Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
For those of you that don't that reference, clubberin was 4 fists hitting one body...
Anyways, onto the review.
I miss WCW Saturday Night. Some of my favorite wrestling moments took place on this stage. I remember watching Stunning Steve Austin, Rick Rude, Brian Pillman, Cactus Jack, Dustin Rhodes, Johnny B. Badd, DDP in his jobber days, Lord Steven Regal, Harlem Heat, Ricky Steamboat, STING...I'd be here a while listing everyone. Point is WCW had an awesome roster in the pre Hogan days and they were producing entertaining television. Dusty Rhodes on commentary in it's later years gave me a whole new reason to watch when I started smoking pot as a teenager...I really wish Vince would put him on the mic for a show or two, maybe at the next Great American Bash? They CLUBBERIN! Here comes DA PLUNDA! He was great.
-DirrTy

When Rodney Dangerfield is on a roll, he's hilarious. In My 5 Wives, he's not on a roll. The timing of the one-liners is off, but they're the best thing going for the movie. The five women who play the wives don't add up to one whole actress between them. The plot is very weak. Even the premise is pretty weak; there are a few jokes about having multiple wives, but the situation has little to do with anything else in the movie. Most of the movie could play the same way even if Rodney's character had only one wife, so the premise seems more like an old man's fantasy than a key part of the comedy. Another old man's fantasy: we're supposed to accept that Rodney's character is an athletic skier.
Jerry Stiller seems to be phoning in his role just to do a buddy a favor, and the rest of the name actors must simply be desperate for work.
The odd nods to political correctness later in the movie don't really do anything for the movie. For those who like their movies politically correct, the non-PC humor is still there in the first place, and the seeming apologies for it still don't get the point. For those who hate seeing a movie cave in to political correctness, the PC add-ins are just annoying digressions.
This has to be the mildest R-rated movie I've ever seen. There are some racy jokes, and the bedroom scenes would have made shocking TV 40 years ago, but that's about it. Maybe it was the topless men (kidding).
The DVD features interviews where the cast members seem to find depth and importance in this movie and in their roles. I kept wondering if they were serious or kidding. They seem to be serious, but I kept thinking, "They must be kidding!" There's also a peculiar disclaimer suggesting that since the movie never actually names the Mormons or the Church of Latter-Day Saints, that somehow it's not about them. Never mind that the movie features a polygamous religion in Utah, and makes reference to Brigham Young.
In short, My 5 Wives was a disappointment. I was hoping for Rodney on a roll, but the best I can say for the movie is that Rodney was looking pretty good for a guy who was pushing 80 at the time.
Blackadder 3 is probably the Blackadder series that people have least heard of - it has basically the same principles as the second and fourth ones and has nothing revolutionary in it. But it is still great - a fiery Duke of Wellington and a fat foolish Dr Johnson (writer of the first dictionary in England) make this series one to be reckoned with. There are still more hilarious one-liners to be delivered in this series, and it brings out the humour in a lesser-known era - in historically accurate and enjoyable episodes. Blackadder's third outing is not the most famous and well-known of the lot, but Rowan Atkinson's role as a butler to a stupid prince is a funny and effectively done one, and Hugh Laurie is at his best in this series. Very good! 9/10

I have two very major complaints regarding this film.
1. That my local rental store shelved what is very clearly a soft core porn in the "suspense" category. (Had I known what it was, I would not have wasted my time renting it in the first place. And yes, this movie is a soft core porn.)
2. The title has nothing to do with the movie. No one in this movie does anything that is either deviant or obsessive, let alone a combination of the two.
Actually, make that three major complaints:
3. That I for some reason watched the movie long enough to discover point number two on this list. Boy do I regret that. Stay away from this movie. Learn from my mistake. This movie is valueless on virtually every level.
A very good wartime movie showing the effects of war on a hometown boy who looses his eyesight on Guadalcanal and must come home and re-adjust himself with the help of family and friends. An excellent cast of actor's helps make this movie very entertaining. Eleanor Parker's role as the girlfriend was worthy of an Oscar nomination. She has such an innocence to her in this movie. Ann Doran role was equally satisfying as was all of her small supporting roles. I especially like the hometown aura of pre-war Phildelphia. The hunting scene is very good. Of course the war scene on Guadalcanal truly showed the horror faced by our soldiers during this epic battle. A well deserving film and one that should not be forgotten

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.
I don't understand why the other comments focus on McConaughey. He has never been a very interesting film actor.
The best part of this movie is the writing and the wit. Alfred Molina and Patrick McGaw make an unusual comic duo, definitely not stock types. Although one can't say their characters are well developed that doesn't make them any less funny.
The version I saw was on HDNET and had subtitles for the Spanish dialog, so that was certainly not a problem. The use of Spanish gives it more authenticity.
A very underrated movie, judging by the unusually low score IMDb members have given it. I thought it was fun and interesting and worth a 7 at least. A lot of slick movies with higher scores and making big money at the box office are much less interesting.

What is interesting is that the acting; was not bad, just not enough. It was rather lame., special effects nor the lines were the single culprit for this failure. Standing alone they weren't horribly bad, but put together was a tragic move. The show seemed long winded and slow with special effects apparently designed to speed the movie along, but it failed totally.
Much of the blame for this disaster was put on special effects.Don't believe it, they were kinda cool. Appleby was not the best choice for this endeavor. Though she may have been all they had to chose from with a bit of fan recogniton. An experienced actress would have brought something to the part, like Appleby never did. Scfi puts out some really good original movies, it's just too bad that this failed so drastically.
The Blob is a classic 1950s B-movie sci-fi flick. You probably know the story: two teens (Steve McQueen & Aneta Corsaut) see a meteorite hit the ground, and when they go to look for it, they run into an old man with some weird...blob attached to his arm. They take him to the doctor's office, and then go to find out what happened. From there, the blob spreads, eating everyone in its path. The special effects are cheesy fun, as is the story. There are a lot of great touches, like the cop who plays chess over the radio with a cop in another district. It's no masterpiece, but it has a special place in its genre. Steve McQueen is very good. 8/10.

This has got to be the worst horror movie I have ever seen. I remember watching it years ago when it initially came out on video and for some strange reason I thought I enjoyed it. So, like an idiot, I ran out to purchase the DVD once it was released...what a tragic mistake! I won't even bother to go into the plot because it is so transparent that you can see right through it anyhow. I am a fan of Herschell Gordon Lewis so I am accustomed to cheesy gore effects and bad acting but these people take this to a whole different level. It is almost as if they are intentionally trying to make the worst movie humanly possible...if that was their goal, they suceeded. If they intended to make a film that was supposed to scare you or make you believe in any way, shape, or form that it is real then they failed...MISERABLY! Avoid this movie...read the plot synopsis and you've seen it!
I first saw this movie years ago and have continued to view it several times a year when I have an opportunity. It is on my list of favorite movies along with some of the classics. Should anyone tell you it is foolish or outdated, ignore them... this movie is for anyone who enjoys laughing and music. The dancing isn't as important in this film as in other Astaire movies so the comedy and acting shine through. See this movie if you can, it may be light but it is still completely amusing. So I know that many people hate black and white films, they think old movies can't really be funny, this movie should make them change their minds. No one I know can watch this movie without being at least mildly amused. The only problem with the film: Fred Astaire singing without dancing. He may be a great performer and capable singer but it just isn't fascinating and leaves a big hole in the middle of the story. The comedy gets a bit cliché at times but the vaudevillesque performances of G burns and G Allen are just perfect for the piece and can satisfy anyone looking for some easy laughs. Give this film a chance even if you don't like old movies, this movie can appeal to the ridiculous in any one.

Michael Jackson would have claimed a spot for the top-billed character in THE GOLDEN CHILD, and because he loves kids. That didn't work (and why should it?), so instead we have Eddie Murphy out to save the world by rescuing "Kid Midas". I would strongly suggest all future scriptwriters to please thoroughly study the actor's inane dialogue in this quirky fantasy - adventure - comedy that's a step closer to ISHTAR. Whatever Murphy says or does can be best liked, but don't get me wrong about his exquisite comical talent; he doesn't belong in this movie, and the same went for DR. DOLITTLE! The violence and visuals combined are reasons to stamp it as a cult camp classic, and that wouldn't have made any sense as Hollywood and movie fanatics kept cashing in on the guy. Speaking of visuals, they were pulled off amazingly well at the time of Ronald Reagan's presidential fame. Murphy is far better at COMING TO AMERICA and 48 HRS, but this stale movie isn't my touch of golden honey for a sweet crunchy taste.
Antonio Margheriti's "Danza Macabra"/"Castle of Blood" is an eerie,atmospheric chiller that succeeds on all fronts.It looks absolutely beautiful in black & white and it has wonderfully creepy Gothic vibe.Alan Foster is an English journalist who pursues an interview with visiting American horror writer Edgar Allan Poe.Poe bets Foster that he can't spend one night in the abandoned mansion of Poe's friend,Thomas Blackwood.Accepting the wager,Foster is locked in the mansion and the horror begins!The film is extremely atmospheric and it scared the hell out of me.The crypt sequence is really eerie and the tension is almost unbearable.Barbara Steele looks incredibly beautiful as sinister specter Elisabeth Blackwood."Castle of Blood" is easily one of the best Italian horror movies made in early 60's.A masterpiece!

After seeing the previews I felt that this movie was going to be a nice improvement over that fast & furious series. So, I already expected it to have a lacking storyline, but at least this time it won't be loaded with a bunch of powerless civics with fart cans. Unfortunately, I was wrong. If you could only imagine a Fast & Furious movie with a worse story line than by all means this movie is for you.
This is the absolute worst movie I had ever seen (I'm being nice - no I would not take baseball bat to my nuts like what others have said). Not only was the storyline non-existent, but the action was crap too. I guess the director thought that they could just throw bunch of females and exotic cars and then call it a movie. For an example, there is a point in the movie where the guy pushes the nos button and his Lamborghini takes off in the air and flies over a SLR McLaren to win. And after the bit where Eddy Griffin got in a fight with one of his "girls" (an Imus comment would work in this case) the girl asks to pull over and get out of the PLANE and of course they do in the middle of the desert. After this wonderful scene I couldn't take it anymore. So, I only got to see half of this monstrosity. This is the first movie I had ever walked out on. Afterwards, I had to stop for some drinks to kill all of my corrupted brain cells.
I gave it a 1 because 0 is not an option. You're better off going to the local car show and stopping at a strip joint on the way home. I will keep all viewers in my prayers.
I know I should like this film, and I do for the most part, but as other's have mentioned, it is a bit long in the tooth. I to also found the raging hormones of the all male crew to be a bit annoying. It's a wonder they didn't start panting and howling at the moons as well. I also have to say that overall, the movie leaves me cold. It's a very sterile atmosphere that permeates the film. On the plus side the effects are great (besides the cartoon monster), as are the effects, props, costumes and of course Robbie. If the robot was not in this film, I don't think it would have been as popular as it was/is. The second half of the movie picks up steam once we start to investigate the forgotten gadgets of the "Krell." As many times as I've seen this movie, the Krell still leaves me scratching my head as to exactly who or what they were. Based on what was being produced at that time, besides "This Island Earth," Forbidden Planet is miles above the average Sci-Fi movies of the time. Being filmed in color also adds to its enjoyment. Certainly a classic in its own right, flaws and all, and deservedly so.

I'm not going to comb over TLPS's obvious peterbogdanovichian flaws. Instead, I shall take a look at the positive aspects of this overrated celluloid pygmy of a film.
1. Peter Bogdanovich managed to make a movie that can be endured in its entirety. This fact alone places the movie high up above and all the way up to the top of his lame filmography.
2. Bogdanovich had shown how amazingly generous some lucky boyfriends can be, by sharing Cybill Shepherd's (his then-gal) fabulous body and breasts with his male audience - and not just on one but on two occasions. Brava! The unquestionable highlights of this cinematic festa del siesta.
3. TLPS has barely a scene without stereotypical country music doodling in the background. (Peter tried to make the obvious point that the movie is set in America's Deep South (as if it weren't bleedin' obvious) so he hammered that point on and on and on...) How is this an advantage, you might ask? Well, when the movie finally ends and the monotonous country music finally ceases massaging your tired ear-drums, you start experiencing a strange exhilaration: "The movie's finally over!" It's pure joy.
4. The movie gives all women who look like Cloris Leachman hope. Hope that they, too, may one day snatch a much younger and maybe even good-looking boyfriend.
5. Cloris Leachman's biography (which I realize isn't technically a part of TLPS) gives hope to all women that look like that, that they too may one day win a Miss Chicago beauty pageant. (Provided they have enough money to bribe the jury with.)
(You think I'm joking abut Cloris having won a beauty pageant, huh? Well, check out her bio and then we'll see who laughs last...)
6. The movie was shot in black and white which spared us the sight of Cloris Leachman's face in its original, natural non-glory.
There are so many "Hollywood" movies made now that are not only torture to watch, but also have no bearing on anyone's life, whatsoever. Granted, movies don't always have to have deep meaning, but it's nice to know that there are still film-makers out there who care about telling "human" stories. I won't give away the premise of this brilliant film, however, the screenplay is surely one of the more complex and memorable ones I have ever seen in my life, and I'm a 32-year-old film buff too! Bug ranks top ten on my list of favorites, which includes: On the Waterfront, Sunset Boulevard, and Black Narcissus, to name just a few. This "moving" movie should become one of your favorites also- that is, if you have a heart!

Man, was I disappointed.
1) Adam Arkin is more whiny than Ross Geller from 'Friends'
2) A great cast is wasted (Kenneth Mars, Alan Arkin, Ed McMahon, Pat Morita, Louis Nye) with this amateurish script.
3) The movie suffers from horrible pacing. It jumps around through in a jumbled, confusing manner.
4) The story doesn't even make sense. Why does he want to break the football streak? What about the stupid violin music? None of it is explained.
5) It's not even funny. It's like a bunch of accountants trying to do improv, saying "Lookit me! Lookit me I'm being funny!" This was a bad attempt at making another "Love At First Bite".
I like Larry Cohen movies, but man he failed here. I couldn't wait for the credits to roll. Horribly disappointed.
Here's an oddity: a modern-day film about a serial killer that has no fight scenes, nobody seen dying, no car chases and no loud noises.....and it takes place in Russia. There are only two short action scenes but they are horrific.
The rest of the story is detective work, and how much red tape the poor detective had to go through to solve the murders. This is a very somber movie, and "somber" best describes the personality of the hero (Stephen Rea), as well. Yet, the story is not depressing and it's very interesting all the way through.
Rea is outstanding as the determined, harried-looked detective. Jeffrey DeMunn is downright scary as the killer. Donald Sutherland's Russian accent is suspect but he plays the only character in this film that has some warmth.
Once again, the story is dotted with liberal agendas, here and there, with not one but two references to bias against gays, the total validity of secular psychology, police and government officials being boorish/crude/bigoted, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Otherwise, it's an intelligent and refreshingly low-key crime film. This is a somewhat unique film that probably is not well-known but is well-liked by the people who have seen it. Since it's based on a true-life account of this killer, it's all the more chilling. Don't pass this by just because you haven't anything about it.

A dreary and pointless bit of fluff (bloody fluff, but fluff). Badly scripted, with inane and wooden dialogue. You do not care if the characters (indeed, even if the actors themselves) live or die. Little grace or charm, little action, little point to the whole thing. Perhaps some of the set and setting will interest--those gaps between the boards of all the buildings may be true to the way life was lived. The framework encounter is unnecessary and distracting, and the Hoppalong Cassidy character himself is both boring and inept.
Jane Austen would definitely approve of this one!
Gwyneth Paltrow does an awesome job capturing the attitude of Emma. She is funny without being excessively silly, yet elegant. She puts on a very convincing British accent (not being British myself, maybe I'm not the best judge, but she fooled me...she was also excellent in "Sliding Doors"...I sometimes forget she's American ~!).
Also brilliant are Jeremy Northam and Sophie Thompson and Phyllida Law (Emma Thompson's sister and mother) as the Bates women. They nearly steal the show...and Ms. Law doesn't even have any lines!
Highly recommended.

Scott Menville is not Casey Kasem. That is the first, most important, and most disturbing thing about this attempt at re-imagining Scooby-Doo and company.
Shaggy's voice is squeaky and does not sound anything like he has ever sounded in any of the previous incarnations of the Scooby shows. They've also changed the outfit and the classic mode of walking from the original.
I'm not sure what they're on about yet with the villain angle, but it surely isn't following the formula used in any of the previous Scooby shows.
And the animation style is very bizarre and distorted. I like it, but it's not real Scooby-Doo type animation. But the weird animation used for other WB shows grew on me; this might, too.
It's worth a glance at -- once -- if you can handle the lack of proper Shaggy voice. That right there is enough to jar one out of enjoying the show properly. Besides, I am trying not to be an inflexible, nitpicking fan. Evolve or die, as the saying goes. We'll see how it looks after two more episodes -- by then I'll have formed a much more solid opinion.
I had no idea of the facts this film presents. As I remember this situation I accepted the information presented then in the media: a confused happening around a dubious personality: Mr. Chavez. The film is a revelation of many realities, I wonder if something of this caliber has ever been made. I supposed the protagonist was Mr.Chavez but everyone coming up on picture
was important and at the end the reality of that entelechy: the people, was overwhelming. Thank you Kim Bartley and Donnacha O´Briain.

I watched Cabin by the Lake this afternoon on USA. Considering this movie was made for TV is was interesting enough to watch the sequel. So, I tune in for the airing this evening and was extremely disappointed. I knew I wouldn't like the movie, but I was not expecting to be perplexed by the use of DV (digital video). The movie would have been tolerable if it wasn't for these juxtaposed digital shots that seemed to come from nowhere. I expected the plot line to be tied in with these shots, but there seemed to be no logical explanation. (WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MAYBE A SPOILER!!!!) The open ending in Cabin by the Lake was acceptable, but the open ending on the sequel is ridiculous. I can only foresee Return of Return to The Cabin by the Lake being watch able is if the movie was shown up against nothing, but infomercials at 4 o'clock in the morning.