Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
No movies have grabbed my attention like this one has. You see, I have wanted to watch this movie again for over twenty-five years. The one and only time I saw it was as a teen-ager which may have been the year it was released, 1977.
What I do remember of the movie is that it touched those deep-held emotions so profoundly that there is still an overwhelming desire to watch it again. The intrigue this movie provides by the human element of father/son seeking and searching is sure to touch every human soul who watches it. Why this movie has not been brought out of storage and shown as often as many other movies of lesser depth, I do not know.
Postscript: Received copy of movie and after watching it again was delighted to see that my memory held true. Rating reflects movie content. Would like to watch this movie on DVD as seeing this 1977 production on a used VHS tape took away from the overall quality.

First and foremost, I loved the novel by Ray Bradbury. It's the kind of horror that gets under your skin and sticks with you later. It was one of his best books, with, you know, Fahrenheit 451 and Dandelion Wine. I as just hoping that this movie would be all right. It had lots of chances, with a great cast, like Jason Robards and Jonathn Pryce. And Bradbury even wrote the script himself. And on top of all that, it has PAM GRIER!
How could it fail?
There may be spoilers within.
First of all, it was dumbed down. Much of the horror from the book was lost as Bradbury must have been forced to keep the violence to a minimum. All the visuals from the book...gone. Everything that made you squirm...gone.
And then there's the acting. Like a lot of movies that Disney threw out in the 80s, the kids in this movie cannot act. And, this bugged me a lot, neither of them looked 13 but 9 or 10. Their strong friendship wasn't addressed. It was more like they were acquaintaces.
You'd think Jason Robards and Jonathan Pryce could pull this off in their roles of Mr. Halloway and Mr. Dark. But here it's like they just don't care. All they want to do is somehow pay off some mortgage or something. This is far from being some of their best performances.
Pam Grier was fine as the witch, but the charecter of the Dust Witch herself wasn't well pulled off. She's a lot less evil and doesn't have the presence as she did in the book.
And everything that was left out of the book. The ballon night chase, the marking of Jim's house, the real death of Mr. Dark, what happened to Mr. Coogan on the merry-go-round, the fate of the lightening rod salesman, the real death of the witch, and oh so much more.
And the special effects were bad, even for the 80s. The merry-go-round of doom for one thing with the superimposed horses going around wasn't really creepy, and that weird green mist that really had nothing to do with anything.
I could keep going about how this movie ripped apart the original novel, but it makes blood boil. Don't see this movie but read the book. It's a classic of Bradbury.
Clara Bow (Hula Calhoun) is daughter of plantation owner Albert Gran (Bill Calhoun), who is mainly interested in playing cards and boozing with friends. She's interested in riding in the countryside until engineer Clive Brook (Anthony Haldane) shows up to build a dam. One of her father's friends Arlette Marchal (Mrs. Bane) then competes for his attentions. His wife Maude Truax (Margaret Haldane) shows up for the contrived finale.
Lots of 'pre-code' elements like nude bathing.
Wonderful location shooting in Hawaii.

One more of extremely unprofessional movies about computer programmers.
Looks authors of that movie don't know real specific of programmers world.
20 top programmers in the world, program which have own satellites (for what?), program which using satellite freq., somebody kill somebody to steal the codes (why?) and much more of stupid moments at this movie.
Peoples who not programmers not will see something awful at that movie, because not professionals on this. But peoples will see not real things.
Programmers will find that movie odd and awful - because lots of moments inside movie is not RELATED real life (why movie not scifi in this case?).
A clever script from the late SEBASTIAN JAPRISOT and smart performances from the two male leads - ALAIN DELON and CHARLES BRONSON (or should it be the other way around) result in an engaging and entertaining thriller.
Add to the above the competent direction from veteran JEAN HERMAN and a sparse but effective score by FRANCOIS DE ROUBAIX, it becomes easy why this film has an odd timeless quality.
This is a buddy buddy or bonding story with two loners, both disillusioned and world weary, returning, presumably from Algiers. Like the other colonial powers of this time (post WW II leading into the 60s), France had struggled to keep up appearances overseas. Losing Algiers was a bitter blow.
ADIEU L'AMI (the original title) chronicles the actions of our two (anti) heroes as they struggle to make a go of it, after their discharge.
One thing happens after another, and the viewer really has to pay attention, because JAPRISOT is lean and economical with his script: if it is there, then there must be a reason.
Suffice to say, these two men battle it out, physically and psychologically, one long weekend. Their motivation is quite different, their goals are different - their survival depends entirely on each other. That ALAIN DELON and CHARLES BRONSON are outwardly so different - the former, arguably a pretty boy, and the latter an ugly thug, adds to the chemistry.
That quest makes for a great story, which in turn, makes for a great film.
Lest I forget there are women in this film, and true to the Japrisot method, they too are memorable, though not nearly as fleshed out; to say much more would be to spoil one's delight in discovering their true nature.
FAREWELL, FRIEND HAS BEEN RELEASED IN THE UK; AN ANAMORPHIC IMAGE, 16.9 ENHANCED; IN English ONLY (not even subtitles for the hard of hearing); A RUNNING TIME OF 110 MINUTES; MONO SOUNDTRACK but the DE ROUBAIX music has lots of punch!
Highly recommended.

This movie shows us nothing original. Every idea or (action) scene can be found in many previously released movies. Fabulous Nick is completely plain here. Even Will Patton is calm and evil nor good. Mr. Duvall is ok, but has a very small part. So does Angelina, so how can we determine her newly acclaimed stardom? Overall, there are too many characters, so that nobody and nothing is especially detailed. This makes the movie easy to forget. Too bad, don't you think?
Good western filmed in the rocky Arizona wilds. Lots of tough guys throughout; Cobern's character seemed to rock back and forth between a raging psycho and a laid back type. Several holes appeared in the picture, but not enough to offset it being exciting and worth seeing. One really dumb scene shows Heston emptying .45 cases of their powder and collecting it in a sack for the purpose of starting a fire. A. To gather that much gunpowder he would have needed a pack mule to carry the ammo. B. The grass was obviously dry: why not just drop a match on it and let 'er rip?

I stopped five minutes in when Beowulf was given a double-shot, automatic crossbow with sights on it. Not only do crossbows not have telescoping sights, but Beowulf beat Grendel in hand-to-hand combat. The terrible, wooden acting and eternal darkness that plagues all Sci-Fi Original Movies didn't help either. Having only gotten a few minutes in before I felt my bile rise and decided to watch I Love Lucy reruns instead, that's really about all I have to say. But, you might as well just realize that it's a made-for-TV movie and skip it right there.
A travesty.
This is a great movie, I did the play a while ago. It had an extra zing-- to it. I loved Vanessa Williams as Rosey, and also Jason Alexander has a good voice. It was great. The setting were also very good. Except the fact that it is 2 hours and 50 minutes, makes it pretty long. Overall I give it 8.5 stars. They also added a few parts, but it was still cool.

Oh dear, what a horrid movie.
The production was so cheap and nasty... Remember the shot from "the Natural", where the lightning hits the tree (leaving a glowing stump) that Roy Hobbs makes a bat from?? Well the producers of this movie used that same scene to prefix a scene where a tree branch slammed into the house.
I wonder if they paid to use the footage from The Natural, or did they just hope that no-one who would watch the film would pick it up ?
Then at the end where they were getting trying to get away in the truck. Such over-acting in the cabin.
A really bad film, a really bad film.
This is a beautiful movie filled with adventure. The Genii in the bottle is a classic scene. Romantic in it's finish, all things turn out as they should be. I saw this first as a child and have remembered it as a fantasy I wished was true.

After being bitten by a bat in a cave,a doctor named John Beck undergoes an accelerating transformation into a man-bat creature.His wife assures him that there's nothing wrong with him,it's all just due to rabies or the anti-rabies drugs he's taking.The local cop thinks that John is responsible for several gruesome murders."The Bat People" by Jerry Jameson is one hell of a horrible film.The script is deadly dull and there is no gore nor nudity.This pointless piece of crap is so mind-numbingly boring that you'll scratch your head in a total disbelief after suffering through it.Even the design of a man-bat creature by a young Stan Winston is completely pathetic and unmemorable.Avoid this stinker like the plague.2 out of 10.
This is a very rare example of a movie about transvestitism (of heterosexuals). The film treats the taboo theme so that even a general audience not knowing of transvestitism at all will strongly sympathize with its main character. Adrian Pasdar is very believable as Gerald/Geraldine and shall not be forgot for this brillant acting. The directing of Christopher Monger is very sensitively, treating such a difficult issue quite excellently, packed into a good story. Not a big movie, neither an "art" film, but a little, lovely motion picture!

Throw this lame dog a bone. Sooo bad...you may watch anyway. Kol(Ross Hagen)is an intergalactic bad guy that escapes being vaporised by an over zealous spaceship commander(Jan-Michael Vincent). Kol manages to steal a shuttle that crash lands on Earth. An unstoppable android killer is sent to bring back the villain dead or alive. John Phillip Law plays a forest/park ranger that urges caution in dealing with these two visitors from far, far away. Costumes are outrageous and the script is lacking intelligence. Vincent surely took the money and ran. Law shows the only sign of effort.So bad it is almost comical. Also in the cast: Dyana Ortelli, P.J. Soles and Dawn Wildsmith.
A young woman (Jean Simmons) is convinced by her scheming and dangerous aunt (Sonia Dresdel) and uncle (Barry Jones) that she's losing her mind and in very delicate condition that requires their supervision which turns out to be more like manipulation, as they try to keep her as far away from outside human contact as possible. The only other person she sees is the estate caretaker, a lascivious character played by Maxwell Reed, whose caught the wayward eye of the middle-aged aunt. All of this, the aunt and the caretaker, the butterfly expert uncle who has a serious underside to him, and the susceptible niece in the middle, would have made for a darker and more sinister film. As it is, a frame-up for a murder sends Trevor Howard (a fired government secret service agent who took a job at the estate cataloging butterflies) and Simmons across the countryside escaping police, catching headlines of "Police Net Closing In" over her front page photo, hopping on buses, and winding up in Liverpool, where they meet some wonderfully cast characters, and finally face down the greedy and murderous aunt and uncle.

I felt asleep, watching it!!! (and I had tickets for the midnight- premiere) Any questions? The most disturbing scene, as far as I can remember, was the techno-dance-i-dont-know-what-that-was-scene. By the way what an ending!?
I remember watching this film, thinking was so interesting. I really wanted to know what happens next. I was amazed by how much they could fit into an 8 minute short. We start in a school yard. . Two friends are debating on skipping class. Kid B says to Kid A "Lets not go to class today." And Kid A declines, claiming they could miss something really important. So kid B skips and kid A goes to class. When he gets there the teacher informs him that today they were going to learn the only and most important lesson they will ever learn. They were going to learn the meaning of life. She gives everyone a pamphlet, and when she gets to kid A, she runs out and tells the boy next to him to share. Well, the kid won't share, so Kid A goes looking for the teacher. When he finally finds her, he gets a shocking revelation on what the real meaning of life is. I suggest everyone watch this short. It will only take 8 minutes from your life, but the message is so important, it could help you for a life time.

This had high intellectual pretensions.The main lead intends to give a "deep" "meaningful" rendering(with voice over for his frames of mind naturally) and he was certainly influenced by the fifties/sixties "method " -which,when the script and the direction were worthwhile did give stunning results (see Clift,Newman,Winters).But here the story is abysmal.Besides it moves too slow,you could edit at least 20 minutes -including pointless flashbacks-and the plot line would not be changed .At times ,it's very doubtful that Bruce Dern believes in his "Uncle "character and his portraying often verges on parody.An interesting side is only skimmed over:the relationship young boy/hero -if we admit that the hero is himself some kind of child- When he says to the young kid that he would let nobody do harm to him,some welcome tenderness emerges.But it's botched and only the final scene returns to it.
Word to the wise:Take Foley's "at close range" instead:it has two great actors (Christopher Walken and Sean Penn together!),it's also an offbeat movie ,but it's gripping,suspenseful.Here my hitchcockometer points sullenly towards zero throughout.
Visual creative epic of inimitable style.
This film may neither have the most alternative dramaturgy nor the most artistic acting. But who dares to say this film is no art? I'm not a supporter of the idea, that an important film must be serious, non-commercial or bothering me with questions. Even there are a lot of films, apposite to this attributes, that I like.
Bogus Journey, for sure, is not one of this films. What you get is pure, excessive creativity with a very positive charged, childlike energy. This film doesn't reflect reality. Its friendly-naive and utopian. Imagine the world of the future described by Rufus - for me it would be a pretty nice time-place combination to live in! Except of that music ;- )
Technically, Bogus Jorney is very well made. I always liked the cinematography and the sceneries of this movie. Especially in this point Bogus Journey tops its prequel by far. Also the effects are good, and I think most of them very made without cgi. I generally prefer the good old effects in big budget movies. Sure its 'just another Hollywood movie' out of some peoples view. But I think it is this in a very charismatic way.
A short word to the soundtrack: all the band and orchestral music fits very well into the film. Also the sound design has no lack. I am not a big fan of rock music, but I had to get this track by Winger from the scene 'station' builds the bill and ted robots in the van. I love the unorthodox camera work at its beginning.
Let me conclude saying this:
This film is very naive and very imaginative! It is way better than Panzerkreuzer Potemkin, The Godfather, Eraserhead or Aguirre - the wrath of god. It is absolutely superior to citizen kane, apocalypse now or chris markers sans soleil... ...it is even better than Total Recall... No way!? Yes way!
Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey is simply the best movie ever made.
Who dares to disagree makes himself guilty of "artsie-fartsy behavior" or likes Terminator Salvation (what is the bigger self-defamation)
PS: part 1 is not the better movie. So Bogus Jorney is a superior sequel. Not even Terminator 2 is a superior sequel! Its NOT!

Another made for TV piece of junk! This is an insult of a war movie (I use the word movie in it's loosest possible form!) I thought Telly Savalas's career had hit rock bottom when he did the voice over on that visit Birmingham video that's shown on Tarrant on TV on a semi regular basis, but then I'd forgot he was involved in this! I'd tried to push it into my subconscious memory, but cable TV brought the memory kicking and screaming out of me!!
I like the bit (laughs sarcastically!) in the film which claims to be a scene from Liverpool in the forties, but it's blatantly a shot of Zagreb Cathedral in the late eighties. Also the steam train the Commando's are training on shows the JZ (Jugoslavia Zeleznice, or Yugoslav state railways) logo's on the side of the locomotive quite clearly, even though the makers have tried to black them out. Why not just film in the UK, if that's where most of the film is set?
Cheap rubbish, and a waste of celluloid!
I found this film by mistake many years ago & wondered then (still do) why it didn't get the acclaim it should have. Well written, beautiful acting, one ironic twist after another, and THERE IS PLAUSIBILITY in what the nefarious characters are attempting. I would not recommend this film for people with short attention spans; it requires sufficient intelligence to comprehend that there maybe a kernel of truth in this story.

The words "Swedish" and "Action movie" do not mix. That becomes more and more obvious with every attempt made in the genre. This is yet another failed attempt.
Lasse Brunell (Shanti Roney) works at a military air base with top secret computer systems. One day foreign criminals threaten to hurt his family if he doesn't do what they tell him. They want the secret equipment and will do anything to get it.
This movie has it's ups and downs. And usually in Swedish action movies there are no "ups", just "downs". So i guess something in this movie showed some quality. To begin with the positive remarks i can mention that the movie is technically well made. The footage of planes and helicopters flying are well shot and look very nice. The acting is of very varying quality. Shanti Roney makes a decent performance while Maria Bonnevie is stiff and unnatural as usual (i wonder how long Swedish directors are going to keep using her even though she has the acting skills of a wooden plank?). Stefan Sauk is laughable as the "cool" special forces man who comes to the base to investigate.
And what about the action scenes? Well as i said above the scenes of planes and helicopters flying are nice. But aside from that there is not much action to talk about. And that is a common problem with Swedish action films. There is just not enough action going on. Maybe it's a budget problem, maybe it's film-making culture. I don't know, but it negatively affects the experience. Because quite frankly, the story and acting is not good enough for this movie to rely just on that.
I rate this 4/10 for effort.
There's nothing really to dislike about "The Odd Couple," and it's no surprise that Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau make a hugely winning comedic team. But there's something so underdeveloped about Neil Simon's adaptation of his hit stage play as to make it seem more like a skit on a sketch comedy show than a full-bodied film. I have not seen the play, but have to assume that the screen version is fairly faithful, since Simon wrote it, so the defects cannot be blamed on a stage-to-screen adaptation. There are some interesting ideas in this story--two recently divorced men who fall immediately into traditional married roles when they become roommates because neither knows any differently--that Simon never fully fleshes out. Still, there are many worse ways to kill a couple of hours.

Take a SciFi Original Movie and mix in a little alternative/revisionist history, and you get "Aztec Rex." Apparently Hernand Cortes, before conquering the Aztec empire, had to first conquer a Tyrannosaurus Rex and her mate. That's the thrust of this movie. Given the plot it could have really sucked; the fact that it only kind of sucked is a tip of the cap to the writers. There are a few problems. For starters, Cortes is played by Ian Ziering. Even with a black wig, Ziering as Cortes is about as convincing as Axl Rose playing Gandhi. And though Cortes conquers the indigenous peoples of Mexico, the Aztecs here seem to be played by an all-Hawaiian ensemble. Casting aside, the T-Rex(es) look reasonably good, though every time one of them gets shot it just oozed CGI. And they die too easily; I suppose if a T-Rex were around in real life they probably could be felled or at least wounded by some rather rudimentary, 16th-century weaponry. But it takes something away from the movie. There are also some graphic T-Rex-swallowing-human scenes, which is surprising, but in this context I thought they worked OK. There's plenty of action, and the whole colonization angle is prevalent throughout but doesn't overwhelm the dinosaur angle, unlike the other recent SciFi Original dinosaur movie "Warbirds." Overall, a mediocre (but decent by SciFi Original standards) movie that rates a modest 4.
So, not being a poet myself, I have no real way to convey the beauty and simplicity of this documentary. The effortless motion of Goldsworthy, as he molds natures beauty into his own work is captivating. Watch him stick reeds together in a web hanging from a tree in a close up for a few minutes while he speaks of his work, and then receive the payoff when the camera cuts to the wide shot. Be amazed by the ease with which he operates and then realize the futility when a slight breeze knocks down the entire web.
The genius of Goldsworthy seemingly knows no bounds as his inspiration is nature itself. It is in the essential change of nature where his work, though complete in its own sphere, is made whole.

Humphrey Bogart clearly did not want to be in this film, and be forced to play a part-Mexican or he would have been suspended. Believe me , he made the wrong choice! Presumably, after the success of "Dodge City", Warners tried a follow-up with Errol Flynn and his usual list of buddies, like Alan Hale, Guinn (Big Boy) Williams, Frank Mc Hugh and the ever-present John Litel, but they made the huge mistake of trying to present Miriam Hopkins as a love interest for Flynn v. Randolph Scott, and as a singer to really make things bad, because she proved one thing, and that is she cannot sing. The story was not too bad, but with Bogie clearly miscast also, it turned out to be a poor Western that was overlong, and on a low budget, but in fairness, color would not have helped.