Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
good movie, good music, good background and an acceptable plot. but the main point again as his movies tend to be, the man is the best actor in idia and can turn dust into gold. nana patekar. this may be his second best performance after parinda( others may disagree). although other movies are not far behind. one man that will never ever disappoint you.
good movie although i think shahrukh was a luxury this movie could have done without. you can see in his movies, others try very hard to reach his heights and act out of their skins. but this man is really something elase.
the movie is cool, the music and direction is excellent plot a bit thin but the screen play and dialog again very good. a must watch.

Well, I can once and for all put an end to the question: 'What is the worst movie ever made...ever?' It is Flight of Fury, starring and co-written by Steven Seagal. Sure there are lots of famously bad movies, but this one takes the cake in that it takes itself so seriously.
It is a Romanian-made film that speaks to just how far Romania has to go to catch up with Bollywood. It also speaks to just how utterly devoid of intellect and talent Steven Seagal has become. This movie is so bad that you literally feel violated after watching it and need to crouch in the corner of the shower and cry, knowing that nothing will make you feel clean again.
It was released only on video (I can't imagine why) and I suspect the workers that had to make the DVD's had to wear protective gear and receive regular counseling.
A lot of people are saying that Al Pacino over acted but I mean common obviously for a movie role like this -- a cuban drug lord you need a bit of over acting in this role with that cuban accent. This movie overall was a really good movie I myself rated a 10/10 I would highly recommend people to watch this movie.

I rented this movie because it sounded pretty interesting but to my Horror this movie was the worst movie I had ever seen! I read the comment from Gumby-8 and he has to be a part of the cast or the crew. Unless Gumby-8 is a 4 year old child or some demented cult member no one in their right mind would think that this movie had any potential at all.
I couldn't believe Gumby-8's comments.
Quoting: "From the "Dune" inspired opening animation to the quick pace...this film keeps the eye moving and works so well that repeat viewing is not unexpected."
The Animation is the only aspect of the movie that was interesting and the fact of that the film keeps the eye moving, well that's because you keep looking for any type of suspense. I mean give me a break Halloween was shot with a budget of $100,000.00 and a painted mask and also by the way became a cult classic. As far as "repeat viewing is not unexpected" I think he made a typo.
Another quote from Gumby-8 the only Fan: "The acting is also a strong aspect of the film."
With all due respect for the actors, their performance is nothing more than the respective talent of Robert Napton.
The catchy Tagline: "Beware the hour between dusk and darkness"
That's because there is no dusk or darkness in this movie.
MPAA rating "Rated R for some violence/gore"
The only gore you see is some red paint on a sheet over a dead body you never see. As far as I know it might be a clump of grass.
In summation, I have seen horror flicks from the 50's, 60's and 70's. I have seen what I thought to be the absolutely worst and some that were very good. The director of this film either did not make any attempt, was asleep, or took a hit of acid. Whatever the case I think the actors deserve applause for trying to salvage a very poor job of direction. I would give this film a rating of .5 for a 'B' movie.
Based on Robert Louis Stevenson's St. Ives, the film tells the story of a dashing young French Hussar captain (Jean Marc Barr) during the Napoleonic wars. Captured in battle he is sent to a prisoner of war camp in the Scottish Highlands, run by Major Farquhar (Richard E Grant) In short order he falls in love with a local girl (Anna Friel), strikes up a friendship with the Major, and discovers that his long lost grandfather, who fled from France during the revolution, lives just up the road! Spirited performances from all the cast and some memorable lines make this an above average offering.

This film (along with Rinne) are minor gems amongst the retread homage pics that have passed for horror movies so far at the 8FTDF "HorrorFest." And, yes, that's faint praise indeed. 'Cause there's not much worse in filmdom than would-be auteurs who think atmosphere is a substitute for a coherent plot.
And that's all you get with The Abandoned. This is a film that was made almost entirely in the directors head. Sure, it would have been nice if he'd transfered it to film, but this happened instead. It's a very pretty film with a few genuine scares, but the last reel is strictly for the latte slurping cineaste crowd.
I've seen this film more than once now, and there's always someone complaining about the "obvious construction" of the plot afterwards. But then - this is part of Petzold's game: he plays along with the rules of genre.
It's very nice, how the highly improbable story of how the two girls (Timoteo/Hummer) meet, is again mirrored in another, even more improbable story, that the girls make up for a casting. This film is a journey between fact and fiction, it's more about potentials, things that might have happened in the past or might be happening in the future, than it is about actual ongoings. It's a reverie, sorts of - so apt enough there are a lot of motives, Freud might have found interesting for his dream analysis, like all the "doppelganger"-constellations.
Also, I think, "Gespenster" might be interesting to be watched in comparison to current Asian cinema of the uncanny: Petzold's everyday urban architecture also feels haunted in an unobtrusive, strangely familiar way. This film is not about the obvious. To describe it as the story of two girls who meet and eventually become friends and lovers, or as the story of an orphaned mother, who searches Europe for her lost daughter, clearly doesn't say much about the nature of "Gespenster" at all.

I have watched anime but I'm not a die hard fan; and I don't read manga. I say this because many of the reviewers who are waxing lyrical about this film seem to have that background. I have seen "St. John's Wort," and although it isn't a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, it made me pick up "Shinobi," especially since everyone seems to love it.
Well, I watched it this afternoon, and fought very hard to keep watching. Yes, it's very beautiful - the slow motion water scenes, the autumn leaves on the trees, even the CGI eye flicker - majestic. I liked the hawk, the costumes, even some of the fight scenes, but overall this was dull as dirt.
It seemed as if someone took "Romeo and Juliet" - the translation even mentions that they are star crossed lovers - and threw in some "X-Men" for good measure. Two of the characters split Wolverine's powers - the guy dressed in a bear costume had his claws and the grey-haired guy had his ability to heal himself. Then you have the girl who has a poison kiss - that's Poison Ivy (from Batman). Why do they give these women such dumb powers? Poison girl shows her leg then kisses you to death. Man, that's some great power for you. And the other girl, can create bugs from this yellow dust that she rubs on her hands. The other woman, one of the star crossed lovers, has the power of a hypnotic stare. Wow.
I sort of made it to the end of the film, by fast forwarding it, and did see a bit more tragedy than I expected. Some people are comparing this to "House of Flying Daggers" and "Hero." Don't make that mistake. They may share similar endings, but that's where the similarities end. "Shinobi" is made by an amateur - the other films are made by an experienced filmmaker.
I would say avoid this film unless you're 12 to 18 years old.
To quote Flik, that was my reaction exactly: Wow...you're perfect! This is the best movie! I think I can even say it's become my favorite movie ever, even. Wow. I tell you what, wow.

If you want to watch a good film about how women can fight back against sexual assault, then this film is not the film that you want to watch. It was a social commentary about a woman who was victimized and fights back. Spoiler: Rosario Dawson turns the tables on her assailant. Instead of using the criminal justice system, the victim resorts to using vigilantism. She in essence nullifies the judicial system. The film "The Accused" was a much better film because the victim uses the judicial system and wins. What the "Descent" does is telling victims of assault that they should resort to violence? Is victim any better that the accuser? No!!!
Even though it has one of the standard "Revenge Price Plots," this film is my favorite of Vincent Price's work. Gallico has that quality that is missing in so many horror film characters- likeability. When you watch it, you feel for him, you feel his frustration, the injustices against him, and you cheer him on when he goes for vengeance, even though he frightens you a little with his original fury. As the film goes on, his character becomes tragic. He's committed his murder, but now he must kill to cover that up. And again to cover that one up. And again... your stomach sinks with his soul as it goes down its spiral- like watching a beloved brother turn into a hood. Even if the revenge story is of old, the plot devices themselves are original- Gallico uses his tricks to kill in more and more inventive ways. A shame this one isn't available for home veiwing.

This very unfunny failed TV Pilot can be found as an extra on the 30th Annivesery DVD Special Edition "Blazing Saddles". Imagine the movie without the satire, humor, or writing skills. But with all the trappings of a typical lame '70's sit-com show complete with obtrusive laugh track and you'll still have no clue how sheer putrid this failed show was. What the hell was Lou Gossett Jr. thinking when he signed onto this disaster?? This was possibly the worst thing he's been in (and yes I'm including the first "Punisher" movie and "Iron Eagles 3". Steve Landesberg, I understand as he can't say no to crap.
My Grade: F
This is comedy as it once was and comparing this with the two remakes, THE MONEY PIT and ARE WE DONE YET?, only points out all the more how the 40's movie makers had a flair for comedy which has since, regretfully, been lost.
I was 15 when I first saw this and even at that tender age, there was much I could laugh at. Now of course being familiar with adult frustrations, I see a whole lot that I missed as a youth.
The three main actors...Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas...interacted perfectly, but the core of the movie lies in the frustrations encountered in achieving a dream. It's never as easy and free of unseen complications as one envisions.
All in all, this is a classic comedy which still stands above the attempts to remake it.

me, my boyfriend, and our friend watched this "movie" if thats what u wanna call it, and we agree with the last person, but we were stupid and bought the damn thing, we thought it really was about diablo so we bought it.
we hate it Really SUXZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so beware: DO NOT BUY THIS THING THEY CALL A MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
we would return it, but don't no if anybody would want this stupid movie.
oh and another thing, the shouldn't call it "The Legend of Diablo" they should of called it "Legend of Azar".
and this movie is rated R????? this should not of even been not rated.
we think that diablo would be crying his eyes out laughing at this stupid movie.
this is a movie that would have been done by a Church.
theses "actors" are never gonna become nothing because this movie.
Eskimo is a serious movie about the cultural chasm between an indigenous population and the encroaching white man. Although filmed in a documentary style seemingly with non-professionals, Eskimo is a skilled production that contains a believable story the audience will want to see through to the final shot.
The native Eskimo simply has different beliefs and behaviors about women and life than do the whalers that darken his landscape. When an Eskimo man loses his mate, it is natural that other men share their women with their friend. It is also usual for their women to want to take the place of the missing spouse. All of this seems natural in the context of the desolate foreboding Arctic setting. The trusting Eskimo falls prey to unscrupulous white whalers (with heavy European accents) that do not view these natives as their equals. Deceit, drunken orgies, rape, and death occur after the Eskimo men depart for work on the icy cold seas. Eventually the lead Eskimo (Mala) realizes that he has been duped and he takes his revenge. The audience would have cheered in the 1930's theaters.
Enter the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the moral dilemma of whether to bring back Mala for trial. The Mounties are played as feeling policemen that know this is not a cut and dry case. Will the Mounties get their man? Is it fair to hold Mala to a code of behavior outside of his traditional society? Is there a way out that does not punish Mala? Is it inevitable that the white man's law must prevail? Is there no hope for innocence?
This is not a great movie, but one that you will enjoy for the depth of the issue addressed in a very different setting. I suspect that the filming of the sequences with animals was done before today's disclaimer that none were injured in the making of the film -- so beware of the raw nature sequences. Highly recommended.

Mario Van Peebles pops up for less than a five second cameo. Glenn Plummer shows up a little longer but its a ladies show all the way. Stacey Dash and Lisa Raye have been in better projects. Bobby Brown leers and mugs through his little time on screen. This is how it was pitched...Five tough women shootin' and lovin' in the Wild Wild West. Four black and one Asian. Oh and Lil' Kim is a tough talking' heartbreaker and Marie Matiko can bring in the pacific rim market. We can shoot it for less than 15 million. Straight to video and we'll double but more likely triple our dollars.
Greenlight that puppy.
You got it boss.
Bertrand Blier is indeed l'enfant terrible of French cinema and in the seventies he always could shock the public. Filmed with his fave duo (Depardieu and Dewaere) and the usual dose of sex (Miou-Miou plays her typical role, at least the one from the seventies as little could we know that a decade later she would be the best French actress ever). In first "Les Valseuses" is also one of the first roadmovies as the viewer is just taken to some journeys of two little criminals. Those who only are satisfied with family life, or simply know nothing more, the movie would be quite a shocker but this movie is more than just that, it just let you think of all the usual things in life (working for the car, being bounded at work etc.). It's a sort of critic towards the hypocrite society we're living in. Great job and it just makes you wish two things : Dewaere died just too young as he was a topactor and of course Depardieu, he'd better should have stuck with French movies as he proves here that no one can beat him. Timeless classic and 20 years later it will still shock some...

I have grown up pouring over the intertwined stories of the Wrinkle in Time Chronicles. My dream was that one day a screenwriter would come across their child sitting in a large sofa reading A Winkle in Time, and would think, what an amazing movie this would make. Sadly enough that screenwriter failed, changing characters, throwing in lame humor, and all out destroying the plot. I know that it is a hard task to change a well loved novel into a movie. But why can't you stay true to the book? Why must you change the way characters think and act? For those of you who have not read the book, pick it up, find a soft couch, and let your imagination run wild.
This second film is just as interesting as the previous one except that there is no suspense. We know what he is going to do and what is going to happen before it is even hinted at on the screen. Then the pleasure comes only from the way the various tricks happen and the succession of them. We know there will be dynamite in the car, that he will lose a wheel, that the car will have a crash, just to speak of the car. And that is what happens. Now the details and the particulars are for you to discover them in the film. That he may be baited by some dumb woman is obvious and has to come but we know that he has already seen through her and that he knows he is being dragged into a trap. Now, how is he going to get out of it? That's what you must discover by yourself. And don't worry he will get the main trafficker but how is another story. A speed boat is no match to our busy beaver on the river. We also know when he is going to be wounded. They did not know what bullet-proof jackets were in those days. It's true recently it was discovered that some GIs did not have that kind of equipment in Iraq. But what is the meaning of such a film? This insistence on hunting the traffickers and this blindness that does not see that it is the prohibition that creates the problem. But the film is a constant and perfect illustration that there is no value what so ever that can stand in the way of this moralistic crusade against the forces of evil. Why not simply legalize these goods so that they can be properly observed and under surveillance? When something is not illegal or pushed out of the way it is all the less fun to use them, to do them. It is the forbidden or the restricted that is attractive.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

It was a disappointment to see this DVD after so many years. For me the main problem's the uneven script.
While some of it is witty and hip, quite a bit of it is dull, unfunny and lifeless. Many of the gags just sit there, lacking spark and energy.
Of the cast, Mae West and Rachel Welch come over well. Roger Herren in the role of Rusty shines (too bad he didn't make more films). But for my money, there's just too much of John Huston, and poor Rex Reed isn't hardly given a fighting chance. His character seems relegated to skim around on the sidelines, wondering what he's doing in this film.
The low user rating should give an idea as to the public's opinion of this piece. Vidal's original provided much potential that was pretty much wasted. Not even the 'classic' film clips did much. All in all a rather sub par effort, and it's not likely to get much better with time.
It breaks my heart that this movie is not appreciated as it should be. its very underrated. people forgot what movies are really about, nowadays they only think about bum bum movies, which can be quite fun watching with popcorn and friends, like transformers, movies which are oriented, with hyper mega high budget like 300mln or even higher, on special effects only and which are dumb movies without storyline. Its the kind of a movie what i despite most. Of course it is fun watching greatly made CGIs, but we do not gain anything essential from that kind of movies.
I honestly think that performance was excellent. Especially Busy Philipps, alongside with Erika Christensen and Victor Garber(whom i respect) made this movie an Oscar worth. Emotional performance by Busy Philipps was astonishing, its such a shame we wont see Oscar in her hands, which she deserves.

Despite what a lot of other people thought about the first movie, I really liked it. This one however. How to sum it up in one word?: This movie is (and here comes the word): CRAP!
But let's look at it part by part: Here is the plot: Finally the old queen has been removed from her castle, but her successor: Snow white has problems of another sort: The Court-Jester, Father of her son, has gone astray, as the super, Spliss, goes to the extreme, to battle his gray hair and sells the royal offspring for some blond and full hair. In her desperation Snow white seeks the help of Bubi (Otto Walkees),who must first find his other six dwarf companions and then try to find the royal offspring or at least try to find the name of Rumpelstiltskin.
The whole plot seems to have been written on a weekend, where the writers were very drunk but were just under pressure from the studio to write the screenplay.
Yes, there are some good jokes. Even for fans of the first part, or for fans of any of the other actors, it's really not worth buying the the DVD. Believe me.
The only thing, that at least kind of saves the movie from complete oblivion, are the performances of some of the actors. That's why I gave the move 3/10. Sadly, the script is so bad that none of the actors or all of them combined can make up for the bad story.
For example, at one point, they even cross over in our reality, and sadly.. they don't do anything funny while being here.
Still, a lot of great actors in this movie: Otto Waalkes, Ralf Schmitz, Martin Schneider, Nina Hagen, Cosma Shiva Hagen, (Especially funny): Rüdiger Hoffmann as the mirror, Helge Schneider and many more but sadly all these comedians aren't able to bring this really bad script to life.
Maybe it is a treat for some hardcore fans but for regular movie goers or by now DVD Renters or buyers it's not worth the money.
I even regret renting the movie.
This is a great movie. I love it more each time i watch. Most comedies can get pretty lame because you know all the gags, but mystery men has so much integrity in the writing and characterization that watching once again -- as Ben Stiller tears at the hood ornament of the limo, or Hank Azaria says good-bye to Louise Lasser, or Geoffrey Rush flashes his fuhrer choreography, or Tom Waits mumbles while he watches the news report, or Janeane Garofalo refuses a kiss from Paul Reubens -- is a pleasure. This is pitch perfect ensemble acting. The story develops directly and consistently, the action sequences are creative and not too dominant, all the set-ups payoff by the end. Seriously, if you've seen it and it's been a while, watch it again, and if you haven't then get started. You can't watch it again until you've seen it the first time. (Wes Studi, William H. Macy, the tryouts scene. Too much good stuff!)

A typical Lanza flick that had limited audience appeal with a weak story line that was put together simply to justify Lanza's MGM contract at the time.
As reported by member Lastliberal (above) Grayson could not stand Lanza because of his obscene advances towards her off (and sometimes on) camera. In addition, his gutter mannerism and the continual smell of alcohol in her face during scenes they did together were intolerable. After doing their second (and last) film together, "Toast of New Orleans", the normally quiet Grayson stormed into Louie B. Mayer's office and told him in no uncertain words that she would never work with Lanza again  period. Mayer felt that Grayson was much more valuable to MGM then Lanza, so Grayson's statement stuck. Grayson went on to star in a number of widely received (and far more profitable) musicals with Howard Keel and others. Later in life when asked to compare Lanza and Keel her reply was that there was no comparison between them, and that Keel was great to work with and had much more appeal to the "real people" in the audiences.