Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Playwright Sidney Bruhl (a wonderfully over-the-top Michael Caine) would kill for a hit play. Enter young wonder kid (a solid Reeve) who's just written such a play. Weave into this Bruhl's overly hysterical wife (superbly played by Cannon) and a German psychic (a very funny Irene Worth) and you've got yourself a wonderfully funny suspense flick.
While not up to "Sleuth" standards, "Deathtrap" is none the less a very capable, twist filled comical suspense ride based on a terrific play by Ira Levin. The performers are obviously having a field day with the material, with Caine in particular delivering top notch lines with gusto.
The film loses a bit of steam midway through and the ending is a lot less satisfying than the hilarious one in the original play but overall "Deathtrap" is solid, well acted and suspenseful fun.

I argued with myself whether to rent this or not. I'm always afraid of renting something I've never heard of (don't remember this being in theaters). Great cast...that's what tipped the scales. 30 minutes in, I almost stopped watching it. The first few minutes are fun to watch, but unbelievable. It only gets worse after that. The writers of this movie could do a little research on future projects if they want to make their movies even a little better. Or they could just try writing something just a little bit believable. I give it a 3....a 1 for the writing (only because there are words)and a 2 for being able to get so many good actors to agree to do this movie despite having to read the script. Oh my god this movie sucks.
Though Cher and Cage are the focal points of this story, Gardenia and Dukakis are good counterparts for them- this is where Loretta and Ronny will be in 50 years- still in love. The whole cast does a nice job from Aiello to John Mahoney- it shows a real slice of life. Though I saw this long ago- I am glad it finally catapulted Cage to the place where he was recognized in Hollywood for his talent. From the music to the scenes at the opera to the kitchen table arguments- this is a very entertaining movie.

This is the prime example of low budget, winning over what would be a good story line. Let's bring back Samaire Armstrong (having seen her work on the O.C. I know she can do better), then find a better script and budget.
The special effects were so bad, and mostly badly computer generated, that it almost lost me with the first time the wolf was seen on-screen. And Samaire Armstrong's (alert!)changing into a werewolf was done by reducing her at first to a bad GCIF figure before she even begins to change(Final Fantasy's humans, as well as Pixar's made these laughable, think of the figure as a nude Barbie Doll).
The story of was interesting, though the idea of bloodline in werewolves is nothing new. As it also got into the balance between evil, (maybe) not so evil, and the possible end of human-kind should the two lines mate. The subplot of a "book of werewolf linage" which effected some of the other characters in a spell-like manner for a while was effective, but could have been expanded more in explaining what had happened in the past.
Bring in a better script and direction, and I'd come back again.
I have watched this movie well over 100-200 times, and I love it each and every time I watched it. Yes, it can be very corny but it is also very funny and enjoyable. The camp shown in the movie is a real camp that I actually attended for 7 years and is portrayed as camp really is, a great place to spend the summer. Everyone who has ever gone to camp, wanted to go to camp, or has sent a child to camp should see this movie because it'll bring back wonderful memories for you and for your kids.

I didn't know if i would laugh or cry seeing this. Only addicted fans of danni filth could have a taste for this. This is supposed to be a horror movie but there's only filth in this. The most cool scene is the car accident, with real special effects from the best of hollywood. Avoid this movie at all costs. See this only for studies of how bad can be a movie................
I have to say I totally loved the movie. It had it's funny moments, some heartwarming parts, just all around good. Me, personally, really liked the movie because it's something that finally i can relate to my childhood. This movie, in my opinion, is geared more towards the young gay population. It shows how a young gay boy would be treated while growing up. All the taunting, name-calling, and not knowing is something I, like most other young feminine boys, will always remember, and now finally a movie that illustrates how hard it really is to grow up gay. So, I would definitely recommend seeing this movie. Probably shouldn't really watch it until a person is old and mature enough to understand it

Saw this film ran in the wee hours on TCM. Several problems with the film were apparent from what I saw. First, the adults did not age when the children did for 10 years. Several parts of the film had continuity problems & for some reason the actor who played the youngest son looked like the oldest when the 10 years passed.
The copy I saw was missing about 20 minutes or so, at least a huge gap with black screen appeared. It is too bad, because even though the script left something to be desired, Bergman & Russell both did fine in the film in their roles. It is a shame the large chunk is missing, but what is here is watchable.
I just wish it was all intact. The script makes little sense in that Bergman's character is sent away when the kids are small but then brought back to take care of them when they are adults? Some of the time lines don't make sense either. There is a stock market crash that resembles 1929 but the kids grow up to fight in World War 1. All the acting by the support folks in this film is fine. Just wonder what was in the 20 gap of film I could not see as it was missing.
This film opened to poor showings in the first few weeks. Then Meena Kumari died and it just brought the crowds rolling in. Songs on All India Radio, especially Inhi LogoN ne were played so often that I was sick of them at the time, despite recognising their beauty!
Yes, it did take all those years to make. This was because the marriage was a very unhappy one and Kamal Amrohi also had difficulty finding the money to make the film; looking at the sumptous sets and costumes, not surprising!! Not only does Meena Kumari age and fall ill but listen carefully to Lata's voice. Inhi logoN ne has her 50's younger voice while songs that were re-recorded like Chalo dildar chalo show clear development. I only wish someone would find the Ghulam Mohammad songs that weren't included in the film, because of changing fashions that called for fewer though slightly songs and publish them. Lata in a recent interview (2007) rated Ghulam Mohammad as one of the best composers she had ever worked with, apart from Madan Mohan (a great personal friend). Notice also that you hardly see the actors at all in the Chalo dildar songs, very unusual. There is only a brief shot of Raj Kumar from the middle distance and you only see the back of the supposed Meena Kumari. Kamal Amrohi made a virtue out of necessity and focused on the stars and moon. Any other film, this song would have had close-ups of both of them.
As for this being the finest film ever, I would beg to differ. It means you have missed a lot of Indian cinema, in no particular order, films like Barsaat (old), Devdas (older versions), Bandini, Do Bigha Zameen, Garam Hava, Dastak, Guddi, Aan, Pyasa, Kagaz ke Phool, Sahib Bibi aur Ghulam, Kabuliwallah, Abhimaan, Guide, Sujatha, Bombay ka Babu, Daag, Parineeta (old), Umrao Jaan, etc. etc. And if you valued music more than story the list would simply grow with beautiful scores from Barsat Ki Raat to Naya Daur, Teesri Manzil, Mahal, Aag, Jugnu, Anand, Mera Naam Joker: the list is really endless!
So enjoy Pakeezah but don't miss out on any of the above...

Just another example of why Stepehn King's books should not be made into movies. (Even Carrie, one of the best, is ruined in the adaptation from book to screen.) The premise of the story revolves around a fat lawyer, always on a diet, who "accidentally" kills an old gypsy woman. In court, with the help of the judge and the local police chief, he gets off, even though the accident was sort of his fault as he was not paying attention as he was driving. The father of the dead gypsy woman places a curse on the 3, with our main character, Billy (the lawyer) getting thinner and thinner by the day. Though the movie kept with the book, for the most part, and has your typical King ending, the acting was stilted and felt forced. We went from one scene to the next without much of anything in between, sort of like reading acts in a play. King himself made a cameo in the movie (sort of like Dave Barry), which reinforces my belief that authors should stay just that: authors. Leave the acting to actors. Not that anyone in this movie was that great. I've seen the major characters in movies where they were much better.
Guns blasting, buildings exploding, cars crashing, and that's just the first ten minutes.
This action-packed film involving a rogue ex-CIA mercenary who can't seem to die no matter how many times he's shot (hence the title) is pretty decent.
Tough and toothy Gary Busey, usually cast as a villain in these kinda flicks, has his usual crazy charm but is a bit more subdued: after all he's carrying the entire show. Which doesn't mean there isn't a lot of terrific supporting roles including William Smith, Luke Askew, Mills Watson, R.G. Armstrong, Henry Silva, Lincoln Kirkpatrick, Thalmus Rasulala, and several other "forgotten" character-actors.
There's enough smaller action sequences to hold up the entire story: Busey has to free a group of "kidnapped" American military elites and return a high-tech "supertank" (a normal tank with a cheesy add-on pasted to the top) back to the States.
But does America deserve this killing machine any more than the bad guys? This question is asked, of course, like in any film centering on the CIA... but without getting preachy.

Now I don't hate cheap movies. I just don't see why you should waste any money for a movie you could shoot with your dad's camcorder. If I rent a movie, I want it to be a MOVIE, not a bunch of people thinking it would be a good idea to waste some MiniDV - Tapes.
Maybe I hate this one so much because the guy in the video store said it was great, and it wasn't. Maybe I hate it because it's cheap, has the dumbest plot EVER, the most unrealistic characters EVER and the really, really, really WORST SHOWDOWN in the history of films EVER. Even Tom Savini can't save this.
Seriously, this one is a complete waste of time.
A funny comedy from beginning to end! There are several hilarious scenes but it's also loaded with many subtle comedic moments which is what made the movie for me. Creative story line with a very talented cast. I thoroughly enjoyed it!

Wow. I thought this might be insipid but it was even worse than I imagined! Sometimes I like to watch a good "car-crash" movie: those that are so bad that you can't look away because you want to see how bad they can possibly get. This is really the only reason I could leave the television on - morbid fascination. It wasn't so much the acting, which was only mediocre or slightly worse than one would expect from this cast, but the premise and the plot which never should have seen the light of day. The script, too, is groan-inducing. As for cinematography, did anyone else notice that they used a "curtains drawing" segue device, like in an old 50's TV show...but without irony? At first I thought they must be kidding but the movie takes itself too seriously to have used this in a tongue-in-cheek manner. Don't even ask me about the score...the only high point is the final song, by Morcheeba. I guess they wanted to leave people with something for their $8...glad I saw it on TV!!!!! Just silly! I wonder if this is why Timothy Hutton has had trouble finding much work recently? I guess if you don't expect much, and want to watch a mindless thriller, it would be better than spending an evening clipping your toenails, which is why it merits a 2.
Gene Tierney and Dana Andrews, who were both so memorable in 1944's "Laura, re-teamed for this excellent 1950 film-noir.
An embittered policeman, Andrews as Mark, can't get over the fact that his father was a hoodlum who died in a police shootout while trying to break out of jail. As a result of his bitterness, Mark doesn't know when to stop using his hands. It's this inability that leads to the accidental death of a small-time hood.(Craig Stevens)
In trying to frame gangster Gary Merrill, Mark unintentionally puts the heat on innocent cab-drive, Tom Tully, who is the father of Gene Tierney, who was separated by Stevens.
This is a well-thought out film dealing with the conscience of a basically decent human being.
The ending is not exactly upbeat as Mark will have to face the music. At least, he finally admits to what he has done.

I don't know what else to say about this horrible movie that hasn't already been said. Honestly I have only myself to be angry with. I should have know better when I saw the title of this movie that it would be a horrible piece of crap, but I loved War Games so I indulged my whim. I will live to regret that decision the rest of my life. From the very start when the government people explained that their super computer could determine who a terrorist was just by how well they played a video game I knew I was in for a ride though the land-that-good-writing-forgot. The list of very, very, very bad plot lines, dialog, and acting is so long I would crash IMDb if I tried to post it. To those people who said that they have seen worst movies than this one please tell me. I am actually curious to see something that could top this steaming pile of horse dung.
The movie never claims to be something spectacular like many films do. The films props itself as a fun and entertaining time. And that's exactly what it was. It is the Korean version of a male Bring It On.
From the get go you can feel for the rest of the film and how it will end but the enjoyment is not in the surprise twists nor is it the way the film is a carbon copy of another. Instead, the enjoyment is held in the journey of how the 2 remaining "thugs" came to be men in their own right. Therefore, the film is fun and entertaining.
The camera work, specially the dolly moves were very well executed. The script, being a tad weak, was overly enjoyable in the fact that the characters were not 2 dimensional but they were full of life and desire. This film will not win any Oscars, nor any DVD blockbuster sales, but a fun watch and a fun experience.

Probably the worst Dolph film ever. There's nothing you'd want or expect here. Don't waste your time. Dolph plays a miserable cop with no interests in life. His brother gets killed and Dolph tries to figure things out. The character is just plain stupid and stumbles around aimlessly. Pointless.
Made in the same year as "Vertigo," this is an equally bewitching movie, though in a much lighter vein. It's set in an enchanted New York during the winter: Kim Novak is a witch who casts a spell over James Stewart, but gets caught in it instead. The interesting sidelight is that Novak's rival is played by Janice Rule, who originated the part of Madge in "Picnic" on Broadway (the part that Novak would make famous on film).

I've been using IMDb for a few years now, but have never written any reviews before. However, this movie so disappointed me (even with a modest score of 6.4 at the time of writing) that I couldn't keep quiet anymore.
Noise is the story of a New Yorker (Tim Robbins)who is so perturbed by noise pollution that he takes on an alter-ego as a as a vigilante, "The Rectifier", and vandalizes any cars he finds with a car-alarm sounding.
I take the name of the movie to be somewhat of a misnomer. Although there are one or two instances of other sources of noise being addressed or mentioned, the only true focus of our protagonist is car alarms. Car alarms, car alarms, car alarms. There is really no other focus. When the movie tries to tie other examples of noise pollution to the problem of car alarms, it seems to be just thrown in to give merit to the actions of Robbins' character.
Yes, we're all annoyed by noise. Nobody likes the sound of car alarms. Of course we all have that internal urge to take a baseball bat to a shrieking vehicle, and this movie uses that fact, and pretty much that fact alone, to sell this movie. I say 'pretty much' because there is also a blatantly contrived sexual relationship (including a completely needless threesome) which is obviously thrown in for those movie-goers who need such things thrown in in order to enjoy a movie. Honestly, it's eye-rolling.
Robbin's character, very shortly into the movie, becomes completely unrelatable. It seems less that he decides not to put up with the noise anymore, and more that by focusing so much on the noise he has begun to lose his sanity. The first half of the movie is essentially the story of how he turns from just an angry, car-bashing dude into this hero of the little guy, The Rectifier. However... the transformation doesn't take place. He just renames himself.
I could go on for a while. Annoying generalized social commentary comes in every now and then to add to the pretentiousness of the movie, and the self-satisfied smirk which never quite leaves Robbins face doesn't help either.
Overall, I think it's very obvious what this movie is trying to be, as it's pretty much shoved down your throat, but in my opinion, it fails in a big way. Just one guy's opinion, cheers.
I saw Insomniac's Nightmare not to long ago for the first time and I have to say, I really found it to be quite good. If you are a fan of Dominic Monaghan you will love it. The hole movie takes place inside his mind -or does it? The acting from everyone else is a little rushed and shaky and some of the scenes could be cut down but it works out in the end. The extras on the DVD are just as great as the film, if not greater for those Dom fans. It has tons of candid moments from the set, outtakes and a great interview with the director. Anyone who has gone through making an independent film will love to watch Tess (the director), Dom and everyone else on the very small close personal set try to bang out this little trippy creepy film. It was pretty enjoyable and I'm glad to have it in my collection.

It's amazing to see how Nikhil Advani manages to attract people to the theater till the very day of the release. I mean..... look at the cast here , the promotion is superb, good enough songs and the trailers are fine. This makes it a house full on the first day, but it's only when people go and see the film they realize that there is no way their money is refundable. House full the first day , the movie is out the next week.
This film, inspired by 'Love Actually' is what they say, didn't manage to handle the whole cast well. They tried to put in big stars but ended up by not even managing to bring out even an average performance by any one. The stories are hollow and cheesy, so the audience can't connect with any single one of them. It's a big disappointment to all those who like big stars or for that matter Nikhil Advani after his big success of 'Kal Ho Na Ho'.
I knew I was going to see this when I saw the first preview. Dennis Quaid was one reason, but the theme of holding on to your dreams speaks to me. People talk about this as a movie for kids, but I think it's a movie for baby boomers who are coming to terms with aging, infirm parents, our own mortality, our kids growing up and leaving us, and all the other things we never thought would happen to us.
The movie doesn't fall into the trap of tragedy; it's about what living your dreams means when you have a real life.
Quaid is too small for a pitcher but he makes it look good, and Rachel Griffiths makes a small part as the wife into a thoughtful, layered performance. The camera-work is slow and sweet. When they put this movie together, they left out anything that wasn't necessary. Very nice.

it got switched off before the opening credits had even finished appearing. The first joke was just so appallingly lame and dreadfully acted that it had to go. You shouldn't really decide to watch this based on my review or not. I saw so little of it I shouldn't even really be commenting but suddenly it all became clear why the video shop guy was sniggering at us paying money to see it.
Couldn't they have just made Earnest does Dallas?
I got this film about a month ago and I am now a fanatic fan of Drew Barrymore's. I love a happy ending and this film gives a brilliant one with the truths of Red Sox slotted in! It's about a maths teacher who takes some promising kids on a maths trip to a company where the successful Lindsey(Drew) shows them some information. This then leads in the Ben(teacher) and Lindsey dating. But it isn't all simple when he confesses he is a massive Red Sox fan.
First of all things are fine but then his baseball gets in the way of Lindseys life. It's all fine in the end and It took one shot to get Drew running across the field!! I got it for two quid in Blockbusters so I was happy. If you like films like this I suggest you see some more of Drew's work like Charlie's Angels and 50 first dates or even her new film with Hugh Grant in called Music and Lyrics.

My wife and I started to watch this movie with anticipation. It looked warm and touching. It started out well; but, soon became boring and frankly idiotic after a while. It got so bad that we turned it off The movie was poorly acted and honesty, we couldn't really understand or wanted to understand what exactly why or how the hell they could put up with this woman! You lost sympathy for her after she was rude and acting wackos singing and cleaning. I would have had her committed. And, of course, like most movies and T.V series made in Hollywood we have to throw it a token "gay" character! This movie was boring. I was expecting more from Diane Keaton!
So I'm at home, flipping channels one night, and I come across this man wearing heels and makeup, standing in front of a colored background on HBO. Naturally, I did a double-take and decided I'd watch for a little while. I didn't change the channel until he was finished, it was so incredibly hilarious. The next time it was on, I made sure to tape it so I could watch it over and over again, and it has remained one of my favorite things to watch. During the first couple of minutes, you can tell that the audience isn't quite sure what to think, but he quickly wins them over with his incredible humor and wit. While many stand-up comedians mesh together in my brain, Eddie Izzard stands out as one of the best. His style is incredibly refreshing, and it is nice to hear jokes about things like history and puberty when most comedians stick to current events. His show stayed with me afterwards. I went to Italy over the summer, and all I could think about while I was there was how "Italians are always on scooters going 'CIAO...'" 10 out of 10. See it. You won't regret it.

Although Robert "Knox" Benfer has his fans, I'm not one of them. His films are asinine and amateurish, and and just not very funny, unless you're a 14 year old with an underdeveloped sense of humor.
He's certainly not famous, as him immature fans would like you to believe, by harassing people at Wikipedia, or stuffing the ratings votes here at the IMDb. He's certainly not been profiled by any major media outlets, which speaks volumes about his and his creation's "fame".
Benfer does have some slight skill at limited animation, but he needs to get away from his young sycophants and learn to write some actual funny material before he'll be taken seriously as a real entertainer. As of this moment, though, he's just a kid with a camera, and it shows.