Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Great Woody Allen? No. Good Woody Allen? Definitely. I found myself, along with the audience in attendance, laughing hard and often at some of the best Woody Allen lines we've heard in a while. The aging Allen created an appropriate role for himself as Scarlett Johansson's "father" ... well, sort of. Some have said Johansson plays "a young Dianne Keaton." I beg to differ. She plays Woody's dialogue, which, in his comedies, always has a very similar feel...like, well, a Woody Allen comedy. That's fine for us Woody appreciators. She certainly did Woody's dialogue far better than the young cast of his last comedy, Melinda/Melinda. Some may find Woody's humor tiresome, but for those of us who love it when it's done right, we look forward to the next.

I will warn you here: I chose to believe those reviewers who said that this wasn't an action film in the usual sense, rather a psychological drama so you should appreciate it on that basis and you will be alright.
I am here to tell you that they were wrong. Completely wrong.
Well, no, not completely; it is very disappointing if you are looking for an action flick, they were right about that. But it is also very unsatisfying on all other levels as well.
Tom Beringer wasn't too bad, I suppose, no worse than usual; but what possessed them to cast Billy Zane in this? Was it some sort of death wish on the part of the producers? A way to made their film a guaranteed flop? In that case, it worked.
If they were actually aiming for success, then why not cast somebody who can act? Oh, and might as well go for a screenwriter who knows how to write. Ah, yes, and a director who knows how to direct.
As someone who sat through this mess, actually believing it would shortly redeem itself, I can assure you it never did. Pity, it could've been a good film.
I liked the film. Some of the action scenes were very interesting, tense and well done. I especially liked the opening scene which had a semi truck in it. A very tense action scene that seemed well done.
Some of the transitional scenes were filmed in interesting ways such as time lapse photography, unusual colors, or interesting angles. Also the film is funny is several parts. I also liked how the evil guy was portrayed too. I'd give the film an 8 out of 10.

What was the deal with the clothes? They were all dressed like something out of the late 70's early 80s. The cars were even were outdated. The school was outdated. The nuns attire was outdated, and the hospital looked like something from the 40's, with its wards and wooden staircases and things. Nothing in the whole movie implied it took place in 1991. My mother was laughing, saying "Geeeee-od! WHEN was this movie MADE?" When we pressed the "INFO BUTTON" on our remote, we were sure 1991 had to be typo! Did anybody else notice this? My FAVORITE part, though, was when the woman tells her uppity muck husband, on the telephone, about the inverted cross in the mirror, and he just says "Well, look, I've got a congress meeting. I'll talk to you about it later." That line was just classic. JUST LIKE A MAN! My mothers favorite part was when they gave the "Spawn of the Devil Child" her very own Rottweiler. My mother said "Just what the Spawn of the Devil needs... a Rottweiler" She also enjoyed all of the people collapsing in the churches, clutching their chests. Her OTHER favorite part was the guy at the school parking lot, driving 5 miles a hour, driving right into the garbage truck/dump truck/front end loader thingee. He had about 20 seconds to just stop the car...but he just kept going, with a real dumb vacant look on his face. I mean, how fast can you GO in a school parking lot?!?! Whatever!
I can give you four reasons to see this movie:
1. Four of the best filmmakers in the contemporary Mexican cinema.
2. Four good stories, related into a big scheme.
3. A surprisingly good cast.
4. A bitter reflexion about the biggest trouble in this country (and many others).
(POSSIBLE SPOILERS)
Alejandro Gamboa opens this movie with a good story in a comedic mood about the authority practicing the extortion against regular people and still expecting to be appreciated by its efforts.
Then Antonio Serrano gets more dramatic in the second piece with a story heir to the Italian neorealism with a "Peter and the wolf"-like anecdote.
In the third story, the one that seems more independent from this series even in the context, Carlos Carrera tells us the story of a man being at the wrong place in the wrong moment. But after the recent lynching at Tlahuac and the tradition in this awful matter at the State of Mexico, this story couldn't be more updated.
And at the end, Fernando Sariñana returns to the dark humor in the "grand finale" in which he puts together the most of the characters from the past sequences in one of the better comedy pieces ever filmed. Reprising the center scene from one of his previous films "Todo el poder", Sariñana gives the final lesson of the theme. And by the way, give us the scene that steals the movie with Anna Ciochetti making a brief striptease.
Once the movie has ended, you get a bittersweet feeling about having looked at a good movie (and maybe enjoyed it) with a very painful subject. They say that in Mexico people laugh at their own disgrace and this is the best example. This film is a testimony of how Mexicans have learn to live in the middle of a crime state(and perhaps accepted it), between two fires: The criminals and the so-called authorities full of corruption. Even this movie is a wishful thinking because almost all the good people have been a victim of crime and they don't get this unhurt. If you had an assault without a scratch then you're lucky. Meanwhile, don't lose the chance to see this movie, highly recommended.
And it's a beautiful life in Mexico...

I would have given it a one instead of a two, but I suppose it COULD have been worse. I guess the acting isn't all that bad, but the plot lacks anything even remotely close to interesting. It is a terrible movie!! TERRIBLE! Complete waste of time! I strongly suggest you do not watch this movie.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My interest was raised as I was flipping through and saw the name Iphigenia. My name is Eugenia so I thought OK, lets see what this is. I am so glad I stayed on the channel. What a wonderful, wonderful story. Drama, sadness, some over the top acting but a wonderful time to be had. I watch this and it makes me sad for all the drivel the movie industry puts out and these beautiful little gems get passed over. Give Iphigenia a try and I hope you will enjoy it as much as I did. I have even gotten my children (27, 25, 20 and 17) to enjoy it. It starts slow, however, the drama builds and you will be drawn in to the story. Watching this lovely film made me want to shroud myself in more Greek tragedy and pathos.

I wanted so much to enjoy this movie. It moved very slowly and was just boring. If it had been on TV, it would have lasted 15 to 20 minutes, maybe. What happened to the story? A great cast and photographer were working on a faulty foundation. If this is loosely based on the life of the director, why didn't he get someone to see that the writing itself was "loose". Then he directed it at a snail's pace which may have been the source of a few people nodding off during the movie. The music soars, but for a different film, not this one....for soap opera saga possibly. There were times when the dialogue was not understandable when Armin Meuller Stahl was speaking. I was not alone, because I heard a few rumblings about who said what to whom. Why can't Hollywood make better movies? This one had the nugget of a great story, but was just poorly executed.
...dont read any plot summaries because in words the plot might seem trivial, brain-dead and pointless. The film is excellent, the acting by both Denzel and Dakota (she will go sky high, trust me on that)are just fabulous, and the plot is mind blowing. Actually "fabulous" is a small word to use for such talented actors. The film is just based on actual facts and some characters are not fictional, a fact that adds up to the shock that i was having during and after the film. If you are fond of both actors and of somewhat deranged films, you still haven't watched your favorite one yet...Trust me, in the end you will have a weird and inexplicable feeling. The film is awesome, see it, rent it, buy it or whatever...just don't miss it

What's happening to RGV? He seems to repeat himself in every movie. Has he run out of creative ideas? If he has, time to take a back seat. Went to see the movie with great anticipation - of course not once did I imagine it would be anywhere near the original. I knew it wouldn't, the promos said it all. But even then I thought it would be a great RGV treat, after all isn't he the same guy who directed Sathya and Company? Or is he? I have my doubts after watching Aag. I am not going to talk about the plot or the story, as most of it is taken from the original, if you are really dying to go and see this one, you could play a fun game with friends: identify the scenes from the original one and give ratings of your own! So Veeru becomes Heero (how corny is that?), guess Heeru wouldn't sound that great. Ajay Devgan is quite a disaster as Heero, the comedy is strained and the slurred talk that really was effective in Company sounds fake. The chemistry between Heero and Gunghroo (Nisha Kothari) doesn't exists at all. In fact the more charming Nisha tries to be the more irritating she becomes. This reaches a peak by the end. Raj is in fact not bad as compared to the others, he is a guy to watch in the future. I was really disappointed with Amitabh Bachchan as Babban, he looks like a caricature of Gabbar Singh. There is a scene where he is drinking something from a bowl all covered in a shawl, instead of inspiring fear he looks like a beggar with his bowl. The only performance that really stood out was Mohan Lal as Inspector Narasimha. I am afraid I don't have the patience to write more.
And I'm serious! Truly one of the most fantastic films I have ever had the pleasure of watching. What's so wonderful is that very rarely does a good book turn into a movie that is not only good, but if possible better than the novel it was based on. Perhaps in the case of Lord of the Rings and Trainspotting, but it is a rare occurrence indeed. But I think that the fact that Louis Sachar was involved from the beginning helped masses, so that the film sticks close to the story but takes it even further. This film has many elements that make it what it is:
1. A unique, original story with a good mix of fun and humour, but a mature edge. 2. Brilliant actors. Adults and kids alike, these actors know how to bring the story to life and deliver their lines with enthusiasm and style without going overboard, as sometimes happen with kids movies. 3. Breathtaking scenery. And it doesn't matter if it's real or CGI, the setting in itself is a masterpiece. I especially love the image of the holes from a birds eye view. 4. A talented director who breathes life into the book and turns it into technicolour genius. The transitions in time work well and capture the steady climax from the book, leading up to the twists throughout the film. 5. Louis Sachar! The guy who had me reading a book nonstop from start to finish so that I couldn't put it down. He makes sure that the script sticks to the book, with new bits added in to make it even better. 6. And speaking of the script! The one-liners in this are smart, funny and unpatronising. But there are also parts to make you smile, make you cry, and tug at your heartstrings to make you love this story all the more. 7. Beautiful soundtrack. There's not a song in this film that I haven't fallen for, and that's something considering I'm supposed to be a punk-rocker. The songs link to the story well and add extra jazz to the overall style of the film. If you're going to buy the film, I recommend you buy the soundtrack too, especially for "If Only", which centres around the story and contains the chorus from the book.
I do not work for the people who made Holes, by the way, I'm just a fan, plugging my favourite film and giving it the review it deserves. If you haven't seen it, do it. Now. This very instant. Go!

... to not live in Montana and especially not to live there at the end of the 19th century.
"A river runs through it" certainly is a well made movie from a cineastic stand-point. Great landscapes, Redford acting well.
Unfortunately, the story is bad (if there is a story at all).
I felt sorry for the narrator / author, who is as dry, narrow-minded a character as his father, a preacher. Being driven, not driving his own life, he is left to watch his brother, who is also caged in the small town environment, losing his life. The author never even comes close to undestand his brother's motivations, but at least realizes, that he is lacking the slightest amount of homour / fun. All there is, is fly-fishing, where he follows even as an old man the style of his father.
The end is not surprising, it is forseeable from the very beginning.
Definitely NOT a must-see (3 / 10)
This is definitely one of the best movies I've ever seen-- it has everything-- a genuinely touching screenplay, fine actors that make subtlety a beautiful art to watch, an actually elegant romance (it's a shame that that kind of romance just doesn't seem to exist anymore), lovely songs and lyrics (especially the final song), an artistic score, and costumes and sets that make you want to live in them. The ending was only a disappointment in that I was expecting a spectacular film to have a brilliant end-- but it was still more wonderful then the vast majority of movies out there. Definitely check this movie out-- over and over again. There are many details you miss the first time that deserve a second look.

There are few uplifting things to say about this, but I can mention Matt Dillon doing his best to make something out of nothing and the many split screens and graphics that are worthwhile. As most race movies suffer from the premise that car lovers are not that intelligent, we end up with movies like this.
Lindsay Lohan who surprised so much in Mean Girls has to make better decisions which roles to take. Here she can only fail.
Children will only be mildly entertained because it tries to appeal more to adults than children (although still pretty dumb). The ones in the theater I saw it with showed no real interest after a couple of minutes. And as a family sports movie this is horrible. The better moments are in the beginning at the scrapyard creating some sentiment and later in the car-bash fest creating some tension. If you develop a car as a central character you have to develop it better than here. After a few obligatory race scenes you are in for the best part: being able to leave the multiplex in your own car.
Although I live in Minnesota, I have been studying in France lately and came across this bizarre gem of a film.
This movie was amazing, to say the least. A creative and unique film, the different directors each lent something different to their interpretation of love in the City of Light. The first instinct is to attempt to fit each one of these little stories into an overall storyline, much as can be done with 2003's Love Actually. This attempt, however, renders the magic of each individual segment obsolete. When taken at face value, with each of the short segments taken as its own individual film, the love stories together tell a beautiful message.
The film is strikingly bizarre at times -- often to the point of confusion -- and each individual segment can be hard to follow. Still, to a watcher who pays close attention to each of the segments, the short plot lines become clear after a short time. The confusion is almost intriguing; it keeps you on the edge of your seat waiting for what will come next. It leaves the viewer wondering "Did that really just happen?" yet also leaves them satisfied that it did, indeed, occur. It's the kind of movie where the viewer, upon leaving the theater, can't actually decide whether they loved it or they hated it. The initial reaction is to go and watch it again and again, just to see these individual lives blend together into a cinematic masterpiece.
The interesting decision to make the movie multilingual adds something to the spectrum of people who can relate. It adds to the reality of the film -- here, the American tourists speak English, the Parisians French, and so on. The number of people that the film encompasses leads to an understanding of the international language of love.
From sickness to the supernatural, the love of parents to the love of husbands, this film covers all the bases of romantic storytelling. In its beautiful and quirky way, each unique event somehow falls into place to tell a story: that of all types, sizes, nationalities, and shapes of love.

I have seen a lot of bad films. Most of the time I can enjoy a crappy horror film for what it is. But this really takes badness to new extremes.
It is bland, the plot for what it is never really goes anywhere and takes its time over it. There are no shocks, no horror, no suspense, just a load of guys rubbing themselves for an hour and a half and then a quick finish.
A blight on the crappy horror genre, avoid at all costs.
This is one of the most amazing stories I have ever seen.
If this film had been directed by Larry Clark, then this story about a school shooting probably would have been shown through the eyes of the killer and whatever led that person to go insane in the first place.
Instead, the plot focuses mainly on the aftermath of a school shooting, and how it effected the victims who survived.
I had seen Busy Phillips in other films before, but her performance in this movie is by far, her best. The only other movie that I've seen with Erika Christensen is "Swim Fan" which made me almost not want to watch this film, but she turned in a very good performance herself.
This is one of the few movies I have seen that was actually able to make me cry. Trust me when I tell you, that doesn't happen very often.
Home Room is a beautiful film, and that's all there is too it...

and this movie has crossed it. I have never seen such a terrible movie in my life! I mean, a kid's head getting cut off from the force of an empty sled? A snowman with a costume that has the seams clearly visible? This was a pitiful excuse for a movie.
What can you say when you see a good French movie which tries to draw a suspenseful story in line with the social background of the characters? The major point is we believe in those characters and once they've met each other we want them to stay together. It's simple and really efficient. The background story is less important. Why does the screenplay go on the side of a half-developed thriller? It helps not to get stuck in those social demonstrations most French film-jerkers like to make. Not too much ambition, right: Sur mes lèvres is only an entertaining French film with good characterization.
For all the clever noir points in the screenplay the end is by far too easy. It goes quite as easy as in Rear Window (an obvious reference and definitely not a noir film) but with a less compelling context. Where I am amazed it's to see that the character of the probation officer has not been erased. He brings very little to the story; when he appears alone we wonder if we've not missed a part before. Jacques Audiard is not a new-comer yet. Strange and weird.

I passed this one on the shelf a few times, looking at the myriad of huge positive quotes (with tiny names) on the front and wondering if I was missing something. The other night it was on one of the movie channels, and I tuned in. I missed nothing.
I must admit that I only watched the first 30 minutes. Perhaps the movie becomes comedy gold after that. Given the slow, plodding pace and complete lack of laughter in the first 30, I seriously doubt it.
The lead character starts the movie in classic "I don't know how to start my movie" style, with a long, tiresome monologue about how he doesn't want to get sued. It's not funny. It's not even remotely funny. Others have commented on the "San Franclisco" bit; ok, a small chuckle the first time he says it. Then he grinds it into the ground, smiling at the camera like it's the funniest thing ever written. Get over yourself. In fact, I think the talking to the camera bit was the reason I instantly disliked the film. Don't assume familiarity with your audience. Familiarity is _earned_, much like respect.
From there you basically have a fat whiny guy talking in a very effeminate way about his dull life as a temp. I didn't realize he's Jewish; it's a discredit to Jewish comedians to call this "Jewish humor". It's just unfunny humor. Just because you're Jewish doesn't mean you have a knack for the comedy. A WASP, Spalding Gray, does a better job of self-analytical humor than this guy, so obviously it's not about ethnicity.
If one of the bits I had seen had worked, I might have stuck around. But some schlub going on about how much he loves the names of the women he works with, then listing them for five long minutes, doesn't make a great movie.
This is an obvious attempt to capitalize on the popularity of "Office Space". Don't let yourself become a victim of target marketing. Just say no to "Haiku Tunnel".
I thought this was an excellent and very honest portrayal of paralysis and racism. This movie never panders to the audience and never gets predictable. The acting was top-notch and the movie reminded me of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest".

I figured that any horror film with Orson Welles in it would be weird. Necromancy sure was but it was a little too weird for it's own good. The film does indeed have a creepy feel as it deals with a coven of satanists/witches in a small town and a young woman's attempt to escape them. The director though seems to be deliberately trying to confuse the audience by using flashbacks and dream sequences. By the finale, there are too many unanswered questions. What's worse, as the story is so confusing, it's pretty hard to root for any of the characters. It seems odd that Welles would agree to headline this film especially since he doesn't have that much to do. Maybe someday they will put out a tape of the outtakes and bloopers from this movie. Now that would really be fun!
Its not sophisticated, and nobody in the credits had a great career, but taken as a whole, because there are no famous personalities; the film seems more realistic than some high budget, well cast films.
A film made for a few bucks, that is worthy of watching should give hope to all those would be film makers and wantabee actors.
The problem with this film is it was made in the worst possible time. TV was taking over the revenues of the film industry, and this film could have easily been shown on TV. In 1950, all the fare on TV would qualify for a "G" rating. The film industry began to make more "adult" films that could not be shown on TV during the days when TV wouldn't dare show the sex and skin of today's commercials.

This is an hybrid creature born at Carl Macek mind. With Robotech the second generation (Robotech Masters) and Megazone 23 into one miserable movie, that have no logic! The story is very, very bad, and you cannot forgive the action of Megazone when have nothing to do with Robotech. If this movie have so high rank is for the TV series and not for itself!! I did said it, the name cannot save this!