine is a surprisingly awesome soundtrack featuring several LA punk bands of the mid-80s. I seriously doubt that this soundtrack was ever pressed to vinyl, but it's definitely worth buying the movie just for the soundtrack. I can't even remember the names of the bands (they're listed in the credits) other than Exploding White Mice, because that was the only one I'd heard of before I saw this movie, but I'm definitely looking into them.
Basically, the movie is definitely not a waste of your time and would be best enjoyed with a 12 pack of beer and a few of your closest friends.

The script for "Scary Movie 2" just wasn't ready to go. This is a problem with the film that is blatantly evident, to the actors and the audience alike. Director Keenan Ivory Wayans, and many of the actors are funny people; and so the movie isn't completely humorless. To their credit, the film has several funny moments. But as a whole, "Scary Movie 2" is not even close to being as clever and amusing as the original.
The first "Scary Movie" was a laugh a minute film. It turned the smallest subtleties of the slasher film genre into comedic gold. The humor in "Scary Movie 2" is as heavy handed as it is un-original. They even miss obvious opportunities for parody. Two of the movies stars are former cast members of "Beverly Hills 90210," and this was a show that was begging to be parodied! In the final analysis, "Scary Movie 2" is like a fine bottle of wine that was opened far too soon. The script needed a lot more time to age. 2 stars out of 5.
This movie took the Jerry Springer approach to super-human power. "Wilder Napalm" is the kind of theme-based movie that I love, addressing the idea that prodigies in America are defined either by their gifts or by attempts to hide them. At the same time, the movie points out that every prodigy is only human, and no more to be feared or worshipped than any other human being. This was a great comedy, fun and human with that slight satiric edge.

With a cast list like this one, I expected far better. Venessa Redgrave spent the majority of the movie lying in bed. The best actresses in the world cannot make anything very interesting when their acting is limited to lying down and falling asleep throughout the entire movie. The plot summary says that a secret is revealed to the daughters as their mother comes closer to death. The thing is, she never tells her daughters anything except cryptic advice to be happy. All the relationships in the movie are underdeveloped. I also felt that the back and forth between the past and present was unnecessary. It seemed as if the idea was stolen either from the book the Da Vinci Code in which the device was used to increase suspense, or from The Notebook in which they used the device to create the never ending romance of the story's main characters. Either way it was a cheap device in this movie because it didn't work to create anything. It was a way to attempt suspense in a movie that has none. I left wondering why good movies can't be written for women. It really was a disappointment.
The perfect space fantasy film. a group of kids go up accidentally in space and have to get back down, but do they, sure they do.This would not be a family film if they all died. Then it will all be sad. You don't want that Kate Capsaw, the leading lady gives a Golden Globe performance, but sadly, she nor Lea Thompson won one. That sucks so bad.I can't say it enough, this film is so great, Lea Thompson- o lord, a perfect girl for this film. This film is the best for sure.
Sorry, but better than Star Wars. Star Wars is so over- rated and space camp was so under- rated. It should of been the other way around
excellent 10/10- 0r maybe 11/10. Iam not good at math

I imagine that the young people involved in the making of "Necromancy" (aka "The Witching" plus a bunch of other titles) must have felt a little weird being on the set of a horror movie with the man who: participated with John Houseman in the production of a proletarian play ("The Cradle Will Rock"); scared people into thinking that aliens were invading ("The War of the Worlds"); and directed and starred in the greatest movie of all time ("Citizen Kane"). And now Orson Welles was starring in a third-rate flick about a satanic cult.
There's basically nothing creative about this movie. Lots of nudity, but the background music always proves really distracting. Even if the movie wasn't particularly predictable, it still wasn't worth seeing. How low Welles had sunk. Fortunately, over the final thirteen years of his life, he narrated the documentary "Bugs Bunny Superstar" (about the Warner Bros. cartoons of the 1940s) and hosted the documentary "The Man who Saw Tomorrow" (about Nostradamus). I recommend those two, but not this one. Just avoid it.
Also starring Pamela Franklin and Michael Ontkean.