Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
If there were two more charming performers than Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith appearing together in a more charming movie in 1968, I don't know who they were. I first saw this delightful little satiric gem 25 years ago at the age of 16, and I consider any year in which I have failed to sit down to watch it again a wasted one. It's intelligent, quirky, neat, wistful, sweet, gently subversive, and utterly enchanting. The romance of these two social misfits is both richly comic and terribly moving - never more so than in Maggie Smith's desperate attempt to bring up the right card in the deck, a scene that's both ruefully funny and a perfect thumbnail portrait of heartbreaking loneliness. And that final freeze-frame on the anxious, concerned, loving face of Ustinov as he asks, "Are you all right?" - has anyone ever made the look and sound of devotion so perfectly and nakedly honest? I would never want to know anyone well who didn't love this movie.

I had the (mis)fortune to see this film at a showing in the US. Having reluctantly sat through the entire abysmal thing, I am shocked to have seen so many good reviews here on IMDB.
The original film was a turkey, but an interesting one. It fitted into that early seventies, post 1969 revolution thing; this film just stinks of....... , well, nothing really. It's that bad.
Imagine a badly done perfume commercial - see what I mean ?
Madonna never could act, and has been an embarrassment on the big screen for years. She looks worse and worse with every one of those years, increasingly coming to resemble a skinned meerkat.
Guy Ritchie, who has built his "reputation" on Lock Stock, could never direct either - his movies are shallow, badly cut, fashion shows. He doesn't disappoint here either; he wisely cast his wife as the star of this debacle.
Please people, take little heed of the good reviews this movie has received from other posters below. They are quite obviously business plants.
Don't encourage Ritchie to humiliate himself further by giving him money.
William Wyler was to have directed this adaptation of Moss Hart's hit Broadway play with music/ recruiting poster-vivant, but his own military commitments intervened and it went to a most unlikely helmsman: George Cukor. The "women's director" has a sure touch on the many documentary-like sequences of Air Corps training, and he invests it with more unhackneyed humanity than the genre generally allowed, particularly in wartime. Sure, the gee-whiz (and entirely white, save for one unbilled Chinese-American recruit) bunch of newbies are nicer and more wholesome than in real life, and the speechifying about home and Mom and the wife and kid gets pretty thick, but it's efficient propaganda and undeniably stirring. Notable, too, for the all-military male cast, several of whom didn't reemerge for years: Lon McAllister, Edmond O'Brien, Martin Ritt, Red Buttons (in drag, as an Andrews Sister), Peter Lind Hayes, Karl Malden, Kevin McCarthy, Gary Merrill, Lee J. Cobb, and Don Taylor. Also for a very early glimpse of Judy Holliday, who doesn't show up till an hour and a half into the picture but has some good little sequences as O'Brien's worried-sick Brooklyn spouse. Too bad its rights are in a tangle and the only print anyone knows of is 16mm; evidently, after Twentieth Century Fox released it (to considerable success), the rights reverted to the Army, and if there's a good 35mm print out there, it probably lies somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon. It's disingenuous and corny in spots, but it also captures the rigors of military training and the terrors of war vividly, and it deserves to be more widely seen.

There are some things I can never understand. Such as this movie. What if I were to create a really really cheap and crappy looking Dino and crocodile polygon model in Maya and then proceed to cut and paste that into an amateur video clip having people scream and getting eaten by the same thing? How can anyone even believe that an utterly fake CGI dinocroc that looks completely out of place, would influence the events in this movie? I know that its B-grade, low budget and all but the producers could do better than making a piece of crap that no one will ever seen see or sit through. It just does'nt make sense. Are people really so stupid that they would sit through this? Apparently so. For laughs? No, this thing isn't even worth laughing at.
Im going to keep this fairly brief as to not spoil anything for you. This movie is awesome. From beginning to end, it is filled with genuine thrills. The fight scenes are fantastic, the chase scenes are enthralling, and it moves at such a pace that it really only felt slow toward the end when things are explained, but that is only because everything that preceded it. Damon shines and really has proved a very solid actor, daring you not to believe him in this role. He is this role. A welcome addition to the series in David Straithrain (hope i spelled that close to right) as a seedy CIA agent out to kill Bourne. This is non stop and will truly leave you on the edge of your seat for most of the way. Some things toward the end are just a smidgeon preposterous, thus negating a 10 rating. The ending is left open for sequels and I sure hope that they consider doing more of these, for none have been bad. Excellent film all in all and a fantastic ending to an amazing trilogy.
P.S. The shaky cam did not hurt any of the action, but I still think we could do without it. The good news is, you only really notice it when people are talking and not so much the action.

FLIGHT OF FURY takes the mantle of being the very WORST Steven Seagal flick I've ever seen...Up to now.
It's a dreadful bore with no action scenes of any interest, Seagal isn't really trying in this - he's fat and his voice is dubbed once more.
The Co-stars fare no better, being a rather sorry load of 3rd raters.
The Direction by Keusch is very poor and it comes as no surprise that he's also responsible for another couple of Seagal stinkers (SHADOW MAN & ATTACK FORCE) The screenplay Co-written by Seagal himself is laughably inept.
According to IMDb $12M was spent on this boring load of old tosh - If these figures are correct I sense a big tax fiddle as nowhere near that amount was spent.
FLIGHT OF FURY is actually a shot for shot remake of the Michael Dudikoff flick BLACK THUNDER - which has to be better than this tripe.
This has NO redeeming qualities whatsoever,Give it a MISS! 1/2 * out of *****
Life Begins is a wonderful pre-code film starring some of the best of the era. It is set in the maternity ward of a hospital, particularly in the room for the women expected to have trouble. In it is an older woman, a tough unwed mother (Glenda Farrell), a frail young woman, an Italian woman, and the main character (Loretta Young) who is spending 20 years in prison for murder. Her husband (Eric Linden) is at the hospital at every second aching to know that everything will be okay. Aline MacMahone plays the nurse who is great at her job.
This film is highly interesting and entertaining. It isn't terribly shocking in any way, but it is interesting to see such a neglected subject on the silver screen. The acting is brilliant all around. Loretta Young is gorgeous here in her prime. Eric Linden comes out of nowhere and is sincere as can be. His innocence is reminiscent of Michael J. Fox. Glenda Farrell is great as always, a staple of pre-codes and for good reason.

Not the greatest film to remember Paul Naschy by.
Gaston (Guillermo Bredeston) is probably the worst swordsman I have ever seen. Zorro would be ashamed! His only salvation came as the competition was just as bad.
This film is described as adventure and horror. Forget the horror - there is none. No nudity, no blood, no monsters; just a Robin Hood adventure against an evil Baron (Paul Naschy) who wants to be King.
The main feature of the film was seeing Graciela Nilson, who only made four films in two years and disappeared to our regrettable loss. Where did she go?
Busy Phillips put in one hell of a performance, both comedic and dramatic. Erika Christensen was good but Busy stole the show. It was a nice touch after The Smokers, a movie starring Busy, which wasnt all that great. If Busy doesnt get a nomination of any kind for this film it would be a disaster. Forget Mona Lisa Smile, see Home Room.

This film was terrible. I have given it the high score of 2 as I have seen worse, but very few.
From the clichéd start of having the end of the film at the start and going back to the start at the end this film used everything in the box of tricks used in film making just for the sake of it, like a kid with too many toys. There was the endless, boring repetitive narration, slow motion, freeze frame, flashbacks and merged images etc - none of which made a dull film any better.
It is called "16 years of alcohol", but there was little drinking or drunkeness and no depiction of withdrawal with the film jumping about all over the place with no coherent sense. The story was badly written and extremely pretentious and the direction was equally poor and it is a shame that people have put up further money for more films by Mr Jobson, previously know for being in a rubbish group and on TV making as much sense as this film does.
I found it a major struggle to see this to the end but in the hope of it getting better I carried on to the bitter but it really was a waste of time and I would have been better off not bothering.
Well the main reason I tuned in to watch this film is because it was done by Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park fame. However as soon as the film started the laughs started erupting from my belly. From the subtle gestures towards a joke, to the blatant toilet humour throughout, along with a constant reliance on some very witty innuendo. This film could ruin event he sternest mans poker face, let alone his poker underwear. Some of the funniest blink and you'll miss it jokes ever portrayed in Hollywood, along with constant critique of themselves thrown into the bargain.
I just goes to show that not only is Trey Parker adept at writing he's not too shabby at the old acting game either. I was surprised with the amount that I was absorbed in this film. However I'm quite worried that it is not available to buy over the internet, here in the UK. Sort it out boys!
I am, and will continue to show it to all my friends annoyingly pointing out the funny bits, and occasionally snorting into my lager. All in all an excellent film if you are a fan of unnecessary comedy. However if you have no sense of humour about silly or rude things steer well clear! However I'm sure the inclusion of Jenny McCarthy and Jasmine Bleeth could have you gurgling past those prejudices.

I watched this today, partially attracted to the all-star cast and partly because I have enjoyed so many other films of this ilk. However, this is one to avoid. There are dozens of badly cut scenes where the continuity just does not flow, the billiards challenge at the start, for example. The fighting scenes with the natives are about as good as you would remember in those old black and white Tarzan movies, you know where you see a spear fly through the air and camera cuts to a dead native lying motionless on the floor with it sticking from his thigh. Is that instantaneous death? There are also several quite unnecessary scenes which have nothing to do with the plot, like the little girl being rescued while collecting flowers. The really badly animated clay toys are too painful to watch. If you do see this movie the crabs which inch forward at about 5kph are the highlight. Somehow one manages to creep up on David Mccullum and give him a nip. Its as if there was no time to get out of the way, like when the obelisk in the city falls over, the native has all the time in the world to take a 2 step to the left, but no he screams and it falls on him. I only give this a 2 because of Ekland. And why does Mccullums voice develop a stutter as the movie progresses?
John Waters has given us a genuinely enjoyable film. This certainly isn't without its shocking Waters-esque moments, but it is tamer than his older culty stuff, such as "Pink Flamingoes". "Pecker" harkens back to John's early mainstream stage in that it reminds the viewer of the same kind of humor that was evident in "Polyester". Overall, a really fun comedy with some great moments!

I rented this DVD having seen it while looking for something else. When I saw the title on the jacket I couldn't believe my eyes. I read Yalom's book about a year ago and loved it, in fact admire Yalom's work in general. (I am a clinical psychologist.) I have watched perhaps 30 minutes of this movie and have had to turn it off. I'm not sure if I can take much more. At a superficial level, the faux accents, as others have commented, are simply distracting at best and irritating and vapid at worst. The acting is dull when it should be passionate and comical when it should be serious. The portrayal of Lou Salome is simply flippant, and the brilliant Freud comes off as little more than a schoolboy. I see very little of the book's spirit conveyed thus far. I had hoped to be able to recommend this film to my students. Instead, I will refer them to the book. Imagine that.
Besides Planes, Trains and Automobiles and Uncle Buck, this is John Candy's funniest movie. When he gets hypnotized with the playing card (similar to the Manchurian Candidate) and becomes a horny guy who does not know what he is saying, he makes two very memorable quotes (Both deal with the male anatomy). The love scene involving grocery items has to be seen, it cannot be described.

Jack Black is an annoying character.This is an annoying indie movie for 14 year olds.Do I have to write eight more lines?Ana de la Reguera is dang fine to look at,as a Mexican nun who puts up with the rather forward and rude advances of Jack Black.This movie is a PG 13 version of an indie film.I really like a movie that has the courage to explore Mexican culture.This movie explores Mexican culture-deeply. I just choke on its cultural rudeness:Jack Black is just so rude. A white person like Jack Black is not my most valuable emissary into Mexican culture, as it were.Mexican Wrestling culture is not the most diaphanous venue a white guy, such as myself could seek.I suspect Mexico is more culturally opaque than Jack Black has presented here.
I think IMDb changed my review.Has anyone else had his review changed as well?Just a question.
This film caught me by surprise. My friend told me that this movie was a "chick flick." Boy, was he wrong! This movie has a great family appeal, with no sex scenes like _other_ movies. Jake Gyllenhaal does an excellent job in Homer Hickam's shoes. The supporting cast is great, as well.
Science, coming-of-age, family quarrels, a great train scene... This film has it all. The soundtrack is good, although the score is presented quite choppily. The 50s music kicks the movie over the edge of greatness.
The DVD is definitely worth its weigh in coal. Replay value is great - I've seen it quite a few times already.

This Is Pretty Funny. "Saturday The 12th", a?... Great Work... I Laughed Every Minute of the movie... This Is Like "Scary Movie" for the 1980's. great STUDENT BODIES-styled gags...
Too Bad This Isn't On Video... But You Can Still Watch It on FLIX...
With all this stuff going down at the moment with MJ i've started listening to his music, watching the odd documentary here and there, watched The Wiz and watched Moonwalker again. Maybe i just want to get a certain insight into this guy who i thought was really cool in the eighties just to maybe make up my mind whether he is guilty or innocent. Moonwalker is part biography, part feature film which i remember going to see at the cinema when it was originally released. Some of it has subtle messages about MJ's feeling towards the press and also the obvious message of drugs are bad m'kay.
Visually impressive but of course this is all about Michael Jackson so unless you remotely like MJ in anyway then you are going to hate this and find it boring. Some may call MJ an egotist for consenting to the making of this movie BUT MJ and most of his fans would say that he made it for the fans which if true is really nice of him.
The actual feature film bit when it finally starts is only on for 20 minutes or so excluding the Smooth Criminal sequence and Joe Pesci is convincing as a psychopathic all powerful drug lord. Why he wants MJ dead so bad is beyond me. Because MJ overheard his plans? Nah, Joe Pesci's character ranted that he wanted people to know it is he who is supplying drugs etc so i dunno, maybe he just hates MJ's music.
Lots of cool things in this like MJ turning into a car and a robot and the whole Speed Demon sequence. Also, the director must have had the patience of a saint when it came to filming the kiddy Bad sequence as usually directors hate working with one kid let alone a whole bunch of them performing a complex dance scene.
Bottom line, this movie is for people who like MJ on one level or another (which i think is most people). If not, then stay away. It does try and give off a wholesome message and ironically MJ's bestest buddy in this movie is a girl! Michael Jackson is truly one of the most talented people ever to grace this planet but is he guilty? Well, with all the attention i've gave this subject....hmmm well i don't know because people can be different behind closed doors, i know this for a fact. He is either an extremely nice but stupid guy or one of the most sickest liars. I hope he is not the latter.

I expected to enjoy a romantic comedy featuring Hip Hop, but was disappointed on many levels. First of all, the story is so badly recycled as to make it almost unbearable. Second, the setting, acting and story are not very authentic or believable. Third, there are a lot more good black actors to choose from than these standard picks. How about some originality? Third, there were very few Hip Hop songs played in entirity - if any. None seemd really central. Overall, film was a great disappointment, but the editing style was very interesting and almost made the film worthwhile.
this film was almost a great imaginative film. A mixture of shakespeare, pop, jazz, and faerie tales. This movie was an imaginative twist on the Cinderella theme. Featuring a strong cast, headed by the perfectly cast Kathleen Turner, this movie had everything going for it. Everything but production values. I almost never think that a movie needs special effects or big budgets, but with an over the top production like this, it came off with the same seedy quality as every other made for tv movie. Besides better cinematography, this film was almost perfect.

After watching this on the MST3K episode, I have to wonder how many movies this film borrows from. It seems to combine elements of Logans Run, Farenheight 451, Final Sacrifice and at least several others. At one point I was really expecting Cris Makepease to call Lee Majors ROWSDOWER.
I wonder if the director has any clue how many holes there are in the plot. like the fact that, even though gas is unavailable, there is plenty of it in abandoned gas stations, and the stations are located close enough together to keep an F1 race car going all the way across the country.
A surprise thriller with more twists and double crosses than a doodle pad. A great cast mixing it up with an intriguing plot overseen by a Twin Peaks-ish influence in director Dahl. Nicholas Cage is a very underrated actor and shows a great portrayal of a man in a bind looking for the right thing to do. J.T. Walsh (RIP to a great actor) is always a wonderful villain, as is Dennis Hopper. It's such a shame he never made to a higher profile in the biz. I'm sure he has his followers, though. In all, this is a great film that shows you that you don't need big bangs or a commercial soundtrack to be an entertaining film.

Firstly, I won't tell you WHY I rented this movie, as I'm still confused myself...
Air Rage is much like any movie I've seen where a plane is hijacked. There is of course that one important person on the plane, and the hijacker looking for revenge. The sad thing is, some of the methods to stop the hijackers have already been used in other movies. Are we really becoming so unoriginal so quickly?
Although it's Ice-T (who for some incomprehensible reason makes painful attempts at ACTING while he's not busy putting the "c" back in front of rap) who is glorified on the cover, the movie actually stars the less than amazing Kim Oja as a stewardess who is 'surprisingly' OVERLOOKED by the five hijackers, which naturally comes back to haunt them. As for the rest of the cast, the only person I managed to recognize was Steve Hytner, more commonly known as Kenny Bania from "Seinfeld".
I can't forget to leave out my favorite part of the movie, when a hijacker used about a POUND of PLASTIQUE to blow a lock off a door... BRILLIANT.
The plot was unnaturally predictable.
The script - atrocious. It got to the point where I could say something, which I felt would make a stupid comment, and it would be the next line in the movie.
As for special effects... the only thing special about this movie is that I wasted the cost of electricity to run my TV and VCR for 100 minutes.
And the title - the movie DID take place in the Air. But due to the less than stellar performances, the only Rage in the movie was that of the viewer.
So, if you're in the mood to even pick apart a movie, just because it's bad. Please SAVE YOURSELF, don't choose this.
Other reviewers have summarized this film noir well. I just wanted to add to the "Whew!" comment one reviewer made regarding Elisha Cook's obviously coke-fuelled drumming episode. This WAS a doozy, I must say. Cook deserved some acclaim for his frenzied performance.
A bit of trivia that I am surmising about: Cook appeared as a waiter in the 1941 Barbara Stanwyck film, "Ball of Fire." He was a waiter in the nightclub where Barbara was singing and legendary drummer Gene Krupa was drumming, most energetically. Is it too much to suggest that Cook's spazzy drumming in the later film, "Phantom Lady," was very much inspired by Krupa's work, as witnessed by Cook 3 years earlier?
If you watch Krupa in "Ball of Fire," I think you'll note some clearly similar body movements. One hopes, of course, that HE was not influenced by any drugs at the time!

This film was a waste of time, even rented on DVD. If super-speedy camera shots get any faster than this, we might as well pay twenty bucks to get in the laundromat, get popcorn, and watch the dryer spin. Jet Li is so much better than this. One can only hope that he won't be making deals anytime soon to make another cliche-ridden film like The One.
If there's one film you should avoid, this is "The One".