Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
This may not be a memorable classic, but it is a touching romance with an important theme that stresses the importance of literacy in modern society and the devastating career and life consequences for any unfortunate individual lacking this vital skill.
The story revolves around Iris, a widow who becomes acquainted with a fellow employee at her factory job, an illiterate cafeteria worker named Stanley. Iris discovers that Stanley is unable to read, and after he loses his job, she gives him reading lessons at home in her kitchen. Of course, as you might predict, the two, although initially wary of involvement, develop feelings for each other...
Jane Fonda competently plays Iris, a woman with problems of her own, coping with a job lacking prospects, two teenage children (one pregnant), an unemployed sister and her abusive husband. However, Robert DeNiro is of course brilliant in his endearing portrayal of the intelligent and resourceful, but illiterate, Stanley, bringing a dignity to the role that commands respect. They aren't your typical charming young yuppie couple, as generally depicted in on screen romances, but an ordinary working class, middle aged pair with pretty down to earth struggles.
I won't give the ending away, but it's a lovely, heartwarming romance and a personal look into the troubling issue of adult illiteracy, albeit from the perspective of a fictional character.

Protégé runs in a linear fashion; expect no fast-paced action, and neither will you find yourself with baited breath because there are simply no seating-on-the-edge moments.
There is not much of a crux, so don't expect one either. I would not fault the acting - the show would have been much worst if not for Wu's acting which was the film's only saving grace. And, oh that cute little girl too.
The humour is at best, weak, and the show must as well pass off as an anti-drug campaign which employs the usual shock-tactic (esp in the scenes with Zhang) to tell us stuff that we already know - i.e. drugs break up families, heroin drives you crazy, it is not so easy to wean off, you will fall into a vicious cycle.
I know it may seem all a little harsh, but I feel that the show is far from seamless and somewhat patchy (*SPOILER ALERT*: Take for example when Andy Lau got brought to the police station: what? we were just told 'oh we have all the tapes and evidence against you since 1997', and THAT is how he got caught. Nope, no chasing-car action, just a jump-of-scene, which kind of undermined Wu's role as an undercover in the first place.) I suspect the lack of creativity is attributed to the fact that it is after all, a production of Mediacorp Raintree - a Singaporean production film company.
I love it when they actually do a sports story well. So many in the past have been so hokey it was embarrassing to watch. Not this one. It's just a genuinely nice movie, an old-fashioned type of story - and based on a real-life guy to did exactly what Dennis Quaid did in this film. He plays a high school coach who is talked into trying out, late in life athletically-speaking, to become a pitcher in professional baseball. Eventually, he reaches his goal of making it to the Major Leagues, even if it was a very brief stint.
All the characters in here are nice people, the kind you root for, from Quaid to the players on his high school team, to his little boy (Angus T. Jones, now somewhat of a star on television.)
Quaid is believable in playing Jim Morris because, unlike actors in the past in sports films, he knows how to throw a baseball. He looks like a pitcher, a guy who could fire it 90-plus miles per hour. And, most of this film is true, as testified by the real-life pitcher in one the documentaries on the DVD.
So, if you're looking for a nice, inspirational true life sports film, you can't wrong with this one.

I really wish i could give this a negative vote, because i think i just wasted 83 minutes of my life watching the worst horror movie ever put to film. the acting was just god awful, i mean REALLLYYYY bad, the dialog was worse, the script sounded like it was written by.... i can't think of anything horrible enough to say. And the day "outside" and the night "inside" shots make you think the events took over several days. Terribly acted, directed, written, etc etc. all the way down to the gofer how gets lunch for everyone. STAY AWAY FROM THIS ONE AT ALL COSTS. If my only saving grace to stay out of hell is by doing one good deed, it is to tell the world to not watch this crap. This movie is the exact reason why horror movies are never taken seriously.
If you are uninitiated to the Gundam world, this is a good place to start. If you are burned out on Star Wars or Star Trek, here is a compelling, realistic sci-fi series you can become immersed in. Not the simplistic boy-saves-world-in-giant robot story you might have expected, but rather a complex, emotionally compelling space war drama where the line between the "good" and "bad" guys is decidedly less than distinct.
Gundam 0080 focuses on the story of Al Izuruha, a young, naive boy living in a neutral space colony. He spends his days daydreaming about Mobile Suits and playing war with his friends. During the course of this series, Al befriends an "enemy" soldier, Bernie Wiseman. By the end, little Al learns some hard lessons about the reality of war and the requisite suffering and sacrifice.
I loved this OAV series, with its cool mecha designs, involving story, and likeable characters. I recommend this series to anyone who likes realistic SF anime, or to those who think anime is just silly or sexy entertainment.

One Stinko of a movie featuring a shopworn plot and, to be kind, acting of less than Oscar caliber. But to me the single worst flaw was the total misrepresentation of a jet aircraft, and especially a 747. Some of the major blunders:
1. No Flight Engineer (or even a flight engineer station. 2. Mis-identifying the F-16 interceptors as F-15's (no resmblance whatsoever). 3. Loading passengers into an "aft baggage compartment" supposedly accesible from the cabin - Even if such a compartment existed, placing that much weight that far aft would make the aircraft unflyable. 4. Hollow point bullets that "won't damage the aircraft". 5. The entire landing procedure was so bad I wanted to puke. 6. An SR-71 (of all planes) with a pressure seal hatch 7. Opening a cabin door outward - into the wind - in flight!!
Ah nuts, it was just a truly lousy movie. Gotta make the list of bottom 10 of the year.
this isn't 'Bonnie and Clyde' or 'Thelma and Louise' but it is a fine road movie. it sets up its two main characters gently and easily. viewers learn the underlying tensions quickly, which is a tribute to the director. there is the young french (and English) speaking son who wants to do well in France, has a french girlfriend and who drinks alcohol, parties as young men do. And there is his moroccan arabic (and french) speaking father who devoutly follows his Muslim faith, with generosity and the wisdom of elders and who rejects the new culture surrounding him (like mobile phones). the film could explore very powerful politics - the odd couple drive thru the former Yugoslavia, thru Turkey and then thru the Middle East to get to Mecca. these are areas where the Muslim populations have been involved in wars, repression, ethnic cleansing; where dictators have pursued torture and summary executions to hold power and where religious communities are in constant deadly battle with each other. yet the film moves thru those places and possibilities with only hints of such agendas. the relationship between the two is key to this film, and faith, politics are the backdrop. it seems to be saying that we are all human, and need to understand and care for each other in order to manage well in this world. it certainly isn't 'Natural Born Killers' and is all the better for it.

I think this is almost all I need to say. I feel obliged to explain my actions though. I've basically never seen such an armateur production, and I mean that in all senses of the word. Although the physical camera work, boom MIC operation and other technical aspects of this film are laughable, unfortunately its not the only areas.
Unlike some classic independent films that have been saved by their scripts great characterization and plot, this unfortunately has an awful script, awful acting and worst of all, awful annoying characters.
It's a crime that for the every independent film that gets, distribution like Haiku Tunnel, there's a 101 other indie films that died silent deaths. I don't know who the Kornbluth brothers know at Sony, but that can be my only explanation as to how this amateur family production ever got distribution. I'm quite bemused as to why they picked this up.
The ONLY part of this film that holds out any intrigue is its title. However, the reason for that is even a let down. I hope this review will save a few people that may be intrigued by this films title from going to watch it. I've seen a lot of films in my time, and I'm very forgiving when in the cinema, but this was too much. I'll never forget 'tunnel', for marking an important point in my life experience of cinema. Shame it's such a low point.
This is one of my all-time favorite films, and while it may move too slowly for some, it's well worth seeing. A corporate lawyer (Richard Chamberlain) is dragged into a case involving "city" Aborigines, and this is no ordinary case. OK, a man has died but it wasn't exactly a normal killing. There has also been a greater than average amount of rain lately, and the atmosphere of most of the film is somewhat claustrophobic & oppressive. The Aborigines are harboring a secret and refuse to spill the beans. This has a lot to do with white men making assumptions about "City" vs. "Tribal" Aborigines, and of course no Abo in the big city would practice tribal ways. Uh huh. Chamberlain is having strange dreams and he is somehow the key to what's happening, although no matter how many times I've seen this I can't quite grasp the exact connection. This is a very eerie and creepy film, and is a fine example of Peter Weir's ability to create tension out of nothing. The ending is a little ambiguous but I take it literally, it's the easiest way out and the scariest. 10 out of 10 and highly recommended.

I want to state first that I am a Christian (and that I do work in the film and TV industry) so I understand what it is like to work on a feature length film so props to the filmmakers in that regard. I'm all for positive, uplifting messages if they are true to the nature of life (that this is a fallen world and that things don't always work out ... even for followers of Christ). I'm glad that others are having such overwhelmingly positive reactions to the overt Christian message; for me it was just that the execution is where the film fell on its face. A movie lives and dies on its story and here you have one dimensional stereotypes, exposition aplenty, and spontaneous changes in character behavior that are inexplicably to say the least. I believe that a film does not have to club you over the head with its message to get the point across. I'm sure the Kendrick bros. will improve with time and that their storytelling methods will as well. Maybe they could direct someone else's screenplay as their next project.
* Sports films are not exactly my first love but a good one (Hoosiers, Field of Dreams, etc) can inspire in a multitude of ways. If you would be interested in a PG-rated film that inspires, give Steven Soderbergh's 'King of the Hill' a look. All truth is God's truth ...
Cor blimey. This film really surprised me as it is a comedy masterpiece. Billy Zane is stunning as the central character, and everyone manages to play it straight enough for the comedy to be natural and easy.
The soundtrack is really good, and the set pieces are a joy to behold. I recommend that you watch this film with a bunch of mates, a few bottles of your liquor of choice, and prepare to be astonished and highly entertained.
This carries on so perfectly from kitsch masterpieces like Plan 9 From Outer Space that it is in the true "B" movie tradition. But what makes it more than that is the caliber of the people who took part in the film. Ron Pearlman for example. I still find my self giggling at the scene where Zane prances down a set of steps for no apparent reason in an almost ballet style. All a bit mad, and all the better for it.

A huge disappointment from writer Hamm and director Dante. Their previous collaboration on the first season's "Homecoming" was twisted and darkly hilarious in all the right ways. This poor handling of an intriguing premise left me bewildered. The supposed "payoff" showing generic aliens extracting something from the brains of the infected psychopaths was completely unsatisfying and explained nothing. If the point of the story was an extraterrestrial "cleaning" of the planet of it's human infestation, why did they go about it in such a gratuitously sadistic and misogynistic fashion? Why not just unleash a completely lethal virus a la Stephen King's "The Stand" instead of having the male population butcher the females? I kept hoping the episode would improve as I kept watching but it just got more pretentious and preposterous. The religious subtext simply seemed forced but it was clear Sam Hamm must have thought it was profound by the weight he gave it. I like a lot of both Dante and Hamm's work but this was just unwatchable.
Convoluted, infuriating and implausible, Fay Grim is hard to sit through but Parker Posey is really the only actress who could take this story and run with it. She's at once touching,funny, cunning. The supporting actors commit to it as well.
I wont even try to tell you the plot.. It involves characters from Hartley's Henry Fool and attempts a tale of international espionage.
The film works well if you continue along with it-understanding it is. in a sense, completely ridiculous. It becomes more and more ridiculous as you plod along. (I resisted the temptation to turn off the DVD twice).
Fay Grim requires an adventurous film-goer willing to tackle something that isn't cookie-cutter. In the end, it offers something that defies description.

Wow... what would you do with $33m? Let me give you a choice; you can either a) shred it and flush it down the toilet or b)make a film based on the premise of Whoopi Goldberg as a hard nut futuristic cop partnered with a rubber dinosaur who uses terms like "I didn't butt trumpet" and blows raspberries on the basis that this is funny. That's right, you would choose the option that has more merit - flushing down the toilet.
This has to be seen to be believed. I cannot even find the words to describe how bad this film is. It doesn't even fit into the "so bad - it's good" category. I actually have it on the television as I write - and whilst watching I felt the need to come onto IMDb and register my disgust.
Considering Jurassic Park was made a couple of years before, how on earth did they think that audiences would any longer tolerate a man dressed in a rubber suit? WG should have simply walked and damn the consequences. Everyone concerned will go to hell for this criminal waste of money.
I have to stop writing - I am about to implode.
I had watched (and recorded) this a few years back on local TV and, having been underwhelmed by it, I subsequently erased the tape; however, when it was released by MGM as part of a "Midnite Movie" double-feature DVD of Curtis Harrington/Shelley Winters films for a very affordable price, I couldn't resist giving it a second look (this has since gone out-of-print). Actually, I received the DVD a few months ago but only now, with Harrington's passing, did I get to it; thankfully, this time around I was more receptive to the film and, in fact, now consider it one of the more satisfying WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? (1962) imitations (with whom, incidentally, it shared screenwriter Henry Farrell).
The film offers a splendid evocation of 1930s Depression America - with its child-star craze and sensational murders (exploited during the fake newsreel opening); it's stylishly made (kudos to Lucien Ballard's cinematography and the set design by Eugene Lourie') and boasts an effective David Raksin score. Shelley Winters, Debbie Reynolds and Michael MacLiammoir deliver excellent performances; the latter is especially impressive as the larger-than-life and vaguely sinister diction coach (though he ultimately proves a mere red herring!). Also featured are Dennis Weaver and Agnes Moorehead (hers is only a cameo, really, as the evangelist she plays is mostly heard over the radio).
Many seemed to regret the inclusion of musical numbers by the kids (including an amusing Mae West imitation), but I personally wasn't bothered by them; the film does slightly overstay its welcome due to an unhurried pace and (perhaps needlessly) convoluted plot. Reynolds - a musical star herself - is ideally cast as the dancing-school owner and, despite their on-set rivalry, she and Winters work well together. The latter, in fact, gives a more balanced depiction of paranoia and insanity than in WHOEVER SLEW AUNTIE ROO? (1971); the narrative, then, comes up with a number of ironic twists that lead up to the expected Grand Guignol-type denouement. Apparently, the film was toned down (it originally contained more gore and even a suggestion of lesbianism!) by producer Martin Ransohoff - against Harrington's wishes - in order to get a PG rating...

And so the great rewriting of history continues Hollywood style.
This was senseless ridiculous rubbish.
Its shocks me that such an amazing amount of money can be spent to produce what is the most contrived, poorly acted inaccurate film I have ever seen. It is appalling.
Nic Cage's brief flirtation with serious acting appears to be over. I can only assume that Leaving Las Vegas was a glitch in an otherwise litany of dreadful films.
Diane Kruger proves that her performance in Troy was no fluke, she really can't act.
Harvey Keitel should be ashamed of himself for working on such tripe.
Only recommended for those either recovering from a recent lobotomy or people of an opinion that America invented the world.
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.

Worst movie, (with the best reviews given it) I've ever seen. Over the top dialog, acting, and direction. more slasher flick than thriller.With all the great reviews this movie got I'm appalled that it turned out so silly. shame on you martin scorsese
First a quick 'shut up!' to those saying this movie stinks. You can't go to every movie expecting 'Citizen Kane'. This was actually a fun movie. Jason Lee is good in everything he does. The only flaw in this movie is, I don't think there was enough chemestry between Lee and Julia Stiles. They should have dwelled more on that. Other than that, the movie is good fun. Selma Blair needs to eat something. She's worrying me. But she still looks beautiful. So yes, I recommend this movie for a date or light saturday afternoon fun. Go see.
RATING: **1/2 out of ****

Having read the other comments on this film, I would like to share my own view that this is one tough movie to see unless you are a total Brooksophile. I am not.
When looked at by a purely objective observer, the film is an unbalanced narrative that presents us with more undistilled neuroses than are capable of being absorbed in one sitting. It is quite difficult to watch. The Brooks character (Robert Cole) is so unsympathetic and unpleasant that it is hard to relate to him---let alone root for him as he stumbles from one dysfunctional self-absorbed situation to the next. And he should NEVER do a topless scene and expect to be taken seriously in a romantic context. No man could have that much exposed foliage and be supposed to turn on a babe like Kathryn Harrold----unless, of course, he is Albert Brooks in an Albert Brooks-controlled production.
"Modern Romance" has its amusing moments-----but they are fragmentary and infrequent. More often than not, I felt as if I were on a confined journey with a thoroughly dislikable person and wishing that it would end already. It confirms the problems that can develop when too much control of a film is placed in only one person---someone who lacks the self-discipline to be able to step back from it and see what is clearly happening.
As most people probably know, James L. Brooks, who played the director in this film, is in fact what he portrayed. Six years later, he cast Albert Brooks in the very successful "Broadcast News." James showed us how Albert can shape a credible and entertaining comic performance. Albert allowed us to see James (generally not cast as an actor) do a rare comic turn in a surprisingly effective manner.
Fans of "Modern Romance" will by now have moved on to the next laudatory comment about it. To you I say-----there is enough pain in the world without having to find it in a film intended as an entertainment.
Having never seen the original Dirty Harry, I judged this movie on a clean slate. And I must say, I quite enjoyed it. Sure, some of the acting by Sondre Locke made me a little squeemish - but hey, it was the 80's. But even if you can't get past her (and I almost couldn't) or her revenge killings (which seemed a little.. overdone ;P), it's worth it just for Dirty Harry. Or at the very least, the bull dog he affectionately names 'MeatHead' :P
7/10.

Dumb is as dumb does, in this thoroughly uninteresting, supposed black comedy. Essentially what starts out as Chris Klein trying to maintain a low profile, eventually morphs into an uninspired version of "The Three Amigos", only without any laughs. In order for black comedy to work, it must be outrageous, which "Play Dead" is not. In order for black comedy to work, it cannot be mean spirited, which "Play Dead" is. What "Play Dead" really is, is a town full of nut jobs. Fred Dunst does however do a pretty fair imitation of Billy Bob Thornton's character from "A Simple Plan", while Jake Busey does a pretty fair imitation of, well, Jake Busey. - MERK