Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
With Oliver Hardy bedeviled by the sound of horns, bells, phones and trombones, his doctor Finlayson advises peace and quiet and a diet of goat milk. Partner Stan Laurel comes up with a great solution, living on a docked boat so the salt sea air can help Ollie get all the rest he needs. It's a great premise for all the mad cap hijinks to ensue, as the boat is set adrift by the hungry goat, and an escaped convict (Richard Cramer) stows along for the ride.
I got a kick out of all the gags in the film, starting with that sign in the horn testing factory - 'Silence While Men Are Working'. The early story at the boys' apartment features a number of mixed up plumbing and appliance mishaps, with Stan doing a banana within a banana bit. Laurel has a couple of great lines in the picture, like "We must have been dis-unconnected", but the one that had me rolling was his response to the criminal on board ship - "Self preservation is the last law of averages" - precisely!
I'm not as great a student of Laurel and Hardy's films as many on this board, all I know is I enjoyed them as a kid and find them to be as entertaining today as they were back in my youth. On that count, "Saps At Sea" provides a decent hour of hornophobic fun, well on it's way to hornomania.

If I hadn't read his name on the DVD cover, I never would have suspected that this rather gushy and old fashioned musical was made by a man so closely associated with the French New Wave. In fact, the film is so far from that, that I wonder if back in the 50s and 60s, New Wave auteurs would have absolutely hated this type of film--it's so...so...unreal. And, it seems to have little to do with so many of his previous films. This isn't necessarily a bad thing--just a very surprising thing.
What I also found a bit surprising was the amount of praise some of the reviewers gave this film--especially when there are so many better French musicals out there. The songs in this film were simply not particularly interesting and the characters all seemed so bland and stereotypical. If I had to see another rich person who fretted about how hard it is to be rich or get a good sale price on a designer outfit, I was going to puke.
The bottom line is that like American musicals, not every French musical is gold. This film is not another "Les parapluies de Cherbourg" (UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG or "Huit Femmes" (EIGHT WOMEN) and despite the presence of Audrey Tautou, I can't see much reason to recommend it as anything other than a dull oddity.
Though I saw this movie years ago, its impact has never left me. Stephen Rea's depiction of an invetigator is deep and moving. His anguish at not being able to stop the deaths is palpable. Everyone in the cast is amazing from Sutherland who tries to accommodate him and provide ways for the police to coordinate their efforts, to the troubled citizen x. Each day when we are bombarded with stories of mass murderers, I think of this film and the exhausting work the people do who try to find the killers.

I'm probably not giving this movie a fair shake, as I was unable to watch all of it. Perhaps if I'd seen it in a theater, in its original presentation, I might have appreciated it, but it's far too slow-moving for me.
I read the book some 25 years ago and the details of the plot have faded from memory. This did not help the film, as it's something less than vivid and clear in its presentation of events.
This is really four linked films, or a film in four parts, and was, I believe, intended to be seen over four nights in a theatrical presentation. I found Part I to be enjoyable enough, but it was all I could do to sit through Part II, which drags interminably. Reading Tolstoy's philosophizing is one thing. If you get a good translation or can read it in the original, his brilliant writing far outweighs any issues one might have with the pace of the story. On film, however, it's hard to reproduce without being ponderous.
I have other issues with the parts of the film that I saw. It's very splashy, with a lot of hey-ma-look-at-this camera work that calls attention to itself, instead of serving to advance the story.
Clearly, I'm missing something, but I just couldn't summon the enthusiasm to crank up parts III and IV.
With all the "Adult" innuendos in todays family movies its nice to see one where you don't have to worry about that and can just sit back and enjoy a family with your kids. Yes, this movie might have a few swear-words (there's that time where Knox swears, but they don't let you hear the full words), but for the most part this movie is truly as clean as they come (and that's including movies from back in the day). Not only that, its very enjoyable, one of my favorites, and just a great clean and fun movie to watch with the family.
The only thing I have against this movie is that it is too short and I wish there could be more of some of the memorable parts that are in it, I'm not going to mention them because I don't want any spoilers here.
All in all nicely done and a great movie to watch; so go out and get the kids, make some cookies, and watch this movie!

Last night I decided to watch the prequel or shall I say the so called prequel to Carlito's Way - "Carlito's Way: Rise to Power (2005)" which went straight to DVD...no wonder .....it completely ...and I mean completely S%&KS !!! waist of time watching it and I think it would be a pure waist of time writing about it.... I don't understand how De Palma agreed on producing this sh#t-fest of a movie....except for only one fact that I tip my hat to... Jay Hernandez who plays the young Brigante.... reminded me how De Niro got into the shoes of Brando to portray the young Don Corleone in Godfather II ...but the difference De Niro was amazing and even got an Oscar for it !!! Jay Hernandez well he has guts for trying to be a young Pacino.... too bad for him I don't think he will be playing in film anymore and by the way after I watched this sh#$%ty movie, I sat down and watched the original Carlitos way to get the bad taste out of my mouth.
are highlights of this 1917 feature. The Pride of the Clan tells the story of a young girl who becomes clan chieftain after her father dies. On an island off the coast of Scotland, the villagers live the simple lives of "fisher folk." My copy is very dark and sometimes hard to read, but the film boasts some stunning ocean scenery, and the camera work on boats is splendid. Maurice Tourneur directed Pickford in this pleasant film. Pickford was already a major star in 1917, and this film seems to have been written just for her: plucky young woman succeeds over misfortune. Pickford whip lashing lazy villagers toward church is very funny. And the final scenes on the sinking ship are very well done. Not a great Picford film, but still worth seeing. Matt Moore (Pickford was married to his brother, Owen Moore) is the love interest, and is good as the strapping island lad. Leatrice Joy is one of the villagers but I couldn't spot her either. My copy intersperses lots of bells and gongs and adds an eerie feeling when the village warning bells are rung. Very effective.

Not totally off the wall in a good way, but just totally stupid. "Killer Tongue" is an uneasy mixture of sci-fi, horror, and supposed comedy. What this equates to is a mindless and totally incoherent film. There is very little dialog, mainly due to the fact that the script, if there was one, is complete "pond scum". I wouldn't even call it strange, more like just "total nonsense". This movie is certain to disappoint, and you have been warned. There is absolutely no reason to waste time on this, and if you do, the pungent smell will linger like rotten fish............................................................... MERK
"A little nonsense now and then, is cherished by the wisest men."
If you are too smart to watch this movie, then you are too smart to be alive.
Wonderful romp, wonderful premise, period piece done with acute eye for detail.
Walter Matthau, Meg Ryan, Tim Robbins - et al - just wonderful!
Rent it, sit down, relax, take it in, smile a little. Enjoy yourself.
Then, thank me.

It's my opinion that when you decide to re-make a very good film, you should strive to do better than the original; or at least give it a fresh point of view. Now the 1963 Robert Wise telling of Shirley Jackson's remarkable novel "The Haunting of Hill House" is worth the price of admission even today. Now fast forward to 1999 and the re-make. I was left shaking my head and asking, why? The acting is wooden, the story unrecognizable and the whole point seems to be to replace the subtle horror of the original with as many special effects computers can generate. I had heard that this update was bad; but couldn't believe it was that bad, considering the source material. I was wrong. After watching this and saying to my wife how awful it was, she said; "Well they got your money!" She's right, don't let them get yours. If there's no profit in making lousy re-makes, maybe they'll stop making them or come up to a higher standard that doesn't insult their audience
Rosalind Russell executes a power-house performance as Rosie Lord, a very wealthy woman with greedy heirs. With an Auntie Mame-type character, this actress can never go wrong. Her very-real terror at being in an insane assylum is a wonderful piece of acting. Everyone should watch this.

I watched this movie at a Sneak Preview screening and I'm glad I didn't pay for it. This movie is just disgusting. Its full of dick and fart jokes and takes no pride in the action sequences(such as the shootout in "Little Germany"). I made a little list of things I enjoyed in the movie.. and a lot of which I didn't agree of.
1. Dave Foley's penis. 2. The fart jokes. 3. The Poop jokes. 4. The Dude was a pussy. 5. No Gary Coleman. 6. The Talibans 7. Again making fun of Bush.. WE GET IT HE'S AN IDIOT.. move on. 8. The Dude has blonde hair. 9. The Plot. 10. The killing of minors 11. Uwe Boll was in it. 12. Most of the cast were just outrages and out there.
Now the (few) good ones
1. The Dude uses a cat as a silencer like in the game. 2. Lots of action. 3. Crotchy made a return (and a cameo of the maker of Postal) 4. Uhm.. I didn't have to pay for it. 5. There are a few "what the ef" moments
Boll did it again. He made another crappy game into movie adaption. Kudos to you, Mr Boll. 2/10
A fine western, following the fate of those who possess the prize winning gun, a Winchester '73. It has a great cast who give superb cliche characterisations with help from the usual effective story telling direction from Mann.

If this is supposed to be the black experience, let me out at either the front or back door.
A mama's boy one day sees 2 young hoods walk by and from then on it's all down hill for him. Angela Bassett, the one shining grace in this film, plays his over protective, religious mother. Despite her anger at how his life has turned, by the middle of the picture, she really decides to accept this. She allows his friends to come in and suddenly it's all right to use the profanity as long as it's not in front of the children.
This is a sad state of affairs regarding gangster rap. You knew where this film was heading.
I literally laughed out loud when at the end, when Bassett is accompanying her son's body for burial, she states that while his life had been cut short at age 24, he had become a man. What man? He had been a convicted criminal, wrote the most atrocious rap music with constant vulgarity,and scorned society. That scene in the classroom where he tells a teacher that as a sanitation worker, he will earn more than the teacher is a perfect example of what goes on in our schools. The complete and utter lack of respect for the teacher.
The east coast, west coast gang rap rivalry is never fully explained. All we see are guns blazing.
A terrible picture doing nothing to prevent gang violence. What horrible role models are these rap singers and their foul music. The African American community should take umbrage at their very being. Who was this classless fat slob who portrayed Biggie? He made Rerun from the old television show look thin by comparison. I know it was the streets of Bedford Stuyvesant that changed this chubby little boy into the vulgar monster that he was. What a sorry state of affairs when this is called motion picture entertainment.
Gere and Danes star as 2 workers for the department of public safety who keep track of released sex offenders. Gere, who plays Babbage, refers to them as his flock. Gere is an over obsessed vigilante whom is on his way out. He is training, new comer Allison, to take over his job. Gere sees his flock as very sick, disturbed puppies. He asks them questions that are not on the list, and tries to act like the police and solve crimes. He keeps getting warned for this behavior, hence the reason he is being replaced. During his final few days on the job, a young girl goes missing, and Babbage is sure it is one of his flock whom has gone astray. Him and Allison narrow a list down and discover some of the offenders have gone AWOL. So, he decides that he needs to track the missing girl down rather than help the police. That part is a little far fetched.
There is some sick, twisted stuff shown in this film. Like when Babbage and Allison go to this building where a bunch of sick people do disturbing things to each other. Also, there are the people who kidnapped the girl. At the end of the film, we see what sick freaks they are. However, I wouldn't call this movie excessive because not really much is shown on film.
FINAL VERDICT: If you like thrillers and films about serial killers and cops chasing killers, then you will like this.

Maya is a woman without any interests. She just dreams her life away and wonders, why she does not feel fulfilled. This could be an interesting topic. That would need a good story, a nice setting and good dialogues. It doesn't have any of these. This movie is totally boring. There are only lengths and no climaxes.The only climax is Shahrukh Khan. But although I am a huge fan of his, I couldn't stand this movie. Even he can't make this movie exiting. The movie is not as bad as "King Uncle" and if you're an Art-house fan or like it slow, you might maybe like it. It's not funny, it's not interesting, it's not catching. My recommendation: Don't watch it.
Cannot believe a movie that can be made that good in 1987 and is virtually unknown in the west. Not to repeat other reviews here. The score is very good and moving. Literally it means "Dawn please never comes" - when it comes, the beautiful ghost and the lover will be apart forever. After 24 years, Joel and Leslie still look great. I enjoyed Joel in God of Gamblers and many movies by Leslie including Better Tomorrow.

Unfortunately the movie is more concerned with making lame social commentary on a real event, but doesnt have the balls to legitimately document what happened. The constant rhetoric of how violent video games are not to blame (I get the impression Ben Coccio is an avid gamer), or how media and music is completely devoid of influence is the obvious message (we even get a laughable scene of the two boys burning ALL their cd's, talk about subtlety!), but the movie only gets away with it because its 'fiction'. Nice try. Yes its a great idea to relieve media of influence, but how do we know the kids that have actually planned and executed a school shooting werent influenced by media? or video games? We dont, and we wont with this movie because once again these kids are smart enough to completely relinquish the media, yet dumb enough to scorch a nazi symbol on the ground? haha I somehow dont think so.
The movie bats you over the head with its portrayal of the normalcy of the families, its almost doing a disservice to think that there wasn't a serious flaw in the family dynamic of kids that have actually gone out and shot their fellow schoolmates. Why is everyone so concerned with making killers seem "normal", when they are so obviously not? A completely false and phony depiction.
This is why i so love this website ! I saw this film in the 1980's on British television. Over the years it is one i have wished i knew more about as it has stayed with me as one of the single most extraordinary things i have ever seen in my life. With barely a few key words to remember it by, i traced the film here, and much information, including the fact it's about to become an off-Broadway musical !
Interestingly, unlike the previous comment maker, i do not remember finding this film sad, or exploitative. On the contrary, the extraordinary relationship between the mother and daughter stuck in the mind as a testimony of great strength, honour and dignity. Ironic you may think, considering the squalor of their lives. Maybe it's because i live in Britain, where fading grandeur has an established language in the lives of old money, where squalor is often tolerated as evidence of good breeding; I saw it as a rare and unique portrayal of enormous spirit, deep and profound humour, whose utterly fragile and delicately balanced fabric gave it poise and respect. In a way i was sorry to see it being discussed as a 'cult'. Over the years, as it faded in my mind, it shone the brightest, above all others as a one off brilliant & outstanding televisual experience. It was such a deeply private expose, it seems odd to think of it becoming so public as to be a New York musical. But perhaps somewhere, the daughter will be amused by such an outcome. It is she who will have the last laugh maybe..(They made a musical out of her before you Jackie O' )

When I am watching a film, I am aware that it is `just a movie,' but nonetheless I do like to allow myself to become engrossed as much as possible under the circumstances. I think this is what makes us cry, scream, laugh, or otherwise react emotionally as audience members, even though, deep down, we know it is `just a movie.' What I don't want is for the movie to remind me it is just a movie so that I am unable to slip into the aforementioned engrossment regardless of the quality of the film. This film's director chose to frequently use multi-angle camera shots simultaneously on the screen. Maybe it is just me, but I find this to be terribly distracting and downright irritating. They might as well run a continuous banner across the bottom of the screen reading, `Attention: This is just a movie. Do not allow yourself to become too interested or engrossed'. If I want `picture-in-picture', I'll activate it from my TV remote, but never during a movie I want to enjoy.
The synopsis for this movie does a great job at explaining what to expect. It's a very good thriller. Well shot. Tough to believe it was Bill Paxton's directorial debut, though some shots do look EXACTLY like a storyboard version.
Still, there are a few shots that really look good and show some real imagination on the part of Paxton.
It's a solid story with some great twists at the end, several of them, all believable, all fun, and best of all, obscured well enough to make them true twists.
The child actors in the movie do a great, too. I'm usually wary of movies with kids in starring roles because all too often they come off as Nickelodeon rejects, but both these kids do a good job.
This movie is not gory. It's not very scary. But it IS very, very creepy.

A slasher flick, made in the early 80's, has a curse on it which has anyone who tries to finish it turning up dead. Years later, a group of film students attempted to complete the movie - also resurrecting the films deadly curse. Great idea for a film, but sadly 'Cut' is just another wasted opportunity.
Unfortunately Australia hasn't had the world's best track record when it comes to horror. 'Razorback' (1984) was an out and out dud as was 'Holwing III' (1987), which was half an American film anyway. As for our foray into comedy-horror, 'Body Melt' (1993) is best left forgotten. The problem with 'Cut' is that the makers trying to create a clever horror satire a la 'Scream' (1996) but have no insight into the genre or what makes it work. And although this sounds weird me saying this about a slasher film but what 'Cut' really lacks is any "heart". Sure it follows the basic "rules" established by 'Scream', but it doesn't want to play with the formula, instead it goes for a cardboard copy of the earlier.
The killer, Scarman, is probably one of the most boring and uncharismatic villains in horror movie history. His endless barrage awkwardly, lame one-liners would make the dialogue of a porno seem like Shakespeare. The cast never seem like their fully involved and look like their just waiting for a shoot to be over so they can collect their pay checks. And the feel of the film is like it's deliberately trying not to be creepy; looking more like an episode of 'Neighbors' or 'Heartbreak High'. By the way, those attempts at MTV style, hyper-cinema during the "research" sequence just look lame, dated and out of place.
If Australia ever gets a chance to do horror again (Which I hope we still do) maybe we should take a leaf from the 'Mad Max' (1979) book. Instead of trying to copy the U.S. we should be trying our own take on the genre.
I didn't feel that this film was quite as clever as it seemed to think it was but enjoyed it nevertheless.
It is original, although reminded me a little of two other French films, Vidocq and City of Lost Children, mostly for the colouring but also for the edgy quality of the close ups of the characters.
Set in a prison cell but do not let this put you off, this film seemingly goes further than many a multi locationed blockbuster.
Always interesting, with the perennial 'Black Arts' well to the fore and very good characterisation making some only too believable!
Scary with some gore this is well worth a viewing.

Burt Reynolds came to a point in his career where he appeared to just be going thru the motions. He'd show up, party with his friends on film, and take home a big paycheck. It didn't seem to matter to him that the product he was representing was pure crap.
No film epitomized this more than "Stroker Ace" which makes "Cannonball Run" look like a classic and "Cannonball Run II" look watchable. Save for a few race scenes there is absolutely NOTHING worth seeing here. Even the beautiful Loni Anderson hams it up so bad as a dumb blonde it's embarrassing.
If the thought of Burt hamming it up with Jim Nabors and dressing like a chicken sounds funny then this is your movie. Otherwise pick almost any other film comedy and it won't be any worse.
This movie gets it right. As a former USAF Aviation Cadet, I can tell you this movie has it all. The tedium of the application process. The waiting for word. The joy of acceptance. The worry about making it through the course. The sorrow of watching one's buddies (perhaps the best of them)wash out. The anguish of paying the ultimate price - the death of fllow student airmen. The glory of graduation. Always the flying, the flying, the flying. Many are called but few are chosen. We did for pay what we would have eagerly paid to do.

This scared the hell out of me when i was a teenager. Now I find it more amusing than scary, but with some pretty unsettling moments and with a kind of sleazy quality to it that I like. And, come to think of it, the plot is rather disgusting actually...but handled with some kind of taste. If there is a problem with this movie, it is that there are HUGE gaps where nothing exciting or interesting happens. Also, the ending goes on forever, making a potentially tense climax seem silly after a while with Barbara Bach screaming and screaming. The "monster", after it is exposed, isn't very scary either unfortunately. The somewhat drab look of the movie also works against it, making it appear as a TV-movie more than something made for theaters. But it is an example of films that are rarely made nowadays so I urge horror fans to watch it and feel a bit nostalgic...