Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
A brilliant Russian émigré devises the Stanislavsky' system for winning at contract bridge - which makes him and his beautiful wife the GRAND SLAM Sweethearts of America.
What could have been just another silly soap opera is elevated by fine production values & excellent acting to the status of a very enjoyable little comedy. A few unexpected touches are thrown in to keep the viewer's attention engaged - the way in which the principle cast is introduced as faces on a deck of cards; the introduction of a zany acrobat into the plot for no other reason than to enjoy a bit of lunacy; and the way in which a wide variety of different kinds of Americans are shown to be transfixed by listening to the broadcast of the concluding game.
Paul Lukas & Loretta Young do very well as the Bridge Sweethearts - Lukas suave & sophisticated and Miss Young passionately loving and beautiful (even if the script keeps her puffing on a cigarette a bit too much). They are fun to watch, even when their behavior is not always the most believable or compelling.
Frank McHugh gives another good performance as a relentlessly cheerful ghost writer who adores Miss Young. The delightful Glenda Farrell eschews her customary wisecracking persona in a small role as McHugh's ditsy gal pal. Roscoe Karns handles the fast-talking dialogue as a brash radio announcer. Diminutive Ferdinand Gottschalk is wonderful as a snobbish bridge expert.
Movie mavens will recognize Dewey Robinson as a belligerent nightclub patron; Emma Dunn as a sob sister reporter; Paul Porcasi as the owner of the Russian nightclub; Charles Lane as a Russian waiter; and Jimmy Conlin as a kibitzer at the final bridge game - all uncredited.
The film takes advantage of the fad for contract bridge which had swept across the country since its development in the 1920's. It expects the viewer to have a basic knowledge of the intricacies of the game and makes no attempt to explain anything to the uninformed.

Predictable, told a thousand times story with the usual drama in between, a couple of pretty raunchy sex scenes intermingled with some character paranoia, 70's style incidental violin horror music that is comical at times, i couldn't help chuckling to myself.
I usually like Defoe, and it has to be said that the acting is not all that bad, the "plot" develops at a reasonable pace and does keep you guessing from time to time. Its just that it's all too predictable, i felt like i was watching a made for TV drama instead of a new movie. Maybe thats the style the directors wanted, but it has to be said that the review i read on here before i saw the movie could only have been written by someone involved in its production.
Don't expect too much, and if i could wind the clock back i wouldn't have gone to see it at the cinema. I would wait for the bargain bins at your video shop, I'm sure it wont take long.
This is a great movie if viewed in the proper context - It was meant to be a parody of teen-horror-devil-worship movies (and the '80s saw plenty of them)! I saw this movie when it first came out, and instantly liked it. Being a big fan of KISS, it was great to see Gene in the movie. And anything with OZZY as a metal-hating preacher can't be all bad! Also, Fastway was already a favorite of mine, so it was great to hear them on the soundtrack.
The original VHS (this was pre-DVD) cover for Trick Or Treat featured an illustration of Sammi kneeling, playing his guitar in a ring of fire with a "demon" looking on. It was a special order, and the price for the VHS copy at the time (circa 1987) was $90! I really wanted the movie, but not at that ridiculous price. The 'OZZY-Gene' cover was only created for the $5 re-release. The company releasing it probably figured Gene and OZZY were the only recognizable people in the movie, so they had better put 'em on the cover! Same thing with the original "Little Shop Of Horrors" - Jack Nicholson was in it for all of five minutes, but now they have him on the cover as if he were the main star.
I have a "Trick Or Treat" web site, and it's surprising how many people believe Sammi Curr was a real person! Fastway helped perpetuate that myth by dedicating their soundtrack album to 'Sammi Curr'.
All-in-all, it was just a good time, rock-n-roll movie. Definitely not to be taken too seriously, but just enjoyed!

There seems to be a surprisingly high number of 8-10 star reviews here from people who have never written an IMDb review before or since. Given the very low average rating given to the film by other people, I think you may draw your own conclusions.
This is a very bad film. I'll admit it, I thought the concept was kind of cute, and I was pleased to see the actresses who played Eve and Harmony on Angel getting work, but it didn't take long for the sheer awfulness of this film to make itself known.
Acting: The leads seemed competent enough, but everyone else? Terrible.
Plot: Chock full of holes big enough to drive a truck through.
Direction: Non-existent.
Humour: Did they really think people were going to laugh? Oh boy.
Eye Candy: OK. there were some really beautiful women in this film. Not just the three main female characters, but right across the board. It was as if the producers hoped the scenery would keep male viewers so distracted they wouldn't notice how terrible everything else was. If so, they failed miserably.
In the right hands this could have been cute but darkly funny camp classic. It wasn't even close.
Domino is a great movie. It's about a young woman names Domino Harvey (Kiera Knightley) who becomes a bounty-hunter because of her boredom with her lifestyle. She joins with two fellow hunters (Mickey Rourke & Edgar Ramirez) and the adventures begin. The script is good. Very down-to-earth and realistic with the tone of the film. The only problem I had with this movie is that it concentrates on the different things that they do, instead of the character of Domino.
Even with that, Kiera Knightley gives a fierce performance. She shows the right amount of anger and dedication in this performance. Mickey Rourke follows up his Oscar-Worthy performance in 'Sin City' with another tough-guy performance. Edgar Ramirez really doesn't do anything except speak Spanish every once in a while and stare at Kiera. Delroy Lindoi gives a good supporting performance. Mo'Nique was herself, although she did surprise me on one particular scene. Lucy Liu has great chemistry with Kiera Knightley in her scenes with her.
The best thing about the movie though, is the direction. Tony Scott's fast-paced style really brings the movie to life. The cinematography is some of the best, I've ever seen. It takes a regular movie and puts on acid. All the blacks are blacker, the whites are brighter, and it has a sort of green glow to it. The action scenes are exhilarating.
OVERALL: If you liked Sin City & Man on Fire, you'll like Domino.

It was a painful experience, the whole story is actually there so I won't go into that but the acting was horrible there is this part in the very beginning when the scientist brother goes to work he actually wears a white coat at home before leaving to work, I thought working with biohazard material meant that you should wear sterilized clothes in a controlled environment and the lab itself looks like a school lab there is this monitor on top a file cabinet that has nothing to do with the whole scene its just there to make the place look technical and a scientist is actually having breakfast in the lab and next to him is a biohazard labeled jar and his boss walks in on him and doesn't even tell him anything about it...not to mentioned bad acting very bad can't get any worst than that my advice don't watch and I thought nothing could be worse than house of the dead apparently Uwi Boll's movies look like classical Shakespeare compared to this!
I was delighted to finally see the release of Amazing Stories the first season on DVD. I had forgotten just what a stellar cast of actors and directors worked on this series. For the longest time the only way you got to see this remarkable series was with the VHS 2 or 3 episode collections or when Sci-Fi would re-run the episodes. However, when Sci-Fi would host the re-runs, they generally stuck to the same episodes. There were a few outstanding episodes in Season One like The Mission that they didn't repeat. Does anyone know exactly how long this series ran? It says 1985 to 1987 at the top here at IMDb but I thought it ran longer than two years. If you loved the Twilight Zone, Night Gallery and Outer Limits, you will love this series and you will not be disappointed with your purchase.

OK. I think the TV show is kind of cute and it always has some kind of lesson involved. So, when my kids decided they wanted to see this movie, I decided to tag along. I wish I'd stayed home and watched the TV show instead.
The fact that the humor is silly and unoriginal is the least of the problems with this movie. The plot is next to non-existant, the characters seem to exist in a vacuum, and, worst of all, Gadget does not carry any lesson whatsoever. It appears that Disney took all of the things that make Inspector Gadget work on TV and tossed them all. To be fair, my younger child (8 years old) liked the movie but the older one (10 years old) came away thinking it silly (he was too old for the youth humor but too young for any of the adult humor).
Generally, I like Disney films but this one misses by a mile. It is OK for a very narrow age band (say 7 to 9) but a must miss for everybody else.
I had watched as much of the series as I could manage to watch on television, but unfortunately, started a job that got me working evenings. I managed to catch some recordings of it, at least... and, of course, purchased the recently released DVD of the complete series. Watching the DVD, you can see that the animation was a bit more crude at first, but they ironed out a fair number of the flaws after the pilot was done. The voices are well suited to the characters, and the writing is excellent. It's rather refreshing to see animation getting back to it's roots by reintroducing adult themes. Thing is, with the way society has come in the last century, you need to be a bit more blatant about it by today's standards in order to be recognised as an adult-oriented show. The characters have very realistic personalities and are placed in situations that parallel what we often face in real life. It's your typical sitcom in that regard, but the humor is more like what you'd expect from late night television like a talk show skit or Saturday Night Live... back when SNL was actually funny. Good job, Dreamworks. Perhaps you need to work with one of the more liberal networks to keep this series going... and also improve the marketing of merchandise for the series to help defray it's high costs. It's a challenge to do this for a cartoon of a mature nature though. Hmm...

Richard Dreyfuss is, indeed, in this flick, but in a rather small part. He is NOT the "obsessed" filmmaker - he's the group's business manager/accountant. Even the box describes the film inaccurately. There are no erotic scenes with Sondra Locke, as advertised, unless one uses the term "erotic" quite loosely. I would not have considered viewing the film without Richard Dreyfuss being in it as a major character. I might have, however, had I realized that the famous 60's anthem, Leonard Cohen's "Suzanne," was an artistic influence. Other than the brief recitation of lines from the end of James Joyce's "Ulysses", and an interesting visual reference to the end of Ingmar Bergman's "The Seventh Seal," I found it a poor attempt to meld symbolic elements and moods immortalized in films like "Last Year at Marianbad" and "Un Chien Andalou." If you like the idea of the eccentric artistic troupe, there are many superior films, ranging from "Bye, Bye, Brasil" to "Cecil B. Demented."
Seeing as Keifer Sutherland plays my favorite character in the history of TV, it was a foregone conclusion i was gonna go to the movies and spend $15 on this. I also think this applies to Eva Longoria fans.
The movie revolves around a leak that a Secret Service agent is planning to assassinate the President. As the investigation unfolds, it seems the only likely candidate is the highly decorated Pete (Michael Douglas). Pleading innocence, Pete goes on the fun, fugitive style, to search for the truth.
It's solid, but certainly not spectacular. A decent cast, a decent story but it left me feeling a bit empty, but you could certainly do far worse.

An uninspired and undistinguished "new" Columbo which sees the man-in-the-mac attend his nephew's wedding, only for his bride to disappear on their wedding night. Columbo investigates...
And that it is about it: indifferently plotted and surprisingly laden with a flat script, given that it is written by Robert Van Scoyk, who penned the highly enjoyable Columbo story "Murder Under Glass" in the detective's heyday; there is not even a murder to speak of and the greatest amount of ingenuity afforded to Columbo by the script-writer is the narrowing down of suspects via the photos taken at the wedding, which include everybody who was there!
Devoid of every Columbo trait possible, I thought I was watching an episode of Hill Street Blues. An insult to the history of the series, with appropriately soap-opera style acting. Very avoidable stuff.
It is ironic that during the '50s, when Douglas Sirk was at his most successful in terms of audience appeal, he was virtually ignored by the critics He is now seen, however, as a director of formidable intellect who achieved his best work in melodrama
"Written on the Wind" is about the downfall of a Texan oil dynasty surrounded by worthless reputation, alcoholism, and nymphomania It is about the twisted, fatal connections between sex, power, and money...
Stack draws a compelling portrait of a tormented drunken destroyed by frustration, arrogance, jealousy, insanity, and some deep insecurities
Dorothy Malone succeeds as an attractive woman with an excessive sexual appetites, degrading herself for Hudson and to other fellows in town Her best line: "I'm filthy." In one frantic scene, we see her shaking, quivering and sweating to a provocative mambo In another weeping alone over a model oil-derrick at her father's desksymbol of excessive wealth and masculine tyranny
The frenetic atmosphere is both made palatable and intensified by Sirk's magnificent use of colors, lights, and careful use of mirrors

I joined this site to see what comments people would make about this absolute disaster of a film. I wasn't drawn in for even a second. The characters were all one-dimensional. They threw every topic they could think of hoping something would stick. I would bet (and hope) that everyone involved in Teachers looks back with embarrassment. There are some great actors here but you would never know it. Thank God it didn't destroy Morgan Freeman's or Judd Hirsh's or Nick Nolte's or Laura Dern's careers. There was no vision, no labor of love here, only a horrible effort gone wrong. BTW I don't think the writer ever set foot in a real school.
This was without a doubt the best of the "Dirty Harry" series. From the opening credits, you're swept up in a revenge tale that hits hard and is profoundly engrossing. Sondra Locke is perfect in the role of a traumatized woman out for revenge. Eastwood has many "aside" sequences that have nothing to do with the plot, but show Harry at his bad-assed best. Loaded with unforgettable characters in minor roles, this film rocks and should serve as the standard for detective/action flicks. This is the one Dirty Harry flick that's raw and devoid of any "fluff". I can watch this again and again (okay, not in one sitting) because it's a gratifying "out for revenge" yarn. The pace is quick and several of the scenes are unforgettable. "Go ahead - Make my day...You feel lucky, Punk? ...." classic Eastwood as only Eastwood, with his anguished, rubbery expressions, and whispery, menacing voice can do it.

First off, I really loved Henry Fool, which puts me in a very small pool of movie goers. Parker Posey is one of best actresses on-screen today. But this film was a full-out travesty. Watching Hartley and the actors talk about the film in the extras - so full of pride, and making pointless analogies to Star Wars - was stomach-turning. This was hype on the producers part (HDNET) realized to the max. A true example of the Emperor and his new clothes. Mostly I feel that Hal has spoiled HENRY FOOL forever. I don't think I can ever see it again in it's pure, innocent light.
Remember Hal, you can FOOL some of the people some of the time... etc. The director would be nowhere today if all he did was churn out meaningless garbage. Sadly, it's a pure example of the lesson taught in the film ADAPTATION. The story must be exciting and active, or its box-office hopes are dim indeed. Never mind a decent story. For the actors, it was like trying to act in a straitjacket.
The score, I believe Hartley's, is tasteless. With drum hits walking all over dialog. There was one Apple Soundtrack loop I recognized that gave me a smile.
When I saw the trailer, I thought, oh, they're just trying to grab a new audience. But it's really this ridiculous ride. I'd be happy to spoil this movie for you, but it's been done. It's rotten. The FOOL franchise is dead. Long live Henry Fool.
When I first saw this show, I thought it looked interesting. I watched it, saw how it revolved around Sarah, like the character sees the world...revolving around her. I got it, but wasn't laughing very much.
Onstage and in her show, she's racist, crude, insensitive and hugely self-centered. I didn't get her at first, and took it all at face value. Then I got to see her movie, Jesus is Magic. I think that served as a Sarah Silverman primer for me, explaining to me just what 'language' she's speaking. She's like Marilyn Manson, working so hard to give us a faceful of horrible ideas and images, but you eventually realise it isn't an assault, it's a statement. And once you understand that, you find you're glad someone's finally giving it to you straight.
I don't mean to suggest only smart people will understand, or that to hate this show is to prove your idiocy. While I like a lot of 'smart' shows, I still to this day do not see the humor of Curb Your Enthusiasm. I get the impression that it's good, but I just don't get it. Many people will never get the Sarah Silverman Program, but I'm glad I eventually came around.
The creators of this show do work hard, every episode is loaded not just with dialogue and plot, but with songs, or dream sequences, production numbers. These people aren't putting together something to fill a time slot and please advertisers, they appear to be on a mission to make the best show they can put together. If I was to predict the future of this show, I'd say it will go the way of Arrested Development and Freaks & Geeks. It will get canceled before it's time and live on in fans' hearts and on DVD. But take heart, SSP creators, your audience IS out there, and we'll be watching for as long as they let you make the show.

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.
This movie is tremendous for uplifting the Spirits.
Every time I watch it, I see & hear funny little things that I missed before.
The soundtrack is unbelievable. Mick Jones (Foreigner) and Chris Difford (Squeeze) penned the songs, making Strange Fruit the best thing that ever hit today's music scene.
Unfortunately, Strange Fruit are a strictly fictitional washed up '60's to 70's band that were never good to begin with, due to drug use and inner fighting. One wonders what might have been, while listening to their fanatstic soundtrack.
The Fruit draw inspiration from The Rolling Stones, Deep Purple, David Bowie, and The Who.
Each member of Fruit are quite memorable. Stephen Rea stars as down-and-dead-broke Tony Costello, who is asked by a festival promoter to reunite his band for a reunion tour, with hopes of reaping monetary benefits. Costello haply approaches ex-roadie Karen Knowles, played by Juliet Aubrey, to help him rekindle the flame of a dream long past.
Juliet gathers up the bitter Jimmy Nail (Les Wickes), blundering Timothy Spall (David 'Beano' Baggot), and extravagantly glamouresque Ray Simms (Bill Nighy). Tumbling in is another ex-roadie, the hippy-toker-jokester Hughie (Billy Connolly), who never let the flame burn out.
As Juliet searches for the last member of their motley band, the elusive guitarist-songwriter Brian Lovell (played by the brooding Bruce Robinson), the reunited members squabble, just like old times, fighting over each others' rusty talent.
The band is then given the chance to do a small Dutch tour, to prepare for the festival. With young Hendrix-like Luke Shand (Hans Matheson) taking the place of Lovell, the crew hits the road. The sparks fly as their memories flame forward, threatening to burn their unfinished goals...
Be prepared to laugh, sing, cheer, and cry, as these memorable characters etch themselves back into your hearts...

I simply cannot believe the number of people comparing this favourably with the first film. It moved me to leave this comment! This is just an obvious attempt to cash-in on the success of the first film. The dialogue is appalling and nothing like as authentic or compelling as the original film.
The storyline is ridiculous, the portrayal of the French police laughable and the characterisation of Doyle a mile away from the first film.
How many drug bosses do you think go down to the docks in person to see a shipment come in? The ease at which Doyle finds his guy is just pathetic. Like all the French Police were just drinking coffee until Doyle turns up from America and does some REAL police work. What a joke. Try going to a foreign city and unearthing the biggest crims in the place with a travel map and some tourist pamphlets. Pathetic.
A truly awful sequel, anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy.
Yes this a B- grade horror. But at least the producers, directors, and cast does not pretend this flick is manna from heaven. The plot is corny, a psychotic serial killer on his way to execution is splashed with genetic acid turning him into a snow man. The snowman a.k.a. Jack Frost then goes on a murdering rampage to find the small town sheriff that finally arrested him. With a limited budget the crew had to make do with limited special effects, most of the money appears to spent on the snowman's costume. Particullary difficult shots are managed by cartoons or pan away shots (shots where the camera moves away to disguise the details).
This is no kid's movie and should not be confused with Disney movie of the same title. If you do not let your children watch pg-13 movies alone than parents should not let their kids watch this movie. This movie has two claims to fame. 1. The beatiful Shannon Elizabeth (American Pie)did her first major movie role. The scene where Jack Frost attacks Shannon Elizabeth is worth watching a few times. 2. This movie has the worst snowman joke ever. The joke is so bad that the directors credit the joke teller in the credit list.

Man, even Plan 9 From Outer Space is better than this movie. This flick doesn't have enough plot for half an hour, yet they managed to extend it for an eternity of more than an hour. Jet Li and Corey Yuen are pretty good, specially in those exaggerated fight scenes, but stuff like The Legend of Fong Sai Yuk is much better than this sorry thing that would be better left unmade.