Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
"The first war to be 100% outsourced." Dan Ackroyd's line says it all. This is a hard to describe film; comedy, satire, action, screwball. It reminded once or twice of Dr. Strangelove, especially so in the scenes featuring Ben Kingsley (who did a remarkable job I think). I had no particular expectations of this film, though I am a big John Cusack fan, so I just let the movie wash over me. And as a result I was quite entertained. The political satire is painfully accurate and quite damning of the US military-business complex. The sub-plots were somewhat predictable but the final interweaving of story lines made them all worthwhile. I can understand why this film was not terribly popular in the US, but for the rest of the world, it is a timely tale.

Another day stuck indoors, another film to watch. Having finally completed my Christmas shopping yesterday on a cold and foggy afternoon, I had nowhere else to go to escape "The Land That Time Forgot". Or rather, I had nothing else to watch.
Doug McClure, that bastion of leading-man actors, leads a handful of Allied sailors sunk by a U-Boat somewhere in the Atlantic in 1916. Capturing the U-Boat (in a scene that defies logic and reason), they eventually find themselves on a strange island, apparently untouched by human hands. Together, they explore the land and discover dinosaurs and Neanderthals! Can they escape before becoming a permanent resident of the land that Time forgot?
Despite being made few years before "Star Wars", these films are light-years apart in terms of special effects. The model shots are little better than anything you would expect to see in an episode of Gerry Anderson's "Stingray" and the creatures aren't much better either. When the T-Rex (I'm assuming that's what it was) was killed, it fell in the same way that zombies do when you kill them - frozen in mid-walk and collapsing, arms and legs held out like a sleeping cow that's been pushed over. Granted, the sets aren't too bad but the lousy acting and endless explosion noises (which all sound the same) do their best to ruin credibility and your enjoyment of the picture as a whole. Characters are neither believable or worthy of your sympathy as they fire their guns at seemingly anything that moves. In the end, I just didn't care if they got off the island or not and by the time the end came, I was more relieved than entertained.
Costumes are authentic enough until the cavemen arrive and it is bear-skin bikinis and loin cloths all round. And although it was fairly obvious from their actions, you wouldn't have known that some characters were German from their accents. The whole thing just lacked some polish and cohesion, leaving the viewer confused in places and nonplussed in others. Overall, this film barely registers a ripple of excitement these days although you can find some small amusement in trying to work out where Colin Farrell is. I spotted his name in the credits and half expected a baby to appear with an Irish accent and suspect facial hair. Oh well. Nothing particularly great here to see then, but just about OK if you're eating your lunch and the weather is preventing further activity.
HUSBANDS BEWARE is a remake of the Shemp classic BRIDELESS GROOM. The film's new cooking scene at the beginning of the film is great. The stooges are always funny when they cook. However after the first few minutes of cooking footage, we cut to original footage of BRIDELESS GROOM. One thing I noticed about these 1953 to 1956 remakes are that they do fit with the new story. They do an insert shot if the old story line doesn't match.
HUSBANDS BEWARE does have a new ending, but I won't give it away to those who want to be surprised.
**** out of 4 stars.

What does the " Executive producer " do in a movie . If I remember correctly it's the person who raised the financial backing to make the movie . You might notice in a great number of movies starring Sean Connery that he is also the executive producer which meant Connery himself raised the money since he is a major player . Unfortunately it should also be pointed out that a great number of movies " starring Sean Connery were solely made because he managed to raise the money since he's a major Hollywood player , it's usually an indication that when the credits read that the executive producer and the star of the movie are one and the same the movie itself is nothing more than a star vehicle with the story/screenplay not being up to scratch
PROTOCOL follows the saga of one Sunny Davis a kooky bimboesque cocktail waitress who saves a visiting dignitary and as a reward gets made a top diplomat . Likely ? As things progress Ms Davis ( Who has problems being able to string two sentences together ) finds herself in more outlandish and less likely situations . When I say that PROTOCOL stars Goldie Hawn who is also the film's executive producer do you understand what I'm saying about the story/screenplay not being up to scratch ? Exactly
At first, I hadn't read the novel so far and I hadn't hear anything about the author yet. But as I casually saw this movie, I was totally captive by the story. Already as the Jewish watchman primary said, that he knows no one, who have a bad conscience about the war except from Howard W. Campbell Junior, was such amazing objective and dissociates from simply moralizing the war. Terrific! And the fictitious story about "the most effective spy for the USA in WWII", who have lost everything, that was important for his life, is wonderful emotional transcribed. This is the best story about the duality of humanity, I've ever heard about! The questions, this movie is introducing, are in my opinion very important for our society: When does someone bear the guilt of something? What is guilt? Who is a hero and who is a felon? What is important in our life? Can you live without paying attention to the political changes? Is the protagonist guilty or not? These questions are more up to date than in the last 60 years. This is a must see for everyone, who have to think about the acception of war! This movie is a must see for everyone, who meditate, what matters in life and what doesn't...

Man, I really wanted to like these shows. I am starving for some good television and I applaud TNT for providing these "opportunites". But, sadly, I am in the minority I guess when it comes to the Cinematic Stephen King. As brilliant as King's writing is, the irony is that it simply doesn't translate well to the screen, big or small. With few exceptions (very few), the King experience cannot be filmed with the same impact that the stories have when read. Many people would disagree with this, but I'm sure that in their heart of hearts they have to admit that the best filmed King story is but a pale memory of the one they read. The reason is simple. The average King story takes place in the mind-scape of the characters in the story. He gives us glimpses of their inner thoughts, their emotions and their sometimes fractured or unreal points of view. In short, King takes the reader places where you can't put a Panavision camera. As an audience watching the filmed King, we're left with less than half the information than the reader has access to. It's not too far a stretch to claim that One becomes a character in a King story they read, whereas One is limited to petty voyeurism of that same character when filmed. For as long as King writes, Hollywood will try shooting everything that comes out of his word processor, without any regard to whether or not they should. I don't blame the filmmakers for trying, but it takes an incredible amount of talent and circumspection to pull off the elusive Stephen King adaptation that works. The task is akin to turning lead into gold, or some arcane Zen mastery. Oh well, better luck next time.
Although well past the target audience, I've always had a soft spot for YA fiction, so, I was naturally intrigued by the return of Nancy Drew to the screen.
This is not a bad film. The central mystery involving a long dead actress is presented in straightforward simplistic terms with dashes of jeopardy for the young sleuth. Nancy and her friends never take the threats seriously, so young audience members will not be upset.
What I really appreciated from the story was the final results were rather serious and meaningful and Nancy seemed to understand and grow from the experience.
Emma Roberts is great as Nancy Drew and hopefully we'll see her again in another mystery.

This movie is just boring.
It tries to copy some effects borrowed to a creative director like Jeunet in "Amélie Poulain", but it is too much. The dialogs are pretty bad, some of the worst I have ever heard, Guillaume Canet is not convincing (I have almost never found him very convincing), his father in the movie plays very badly, the story is dumb, the ending is... stupid.
I think I have not dislike a movie so much since "le pacte des loups" (brotherhood of the wolf) from Christophe Gans (and I watch / see about 80-100 movies a year), but at least that movie had some action and lots of good actors.
I had never commented here (only rated), and when I saw the rating and the comments, I thought I had to write something down.
I guess we won't have problems to sell the DVD we were offered : not such a bad movie in our (large) collection !!!
I am open minded (I watch SF, westerns, drama, comedies, silents, horror, fantasy... movies !), but this movie was so boring that I felt like I had lost one hour and a half.
i went to see this movie with a bunch of friends one night. I didn't really hear much about it. So I wasn't expecting anything. But after I saw it, I really liked it. Nicolas Cage and the rest of the cast were very good. But I do have to say Giovanni Ribisi's acting performace did need a little perking up. But such a small flaw, it could be overrided.
Gone In 60 Seconds is about a retired car thief who must boost 60 rare and exotic cars in one night to save his brother's life. The movie is in no way predictable. So the ending should be a suprise. Think it's just another, fast car driving movie? Well you are partially right. There is much more to it. Everyone should take a look at this movie.

This is by far the worst movie I've ever seen. From the plot, though the shots, the "special effects", the acting, and did I mentioned the plot? Every single thing in it sucked ass!
This is a good example of what "over-doing" means and I'll try to explain:
I understand what the creator of this movie was trying to do; this was supposed to be one of those movies you can't really tell what the hell is going on up until the end. You sit mesmerized, not knowing who's dead and who's alive and who killed who and why and just when you think you got the timeline right you find out you're wrong and the movie ends - leaving you with an opened mouth for the next 5 minutes! Something like "Unbreakable" or "The Job" if you know what I mean.
But Olga Levens, the writer of this junk, yes, Olga  The writer, Director, Producer, Screenplay author, Caster, Production designer, Art Director, Costume Designer and also a double for one of the characters is some scenes... this is basically a one woman movie and when it comes to Olga Levens from "Levens Productions" you can't go wrong :-)
Well this might come as a shocker but "this time" Olga over did this big time, jumping from scene to scene, from dreams to reality... but wait! this was all a dream after all... or was it??? The picture fades and I realized none of this ever happened, the girl was all alone on the ship... actually there was no ship... no wait! There's the ship again, and the guys! They're alive! Thank god! No they're calling her to join the cruise... but then the ship disappears so maybe they're dead after all??? or maybe they never were alive to begin with???
If you understood what I just said you might like this movie - otherwise it's a boring piece of work and the only reason I set through this entire crap is to find out how the hell can they finish this movie...
Don't watch this if you value time, ever 90 minutes are a waste in this case...
Cashing in on the "demons-meets-clergy" trend of the late '60s/early '70s that most prominently included the triptych of "Rosemary's Baby," "The Exorcist," and "The Omen," "The Sentinel" is an addition that's just as good (albeit the most overlooked of the lot). In a way, it combines the best elements of those films and tosses in a dash of Polanski's "The Tenant" (which came out the same year) for good measure. A New York model unable to commit to her lawyer boyfriend takes up residence in a moss-coated townhouse that initially seems like the perfect locale; she meets a wily old coot of a neighbor (the brilliant Burgess Meredith), plus the other off-center tenants. Kept awake by loud noises above her apartment, she soon discovers that a mute priest and herself are the only residents in the otherwise deserted building. From there, director Michael Winner ("Death Wish") kicks this supernatural thriller into gear, and there is a devilish glee to the hallucinogenic tortures he inflicts on his heroine. Aided by a brilliant ensemble cast, a subtle storyline, and excellent makeup FX by Dick Smith ("The Exorcist"), "The Sentinel" is a genuinely creepy horror flick.

I agree totally with another of the reviewers here who was pleased "For The Birds" won the Oscar in 2002 for "Best Animated Short," not this sick material, which is pretentious at best and appealing to anyone, of course, who has no belief in heaven or hell.
The animation was good, but so are a lot of animated shorts. And, by the way, I love dark humor but this just was unappealing from the start.
As for the story here: a guy walking around and surrounded by nothing but grey (symbolism here) is told by a TV set (which appears every few hundred yards away) that he is in either heaven, hell, or purgatory. Each time he puts a gun to his head and shoots himself after hearing the news. I guess that would be funny in two of the three instances.
Dan, the widowed father of three girls, has his own advice column that will probably go into syndication. After his wife's death, he has taken time to raise his daughters. Having known no romance in quite some time, nothing prepares him for the encounter with the radiant Marie, at a local book store in a Rhode Island small town on the ocean, where he has gone to celebrate Thanksgiving with the rest of his big family. After liking Marie at first sight, little prepares him when the gorgeous woman appears at the family compound. After all, she is the date of Dan's brother, Mitch.
It is clear from the outset that Dan and Marie are made for one another, and although we sense what the outcome will be, we go for the fun ride that Peter Hedges, the director wants to give us. Mr. Hedges, an author and screenplay writer on his own, has given us two excellent novels, "What's Eating Gilber Grapes", and "An Ocean in Iowa", and the delightful indie, "Pieces of April, which he also directed. It's just a coincidence that both movies deal with families during Thanksgiving reunions.
The best thing in the film was the natural chemistry between the two stars, Steve Carell and Juliette Binoche. Mr. Carell, in fact, keeps getting better all the time. In many ways, he remind us of Jack Lemmon, in his take of comedy and serious material. What can one say about Ms. Binoche, an intelligent actress, and a bright presence in any film. She proves she is right up to doing comedy, convincing us about her Marie.
The only sad note is the waste of talent in the picture. John Mahoney, Diane Wiest, Norbert Leo Butz, Jessica Hecht, Emily Blunt, Allison Pill, Amy Ryan, have nothing to do. They just serve as incidental music for decoration. Dane Cook, who is seen as brother Mitch, fares better because he gets to recite more lines than the others.
"Dan in Real Life" is a delightful film that will please everyone.

Watching this I mainly noticed the ad placements. DHL, Aquawhite Strips, Rockstar and more. It's one product placement after another. It's quite obvious how this movie got its funding. Jessica Simpson's "acting" is laughable. Any Dick shouldn't ever get work because he plays the same lame character. The "story" is just a backdrop for this very long commercial. I can't believe this movie was even considered for theatrical release. The longer you watch this movie the more you're embarrassed for everyone involved. The only minor saving grace is Larry Miller and Rachael Lee Cook, who gets almost no screen time as Jessica's cousin. I'm embarrassed I watched the whole thing. I would recommend avoiding this one.
I know Anime. I've been into it long before it became a national phenomenon; i loved Ranma before most people knew what Dragonball Z even was. And just so you know I'm not bragging about my, let me say this: out of all the animes I've seen, Castle in the Sky is by far one of the best. It's obvious people say Spirited Away is the best, but I really disagree. Most people only know that movie because it one an Acedmy Award; this isn't an exaggeration - I've shown Princess Mononoke and Castle in the Sky to people who'd only ever seen Spirited Away, and they agree that the latter two are the superior of the three. Personally, I'd never thought that anything could compare to Princess Mononoke, until I finally saw Castle in the Sky. I still think that the prior is the better of the two, but Castle in the Sky is easily on par with it; in many ways, Castle has major elements that Mononoke was missing. In either case, if you've only seen Spirited Away, and think that that is Miyazaki's best film, be prepared to have your earth shaken.

I love watching early colour films - you mean those 40s clothes weren't all grey?
Margaret Rutherford dominates this movie. Her "eccentric" garb is actually rather attractive and yes, she has an amazing hourglass figure. But I feel she was given her head rather too much. She probably developed this characterisation over many performances, and nobody told her "If it gets a laugh, leave it out." She does too much deranged fooling about when she's supposed to be surprisingly down to earth. The Madame Arcati joke is that mediums were usually portrayed as wispy females in long drapery. Arcati behaves like a retired headmistress (We'll really put our backs into it!). The contrast between her breezy, commonplace manner and her wacky beliefs isn't really brought out.
Just because all the actors are English (apart from Cummings), the Americans feel they have to use the words "Brit", "stiff", "lip" and "upper". Oh, give it a rest! The three main characters lose their tempers constantly and make risqué remarks (Did he make love to you? Yes, but very discreetly - he was in the cavalry!).
This is a comedy based on national stereotypes, no doubt. If you leave away pretending you know or you care what Communism was about and how real Russians or Brits are, if you accept and are not hurt by the conventions, you can have fun with this film. Nicole Kidman is at her best, sexy, moving and funny. Ben Chaplin succeeds to avoid being completely out-shadowed by Nicole, and the rest of the cast does good work as well. The final is moving, and logical - movie logics, of course. Worth watching, if you accept the rules of the game.

After reading the book, I loved the story. Watching the movie I was disappointed that so many changes were made. It is understandable that books and movies differ but it was two different stories, only the names and some of the book's story remained. Read the book and you'll have a better understanding of the movie. The book gives you a better development of the characters. These characters are extremely interesting and make you care about them. The locations were indeed in line with the book's descriptions. Some characters not included. Television has microwaved so many great books and stories, this is a perfect example of that. Input from the author doesn't always insure a good movie but it can help sometimes.
While this movie won't go down in the annals of great cinema, it is a fun way to spend an hour and a half with the family. The film is finally being released in video where it should have debuted in the first place.
The film is about an eclectic group of friends who gather for dinners which they have named, "The Hungry Bachelors Club". Jorja Fox plays a woman who serves as a surrogate in order to get a down payment for the restaurant that she wants to open. Bill Nunn plays a Cadillac-loving mystery man who becomes her lover. Fox gives an understated and touching performance and Nunn is reliably talented as always. Micheal des Barres is a hoot as an over the top attorney. The ensemble casts - made up of familiar faces - works nicely together to bring this wacky group of characters to life. This is a good rental and one of the few you can watch with the whole family.

If there was a 0 stars rating i would gladly hand it out to this absolutely horrid pile of waste. The fact that the actual summary is perfectly fine and that if it had been made different it could have been brilliant only makes it worse. The basic task of locking up a group of people in an experiment chamber is fine, but WHERES THE EXPERIMENT? All i see is a bunch of unintelligent surfers and blondes chatting about music and culture i don't know or want to know about... The challenges are pathetic and silly. The whole point of reality TV is to show REALITY. If you set a 'challenge' don't make them play with exaggerated props of food and stereotypical cultural elements in 'friday night games'. make them do an actual challenge. And as for 'earning' prize money, thats fine, if they actually earnt it! These people are nuts. If only they would make the show better, the actual idea would be glorious. But that ain't gonna happen!
I enjoyed this movie,and after watching it,it made me wonder just how many 'Caitlin Rose's' exist in the world.How many other girls have been subjected to this sort of sexual abuse,and torment by classmates and have been too frightened to open their mouth about it? Just how threatening and cruel can teenagers be towards one another,because as this film demonstrates,who's right is not foremost important,its who is popular,and feared which manipulates the minds of youths,and influences them to allow this sort of immorality to happen.Tiffani Amber Thiessen gives a powerful performance as the rape victim,and Brian Austin Green is convincing as the guy torn between the girl he thought he loved,and his best friend.This is the kind of film that doesn't get the exposure it deserves.Remarkable,and brilliant,too good to be just a film made for TV.

This movie had good intentions and a good story to work with. The director and screenwriter of this movie failed miserably and created a dull, boring filmstrip that made me feel like I was back in Mr. Hartford's 8th grade Social Studies class -- way back in 67.
What a waste, will somebody please take this story and make a real movie out of it - the story deserves it.
Every time a scene had potential, all we were left with were a few clichés, combined with black and white footage that they probably got from The History Channel to show the action. Shameful.
Ossie Davis was the only bright light in this dull fest. The other acting was incredibly dull - it fit in with the movie well and whomever played the Captain set a new low standard for line delivery.
However, if you are willing to accept all the numerous flaws in this movie and aren't concerned with being awed or entertained, but want to learn about the USS Mason, it is worth a watch.