Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
My mom took me to see this movie when it came out around Christmas of 1976. I loved it then and I love it now. I know everyone makes fun of Barbra's hair in this one, but I think she looks and sounds great! ...And I seem to remember a number of women who copied that permed look at the time! Also, the bath tub scene between Streisand and Kristoferson is just so sexy! The music is great as well. This is the groovy 70's Babs at her best!

You can't hold too much against this knowing that it was made in four days, and I had expected it to be campy anyway. (It's not all that campy in reality. With the exception of Kevin Kalisher and Huntley Ritter, who don't take themselves seriously, the rest of the cast plays it halfway straight; Riley Smith is exceptionally bad.) The ridiculous story is actually paid attention to, which kind of shocked me; I assumed the whole purpose with these ultra-low-budget horror movies was to cater to the basest sexual fantasies and not give a damn about the story, but they use lots of words like "technological" and "physicality" in the script to get their point across. (Although it's possible that the story is important only to explain why there's so few cast members.) Nobody cares about this stupid storyline, and the only things that are interesting in the film are the mocking of cults and the soft-core homoeroticisms (which aren't all that edgy). I would have enjoyed it more if there were just some random killings for no reason. The film is grainy, with a TV-quality look and acting level. There are a few "sexy" scenes that are alright -- the boys writhing in bed in their boxers, feeling themselves up; or being tied down and making orgasmic faces while wine is poured on them -- and some of them are kinda funny. And I liked the digs at L. Ron Hubbard and the intended irony of a story about religious cultists told with intense gay overtones, but it still isn't any good. 3/10
Sudden Impact is the 4th of the Dirty Harry films and one of the best traits of these films is that they don't really degrade in quality from one film to the next. Thus, Sudden Impact provides another thrill ride through the life of Dirty Harry Callahan. This time Harry attempts to solve a series of murders while on vacation. Harry's always on the job it seems. Clint Eastwood plays Harry as he plays all his men of action, slow, deliberate, and without fear. As the first of the Dirty Harry films to be made in the 80's, Sudden Impact lacks a bit of the 70's feel that characterizes the first three films. This doesn't mean that it's quality is any less. Bottom Line: Brimming with intensity and action, Sudden Impact is another worthy addition to the Dirty Harry series.

I thought that this movie was pretty lame. If you're looking for cheesey, you may like this. I, myself, don't mind a fair amount of cheese, but this was ridiculous. The progression of the movie bored me and the storyline was very weak.
The only thing entertaining about this movie was the day-glo zombies, but even that isn't reason enough to see this flick.
This movie is basically a documentary of the chronologically ordered series of events that took place from April 10, 2002 through April 14, 2002 in the Venezuelan Presidential Palace, Caracas Venezuela.
The pathos of the movie is real and one feels the pain, sorrow and joy of the people who lived through this failed coup d'etat of President Hugo Chavez.
One comes away from viewing this film that Hugo Chavez is truly a great historical figure. Hugo Chavez's persona single-handedly brought the Venezuelan people to overthrow the 3-day old military-installed junta and re-establish the democratically installed government of Venezuela.
It is obvious from the film footage that George W Bush aided and abetted the Venezuelan coup d'etat. That the mainstream media aided and abetted George W Bush is not surprising.
What is surprising is how few people has seen this movie and how few people realize the total corruption of America's mass media.
It has taken only 20 years for Ronald Reagan elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in 1986 to turn America into blind and rudderless state.
May Hugo Chavez open patriotic Americans' eyes to the truth and beauty of the true American vision.

Complete drivel. An unfortunate manifestation of the hypocritical, toxic culture of a decade ago. In this movie, pedestrian regrets for slavery go hand in hand with colonialist subtexts (the annoying redhead feeding Shaka rice?). Forget historical reality too. Didn't most western slaves comes from West Africa? An American slaver easily capturing Shaka with a handful of men?. Finally, David Hasslehoff could not have been any more obnoxious. One can only ponder, how would he have fared in the miniseries? (Promptly impaled most likely). The miniseries was superb, and it is unfortunate that DH should have gotten his hands on something unique, and made it mundane. (I tend to think that he had hand in creating this fiasco).
Generally it was a good movie with an ideal ending; the acting was spectacular and the characters didn't stray from their persons. I especially liked the plot, although you knew what was going to happen it still gave the element of surprise through out the entire movie. However, I find that coming on to the ending it could have been a little longer (extended maybe)- to me it seemed like it was rushed a bit; as if the writer was trying to take linens off the lines before the rain fell. For instance- What happened to Tristan's brother, Hayden? For all we know he died in the hospital. Maybe he was the one that setup the entire thing?! Who knows! Maybe there will be a sequel? Maybe? If there is.. I cant wait to see it.

Hey,
If your going to make a documentary about Leonard Cohen try making it about Leonard Cohen! This is filled with only enough Leonard to anger the viewer who will be left wondering why they are listening to all these other singers (some of them questionable) talk about themselves. Puleeze....sounds like them reliving their diary entries in junior high - who cares about you, what about Leonard? Guess what people, if you "do something" worthy maybe someone will make a documentary about you. I found particularly insulting the parading of U2's members as if that would add credibility to this movie - NOT. Leonard doesn't need Bono or the Edge talking about his spirituality. What would have been nice would have been for the filmmakers to embody some piece of his spirituality through the film. Gee, what a concept! I will give props to Rufus Wainwright and Jarvis Cocker for their covers of Cohen tunes - the rest of the performances were a bore and some were unbearable.
Cohen fans, don't say I didn't warn you!
The fluttering of butterfly wings in the Atlantic can unleash a hurricane in the Pacific. According to this theory (somehow related to the Chaos Theory, I'm not sure exactly how), every action, no matter how small or insignificant, will start a chain reaction that can lead to big events. This small jewel of a film shows us a series of seemingly-unrelated characters, most of them in Paris, whose actions will affect each others' lives. (The six-degrees-of-separation theory can be applied as well.) Each story is a facet of the jewel that is this film. The acting is finely-tuned and nuanced (Audrey Tautou is luminous), the stories mesh plausibly, the humor is just right, and the viewer leaves the theatre nodding in agreement.

This is one of the worst films I've ever seen. I looked into it mainly out of a morbid curiosity since I loved the novel, and I wish I hadn't. I turned it off after a little less than an hour, though I wanted to turn it off after five minutes. I wish I had. It disregards the novel a lot and changes all sorts of factors. Unless the film managed to redeem itself in the last 50 or so minutes (which would be impossible) I would in no way recommend this. Its an insult to one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. I don't think, as many people say that it is, that "The Bell Jar" is necessarily unfilmable, but this particular rendition could have been done without. I'd almost like to see this one day in the hands of a director and screenwriter who can do it justice.
This movie is one of the most provocative Jesus movies I have ever seen. It does not seek to tell the whole story, but only to portray an interpretive expression of the last day of Jesus Christ. It is darkly witty, playful and seriously faithful to elements of the Jewish tradition and to modern scriptural interpretation. Judas is much more ordinary than other portrayals, not the dark and sinister evil that we sometimes imagine, but a grossly mistaken man, horribly misguided in his zeal. Chris Saranden's Jesus is playful and serious, faithful and committed--very human while also divine. The final dialog is thoughtfully done and serves as the kind of small talk that two powerful men might do when they have just committed an atrocity. I would watch this movie again and recommend it to others.

What else can you say about this movie,except that it's plain awful.Tina Louise and Adam West are the reasons why to see this,but,that's it,but their talents are wasted in this junk.I think that they used a double in some of Adam's scenes,like when he's running because you can't see his face.If Adam was embarrassed in being in Zombie Nightmare,just think what he must've felt about appearing in this??? If it was before or after,I'm not sure,but,still,Zombie Nightmare is a classic(check out the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version first and last)compared to this.The gang is very annoying and over-acting by some of the actors.A rip-off of The Wild One starring Marlon Brando,of course.Tina looks stunning though.I hope her and Adam got a good paycheck!! Pass!
This Wrestlemania just didn't do it for me. While some things, such as the battle royal and involvement of celebrities were a throwback to the good old days, so to speak, it seemed to be more of a highbrow "In Your House" than anything else. Above average...worth it for several matches such as the tag team title match, although worthy of note is that the title change meant nothing, as it was reversed the next night.

From director Barbet Schroder (Reversal of Fortune), I think I saw a bit of this in my Media Studies class, and I recognised the leading actress, so I tried it, despite the rating by the critics. Basically cool kid Richard Haywood (Half Nelson's Ryan Gosling) and Justin Pendleton (Bully's Michael Pitt) team up to murder a random girl to challenge themselves and see if they can get away with it without the police finding them. Investigating the murder is homicide detective Cassie 'The Hyena' Mayweather (Sandra Bullock) with new partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin), who are pretty baffled by the evidence found on the scene, e.g. non-relating hairs. The plan doesn't seem to be completely going well because Cassie and Sam do quite quickly have Richard or Justin as suspects, it is just a question of if they can sway them away. Also starring Agnes Bruckner as Lisa Mills, Chris Penn as Ray Feathers, R.D. Call as Captain Rod Cody and Tom Verica as Asst. D.A. Al Swanson. I can see now the same concept as Sir Alfred Hitchcock's Rope with the murdering for a challenge thing, but this film does it in a very silly way, and not even a reasonably good Bullock can save it from being dull and predictable. Adequate!
Maybe I loved this movie so much in part because I've been feeling down in the dumps and it's such a lovely little fairytale. Whatever the reason, I thought it was pitch perfect. Great, intelligent story, beautiful effects, excellent acting (especially De Niro, who is awesome). This movie made me happier than I've been for a while.
It is a very funny and clever movie. The running joke of the kingdom's history of prince savagery and the aftermath, the way indulging in magic effects the witch and dozens of smart little touches all kept me enthralled. That's much of what makes it so good; it's an elaborate, special-effects-laden movie with more story than most fairytale movies, yet there is an incredible attention to small things.
I feel like just going ahead and watching it all over again.

I'm a big fan of Nicolas Cage and I never thought he would work on a movie like this. I couldn't believe the other reviews and I thought it shouldn't be bad to watch it at least once...but trust me, it is.
I haven't seen the old movie..but why would they want to remake a movie like this. The very basic idea of a good horror movie is either it should have an extremely intelligent script or it should be extremely graphic. This film doesn't fall under any of those and just remains dumb.I just kept watching the movie hoping it would get interesting at some point , but it never does.
So this movie is a big no no for both Horror movie fans as well as for the Cage fans. You could probably for it show up on television.
This show has all the typical characters in a comedy: the good guy, the idiot, the pervert, the rich girl... but it's set on the 70's. That's the only difference that it has with other TV comedies. I don't know how you can like this show. Its humor is pathetic! I mean, the jokes are so direct... A typical dialog is this: "Fez: Oh, Jackie I want to have sex with you. (audience laughs) Jackie: Fez you're a pervert. (audience laughs) Fez: Oh yes I am. (audience cheers and applauds)" This isn't funny. I think that if it didn't have those laughs (I don't know how you call that in English, sorry) you wouldn't laugh at all. This isn't intelligent comedy, this is an insult to the public. I like most of the American comedies, but this isn't good at all. I would give it 4 out of 10. (Sorry for my poor English again.)

Imagine the scenario - you are at the movie theater only because you are in Washington for the weekend and it's raining and you're finished with the Museums. You think you might go see the Sarah Marshall movie as the trailer look so so and you don't have to engage your brain. It's sold out. Options? - The Bank Job, In Bruges, The Leatherheads or Prom night. You've seen the Bank Job (suprisingly decent heist movie that) and In Bruges (again, pretty good) so you're down to two. You don't fancy watching Clooney or the nice one from the Office run around in 1930 football uniforms, so you go see Prom Night right? Wrong. You take the $8.50, walk up to a stranger in the street and ask him to punch you in the face for $8.50. It would be money better spent.
It actually plays like more of a comedy than a horror/thriller or whatever it is supposed to be. If I was financing that movie and they showed me that as a final cut I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry. Probably both. An insult to anyone's intelligence... my roommate was laughing out loud most of the movie, as for the acting, they might as well have cast robots (or maybe dogs) in the roles, they would have been more realistic. The detective has to be possibly the worst actor I have ever seen (Ben Affleck and Hayden Christansan (I hate his acting so much I don't care how you spell his name) you are relieved on your title(s))
So in summary 'not good'
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.

The wife and I saw a preview of this movie while watching another DVD and thought "Jon Heder, Diane Keaton, Jeff Daniels and Eli Wallach, it's gotta be better than summer reruns, so I ordered it from local library. Well, any episode of "Lawrence Welk" would bring more laughs than "Mama's Boy". I actually felt sorry for the actors for having to read the script in the privacy of their own homes and I couldn't imagine what it must have been like for them to have to actually say their lines in front of a camera. Perhaps, at least, maybe next time they're offered a movie of this sort, they'll "Just Say No!' A one anna two....
In late 1800s San Francisco, poor well-dressed Errol Flynn (as James J. Corbett) works at a bank, and enjoys attending local "fights" (boxing) with co-worker and drinking buddy Jack Carson (as Walter Lowrie). One day, pretty Alexis Smith (as Victoria Ware) walks into the "Comstock Bank", where Mr. Flynn works. Flynn is so taken with Ms. Smith's elegant beauty, he offers to carry her withdrawal purse. Smith is secretly taken with the handsome Flynn, but is put off by his brashness.
Flynn's good deed (actually, pick-up attempt) gets him a complimentary membership in the snooty "Olympic Club", which conveniently includes a gymnasium (with boxing equipment). However, Flynn's presumptuous manner, and practical joking (he tickles men on the parallel bars) irritates "Club" members. When an English boxing champ visits the club, members endeavor to get Flynn to fight the man. They are hopeful Flynn will resign, humiliated by his defeat - but, Flynn wins!
First time producer Robert Buckner puts together a nice package for Warner Brothers, and director Raoul Walsh. Mr. Buckner was, certainly, basking in the success of his contribution (screenplay) to the studio's brilliant "Yankee Doodle Dandy". Unfortunately, this story is positively ludicrous. There was a "Gentleman Jim" - this story is supposedly the filming of the real James J. Corbett's autobiography "The Roar of the Crowd" - but, this movie must be significantly fictionalized.
Flynn is a very appealing leading man; he maneuvers the script lightly, and should have been recognized, by the early 1940s, as an excellent actor. Many of Flynn's characterizations were (are?) overlooked as great performances, and this is one of them. Smith does well as his feminine interest, deftly transmitting her emotions for the viewer. Director Walsh makes the silliness look smooth and extravagant. The supporting cast is a treasure trove, from boisterous Alan Hale (as Pat Corbett) to walk-on Lon McCallister ("Paging Mr. Corbett").
******** Gentleman Jim (1942) Raoul Walsh ~ Errol Flynn, Alexis Smith, Alan Hale

Wow, this was a very bad movie... as read in other comments this movie has no plot, no character development, they possibly had some kind of script but it's difficult to tell based on the actual end result.
The editing of this movie was really non-existent, it tends to jump from scene to scene without any connection or anything to assist the viewer in determining what is actually happening.
All in all this is simply a low budget zombie flick that was not thought out at all, has bad acting, bad dialogue, bad everything.
The only thing that saves this movie from a 1 or 2 is the gore factor, I think this must be where they spent whatever money they had to try to justify making this.
Unless you are (like me) dedicated to finding and watching all the zombie flicks you can find, do not watch this. Period.
Before George Clooney directed Sam Rockwell in his directorial debut "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind", they starred together in this movie. George Clooney also was involved with this movie as a producer, along with Steven Soderbergh, which shows that they really believed in this project. In potential this also seems like a fine and entertaining project, that is in the same line with movie-remakes such as "Ocean's Eleven" and "The Italian Job" but somehow this movie is only halve successful, or at least it isn't as good as it could had been.
The movie its characters are all being played by some fine well known actors but a shame is that the characters are not really given enough room to develop. Even though in their potential they could had turned into fun and enjoyable characters, they are now only characters that mildly entertain because mostly of some of the more quirky sequences that are in the movie. The fact that they are being played doesn't change much to this, even though they prevent their characters from ever becoming a total bore or perhaps even annoying, or anything like that at all.
It's of course due to the writing that the characters aren't used to their full potential. I can only assume that the original Italian movie "I Soliti ignoti" works out much better than this movie does. The movie relies too much on its simple story and predictable way of storytelling.
Nevertheless the movie is simply still a very fun one to watch maybe because of that very same simplicity. It's an harmless little caper movie, in which you simply shouldn't to worry much about the story. In that regard "Welcome to Collinwood" is still a movie that works out and simply serves its purpose well.
It's a movie that you won't regret watching once you've finished it but it also is a movie you can really easily do without ever seeing.
7/10

If you enjoy films like American Pie, Road Trip & Van Wilder; avoid this cinematic refuse at all costs. It is an unamusing, mean-spirited, insipid waste of resources that should never have been discussed aloud; much less actually recorded and sold to unsuspecting consumers. Easily the worst film I have seen in the past 18 months; mind-numbingly bad for the entire 86 minutes of it's runtime. Had it been much longer, I would not have been able to write this review without using profanity. Consider yourself warned!
DIG! is funny, fun, amusing, interesting, stylish, and very well done. Knowing that it was made on such a shoestring budget over 7 years it is amazing that such a story can be told, especially with such style and substance. If you are a music fan or documentary fan this is a must see.
Focusing on The Brian Jonestown Masssacre and The Dandy Warhols over the years is a brilliant way to show the contrast between a decent band who meets with moderate success through perseverance and the ability to compromise and a genius megalomaniacal lead singer backed up by a varied cast of characters who sabotage their own success through drugs, alcohol, and insanity. If I did not know that this is footage of real people, I would swear it was an incredibly well written and imaginative scripted piece. The story is compelling, concise, and simply amazing.

I was really disappointed with this film. The first Waters movie I saw was Serial Mom and I loved it. Then I saw Pecker and I loved it. Then I watched Polyester and really sort of hated it. The only thing I liked about that movie was DIVINE. She/He had a hell of a lot of talent. I was truly surprised. As a whole, I wouldn't recommend this film...
Why can't this type of compact, entertaining mystery be filmed in the new century? It keeps the viewer thinking and guessing all the way. The cast is a great ensemble. William Powell exhibits true star quality. Who knows--perhaps he was rehearsing for his future as Nick Charles. He is a joy to watch. One also can see why Eugene Pallette made more than 200 films. He is a great supporting character actor and his excellent chemistry with Powell is fun to watch. Mary Astor does above average work in a not very meaty role. All other hands chip in to make this a thoroughly enjoyable way to spend 73 minutes. I suspect Michael Curtiz had a ball directing his one. Bravo!

This movie is a very poor attempt to make money using a classical theme. I used to love Superman movies, but this one made me want to shoot myself. Very poor acting, outrageous special effects, and a plot equal to zero. To summarize : Superman leaves earth, because scientists discovered pieces of his home planet, some were in space (duh) , doesn't tell his girlfriend anything before leaving (duh again), takes off in a spaceship (?!?),comes back i think 5 years later, and look forward to hooking up with his girlfriend again (who is now razing his son, which son, in my humble opinion is at least 7 years old). And what about that Lex Luthor ? Trying to grow a new continent in order to sell land ? Please !!
I vote 1 out of 10 for this movie, only because i am not allowed to vote 0. If you have anything else to do with your time, don't go to see this movie, and even if you don't have anything else to do, stay home and watch TV !