Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I didn't give this movie a perfect score in order to be honest in comparing to great classics like "Citizen Kane" and "Seven Samaurai." However, this movie is so all-around wonderful, it's a real shame it scores so poorly for the general IMDb voter. However, the IMDb voter leans to the geeky, and "Paulie" doesn't qualify for that.
The only acting criticism I might suggest is that Hallie Kate Eisenberg didn't portray the perfect stuttering child. I'm sorry, but asking a 6 year-old child to out-do Dustin Hoffman as the Rainman is asking for the impossible in film-making.
Moving past that minor complaint, the movie has the best of many films: buddy road-trip, con-games, hero as friendly party-animal (party-bird?), Disney-like humor for young and old, etc. What's not to like? Tony Shaloub wears his role like a pair of comfortable jeans. That's normal for him, it seems. ("I'm Russian... I LIKE long stories.) I don't like mangoes, but he almost makes me want to go out and buy one. Watch the movie and that will make sense.
Buddy Hackett and Cheech Marin make very appropriate appearances in the film. Roles that are quite fitting to what we all know about them. I have always found Jay Mohr to be a bit slimy, and his on-screen role fits that as well. The only surprise to me was finding that Jay was also Paulie's voice. In the end, even that works well; put Parrot and anti-Parrot together as a team and it creates a magic of its own.
If you are trying to find a film for you and the kids that is neither insulting nor boring for either, "Paulie" is a perfect candidate. I will, however, admit that a happy moment colors my review of "Paulie." I was on a road-trip during a major heat-wave. The car's air-conditioning died, half the restaurants had dead cooling (as did our hotel) and I said, "let's watch a movie where there is working air-conditioning." So we did. So for 100 minutes we were cooled, amused, and given a heart-warming experience. When I saw it recently on VCR under less emotional circumstances, I realized just how well this movie was made.
It's a sleeper film you won't regret watching.

I thought this movie had absolutely no moral. I mean, how would you feel if your fiancé left you on your wedding day for your cousin??? I would be heartbroken!! It's classified as a comedy but I didn't find it funny at all. I thought it just mostly found cheap laughs and took them. I normally love Julie Stiles movies, but this is an exception. Jason Lee stars in another disgraceful show, which once again proves that class and decent morals are not relevant in todays society. It had a complete lack of taste and I despise movies like this. I understand that people will defend this movie and it's morals because it is 'Just a movie', but I still stand by my mark that this bad behaviour shouldn't be allowed on screen. I'm not trying to say that if you enjoyed this movie, you are a bad person, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and parts of this movie were enjoyable, I'm just saying that in real life, people acting like the characters in this film were doing is shameful.
"It wasn't me! It was, er, my twin brother Rupert!" Bobby says to Dugan when confronted about being over at Sally's place. I have used this line dozens of times over the years (no one has yet to believe it, though).
This movie is one of the all-time best for sheer fun and nonbelieveability. Steven Oliver was perfect for the part of Dugan, so much so that he was in 1978's "Malibu Beach" as the same character (not nearly as much screen time, though).
"Nobody calls Dugan a turd!" is another line for the ages. This classic film was definitely worth the price of admission.

A terrible film which is supposed to be an independent one. It needed some dependence on something.
This totally miserable film deals with the interactions among Irish people. Were they trying to imitate the wonderful film "Crash?" If so, this film crashed entirely.
There is just too much going on here culminated by a little brat running around and throwing rocks into buses and cars which obviously cause mayhem.
The film is just too choppy to work. One woman loses her husband after 14 years to another while her younger sister is ripped off by a suitor. This causes the former sister to become a bitter vetch and walk around in clothes not worth believing. The older sister also becomes embittered but soon finds romance.
Then, we have 3 losers who purchase masks to rob a bank. Obviously, the robbery goes awry but there doesn't seem to be any punishment for the crooks. Perhaps, the punishment should have been on the writers for failure to create a cohesive film.
FLAVIA THE HERETIC is a strange entry in the nunsploit genre - equal parts sleaze, feministic journey, and "history" as we follow Flavia on her strange trip.
We start off with Flavia in a convent...she ain't too happy there cuz she doesn't believe in all the male-dominated "rules" and macho-ism of the world around her and escapes from the convent with her Jewish pal, Abraham. They are both eventually caught and Flavia is brought back to the convent where she joins another "non-believing" nun in hastening a Moslem invasion. Flavia hangs out with the Moslems who take over the convent and get "busy" with the nuns in a strange set of scenes. Eventually the Moslems roll-out and Flavia is punished as a traitor to Christianity in another singularly brutal scene...
This one has pretty much all the stuff that I like to see in a 70's era exploit film - some good gore, including nipple-removal, and a nice leg-skinning scene, some decent nudity - including the requisite full-frontal, and a decent storyline as well. I will say that it sorta dragged in a few points, but not enough to get truly bored with it. I would definitely recommend this one to nunsploit/70's exploit fans...8/10

I rented this movie, thinking it looked like a wonderfully delightful historical piece. What I got was a piece of pure garbage. This movie was confusing in most spots, choppy in almost every spot and dreadful in all spots. Mira Sorvino's portrayal of a queen playing a young male scholar was depressing at best. Ben Kingsley should have been stripped of his knighthood for even considering this film as one of his projects. Fiona Shaw should definitely stick to playing Petunia Dursley; at least the Harry Potter movies are more entertaining than this thing they call a play within a movie.
The cinematography looks like some college kid took a class in Cinematography 101 and failed miserably. Almost every scene in the movie is chopped up for some sort of effect; the end result of course being the cheesiest bit of editing I've ever seen. Jay Rodan was almost good as Agis; too bad he had such a bad script to work with. Rachael Stirling gives her best effort as the almost gullible lady in waiting. In the end, I really wish Blockbuster Video gave refunds. I'm so glad I didn't spend 10 bucks watching this fiasco in the theater. If they've been performing this Marivaux play since the 18th century, it makes me wonder how many people over the ages have had their best naps during this work. If I had been there, they wouldn't have hear the play over the snoring. Thank goodness for the modern convenience of DVD players; you can skip past the boring or awful scenes. Guess that means I only watched the beginning and the end!
The Williams family live on a ranch located in the middle of the remote desert. They find themselves in considerable peril when the place is suddenly thrust into a time vortex where the past, present and future collide in a wildly chaotic and unpredictable manner. Director John "Bud" Cardos begins the film on a compellingly mysterious note and gradually allows things to get stranger, crazier and more exciting as the loopy story unfolds. Moreover, Cardos fills the screen with plenty of dazzling visuals and does a nice job of creating a genuine sense of awe and wonder. The admirably sincere acting from a game cast qualifies as another major plus: Jim Davis as hearty patriarch Grant Williams, Dorothy Malone as his cheery wife Ana, Christopher Mitchum as the concerned Richard, Marcy Lafferty as his lovely wife Beth, Natasha Ryan as sweet little girl Jenny, and Scott C. Kolden as the gutsy Steve. The funky special effects offer an inspired combo of gnarly miniatures, neat stop-motion animation monsters (said creatures include a tiny spindly hairless guy, a big, lumpy, fanged beast, and a scrawny lizard dude), and nifty matte paintings. Richard Band's rousing full-bore orchestral score really hits the stirring spot. John Arthur Morrill's crisp, sunny cinematography likewise does the trick. A fun flick.

warning:It contains spoilers. If a movie starts with a sex scene then it's a bad movie. (see for example 300). This one confirms the above lemma. The second scene constitutes the spinning center of all the action. The fact that we know the end makes the movie boring. Even more, other plots are revealed as the story goes back and forth several times. And this made more frustrated. To compensate the consequent lack of suspense, we learn more and more about how unbalanced are the characters. And oh yes, they have lots to show. Andy (P.Hoffman), for example, is a drug addict, more?, he is cheating his wife, more?, he plans to rob his father, more?, his wife is cheating with his brother, more?, he doesn't regret his complicity to his mother's death, more?, he is a serial killer, more? etc etc it's not enough space to write here... I wonder how could he have a top job. And why his wife didn't leave him before. On the other hand I enjoy much the performances of the actor Hoffman.
Even here PSH saves what is left from my 7$ spent for this absurdity. Why absurdity? Because it doesn't have sense, why should I care for the despicable characters? Another broken lemma is that a movie should have a sympathetic( at least pleasant) character.
Also it's a lot of sentimentality, for example we are supposed to care for the sufferance of the widowed father without knowing anything about the parents'lives before the crime.
Of course, the original is better, but this isn't as bad as everyone says! Yes, it is made up into 3 stories, but hey, so what?! I thought it was quite good to be honest. I actually liked how Anastasia changed a little when she fell in love, it shows what love can do. The stories were not so bad either.
I liked Cinderella's voice better in this too. I have nothing against her voice in the original, but I just think it sounds better here, more nicer. I liked her personality in this too, she had more of a backbone, yet she was still kind.
So, I'll give Cinderella II:Dreams Come True a 7/10.

This movie was a stupid piece of crap. Bad everything. Why is it that we who love western movies get jilted nine out of ten times when renting westerns. It seems that if you don't see names like Robert Duval, Kevin Kostner, or Tom Selleck attached to the cover, it isn't worth messing with. For the most part the main action of Shiloh Falls was taking place in 1892, yet the revolvers used were 1860s models. Even the shooting was bad - in one scene the Marshal fanned his six-shooter about nine times and couldn't hit any of three large men who were only about twenty feet away. I had to turn it off after about 15 minutes of this inanity. Perhaps those who participated in this movie could have taken some lessons at the Sunset Carson School of Acting.
Inspector "Dirty" Harry Callahan once again angers his superiors with his maverick approach to police work. Refusing to take a vacation he is given a simple case which takes him outside of San Francisco. However, he soon discovers a link between a recent murder in the city and a murder outside of the city, which leads him to the trail of a revenge killer.
As an entry in the Dirty Harry franchise the film starts with some very promising moments, including the legendary "Go ahead, make my day" line that Eastwood delivers wonderfully through clenched teeth before single handedly foiling a robbery. Very badass and it just what fans can expect from him. However, the film soon shifts gears and focuses on the mysterious revenge killer. The problem is that this killer isn't all that mysterious as she is characterized as much as Harry is. This really detracts from the presence of the main character who ruled all of his previous film appearances with, pardon the pun, Magnum Force.
On the bright side this new storyline does draw several parallels to Harry's own unorthodox methods and gives his character dramatic depth that was not there before, but fans that were looking for another badass Harry outing will more than likely be somewhat disappointed. However, a tense climax ends the film on an exciting note so if you don't mind something a little different, it is a good movie for fans. --- 7/10
Rated R for violence and a rape scene

I really must have caught a different film from the rest of the commentators on this site because at a screening of the film last night the audience was so mortified by the dialoge that (I'm not even kidding)half walked out. Shot as if the filmmaker thought he were approaching some daring new territory by presenting a homosexual coming-of-age story, the film utilizes David Lynch inspired visuals with Fassbinder inspired acting. The performances in this film are so dull and bored that I figured one of the actors was going to pass out by how uninspired they seemed to be by the script. What's worse is that it's colored like an episode of Miami Vice. I don't know who this director thinks he is; maybe he has pretensions of the surreal like Bunuel, Jordowsky, etc. But the problem is that all of the afore mentioned directors display a level of erudite sensibility that is sorely lacking here. I could understand the meaningfulness of this film about ten years ago, but when we've got masterpieces such as Bad Eduction, Mysterious Skin and Show Me Love why bother with this cinematic turd? There is nothing new to be seen here.
I loved this movie! It's truly bizarre, extremely funny, morbid, witty... It makes no sense to tell about the contents of the movie, because then I'd be giving out the outcome! You have to see it without knowing what is it about! Everything is connected and has its why & because. It starts subtly and then the things start rolling faster and faster until they culminate in the most insane outburst you can imagine! It's even more fun to watch the movie the second time, once you know all the "tricks". The actors are excellent, especially Ivan Trojan, whose final scenes are a real master piece! I highly recommend this film, it's one of the most original ones I've ever seen!

This was a great book and the possibilities for a truly great film were definitely there. But the casting decisions completely wrecked the movie. Hanks is a great actor to be sure, but lacks the smarmy, morally ambivalent characteristics needed for the lead role. Jeff Daniels would have been my choice.
Putting Melanie Griffiths in, for eye candy reasons, is understandable, but again, she did not portray the depth or ambivalence, so need to pull this off.
This movie is a great example of how every decision, even those early on in the movie production can make or break a file.
When I think of Return of the Jedi I think epic. Yeah Ewoks were in there so what? They're an interesting add to the movie (not to mention they are similar to the Vietcong who were also able to take down a technologically advanced army with primitive acts). Jedi is definitely more darker then the rest of the movies. Emperor Palpatine (portrayed by the amazing theater actor Ian McDiarmid) was one the best parts of the movie. Palpatine is so evil and vicious, Vader looks like Mr. Rogers compared to him . Speaking of Darth Vader, what an amazing end to such an iconic character. Vader is truly a modern day Greek tragedy and I think people can now especially understand and appreciate this after Revenge of the Sith came out. His redemption at the end was moving and really brings a happy yet bittersweet feeling to you. The best part was of course the special effects. It's amazing how a film from the early eighties can still stand the test of time with it's graphics. The scenes at Jabba's palace (Leia looks amazing in that metal bikini) and of course the epic three way battle at the end are still stunning to look at. In all Jedi's deep plot and emotional moments (primarily between Luke Vader and Palpatine and when Luke reveals the truth to Leia) and incredible special effects is a fitting end to one of the most beloved franchises in cinema history.

an very good storyline, good thrill to it ... but the 10 last seconds destroyed the whole movie... what happened? extremely well made and an good story destroyed in the last seconds... sorry to say but a 1 in vote... thats what it it deserve, i would think that Chris Shadley could come up with a better end... but maybe next time : ) all this meaningless blood gore for nothing? the end would lift the story to close to a 10, but it didn't.... the end destroyed the whole story, i think most people aren't lame and when they goes a movie thy want a good end, even if it is intricate ... but the only lame here is the end... sorry
If you are looking for a sonic-boom-special-effects monster, click the BACK button on your browser.
Deathtrap was written by Ira Levin (Sliver, The Stepford Wives, Rosemary's Baby). It's a stage play, adapted for the screen. 95% of the movie takes place in the gorgeous home of playwright Sidney Bruhl (Michael Caine). He's the author of a fabulously successful Broadway play, but his last 4 efforts have flopped - horribly.
An aspiring playwright, Clifford Anderson (Christopher Reeve), who attended a play-writing workshop given by Sydney, has sent him a copy of the play he has written. Sydney tells his wife, Myra (Dyan Cannon) the play is fabulous - a sure-fire hit. But is it good enough to die for? Time will tell.
Clever dialog and numerous twists and turns in the plot keep this movie entertaining from beginning to end. The whole cast seems to have a good time. It's reminiscent of another fun Michael Caine mystery: Sleuth. Worth watching.

First a technical review. The script is so slow, it is really a 25 minute story blown up to 1 hour 40 min. The dialogue is so flat and truly one-dimensional. The "acting" is pathetic, they seem to really have lifted schoolchildren out of class to read a few lines from an idiot board. As for the whole "point" of the story, namely "war is bad" (oh, there's a shock!) is really non-existent. Without out the "lets shock 'em and get great publicity" scene nobody would be talking about this film. It is so bad it actually bothers me to think what better things the money used this could have gone on. Believe me I've seen some bad "emperor's new clothes" films but the one thing I can say for them is at least they were well shot and well made while the camera wobbled during two scenes in this! Read all the other reviews - avoid at all costs and don't talk about it.
How can a movie be both controversial and gentle? This one does it with a near-perfect structure. No one wants their daughters to be athletes. Apparently most cultures don't want their daughters to be small-breasted, either. Here we see a bunch of superb actors we've never heard of before portray folks of different cultures living fairly humdrum lives until their female children want to, and have the potential to, become professional soccer players. The structure around the parallelism of the two cultures is wonderful. There is no condescension. Both cultures are seen as modern and valid. (And yes, both are silly, too). One flaw: the Hindu wedding ceremony seemed to involve hundreds of relatives but not one child among them.

I never quite understood the popularity of Saban's Power Rangers show which was quite simply a second rate Americanized version of Japan's ultra popular super sentai series of the past three decades! What was cool about the Japanese version gets completely lost in the American version, characterization, special effects, etc.
Of course many kids will say that power rangers are the greatest but they would be incorrect.
I'm sure if they spoke Japanese, they would learn how much better super sentai is over the American version.
Power Rangers is completely awful, try Super Sentai instead! Looking for a better show, try Voltron The Third Dimension instead!
Okay, I know this does'nt project India in a good light. But the overall theme of the movie is not India, it's Shakti. The power of a warlord, and the power of a mother. The relationship between Nandini and her husband and son swallow you up in their warmth. Then things go terribly wrong. The interaction between Nandini and her father in law - the power of their dysfunctional relationship - and the lives changed by it are the strengths of this movie. Shah Rukh Khan's performance seems to be a mere cameo compared to the believable desperation of Karisma Kapoor. It is easy to get caught up in the love, violence and redemption of lives in this film, and find yourself heaving a sigh of relief and sadness at the climax. The musical interludes are strengths, believable and well done.

Was it a thriller, as I thought when I saw the cover at the video library? No. Was it a 'food fr thought' as the author was maybe trying to make it? Not really. So what was it? It was a very average movie, that had great potential, and was nicely directed but let down by a confusing story without strong points, beginning middle and end, with poor acting expect from the serial killer guy, who although he seemed overzealous at some points delivered the best performance of the cast overall. It was nice cinematography, with good colours, cool hi-tec stuff, beautiful scenics but leaves you lost about where it's going and where it has just been. And with a feeling of let's just quickly wrap it up in the end. OK to watch if there's nothing else on TV.
This enjoyable minor noir boasts a top cast, and many memorable scenes. The big distraction is the complete disregard for authentic accents. The Spanish characters in the film are played by a Frenchman (Boyer), a Belgian (Francen), a Greek (Paxinou) and a Hungarian (Lorre)! And to top it all off Bacall is supposed to be an English aristocrat! Despite these absurdities, the performances are all very good - especially those of Paxinou and Lorre. But the scene in which Boyer, Paxinou and Lorre meet, and talk in wildly different accents, is a real hoot! And I guess, seeing as how they were alone, that they should actually have been speaking in Spanish anyway! It seems pretty weird that the Brothers Warner couldn't find any Spanish speaking actors in Los Angeles! Of course Hollywood has often had an "any old accent will do" policy - my other favorite is Greta Garbo (Swedish) as Mata Hari (Dutch), who falls in love with a Russian soldier played by a Mexican (Ramon Novarro). Maybe they should have got Novarro for "Confidential Agent" - he would have been great in Boyer's role or at least in Francen's (which would have saved greatly on the dark make-up budget).

No wonder Pamela Springsteen gave up acting to become a full-time photographer; it's a much better idea to have her behind a camera than in front of one. While this movie is not without its interesting elements (mullets from hell, etc.), it is outweighed by flaws. For one thing, Angela, the murderous counselor, appears to be about the same age as the campers. Having an older, more threatening camp director would have done a lot for the film. And then you have the murder scenes. The budget was apparently too low to execute most of them properly (no pun intended), although drowning someone in an outhouse toilet is certainly original. But overall, there are a ton of movies out there that are scarier/more fun to spend an hour and a half of your life watching.