Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
The first 50 minutes of this movie were quite boring. It focused on the personal problems Doyle had, including his sick wife, death threats by fans, a pushy publisher and feelings of guilt concerning his mentally ill father. Even though these subjects had an important impact on Doyle's life, I was more curious about the birth of Sherlock Holmes. The last 40 minutes were excellent. We finally got a look inside Doyle head, how he created Holmes and why he had to 'kill' Holmes. The actors are excellent. Including the intriguing Selden played by Tim McInnerny, Arthur Conan Doyle, a compelling role played by Douglas Henshall and Brian Cox as the 'role model' for Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Bell. The locations are good, especially for a TV movie and the camera work is nice. If the first 50 minutes were as good the the last 40 minutes this would have been a small masterpiece.

The highlight of this movie for me was without doubt Tom Hanks. As Mike Sullivan, he was definitely cast against type and showed that he can handle an untraditional (for him) role. Hanks is usually the good guy in a movie - the one you like, admire and root for. Sullivan was definitely not a good guy. It's true that in the context of this movie he came across as somewhat noble - his purpose being to avenge the murders of his wife and youngest son. Even so, he was already a gangster and murderer before those killings. So Hanks took a role I wouldn't have expected him in, and he pulled it off well.
Hanks' good performance aside, though, I certainly couldn't call this an enjoyable movie. After an opening that I would best describe as enigmatic (it wasn't entirely clear to me for a while where this was going) it turns into a very sombre movie, about the complicated relationships Sullivan has developed as a gangster - largely raised by Rooney (Paul Newman), who's a sort of mob boss, and trying to raise his own two sons and to keep them "clean" so to speak; isolated from his business. After the older son witnesses a murder, the gang tries to kill him to keep him quiet, gets the wrong son (and the mother), and leaves Sullivan and his older son (Mike, Jr.) on the run. It becomes a weird sort of father/son bonding movie.
Although it ends on a somewhat hopeful note (at least in the overall context of the story) it's really very dark throughout, that mood being reinforced with many of the scenes being shot in darkness and torrential rainfall. I have to confess that while I appreciated Hanks' performance, the movie as a whole just didn't pull me in. 4/10
While the movie does feel a bit long at times, it is well worth it. Gordon directs in a style that reminds you of Vonneguts writing styles. Merciless, thoughtful, ironic, quirky, and dark, this is a film which will stay with you for quite a while, begging for answers to impossible questions. Nolte, Goodman, and Arkin are all incredible. Sheryl Lee is wonderful as well, in a role that will remind us Lynch fans of her Laura/Maddy days. Do not miss this one!

Jason Alexander is a wonderful actor, but it's ridiculous to cast him as a cuddly romantic lead. The fact that he dances so well, croons so effectively, and throws himself into the part so completely somehow just made him seem all the more creepy. In his more cutesy moments (with the girl in the train station, in the final number with Rosie), I couldn't take my eyes off him he was so repellent. You keep expecting him to drop the nice-guy act and start snarling. Vanessa Williams was the real star, the only performance that was better than the 1963 movie. By the way, if you see a production of the stage musical, the 1963 movie and this 1995 movie, you'll see three versions that have more revisions (different songs, same songs assigned to different characters and in different situations) than any other musical I've ever seen.
Spoilers! Classic 70's sex trash! The Swedish gal (Helga) was what made this movie so great. She was beautiful, but what really got to me was how sexual she was. She exuded massive quantities of sexuality throughout the film. Her best scenes were when she was, er, stimulating herself. Whenever she was on screen, I became transfixed.
Also, the Doctor Julia (sister of the dimwitted male focus of the film) was very interesting visually. Although most 12 year old girls have bigger breasts than Julia, she knew how to use what little she had and her scenes (especially the scenes with the silk blouse and black skirt) also grabbed my attention unmercilessly. You also got to love the major hoaky scene where the bats stripped her nekkid; I don't know if I've ever seen anything more ludicrous yet sexy at the same time. Classic stuff!

Fairly amusing piece that tries to show how smart Orcas are but in the meanwhile (and quite oblivious to them) makes the audience feel stupid by making the most ridiculous film. Richard Harris plays Quint.. I'm sorry, that's wrong, he plays Captain Nolan, a fisherman who catches sharks for a living, but is lured by the big catch, and tries to catch a killer whale. When the capture of a female killer whale goes awry (don't ask) it's mate (don't ask) goes on a rampage (don't ask) and starts STALKING Captain Nolan (Don't ask). Soon, Captain Nolan realizes that they have something in common (don't ask). Pretty amazing film-making here folks. I got to tell you though, the beginning (with the whale noises and nothing much else) is pretty haunting and the end credits (with the most godawful song) is pretty entertaining.
I enjoyed this movie very much. Kristy Swanson Omar epps, and Ice Cube were all great in it. The movie dealt with many issues, and I didn't know if I was going to like it, but Singelton did a terrific job of creating characters that you really cared about.

This show stinks. For parents, they usually want their kids to watch something good for them. It is usually educational, funny, and bright.
Is it educational? No. the Doodlebops sing and that's it. They usually sing about themselves, they don't try teaching anything.
Is it funny? No. The Doodlebops instead say something which is not intended as a joke, and laugh at it.
Is it bright? It's so bright, it's painful. As far as color,s everything is extremely bright, so that's good. But NOTHING is ever wrong in the world of the Doodlebop's. Therefore, they are always happy. a kid in trouble will become depressed because they have never been exposed to being sad.
The show is also extremely cheesy. Every syllable is said to the highest level of exaggeration and very corny. It's overkill.
For kids, it's entertaining, but past the age of 2 you won't want your kids to see it. They'll never know how to grow up.
The first thing you meet when you study fascism is ostracism:because this" philosophy " is a fake one,there's a need to use scapegoats to assess the "thought".Ettore Scola's movie,probably his masterpiece, focuses on the outcasts,the scapegoats of the regime.
Of the historical event (Hitler and Mussolini's alliance),we will see almost nothing:some military march,some garlands,some scattered voices ..Our two heroes are not invited for the feast of virility. "Genius is essentially masculine" :this is the golden rule Antonietta (a never better Sophia Loren)embroidered on her cushion;Antonietta ,whose world amounts to her kitchen,whose pride is her offsprings .At the beginning of the movie,she's a victim of this hypermacho world,but she does not realize it.She thinks she should be happy.Gabriel,on the contrary ,is politically aware,he knows about the cancer that is destroying inexorably his country.But as a gay man,he is no longer part of it,he's about to be arrested.
Forgetting everything that comes between them,they realize what they have in common and they make love.This is an act of rebellion,particularly for Antonietta ,whose ethic should forbid such a thing.Becoming an adulteress in a land where politics and religion combine to repress women as ever leads her to some kind of political awareness.One of the last shots shows her listening to the news on the radio.
Expect the unexpected and maybe a doctrine which denies the human being his intimate personality will see that its days are numbered.

I watched Phat Beach on cable for a while and I sort of enjoyed it. The fat guy is the best character, as he seems to be a nice guy. The rest of the characters are just various stereotypes of young men and young black men. I like to watch these low budget movies that capture a period of time because they are almost like a documentary of the year's attitudes and fads. Phat Beach is also funny because the low-budget babes in this movie are strictly home-girls. Most low-budget movies have that "local babe" quality, and you can tell the babes in this movie were the local strippers and underwear models for JC Penneys. Some of them had so much cellulite hanging from their bikinis that it was funny to watch how the "youngsters" went wild over what was essentially some really over-used, high-mileage skank. There were some cuties too. That is the charm of these low-budget crappy movies. You will see a lot of doggies, and some real cuties! I checked up on some of them at IMDb and seven years later Phat Beach is their only credit. Too bad. It would be interesting if someone ever managed to do a "Where are they now" book on all of the cuties that have appeared in the history of movies and then were never again to return. What happened?? There are probably one or two young people in almost every movie who seem to have a lot going for them and yet years later when you see the movie again on TV you wonder "what ever happened to X?" Anyhow, this movie mostly blows, but it has some funny moments.
Ben Thomas (Smith) plays an IRS Agent who practically gives the store away to everyone's surprise. What kind of IRS Agent is this?
Most of us have all heard the line by an IRS Agent, "Hello, I'm from the IRS. I'm here to help." Our smile then spreads into a chuckle that says, "Yeah, right."
As you get further and further into this story, you cannot figure this guy out. He goes easy on those who are being audited. What is his motive? Is he from another planet, an angel, a rich guy who wants to do good? He helps so much we want him to be our auditor should we get audited, of course. Hey, IRS, are you listening? (kidding, just kidding)
The pace of the movie is perfect and so much so that clues were ignored that would have told me what was really going on. Intense, repeat intense, focus was on Ben and stays there. The whole movie only works because of Ben as we try to figure him out and I didn't see any clues (what clues you talking about, Willis?). Not reading the box before watching the DVD movie was the better way to go here. By the end of the movie I finally put it all together. Well, it was obvious by then. And, yes, it's over the top, but still a great story, mostly because of Will Smith.
Will Smith should have been nominated for a Best Actor Award. The rest of the cast were very good as well.
Yes, it's over the top and despite the great acting and when you finally get all the answers you must realize that the message of the movie is all wrong. What's the message? Believe me, you will won't need too many clues to figure it out. I didn't.
Violence: No. Sex: Yes, but nothing to get excited about. Bland. Nudity: No. Language: No.

...said a couple exiting the movie theater just as I was entering to watch this. Hmm, not a good sign, but who knows? Different strokes for different folks, after all. Well, nope. They were being kind. Godard has released work that is passionate (Contempt), entertaining (Band of Outsiders), sometimes both (My Life to Live). This is just dull intellectualism, that grates on the nerves pretty quickly. During my showing, literally half of the audience had walked out by the end of the film. If only I had been so wise.
(No spoilers, just plot details) I can't understand such hatred for this episode. You want to watch a bad episode of Smallville? Watch Subterranean - now there's a sack of crap. Tom Welling gives a good performance (I don't say that very often), and Michael Rosenbaum is great, but he is most of the time. The alternate universe scenario seems eerily realistic. The Martian Manhunter, who previously appeared in "Static", returns and tells Clark that the doctor that is the head of the insane asylum where they are being held at is actually a phantom from the phantom zone, and if Clark wants to return to his universe, he must kill him. An overall great episode, with good acting and a decent pace.

I already know that critics and some audiences say that it was a satire, there were numerous political and social messages, the names make refer to some other names etc. It might be. I cannot realize such things (I don't want to do anyway) because I am not interested in, I am interested in 'cinema'. As for the movie itself, again it is said that the movie is clever and dramatically powerful. I could not see anything which we don't see in monster movies except the scene which takes place in a office in the second half. Yes, that scene says somethings about humanity, but it does not make the movie brilliant. The movie is entertaining (mildly) and exciting in some moments or scenes, but no more than that. As for the biggest flaw of the movie, it is visual effects. It was just shocking, I could not pull myself together for a while, because I had expected a realistic monster, because it is not one of the old Gojira movies, it was made in 2006, but it was not. It is like if you don't believe that there is a monster, you cannot care about. If you agree with me about this, I highly recommend you Cloverfield that is extremely realistic. The design of the monster is not interesting, but at least planned, there is an effort. Dramatically powerful critique. Some critics talk about it as if it is a Kurosawa movie. Yes, it is rather a drama than a thriller or action, but it should not mean that it is dramatically powerful. I don't want to compare The Host with other monster movies, but I try to mean that The Host does not do something that other monster movies do not do. By the way, may be some people call the movie masterpiece because of their sympathy for Asian cinema. Yes, I like Asian cinema too, but this is the fact.
I disagree with Anyone who done't like this movie.
I used to LOVE this movie when I was little and I still do. It's sweet, funny and warms your heart. And It proves that love and friendship can never be destroyed.
And even though it didn't have much of a story, it was still excellent I give it a 10 and two thumbs up.
Oh yeah and it proves that your deepest wish's and dreams can come true. (Tear, tear)
I love this movie, personally if anyone says it sucked than I will say "Shame on you." Because it was a delightful little movie and I'm glad that at least SOME people liked it.

Charles Bronson stars as Lt Crowe a police detective who declares war on a pimp named Duke (Juan Fernandez) who kidnaps the daughter of a Japanese businessman who is the man who sexually harassed Crowe's daughter (Amy Hathaway) in this sleazy yet stylishly helmed revenge thriller. Kinjite may not be for everyone with it's somewhat disturbing plot threads but it is well made and indeed entertaining.
I enjoyed every moment of this beautiful film and was intrigued about this female painter I had never heard of before. So I set out exploring her life and work afterwards. As could be expected, I found out that the film was not exactly historically accurate. I was a little astounded however by the very negative comments on the film because of this inaccuracy. Come on, guys, a film isn't and shouldn't be a biography (nor a novel!). Any historical film distorts reality, because it should be a work of art in its own right. A film director is fully entitled to use elements from reality and history to create a world of his own. Artemisia is a wonderful film and I think it brought many people (including some that now give negative comments) to explore the life and work of this fascinating artist.

I have only had the luxury of seeing this movie once when I was rather young so much of the movie is blurred in trying to remember it. However, I can say it was not as funny as a movie called killer tomatoes should have been and the most memorable things from this movie are the song and the scene with the elderly couple talking about poor Timmy. Other than that the movie is really just scenes of little tomatoes and big tomatoes rolling around and people acting scared and overacting as people should do in a movie of this type. However, just having a very silly premise and a catchy theme song do not a good comedy make. Granted this movie is supposed to be a B movie, nothing to be taken seriously, however, you should still make jokes that are funny and not try to extend a mildly amusing premise into a full fledged movie. Perhaps a short would have been fine as the trailer showing the elderly couple mentioned above and a man desperately trying to gun down a larger tomato was actually pretty good. The trailer itself looked like a mock trailer, but no they indeed made a full movie, and a rather weak one at that.
If ever there were an inspiring story that could move anyone, disabled or not, to persevere despite the odds and make it (even when "make it" as an expression, proper, can have a wide berth which is an ultimately personal truth), MY LEFT FOOT is it. It's a hard film to watch at times: seeing the less placid aspects of Christy Brown's personality emerge in two key scenes -- one when his sister declares she is pregnant and about to get married while his father has a bad reaction, and at a dinner table when the woman who's reached out to him, made him able to communicate effectively, now has announced at a key moment (the inauguration of Brown's art) she is about to marry another man -- is tough. Very, very tough. More so because this is a man who cannot react accordingly to these events and can only express himself in the only way he knows how: via screams, shrieks, and profanities aimed at hurting himself. However, this is not a story of heartache and family dysfunction even when there is quite a bit of it furnishing the autobiographical account, but that of a man overcoming his severe disability, becoming a functioning human being and a force of be reckoned with in the art world. Daniel Day Lewis won an Oscar for his powerful, unforgettable performance as the flawed but tenacious Christy Brown, and Brenda Fricker did so as well for her supporting role as Brown's solid mother.

While I totally disagree with one reviewer who described Charley Chase as unfunny, in this film he certainly is. It's a shame, as I suspect the other reviewer must have only seen a few Charley Chase duds and assumed the guy wasn't funny. Films like MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE and WHAT PRICE GOOFY? are very good Chase films, so he COULD be really funny given good material. Unfortunately, in this film he's given absolutely nothing. Even the inclusion of the usually good Oliver Hardy as a foil isn't any help because the basic premise (boy wants to marry girl but girl's father thinks the boy is a wuss) and the gags are so poor. It's a shame, as I really wanted to love this film but couldn't.
By the way, for those used to the look for Charley from the mid-1920s on, you'll be pretty surprised as Chase sports no glasses or mustache--and looks very little like you'd expect.
Police Story is one of Jackie Chan's classic films that helped shape the Hong Kong cinema. It is a masterpiece that should not be missed by any action movie fan. From the beginning it is obvious that Jackie Chan's stunt team literally risked their live to make this film. Both the action and the stunts are extremely realistic and innovative. Even today, no movie has outdone police story in dangerous stunts. Many people were hospitalized in Police Story including Jackie Chan. The fighting is not as indisputably exceptional as the stunts but the fighting in this movie helped change and define Jackie Chan's use of props. Throughout the film Chan uses odd object to stop attackers and is constantly throwing assailants through thick glass. The action feels real because the stuntmen are giving the movie all they have to give and Jackie Chan's coordination is outstanding.
The rest of the aspects of the film are not without flaws but they will not disappoint any action fan. Chan not only plays a believable risk taking cop but shows the powerful changes that his character goes through as he falls into escalating desperation. The plot is powerful but a modern viewer may find it tedious at times. While the comedy will provide a good number of laughs it does not always distract the audience from the lack of action. However, for the time period it was made in, the driving aspects of the plot are entertaining. There a good number of interesting and well played characters dispersed throughout the film as well.
Overall police story is without a doubt one of the best action movies ever made. And even in Hollywood the influences of this one film are not to be ignored.

I despise horror movies, that is no secret. No plot, bad acting and gallons of blood are staples of these mistakes of cinema, and this "movie" is no exception. I cannot believe some cable stations actually run this garbage. (This particular garbage was released straight-to-video, as I recall.) As mentioning any other movie would be a great insult to that other movie, I say this: All of the Phantasm movies, all of the Jason movies, Freddy movies, Chucky movies, and most of the Michael Myers movies can be summed up in one word: TERRIBLE!!!
Rating (Phantasm III): 0.5/10
I saw the movie recently and really liked it. I surprised myself and cried. This movie is in the same niche genre as "Away from Her" - or even "The Bucket List" but handles the whole aging theme with incredible authenticity. It's really really tough to have the main character as unlikable as Hagar. The director does a masterful job with the challenge. Hagar's hard to understand. Her world has hard edges and she isn't a warm endearing woman at all.
The first scene gets this across without any compromise. Hagar (Ellen Burnstyn) is being taken to a nursing home by her son and daughter-in-law. She figures it out en-route and freaks out. Her edges are really hard. She is mean. She is belittling and selfish. She is a stone. I didn't like her - not even a little bit.
Throughout the course of the movie, we get insight. We find out why she doesn't like petunias, why she favors one son over the other, how her losses have formed her character... I started to see the angel... and I started to like her. I especially liked her when she poured out her secrets to the boy in the shack. Ellen Burnstyn, you are a brilliant actor. Kudos. Kudos. Kudos. What a scene!
This isn't a "feel good" movie, but it is certainly a movie that brings the viewer to empathy. I understand more clearly that hard edges in a person's life are there to protect, they are there for a reason...
Hagar isn't my mother - she isn't even my mother-in-law or neighbor... but parts of her are present in many women (and men) in my life. Those parts somehow make more sense to me now that I've watched The Stone Angel.

Normally I would never rent a movie like this, because you know it's going to be bad just by looking at the box. I rented seven movies at the same time, including Nightmare on Elm Street 5, 6 and Wes Craven's New Nightmare. Unfortunately, when I got home I found out the videostore-guy gave me the wrong tape. In the box of Wes Craven's New Nightmare I found this lame movie.
This movie is incredibly boring, the acting is bad and the plot doesn't make any sense. It's hard to write a good review, because I have no idea what the movie was really about. At the end of the movie you have more questions then answers.
On 'Max Power's Scale of 1 to 10' I rate this movie: 1
PS I would like to correct Corinthian's review (right below mine). He says Robert Englund is ripping off lingerie, riding horses naked, etc. The guy that did those things was Mahmoud, played by Juliano Mer, not by Robert Englund.