Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I typically don't like reality shows, particularly the ones that are profiting off of "American Idol"'s success. But this one I can live with.
Comedians from all around the world perform a brief routine for celebrity talent scouts, and if they like them, those guys will be sent to perform a routine for an actual audience. Then ten or twelve comics are selected to live in a house together and do "Survivor" style competitions using comedic tactics. Then one will be determined as "Last Comic Standing." I do like stand up comedy, so this is the one reality show must keen to my interests. There are usually some pretty funny comics selected through. It started the careers of such talents as Alonzo Bodden, Ralphie May, and Josh Blue.
My negative criticisms is the fact that there is the possibility that a lot of these comics were selected for their contribution to reality show drama. At first they lived together in a house like "Big Brother," but now they've done away with that, thank God.
And there are a lot of comedians I felt, were only chosen not because they're funny, but because of race, ethnicity, attitude, sex, etc. when other comics clearly should've beaten them out. But overall, it's a well-made reality show, which are two terms up until now I thought were an oxymoron.

Without question one of the most embarrassing productions of the 1970s, GAOTS seems to really, REALLY want to be something important. The tragic truth is that it's so entirely valueless on every level that one can't help but laugh. Reaching in desperation for the earthy elements of Ingmar Bergman's films, it follows a city couple's day in the wilderness...they walk along a shady path, allthewhile pontificating like a U.C. Berkeley coffee clatch. Almost every line of tarradiddle dialog delivered here is uproariously bad("I feel that life itself is made up of as many tiny compartments as this pomegranate....but is it as beautiful?") After what seems like an eternity of absolutely nothing happening(well...OK...we are treated to some nudity and a tepid soft sex scene), there is finally a VERY anticlimactic confrontation involving a pair 'Nam vets who are making the nature scene and performing some pretty harsh folk ballads with an acoustic guitar.
Nothing at all eventful or interesting happens IN THIS ENTIRE FILM. I thought the Larry Buchanan picture "Strawberries Need Rain" was a weak example of a Bergman homage. "Golden Apples" is every bit as bad, but the ceaseless random verbiage it presents makes it memorably awful. 1/10
This is an excellent movie with a stellar cast and some great acting. I never tire of watching it. I especially love the scene where Danny Glover's character and Kevin Kline's character namely Simon and Mack have brunch together. Kevin Kline is such a natural and it seems his mannerisms are effortless and one you would encounter often. SO its a very 'real' movie.
One of the most powerful scenes in the movie however, is at the beginning of the movie when Simon arrives at the scene where Mack's car has broken down. The movie also has a strong message and is unlike the stereotypical message carrying movie where there's one person preaching his guts out to an audience. Instead the actors' emotions and situations deliver an impactive message that does best without the use of words. And lastly, Mary McDonell is brilliant as always.

Poorly-made "blaxploitation" crime-drama aimed squarely at the black urban market of the early 1970s. Pam Grier stars in the title role, that of a nurse who becomes a one-woman vigilante after drug-dealing thugs make Coffy's little sister a junkie. Violent nonsense plods along doggedly, with canned energy and excitement; only Grier's flaring temper gives the narrative a jolt (she's not much of an actress here, but she connects with the audience in a primal way). Not much different from what Charles Bronson was doing at this time, the film was marketed and advertised as crass exploitation yet still managed to find a sizable inner-city audience. Today however, it's merely a footnote in '70s film history, and lacks the wide-range appeal of other movies in this genre. *1/2 from ****
Oh, where are you going, my little one, little one...
Turn around and you're two, turn around and you're four...
I remember these shows when they were first broadcast on Disneyland. I remember sitting there, electrified by Werner Van Braune's explanations of rocket science. I watched as history, science and humor were all interwoven in an engrossing story of possibilities.
That was fifty years ago. And the shows are back in the Disney Treasures series, and what a treasure they are. I watched them last night and tonight with my 8 year old daughter, who at first would not even come in the room, but later changed her mind when she saw they were partly animated. As she watched I watched her, and by the end she was nearly as engrossed as I had been.
Turn around and you're a young wife with babes of your own...
Sure, some of the predictions about reaching the moon were wrong. But there is a lot of information that is still quite accurate, and the overall presentation is still impressive. I found myself thinking my daughter's teacher might want to show them to her class, not only as a 50 year old artifact, but also as fun and easy to understand lessons in history.
Turn around, turn around, turn around and again...you're wondering how much has really changed in 50 years.

Its hard to make heads or tails of this film. Unless you're well oiled and in the mood to mock, don't view Santa Claus. It mixes Santa, Satan, Merlin, and moralizing in a most unappetizing way. It certainly is not for fretful children.
I agree whole-heartedly with the comments so far. I remember this documentary as being one of the most amazing and informative I've ever seen. As stated before, I recall that I began watching, thinking it was just another nature study - interesting, not necessarily special, but I was so wrong. Not only was the story of the colony incredible, but I remember the music as being so much a part of it's appeal. If I remember correctly, it was Native Americn pipes (akin to the music at the end of One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest). I, too have been looking for a copy. This should be required watching for anybody, but especially the schools. It should be re-released.

This film is about a man's life going wrong. His business is failing, and he cannot impregnate his wife despite multiple attempts.
The plot is complete chaos. It simply does not make sense. In fact, nothing in the film makes sense. The story is so poorly told that I simply could not understand it. It is a shame, because the sets and costumes are done well, and are visually stimulating enough. The shots are well composed throughout the film. However, these redeeming features still cannot make up for the bad plot and poor story telling. I am amazed by the big names who agreed to star in this film. It is such a waste of their talents. This film is very bad. Avoid it!!
This is one of the funniest movies that I have seen this year. The people that made it must be so incredibly whacked and twisted. It is a beautiful thing. There were a lot of quality one-liners. This movie blew Uncle Sam out of the water (it was made by tha same people, i think)

This movie is a joke. I mean a "ha ha" funny joke. Why? Because the only redeeming thing about it was the good laugh I got at the sheer ridiculousness of nonsensical, inane plot and horrible acting. Wow!
Within this movie there are so many unanswered questions... for example; why do these women become zombies and how? Why are there four black women who are zombie's "caretakers" and what is their purpose? Since when does 6 people make up a "nation" of Zombies? And is smeared black eye mascara "scary" to anyone, anywhere? Even a 2 year old?
And lastly; Why was this movie made at all? Why? why? why? No answer? That's what I thought.
On the demand channel they actually issued this comment after the synopsis of the movie: We apologize for this movie in advance" LOL. At least they had the decency to do this much!
Tim Meadows has to be the most underrated of SNL's recent cast members. What initially was a low-brow look at a sleazy gigilo develops into a thoroughly entertaining 90 minute run, albeit, still low-brow. Don't pop this one in expecting beautiful cinematography or Oscar-worthy performances. Walk into it expecting brilliant silliness with Tim Meadows and Will Ferrell doing what they do best - making the audience laugh.
Leon "The Ladies' Man" Phelps is a naive, likable radio sex show host who knows very little about anything except the ways of the wang. As a gifted Ladies Man, he lays waste to the wives of countless saps who've banded together in order to hunt him down. The director does an inspired job of guiding the actors on a comedic tryst which makes up completely for the lack of plot development. How much plot would one expect from an SNL skit? While some scenes are a little off the mark, for the most part, Meadows' one liners and absurd sexual comments hit the funny bone squarely. For instance, in one scene, Meadows compares himself to Mother Theresa, but for bonin'. Sure it's crass, but don't we all in the privacy of our homes get a chuckle out of his advice to an entire city for "doin' it in the butt"? In another scene, immediately after a heartfelt kiss with the female lead, he suddenly remembers the name of his would be benefactor, a woman he slept with years ago. He stands up in front of the woman who's obviously fallen for him and proclaims that "The Ladies' Man is back," to her obvious chagrin.
Billy Dee Williams hits the ball out of the park as the bartender/narrator. Will Ferrell, the repressed homosexual, rounds out solid performances.
See this movie if you're into adult humor. If not, stay away with extreme prejudice.

Bad movie for sure. It's such a ridiculous fantasy with a lot of poor special effects, a lot of hasty scenes (the airport one for example), and a real unfunny time. (Charles Dance) is awful as the evil guy and he is much better in (Last Action Hero). (Eddie Murphy) is doing a non-comic joking, and I heard that this sunk had already succeed, big time success??!! I'll never understand why or how ?! In one TV interview I've heard (Eddie Murphy) himself, when he was nominated for an Oscar 2007, regretted it in a comic way !!
One of the comments said (Hey...It's the 1980s !). Well, no my friend. It's the cinematic foolishness which made a lot of RAZZIE movies all over the years whether it's the 1980s or the 1950s !
There are 2 reasons made me write about this movie. The first is that I'll never forget the long tan fascinating legs of (Charlotte Lewis) especially when she was on bed before the bad guys attack her house, wearing just a blue shirt and OH BOY the camera was versifying about her naked legs as it should be. But how odd ! As I've watched her in following movies and she wasn't that beautiful again ?!! Anyhow the second reason is that I've found this movie's title lately at my list of the worst 100 movies ever!
The bottom line: Bad movie, Greeeeeat legs.
Edward Furlong and Christina Ricci are an excellent couple and demonstrate it with their unique charisma featured in this movie.
This is the typical "alternative" or indie movie with a plot that features a rare situation that suddenly becomes really important.
Pecker is an average boy who has an old camera and his main hobby is to take photographs of the exotic habitants of the small town where he lives in. Suddenly an alternative artist pays attention to his work and hires him in order to expose his work in some important festivals and more.
But Pecker life changes drastically as now fortune and fame seem to infuriate the town's people who are Pecker's main inspiration. Even his sexy girlfriend gets mad because now he does not pays the "adequate" attention to her.
Well this is an Indie movie with an edge but not for everyone. It may seem boring or pretentious for some people but still I think it worths a watch only because it offers something "different" than Hollywood's typical standards.
To describe in a few words: This is the typical Christina Ricci and John Waters movie. That's it.
Oh and I almost forgot to mention that the "Full of Grace" lines are really annoying. Geez.

Imagine turning the American national anthem into a cartoon. Throw in a couple of cute animals, some terrible puns and a pair of roller skates and you'd find yourself with almost an exact replica of this film.
I remember seeing this when I was younger; I made my Mother rent it from the video shop about 5 times. The story itself isn't too bad, it's just that any Marxists watching would certainly have something to complain about.
If you don't like America you won't like this film.
I can only agree with taximeter that this is a fantastic film and should be seen by a wide audience. The imagination on display, the visual interpretation of the script, the humor is constantly surprising. The two leads are great and really carry the film. My advice would be to not even watch a trailer, just rent the film and watch without expectations. I rented from blockbuster, so it is readily available in brisbane, not everyone will enjoy it but i think most people will have an opinion and that's always good, unless it's just 'that was stupid'. I loved this film, you just don't get to see gem's like this every day. This should become a cult favorite. Give it a try, you may just feel the same way about it as i do.

If you've seen other movies like this, they're probably better. The Omega Man comes to mind. To the studio's credit, they avoided the sprawling, unnecessary, big budget technofest that typifies movies of this ilk. Additionally, the set-up and premise were excellent: four people whose past is virtually irrelevant to us are trying to get away from an overwhelming infectious fatal disease. What's bad is EVERYTHING else! I get tired of endlessly stupid, careless, wimpy, ineffective, arrogant characters in a movie. That pretty much describes everyone in the movie at some point. I rented it, and found myself yelling at the TV repeatedly, "no, don't do that!", "why are you so stupid", "look out!", etcetera. A true lack of character development is evident about halfway in. A movie SHOULD give you a strong personal connection with at least some of the characters so that you actually care what happens to them. This one does not. Also,there should have been a longer, more involving end to the movie as well.
This is a great example of a rather simple Film Noir story that is handled exceptionally well--thanks to excellent direction by Otto Preminger as well as some lovely acting performances. Dana Andrews stars as a hot-headed detective who all too often uses his fists instead of his brains. Soon after the film begins, Andrews is being reprimanded for this and is warned that if this continues he'll be off the force. A bit later, while investigating a crime he's attacked by a suspect and Andrews is forced to fight to protect himself. This time he does NOT use excessive force but the assailant is killed. Andrews panics and assumes they won't believe him so he tries to cover up the death--though instead an innocent man is ultimately blamed for the crime.
There's a lot more to the film than this--including a plot involving a slimy villain (Gary Merrill) and a love interest for Andrews (Gene Tierney). All in all, this is one of the better examples of the genre--with great gritty dialog, superb lighting and a simple yet very effective story. This is the way Noir was meant to be.

The director tries to be Quentin Tarantino, the screenwriters try to be Tennessee Williams, Deborah Kara Unger tries to be Faye Dunaway, the late James Coburn tries to be Orson Welles, Michael Rooker tries to be Gene Hackman, Mary Tyler Moore tries to be Faye Dunaway (older version), Cameron Diaz tries to get out of the frame as quickly as she can (successfully), don't ask about Joanna Going. Eric Stoltz and James Spader try to conceal their embarrassment with this crappy stuff. It delivers endless, meaningless dialog and very little action.
Tulsa is a town with beautiful elevator lobbies, an art deco church by Bruce Goff and a lovely, sprawling mansion by Frank Lloyd Wright. Visit Tulsa, don't watch this movie. It doesn't do the location justice.
This might contain a spoiler, so beware.
If it had been 200,000 thousand or two million people, does it make a difference? Sometimes I get so angry at the apparent apathy of a small number of (strangely very LOUD) Americans, but I have to remember that many people here in the US were not bred or raised to care about anything outside of their comfort zone. God Help us for what we have done. after the relative ease of what we did to the native Americans, and the indifference to the horrors of enslaving a race, you would think we'd have grown hearts and souls in the late 60's and early 70's. But now I see it is OK as long as our ends are justified to only us. How then, can we look at any other dictator and horrible government and think we are somehow doing good to impose our will? We are contradictory and hypocritical, and I am ashamed for this. I feel sorrow for the people affected. They deserve justice and their homes back. If this was done in my name as an American for my supposed safety, I don't want it. I denounce these actions, and hope our global community understands that many Americans believe the American government is a runaway train of deceit. No one is above the law. I want my country back, and so do the Chagos Islanders. Regardless of what people post from the anonymity of their computers, no one can in their heart deny that they would be unwilling to give up their birthplace for some bombs and heliports. We can't stand to be stuck in traffic, let alone forcibly and unjustly removed from our homes. 'Not one of us, Brit and American alike forget what goes around comes around. Don't buy into the fallacy that a simpler, more natural civilization is somehow less worthy of having their rights observed, and preserved - when we turn our backs on the basic human rights and dignities of 2000, we turn away from the basic human rights and dignities of all men.

In the Fiji islands, the greedy and unscrupulous owner of the Valalola Resort Primal Park invites investors and guests for an opening party of his compound composed of hotel and zoo aiming to find partners for his discoveries. When a bunch of college smalltime thieves puts a virus in the security system to participate in a scavenger hunt, the greatest attractions of the zoo  sabretoothes from the prehistoric age developed from DNA found in fossils  escape, killing the hosts and guards for pleasure.
The incredibly lame and cheap "Attack of the Sabretooth" is one of the worst movies I have recently seen. The characters are awful and not funny or pleasant and the story is a terrible Jurassik Park rip-off with a bad collection of clichés. Basically all the lines and situations are poor and stupid, but the winner is when the guard explains that the sabretoothes are bulimic and like to kill for pleasure. My vote is three.
Title (Brazil): "O Ataque do Dente de Sabre" ("The Attack of the Sabretooth")
You will marvel at the incredibly sophisticated computer animation, and the novelty probably won't wear off on the first, second or third viewing, but you?ll be drawn in by the characters which are so simple yet intriguing, that you may find yourself actually caring for them in an unexpected way, which may or may not make you feel a little childish due to the medium.
Disney continues to firmly hold the title of "Greatest Animation in the World", with "A Bug?s Life" standing as one of their greatest achievements. One of the innovative attachments being the delightful "out-takes" added to the end of the film. The DVD has two sets of these out-takes where as I?m told the VHS cassette has one alternating version per tape. The DVD also features "Gerry?s Game" which is a delightful little PIXAR short that was also shown prior to the film in theaters.
This is by far the superior insect-film in comparison to Dreamworks? "Antz", which in all fairness is pretty good, but lacks something in the animation and in the story development and characters. If you look at the star voices of both films, "Antz" is largely cast with big name "movie" stars with a few familiar "TV" star voices, where "A Bug?s Life" is just the opposite, loaded with "TV" stars with Kevin Spacey as the only stand out exception. But the difference in quality is distinct and obvious.
Dreamworks can?t be blamed or surprised though, when you go head to head with Disney, you have your work cut out for you. This is the kind of film that almost makes me wish I had children to share it with. Don?t think for a second that this is just a movie for kids, though.

I've seen the first of the dwarf-Movies and sometimes I had little fun watching it. There are many famous TV/Comedyactors appearing in the first part and presented, in fantasy costumes, typical little episodes of their Stand-Up-Program and exactly that is the problem the second movie has to struggle with. Everything was already there....nothing new to obtain. You're familiar with most of the often boring and dumb "jokes" and you always feel like their goal was to put in every Comedylooser of the last decade who wants to get back on stage. There's nothing important about the story: typical fairy-tale story of Rumpelstiltskin, without any importance. I expected something like that but that's nothing I could complain about. I'm actually complaining about the lazy story writers who had an entire background story; their only business was to get many jokes and parodies inside but they didn't get it anyway. This crap is except the great appearance of Helge Schneider a total waste of time and money.(if you don't like him then remove 2 points of my evaluation) If you like to save your money and get bad jokes then watch the crap that's broad casted every Friday evening on SAT1 or RTL for free. I'm sure you will recognize some "laugthers" I saw last night in cinema.
I can't really condemn the movie because it does work. There is enough film noir elements to consider it a noir movie, but I think it's only just in the category.
There's nothing sinister in this piece, and that's where the noir elements fail. Sure, the disease might be considered sinister, but I have a hard time seeing that. The movie hints at a darker side: Blackie may be trafficking human beings, the New Orleans police are only too willing to arrest a reporter, the specter of the plague hangs over all of the people in the movie... but those are really only hints.
There's no attempt made to question Reed's motivations, as one with do with Marlowe or Spade, nor is there any attempt to bring a humans side to Blackie, which would make him even more contemptuous if the human trafficking was actually played out.
That lack of depth is what fails the movie in the end.
The story is decent, the acting is good, the writing and direction are well done... but there is nothing to make this a movie you should return to over and over. Worth watching once, maybe twice if you don't remember it from years ago, and then putting away.

The potential was there. I saw Creep and thought, 'Oooh, this is getting interesting' several times. Yet somehow the interesting plot lines wound up unexplained or ignored, like they never happened. The lead character was irritating throughout the movie, and at one point my fella and I both shouted that we wanted her to die. There are some genuinely spooky/scary moments, but these are grossly overshadowed by the moments that just annoyed the hell out of me. It's another one of those horror movies that crops up and intrigues you for a while, but ultimately leaves you frustrated and a little confused about what the movie makers were trying to achieve.
The one saving grace of this movie is the bad guy, but when the baddie is more likable than the lead character you know you're on to a loser.