Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
This is the ultimate one-man show in which Eddie Murphy is at his very best. Just forget the Nutty Professor and the Distinguished Gentlemen, this is the real Eddie Murphy. His imitations of Mr. T. (pretending he is gay), Michael Jackson and other artists are killers. I think it's also quite daring to make fun of artists who where really popular in that time. My favorite act is the one where he is at his annual BBQ with the family and plays his drunken dad and aunt Bunny who falls from the stairs.
This show is the best medicine when you feel down ! If you watch the sequel 'Raw' don't be disappointed. It's quite good too but doesn't match 'Delirious'.

Following the success of the (awful) Gilligan's Island TV movie reruns, a number of TV movies were made in the 1980's reuniting casts from classic shows. Most of these movies completely missed the boat as far as recapturing the humor that made the shows so special. THE MUNSTERS REVENGE is among the most disappointing because it goes for a Laurel and Hardy-type comedy style that really wasn't in the original series. Yvonne De Carlo, a wonderful comedienne and essential to the series, is completely wasted - she has less time here in this 90 minute movie than she did in any single 30 minute episode. And since the roles of "Eddie" and "Marilyn" in this movie are nothing more than cameos, what was the point of making them younger and recasting them? With very little rewriting, they could have used Butch Patrick and Pat Priest. Although seeing some of the Munsters spooky relatives was a nice touch, I didn't enjoy Sid Caesar as the hammy mad scientist mainly because there's too much of him and not enough of the underused Munsters (ironically that very year, 1981, Caesar's old partner in comedy, Imogene Coca, was also inappropriately cast in a major part in a TV movie reunion RETURN OF THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES). Another strange inexplicable bit at the beginning of the film has the Munster family represented as wax figures at a local horror wax museum. Why would they be in there when they are supposed to be a "typical" (if strange) American family, not famous monsters? This was the last Munsters project featuring the original cast in their roles, there was an awful revival of the series in the late 1980's with a completely new cast and a 1990's TV movie which featured DeCarlo, Lewis, Priest, and Patrick in cameo roles as a family dining.
I'm writing this 9 years after the final episode was aired and I am still reeling from the impact Wildside has had on me.
It has effectively gone where numerous other cop dramas have gone and succeeded. But it took it further and didn't stray from the realism of the streets, often portraying life events and characters down to a T.
I am sorely missing this series, instead we have are given the stupid "Underbelly" which is over dramatised and acted creating a whole load of American-esquire garbage.
Wildside stayed true to the uniqueness of Sydney and for that I am truly indebted to this wonderful series. The acting was A-grade and it's a shame to see only a few actors have furthered their career whilst others have faded into obscurity.
I don't want Australia to forget this wonderful piece of their television history, thus I ask the ABC to release the complete series on DVD, not the first three. Give this series the ending it deserves.

This movie is NOT the same as the 1954 version with Judy Garland and James Mason, and that is a shame because the 1954 version is, in my opinion, much better. I am not denying Barbra Streisand's talent at all. She is a good actress and brilliant singer. I am not acquainted with Kris Kristofferson's other work and therefore I can't pass judgment on it. However, this movie leaves much to be desired. It is paced slowly, it has gratuitous nudity and foul language, and can be very difficult to sit through.
However, I am not a big fan of rock music, so it's only natural that I would like the Judy Garland version better. See the 1976 film with Barbra and Kris, and judge for yourself.
elvira mistress of the dark is one of my fav movies, it has every thing you would want in a film, like great one liners, sexy star and a Outrageous story! if you have not seen it, you are missing out on one of the greatest films made. i can't wait till her new movie comes out!

I had not seen the movie trailer when I went to see the movie, instead I based my judgments on a friend's opinions. Now I like Chris Rock and his comedy, but this movie just falls flat on its face.
During the movie Rock delivers a couple of funny jokes, but unfortunately the movie is sorely lacking in comedy. The movie seems want to integrate both laughter and love into one, and it that endeavor it fails. The love story in the movie is straight forward (luckily), but it detracts too much from the movie by making Rock serious and bland. After all, the movie is first and foremost destined to be a comedy, where laughter should be the primary concern. Not much of that in the movie.
The plot is also pretty uninteresting as a whole. Some parts were discontinuous altogether. If the supporting cast were meant to be funny, they certainly didn't do a good job. The couple of angels from heaven tried to make a couple of jokes, which were dry and dull. Rock's first incarnation's couple of underlings were also bland. If there's one thing they did do right, though, they made Rock seem funnier by comparison.
This is a must see for anybody who loves thriller's specially political thriller. One scene that stands out is Milgram experiment it is shot to perfection very rarely do we get to see a movie shot and scripted the way this movie is presented.
The movie starts with a Kennedy like assassination and a three member team is constituted to investigate the assassination. However one of the member does not agree with the final findings of the committee. As per the terms set that member would initiate a one man investigation into the assassination. This investigation gets him involved in into to deep and dark secrets of high office politics and the way they are controlled.

I think that Elisabeth Rohm, though she may try hard, is not very good at all. I guess it was because of budget that she may have been the only one they could get for that price. I mainly watched it for the performance of Myron Natwick, whose work I know very well.
He was the most believable and without doubt the most compelling to watch. When he wasn't on the screen, the thing went dead. This was filmed in Vancouver. He gave me the creeps, but be assured that in real life he is a kind, funny compassionate man. He even said playing that role gave him the creeps.
I'll watch anything with him in it, but Elisabeth Rohm - never again. She was as exciting as lint on Law and Order. Maybe a very nice person, but no actress.
I heard tell that Madonna was briefly considered for the Catherine Tremell role. Compared to Sharon Stone, Madonna is too coarse and BAUERISCH. She's not even close.
EVIL INCARNATE: Sharon Stone is a bit long in the tooth, the ameliorative effects of modern chemistry and surgery notwithstanding. However, she artfully treats us to a frightening personification of evil beyond redemption. In the obligatory sex scene, she projects pure, crystalline lust. Especially her hooded, luminous eyes and a face flat with pleasure. Thanks to brilliant use of lighting and other stage techniques, the harsh lines of age are only occasionally manifest. Rather, she seems to have a slight golden glow (YES, YEATS).
The locations gave us a view of London that is a welcome departure from the usual Londonscapes .The Catherine character is so powerful and menacing that I thank my lucky stars that our paths never crossed. I wouldn't have had a chance.
THE ORIGINAL BASIC INSTINCT; ATTEMPTS AT CENSORSHIP: I must briefly comment on the original 1992 film, set in San Francisco, a beautiful city worthy of this film. It is outstanding, from the music to the locations to the sets, and so on. Paul Verhoven pulled striking performances out of the cast and crew.
That the main Baddie was a woman did not escape the scrutiny of Bay Area Gay and Lesbian activist groups. Attempts at censorship were vehemently denied. SWELL. These philosophical pygmies demanded editorial control over the script, insisting on re-writes that would promote their political and psychiatrically driven agendas. Example: Sanctimoniously alleging sexism and misogyny, they demanded that the lead role be switched from BAD GIRL to BAD GUY.
On locations in San Francisco, the gentle, tolerant activists did their best to sabotage filming of the scenes with noise, flashing lights and other tactics. The Executive Producers, Mario Kassar and Andrew Vajna, vowed to fight any efforts to restrict the artistic freedom guaranteed in our democracy and obtained restraining orders against the disruptive tactics.
BLOWBACK: Thanks to the fulminating activists, the film got huge national press coverage - millions of dollars worth of free advertising. Their calls for viewers to boycott the film resulted in a backlash that had customers waiting in long lines wherever the film was launched. It also received widespread critical acclaim. It was, in the words of the reptilian Hackett in NETWORK, "A BIG- TITTED HIT!" Sorry, Gentle Reader; I just couldn't resist that one. Yes, it's a gibe.
In conclusion, I believe that both BASIC INSTINCT 1 AND 2, with their brilliant musical scores, aesthetics and acting, are works of art
that deserve protection under our Constitution.

This is really a very bad movie. Why? First of all, the story is bad. It is an artificial story, combining all sorts of things together that make no sense. It just seems a wrong experiment. Secondly, the actors cannot play in a realistic manner. They cannot even talk as an actor should. Why did I buy this movie? And what must I do with it now?
A very good start. I was a bit surprised to find the machinery not quite so advanced: It should have been cruder, to match we saw in the original series. The cast is interesting, although the Vulkan lady comes across as a little too human. She needs to school on Spock who, after all, is the model for this race. Too bad they couldn't have picked Jeri Ryan. I like Ms. Park, the Korean(?)lady. The doctor has possibilities. Haven't sorted out the other males, except for the black guy. He's a really likeable. Bakula needs to find his niche--In QL his strong point was his sense of humor and his willingness to try anything. He is, of course, big and strong enough for the heroics. The heavies were OK, although I didn't like their make-up.

Well, you know the rest! This has to be the worst movie I've seen in a long long time. I can only imagine that Stephanie Beaham had some bills to pay when taking on this role.
The lead role is played by (to me) a complete unknown and I would imagine disappeared right back into obscurity right after this turkey.
Bruce Lee led the martial arts charge in the early 70's and since then fight scenes have to be either martial arts based or at least brutal if using street fighting techniques. This movie uses fast cuts to show off the martial arts, however, even this can't disguise the fact that the lady doesn't know how to throw a punch. An average 8 year old boy would take her apart on this showing.
Sorry, the only mystery on show here is how this didn't win the golden raspberry for its year.
College girl Joanne Murray takes on the unenviable job of readying the student housing building to become apartments,which includes selling the unneeded furniture This takes place during a break,so a mysterious psycho is stalking the nearly-empty premises on campus."Dorm that Dripped Blood" is a low-budget slasher flick that is quite entertaining.The acting is pretty bad,the plot is predictable,but the gore effects are quite good.The film was made by UCLA film students Stephen Carpenter and Jeffrey Obrow for next to nothing.Soon a dreamy ambiance kicks in,very similar to the enveloping forests of Jeff Leiberman's fantastic "Just Before Dawn".7 out of 10.It's great to see Daphne Zuniga of "The Initiation" fame run over few times by a car.

And I mean ultra light. This film features four giant stars, about three and a half jokes and nothing beyond that.
There really isn't too much to say about this stinker, other than that although it has a couple of really good bits, most of it isn't very funny. Nor does it work at all as a romance. How about as a romantic comedy? Not on your life. Most of the dialogue is way too flat to be sophisticated, much less amusing.
What's really ashame is the premise is not bad at all. This movie could have been so much more, especially with all the recent focus on some of the bogus ways in which films are promoted, complete with phony quotes from critics. The film uncovers the un-mined territory of the press junket -- those all expense paid trips for journalists who almost always write nice reviews. But instead of exploring what should have been a motherlode of jokes, it devotes all of about three minutes to this territory and moves on in pursuit of the film's lame romance.
The same with Catherine Zeta-Jones' character -- the whinny, self centered movie star. Zeta-Jones does a good job with what she's given, but she's given practically nothing. It's all homogenized junk that looks very pale in comparison with some of the things we've heard about stars over the years.
In the end, it is hard to understand what made Zeta-Jones, Julia Roberts, John Cusack and Billy Crystal sign aboard this doomed ship, which sinks like a rerun of "The Love Boat." In fact, as the old joke goes, they should have forgotten the script and filmed the deal. It would probably make a better story. So, go ahead and tell us, filmmakers, what do you have on these stars that got them to appear in this?
I saw the film at the Nashville Film Festival. It was beautifully done, from cinematography to the acting. It's the story of a father and son, and how they come to appreciate each other during a family crisis. Beautifully written with dialog that never rings false, the film showcases the acting talents of Paul Reiser and Peter Falk, among others in this outstanding cast. The film begins with the aging father (Peter Falk)is trying to figure out why his wife (Olympia Dukakis) has left him. The father presents himself, unannounced, on the doorstep of his son and daughter-in-law. The father and son take off the next day to look at some property and end up taking a classic road trip. They fish, play pool, watch a baseball game, get drunk, get involved in a barroom brawl, and dance with strange women. But more important, they each confront the unspoken tensions that can affect any family. It's the kind of film that touches the heart and makes one appreciate those who are closest to them.

Comes this heartwarming tale of hope. Hope that you'll never have to endure anything this awful again. *cough* Razzie award *cough*
I disliked this movie because it was unfunny, predictable and inane. While watching I felt like I was in a psychology experiment to determine how low movie standards could get before people complained. When I requested my money back at the end of the movie I was informed that because I watched the whole thing 'I wasn't entitled to reimbursement'. I was told by the assistant manager that several people had complained and gotten refunds already though.
The movie summary is pretty basic. The midget thief steals a diamond and the poses as a baby to elude police. Underneath this clever outline however, lies a repertoire of original, fresh and hilarious skits. Or not.
Ask yourself the following: Do you like to see people getting hit by pans? Do you like fart jokes? Do you like to see midgets posing as babies threatened with a thermometer in the anus? Do you like tired racial jokes? Do you think babies say 'goo goo goo goo goo gaa gaa'? Do you drool?
If you answered 'yes' to any of the above then this movie is definitely for you. Although it has been billed in some places as 'The Worst Movie of the Decade', there is probably a movie or 2 that are worse...somewhere. I can't say for sure. I gave this movie 2 stars because we all know a review with only one star would indicate bias on the part of the reviewer and then the review wouldn't be taken seriously.
This lowbrow comedy is intended for a less intelligent audience and I cannot in good conscience recommend it to anyone. Save your money for something funny.
Respect
I've read the other reviews and found some to be comparison of movie v real life (eg what it takes to get into music school), Britney Bashing, etc, etc. so let's focus on the movie and the message.
I have rated this movie 7 out of 10 for the age range 8 to 14 years, and for a family movie. For the average adult male.... 2 out of 10.
I like pop/rock music, i'm 45. I know of Britney Spears but never realised she actually sang Stronger until i read the credits and these reviews. I didn't recognise her poster on the wall so I was not worried about any 'self promotion'.
I watch movies to be entertained. i don't care about casting, lighting, producers, directors, etc. What is the movie and does it entertain me.
I watched this movie for the message. The world's greatest epidemic is low self-esteem (which is a whole other story) so watched with the message in mind, as that is an area of interest. The movie is light, bright and breezy, great for kids. I found the Texan twang began to fade throughout the movie and of course there are only so many ways to convey the give up/don't give up message, so yeh, it was a bit predictable. Great message though...should be more of them.
This movie is a great family movie, but for a bloke watching by himself, get Hannibal.

I have to say that there is nothing wrong with low budget films, so that was not my problem with it. My problem with it is that I felt like I was watching my next door neighbor's home movie. IMO everything about it just seemed like a guy wrote out a quick story, grabbed a camera, and started shooting. I understand how hard this must be to do effectively, but when I pay to rent a film, I expect to feel like I am watching some type of professionally made movie.
John Schneider has a huge resume, is a great actor, and was fine in this film. The other people in it were not. I understand how it must be fun, and cheaper to use friends, and relatives as the cast, but it doesn't make for convincing acting. It seemed like the way it was shot, he was trying to give many of the scenes a more interesting look, but when the writing, plot, and acting are there to begin with, that type of style isn't necessary, and it is a distraction.
Also on a technical level, it had digital artifacts all over the place. In the first scene of all of those fine cars, when they did a slow scan of them, they appeared to jerk back and forth just a little bit. The problem isn't in my viewing equipment, (Benq PE-8700 84" diagonal) but somewhere in the production. I've never seen that kind of artifact in a professionally made film before. Then there was the sound. It sounded like they didn't do any voice-overs, which may be o.k. unless it sounded like the track in this film. It sounded like the built in microphone on the camera.
In "Die Nibelungen: Siegfried", Siegfried was betrayed. Now, Kriemhild seeks revenge. She marries Hagen, and through a series of events, finally engages in a very drastic (but fitting) action at the end.
One of the things about watching this movie nowadays is that we can look at certain portrayals. Attila the Hun (called Etzel in the movie) is shown as the strange person from the east, possibly an allusion to the Soviet Union. Obviously, it was not Fritz Lang's fault that Hitler used "The Nibelungenlied" for German national pride in the Third Reich, but one can see what the Fuhrer liked about the story. Nonetheless, this is an absolutely formidable movie.

Why me? Why should I be subjected to such slaughter of what could have made an interesting plot?! At least if I can warn other people off, it will have been worthwhile.
I had to watch this horrible movie for a college course. Otherwise, I would have looked at the synopsis on the back of the thing and steered clear. The movie was slow, had PAINFULLY little character development, and centered around the idea that a creepy little white man can become cool if he hangs out with an LA-style token black man.
If you want to experience the stereotypical LA feeling of dizzying superficiality - watch the movie. Note, though, that this movie does not DEPICT what we have come to think of as an "LA lifestyle", it is a wonderful example of the products that ARISE from it.
I find it very intriguing that Lee Radziwill, Jackie Kennedy's sister and the cousin of these women, would encourage the Maysles' to make "Big Edie" and "Little Edie" the subject of a film. They certainly could be considered the "skeletons" in the family closet. The extra features on the DVD include several contemporary fashion designers crediting some of their ideas to these oddball women. I'd say that anyone interested in fashion would find the discussion by these designers fascinating. (i.e. "Are they nuts? Or am I missing something?"). This movie is hard to come by. Netflix does not have it. Facets does, though.

awful, just awful! my old room mate used to watch this junk and it drove me crazy. the book is one of my favorites and its a shame that some people will never know what it is really like because their first impressions are from dribble like this. they changed so much it is hardly recognisable. which baffles me since the book reads like a soap opera anyway, providing enough fodder for modern day entertainment. it's like one of those Lifetime movies that say "based on a true story" but are completely fictional. there is none of the emotion or depth of the book, just mindless melodrama. if you are a high school student looking for a way to get out of reading, i suggest you try another version.
This film plays really well with an audience. Especially once the chase begins. Plus, Trevor Howard with his sensible, smart charms and Jean Simmons with her innocent demeanor and piercing eyes are terrific together.
The film starts as a psychological drama but after the murder it segues into a chase thriller as the two leads head for the border. Some may think the chase is superfluous but actually the chase is essential because it aids in clearing the mind of the Jean Simmons character by getting her out of the oppressive household, plus it helps bring out the real killer - who is suddenly put into such a position that they have to finish the job. The killer rightly believed that once the Simmons character was arrested she would be put away. And it is true that her lack of control in the household - as well as evidence pointing her way - there is no way she would have gotten out of the murder charge. The chase that ensues helps bring out the truth.
This is an entertaining film. Seek it out if you can find it.

As a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 fan, I can withstand ANY motion picture that can be foisted upon me, but there is absolutely no reason for this.
Rated "Super Action" in the Blockbuster Video section and given the dreaded "Restricted Viewing Sticker" I'm assuming these are the only methods that film maker (HA!) Robert Napton could use to get at least 4.50 from one unsuspecting person.
Shame on you Robert Napton! Shame on you for exploiting these poor Mexican actors who you probably promised hopes for making it big in American cinema. You are a disgrace!
There isn't one moment in this movie that holds the slightest bit of action. Did you use snot on these people? Oh, look, they're having a rave in a field! Like all 6 of them. And isn't that an Asian guy in the background? Why is it always daytime? Why did it take 1/2 of the movie to show anything.. and more importantly why did we watch the other 1/2?
PS: You owe me 4.50.