Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
A film I expected very little from, and only watched to pass a quiet hour - but what an hour it turned out to be. Roll is an excellent if none-too-serious little story of 'country-boy-lost-in-the-big-city-makes-good', it is funny throughout, the characters are endearing and the pace is just right.
Toby Malone is the true star of the film with his endearing portrayal of Matt, said country boy and local Aussie Rules football hero come to the big city to try out for one of the big teams. He is supported superbly by John Batchelor as local gangster Tiny. Watch out for these two.
Highly recommended.

OK - the Cons first: The obligatory '70's alligator (all right, correction - caiman) with nonmoving limbs is made the worse for scale miniature underwater shots (with the full length of reptile comparative to the size of the boat) utilizing a toy alligator being swirled around the toy boat in broadly lit water - even for nighttime shots!
Unlike most primitives-killing-exploitative-Westerners films, the superstitious natives going bat**** and start massacring the vacationers seems unjustified this time. No one really abused the natives - exploited, yes, but far from abusive treatment. After all it was one of the natives (canoodling with a spoiled supermodel during a taboo full moon) that brought the curse of the River Demon on them, right?
The vacationers are easily annoying (with the notable exception of the token old-soul/mildly blasphemous-little-girl-who-takes-a-shine-to-the-heroes that you often see in 70's Euroflicks), but far from from deserving violent death - unless they were your next door neighbors, mind you. A couple actually get killed being heroic - notable in that none of them fill the role of sidekick. There are only two straight villains in the entire film, so the demises feel more arbitrary than cathartic.
The sequence where the giant caiman crunches down and scarfs thirty tourists in under five minutes will probably strike you as unintentionally hilarious.
The point at which the natives decide not to wipe the surviving Westerners and practically saying "hey, you aren't so bad after all, sorry about that fuss last night" - because they blew up the monster lizard - has you shaking your head as the corny music kicks in. You know, the local military dictatorship will wipe out the village for ****ing with the tourist trade after the credits roll...
The Pros: Barbara Bach. Barbara Bach. Barbara Bach. Barbara Bach. You ALL know WHY you're interested in this film in the first place, right? I thought so. If you're a Bach completist, get the DVD reissued by NoShame films earlier this year (digitally remastered with no real extras to speak of, aside from the director bemoaning the current state of international film distribution).
The hero isn't half bad, being far from an idiot (always a plus in B films) and the cynical little kid provides most of the comic relief.
Worth a look, but get it cheaply!
WWE's last PPV of 2006, proved to be a hit with the fans, but for one reason only, the ladder match which was only scheduled to be Paul London and Brian Kendrick against William Regal and Dave Taylor. But with the recent crap PPV being December to Dismember, WWE knew that it had to do something to get the fans talking again, this proved useful when it introduced MNM and The Hardy Boyz to the mix and announced that the match was going to be a ladder match.
The match was brutal and one of the best ladder matches I have ever seen, but Joey Mercury's face was a total mess. Johnny Nitro didn't even check on his partner, they just carried on like nothing happened, and Taylor and Regal did nothing during the match except hit people with a few ladder shots. In the end London and Kendrick retained the titles.
Elsewhere on the show Kane defeated MVP in a decent inferno match when he set MVP's stupid costume on fire. Chris Benoit downed Chavo Guerrero in a decent match, Gregory Helms defeated Jimmy Wang Yang to retain the WWE Cruiserweight Title in a solid effort.
But the main event was a total mess, King Booker teamed with Finlay to take on John Cena and Batista. The action was shoddy and no one cared who Batista picked for his partner.
Overall Results: Kane defeated MVP in an inferno match.
Paul London and Brian Kendrick retained the WWE Tag team titles against The Hardy Boyz, MNM and David Taylor and William Regal in a ladder match.
Chris Benoit defeated Chavo Guerrero to retain the US title in a decent match.
Gregory Helms defeated Jimmy Wang Yang to retain the Cruiserweight Championship.
The Boogeyman beat The Miz in a terrible match.
The Undertaker defeated Mr Kennedy in a last ride match.
John Cena and Batista defeated King Booker and Finlay in an abysmal match.
Overall Grade - B

I actually saw this movie at a theater. As soon as I handed the cashier my money, she said two words I had never heard at a theater, before or since: "No refunds!" As soon as I heard those words, I should have just waved bye-bye to my cash and gone home. But no, foolishly, I went in and watched the movie. This movie didn't make ANYONE in the theater laugh. Not even once. Not even inadvertantly! Mostly, we sat there in stunned silence. Every ten minutes or so, someone would yell "This movie SUCKS!" The audience would applaud enthusiastically, then sit there in stunned, bored silence for another ten minutes.
this movie is so complex that it can be given any description and still roll with it. you have a insecure, troubled and fascinating main character (played by Jean-Pierre Léaud) who is trapped between two (no, three) women. we listen to his social, philosophical and moral idiosyncrasies in interminable monologues, we see him working his magic around the three women that he loves. this could be the premise for a fowl movie, full of rigid, cold, uninteresting commentaries. yet director Jean Eustache manages to keep it fresh, ironic and witty. being such a long movie, one cannot but burst into laughing when, after 2 hours of speaking politely, Jean-Pierre Léaud all of a sudden screams on the phone while he remembers a cheesy line from a movie. this kind of situations are purely cinematographic and cannot be fully restored in a commentary. nor can someone restore the tragic and painfully beautiful monologue of Françoise Lebrun towards the end of the movie. 3 and 1/2 hours and worthing every minute.

Andrewjlau, I could not agree more. My girlfriend is watching this at this very moment, and I find this movie appalling. Quote from my Chinese girlfriend, laughing: "They are doing all this for a man!?"
I find these women have no intensity, no sense of the a fight between tragedy and identity, and that these men are hardly worth fighting for. During the dance scene where Zhang Zi Yi wins them over, the men look stupid more than admiring.
Japanese people have much more intensity than Chinese people, and being geisha is Japanese culture. I am sure the Chinese had something similar, but the faces do not match the main.
Anyway, the dialogue is so unmysterious, so American. Had a European done it with European orientals, they would have done a far better job.
I have to add: it seems most of the people who liked the film are American. Sorry to say, but no wonder. All spelt out for you, not instinctive, not passionate. I think the Chinese actresses are lovely, but I could not say they were good actors in this film. Yes, the cinematography is great, but really, I cannot see how it can be seen that these characters are complex, deep individuals.
I'm going to Japan to see the real thing. I am sure that would be amazing to see.
Excellent film. I cried when she cried, I loved when they loved , I was frustrated when they were. This film touched my heart. It was a reality check for me since this is reality for me, a 19 year old soldier

I just watched the 30th Anniversary edition of Blazing Saddles, one of my all time Favorites!! The TV Pilot for Black Bart stunk. The plot was non-existent and the acting was not good. It was obviously an attempt to profit off of the success of Blazing Saddles and there have been TV shows that have succeeded in doing take-offs of big movies, but this one would never have worked. Considering that for so many years TV would not even play the farting noises when they televised the movie, it is inconceivable that they thought they could put a show on TV with the "N" word thrown around. On the other hand, I enjoyed seeing a lot of familiar faces!!! There were quite a few actors/actresses that I recognized from other shows over the years. I had to write down all the names and do a few searches. That was fun. I was arguing with my mother if Steve Landesberg was from Barney Miller or Mash. I won! :)
Certainly any others I have seen pale in comparison. The series gives balanced coverage to all theatres of operation. No one country is given undue credit for the Allied victory. Laurence Olivier brings great weight and dignity to his role as narrator.

What a terrible movie. The acting was bad, the pacing was bad, the cinematography was bad, the directing was bad, the "special" effects were bad. You expect a certain degree of badness in a slasher, but even the killings were bad.
First of all, the past event that set up the motive for the slaughter went on for 15 or 20 minutes. I thought it would never end. They could have removed 80% of it and explained what happened well enough.
Then, the victims were invited to the "reunion" in an abandoned school which still had all the utilities turned on. One of the victims thought this was a little odd, but they dismissed it and decided to break in anyway.
Finally, the killings were so fake as to be virtually unwatchable.
There is no reason to watch this movie, unless you want to see some breasts, and not very good breasts at that. This movie makes Showgirls virtually indistinguishable from Citizen Kane.
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.

I honestly can't believe what passes for entertainment now. Death (and making fun of death), violence, sexual innuendo, adults threatening children, crudeness, alcohol abuse by minors, drug theft, dysfunctional parents, babysitter from hell, stereotypical jokes about African Americans, police and fat people, and kids sneaking out of the house in the middle of the night - yup, sure sounds like a kids movie to me - NOT!!! Add to that the dark and scary elements - a dead woman possessing and turning into a house and keeping her loving husband a prisoner inside for over 20 years, and also terrorizing an entire neighborhood - how sweet for kids. PARENTS - is this really what you want your kids to be watching - is this what you want to teach them about life?!
This movie is too scary for young kids, and i'm afraid that teens today may be living some of this movie scenario - so why rub it in their faces? As for an adult audience - you won't find it scary or amusing - just boring, contrived and predictable. And the characters are just wrong - clueless parents, ignorant police, stupid and annoying friends, nasty and manipulative babysitters, and beer drinking/womanizing boyfriends. What great material for kids - does this really sound like a children's movie to anyone? Even the computer animation and good voice work aren't enough to redeem this terrible flick. Save your money, save your time, and save your children's minds - go rent Ice Age, Monsters Inc., the Incredibles, Shrek, A Bug's Life - ANY of them are way better than this horrid film. Spielberg and Zemeckis - shame on both of you for making such a disaster and then billing it as a children's/family movie!!
I would not hesitate to put this adaptation of 'Death Trap" in a top 5 list of the best stage-to-movie adaptations ever. Caine and Reeves (an underrated actor who never really got a chance to do more than soggy romances and "Superman") play off each other extremely well here. Even Dyan Cannon - who I normally don't care for - is perfectly cast in a role that exploits her annoyance value as an actress.
I'm not sure that comparisons of "Deathtrap" with "Sleuth" - another brilliant stage-to-screen adaptation featuring Michael Caine - are valid, or even fair. Yes, the two stories have a lot in common. But "Sleuth" is as much about class warfare as the battle of wits, and the house in "Sleuth" is set is at least as much a character in the movie as the two actors - the house doesn't really have an equivalent in "Deathtrap". And "Deathtrap" isn't so much a battle of wits as it is a pointed vignette about how people are no damned good (and never as smart as they think they are) and deserve everything they get. I'll just say that both movies are superb examples of the genre, and well worth your time and money. This is America, after all. You don't have to choose!
I won't give away the twists and turns of the plot, but I don't think it matters anyway. I've watched the DVD eight or nine times in a dozen years, and still enjoyed the chemistry and the timing and the mean, scary moments when things go "all pear shaped". It's all done so well that the ride becomes more important than the actual destination.
Anyone who likes black-hearted comedy and suspense in the Hitchcock style of film-making will probably enjoy "Deathtrap" immensely.

The subject notwithstanding, this is an amateur, exhibitionist movie--or an effort at one--which is about as interesting and daring as a moody high school student's composition book full of death "poetry". To be sure, it will disturb viewers who are hell-bent on being disturbed, but the success will be attributable to themselves, not to the director. To genuinely get under somebody's skin requires sensibility, discipline, technique, and talent, as well as an eye and an ear. The film does contain one evocative image, shown as a still (and also used on the video case), but with no development leading up to or away from it. If the director had had an eye, he would have seen it as a possible starting point for an interesting movie--that is, a movie.
I happened upon this film by accident, and really enjoyed. Timothy Busfield's character is without redeeming qualities, and at one point, Busfield and star Meloni ogle women as they pass by...Meloni's take on the parade is different from Busfield's. Janel Maloney is terrific...She looks very much like Tea Leone, but the major difference here is that Janel can actually ACT. Some very nice things in this film and well worth your attention when it's on cable.

Joseph L. Mankiewicz's Sleuth didn't need a remake. It's a thoroughly well made film that stands up well to this day. However, given that the modern day remake machine is currently in full swing; I really can't say I'm surprised to see the film updated for modern audience. The plot remains identical to the original film and at its core we have the story of a young man, Milo Tindle, who goes off to see an older man, Andrew Wyke, to discuss a divorce as the younger man is having an affair with the older man's wife. From there, a game of cat and mouse ensues. Its clear right from the outset that director Kenneth Branagh wanted to add a different touch to this film and he does so by way of the central location, which has been changed from the charming games-ridden country house of the original to a technical marvel kitted out with layers of security equipment. I'm glad that the director chose to make this change as nobody wants to see a remake that directly copies of the original; plus there's the fact that the location is well used and always nice to look at. Unfortunately, however, the positive elements of Sleuth 2007 end there.
The original film was over two hours long, while this remake is only just a shade over eighty minutes. Naturally, therefore, that means that this version has less about it; and unfortunately it's the characters that suffer. The plot is also rushed and we get into the first twist in the tale far too quickly and before we are given any chance to actually understand why and how these events can be taking place. The film does not build the characters, or the rapport between them, enough to make sure that their relationship makes sense. One major thing that has been changed about the older character is his obsession; in the original he was obsessed with games which turned out to be VERY important once the twists come into play. Here he has some kind of security fetish that doesn't really mean anything by the end. Kenneth Branagh's handling of the film allows for a classy score but the class ends there. The original thrived on it, but this film is happy merely to soil itself with expletives on numerous, and mostly unwarranted, occasions; which cheapen the whole thing. The final twist in the tale is completely different to how it was in the original and ensures that the film boils down to a really hideous conclusion. After spending two hours with the original I understood, respected and liked both characters presented in the film - after eighty minutes of this, I hated them both. I do have some respect for Branagh for not merely rolling out a carbon copy of the original film; but this is not a good adaptation of the great Anthony Shaffer play.
I watched this movie with my mother when I was in high school many years ago. I definitely was not the least bit interested in opera at the time, but he changed my views. I enjoyed this movie very much and have truly enjoyed opera ever since. I even bought several of his CD's. Who cares what his acting abilities were, he basically just played himself, which was adorable. He was so charming, so charismatic; I honestly just wanted to hug him. I feel very sad that so many are criticizing him so harshly. It was so straight, did not accept people pushing him around or judging him for his actions. He deserves to be respected and admired for his talent. He will definitely be missed!!!

This type of plot really does have a lot of potential, but it was butchered here. Honestly, I sensed the cheese element in the beginning, but I thought it would get better after the grotesque birthing. Whoa, I was wrong! So mad scientist makes a monster, wants to brag to his old cronies before he kills them, but of course they escape. After that, it's really bad. I should've counted the times the rubber shark mask peeked out from behind some foliage, but I most likely would have lost count.
Pan down to the blood-dripping-from-severed-leg to show us how the shark-man finds the folks. I hate being spoon-fed every aspect of a horror film.
Oh, and after being nearly killed by a mutated shark-man and trudging around a jungle-esqe island, there's nothing more cheerful than a middle-aged man reciting Shakespeare...
This is one where you'll find yourself rooting for the monster... if you can bear to watch this poor excuse for a flick.
"The Luzhin Defence" is, in the foreground, a story of an idiosyncratic chess savant (Turturro) who becomes consumed by the game and, in the background via flashbacks, his boyhood life and the forces which created the man he has become. Factor in good and evil in the forms of his his love interest (Watson) and former "mentor" (Wilson) respectively and you have a plaintive drama laced with poignant and delicately humorous moments mingled with the rich scenic beauty of Italy's Lake Como and the intensity of high chess play. An excellent film for those into period dramas, the auteur's euphemistic chess play metaphor for orgasmic delight is an indication of the subtle wit behind the film.

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT!!!!
I had read the book "1st to die" and wanted to see if the movie followed the book so I watched it. For the most part it did. There were some MINOR differences(location of the last violent scene for instance) but not many and for the most part the movie stayed true to the book more so then most movies.
This may have been a mistake-although the movie was perfectly cast-with Pollen and Bellows especially-I was not that impressed with the book. Or let me take that back. I started off very impressed, gradually became more disillusioned and by the end was left completely unsatisfied and felt almost gypped. No difference with The movie. Here is why.
There is no "payoff" in the book, or the movie. Rarely have I read a who done it thriller that has created such a letdown with it's final resolution and I had hoped the movie would vary a little.
The whole-(he did it, NO she did it, NO they BOTH did it)-was not interesting, not fascinating and more confusing, annoying and depressing then anything else. Add to that, that the love of Lindsay's life dies at the end(after HER disease cleares and she cries at his grave).. and then cut to where she's contemplating suicide....then all of a sudden she's in a fight for her life with the REAL villain who was cleared after being arrested.. but it turns out he and the wife were in it together....HELLO!!! This whole thing has now become "GENERAL HOSPITAL" instead of a good old fashioned thriller. I felt cheated and ripped off by the book and watching the movie(I must admit it held my attention nicely -the acting was very good for a TV movie)was hoping it wouldn't follow the book which it wound up doing.
I still think the movie is watchable and for some reason does not leave as bad a taste in your mouth as the book(or maybe it's just that I knew what would happen)But I have to say the way this story unraveled was not well done at all.