Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Certainly one of the finest movies I have seen for quite some time. Exquisite direction and flawless acting make this a very entertaining and often moving film. Denzel Washington plays one of his most engaging and emotional roles to date, and the rest of the cast perform beautifully. Christopher Walken is of course superb in his part although he did not appear as often as I would have liked. A story of ultimate greed that backfires is offset against a childs innocence and love. This is also a film for action movie lovers as it has its fair share of bullets, rockets and revenge. The location of Mexico City adds a feel of seediness and corruption which in itself is an eye opener. All in all, a truly gripping film from beginning to end. Highly recommended!

There are movies that are awful, and there are movies that are so awful they are deemed long-forgotten and unwatchable. Also, lots of violence and bad stuff (not just cheesy stuff; you know what I mean) add to the mix as well. What is the result of bad movies with such raunchy content? Why, "Final Justice," of course!
Remember "Mitchell?" Joe Don Baker was the star of that movie, and that was riffed by Joel and the Bots on "Mystery Science Theater 3000." Now this time, with Mike taking Joel's place on the Satellite of Love (but with the same bots), that trio got to make fun of MST3K's second Joe Don Baker movie, "Final Justice." Of course, much of the naughty stuff that I mentioned was removed for television release, but still, I want to watch that episode (and "Mitchell" as well), because what does Joe Don "hate" the most? Why, none other than "Mystery Science Theater 3000!"
P.S. If you have a Big Lots nearby, check that store for the uncut tape! LOL That happened to another user!
I don't know why some people criticise that show so much.
It is a great, funny show - probably not the right material for mainstream prime-time, but still...
The family dynamics are funny, and all in all the same you see in most comedy shows. The supporting characters are absolutely hilarious. The plots of the individual episodes and the frequent Siegfried & Roy jibes are only just above average, but ever so often you have sub-plots or one-liners that make you roll on the floor laughing.
This show was well worth the 8 Pounds I paid for it.
rating: 8/10

A lot of people seemed to have liked the film, so I feel somewhat bad giving it a bad review. But after sitting through 96 minutes of it, I feel I have to do so. Where the heck is the plot in this film?! I must have missed it, I was waiting for the storyline to unfold and nothing happened. Sure the ending was "somewhat shocking" but they didn't build up to it. I forgot who was who half of the time, so they didn't really develop the characters. The acting was so-so, most of the time it was believable, but I was able to see through it most of the time. So... without giving anything away, I must say that unless you like the actors in the film, there is no real reason to watch this movie. I could be mistaken, but I just didn't understand why there was so little, or too much of the film. I can't decide which one that would be, so I say judge for yourselves. I don't even know if renting it would be a good idea, the cost and all...
Plot: 0/10 Characters: 1/10 Acting: 2/10 Overall: 3/10 I feel like that's too high really, I am staying with my vote up at the top.
As it is generally known,anthology films don't fare very well with American audiences (I guess they prefer one standard plot line). New York,I Love You, is the second phase of a series of anthology films dealing with cities & the people who live & love in them. The first was 'Paris,J'Taime', which I really enjoyed. The film was made up of several segments,each written and/or directed by a different director (most of which were French,but there is a very funny segment directed by Joel & Ethan Coen). Like 'Paris', this one is also an anthology, directed by several different directors (Fatih Akin,Mira Nair,Natalie Portman,Shakher Kapur,etc.),and also like 'Paris'deals with New Yorkers,and why they love the city they live in. It features a top notch cast,featuring the likes of Natalie Portman,Shia LaBeouf,Christina Ricci,Orlando Bloom,Ethan Hawki,and also features such seasoned veterans as James Caan,Cloris Leachman,Eli Wallach and Julie Christie. Some of the stories really fly,and others don't (although I suppose it will depend on individual tastes---I won't ruin it for anybody else by revealing which ones worked for me & which ones didn't). Word is that the next entry in the series will be Shanghai, China (is Rome,Italy,Berlin,Germany or Athens,Greece out of the question?). Spoken mainly in English,but does have bits of Yiddish & Russian with English subtitles. Rated 'R'by the MPAA for strong language & sexual content

My friends usually can put up with a lot of hopeless movies but this one was too poor for us to even watch it to the end. It was just so boring and unoriginal. Not even the "hot" girls that starred in this movie could keep me watching. Everything was just predicable and annoying.
The acting was at times good.....but more times bad. The most annoying character in the whole movie that you just wanted to die would have to be the main characters best friend. The more i saw him the more i wanted to smash my screen. (you know what fat ugly kid I'm talking about)
The plot has been done so many times before i think they should be sued by other movie companies. OK, it is a good idea but thats all this movie had.
Overall this movie can only be watched if by your self, to save any abuse from your friends. Or, if you have absolutely nothing better to do.
This is without a doubt the greatest film ever made. It is nearly incomprehensible even with many repeated viewings in an attempt to figure out what exactly's going on. The film was almost entirely improvised and includes random musical numbers, commercials, contests one enters by mail, and a host of other innovations. Besides, what other movies have cameos by Martin Luther King, Jr? To decipher the film, hunt down the director's book entitled I Was Curious. It'll all become clear. It's a grand and bold experiment in improvised recursive filmmaking. A triumph. Now if only someone would put out a version with the subtitles in a color *other* than white...the white subtitles tend to wash out and become invisible.

I thought this film would be a lot better then it was. It sounded like a spoof off of the spy gener, and the start of it reminded me of Pleasantvil, but this film came up short.
The plot is just to ridiculous. The KGB and Soviet Union in Russia have started up a spy school to teach their spies' how to act like Americans, but the town they set up in it for training is a bit dated, so they grab two yanks from the US to spice things up. I don't know, but this seems just to out there. It gets really odd when next to no one in this all Russian town speaks in a Russian accent. Someone screwed up in the casting job.
Also, for a comedy this is painfully dry. There is one, two funny spots tops, and they are nothing to sing and dance about. The film in the end will likely put you to sleep.
And, as a twisted punch in the face, this film is so pro the US it makes me sick. The movie keeps on saying again and again, the US is God and Russia is the devil. This is the kind of smear campaign that was done against the Japanese in World War 2. It's films like these that makes everyone think that the US is full of itself.
This gets a 4 out of 10, and I'm being kind. It should really get a one, but the dance scene was funny, but then again it dragged far to long to be really funny.
This police procedural is no worse than many others of its era and better than quite a few. Obviously it is following in the steps of "Dragnet" and "Naked City" but emerges as an enjoyable programmer. The best thing about it is the unadorned look it provides into a world now long gone...the lower class New York of the late 40's/early 50's. Here it is in all its seedy glory, from the old-school tattoo parlors to the cheap hotels to the greasy spoons. These old police films are like travelogues to a bygone era and very bittersweet to anybody who dislikes the sanitized, soulless cityscape of today.
Also intriguing is the emphasis on the nuts-and-bolts scientific aspect of solving the crime...in this case, the murder of a tattooed woman found in an abandoned car. Our main heroes, Detectives Tobin and Corrigan, do the footwork, but without the tedious and painstaking efforts of the "lab boys", they'd get nowhere. Although the technology is not in the same league, the cops here use the dogged persistence of a C.S.I. investigator to track down their man.
The way some reviewers have written about this movie, you think it would have been directed by Ed Wood and acted by extras from his movies. What bosh! I enjoyed John Miles as the gangly ex-Marine turned cop Tobin...he had a happy-go-lucky, easy-going approach to the role that's a welcome change from the usual stone-faced histrionics of most movie cops of the period. Patricia Barry is cute and delightful as his perky girlfriend who helps solve the crime. Walter Kinsella is stuffy and droll as the older detective Corrigan. I rather liked the chemistry of these two and it made for something a bit different than the sort of robotic "Dragnet" approach.
The mystery itself is not too deep and the final chase and shoot-out certainly won't rank amongst the classics of crime cinema, but during it's brief running time, "The Tattooed Stranger" more than held my interest.

Unlike "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai", or "Big Trouble in Little China", or "Conan the Barbarian", which are horrible films that have a certain coolness and self-deprecating humor that turn them into cult sensations, The Golden Child is just plain bad.
The premise itself is not unworkable, and there are some funny moments. But here the Eddy Murphy "flip attitude" just deflates any feeling of tension or danger in the story. And the special effects are silly enough to do more damage to that tension. The "mystic secrets" of Tibetan Buddhism are lampooned rather than drawn upon to compel.
Without a feeling that anything is at stake, or that the characters are faced by real danger, why should we care?
Who should see this film:
-- big fans of Eddy Murphy who can't help themselves
-- I can't think of anyone else
I'll give this film a 4 out of 10 for the occasional joke that worked.
Letters with no destination end up in another world found in the back rooms of the post office. Here, Alice manages to land a job in hope of finding her lost father. What she does discover is the tormented soul of her boss, Frank. A quiet little Aussie flic that came and went at the cinema. Now you find it in the deep dark corner of the video shop, overshadowed by fifty copies of that dreaded GODZILLA film. It's a shame because this turned out to be a satisfying film telling a brave tale with strong simple images and effective performances from the two leads. This film succeeds where Garry Marshall's other dead letter office flic DEAR GOD (1996 - USA) failed, and comes close to the brilliance of, not the Kevin Costner turkey, but He Jianjun's POSTMAN (1995 - China).

Perhaps being a former Moscovite myself and having an elastic sense of humor prevents me from tossing this movie into the 'arthouse/festival crap' trashcan. It's not the greatest film of 2005, nor is it complete garbage. It just has a lot of problems. I also sincerely doubt this movie was banned due to any 'ideological fears', or 'conservative taboos' or any other reason this movie might conversely be called 'courageous' and 'uncompromising' abroad. It was banned because the censors knew 99% of the Russian film-goers would find it offensive because of the bad taste exercised during the shooting and editing of this otherwise dull film.
So we have a strong opening shot. Wonderful sound design, excellent premise - laden with meaning and symbolism. The usage and placement of symbols will consistently be of the film's strongest aspects (not that the number 4 is a daunting visual challenge). Over the next 40 minutes we have an equally strong setup. An amusing and well-written bar conversation among the 3 (main?) characters, and we feel pathos for these people, the great country of Russia, the human condition and all that. Then the movie starts slowing down. We begin to wonder what -yawn- lies ahead.
The rest is quite boring, simply put. Sure, the guy in the village tugs the heartstrings, and there are some slightly amusing moments. Nice sound, sure. But the enjoyment of this movie, not to mention the plot, are seriously compromised by the pacing problems. And this, this lack of a payoff for sitting through all the (nicely-shot) abject misery and bleakness, is what ultimately will make people angry at the 'offensive' stuff (personally, the main offensive scene bordered on being endearing, in that pathetic way harmless drunks can appear).
If you want to watch an enjoyable movie where Russians get wasted for prolonged periods of time (the entire film), watch Particulars of the National Hunt. Much more rewarding post-Soviet stuff. So yeah, a 4 out of 10 for 4, nice and symbolic of my post-mediocre-film condition.
First of all, the only reason people keep bitching about this film is because they can't stand a few parts of the true story being "altered". Well guess what? Peter Jackson's film wasn't a perfect rendition either. Well enough ranting. This is a very beautiful film. The backgrounds are gorgeous and taken from well known Tolkein artists. The film covers about half the trilogy (Fellowship of the Ring and up to the battle of Helms Deep in the Two Towers) and moves at a good pace. The voice casting is top notch and the most of the characters look like I imagined they would. Samwise is a bit too ugly for my tastes, but Aragorn looks AWESOME. The film has a great score that completely supports the movie. If you enjoy good fantasy stories but hate reading (the books are even better) give this movie a try, keeping in mind it was made 20 odd years ago.
Also of particular note: Peter Jackson's adaption of Fellowship follows almost exactly the same strand as Ralph Bakshi's (Jackson has said many times how much he admired Bakshi's effort).

It is incredible that with all of the countless crimes that have been uncovered and laid unequivocally at the doorstep of Marxism, from the Berlin Wall to the Gulag archipelago to the Cultural Revolution to the Khmer Rouge, one still finds admirers of Communist totalitarianism in Hollywood and are still making propaganda in its favor. It just shows the moral depravity of Hollywood.
In this particular film a psychotic murderer is glorified. Needless to say that neither his crimes nor his psychotic proclamations were included. That both the director and the actor expect audiences to sit through this seemingly interminable propagandistic film demonstrates the tunnel vision that they have in regards to their object of worship.
Corbin Bernsen's sent letters to four criminal associates he's worked with in the past and it's a real intergenerational mix with Fred Gwynne, Lou Diamond Phillips, William Russ, and Ruben Blades. They're to meet him in this obscure Montana town and he doesn't explain why because he's then picked up by out of state police from New Jersey on a warrant.
Of the criminal group that's been gathered together, they all know Bernsen, but don't know each other. A lot of comedy involved is them feeling each other out. As the oldest Gwynne though denying it kind of takes charge with the others grumbling, but going along. Especially when they figure out what Bernsen had in mind.
As for Bernsen, he's got the good fortune to be picked up by a pair of bumblers in Ed O'Neill and Daniel Roebuck. He gets the drop on O'Neill and escapes.
After that it's the four criminals trying to finish what Bernsen started and Bernsen getting away the police. In the intricately plotted screenplay, it's fascinating how both story lines keep intertwining with each other. Hoyt Axton as the local sheriff watches in amazement at what unfolds in his town.
Disorganized Crime is a fabulously funny caper film by a bunch of players who seem mostly to have had a background in television or would soon. I can't say that anyone stood out in the cast they also seem to click so well together.
Ironically none of these people are comedians per se, but they all exhibit a light comic touch that good directing brought out.
Disorganized Crime is one very funny caper movie, the kind of film that well known pessimist Mr. Murphy would have written.

I saw an early screening of this film in New York and I, along with my friends and pretty much the entire audience, were vastly disappointed. The movie wasn't even so bad it was good; it was as lifeless as a snake-bite victim. Samual L. Jackson looked surprisingly tired through most of it and the snake effects were lame. It reminded me of one of those cheesy SciFi movies, except the cheesiness of this movie was not funny or even campy. It all seemed worn, flat, and overtly formulaic. I'm shocked to say I actually think Anaconda was more fun. It's easy to understand that SOAP realizes it's a piece of s*it and plays along with it, but what the film fails to embark on is a script that has any scares of suspense. It's the worst kind of lame movie: it's joyless.
While the soundtrack is a bit dated, this story is more relevant in the U.S. now more than ever. With not only blue collar jobs but everyone's jobs being outsourced by U.S. corporations while the government profits and American suffer.
Peter Strauss is Emory, a steel worker who works the same job his father did for 35 years. His wife is well-portrayed by Pamela Reed, who is very realistic, trying to support the family with two children when Emory loses his job. The mill is closed under the pretext of mismanagement, but there is also embezzlement and cheaper wages where they can pay one steelworker in one month (outsourcing) what they would have to pay Strauss/Emory in a day. Never mind that these men are all good loyal workers who have values and try the best for their family.
John Goodman, Gary Cole (as Strauss' brother) and a few other co-workers are also affected. It is very disturbing and realistic. Some scenes between Emory and his father are moving. Emory hopes his local union will be able to re-open the mill, as they promise to do so.
Emory's brother, Lee already sees the writing on the wall. There are no jobs left in the rust-belt (Ohio) and they must move on. However where in the U.S. can they move to?. Where will it be better for a blue-collar steel worker?.
There is a triumphant scene at the end where Emory and his crew fill the loading dock with steel products. The guard allows them to do this as a final gesture, one of the men committed suicide and he has empathy.
Overall, a good message film about hard times right here in America. Something that few care to face until personally affected. 8/10.

This comedy has some tolerably funny stuff in it, surrounded by a lot of unfunny stuff. Just about every scene involving the servants of the castle and their silly antics is a waste of time. And the plotting is so sloppy that it makes you wonder if they actually had a script ready before they started filming this, or they were simply making it all up as they went along. (*1/2)
this film needs to be seen. the truest picture of what is going on in the world that I've seen since Darwin's Nightmare. Go see it! and If you're lucky enough to have it open in your city, be sure to see it on the big screen instead of DVD. The writing is sharp and the direction is good enough for the ideas to come through, though hardly perfect. Joan Cusack is amazing, and the rest of the cast is good too. It's inspiring that John Cusack got this movie made, and, I believe, he had to use some of his own money to do it. It's a wild, absurd ride, obviously made without the resources it needed, but still succeeds. Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, SNL, even Bill Maher haven't shown the guts to say what this film says.

Recap: Ron is about to marry Mel. They are deeply and love and certain they are perfect for each other even though they met just a few months ago. Todd, Ron's brother in law to be is not so happy. He is afraid the marriage is a threat to his cushy job in the family business and decides to arrange Ron's bachelor party. But his real plan is to put Ron in a compromising situation, get evidence and break Ron and Mel up.
Comments: Supposed to be a sequel to a comedy classic but it isn't funny at all. It is mostly a pubertal show and a juvenile excuse to show scantily clad women. Actually, in a way, it is almost impressive have many you can put in there, because they are everywhere. Unfortunately that is also one of the signs of a movie that can't support itself. It simply isn't good enough.
It has three redeeming points though, or actually three actors that is worth a better script than this. It is lead actor Josh Cooke who actually manages to give an impression of some common sense. Sara Foster I know has more talent than to do movies like this, and Emanuelle Vaugier seem to have a lot more talent than this movie.
What is suspiciously absent are good jokes. Actually, bad jokes are rather scarce too. It just isn't funny.
3/10
This impossible tale is of a female witch pursuing a mortal man, in a mortal world. Her "community" is open among it's members, but she conceals her witchcraft from the mortals. Hmmmm...this is starting to sound familiar. LOL. It's not your typical movie. Very "campy" performances by Jack Lemmon and Ernie Kovacs keep things from getting dull. Kim Novak is always a pleasure on screen, but I found her pairing with James Stewart unusual (but not fatal to the story).
With re-newed interest in all things witchy and dark, this film deserves to be discovered and re-discovered by old and new audiences...... IT'S STILL A HOOT !

I really wanted to like this movie. It has a nice prison setting, conspiracy theories, bloodthirsty zombies, a perfectly hideous 80s-touch and it is a directorial effort by actor John Saxon, who also plays a bad (you guessed it) a bad guy. It reminds me of some (beloved) Italian horror flicks. But the direction is very wooden and there is no nightmarish/frightening moment in there. It just goes on and on and on, and then it (logically) has to end. More suspense and more daring visuals and its destiny as a cult classic would have been sealed.
I saw this movie when I was in Israel for the summer. my Hebrew is not fluent, so the subtitles were very useful, I didn't feel lost at any point in the movie. You tend to get used to subtitles after about 5 minutes.
This movie blew me away!!!!!! It depicts two of the most prominent taboos in the middle east today: A homosexual relationship between an Israeli and a Palestinian. It allows a person to enter both realms of the conflict simultaneously. The dilemma, the emotions entailed. The movie climaxes in tragedy when anger and rage drive one of the lovers to one extremist side! an absolute must see!!

I'm not a big fan of rom/coms at the best of times. A few have been quite good (check of Dream for an Insomniac), but this one is just more of the same but less.
With a running time of 100min, I expect more than 1 laugh every 30mins. The only real belly laugh are when male strangers and friends instinctivly help out Lee's character.
All I can say is AVOID. I gaurentee there is at least 10 other movies on the shelf that deserve you $$
3 of out 10 (And only cos I'm a big Lee fan)