Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Three flash-backs introduce the main characters (Abu, Jaffar, and the Princess) who will interact with Ahmad; three are the songs, each linked to those same characters. Three times does Ahmad pronounce the absolute word 'Time', in his declaration of love to the Princess, answering her three questions at their first of three meetings. So strong is the impression he causes, that the Princess will resist the three attempts by Jaffar to conquer her - by three successive ploys: deceit, hypnosis, and memory erasing. Yet, Jaffar owns what he describes as the three inescapable instruments of domination over a woman: the whip, the power, and the sword. Three is the number of flying entities: the mechanical-horse, the Genie, and the The Genie and the magic carpet. The Genie offers three wishes to Abu at their first of three encounters; three times does the Genie laugh loud in the mountain gorges, and three are his considerations about human frailty, before he departs. Abu overcomes three obstacles in the Temple of Dawn (armed guards, giant-spider, and giant-octopus). Three are the instruments of justice: the magical eye that shows Abu the future, the magical carpet that transports him just in time to save Ahmad and the Princess, and the bow-and-arrow to execute Jaffar. There's magic in the number three, and there is magic in this movie.

My original review of this film was simply the word sh*t written 2000 times over. Although this was a very accurate critique, I felt my review should be a little more descriptive.
I will start with the lead actress; her facial expression doesn't change once in this film, she doesn't show fear, happiness or depression. Her skills in body language pretty much come down to darting her eyes left and right and looking like she don't know jack. She is an emotionless husk who I'm guessing has had too much botox. Her lack of facial expression through out the film is outmatched however by the deplorable love affair with the lead actor which seems to spring out of nowhere and has them making out on a beach and falling in love within a couple of hours of meeting one another. The lead actor, whose hair demands more attention than he did, was mediocre at best and did not once make me feel like he was genuinely in peril.
The only thing that tops the hideous acting is the directing, storyline and inaccuracies in plot. I have seen tampon ads with more structure than this movie. The is no development in character, they just seem to say and do things that I could never believe a real person would.
This film would not have been bad if it was trying to be crap on purpose like snakes on a plane but it was trying so hard to be a serious action flick that I couldn't even laugh. I believe I now have a brain tumour from watching this film and thinking up all the different ways I could have used that budget and cg team to create something far superior. If I bought this on DVD I would smash the DVD to pieces, burn it then dissolve it in hydrochloric acid for good measure. DON'T WATCH THIS FILM!
The way the story is developed, keeps the audience wondering what is the tenant's dark past. We get some clues during the series, but enough to keep us interested in the mini-series. The characters are all believable and I personally felt immersed and surrounded by the story.

Anita and Me seems to be little more than an excuse for Meera Syal, the author of the novel and screenplay, to air her prejudices, grievances and general antipathy towards the English. The general sentiment of Indian superiority over the English in this film is foul.
The English people in this film are portrayed as overweight, violent, foul-mouthed, promiscuous, engaging in child neglect, stupid, uneducated, racist, ugly, eating poor food, and dim-witted -- tellingly, only by turning to Indian culture can the local priest be "redeemed" at the end of the film.
By contrast, the Indian family are beautiful, clever, educated, can speak many languages, are caring and loving parents, and grammar-school fodder. The film is so insidiously prejudicial that I am astonished the BBC funded it at all. Had it been the other way round, an English family in an Indian community depicted this way, the film would have been seen as racist.
There were a few moments where my eyebrow shot so far up my forehead, I thought it would lodge in my hairline. First, the gossip scene between the women at the Divali celebration -- undertext: the English are dirty and promiscuous -- and the men -- undertext: English women are prostitutes. Second, the meal with Anita where Neema's family lie to her about cutlery -- undertext: the English are so stupid, you can make them do anything.
But the underlying contempt towards anything English -- even English weddings are an object of scorn -- is evident all the way through the film. The character of Anita was drawn so appallingly -- almost the fallen woman trope -- that I finished the film feeling angry.
This is not a "Bend it like Beckham" where the humour is focused on loving exaggerations of a community's behaviour and customs from somebody within that community, and is a film about two girls from different backgrounds coming together. Instead, Anita and Me seems to convey that a form of cultural apartheid is inevitable, as the English are almost an version of the Indian Untouchable caste, and this is underscored by a thinly-veiled series of attacks upon the film's "other" community: the English.
I felt Anita and Me is a hate-filled, grievance-based piece of work. On that basis, the BBC should not have funded its production.
This film was Excellent, I thought that the original one was quiet mediocre. This one however got all the ingredients, a factory 1970 Hemi Challenger with 4 speed transmission that really shows that Mother Mopar knew how to build the best muscle cars! I was in Chrysler heaven every time Kowalski floored that big block Hemi, and he sure did that a lot :)

I read some comments on the internet about this film like "...harder then Hostel...", "the camera never screens of when it's getting really brutal...". But none of them is true. The camera never screens of, because there is nothing to screen of. The same scene is repeated hundred and hundred times again. Women lies on a table, killer rapes women a few times, killer cuts women into pieces (you never see this during the whole film!). Police come and arrested him. Killer fools the jury. Film over. In Germany we would say :"Viel Lärm um Nichts". All in all, one of the most boring films I ever see. Absolutely non-recommendable.
A beautiful postcard of New York. The thing I enjoyed most was being able to watch this with my whole family and not cringe waiting for a stupid toilet humor joke to appear. It never did. My teenagers liked it too. My son for Natasha Henstridge and my daughter for Michael Vartan. My wife and I commented that we could not remember the last time we could sit with the kids and ALL enjoy something. This film told a story that felt comfortable but not old or done. The ending came with a twist which we all liked too. If you are not just a cynical person and have are willing to let a story unfold then this is for you. As a guy it takes a lot to hold my interest when it comes to romantic movies and this one did. I recommend it and we need more of these films to watch.

The writer/director of this film obviously doesn't know anything about film. I think the DP on this project was tied up and replaced with a monkey, because every seen was either too dark or had the hotter hot spots than the sun.
The story was awful, the characters were very one dimensional. For someone to have said that this film was made for poker fans and not film fans, that someone is kidding their self (it was probably the writer/director). No poker fan in this world likes this movie. Even your money man hates this project. To go into a casino and play a few hands doesn't give you the experience to write about poker. Keep your day job. And if it's playing poker, then you must be hurt'n.
Now I had the pleasure of first viewing Contaminated Man when it premiered on TV back in December of 2000.
An infectious disease expert (William Hurt) looses his family when an unknown disease enters his home and kills them. Now some years later he is now in Russia or someplace. I'm not sure where exactly, all I know is it takes place somewhere in that area. Anyway, because of budget cutbacks at an infectious disease laboratory, they are forced to lay off most of their workers. One of them, a disgruntled security guard named Joseph Muller (played Peter Weller, best known for his role as the indestructible Robocop) goes in there and demands that they give him his job back. He needs this job because he is divorced and he needs it to pay child support. So he goes in there, a fight breaks out, and some things get knocked over, dangerous things. It's soon discovered that Muller has been infected with a deadly pathogen. In fact it's so deadly, one drop of his blood will kill a person in matter of seconds. Soon word gets out and the disease expert (Hurt) is called in to investigate and he later teamed up with an American reporter. Now Muller is determined to get home to see his wife and son and will stop at nothing even if he has to infect the entire Russian population.
Now as I said before this film is a lot like Falling Down. We have a disturbed person (Weller here, Michael Douglas in Falling Down) who will stop at nothing to accomplish there goal even if they have to kill a few people in the process. Next we have a hero-type person (Hurt here, Robert Duvall in Falling Down) who is both sympathetic and determined to stop the antagonist.
Contaminated Man is in fact a very good film with a good story line and some very good performances.
8/10

This movie is absolutely pointless, one of the good esamples how Malcom McDowall never got one decent role after Clockwork Orange. This one may be one of the worst though. No story, crappy special effects, shot in 4:3/or even worse cropped on DVD, just avoid it ....
I hand't seen the restored, or any version for that matter, of "Baby Face" with Barbara Stanwyck till I caught it on TCM. What a great movie! In a nutshell Lily lives in a speakeasy, she's been pimped out by her own Father since she was 14! Then his still blows up and he's killed leaving Lily (Stanwyck) alone cept for her black maid Chico, played very nicely by Theresa Harris. Lily leaves for the big city ( New York) deciding to use her sex to get to the top. She does this in great style!
She seduces a pudgy clerk to get in on the ground floor and proceeds to go through men like disposable candy! One dumps his fiancée and kills his near father-in-law, also Lily's sugar-daddy, then commits suicide! Lily barely blinks! STanwyck is terrific as a girl who really doesn't know what love is.
Then in Paris, she falls for Courtland, played by George Brent, they marry, but when he's in deep financial straights, she bolts. Nearly free with Chico and a half-million, she realizes she loved Court! Lily races to find him, but will she be too late?
This is pre-code Hollywood at its best. Stanwyck is tremendous and the look and music in the film are perfect. This reminded me of "Original Sin" with Angelina Jolie, another unfairly ignored flick with an amoral woman, those who disliked that films ultra-romantic leanings, will not like Baby FAce any better, those with belief in sex, love and power, will love it. Highly recommended! See it!

wow i payed £3.50 to go see this movie at the cinema. Cant believe i wasted my time. The acting is cringe worthy at best and the special effects are crude. Probarly the worst script in history some extremely embarrassing quotes i have ever heard in my life. I swear to god 'swept away' is better than this. Madonna should of won and Oscar compared to these guys. An hour and a half of my life i want back. Honestly people don't see this, even toddler would find this movie an insult to their intelligence. i found this movie very strange in the fact that it was hard to tell who is more wooden, theses guys here of the actual puppets. pleas guys don't waste your time on this movie you will live to regret it.
I'm not a writer or an critic...I'M just a student that has seen this movie few minutes ago....AND I want to thank people that worked on creating this movie!It is not the best or the most.... but it touched my heart...why???i would like to understand it myself...it is easy and accessible..it is a movie that makes you feel good after a bad day without any regret about the time wasted on watching it!It is about love and caring, about the life that we have but we miss it sometimes because of material stuff .......Look at all the time that we have but we miss it....why a fu*k do we do that???We need to live like were dying ...care about every second and remember:if we do good things-good things come back to us!HAppiness is real...and it has a special taste in New York...i love this town and the world the we live in!!!!thank you very much for the movie and sorry for my mistakes(English is my second language)...

Basically a typical propaganda film for the last good war. But there were a couple things that struck me. First was the use of mouthed epithets. In two cases the Scott character mouths one, once at the beginning when he drops his bomb off target during the bomb-off ("dammit") and once when he is trying to sway a bombardier into being a pilot ("s*%t"). I could be wrong about the second instance but I replayed it several times and that's what it looks like to me. The third case is when the Anne Shirley character wishes the O'Brien character goodbye and good luck ("Give 'em hell") over the roar of the engines. She must have thought that was too unladylike because she clearly says "heck". I also found interesting the character that has moral problems with bombing, specifically bombing civilians. The avuncular superior officer assures him that only military targets will be hit due to the precision of the bombsight used. Given what we know about the LeMay's later strategy of firebombing Japanese cities into oblivion this scene plays with not a little irony. I remember McNamara's quoting of LeMay in "The Fog of War", something to the effect that if the US did not win the conflict he would be tried as a war criminal. The ending is way overwrought, in keeping with the movie. It reminded me a bit of the end of White Heat (I'm not comparing the films, just the ending!). Maybe it's just 'cause he gets blowed up. Blowed up real good!!!
It's just such a joy to have watched this intriguing project. So refreshing and educating. Not only to a filmmaker, who can learn what can be achieved in 5 minutes of screen time, but also as audience, who may not be so ready for so much love in such short time.
20 short films about love in Paris are all unique, but some of them, as expected, stand out. I thought the Tom Tykwer (Natalie Portman) segment was the best, although the mimes made me smile inside just the same.
I clicked on "spoilers" option for this review bus alas...what you read is a spoiler enough. Just watch it. Don't read what I write, but watch the movie instead.
And smile.

As a movie critic for several Dutch websites, I have to see lot's of movies, and not all very good ones. Some movies are so bad, you won't be surprised that they are released straight on video. With taboo, Iám surprised that it is released on video at all. This is really low budget bad quality bad written rubbish.
A group of youngsters plays a game of taboo. They write down their most sickening wish or act, and later on people are murdered for their taboo's. The question is, should we believe what we see?
The movie has a potential interesting plot-twist, and I won't give it away here. But what could have been interesting stays stupid, bad acted and without any reason.
Some of the actors have played in bigger titles before, so why on earth did they sign up for this? If you see this anywhere, try to dodge it. There is no logic, no human sense of quality in this movie.
I enjoyed this movie. Unlike like some of the pumped up, steroid trash that is passed off as action movies, Playing God is simple and realistic, with characters that are believable, action that is not over the top and enough twists and turns to keep you interested until the end.
Well directed, well acted and a good story.

Shame Shame Shame on UA/DW for what you do!
I was appalled.
Do NOT take kids to see this movie. The humor is totally inappropriate for children - plus they'll be bored and disappointed. Certainly *we all* have read Theo's wonderful children book and certainly we have expectations...but this is pure trash. Dr. Seuss would be ashamed and certainly would've never given his "thumbs up" at such a dastardly attempt to capitalize on a classic.
What a pity.
Spend your money on the book. If you own a copy, then buy the book and donate it to a Toys for Tots program. This movie is NOT worth a "free" ticket viewing.
Stick with the book. The tv cartoon version works well if you want a visual portrayal - save your money...seriously. SAVE your money - it will be on cable by saint patty's day.
Shame shame shame on what they do!!
That was definitely the case with Angels in the Outfield. It was on TV last night and I believe I hadn't seen the film since my sophomore year in high school and I'm now in my 4th year of college. Although the film has many flaws, it is just so touching that you can't help but sit down, watch it, and enjoy yourself. It is also hilarious. Danny Glover's ranting is just so over the top that you can't help but laugh out loud at him at most time. It adds to the film and I'm sure it's exactly what the director wanted. You actually feel for the characters in the film even though the development isn't the best. A must see. I highly recommend.
8/10

I rented this movie last week. I saw Kevin Spacey and Morgan Freeman were on it, so it seemed promising. And it was, until Justin Timberlake came on scene. He is a really bad actor and shouldn't be allowed to make a movie ever again. I mean, he is one of the most boring, uninspired actors I've ever seen. He puts absolutely no emotion to any of his lines whatsoever. Why the hell was he cast for the role of Josh Pollack? I think Matt Damon would have been a better choice.
Kevin Spacey was another big disappointment. His character is so dull, it seems like a bad mix of his character in American Beauty and John Doe in Se7en. It might sound cool, but believe me, it's not.
Now, Dylan McDermott's acting is very good. It's about one of the very few good things about this movie. He is just inspired.
Morgan Freeman is good but nothing special. He has some really cool lines though.
About the story, although it was a bit obvious and exaggerated at times it was good. I was expecting a big twist when Lazerov (Dylan McDermott) was killed, but nothing really happened.
A patchwork about 911. The 11 stories from 11 directors from 11 countries are sometimes humoristic, sometimes boring (the first one, for example), sometimes used to say to Americans "we have had more deaths than you, and you supported the murderers", sometimes really weird (but highly symbolic and interesting). I really loved the Claude Lelouch (personal live of a couple in New-York, showing that our day-to-day "problems" are unimportant), Shoei Imamura (bizarre, strongly anti-wars in general), and Idrissa Ouedraogo (funny, typical African optimism despite terrible day to day misery), and Youssef Chahine (an Egyptian intellectual, pro-peace, having moral difficulties to accept the U.S. policy towards Arab countries) I am really pleased to see that many Americans liked this movie. It shows that we (or they ? I am still Belgian, but living in Texas for 12 years) are still interested by other cultures, and able to question past and present actions of our government, like we should in a democracy.

One hour, eight minutes and twelve seconds into this flick and I decided it was pretty lame. That was right after Hopalong (Chris Lybbert) drops on his horse from a tree to rejoin the good guy posse. I was pretty mystified by the whole Hopalong Cassidy/Great Bar 20 gimmick which didn't translate into anything at all. Obviously, the name Coppola in the credits couldn't do anything to guarantee success here, even with more than one listed.
If you make it to the end of the film, you'll probably wind up asking yourself the same questions I did. What exactly was the hook with the gloves? What's up with the rodeo scenario? Who was The Stranger supposed to represent? Why did they make this film?
I could probably go on but my energy's been drained. Look, there's already a Western called "The Gunfighter" from 1950 with a guy named Gregory Peck as the title character. Watching it will make you feel as good as watching this one makes you feel bad. That one I can recommend.
I have been eagerly anticipating the opening of this film for several months. Being a huge Jim Carrey fan, I easily saw how he could morph himself into Seuss' Grinch and make the character his own. I was not disappointed.
This movie was pure magic. Carrey is a master at his trade and no one could have played this role to perfection as he did. There was plenty to enjoy for both adults and children alike and this movie is sure to become a timeless classic for all to enjoy in the years to come. I already have visions of my young daughter sitting down year after year to watch this remake on video, and I undoubtedly will watch with her and laugh as I did the first time I saw it.
Clearly, this movie has Jim Carrey written all over it, and I do not believe that it would have come together without him. However, the supporting cast was charming and entertaining in their own right, most notably the adorable Taylor Momsen who was the perfect foil for Carrey's antics. The set design, musical score and costumes all lent their hands to a magical, fabulous finished product and I believe all involved can be proud.
It is not an easy feat to turn a 22 minute cartoon classic into a full length live action film, but Howard has succeeded with flying colours. For those critics who disagree, perhaps it is your hearts that are 2 sizes too small.

Jeff Lowell has written & directed 'Over Her Dead Body' poorly. The idea is first of all, is as stale as my jokes and the execution is just a cherry on the cake.
Minus Eva Longoria Parker there is hardly anything appealing in this film. Eva looks great as ever and delivers a likable performance.
Paul Rudd looks jaded and least interested. Lake Bell is a complete miscast. She looks manly and delivers a strictly average performance. Jason Biggs is wasted, so is Lindsay Sloane.
I expected entertainment more from this film. Sadly, I didn't get entertained.
Rated NR(would be Rated R for Pervasive Strong Language and Crude Sexual Humor). Quebec Rating:16+(should be 13+) Canadian Home Video Rating:18A
Eddie Murphy Delirious is Eddie's first stand up comedy routine.This came out in 1983.Back then he starred in the movie 48 hrs and Trading Places and he was on Saturday Night Live.Eddie made two stand up comedy films.Delirious and Raw.I preferred Raw because I just found the subject matter to be more humorous.Delirious however is also very funny with Eddie talking about his childhood and making fun of celebrities such as Mr.T and singers such as Michael Jackson.Any fan of stand-up comedy films should see Eddie Murphy's Delirious.

Wow it's ironic since this movie has been out for awhile I think that someone else JUST reviewed it a couple days ago.
Anyways, I watched this movie simply because it has Nick Stahl, for the record.
The movie was ridiculous. The characters drove me INSANE, they were SO Cliché and STEREOTYPED. This movie had some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard. It had way too many plot twists too.
There is ONE scene in the movie worth seeing however, the scene: "Warm heart, cold gun" where Nick Stahl kills the obnoxious girl in the shower. (Well, actually they were all obnoxious.) But his acting in that scene was excellent. The look on his face, it reminded my of American Psycho (a good movie). The scene is worth seeing but not worth seeing the rest of the movie for, do yourself a favor and don't watch it.