Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
This is one of those movies that they did too much promoting for. If you watch T.V., then you might as well not watch the movie. Almost all the funny scenes are spoiled in the previews, except one which just happens to be Jennifer Annisten being the funny one. It is typical Jim Carrey humor and it is really funny. Just don't go see this movie expecting to be surprised. All in all, if you like Jim Carrey or comedies this is a must-see, otherwise just watch the previews and you'll be just as satisfied.

What happened? 'Doubt' had so much potential to be a brilliant film - but instead it faltered with a dragging simplistic plot line which made me want to stop watching. The only thing the film had going for it was the brilliance of Meryl Streep, who no DOUBT deserved the Oscar-nomination. Though it was not one of her best performances, she still gave a solid and truthful character to us which blossomed through the screen.
However, not even the brilliance of a screen legend could save this film from going down hill. From the boring start, which had no power or punch - to the less than convincing ending, the film was truly a disappointment - especially since it provided so much potential through its promotion and trailers. It was obvious the director had trouble with the simplicity of the plot and he ended up with a boring film, which dragged on for too long, with too much talk and not enough action.
Furthermore, the other Oscar-nominations were less than convincing. Though Philip Seymour Hoffman gave a decent performance, it was by no means Oscar-worthy. (Especially since they completely left out performances such as Will Smith, in Seven Pounds). Amy Adams did not deserve the nomination. Watching Amy Adams was like watching a cardboard box - as it was one sided and plain. It would have made more sense to nominate her for a Razzie, as I am sure she would have walked away victorious. Viola Davis gave a short but truthful performance, but the length of her performance made me question whether the academy really should have given her the nomination.
Overall, I consider Doubt to be one of the most disappointing films of 2008. It was a mess of a film with so much potential, and I do not recommend it. The only shining light in the film is Meryl Streep, who though gives a stunning, solid performance - doesn't even do enough to save this film. *** / 10.
Return To The 3th Chamber is the comedic sequel to the epic 36th Chamber Of Shaolin, in which Gordon Liu played Shan Te, a young man who became a monk and awesome fighter. In this sequel Liu plays a hapless loser who has to learn kung fu after causing his friends to be beaten. He imitates the original Shan Te, tries all manner of tricks to get into Shaolin Temple to learn and eventually gets some unique skills to fight some bullying bosses. Its a classic light hearted martial arts tale, with the ace production values of the Shaw Brothers and the sure footed direction of Lui Chia Liang. The choreography is fantastic throughout, whether for fighting or slapstick comedy and Gordon Liu's performance, as are the others, particularly the sympathetic monk work perfectly for the material. The film is less epic or profound than some of the stars other work and there are certainly grander, more violent and sweeping Shaw Brothers films. But few have such a magical blend of slapstick, unique training and fighting, with a subtle yet warming tale of a useless guy making good. Full of light hearted joy, its impossible not to give this the highest score.

I watch bad movies.
This movie is not good enough to be a bad movie. Not an ounce of humor, not an ounce of talent throughout.
I am LAZY.
Usually, I see a bad movie and curse. This was so bad, I actually made a review to try and save others from the completely boring mess I fell victim to.
I am smashing my copy of this movie.
It's too lame even to use clear a room. So boring. Watch 'Bloodsucking Freaks' or 'Shock, shock, shock' for absolute crap that has some merit as entertainment. This sludge looks awful, is awful, and whoever made it should feel awful.
As did others in this forum, when "Fobidden Planet" was offered in 1956, I rushed to see it. This story is an interesting phenomenon I suggest because young, old, male, female, sci-fi experts and people who find such fare 'way out" all can follow and enjoy this film's story and plot lines very well. This is the first movie set on a planet other than Earth in the 20th Century other than serials such as "Flash Gordon". Leslie Nielsen was vocally a bit weak for his role, at that time, but Walter Pigeon, Marvin Miller, Anne Francis, Richard Anderson, Earl Holliman and especially Warren Stevens all acquitted themselves very well. There are so many visual splendors in this one, it's hard to choose a favorite from the film's scenes. The approach to Altair-4, the starship itself, the landing on the planet's alien surface, the descent via extensor stairs, the first view of the landscape, the approach of the rocket-sled, Dr. Morbius's house seen from without and from within, the underground complex and its wonders, the setup of the weaponry, the battle with the monster, the final approach of the unseen destroyer,the escape from the doomed planet--all these scenes are etched into the viewer's mind because we discover them along with the participants. Veteran Cyril Hume's literate script was filmed intelligently by long-time director Fred McLeod Wilcox with clarity and imagination. it is a shock to realize there's no music at all; the film is carried by the words, the actors and the mystery-revelation storyline. It can be watched again and again with pleasure--I have been doing so for nearly fifty years. Until this famous and well-loved film was created, no film had tried to imagine a world beyond Earth; and for decades afterward, ships kept crashing back on the planet--as if the writers' imaginations were failing and causing the crashes. Still the best, many say. That says something negative about this nation's so-called intellectual leaders' imaginations--and something very positive indeed I suggest about those who made this gem.

I remember rather enjoying this a few years back but coming to it again, I wonder why. I guess it always looks good and the girls do rather well but the men do rather let the side down. Why oh why in so many English films about sex do we have to have such inept men along side the pretty girls? What is more this begins predictably enough as a sex farce similar in vein to the Confessions films but about a third of the way through (whilst we are beginning to enjoy the presence of the lovely Me Me Lai) the film asks us to start taking it seriously. Not only that but the central rock club and cannabis sequences are very forced and just look stilted. In short this is neither as innocently silly or as intelligently serious as it seems to intend. Richard O'Sullivan maybe, as such a central figure, could have helped but I reckon this to be one of his worst performances. Just worth it for the ladies.
"the day time ended" is an incredible picture. in some ways, it's better than "close encounters of the third kind." (i prefer cheesy independent flicks to big budget spectaculars.) the special effects ARE cheesy, but that's a big part of the fun. jim davis gives an excellent performance in this film. it's probably one of the best roles he ever had in a feature. the musical score is very good. the story DOESN'T make sense. BUT THAT ONLY MAKES IT ALL THE MORE INTRIGUING. like many of the best works of art, "the day time ended" isn't afraid to be subtle and ambiguous. "the day time ended" may be a low budget indie film, but it isn't too much of a stretch to compare it with the "existential" European films of the fifties and sixties. (many of which were low budget independent productions themselves.)

I watched this movie because I like Nicolas Cage and well, I found it strange and completely pointless... so I decided to poke around a little bit and got my hands on the 70s copy of it. Wow. what a difference. The original one was way better. I'd like you all to know it did originally actually make a statement, it's existence did have a purpose. It was really the Christian public expressing their fear of paganism. If you dig deeper into it it also makes comments on life but I don't want to go into details, just, simply put, if you were disappointed and you'd like to know what it SHOULD look like, feel free to watch the 70s version, a little dated, but A lot better.
This film is a wonderfully simplistic work. Enjoyable from start to end it is both sad yet uplifting at the same time. The performances from Miranda Otto (oh, how she deserves so much more recognition!)and George del Hoya are beautiful and yet almost painful to watch, as the two tortured souls come to understand each other. The supporting cast of workers at the Dead Letter Office are wonderful bit-parts in them selves, as is Alice's long-suffering boyfriend, who I couldn't help but feel slightly sorry for. There's one particular scene I could watch over and over (and I have!), it's such a shame that films like these don't get recognition, and therefore bring them futher into the public eye for more people to enjoy. I cried, I laughed and I sighed. I'd recommend this film to anyone.

FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines.
Kubrick proved his brilliantness again, now in a suspense-horror film based on Stephen King's book titled the same way. Jack Torrance is a man in his forties, married, with one child, and with a past of trouble and alcoholism. The Overlook Hotel in Colorado suspends service during the winter because of its extreme weather, and there is a well-paid job for the person who takes care of the facilities during those five months; and Torrance, who was looking to become a writer, found it perfect. But, the manager advised Torrance about the loneliness in this place during the winter, potentially dangerous, and told him that some caretaker in the past went crazy and murdered his family. Even before they got there, his son Danny, who has some sort of imaginary friend who illuminates him the future (shinning), knew the place wasn't good and didn't want to go. Once they installed themselves in the hotel, things started right but within a month, Jack began acting strange, irritated, and depressed. At this point, we know something is going to happen, but don't know when and how. Scary things happen such as the appearance of two twin girls talking to Danny, and someone who attacked him violently. They are not alone in this place. Later on, Jack started to see other people and immediately felt good with them, like if they were his family; among them the famous psychotic caretaker, Delbert Grady. Grady tells Torrance that he must kill his family because they are "intruders" in the hotel. Obeying this order, Jack went for the objective and many of the most scary things I've ever seen happen here. The ending is spectacular and the viewers will stay interested and shocked until the last minute.

When you look at this now and hear all the language in here, it's amazing this was rated "PG," but that's the 1970s rating system for you. Peter Falk spews out the Lord's name in vain six times in the first ten minutes alone in this movie! Yet, few people consider that offensive, and certainly not the scumbags who make movies nor the people who "rate" them.
The cast is a clue to how profane this film can be: Falk, Peter Boyle, Allen Garfield, Warren Oates, Gena Rowlands and Paul Sorvino aren't exactly actors you wouldn't find in "The Sound Of Music."
I like heist movies, and a lot of films by director William Friedkin, but this script doesn't deliver and it just has way too much of the "Sleazy '70s" feel to it, visually and audibly. For those who loved Falk in TV's "Columbo" it must come as a shock to hear him use as much profanity as he did in films. This is far from the only case.
Hello Dave Burning Paradise is a film for anyone who likes Jackie Chan and Indiana Jones. The films main protagonist is most definitely the bastard son of these two strange fathers. As for the other characters well they are familiar transformations of similar action film stereotypes. Where this film is original is in the blending of the traditional Hong Kong movie style with the Hollywood action adventure. Sadly this has not been true of the films he has made in Hollywood.

Should have been titled 'Balderdash!' Little in the film is true except the name of the island and the fact submarines were involved. Little more than training film quality with poor camera work, muddy stock footage and perhaps the low point of stereotyping 'Japs' with laughing Japanese infantry, laughing Japanese fighter pilots and one-dimensional square-jawed Americans dying left and right. Sixty years later it is unintentionally funny as an odd artifact and as an opportunity to see what is possible when the war fever is upon you. The plot and the dialogue remind me of playing guns on a summer's afternoon in my childhood, peering through the neighbor's hedge to gain a fatal advantage on my best friend Steve and my little brother. In actual fact, the Makin Island raid was a near total failure with Carlson and his men wandering around in the dark exchanging gunfire with shadows until finally, thirsty and completely disoriented, looking for someone to surrender to, before they happened upon some equally confused Japanese soldiers who promptly surrendered to them! In the withdrawal several of Carlson's Marines ended up on another island and were abandoned! The film, of course, couldn't tell that story, not in 1943, so this bit of whimsy was fabricated and rushed into release to the beating of drums. With Randolph Scott, and his jaw, as Colonel Thorwald (Carlson) leading a unit comprised almost entirely of stock caricatures, the green recruit (Harry Landon, Robert Mitchum), the grizzled veteran (J. Carroll Naish, Milburn Stone, Sam Levene), the country-bumpkin (Rod Cameron), the all-American boy (Alan Curtis), and scores of sneering (when they weren't laughing) 'Japs'. And yet the cast nearly overcomes the material. Almost. Randolph Scott's narrow range is well suited to his role of earnest commander and he is supported by a solid group of professionals who do their best with thin gruel. But in the end, the one-note object of the exercise wins. Any pretense is totally abandoned at the close when Randy Scott simply looks directly into the camera and delivers a stirring (well sorta stirring) call to arms. The cast was better than this material. So was the audience. Should be viewed with Reefer Madness and a bottle of moderately priced Merlot.
Loosely intended as a satire of D.W. Griffith's Intolerance, The Three Ages was Buster Keaton's first attempt at a full length comedy feature. The only similarities to Intolerance are the opening "book" scene and the fact that similar stories through the ages are edited together into a complete film. Keaton's reasoning for appropriating this style was that if it didn't succeed as a feature film, it could be reduced to three two-reelers. Fortunately, The Three Ages succeeds brilliantly as a comedy and contains some of the funniest routines I've seen in any of Keaton's film. There is nothing unique or daring about the story lines. They are simple boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-gets-girl plots, but the period satires are riotous and set the standard for future works by Mel Brooks and all films of this genre. However, I don't believe that anyone has ever topped this comedy. No one can play the lovable goof like Keaton and the stunts in this film are some of his best. In addition, Wallace Beery's appearance as Keaton's rival adds to this film's appeal. Anyone who thinks that comedy from the 1920's cannot be appreciated by modern audiences needs to see this movie.

This movie is without a doubt the worst horror movie I've ever seen. And that's saying a lot, considering I've seen such stinkers like Demon of Paradise, Lovers' Lane, and Bloody Murder (which is a close second). However, I love bad horror movies, and as you can tell from my username, this one really sticks out. At times there's nothing more entertaining than a poorly made slasher flick. As for this film, the opening scene in which a woman gets fried in a tanning booth appears to have no bearing on the film whatsoever, especially since the movie fails to tell you that the event happened 2 years prior to the rest of the film. The acting is nonexistent, and most of the camera shot are of women's areas shrink wrapped in spandex. The policeman was the most stone-faced, monotone actor I've ever seen. The best/worst part of this movie, however, has to be the murder weapon. A giant safety pin?! What were they thinking? Who's the killer? A disgruntled "Huggies" employee? I'd have to give this movie an overall zero, but darned if I didn't have a blast watching it
Does anyone know what kind of pickup John T drove? I looks like a mid to late 70's Ford. This movie is my favorite as well as my wife's. It was the first memorable movie we saw as a married couple. The pick up is of interest as it is similar to the first truck I drove and recently found another like it. I would like to restore the pick up I have to resemble the on in the movie. Also the music was awesome, and the acting was great. Where and what is the lady who portrayed John's aunt? Also did John have a stunt double for the scene on the tower when he almost fell? Also what year of Mustang did Debra W drive in this show. It looked like a 60's model. Thanks,

Once upon a time there was a science fiction author named H. Beam Piper who wrote a classic book named "Little Fuzzy" which was about a man discovering a race of adorable little fuzzy humanoids on another planet. Mr. Piper died in 1964, but Hollywood and many of today's authors starting looting his grave before his cadaver got cold. This is the book where they got the idea for Ewoks from.
Skullduggery is such a blatant ripoff of "Little Fuzzy" I can wonder why I'm the only who's ever noticed?
But don't take my word for it. Here's a link to Project Guntenberg where you can download a copy of "Little Fuzzy" for free: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18137
Before Lost everything shown on TV was predictable . You could predict who was gonna die or who will find something, but in Lost you could predict NOTHING. Every thing was so surprisingly stunning and it really was a mystery not because it has so many secrets but because there was nothing like it before everything was so great. I literally became addicted to it. LOST is a classic work of art. It gives you something to look forward to every week. It is genius. The surrounding is brilliant it is calm and warm at the beach and so scary in the jungle. The characters are a work of genius every one of them especially the ones already on the island. The castaways are so dramatic yet we can never predict their deaths because they have so much more to do and so much more to say and they have secrets affecting the other castaways that die with them.

This is a candidate for the single most disappointing movie experience of my lifetime. Cool title, excellent director (I saw "To Die For" and "Drugstore Cowboy" before this), and hey - Uma Thurman in the cast. How can you go wrong? Well, that is a question that throbbed in my temples for hours after I watched this turkey.
Disjointed and unfunny in an attempt to be offbeat, this is a dead-zone of a movie that should be avoided at all costs. Its critical lambasting was well deserved. You have here one of those rare films that does not contain a single redeeming quality. Zero out of ****.
Who ever came up with story is one sick person. I rented it for our slumber party sleepover and all six of us got freaked out cause we're all in an acting class together, and we know a couple of the actors from class. Besides everybody screaming the whole freaky night, I had freaky nightmares. I kept thinking oh my God, if I get up to go to the bathroom to pee I'm going to be stabbed in the middle of wiping or something. I couldn't even go to the bathroom because we watched this gruesome horror movie. I also thought why are all the girls topless in this movie but we don't any of the boys units? You should make a horror film where the killer is a girl and chopping off units. I would watch that over and over. Call it hard or soft or something stupid like that. I'm only giving this movie a 9 because you FREAKED ME OUT FREAKS.

As if there weren't enough of those floating around at the time already, we have here another lame GODFATHER clone from the director of IL CONSIGLIORI (1973) which I had watched earlier this year. The marquee-value name roped in this time is Telly Savalas who belatedly enters the proceedings and is first seen from behind, rather campily tending to his flowers and wearing a beret in the style of French painters! Apart from not looking minimally Sicilian, he sports no accent of any kind other than his familiar drawl. Antonio Sabato, then, makes for an unlikely gangster - apart from being a resistible leading man; his relationship with Savalas, which becomes paternal at the flick of an eye, is also unconvincing (especially since he subsequently becomes romantically involved with the latter's spirited teenage niece)! Besides, for a gangster flick, there's precious little action to speak of and none of it is in any way memorable (though the finale set in a clinic is well enough handled); furthermore, the score by Francesco De Masi is serviceable but nothing else. Incidentally, the bargain-basement DVD I rented starts off midway through the credits so that none of the cast members - or even the film's title - is ever listed!
David Duchovney creates a role that he was to replicate somewhat in Californication - the troubled talent. And it is a role he plays well.
This thriller starts off at a good speed and carries you through to the end. Timothy Hutton plays a fine villain and Angelina Jolie pouts. The story of a disgraced doctor finding his way into a criminal world is well scripted. Drug addiction and a desire for the sultry Jolie mix a heady cocktail. Unfortunately towards the end the story gets a little weaker and the relationships between villains and the FBI is muddled and rushed as if it was created only to develop the final scene. But, that aside, a movie worth seeing.

The director tries to be Quentin Tarantino, the screenwriters try to be Tennessee Williams, Deborah Kara Unger tries to be Faye Dunaway, the late James Coburn tries to be Orson Welles, Michael Rooker tries to be Gene Hackman, Mary Tyler Moore tries to be Faye Dunaway (older version), Cameron Diaz tries to get out of the frame as quickly as she can (successfully), don't ask about Joanna Going. Eric Stoltz and James Spader try to conceal their embarrassment with this crappy stuff. It delivers endless, meaningless dialog and very little action.
Tulsa is a town with beautiful elevator lobbies, an art deco church by Bruce Goff and a lovely, sprawling mansion by Frank Lloyd Wright. Visit Tulsa, don't watch this movie. It doesn't do the location justice.