Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Here's one more beauty in the string of beautiful films directed by Eytan Fox. The movie presents the story of star-crossed lovers (one Israeli, one Palestinian)in modern Tel Aviv. The film's effectiveness comes not only from its depiction of cross-ethnic conflict, but of conflicts personal and political within ethnic groups as well. For example, there's a telling moment when one of the secondary characters, openly gay, is visited in the hospital by his boyfriend who brings him flowers and tries to kiss him in front of his visiting family, and suddenly we see a wave of awkward discomfort wash through the room. Clearly the young man is not as open as he seems, and the family not as accepting as he might want them to be, while the boyfriend is confused and rejected. A good deal of complexity is packed into a fleeting moment. As we know from Yossi & Jagger, Fox is a master at efficiently packing emotional and psychological complexity into brief sequences. The film is also effective for the even-handed way it presents the mutual brutalities that Israelies and Palestinians inflict on each other. If you're not heartless, you'll cry through the last third of the movie. Though the plot is melodramatic, it's so intelligently written and acted that it reminds us of how satisfying good melodrama can be.

The '60s is an occasionally entertaining film, most of this entertainment is from laughing at the film. It is extremely uneven, and includes many annoying elements. Take for instance the switch between black & white, and color. If done right, this could of been fairly effective, but because it was done poorly , it turned into a nuisance and only detracted from the already bad experience; much of the film had an odd feel to it. The acting wasn't extremely bad for a made for TV flick, but then again it was downright embarrassing at other times. Many of the events were not coherent, and ending up being confusing. How did this family somehow end up being at many of the big events during the 1960's? The ending was much too sappy for my tastes; because it was hollywoodized, everything had to turn out right in the end. I would advise you to not waste your time on The '60s and do something else with your time. I'm glad I watched this in class, and not on my own time. I think I can safely say that the best part of the movie was the inclusion of Bob Dylan's music. Those are just my rambling thoughts on the flick. I hope you take my advice, and stay away from this.
Just saw the movie, and the scary thing was, the people talking during the movie sounded just like the actors. The movie had its moments, but also lagged and was rather sick. It was all meant to be a farce, but once you see the pathetic lives of the people in the movie, you think to yourself "People like this are all around us" All attempts at getting the audience's sympathy are dashed as the actors do one stupid thing after another. On the plus side, there are some great (and funny) insults. I think I would wait for video- but it was a good laugh. WARNING- Jerry takes his shirt off during the movie!! (not a pretty sight!)

I am one of the biggest fans of silent comedians and have probably reviewed more Buster Keaton films for IMDb than any other person. Every film he made from the beginning of his career to the early 30s with only two exceptions have I reviewed, so you can tell I am a major fan. It's because of this that I found this episode so painful and hard to watch. I loved this man's films and kept thinking "Buster, how could you?!". Well, now that I think about it, I guess I can see why Buster Keaton starred in this god-awful episode of THE TWILIGHT ZONE. He'd lost much of his fortune after a messy divorce in the early 1930s and his film career as a leading man was long passed as well. Now, in the 1960s, Keaton needed the money and loved his resurgence in popularity so he whored himself out to anyone willing to pay--appearing in Beach films and this mess of an episode of a great series.
The biggest problem with the episode is that it is just terribly written and Buster deserved much better. The show is supposed to be funny but isn't and instead of a homage to silent films is just painful to watch--particularly with Keaton putting that stupid time travel helmet on as well as all the poorly executed slapstick. Do yourself a favor, SKIP THIS ONE--it's a pale imitation of the greatness that once was Keaton's career!!!
Another outstanding foreign film which thoroughly trounces the never-ending crop of crud emanating from Hollywood! This is a story of life and living. No, definitely not the perfect little life so often depicted in the totally artificial Hollywood movies but rather, the real life complete with real characters each with strengths and weaknesses just like real people in our lives and ourselves.
The dynamics of all of these lives, intertwined within the walls of this bathhouse, and particularly its aged owner, are magnificent, heart touching and highly thought provoking.
Sit back, relax, and be carried away into the simple and beautiful life. There is real wisdom to be learned in this movie if you only open yourself up to it.
You will not be disappointed.

I have begun to melt so I will make this review as short and sweet as possible.
There's this astronaut, and he goes up in a spacecraft with two other guys, ya know? Except something happens that exposes him to radiation, and then when they come back...well, never mind what happened to the other guys, but our astronaut has begun to melt! No, not just burn up, but MELT! Like an ice cream cone in July! Well OK maybe not that fast, but ya know what I mean.
Anyway, he gets all red & gooey, and the fact that he's melting makes him really mad. I guess he also checked out the "melting man" handbook because suddenly he knows that in order to keep from totally melting away, he has to eat human flesh, so he starts ripping people apart.
There are other characters, but in a movie where a man melts and melts and melts (and melts), do you really need any others? What's important is WHO will he munch next, and WHAT will be left of them? HOW long will it take for him to just melt away to nothing? WHY was this movie made in the first place? WHERE did they get the money? WHEN will you fall asleep while watching it?
I've very nearly melted, but I still have enough time left to tell you that this movie is dreadfully boring, even though the idea is really cool and kind of gross. The makeup is neat but everything else is...SPLAT
I'll come clean. The only reason I even found out about this DVD was because Dominic Monaghan is a favorite actor of mine. When I heard the title of the film, I thought it was going to be...different, perhaps in not such a good way.
But I was wrong. After reading what few reviews were out there about this short, I was actually excited about seeing it. I sent off for my copy as soon as able and received it a few weeks later. Needless to say, I was not disappointed.
The film follows Jack, a insomniac who is often plagued by conditions which causes him to doubt what is reality, and what is all in his head. I won't give away what happens, but I will tell you that the film can sometimes be frightening in it's realism.
The directing is fantastic, focusing on what is essential to the story without allowing it to lose any entertainment or thought-provoking moments.
All in all, I give this great film 9 out of 10, for going far beyond what I thought any short could achieve.

I totally hated the movie. It was so retarded. They need to get some acting lessons....no, wait, that won't help because the Naked Brothers Band people a retards. You know why I am here even though I am a Naked Brothers Band hater? To warn people before they watch the dumb movie so that the NBB doesn't get any money from it so then they can't make any more amateur stupid songs that are so retarded that any old guy could go and write it in 10 seconds. Not only are the song lyrics retarded, they sing badly. Okay, I'm kinda getting off the movie here.....anyways, it was boring and they acted horribly. It was NOT funny at all even though they tried really hard for it to be. I guess they deserve some credit for that...well, the movie isn't worth your time. Just look at its rating. The movie (and the series) is very painful to watch for anyone who has even half a brain. Seriously, if you liked it, you need to go watch movies where the actors actually act, not babbling their lines in a monotone. I am on the drama club at my school and some people there are actually BETTER than those Nat and Alex guys. Hurry before it's too late! I seriously thought that Herbie Fully Loaded was better than this piece of poopie. I don't even know why I went through even HALF of that film. I don't think it even deserves to be called a film...
This movie was featured on a very early episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, but when I see this film, I don't think about that wonderful TV series. I believe this was a surprisingly good early 40's horror flick, with very surprisingly good sound and picture for a 67 year old public domain horror movie. I actually enjoyed watching Bela Lugosi and his bizarre staff, including his wife who requires fluid from the glands of young would-be brides, an old hag, and her two bizarre sons, one a giant idiot, the other a comical dwarf(Angelo Rossitto from 1932's Freaks). I also enjoyed the plucky young female reporter, who is kind of a stereotype, but still fun to watch. My only problem with this otherwise decent film is it's plot, even ridiculous and unbelievable for a movie. I don't want to spoil any of this film, so go out and rent it, or, better yet, buy it for a couple of bucks.

i can't figure out who greenlighted this thing! it has no redeeming qualities, none, nada, zip, zilch.
the acting was bad. the directing was bad. the writing was bad. the plot was bad. the music was bad. the editing was bad. ....well, at least the filmmakers were consistent.
As I watched this movie, and I began to see its' characters develop I could feel this would be an excellent picture. When you get that feeling, and the movie indeed fills those expectations the experience is rare. I had that very feeling throughout this movie. Robert DeNiro and Cuba Gooding Junior played riveting and amazingly strong parts which were both Oscar worthy. The supporting cast was equally as strong creating a winning foundation for the picture to grow on. I can say without any hesitation at all, see this movie it will not disappoint.

Probably one of the most boriest slasher movies ever, badly acted and badly written.
THE PLOT Five students staying behind during the holidays closing down a dorm, but somebody has designs on them and starts killing them off one by one, the main suspect is the creepy groundskeeper John Hemmitt played by Woody Roll, or could it be one of the five characters.
ACTING Not that bad not that great either apart from Daphne Zungia who dies way too quickly and should have been the main heroine, and the rest well quite dull although Laura Lapinski the main heroine sometimes has her charm and you do feel sorry for her in the end.
THE KILLS Can't really see why they banned this, the kills look fake mostly, one guy has his hand sliced in half in the beginning which looks really fake, but the others are quite nasty like one girl gets her head run over by a car, one girl gets boiled alive and another gets burned alive.
OVERALL Not really a great slasher could have been a lot better
Savaged when it came out, this film now looks handsome and sounds great. A feast of intelligent thoughtful acting, from Gielgud, Kenneth Haigh, Harry Andrews and especially Anton Walbrook,and a moving central performance from the beautiful and incredibly young Jean Seberg. Preminger doesn't jump around and show off- his long slow takes encourage you to listen and reflect, and Graham Greene's script condenses Shaw without sacrificing complexity.The piece has the look of a made for TV movie, and is certainly studio bound but none the worse for that. Too many contemporary movies on 'historical' themes cannot resist dumbing down. What would Mel Gibson have made of the Maid? Many drooling shots of her on the rack probably, then crisping up on the BBQ as the flames take hold. Preminger does none of this. The burning is shown mainly through a guilt-stricken reaction. There are a few weak performances, but not enough to cause any serious damage. I caught this movie on TV and was not expecting to watch it through, but I was gripped . In our age of religious fundamentalism and sacrifice, Joan's story has unexpected resonance.

During the first 3 seasons Fairly Odd Parents was as tasty as hard candy, bright and sweet and addictive. Now it's as tasty as Pepto-Bismol. And unfortunately Pepto-Bismol is what you'll need after viewing the more recent episodes, where all the sweetness has been replaced by insults and violence resulting in no laughs. Cosmo, once one of the more endearing Nick characters, has devolved into an abusive unfunny cretin that the cast of Family Guy wouldn't even want to know. Timmy has become a selfish arrogant jerkwad that Bart Simpson would happily beat the snot out of (and given Timmy's snottiness, that would take a lot of beating). And poor Wanda...a real charmer who's become the victim of her husband and godchild, she's now labeled a "nag" for caring about the well-being of others. Plus Cosmo's stupidity causes pain to everyone else but he's never punished for it, nor does he learn any lessons. Which pretty much sums up Butch Hartman's attitude towards kids: they're crude, vulgar and not too bright. Thank god this crummy toon has been cancelled, along with Butch Hartman's darling, Danny Phantom. At least Butch got what he deserved - unlike Cosmo.
Cheech & Chong's Next Movie (1980) was the second film to star to pot loving duo of Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong. The lovable burn out smokers are now roommates. They live in a condemned building looking for ways to score more smoke and just lay about all day. But Cheech is the "responsible" one. He has a job and a steady girlfriend. One day, Cheech wants to get his freak on so he tries to get Chong out of the house. Another problem arises as well, Cheech's brother "Red" (Cheech is another role) is in town and wants to hang with him. Firguring that he could kill two birds with one stone, Cheech pawns Chong off and Red. What kind of adventures will Chong and Red get into? Will Cheech get his freak on? How long will Chong go without some smoke? Just watch CHEECH & CHONG'S NEXT MOVIE to find out!!
Tommy Chong takes over the directorial reigns for the sequel. He received some experience when he did some uncredited work on UP IN SMOKE. Funny but not as good as the first film. But Cheech and Chong fans will enjoy it. Followed by NICE DREAMS.
Recommended.

Eddie Murphy for best supporting actor??? What an insult to Alan Arkin and Djimon Hounsou.
Jamie Foxx (who can act) walks through this film like a zombie.
Beyonce ??? That was acting???
This movie pales in comparison to CHICAGO or just about any other recent musical.
If it were not for the great singing and performance of Jennifer Hudson I would have given this a ZERO.
And no I never saw the stage play so I am not making the typical Broadway vs. Hollywood rap.
(No spoilers, just plot details) I can't understand such hatred for this episode. You want to watch a bad episode of Smallville? Watch Subterranean - now there's a sack of crap. Tom Welling gives a good performance (I don't say that very often), and Michael Rosenbaum is great, but he is most of the time. The alternate universe scenario seems eerily realistic. The Martian Manhunter, who previously appeared in "Static", returns and tells Clark that the doctor that is the head of the insane asylum where they are being held at is actually a phantom from the phantom zone, and if Clark wants to return to his universe, he must kill him. An overall great episode, with good acting and a decent pace.

This movie was disappointing. It was incomplete and dull. While Alec Baldwin tried to portray himself as the Perfect fair and just prosecutor (not to mention executive producer), the movie never showed any of the defense counsels or tried to challenge the audience with an actual meaningful debate on the subject of how a country could be led down such a terrible path.
Sure, nobody wants to defend the Nazi's point of view, but THAT WAS THE POINT of the Nuremberg Trails! Four hours of simply bashing on the Nazi's.... c'mon! Thats been done already!
I really think Alec Baldwin should just stick to being Kim Bassinger's husband.
Right after the movie ended, TNT showed the 1959 movie, Trail at Nuremberg. That movie is FAR superior.
I think that the idea of the plot is perfect for exploring first of all the emotional experiences of the people involved and second, as someone else wrote in a comment, the implications of this kind of relationships (incest and lesbianism) in the romanian society.
so... to begin with the second aspect... to make it short, it wasn't visible at all...
as for the first.. as i said, it had much more potential... i think that those kind of relationships carry much more tension... much more tension... and the potential tension didn't get through...
i think the soundtrack could've been more than those few songs on the background and the theme (wich was nice but not enough and not always in the right moments)... yeah... i could feel the absence of a better soundtrack..
the actors... i think that they were somewhere from 7 to 8/10... not enough sensuality in the key moments...
a total of 7/10.... mostly for the story

If this movie was about a fictional character, the movie could stand on its own and be judged objectively. Unfortunately for the viewer, the movie is based on "facts" that are shaded very unfairly toward Ruben Carter. Many of the smaller facts were disregarded (Carter was NOT number one contender at the time of the murders, there is no proof at all that he saved a friend from a child molester in his youth), but some of the larger facts, like apparently being robbed of a decision to Joey Giardello because of "racist" judges, is inexcusable to those of us who have seen the fight on tape, and completely disrespectful to Giardello. Why Hollywood feels the need to make a hero out of someone who, at best, was in trouble and around trouble much more than any normal person should be (was arrested multiple times for beating women) is strange to me. Ruben Carter was never, by viewing his actions in the 60's and even now, when he refuses to speak to his son, a person that people can look up to. Everyone knows that Jewison can direct, and Washington can act, but why they chose this story as their vehicle is beyond me. Is Hollywood so much in need of a black hero that they need to bend the truth in all of their bio pics to make them believable? (Heres a suggestion How about Denzel playing a movie about himself? Now thats inspirational) Based on all of the inaccuracies in the movie, I would suggest passing on this one.
I really enjoyed this movie. Most of the reviews have been bad, but most critics think a movie should be like an idea drama. This movie has a little bit of drama, but the rest is just clean fun and very entertaining. Forget about Julia Roberts being a Pretty Woman, Emma Roberts is a beautiful young lady and there is more to her than just that. Emma was so much fun to watch in the role of Nancy Drew. It is good to see a new face. I believe she will go far.
Nancy Drew may not be based upon the books, but the story is still good. There is also a good blend of other character actors and supporting actors like Pat Carroll, Barry Bostwick, Rachel Leigh Cook and Chris Kattan - not credited. I'm surprised Disney did not release this movie. Some people may not like this movie because it does not contain sex, violence, and cursing. This is a good family film which is rare in this day in time. So take your family, see this movie and judge for your self how good it is. I can't wait for the sequel.

It a bit peculiar that a story that is placed in a part of Oslo where a very high percentage of the local residents is from an Asian background does NOT EVEN SHOW ONE ASIAN OR AFRICAN person, not even as an extra. That fact probably describes Norwegian race relations in general. - However.
NO SPOILERS - ONLY A BRIEF INTRODUCTORY DESCRIPTION:
Buddy portrays four young people living in a flat-share in Oslo. The protagonist are two young men that don't manage to direct their life in any serious fashion, and one might say that the film could be about being indecisive and avoiding responsibility - a sort of fear of growing up. The narrative plays on typical teenage dreams and fantasies and lifestyle role models. Quite the cliché. Although the story is mildly funny, the acting is good and as a 'young person' one can sort of identify with the characters `crazy' situations and complicated love affairs, I don't find the story or the characters very believable. To polished and lacking in depth. This film uses all the classic audience pleasing tricks to make an entertaining film that has as much intellectual depth as `Friends' (yes that show on TV).
Has Norwegian film finally found its identity?: Audience pleasers in well known American style.
How about watching Lukas Moodysson's Tillsammans (Together).
Canadian filmmaker Mary Harron is a cultural gadfly whose previous films laid bare some the artistic excess of the Sixties and the hollow avaricious Eighties. With "The Notorious Bettie Page" she points her unswerving eye at Fifties America, an era cloaked in the moral righteousness of Joe McCarthy, while experiencing the beginnings of a sexual awakening that would result in the free love of the next decade. Harron and her co-writer Guinevere Turner, are clearly not interested in the standard biopic of a sex symbol. This is a film about the underground icon of an era and how her pure unashamed sexuality revealed both the predatory instincts and impure thoughts of a culture untouched by the beauty of a nude body. If the details of Bettie's life were all the film was concerned about, then why end it before her most tragic period was about to begin. Clearly, Harron is more interested in America's attitudes towards sexual imagery then and now. Together with a fearless lead performance by Gretchen Mol and the stunningly atmospheric cinematography of W.Mott Hupfel III, she accomplishes this goal admirably, holding up a mirror to the past while making the audience examine their own "enlightened" 21st Century attitudes towards so-called pornography. As America suffocates under a new conservatism, this is a film needed more than ever.

A pretty average scifi film. The plot was more or less obvious from the start. Although the acting was reasonably good, the writing seemed very cliched, using ideas taken from numerous films.
The basic plot: Scientists working on a deep space research platform rescue a fighter from crashing into the red dwarf that they have been orbitting. Onboard they find a stasis pod, which coincidently malfunctions at that very moment. After 2 or 3 minutes of the man in the pod waking up, you realise that he is a complete lunatic. Something which totally escapes the 3 person crew of the research ship...
After that it becomes a rip off every other film involving a psychotic madman terrorising innocent victims, overall I think Speed 2 was a better exploration of the subject matter, which I didn't consider to be a good film either.
Not a good film, get Aliens out and watch that again.