Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
While the sparkling chemistry between Ryan and Robbins alone is reason enough to see this movie, the supporting cast (including Matthau, Fry, Shalub, Durning and the hilarious trio of Jacobi, Saks and Maher) is an additional plus. Matthau shines as Einstein, Fry is perfect as Ryan's clinical fiancé, and Shalub's line about Einstein's gonads is, as has been noted, one of the highlights of the film. The speech that Robbins delivers at his first appearance in public is sheer poetry. Kudos to the writers for handling this froth with wit and levity. I also thought that Keene Curtis was wonderful as Eisenhower. This might be considered something of a chick movie, but I think everyone will get a kick out of it. Eight very solid points.

*Spoilers and extreme bashing lay ahead*
When this show first started, I found it tolerable and fun. Fairly Oddparents was the kind of cartoon that kids and adults liked. It also had high ratings along with Spongebob. But it started to fall because of the following crap that Butch Hartman and his team shoved into the show.
First off, toilet humor isn't all that funny. You can easily pull off a fast laugh from a little kiddie with a burp, but that's pretty much the only audience that would laugh at such a cliché joke. Next there are the kiddie jokes. Lol we can see people in their underwear and we can see people cross-dressing. LOLOLOL!!! I just can't stop laughing at such gay bliss! Somebody help me! But of course, this show wouldn't suck that bad if it weren't for stereotypes. Did you see how the team portrayed Australians? They saw them as nothing but kangaroo-loving, boomerang-throwing simpletons who live in a hot desert. But now... Is the coup de grace of WHY this show truly sucks the loudest of them all... OVER-USED JOKES!!! The show constantly pulls up the same jokes (the majority of them being unfunny) thinking it is like the greatest thing ever! Cosmo is mostly the one to blame. I hated how they kept on mentioning "Super Toilet" (which also has a blend of kiddish humor in it just as well) and Cosmo would freak out. And who could forget that dumb battery ram joke that every goddamn parent in Dimmsdale would use in that one e-mail episode? You know, the one in which every single parent (oblivious to other parents saying it) would utter the EXACT same sentence before breaking into their kid's room? Yes, it may be first class humor to some people, but it is pure s*** to others.
If I'm not mistaken, I do believe Butch Hartman said something about ending the show. Thank God! Everyone around my area says it's, like, the funniest Nickelodeon show ever. I just can't agree with it I think it's just another pile of horse dung that we get on our cartoon stations everyday, only worse.
Just a comment on New Orleans accents...
An earlier reviewer noted the following: "This film, could have been shot in New York, or another Northern big city because it presents us with characters that speak more like "broklynese" than maybe a Southern accent one might hear in that part of the country." There was also another comment along these lines from an English reviewer.
Many people in New Orleans do, in fact, sound "broklynese". I have never found out why. (It's mentioned in "A Confederacy of Dunces" by John Kennedy Toole.) I always appreciate movies taking place in New Orleans that include this detail, as this one did. Too often it's just the Hollywood version of the standard Southern accent.

This one is just like the 6th movie. The movie is really bad. It offers nothing in the death department. The one-liners are bad and are something that shouldn't be in a NOES movie. Freddy comes off as a happy child in the whole movie. Lisa Wilcox is still the only thing that makes this one worth while. The characters are extremely underdeveloped. All in all better than the 6th one, but still one the worst movies of the series. My rating 2/10
This movie maybe really bad, but it is alot of fun. The bad acting and poor direction enhance the film's hystericalness. The twins are very funny in their Conanesque roles. If you go into this film expecting the first Conan or Excalibur, than you will hate it. If you watch it while in a good mood and accept it as good, dumb fun you will have a good time. Watch for the scene where they try to hang the brothers, its funniest scene in the film. I wish Mystery Science Theatre 3000 would have done this!!

The movie is just as fun as staring at the sun.Sheriff Pataki is a total retard that loves nothing better to do than sit on his fat rear making a smoke ring from his puffy cigars and drinking booze while the doctor acts like a zombie version of Nicholas Cage sucking up all that so called "Blood" which in reality seemed like Fruit Punch.
Most of all the plotting seemed very horrid to even call this piece of crap a movie.The rest of the characters in this movie are total wastes of time, the ending was awful, the outlines were cheesy, and the scenes were terrible. What else more should I say to you viewers out there? My advice would be to get your Rabies shot if you've already watched the movie. This movie may give you the foam in the mouth if you didn't get your up-to-date shots.
Saw this on SBS TV here in Australia the other week, where it was titled "Laputa: Castle in the sky". I had enabled subtitles and I think SBS provided their own for that, which, as usual, was of very good quality.
Just looked up "Laputa" on Wikipedia and it confirms what I suspected...the floating island of this tale is taken from the classic Jonathan Swift novel "Gulliver's travels", which was published in the early to mid 1700s.
Anyway, this is an engaging Japanese fairytale, which features an English speaking voice-cast. It's suitable for young children, I think, but it does run at just over two hours in length, so it may be too long for some, though not for an adult like me.
The story concerns two children who seek to find a legendary floating island which has a castle on it. The children are not the only ones looking for this island. They have pirates, the army and spies looking for the island too, and looking to capture the children (Sheeta, the girl, voiced by Anna Paquin, and Pazu, the boy, voiced by James Van Der Beek) in order to help them find it.
The graphics are magnificent...sort of photo-realistic at times, especially the scenes of stonework lit by torch-light, or the pretty scenes of bright, sunny days, with white clouds, or mist.
Recommended.

What did producer/director Stanley Kramer see in Adam Kennedy's novel and Kennedy's very puzzling screenplay? Were there a few pieces left out on purpose? And what about Gene Hackman, Richard Widmark, Edward Albert, Eli Wallach and Mickey Rooney? What did they see in this very muddled story?
And why did Candice Bergen, who gave a horrible performance, accept such a thankless role?
The Domino Principle wants to be on the same footing as The Parallax View or The Manchurian Candidate and misses the mark by a very wide margin. A major misfire by Stanley Kramer.
No sense going over the story since enough reviewers have done that. Here's a few different slants on it from one of those "religious nuts," as one bigoted reviewer puts it so tolerantly.
1) "Baby Face" (1933) offers perhaps THE classic example ever put on film of how women can manipulate men with sex. There is a lot of truth to what Barbara Stanwyck demonstrates in this film: look cute, bat your eyelashes, offer your body for free.....and men will fall over themselves to help you out with whatever you want.
In this case, it was job advancement with the ultimate goal of money.....lots of it. At least four men in this film do provide just that, even if it ruins their lives in the process.
2) The ending - which many of the reviewers here seemed to hate - gives another great message: all the money and material goods in the world won't make a person feel fulfilled. A sad comment that so many "critics" here would rather have immoral messages, preferring sleaze over substance. No surprise, I guess.
Any way you look at it, the movie is entertaining start-to-finish and Stanwyck has some great lines, particularly in the beginning when she tells off her crude father and his unruly bar customers. At a little over 70 minutes, this film moves at a fast pace and is over before you know it.

I read some comments on the internet about this film like "...harder then Hostel...", "the camera never screens of when it's getting really brutal...". But none of them is true. The camera never screens of, because there is nothing to screen of. The same scene is repeated hundred and hundred times again. Women lies on a table, killer rapes women a few times, killer cuts women into pieces (you never see this during the whole film!). Police come and arrested him. Killer fools the jury. Film over. In Germany we would say :"Viel Lärm um Nichts". All in all, one of the most boring films I ever see. Absolutely non-recommendable.
I was quite a fan of the series as a child and after that it has always remained in my mind as one of those memorable cartoons that made a difference in the early 80s compared to previous animated series (Heidi, Barbapapa, Il Etait une Fois l'Homme..., most of which I love). I find that other similar Japanese cartoons of this kind released later can't match Mazinger Z, as they started to boringly repeat the same pattern.
That very thing, the novelty, may be one of the best features of Mazinger Z. Another good point is its inventiveness, with so many extravagant monsters, strange devices and bizarre characters; actually, we were eager to see each new installment to find out what kind of new fiend or evil machine was awaiting us!

Why bother seeing this movie, if you have great movies to see. It is a total waste of time and money. The movie is so bad that I felt bad for wanting to watching it. Everything in it is BAD. Actors were bad. Script was REALLY bad. The story is stupid. And the worst CGI EVER. The only good moments were the first 60 seconds of the movie in the strip club. One interesting thing that, there is a characther that we wish that he dies because, he is so stupid that we get enough of him.(I don't remember the name but was the BOYFRIEND of the "Chosen One".)
NOTE:If you want to see a good movie, this movie isn't the right choice. 0-Stars out of 10
it's all very simple. Jake goes to prison, and spends five years with the con and the chess masters. they get compassionate about his history of loss and failure, and utterly misery that he lives on because of his belief in his mastery of small tricks and control of the rules of small crooks. they decide to give Jake the ultimate freedom: from his innermost fears, from what he believes to be himself. for that, they take him on a trip where he got to let go all the fear, all the pride, all the hope - to be reborn as true master of his will.
it's a clever movie about the journey of illumination, about the infinite gambles and games that we do with and within ourselves. 10/10, no doubt.

There was a reasonably good looking girl starring the film(Zoe Mclellan) but even her looks couldn't stop me from voting it the lowest possible - one.
The plot is bad and irrational.
What more can I say. The movie sucks.
This one-minute film is arguably the first movie ever made. Other inventors had previously filmed actions - like Edison's motion photography of a sneeze - but the Lumiere brothers developed equipment that tremendously advanced the medium. At the time, of course, their `cinematograph' must have bewildered their peers, including their subjects. In this first instance, the brothers record employees leaving their factory, some of whom understandably struggle to hide their awareness of the camera. The Lumieres attempt to make the film more entertaining by introducing animals and a bicycle, but `La Sortie Des Usines Lumiere' doesn't nearly match the ingenuity of their later films. The most interesting aspect of this short film is the brothers' selection of a familiar working class ritual as their subject. Their choice is the initial evidence of their curiosity about all of the world's people, a quality that makes viewing their experiments immensely rewarding and fascinating today.
Rating: 8

The Darkling was a very interesting and entertaining film while F. Murray Abraham was in it. Spoilers: About halfway through, F.Murray gets zapped, because The Darkling is some kind of demon-like creature who enjoys living vicariously. He takes bums and losers and perverts them further while giving them all they want in terms of success. He feeds from their enjoyment of the Seven Deadly Sins. However, part of it is that he needs to get people who may be flawed but not completely evil. Otherwise he cannot "pervert" their natural goodness. That's what the little guy said in his Barry White voice, which I found both charming and amusing. Mostly amusing. Like imagine Barry White if he were a little dwarf and he was telling Aiden Gillen "Dee Plane, Dee Plane, Bos, Here eet come, Dee Plane!" All through the movie, Dee Dwarf (actually a robotronic cherub) talks to Aiden Gillen in the Barry White voice, saying things like "It's OK to be bad, you know you want it." "Now you've committed murder, you're really moving up in the world" and other remarks that sound like commercials for "Being Evil" Stores or something. It really is hilarious in a sick way.
Anyhow, Aiden Gillen is no F. Murray Abraham, and the movie tanks as soon as Murray gets the axe (or knifed?). F. Murray brings a certain happy malevolence to his role in this film. He is a good actor. Aiden Gillen on the other hand has a permanent happy smirk on his face, and he looks like maybe his remedial English Comp. class had never hit the Mythological Characters and he could not imagine what the movie was about. The ENDING is really creepy and yet almost comical. If this movie were a parody, the ending was perfect. If it was not a parody, then it was creepy; but a cheap use of a little girl to deliver a gross-out that the movie itself could not deliver. The people who made this movie lost whatever it was that they wanted to do with it somewhere before the ending. It just ends like they just realized that they had run out of money and had to film a quickie ending.
Although i am inclined to agree with the other comments made by people who have seen this movie, i am ashamed to say i rather like it. Not often can such a huge pile of 80s pap be found outside of a Wham! video, so it is most definitely worth a viewing (£0.79 a night in my local store!). Watch out for the insanely obvious seams and zip on the monster's costume, the fact that the 'hero' looks a lot like Keith Chegwin and such classic lines as the following: Evil Wizard-Type Bloke: "At last we meet Kor..." Kor: "Thrilling, isn't it?"
Amazing!!I also like the fact that although the video box looks quite exciting with images of a castle surrounded by raging seas and a dangerous falcon-like bird carrying a handsome hero to safety (among other such 'interesting and engaging' suggestions of what goes on in the actual film, none of them actually happen. No, I'm not joking...there really isn't a raging sea or a ferocious bird, it's just trying to make you interested...classic in my opinion. This film gets 10 for pure entertainment value!!

I have to be completely honest in saying first that I fell asleep somewhere in the middle, so I cannot give a full opinion about the film until I see it in full. Basically, a group of thieves, including Sid Carter (Sid James) and Ernie Bragg (Bernard Bresslaw), plan to make a fortune stealing a shipment of contraceptive pills from Finisham maternity hospital. This is where title character Matron (Hattie Jacques) works, along with staff members Sir Bernard Cutting (Kenneth Williams), Dr. Francis Goode (Charles Hawtrey), Dr. Prodd (Terry Scott) and Nurse Susan Ball (Barbara Windsor). Patients and their visitors are around too, including pregnant Mrs. Tidey (Joan Sims) and her nervous dad-to-be husband Mr. Tidey (Kenneth Connor). Also starring Bill Maynard as Freddy and EastEnders' Wendy Richard as Miss Willing. This plan by the way is not working out by the way, because all the staff are getting in the way. That's pretty much all can say about the film until I see it again in full. Okay!
I love this movie, but can't get what is in this movie tht is not to like. People who don't like this movie must be Richard Roeper and Roger Ebert. But I can't believe that is Mr. Carrey behind all that makeup. And I am sure that most of the actors and actresses in the movie has made film before this. And there is a new face in the movie. Taylor Momsen who plays Cindy Lou Who. As the opens, the Grinch (Jim Carrey) comes out of hiding. And causes some mean fun to the whos in Whoville. Sicne we know that the whos love Christmas. While The Grinch does not like christmas. And even makes fun of little Cindy Lou Who (Taylor Momsen) who is the daughter of the town's postmaster (Bill Irwin). The movie was directed by Ron Howard. And the narrtor's voice is done by Anthony Hopkins. And Jeffrey Tambor (Muppets From Space) is cast as the mayor of whoville. Who doesn't like talking about the Grinch close to Christmas time.

I was willing to go with the original _Cruel Intentions._ It went along with the plot and stayed true to the characters of one of my favorite stories. However, this movie was, in my opinion, a crummy rehash with essentially the same story line and no clear character choices. I didn't honestly care what happened to any of them. The strongest part of the original story (Les Liasons, not CI) is the characters and their interactions, not the events themselves. I wasn't clear until I read the IMDB that this movie was meant to be a prequel, especially since the title includes a number "2," I expected a sequel, but then determined that it must be a companion piece. Over all, I must say that this movie read, to me at least, like a soft porn version of Les Liasons. I was not impressed.
My first child was born the year this program came out, and I played the record album for the boys every Christmas thereafter. When the CD came out, I bought about ten copies and still give them to friends and relatives as they start families...it invariably becomes their favorite Christmas album. I recently found several DVD's (made on DVD-R from video tapes, probably) for sale on eBay. The one I bought was an excellent copy, and it was so great to see the show again after more than 25 years. There are some songs on the show that were not on the album, and some of the songs on the album were studio versions of the same songs on the show. But both the CD and DVD will stay in our library as the best Christmas entertainment ever.

I can not believe such slanted, jingoistic material is getting passed off to Americans as art house material. Early on, from such telling lines like "we want to make sure they are playing for the right team" and manipulative framing and lighting, A Love Divided shows it's true face. The crass manner in which the Irish Catholics are shown as hegemonic, the Protestants as peaceful and downtrodden, is as poor a representation of history as early US westerns that depict the struggle between cowboys and American Indians. The truth of the story is distorted with the stereotypes and outright vilification of the Irish Catholics in the story; a corruption admitted by the filmmakers themselves! It is sad that people today still think that they can win moral sway by making a film so easily recognized for it's obvious intent, so far from attempting art. This film has no business being anywhere in any legitimate cinema or library.
When this film opened back in 1976, legend has that it was met with massive jeering and disdain --- it was widely considered a failure. I vividly remember Ebert giving it one star and it was supposedly booed at Cannes.
Apparently these people didn't understand the movie, which is not that hard to comprehend since it's very esoteric, dark, and layered in ways that still astound me. Reading through many of the reviews here I find (even after about 7-8 viewings over the years) many elements of the film I had previously glossed over. But even without understanding much the psychological underpinnings of the story, it's still a cracking suspenser...even if you just take the escalating paranoia and persecution that overtakes Polanski's title character like a tsunami wave over the course of it's two hour running time.
Examining the source material --- an excellent novella by underrated novelist Roland Topor --- uncovers more intriguing layers. Polanski's Trekovsky is a milquetoast of the highest order. Though he seems at first to be yet another mild everyday soul, one gradually realizes he is one of those people who seems to aimlessly drift through life, letting it direct him. He seems to have few strong feelings about his likes and dislikes. He finds himself gently pushed this way and that, but never seems to get too bent out of shape regardless. This vague sort of wishy-washy-ness is more noticeable in the novel than the movie, but there are hints of it early in the film too.
Making a play for the apartment of a woman, one Mademouiselle Choule, who is in the hospital recovering from a recent suicide attempt, appears to be the most daring thing he has attempted (even effectively haggling down the price of the deposit in the bargain). He soon finds, however, that he is paying for his "good thing" in more ways than he cares, as he finds himself in the center of maelstrom created by a building full of neurotic, control freaks who are hypersensitive to even the slightest sign of human life, such as a footstep in the night or a knock on the door.
Instead of taking a stand though, Trelkovsky becomes increasingly alienated by the situation, and overtaken by paranoia and a sense of persecution. He becomes obsessed with Choule, imagining himself to be like her, dressing like her, etc. as his own personality rapidly begins to be wiped away by his own insanity.
If anyone has ever doubted Polanski's fearlessness as an artist, they'd be well-advised to see this film. His trademark black humor is prominently (and sometimes embarrassingly) on display here and --- god bless him --- he makes himself the butt of it. It's a tour de force performance in one of the richest, riskiest, most Gothic horror movies ever made. That more people haven't seen it is a true crime.

This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Branaugh seemed to have so much trouble remembering his accent that he couldn't deliver his lines. The plot was definitely not worthy of John Grisham's name. No wonder it was never published as a book or released in theaters. I didn't even watch the whole thing. I decided I didn't care who done it, then realized there was no "whodunit" to care about!