Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
some people think that the second series was where scooby was ruined..i disagree totally.the shows quality did not go up or down and scrappy ,win my opinion,as a very good chrecter.i looked at a poll on jumpedtheshark.com and 72% of people said scrappys second series was scoobys downfall.OK so loads said yes but 28%still cant be wrong.I do like the way most of the episodes focused on comedy.i believe the show would have gone rubbish if it was the same 5 people/dog solving mystery in same formula.scrappy was a breath of fresh air to the show.sure,some people tuned out but when scrappy was introduced viewing figures DOUBLED.Back to the show.All the episodes and segments were very funny.i was Intriguded by the yabba shorts and .But at the end of the day its a matter of opinion if you like scrappy or not is a matter of opinion,there is certainly no fact involved.But in my OPINION this was a superb series that gave a beginning to tire show a new formula and lease of life.Nuff said.

All the bare chested women in the world couldn't keep me from hitting the stop button about a third of the way through this awful rubbish. With the derisory acting, equally terrible script plus the poor CGI FX to match; this movie is an insult to the Werewolf genre. It is supposed to be serious, which in itself would be funny if this film could even make it to the level of being a bad joke.
This is one of those movies where the people behind the camera are obviously competent but are too lazy to make something even one quarter decent. Avoid at all costs and watch one of the classic Werewolf movies instead.
0 out of 10!
A featherweight plot and dubious characterizations don't make any difference when a movie is as fun to watch as this one is. Lively action and spectacular stunts - for their day - give this movie some real zip. And there's some actual comedy from the ripping chemistry between the two leads. Quinn makes a good villain also, although his role is completely overshadowed.
But don't be fooled by Maureen O'Hara's tough broad role, this is as sexist as any Hollywood movie of this era. You might be able to forgive that because of the time in which it was made, but it's still hard to get past. For all the heroism and gruesomely adult off-screen situations, this is still little more than an adolescent good time.

This is the worst brain damaged, ultra cheap, super stupid, silly, pointless piece of trash I've ever seen, an unbelievable garbage of instant cult status among fans of the bizarre. If you think that Ed Wood's "Plan 9" is bad, well... let me tell you, looks like "Citizen Kane" compared to that one. ¿Special effects?...again, "Plan 9" is "Star Wars". ¿Acting?...Thor Johnson is Al Pacino... so it's beyond bad, really. But if you are looking for that kind of incredible movies, it's for you! I'm a fan of American International for so many glorious horror movies, the Price-Corman-Poe saga and some great blaxploitation stuff, but with "Star Creatures" they descend right down to the Z level. Of course, my 1 out of 10 works in reverse if you like to watch bad movies for fun (the guy playing an Indian chief is great) so have fun and enjoy... if you can.
For those who think it is strictly potty humor and immaturity, you are in fact the mindless one. While the show does contain its share of potty jokes it also contains a lot of satirical material and pokes fun at social problems, racial barriers, cliché's,stereotypes etc. You just need to read into some of her material a bit more to get it.
What I also love is that not everything is a punchline. For those expecting a formulated joke like Friends (I LOVE friends fyi), you won't find it here. Instead Sarah uses situations and other ways to achieve her humour which is more realistic. We don't walk around in this world and have witty punchlines for everything said, which is in most comedies. Instead the Sarah Silverman Program makes it more realistic in this sense.
So don't take it as mindless humor because it is so much more than that.

The real irony is this: Joe Besser was a top notch comedian, in other situations away from the Stooges. He had a definite track record for being very funny and clever. Moe and Larry and Shemp had actually known him or at least of him for many years and liked his work. So what on Earth was going on when he joined the troop as the "third stooge"? Obviously, nothing. In most of these "late Stooge" era shorts, more often than not, the boys are pitted against each other or Joe against the other two and this is not accurate Stooge etiquette. "One for all, all for one, every man for himself", to quote Curly from "Restless Knights". One thing about a good comedy team, Laurel & Hardy, Abbott & Costello, The Marx Brothers, no matter how much they all try to take advantage of each other or slap each other around, when the chips are actually down, they stick together and come to each other's aid. In this particular one, none of that happens. It's almost like watching a dog fight as one tries to cheat the others or be mean and nasty, and not for comedic effect either. One might assume that there was something behind the scenes going on here, art imitates life. Maybe there really was hence why Besser did not stay very long with Moe and Larry. Just look at the history of the other teams and tell me I'm wrong.
Most movies about, or set in, New Orleans, turn out to be laughably bad, and laughably inaccurate (examble: remember "The Savage Bees"? But I'll make an exception for "Tightrope", which almost got it right).
Here's one that doesn't inevitably get it wrong. The accents are not too bad (yes, the "yat" accent down here is way more Brooklynese than southern), the city of 1950 is shown the way it is/was, without the obligatory "tourist" shots, and they understand a good drama without trying to make everyone a "quirky southerner".
One of the few films to do justice to this city, and a good film to boot..

This film is so bad and gets worse in every imaginable fashion. Its not just the poor acting and script nor is it the lame and perverse time one wastes on watching it. What really puts this film in my hall of shame is the apparent struggling that the writers and producers do with the film to try and make it funny. The actress replacing Jean Reno's descendant is to old and learned her lesson in the first film so they add a new girl who is to be married. Nearly all of the original extras and gags return however this time makes me want to ripe my eyes out of my sockets because it's a waste of perfectly good film. The torture of the constant camera cuts and shots in any scene in this movie can put the viewer into violent convolutions. This second film takes the successful original and drags it out of its coffin and parades the corpse out in the public square and perversely degrades not only the original idea and its legacy but our intelligence as well. This film unlike the spruce goose could not fly for it had no plot in the principals returning for a 'necklace'. No script since it was apparently written and added to daily. No attention to camera or shots in mind. Poor lighting and special effects done for the sake of doing so. This film would not even pass for a student film in basic Film 101. How this pile got through no one can tell. It was a big loosing investment and it appears that no one had the strength to put this unnatural cruel mistake out of our miseries. This movie has one good part ...its END! This film is my #1 worst film of all time, finally "Howard The Duck" is no longer the goose.
Rohinton Mistry's multi-layered novel seemed impossible to adapt for the screen but the resulting movie is filled with passion, emotion, humour and pathos. The story is somewhat slow-moving but there is always something on the screen to captivate the audience. The movie perfectly catches a particular time and place with pinpoint accuracy. All of the actors are Indian - few if any known to "western" audiences - but they are a joy to behold, especially the little girl who acts very convincingly. Don't be put off by the title and plot summary - this is a movie to be seen on the big screen. We have much to learn from it.

My mother worked with Dennis L. Raider for eleven years, not to mention shared an office with him. When it was announced he was BTK, she was shocked. The whole day was just her telling stories about how she never would have seen him as the Wichita Killer. I've heard her re-tell them many times. I've inquired her about a lot of things, and gone to all the interviews that she was asked to go to. I've read the entire book written about Raider, Wichita is my hometown and I was surprised that such a thing could happen in Kansas.
There was another BTK movie on TV not too long ago, and I thought this one would have been better at portraying Dennis' killings, maybe even have some intelligent touches to his motives.
I'm going to be very blunt with the flaws in this movie. This is based on my mom's portrayal of him, all my readings on him, and the video tapes I've seen of him talking.
First of all, the camera angles were horrible. It looked as though it had been shot on a home video camera. The acting was terrible and I couldn't even bear to watch it.
Dennis Raider never had long hair. Dennis Raider was a "very anal man" and was a "follow the rule book" kind of guy. He wasn't as nice as the movie made him look, he was very polite and abrupt, business like. Same goes for his killings, as far as we all know. If you've seen his confession in court, you can already guess.
And as for the obsession with the slaughter house? No. Never have I read or has Dennis Raider confessed to having a problem with animal cruelty or people squishing bugs. In fact, he practiced on cats and dogs for choking methods. Yet through-out the whole movie he was putting animals in his victim's faces and acting like he cared about the well-being of them.
Dennis Raider never killed the people that he knew, he confessed this, but in the movie in his first killing he tells the lady he knows her also.
I really don't even want to go in to this movie, and I'm already ranting. This is NOT what you want to watch if you are interested in the actual happenings of BTK. This is NOT what you want to watch if you want a good horror movie. If you want a badly shot half-porno with some slaughter scenes served the side, then this is your kind of movie.
When i first saw the title i was already deducing the theme of the film - it clearly wasn't a reference to British currency, so it had to be Shakespearian and about pounds of flesh - taking them, or giving them. Will Smith's a feelgood actor, so serial killers were out. It could only be about a man giving them, so must be about guilt somehow. I spoilt the whole thing for myself by looking it up and knowing the story before i watched, as the beauty of the build-up is the way parts of the main character's background are drip fed to slowly illuminate the audience as to who he is and why he is doing what he is doing.
Guilt is a very hard subject to do simply because it's deeply uncomfortable and sad, which is not an encouraging premise when you are hoping for a roller-coaster ride - you know its going to be unpleasant. I wouldn't say the movie glorifies suicide; it delves into the most extreme form of self-sacrifice - martyrdom.
It's also brimming with symbolism everywhere, which is a surefire tell-tale sign that the writing is cleverly thought out in great detail and driving at multiple meanings and a deep reflective nature. The most prominent theme that struck me was that he was not only giving his heart to the girl he loves emotionally and metaphorically, but was giving it to her physically as the greatest gift he could. Determined to die, but his plan is thwarted by falling in love - what a 2nd act complication. Absolutely masterful.
Yes it is very slow-paced, but i'm undecided as to whether it would have been better slotted into a smaller timeframe. I didn't feel the strain and his terrible inner turmoil as much as i could have, but maybe that's just me having ruined it for myself beforehand. Saying all that though, it is a deeply moving and original film that is an incredibly powerful and thought-provoking tragedy that deserves the awards it will inevitably get.

Well, if it weren't for Ethel Waters and a 7-year-old Sammy Davis, Jr. (here billed without the Jr.), Rufus Jones for President would be one of the worst representations of African-American stereotypes I've seen from the early talkie era and wouldn't have been worth seeing because of that. Ms. Waters is excellent here singing "Am I Blue?" and "Underneath Our Harlem Moon" while Mr. Davis shows us how his childhood experience in showbiz prepared him for his superstar status as an adult. He's so good tap-dancing here that for awhile I thought he was a little person with decades of experience. So if you're willing to ignore the negative connotations here, Rufus Jones for President should provide some good enjoyment. P.S. This marks the fourth time today I've seen and heard the song, "I'll Be Glad When You're Dead You Rascal You" performed on film, this time by Davis. Must have been a very popular song about this time.
This Columbo episode is probably noted more for the director, Steven Spielberg, as one of his early films. It should be looked at for Jack Cassidy's role as the murderer who kills his partner in writing to maintain his lifestyle. Jack Cassidy would appear in a later Columbo. After all, Columbo meets his match in Jack Cassidy's character. He is a mystery writer who plots to perform the perfect murder. After his first murder, his next victim would be the annoying general store owner/widow who would blackmail him for money. Rather than losing more money, he kills her. It is very entertaining to watch Cassidy and Falk as always. Falk's familiarity as Columbo makes him watchable after viewing this episode repeatedly over the years. What television today forgets about the success of years is that people will want to watch the shows again and again if they like the characters. It's not about who does it, how and why, it the familiarness of Columbo and his likability which scores high with viewers like myself.

Its not the cast. A finer group of actors, you could not find. Its not the setting. The director is in love with New York City, and by the end of the film, so are we all! Woody Allen could not improve upon what Bogdonovich has done here. If you are going to fall in love, or find love, Manhattan is the place to go. No, the problem with the movie is the script. There is none. The actors fall in love at first sight, words are unnecessary. In the director's own experience in Hollywood that is what happens when they go to work on the set. It is reality to him, and his peers, but it is a fantasy to most of us in the real world. So, in the end, the movie is hollow, and shallow, and message-less.
One of the best (if not the best) Stephen King's screenings. Dark as dark can be, surprising non-hollywood ending, terrifying atmosphere, amazing book adaptation, outstanding cast, educational (don't play with afterlife), in short - everything an excellent horror should be...
My favorite horror movie, straight 10+.

Good Folks, I stumbled on this film on evening while I was grading papers. My academic specialty is Anglo-Saxon literature, and I can say that no one has ever done the genre the honor it deserves. The Icelandic "Beowulf and Grendel" is the least offensive I have seen, and I did pay $3.00 for my copy. This Sci-Fi version ranks with the Christopher Lambert version. Yuck.
What didn't I like? CGI for one. Amazingly bad. More importantly is the faithfulness to the storyline, not to mention the stilted acting. I am used to both with all the versions I have seen.
Delighted Regardless, Peter
This movie is very good. The screenplay is enchanting. But Meryl Streep is most impressive. Her performance is excellent. She brings me to go into the heart of her role.

I have seen a lot of bad films. Most of the time I can enjoy a crappy horror film for what it is. But this really takes badness to new extremes.
It is bland, the plot for what it is never really goes anywhere and takes its time over it. There are no shocks, no horror, no suspense, just a load of guys rubbing themselves for an hour and a half and then a quick finish.
A blight on the crappy horror genre, avoid at all costs.
This is the best of the 43 films that Rainer Werner Fassbinder made; his most successful at least. He was one of the leading directors in the New Germany after WWII.
Hanna Schygulla was magnificent as the cold, calculating Maria Bruan, who lost her husband to the War, found him after she took an American soldier as a lover, lost him again after he went to jail for her, and found him agin at the end. Her day and a half marriage before he disappeared was longer than their time together at the end.
Such is life. Things come and go, and you do the best you can. You can give up or adjust you way of thinking to survive. Even though Maria adjusted her thinking and did what she had to do, she never stopped loving Hermann, which makes the end such a tragedy.
Excellent drama.

As one of the few commentators not to have seen the 1st film, I found this to be a very disappointing movie.
Yes, it has a funny awkward type of humour if you can bear the (highly) morally dubious premise. However, it fails abysmally in the important areas.
There is thin and nonsensical plot line involving Gordon Sinclair's generous friend who may or may not be entwined in a conspiracy to supply dangerous electronics to Third World countries - possibly in free computers ... or possibly not. Vague, long-winded and inconclusive. The lack of any substantial ending is so infuriating and what is present is pompous and wholly illogical. The film feels half-finished.
Suspension of disbelief is extremely difficult when witnessing a very attractive female teacher (Maria Doyle Kennedy) can be drawn to Gordon Sinclair's unimpressive character, especially when he fends off her advances. Laughable. It worsens later in the film when he achieves his romantic ambitions then throws it all away for some ideals based on very little evidence of ambiguous value.
Not many films leave me feeling cheated, but I felt my time was stolen.
Amazing performance from Simon Pegg who just gets better and better with every role. As usual he plays the part of a very cringy character who makes you want to hide behind your cushion in embarrassment for him sometimes, but thats what Pegg is all about.
The laughs were regular and eye watering and everyone of them aimed at Penn. The movie was very cleverly put together where every character plays a very sophisticated and serious part with Penn being the only humour involved which is a huge credit to the Director Robert Weide.
And I cant let this one go without a quick round of applause to Gilliam Anderson who shone throughout. Highly recommended to all.

so altogether i found this documentary to be strange and really pointless. i know it got awards and things, but i personally did not enjoy it too much. there was no humor or drama in it to keep you interested, just a bunch of wierdos and their jobs. some of the people in are rather different which isn't a bad thing, it just didn't leave a good impression on me. i was thoroughly bored by this movie, no offense to my creative writing teacher. the circus theme throughout the whole movie was kinda cool but i didn't get it, and robotics and lion taming is definitely not my thing. the green animals thing was neat, i really liked the garden lots of colorful flowers, but how did these four jobs connect? it just didn't make much sense to me why someone would make a movie about that. But if you are into stuff like this you might enjoy it. who am i to stand in your way. I am just forewarning you about possible suffering.
This movie is obviously low-budget & filmed in British Columbia,Canada. The obstacles that had to be overcome to make this movie convincing(set in California & late 60's-80's)were well conceived.I believe this is the best & most accurate version of the Zodiac killings that plagued the town of Vallejo & the Bay area from 1968-19? (he was never caught).Edward James Olmos(Det. Dave Toschi) & George Dzundza(Zodiac-at the time believed to be Arthur Leigh Allen, since cleared by DNA & fingerprints)play a game of cat & mouse re-visiting crime scenes together, each one trying to trigger the other into an emotional revelation.Olmos dying from some type of terminal disease & knowing Dzundza did it,still totally obsessed to the point of losing his family & becoming a full blown alcoholic along the way.Dzundza totally oblivious & self absorbed(like all serial killers) to the carnage left in his wake.The only disappointment was the"over the top" ending otherwise pretty accurate.If you tire of the typical Hollywood fluff or have an interest in the Zodiac case,check it out.

Ohhh the brutality, ohhhhh the dying breed, ohhhh the sense of loss, ohhhh the prejudice! Jeez, when are all you whiney revisionists going to stop analyzing Westerns for crying out loud? S**t happens. If it offends your socially engineered sensibilities then go back to the comfort of your Meryl Steep collection.
Boring, tedious, and very tiresome waste of celluloid-particularly in light of Coburn/Hackman/Bergen's presence. Nothing interesting or intriguing here, unless you are obsessed with 19th century desert dentisty. May have been a little better without the constant diversion of the out-of-place mexican guy with the bad tooth. A monument to the stupid ultra-left creeping sensitivity of the 60/70's. Virtually impossible to sit through the entire film. I think I'd rather have my eyes stapled open for the entire Lucky Luke/Trinity series. 4 Horses/10-all deader'n hell.
It came by surprise. . .the impact & resoloution this film had on my automatic way of being reactive to people & situations. Most vividly was the stirring of the emotion anger. Much like the way a spoiled child would be when reacting to not getting their way. . .a temper tantrum if you will. Thinking I was hiding this anger from others was the most ridiculous farce of all. What was this costing me? Soooo much love. . .sooo many blessings. Now I'm present to how incredible humbling myself feels, and having an ongoing attitude of gratitude for life. . .for what is happening in the moment, without my wild expectations for life to be a particular way, the way I think life or people "should" be. This film has contributed to the freedom I now feel to connect with others, without limits & expectations. . .and to connect with genuine love. . .without fear of loss. . .just to love first, and accept what love is given.

Jason Lee's pecks are back! If that's what you are looking for, look no further. If not, better move on...
But about the movie. Clichés galore, some poorly shot but kinda exotic fight scenes (used JKD) and lots of bad acting & cheap effects. Poor Lee looks like he's in pain throughout the movie, and no wonder. Not a pleasant comeback.
The movie doesn't even cut it as a B-movie - sure, there was a Germanish bleached blonde Rutger-wannabe bad guy, but no gratuitous sex scene or even a single booty shots. None. Zip. Nada. Even in Starship Troopers 2 they had the common sense to include the mandatory nudie scenes (as for rest of my comments on that excellent piece of classic cinema excellence, please refer to our upcoming review on that mind-blowing sequel...). I did get the feeling that the writer was taking his revenge on somebody with this - thus I won't get into the "plot" of the movie or pretty much anything else related. Except that it did have some non-heterosexual overtones, so 'nuff said.
However, this movie has one thing going for it - no Jean-Claude :)