Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Although this movie has some weaknesses, it is worth seeing. I chose it because of the cast, and applaud Bonham Carter and Branagh for choosing roles different from those they have taken in the past. Both portray very troubled people, complete with warts, but make them likeable because of their humanity. The story is touching, but it is the performances that soar. Bonham Carter's "Jane" is a remarkable achievement, whose quest for romance opened my eyes to aspects of being disabled that I had not thought of before, but was interesting as well for other reasons. I felt the movie ended too abruptly, but better that than a drawn out emotionally manipulative ending (see "Stepmom.") The very real English setting added to my enjoyment - it was England in the 90's, both urban and rural, without being depressing.

Well! What can one say? Firstly, this adaptation is far too long at 4 hours, for the complexity (or lack of such) of the plot. The actors try really hard to make something of this film but there is too little content for the time available. Swayzee is really NOT a Quatermain character at all. After seeing Sean Connery's interpretation of the great man in "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", Swayzee really does not make the grade. This chap with the winchester repeating rifle has none of the strength, stature, subtlety, or humour needed for the part, and is upstaged by everyone including the witch doctor, who incidentally seems from my point of view to be more convincing as an actor than the rest of the cast. Some of the vistas are pleasing but there are silly mistakes in the cinematography. For example. When the happy team arrive at the water hole in the middle of the desert, their tracks are visible down to the oasis, just waiting for them to walk in them. Climbing out of the mine leads to an exit (on the next shot) nothing like the exit seen from the passage they have climbed through, et cetera. I was waiting for Doug McClure to appear at any moment. In some ways I wish he had.
The leader of the Russians pursuing Quatermain is a shoddily created stereotypical character who just shoots at everything.
Swayzee does quite well as the sad father, returned to London, who is unable to obtain the custody of his son. Swayzee should stick to that sort of thing. He is not able to carry the part of a courageous gentleman with a stout heart, experience of life, and sense of fair play.
4 out of 10. Barely
This is a very interesting project which could have been quite brilliant. Gathering 11 prominent international directors and allotting each of them 11 minutes, 9 seconds and 1 frame to create a segment of their choice; each short exploring the global reverberations of 9/11. Without using any spoilers, I would say that Ken Loach's piece is the jewel in the crown, and Mira Nair's short (segment "India"), based on a true story, deserves to be made into a full feature film. One also realizes, while watching his short, why Alejandro González Iñárritu is one of the best directors in the world today  he simply is a master of the medium, who has also a profound understanding of the subject matter. Unfortunately, not all 11 parts are made as well. Youssef Chahine, in his segment "Egypt", assumes the Arab stance of the self-inflicted collective guilt, which piece could have potentially been the most interesting one. He fails miserably. Chahine's short is poorly written and badly executed, at least enough to stand out amongst other, superior chapters of the film. Despite the imbalance in quality, I would still give the film 7/10 for concept, if not for execution.

Terrible acting, lame plot, stupid story and just all around terrible movie sums up this piece of junk. It was excruciating to sit through. Just awful. Do not waste one penny on this. The movie theaters should feel bad about actually putting this movie out there for people to watch. This "horror" film was not even in the least bit scary, creepy or disturbing. It was in no way visually appealing. The acting was so terrible by all of the actors that any attempt to draw you into the movie through dialog are completely destroyed within moments of the actor/actress opening their mouth. Plus the entire story, i don't know why someone would make a movie with this story AGAIN. Do not waste your time or money. Even if it's a free ticket don't waste one moment viewing this movie. You will feel dumber for watching it.
This is the Columbo that got directed by Steven Spielberg at an early point in his career. It's nothing sensational but some small hint of great things to come for Spielberg can be seen in this movie. The movie is basically in the same style as most of Spierlberg's '70's movies and TV works. So that means that some characters tend to show some quirkiness's and no I'm not just talking about the Columbo character alone. The kind of character quirkiness which perhaps can be best seen in the 1975 Spielberg movie "Jaws". But other than some small hints of typical early Spielberg elements, you can't call this movie the work of- and fine example of a rising director star. Not that its bad, of course it isn't but as I said earlier, it also isn't anything too sensational.
This movie began really well and very promising but after it's fine opening, in which as always the murder occurred, the movie became sort of more slow and also dull to watch. Dull because it's mostly a Columbo movie by the book that doesn't have real memorable moments in it, not dull because it's a boring movie to watch.
The murder itself was quite ingenious and the concept of having a crime story writer murdering his writing partner showed some great and interesting potential. The story however didn't really explored all of its possibilities. At least that's the feeling this movie left me with.
The movie was still a good one to watch nevertheless thanks to the character of Jack Cassidy, who thinks he's smarter then Columbo, due to his mystery/crime writing experience and tries to give him all kinds of possible hints, leading away from himself. But of course Columbo knows better and he is his number one suspect from the first moment on but he as usual plays the game along.
The movie does have a good overall style and uses some fine camera position and editing. Funny to see that also most of this was all mostly consistent with Spielberg's later work, especially some of the camera-angles.
A fine and perfectly watchable Columbo movie but don't let the name of Spielberg attached to it rise your expectations for it too highly.
7/10

This is a really dumb movie. It could be fun with the cool looking aliens and the country setting, but it just isn't.
Some aliens hear the broadcast of War of the Worlds when a small country radio station plays it on Halloween. They come to Earth to kill humans, but instead of killing, they make people their slaves and act goofy. The front cover of the film shows these aliens riding surfboards in space...not really what they do. These aren't party aliens, they are stupid cartoonish idiots with annoying high pitched modulated voices. The alien with the most tolerable voice also happens to be the Jack Nicholson rip-off alien who always wears his sunglasses. Other than the aliens, the acting is terrible. The writing is obviously meant for children, because every character is written like a kid.
This is a dumb movie, that only children will appreciate, maybe.
My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 100 mins. PG for mild language.
i just saw this film, i first saw it when i was 7 and could just about remember the end. so i watched it like, 10 minutes ago, and (i may seem like a baby as i am 12 ha-ha) i started to cry at the ending, i forgotten how sad it was. i think i was mainly sad for Anne-Marie because she said: 'i love you Charlie' and also: 'i'll miss you Charlie', just made me really cry ha-ha. it has to be one of me favourite movies of all time, it is just a film well worth watching. WATCH IT ha-ha, thats all i can say XD
but, i love this film, its a true classic.
xx Maverick xx 10/10

I'll get to the movie in a minute. First, someone wanted "proof" about Clinton's comments at Georgetown, where he claimed that the USA "deserved" the 9-11 attacks. Well, here's what Clinton said:
"In the first Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was a Muslim on the Temple Mount. I can tell you that story is still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it."
WE'RE still paying for it? Whaddya mean "we", paleface? The Marines didn't storm the Temple Mount.
But in truth, Clinton never really came out and flatly said that we "deserved" 9-11. Like all his statements during his presidency, he IMPLIED that we deserved 9-11. Just point out "fact" A, B, C, and maybe D, and let the listener deduce that they must add up to conclusion X. When in truth, most of Clinton's "Facts" added up to guacamole.
But that's beside the point. We're here to talk movies, not politics. Unfortunately, when Oliver "Captain Conspiracy" Stone does a movie, you can't escape his warped politics. It was only a matter of time before he focused his paranoia and bitterness on the Reagan Era, and what better time than when Stone's dreams almost came true, on the day Reagan nearly bought the farm. Unable to find any nefarious plots or schemes in Hinckley's assassination attempt, he invents one with Al Haig. From a simple misunderstanding of the chain of Constitutional authority, Haig is transformed from a public servant who really should have brushed up on his remedial civics into a raving megalomaniac. You almost expect Haig to rub his hands together like Montgomery Burns and tell Cap Weinberger to "Release the Hounds." Stone even recruits the smarmiest person in Hollywood to play our former Secretary of State, Richard Dreyfuss. A guy you love to hate on sight.
Overall, the movie is OK. Average, hovering on below average. Don't bother renting or buying. Try to catch it on cable. 4 out of 10.
"The Good Earth" is a great movie that you don't hear much about anymore. There are a lot of big disasters and events, but it is also a non-passionate love story. All of this happens in a little over two hours, which is short by today's standards. The special effects and costumes are very good for the time period.
I am surprised that Luise Rainer received an Oscar for such a limiting role. She basically only has three emotions: submissive, hungry, and heart-broken.
The performances by the Asian and Asian-American actors are terrific.

It's unfortunate that you can't go any lower than one star. Prior to watching The Wicker Man, I had considered Aliens 3 to be the only movie that would actually merit negative stars. In all fairness, The Wicker Man doesn't detract from the enjoyment of an earlier film, but the fact remains that my cumulative movie enjoyment has been reduced by seeing it.
There is a cheap trick all too often used in Hollywood when the producers are too stingy to hire good writers or in too much of a hurry to allow them to bring a plot to a satisfactory conclusion: slap in a shocker ending and hope that the public will mistake it for something artistic or meaningful. It is a gambit that rarely succeeds and in this case manages only to splatter embarrassment on a fine actor and ridicule upon the producers. Even more so in that the "carefully crafted" (or however they put it) conclusion didn't seem to follow logically from the plot (which naturally I can't elaborate on without introducing spoilers), and instead negates what merit the plot had up to that point.
It is a film that might logically appeal to psychopaths, pedophiles, and possibly die-hard Nicholas Cage fans, but only to a few of the mainstream audience. If you really want something along these lines, I heartily recommend M. Night Shyamalan's The Village instead. Lacking some kind of memory-erasing pill, I suppose I need to watch something better to force it from my mind, say, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes or Pee-wee's Big Adventure?
I think that most of the folks who have posted comments on this movie don't understand how to watch a movie and/or have little sense of elegance. First, to assess a movie you need to understand the extent to which everything in the film works together. Modern sensibilities demand great drama. No, I don't mean great setting of characters and plots, but they seem to demand emotional trajectories that are greatly tragic or greatly comedic. This is a subtle movie. Its beauty lies in its subtlety (not to be confused with simplicity). Neither the story nor the characters are simple in this movie. It is a beautifully filmed movie that makes the most of combining sensuousness, politics, human weakness, venality...you name it. The world it's set in would be alien and not understood today...a world where if you have it you have to flaunt it NOW and LOUDLY, even if you only think you have it.
Many people today don't understand that Victorian society wasn't really Victorian as people understand that term today.
This movie helps set the record straight.

this film has its good points: hot chicks people die
the problem... the hot Chicks barley get nude and you don't get to see many of the people dieing, mostly just lots of fast movements and screaming though there were two good kill scenes.
also for those of you watching this for JENNA JAMESON she is just a side chearator with a very small role and Minor nude scenes.
What this film needed.. script and story would be nice but I will not complain about that.. simply put it needs more nudity and better kill scenes cuz lets face it that is why we watch these flicks...
I wouldn't waste my money on it...and if you must, wait until it's on the OLD shelves at your local video store
Jafar Panahi's comedy-drama "Offside" portrays some women trying to enter a Tehran sports arena from which women are banned. The official reason: lots of foul language, and the soccer players have their legs showing. But of course, it's really a case of sexism. So, most of the movie consists of mild comic relief as the women try to ask the men serious questions about why women are banned from the stadium, and one woman even comes up with her own scheme to defy the men.
As I understand, all of Jafar Panahi's movies (this one included) are banned in Iran. The real tragedy is that the CIA's 1953 overthrow of the prime minister and subsequent backing of the brutal shah gave Ayatollah Khomeini an excuse to use his narrow interpretation of the Koran to establish a chauvinistic society, and that George W. Bush's current policy towards Iran gives Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an excuse to act the cowboy and tighten censorship.
Above all, this is a neat look at people coming up with ways to challenge the system. Not a great movie, but worth seeing. Considering that all Jafar Panahi's movies are banned, I wonder how he's able to even make them.

1st watched 4/29/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Mick Garris): Campy vampire-like Stephen King movie has so many strange and goofy elements that you start laughing over the extreme weirdness about 3/4 the way into the movie and you wonder if this movie might have a cult following for King fans. It's the story of a mother and son who are sleepwalkers(a shape-shifting feline-like, flesh eating, life needing, near extinct breed of humanoid) who move from town to town searching for virgins to feed on to keep themselves alive. They come across as pretty normal upper-class folk except they are secret lovers and cats hang around the outside of their home, day and night. Cats are deadly to them, so they set traps in their yard to try and keep the population down. We get to see them break a couple of their necks when they attack(which is also a first in my movie-going experience) --- hopefully no real cats were harmed in the making of the film. The boy is after a sweet girl that he has a crush on until he turns into a "sleepwalker" and then he just wants her body. There is so much campy uniqueness to this movie that it might have been better if it was an all-out satirical comedy on suburban life, but the director instead tries to scare you every couple minutes until you wish he'd just get over it and bring out the gore. Eventually that happens and the movie winds down to it's typical Stephen King downbeat ending. The movie is interesting because King's humor comes thru more than usual but his weirdness is also very present and what you have is a movie that his fans will probably like and should have in their collection, but as a worthwhile movie experience it really doesn't cut it.
This film stands head and shoulders above the vast majority of cinematic romantic comedies. It is virtually flawless! The writing, acting, production design, humor and pathos are all wonderful! Even the music -- from Dean Martin to La Boheme -- is captivating and delightful!
Every character is peculiarly delightful and memorable, from the leads played by Cher and Nicolas Cage, to the many supporting roles -- Olympia Dukakis , Vincent Gardenia, John Mahoney, Danny Aiello -- even grandpa with his dog pack! Each of these performers, plus Norman Jewison as Director, performs above their normal quality in this ensemble work. For several of the actors, this was an early major exposure in film, so the casting is also exceptional -- and we have many current acting powerhouses whose careers were altered by their effectiveness in this film.
I've seen this film several times all the way through -- which can sometimes deflate the impact of a film substantially. More tellingly, I realized some years ago that whenever I channel-surfed my way into a scene from this film -- any scene -- the scene was compelling and beautifully crafted. There are so many stunning and memorable scenes the original meeting between the Cher and Nicolas Cage characters, where Cage tells his tale of woe; Vincent Gardenia discovered with his paramour at the opera, amidst the splendor generated by his gold-mine plumbing business; Olympia Dukakis scolding John Mahoney for philandering with his student in the classic line about liaisons with co-workers: "Don't sh-t where you eat!"; Danny Aiello at his dying mother's bedside; Nicolas Cage "taking" Cher as the rapture of an aria soars in the background!
There are of course many great romantic comedies, among them Sabrina (both versions, but especially the Audrey Hepburn/Humphrey Bogart/William Holden original); When Harry Met Sally; The Apartment.
None quite equals Moonstruck!

I'm not sure this is a spoiler; perhaps it is a public service. If you are one of those people focused on instant gratification who skip end credits, you will miss the final line of the end credits news announcer's voice-over, which states the U.S. has just surrendered to Nazi Germany on May 7, 1945 to end WWII. Here are just a few of the problems with this close:
1)The older viewer must conjure up the equivalent of two or three more UNHOLY movies in their mind's eye to fill in the yawning chasm between movie events and this startling conclusion.
2)The average person will really kick themselves that they did not "watch" one of these UNHOLY fill-in-the-blanks flicks created in their own head for free, instead of shelling out time and money to see this UNHOLY from the video store (or on cable).
3)This end credits sequence of imagined news bulletins may be the first information some younger viewers are exposed to about WWII, leading them to the conclusion that George W. Bush is the latest heir to the Nazi throne.
Loved the movie. I even liked most of the actors in it. But, for me Ms. Davis' very poor attempt at an accent, and her stiff acting really makes an otherwise compelling movie very hard to watch. Seriously if any other modern actor played the same role with the same style as Ms. Davis they would be laughed off the screen.
I really think she 'phoned this one in'. Now if it had Myrna Loy or Ingrid Bergman playing the part of the wife I would have enjoyed it much more.
I guess I just don't 'get' Bette Davis. I've always thought of her as an actor that 'plays herself' no matter what role she's in. The possible exception is Now Voyager.
I'm sure many of the other reviewers will explain in careful (and I hope civil) detail how I am totally wrong on this. But, I'll continue to watch the movies she's in because I like the stories/writing/supporting casts, but, I'll always be thinking, of different actresses that could have done a better job.

Unless you are petrified of Russian people or boars, this movie is a snorefest. Actually, I fell asleep about 40 minutes in & had to fight the urge to just leave the theater. I wish I had. A waste of a perfectly lovely Saturday evening.
Even "Silent Hill" was scarier. Heck, even "Pan's Labyrinth" was scarier. I'm still unclear on what was supposed to be scary in this flick.
To begin with, I'm very leery of movies that use "pidgin Russian" like this one did in the opening credits. It's embarrassing to me since I brought a group of my Russian friends & we all cringed. Oh my god.
Hmm. Well, luckily for me (& probably you, too) this movie has already escaped my brain & I just stepped out of it an hour ago. So I have no specifics, just murky visuals that go nowhere & some languishing-now-dead hope that anything would happen.
Perhaps I saw a completely mutilated version of this film because I can't believe it got such great reviews here (which is why I saw it) & ended up being so completely devoid of not only Horror or Suspense but Overall Entertainment Value as well.
I give it a 2 because, yes, I fell asleep & wanted to leave after 40 minutes but I woke up & didn't leave.