Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
This program is a lot of fun and the title song is so catchy I can't get it out of my head. I find as I get older I am drawn to the wrinklies who get things done, and these four are excellent in their endeavors. Some of what they do is outrageous but brilliant considering that now days with our PC world we'd never be able to do it in real life. I always learn something from the shows. But if you like mystery, drama, comedy, and a little forensic work you'll love this show. It reminds me of Quincy, ME in one way and Barney Miller in another the way they work and inter-react with each other. They screw up a lot but they get the job done, and that's what counts.

Disney's done it again. The company that made "Mr. Magoo" and "George of the Jungle" has made another movie that barely resembles the cartoon on which it is based, and keeps none of the spirit of the original.
"Inspector Gadget" was one of my favorite cartoons when I was a young one, and for a movie of it to exist may have been a dream come true back then. Now that that movie does exist, I was severely disappointed, even outraged.
First we have the characters.
Gadget himself has the gadgets that made him such a fun character in the original cartoon (with well-done special effects accompanying them), and he even has some of the naivete of the original Gadget, but he is now more competent and is expected to solve the crime himself while Penny and Brain just watch.
Penny has little to do; while she played a major role in the cartoon, discovering the crime and halting it, and occasionally getting captured by the MAD agents, now she is simply introduced and then forgotten, although she does at least sneak into Claw's base.
Claw is the movie's version of Dr. Claw, who was a rather sinister, raspy-voiced man who wore metallic gloves and sat in his chair, his face hidden from view, as he stroked his cat and oversaw various crimes. Now he is simply a man with a claw for a hand, with no mystery behind the character.
Brain and Mad Cat exist in the movie, but are rather insignificant to it.
Even small parts of the cartoon aren't spared in this butchering. The famous expression "Wowsers!" was mysteriously changed to "Wowser", and Gadget's Gadgetmobile now looks different and talks.
There is even product endorsements everywhere. Why is "Yahoo!" advertised on a sign? Why does the Gadgetmobile have buttons for M&M's or Skittles?
Fans of the cartoon will hate it, others might will likely find the movie below par, and when all is said and done, this movie is another attempt to make some quick bucks off another old show.
This flick is sterling example of the state of erotic B-movies: bad porn movies without the hardcore sex. The plot in this one isn't so bad as these things go; it involves a female lawyer trying to prove her lover is innocent of killing his wife. The rest of the movie, however, leaves something to be desired. Bad acting, bad direction, bad looking woman, bad sets, bad cinematography, bad sound and bad sex scenes. The filmmakers should learn the difference between raunchy and erotic. They don't even have the common sense to have Gabriella Hall naked or in a love scene.
How dumb is that?

I really didn't like this film. The plot was very predictable. Typical American plot, I'm sorry. Guy gets the girl kind of thing at the end. And London has a Monorail? Bank of London??? Bank of England is what it really is!! - I did however like the look of Tracy Island and the Thunderbirds themselves. And the Brits were baddies? (apart from Parker and Lady Penelope) What was up with that? Oh and they kept on saying stuff like "Here come 'The Thunderbirds'" - but it was never known as 'The Thunderbirds' in the series, why do that?? I'd like to see this re-made in 20 years with more British cast. I preferred the original series. Sorry!
These are one of the movies that don't require any brain or thinking, it's a very funny time pass which you forgot in the next hour or so. I was really surprised with John Abraham's acting he usually playing the gangster like character with the emotionless face,so from that to playing the complete opposite and does it successfully,by managing to shine amongst the comic geniuses such as Paresh Rawal and Akshaye Kumar. I was also quite surprised with the Akshaye's 3 girls because there roles don't require much talent but mostly moaning about Akshaye's dissapearence(to the other girls) i was surprised as they managed to establish and actual persona and you could differentiate between them which is a good thing ,also majority of songs are good,it is colourful and fun so on a boring Sunday evening this will sure lighten your mood.

Others have already commented on the "decline" of director Tobe Hooper, but what about Brad Dourif? He was perfectly capable of selecting good projects (as he proved by starring in the same year's "Exorcist III"), so why did he agree to appear in this? Sure, he gives a suitably demented performance, and the film is not outright bad; it's just uninvolving, uninteresting and unappealing. That's three "un-"s too many. (*1/2)
For all the Homicide junkies out there, this movie was great! Every single character that ever was on the show made an appearance in the movie. It helped to resolve some (but not all) issues from the series. Unfortunately, unless you actually did watch the series, most of the enjoyment would be lost, as the movie made heavy references to every season of the show's existence. This probably would have been appropriate as a series finale as opposed to being a separate movie, but we gotta take what we can get. I hope they make more movies, and continue to feature Homicide characters on Law and Order.

I am a huge Stooges fan but the one and only redeeming quality this movie has is that Curley is in it. Done long before he started drinking heavily he is his classic self in this (and Larry's not bad either). Moe's character is a straight part (mostly) and this movie would be better named "The Curley and Larry Movie". Not that any of the Stooges movies were very good (in my opinion), but as one commenter here said, how sad it is that this movie had real potential. The casting was good, it was well directed, filmed, and edited, but the story line tried to be about something serious with just some Stooges antics and musical numbers (which I guess were good back then) thrown in. The best thing you can do for yourself during this movie should you actually believe that it has to be better than mowing the lawn and taking out the trash (which is subject to debate) is to wait for Curley/Larry scenes and sleep or find something in the kitchen to eat during the rest of it.
Suraj Barjatya is best in movies on marriage. And here he is; back to his basics on Vivaah. As the story goes this is a story from engagement to marriage. A movie you can watch with your entire family around you. A movie you will hate watching alone. The story is simple, but the music is good, cinematography is excellent, direction is best, everything about the movie has a class of its own. There are a lot of scenes which will make you cry and am sure if you are watching the movie with your sweetheart, you both are definitely going to hold each others hand till the end of the movie.
Shahid & Amrita jodi has given us hit movies earlier like Ishq Vishq, & Shikhar. Though Shikhar was a good movie it wasn't accepted well by the public.A truly Shahid & Amrita film.

Well, I have to say, this movie was so bad that I would have walked out if i didn't have to review it for work. ANd the worst part is, I wanted to see it so badly that I drove all over the city, paid $10 parking two times because the newspaper listings were wrong. Vince Vaughn plays the guy he always does -- the only time I've seen him play someone else was in that movie with John Travolta. Anyways, the plot has potential -- it sounded great in the preview, but it is filled with totally ridiculous, predictable, weak plot turn points. And I was hoping that this would be one Christmas movie where Christmas DIDN"t have to be saved, and that Santa didn't need a replacdmetn, but nope. The only cool part was the sleigh rides, and the little bladck kid was the best character. I'm sure this movie would be great for young kids, but for adults it's so lame that it's chore to sit through.
At first, I hadn't read the novel so far and I hadn't hear anything about the author yet. But as I casually saw this movie, I was totally captive by the story. Already as the Jewish watchman primary said, that he knows no one, who have a bad conscience about the war except from Howard W. Campbell Junior, was such amazing objective and dissociates from simply moralizing the war. Terrific! And the fictitious story about "the most effective spy for the USA in WWII", who have lost everything, that was important for his life, is wonderful emotional transcribed. This is the best story about the duality of humanity, I've ever heard about! The questions, this movie is introducing, are in my opinion very important for our society: When does someone bear the guilt of something? What is guilt? Who is a hero and who is a felon? What is important in our life? Can you live without paying attention to the political changes? Is the protagonist guilty or not? These questions are more up to date than in the last 60 years. This is a must see for everyone, who have to think about the acception of war! This movie is a must see for everyone, who meditate, what matters in life and what doesn't...

This film was so disappointing. From the blurb that made me decide to see Phantom Love (why is it called this?)I had expected something arty and thoughtful with beautiful imagery. It did have some interesting images but these often seemed random and made no sense. In fact they seemed like they were inserted to fill in time. In the end the effect was listless.
I believe the film was meant to be atmospheric, but it just wasn't. The lack of a coherent plot did not help matters. You might say it was mysterious, but I think it was just incoherent with no atmosphere.
The main character seemed to be disturbed but the plot did not draw me in enough to care about her situation. Without looking at the cast list I would not have known that you see the main character as a child. The film has very little context for the time, place or character. I am not a prude but the sex scenes (there were several) seemed pointless and confused me further, I recognised Lulu but I was not sure if it was the same man, different men, a lover, her husband or was she a prostitute. It was only when I saw the credits that I discovered the hairy back was meant to belong to her lover. This film did manage to make what should have been shocking (dream sequences involving Lulu's mother) seem a bit boring.
The nail filing actually made more sense, as it did give some indication of Lulu's emotional state. I will not fault the actors as I don't they had a lot to work on.
I do not know if the lack of context or flow in the film was because of ineptitude or because it was pretentious but the end result was dull.
I can't be bothered talking about it anymore.
For a movie with a plot like this I would normally smell "tearjerker" in the first ten minutes and turn it off, but this was very well made, with emotional subtleties, great acting, and some genuinely funny moments. It was also interesting to see a different culture - a vanishing one at that. My wife and I both dug it!

"National Lampoon Goes to the Movies" is the worst movie ever made, surpassing even the witless "Plan 9 from Outer Space." At least that movie was just inept; the Lampoon film, on the other hand, is both inept and mean. Once upon a time, movies used to respect their audiences' intelligence. This one, however, holds a fetid, rotting carcass up to our faces -- and then tries to rub our noses in it.
Another reviewer on this site wrote that the only good parts of the movie are the nude scenes; and I agree, Misses Ganzel and Dusenberry do flash a bit of flesh, and very nice flesh it is. But the directors seem not to realize that even T&A needs a good story to surround it. There's none of that here.
Perversely, the film makers save the worst for last. The third of the three segments is the ugliest of the trio. In this vignette, Robby Benson plays an eager-beaver young police officer reporting for duty on his first day on the job. He is paired with a weary, cynical oldtimer played by Richard Widmark. For just a moment, we are given hope that this film will end triumphantly. Surely, we think, the youngster's spunky attitude will rub off on the cynic and change him for the better.
Forlorn hope! Instead, the cynic wins the day -- and the youngster's spark is doused forever. "National Lampoon Goes to the Movies" and heads right for the toilet, asking us to follow it down the drain. Nominally, this is a comedy. But where's the humor?
I was brought up on Doc Savage,and was petrified by the green death as a child but even then as now, I found it thoroughly entertaining.I have made countless friends and colleagues watch this film and have been most amused by the diversity of reactions,granted they mostly think I'm odd but there you are. "I don't know what it is about the Doc, but he always gets the girls" has to be the ultimate line when you look at his sad band of men. This film is a classic spoof on all the super hero genre,and was way before it's time,it is not to be taken seriously, move over Austin Powers. Ron Ely is a God.It is unfortunate that this film hasn't been released on DVD in the UK. I don't think it should be remade and bastardised, like I said it's a classic,it cannot be done without Ron.(like the Italian job without Mini's and Michael Caine). I give it 10/10.

Well, EYEboy, I must say that it pleases me to no end when someone singles me out and tries to make fun of me, especially when it is someone who seems as intelligent as you do. My favorite part of your post was "But no big bang-bang good-guy bad-guy here, kimosabe. Me suggest you stick to movie with lotsa bang bang."
Well said! I do like action movies, especially if they are well done, but I also like movies that don't have a whole lot of action, as long as THEY are well done. I'm sorry, but Secret's and Lies does not fit into that category and is simply a very bad movie. I really don't see very many non-American films, so maybe I was spoiled, and didn't realize how bad foreign films really were when I saw Secrets and Lies. Perhaps if I judge foreign movies by a different standard I could some day see how Secrets and Lies could possibly be one of the highest rated movies on the IMDB. Hmm... If true, that is very scary.
Jeremy Barger bits@midohio.net(new e-mail)
I gather from reading the previous comments that this film went straight to cable. Well, I paid to see it in a theatre, and I'm glad I did because visually it was a striking film. Most of the settings seem like they were made in the early 60s (except for the shrink's office, which was dated in a different way), and if you leave the Neve Campbell sequences out, the whole film has a washed- out early 60s ambience. And the use of restaurants in the film was fascinating. For a first-time director whose background, I believe, is in writing, he has a great eye. Within the first ten minutes I felt the plot lacked plausibility, so I just willingly suspended my disbelief and went along for the ride. In terms of acting and the depiction of father-son, mother-son, husband-wife, parent-child relationships, the film was spot-on. William H. Macy, a pleasure to watch, seems to be filling the void left by the late Tony Perkins, if this and Magnolia are any indication. Tracey Ullman as the neglected wife was quite moving, to me. It was a three-dimensional depiction of a character too often viewed by society as two-dimensional. Of course, Donald Sutherland can add this to his collection of unforgettable portrayals. The depiction of the parents (Bain/Sutherland) reminded me, in an indirect way, of Vincent Gallo's BUFFALO '66, although toned-down quite a bit! I would definitely pay money to see a second film from this director. He has the self-discipline of a 50s b-crimefilm director (something P.T.Anderson will never have!), yet he has a visual style and a way with actors that commands attention.

Scotty (Grant Cramer, who would go on to star in the great B-movie "Killer Klowns from outer space") agrees to help three middle-aged guys learn how to 'dialog' the ladies in this bad '80's comedy. Not bad as in '80's lingo, which meant good. Bad as in bad. With no likable characters, including, but not limited to, a kid who's the freakiest looking guy since "Friday the 13th part 2"' a girl who leads men on and then goes into hissy fits when they want to touch her, and the token fat slob, because after all what would an '80's sex comedy be without a fat slob?? Well this one has two. This movie is pretty much the bottom of the barrel of '80's sex comedies. And then came the sequel thus deepening said proverbial barrel.
My Grade:D-
Eye Candy: too numerous to count, you even see the freaky looking kid imagined with boobs at on point, think "Bachlor Party" but not as funny, and VERY disturbing.
Where I saw it: Comcast Moviepass
I thought this movie was very well done. Taking place in the mid 1950's, everything looked accurate to me. It was well cast and believable. I don't usually care much for this type of movie, because they just don't have any depth, but I felt this movie delved in to the characters and you could feel how they felt, you got to really know them and care about them. It did take me back to my youth and let me reminiscent about a more innocent time. This movie could be enjoyed by both male and female and by all age groups. After the movie was over I wished there was a part two. I wanted to know what happened to Dani and her family. This movie is bound to be a classic. If you haven't seen it you should try to catch it when it is on TV or rent it...

Eight academy nominations? It's beyond belief. I can only think it was a very bad year - even by Hollywood standards. With Huston as director and Jack Nicholson and Kathleen Turner as leads I probably would have swallowed the bait and watched this anyway, but the Oscar nominations really sold it to me, and I feel distinctly cheated as a result.
So it's a black comedy is it? Can anyone tell me where the humour is in Prizzi's Honor? It's certainly tasteless (the shooting in the head of a policeman's wife is but another supposedly comic interlude in this intended farce about mafia life) but with the exception of a joke about 'your favourite Mexican cigars' (which I imagine is an old joke for Americans who have been officially forbidden from buying anything Cuban for the last 50 years) I failed to spot anything of a comic nature - and I did try. There is a lot of Mafia cliché but cliché doesn't constitute humour in my book.
Is it a romantic comedy of sorts? Never. The characters and their relationships are so completely incredible and shallow that they are on a par with Ben Afleck and Jennifer Lopez in Gigli.
Is it a cleverly devised parody about the Mafia? Not in a million years. The plot is just pointlessly absurd rather than comically absurd, and it usually just has the feel of a really bad (and cheap) Mafia movie. It feels more like a homage than a parody.
With one-dimensional characters and little in the way of humour written for them, the actors are left doing dodgy accents and pulling faces. Well it isn't enough; even when the face is being pulled by that master of the comic facial expression, Jack Nicholson (repleat with puffed up top lip ... now is that meant to be a parody of Brando's padded jowls in The Godfather?... Oh! Who cares?... all I know is, it isn't funny).
Throw in some slow, plodding direction (this film drags on for 2 hours), some hopelessly daft and clichéd dialogue such as; "You remember the Camora? Well we're far bigger, we'll track you down wherever you go", and clichéd mannerisms and you'll be reaching for that fast forward button before you can say "capiche?". Prizzi's Honor is far from being Huston's "masterpiece" and is rather a very poor last work. It's definitely one work in the great director's canon that should be given a concrete overcoat and tossed into the Hudson River.
Kureishi hasn't exactly been blessed with movies that justify the quality of his writing. Recent adapted travesty's like 'Intimacy' have ruined great writing. But The Mother surpasses all his previous incarnations, eclipsing even My Beautiful Laundrette. A middle-aged woman overcomes widow-hood by having a very carnal relationship with the boyfriend of her emotionally-weak daughter. The fact that you believe all this is credit to the quality of the acting as it is to the finite gift of the writing. And in Daniel Craig we have a strutting, brash, gruff anti-hero who denies the audience to ever question why a young stud would contemplate bedding a sagging grandmother. Beautifully shot, the film fails only in the weak depiction of the peripheral characters, but as a study of inconceivable lust, it's a winner.

This film was basically Velvet Goldmine if the writers of party of five got a hold of it and made it a t.v. movie. The film lacks what Velvet Goldmine had which was good acting, writing, and basically everything else. The film had some of the worst writing I've seen since Wild Wild West. It definitely needed to be interesting. I know vh 1 has become a household name for their behind the music shows. which are a lot better than all this which would have worked if it was a behind the music episode but didn't and feel flat on it's face.
I love Ashley Judd and think all of her movies are great. Ruby
in Paradise is one of her best. It is a very understated movie that you really have to watch close to appreciate it. A story of a woman trying to make it on her own and refusing to give in to temptations that would make her life easy. Some of her movies such as Kiss The Girls and Time to Kill probably did better at the box office and video rentals. They were very good movies
also, but take the time to really look at Ruby and I think you will agree it is one of Ashley's Best.

The film is bad. There is no other way to say it. The story is weak and outdated, especially for this country. I don't think most people know what a "walker" is or will really care. I felt as if I was watching a movie from the 70's. The subject was just not believable for the year 2007, even being set in DC. I think this rang true for everyone else who watched it too as the applause were low and quick at the end. Most didn't stay for the Q&A either.
I don't think Schrader really thought the film out ahead of time. Many of the scenes seemed to be cut short as if they were never finished or he just didn't know how to finish them. He jumped from one scene to the next and you had to try and figure out or guess what was going on. I really didn't get Woody's (Carter) private life or boyfriend either. What were all the "artistic" male bondage and torture pictures (from Iraq prisons) about? What was he thinking? I think it was his very poor attempt at trying to create this dark private subculture life for Woody's character (Car). It didn't work. It didn't even seem to make sense really.
The only good thing about this film was Woody Harrelson. He played his character (Car) flawlessly. You really did get a great sense of what a "walker" may have been like (say twenty years ago). He was great and most likely will never get recognized for it.
As for Lauren, Lily and Kristin... Boring.
Don't see it! It is painful! Unless you are a true Harrelson fan.