Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I found this movie to be very well-paced. The premise is quite imaginative, and as a viewer I was pulled along as the characters developed. The pacing is done very well for those that like to think--enough is kept hidden from the viewer early on, and questions keep arising which are later answered, producing a well-thought out and very satisfying film, both cerebrally and from an action standpoint.
It seems some people were looking for a non-stop roller-coaster ride with this film--one of those that comes charging out of the gate. This would be more analogous to one of those coasters that first takes you slowly up the hill--creating a wonderful sense of anticipation--and is ultimately, in my mind, more fulfilling for the foundation initially laid.
Excellent film.

William Shatner in small doses is tolerable. Unfortunately, instead of leaving his character as a minor irritation, and in that moderately amusing, it has been seen fit to enlarge his role and overdo it. Just as occurred in the original Star Trek series. I guess I will never understand American humour, which frequently goes 'over the top' to get the message through. I vote with my feet. I no longer watch the show, which is a shame, because the rest of the cast were good. It is pity that Shatner's overdone role also, affects James Spader's performance. But the majority demonstrate the way society is going, I guess. I don't travel the same routes. Frank
Strangely, this version of OPEN YOUR EYES is more mature and more nuanced. Aided by hindsight, Crowe's screenplay is a lot tighter and more fleshed out than Amenabar's original. The Spanish filmmaker should get credit for thinking of the story first, but there's no doubt that Crowe has improved on it -- if just slightly. Notice that you have no idea what the lead did in OPEN YOUR EYES, but you know almost everything about the lead in VANILLA SKY. That's what i mean by more "fleshed out."

Too bad neither the animals or Eddie Murphy had anything to say worth saying. this movie is just bland.
Children's movie? Well, if you're trying to get them to take a nap, then maybe. It's just 90 minutes of some eye-wrenchingly poor animal lip animation to quips that aren't funny. And the lip-sync'ing makes the old Godzilla films look brilliantly done by comparison. Meanwhile, Eddie "Pluto Nash" Murphy drones on with a suppressed understated delivery that is painful to experience. Apparently, he's trying to modify his old manic persona, but to what? In short, all the magic and wonder of the 1967 original version is lost in this re-imagining, or whatever it is. A town wants to bully some forest creatures and blame them for doing bad stuff. No, really. And Pluto Nash can psycho-babble with them. Things chain along with some stale jokes to a dull uninspired conclusion with no surprises.
Rent the '67 movie. Or some old Yogi Bear cartoons.
Let me start by saying I have never reviewed a movie on IMDb before; however, I am in the video biz myself. And coming from that perceptive; I can say, without a shadow of a doubt that this film is what a short should be. It has a very good story and another thing I love-(an even better twist ending). Opening was very well done, I loved video chosen for it and how it was edited.
I am not a fan of B&W but the way this film uses the effect it works. And with any film that is all that matters. The flow of the film works perfectly and editing was very well done. From a technical side of things (which is side I normally work on) everything is also very well done. There is no major tech. stuff to point out. Only minor one I have is that the end credits are a little bouncy. This is probably due to a rendering issue. Let me also say that I would have prefer to seen more of the love scene but I am guy (so you can chalk that up to a guy factor).
So overall I rate it a 9/10. It is worth the watch if you fan of Indies and/or short films.
ps. sorry for bad grammar or spelling.

This movie (not a film -- clearly recorded on a cheap cam-corder) may be one of the greatest cinematic stink-bombs in history. Beware: the packaging advertises the flick as an erotic exploration of sex-addiction. The film is not an exploration of anything, and it is no more erotic than staring at one's own warts. The script is pointless and meandering, with all plot elements serving as segways between supposed sex scenes. However, even the sex scenes are lame lame lame. Except for the first, they are around three seconds long (then again, maybe my version was cut) and comically overwrought.
If you are looking for a decent film, you don't want this. If you are looking for a titillating sex-flick, you don't want this. Whatever your life's goals, desires, or perspectives, you do not want to watch this movie. How they got Rosanna Arquette, Natashia Kinski, and Ed Begly to act in this stink bomb is puzzling in the extreme.
While a pleasant enough musical, what stuck with me about this movie was the unexpected comedic chemistry between Basil Rathbone, as the has-been composer, and Oscar Levant as his assistant. Playing a high strung, distracted artistic type (a far cry from his more familiar roles as either menacing villains or the coolly logical Sherlock Holmes), Rathbone's character looks like he couldn't find his way out of bed without help. And that help is Starbuck, played with his usual droll humor by Oscar Levant. Upon hiring Crosby's character as his ghost song writer, Rathbone introduces him to Starbuck by saying, "He does all my thinking for me.", to which Levant responds, "Ah, it's only a part-time job." Of course this goes right past (or over) Rathbone, who's too busy fretting about where his next hit song will come from. As another reviewer said, who knew Rathbone could be so funny! Too bad he didn't have more opportunities to display his comedic talent.

A hint I think may be gathered by the various comments on this thread.
I was quite amazed at the number of people who liked this film who want to make it "mandatory" or "compulsory".
I think this gives us a little bit of insight into the reason this film and the issue underlying it is so polarizing.
The Global Warming issue appeals a lot to people who want to force others to "do right". It appeals particularly to more "liberal" leaning people because it doesn't have to do with bedroom morality which is what usually gets conservatives who want to force you to "be good" going.
And that's the problem with the film. Al Gore is a politician. And a very successful one at that. He just can't help himself from appealing to those people who want to force others to do as they would. The political appeal is just too great.
And there we are left with a scientific issue that may be of huge importance, reduced to a political issue appealing to those in the body politic with a predilection to force other to "do right".
Another interesting question is how did the Environmental movement get hijacked by such people?
I originally watched 8 simple rules on the Disney channel UK for the first series and got completely hooked. When they didn't show it any more \ was annoyed, but then abc 1 satred showing the 2nd series. i didn't think another series would start after I read John ritter had died, however the 2nd series wasn't amazing the latest series is back to it's old excellent standard. i hope they go on to produce more shows soon even though i could watch each show a thousand times. Kaley couco is my favourite character as airhead Bridget and also performs amazing in Charmed. Rory is also good, he shares my name and Grampa as well.I'll keep on watching it until it ends until then I hope it carries on as funny as ever

I went to see this with my wife and 3 yr old son. He seemed to like it a lot more than my wife and I did. The writing is surprisingly poor for a pixar / Disney excursion. In fact, I had a very hard time paying attention at all. The movie does look amazing but the story just becomes so weird and long winded that I was hoping my son would fall asleep so I could pick him up and walk out.
Not to say that the film isn't an interesting concept, it's just told so oddly, (bad screenplay?) especially when we "meet the family" for the first time. I know we're supposed to get the impression that the family is wacky but good lord, they could've shortened that sequence by a good 15 minutes (seemingly, I didn't actually time it). By that point I was scratching my head looking for an exit.
Fay, the sister of the notorious Nobel prize-winning smut poet Simon Grim, still loves Henry Fool. Their son receives an ingenious orgy-in-a-box from an undisclosed sender and a chase across three continents ensues, involving a supremely sad-sack collection of government agents, terrorists, flight attendants, and bellhops.
Parker Posey delivers a perfectly timed comic performance, including some brilliant physical work. With strong contributions by Jasmin Tabatabai and Saffron Burrows, Fay Grim proves in the best Billy Wilder tradition that nothing is funnier than a beautiful woman in trouble.
Another good score by Hartley (and thanks in the credits to the American Academy in Berlin, where Hartley served as a fellow in Fall 2004).

Rip off of "Scream" or especially "I know what you did last summer", there's some entertainment here, and a little scary, but they needed some originality.
An entertainment score? 6.5/10 Overall? 5.5/10
There are enough sad stories about women and their oppression by religious, political and societal means. Not to diminish the films and stories about genital mutilation and reproductive rights, as well as wage inequality, and marginalization in society, all in the name of Allah or God or some other ridiculous justification, but sometimes it is helpful to just take another approach and shed some light on the subject.
The setting is the 2006 match between Iran and Bahrain to qualify for the World Cup. Passions are high and several women try to disguise themselves as men to get into the match.
The women who were caught (Played by Sima Mobarak-Shahi, Shayesteh Irani, Ayda Sadeqi, Golnaz Farmani, and Mahnaz Zabihi) and detained for prosecution provided a funny and illuminating glimpse into the customs of this country and, most likely, all Muslim countries. Their interaction with the Iranian soldiers who were guarding and transporting them, both city and villagers, and the father who was looking for his daughter provided some hilarious moments as we thought about why they have such unwritten rules.
It is mainly about a paternalistic society that feels it has to save it's women from the crude behavior of it's men. Rather than educating the male population, they deny privilege and rights to the women.
Seeing the changes in the soldiers responsible and the reflection of Iranian society, it is nos surprise this film will not get any play in Iran. But Jafar Panahi has a winner on his hands for those able to see it.

The only thing that surprises me more than the number of people who liked this movie is that it was directed by Clint Eastwood, whose work I admire immensely. The leads had absolutely no chemistry. Not for a second could I believe that there was anything deeper than lust between them. The story just didn't ring true. Add to that stilted conversation, tons of stereotypes, and an incredibly slow plot that basically leads nowhere, and you've got yourself a real stinker. Kay Lenz's nude scenes might be worthwhile for those seeking some salacious fare, but otherwise this is a colossal waste of time. My thoughts as I watched the movie was that itwould have been better titled "Cheesy."
This movie has a lot of comedy, not dark and Gordon Liu shines in this one. He displays his comical side and it was really weird seeing him get beat up. His training is "unorthodox" and who would've thought knot tying could be so deadly?? Lots of great stunts and choreography. Very creative!
Add Johnny Wang in the mix and you've got an awesome final showdown! Don't mess with Manchu thugs; they're ruthless!

There seems to be an overwhelming response to this movie yet no one with the insight to critique its methodology, which is extremely flawed. It simply continues to propogate journalistic style analysis, which is that it plays off of the audiences lack of knowledge and prejudice in order to evoke an emotional decry and outburst of negative diatribe.
Journalism 101: tell the viewer some fact only in order to predispose them into drawing conclusions which are predictable. for instance, the idea of civil war, chaos, looting, etc were all supposedly unexpected responses to the collapse of governmental infrastructure following Hussein's demise: were these not all symptomatic of an already destitute culture? doctrinal infighting as symptomatic of these veins of Islam itself, rather than a failure in police force to restrain and secure? would they rather the US have declared marshall law? i'm sure the papers here would've exploded with accusations of a police state and fascist force.
aside from the analytical idiocy of the film, it takes a few sideliners and leaves the rest out claiming "so-and-so refused to be interviewed..." yet the questions they would've asked are no doubt already answered by the hundred inquisitions those individuals have already received. would you, as vice president, deign to be interviewed by a first time writer/producer which was most certainly already amped to twist your words. they couldn't roll tape of Condi to actually show her opinion and answer some of the logistics of the questions, perhaps they never watched her hearing.
this is far from a neutral glimpse of the situation on the ground there. this is another biased, asinine approach by journalists - which are, by and large, unthinking herds.
anyone wanting to comment on war ought at least have based their ideas on things a little more reliable than NBC coverage and CNN commentary. these interpretations smack of the same vitriol which simply creates a further bipartisanism of those who want to think and those who want to be told by the media what to think.
The filming is pleasant and the environment is keenly realistic. I liked that it boldly redresses conceptions of the many difficult moral and social morays of the 1930's Chinese-mainland countryside as well as more basic human questions - I felt I could get a real sense of the times, recreated even in splendid shots of traditional Chinese theatre and in purist depictions of street living. It seemed worthwhile to experience. The interwoven role which Buddhism plays is probably the most true-to-form - both in its menial and in its philosophic aspect, perhaps the most effective that I've seen in Chinese film. Casting is great. Images are memorable. Acting is solid enough. Thematically puerile but still rich enough to compliment the vehicle of its expression.

The film is poorly casted, except for some familiar old Hollywood names. Other performances by unknown names (i.e., Jennifer Gabrielle) are uninspiring. I have seen other films by this director, unfortunately this is one of his worst. Perhaps this is a reflection of the screenplay?
In a positive note, Kim Bassinger's and Pat Morita's performance saved the movie from oblivion. I enjoyed Pat more in Karate Kid, though. There are many good movies to see, and in short, this one is not one of them. Save your money and the celluloid.
Jason Vanness
I was a kid .. crazy about Michael Jackson. His music, his dancing .. He was and is the greatest of all times. Few days ago a friend gave me a present .. "Moonwalker" DVD .. I just couldn't believe it! So I took my time and saw the movie again.. After a lot of years, and it kicked me back in time. I almost cried. Not because of Michael Jackson but of the good old times I remembered back than when I went to his concerts, enjoying music and dancing. The movie gave me some other perspective than back then when i was a kid. You can truly see the parody that Michael went through his life. Thank You Michael Jackson to bring me back to those great times, to Your great music and dancing. It's a shame that people has forgotten You .. I didn't because You gave me great moments with your music .. All the best to You where ever You are out there ..

This utterly dull, senseless, pointless, spiritless, and dumb movie isn't the final proof that the world can forget about Danny Boyle and his post-"Trainspotting" movies: "The Beach" already took care of that. What this low-budget oddity does is merely to secure his place among those who started very well but got completely lost in drugs, booze, ego, self-delusion, bad management or whatever it was that lead to this once-promising director's quick demise.
The premise is absurd: two losers (Ecclestone and some bimbo Jenna G - a rapper, likely) meet by chance and spontaneously start singing with fervour more akin to lunatic asylum inhabitants than a potential hit-making duo - which they become. A friend of theirs - an even bigger illiterate loser - becomes their manager by smashing a store window and stealing a video-camera by which he films them in "action", and then shows the tape to some music people who actually show interest in this garbage. Now, I know that the UK in recent years has put out incredible junk, but this is ridiculous; the music makes Oasis seem like The Beatles. During the studio recordings, the duo - Strumpet - change lyrics in every take and Ecclestone quite arrogantly tells the music biz guys to take it or leave it, and quite absurdly they do take it. Not only is the music total and utter trash, but its "performers" are anti-social; these NEWCOMERS are supposed to be calling the shots. It's just too dumb. It's plain awful.
The dialog is unfunny and goes nowhere, and this rags-to-bitches story has no point and makes no sense. It often feels improvised - under the influence of drugs. Danny Boyle is a complete idiot. This little piece of trash is so bad it's embarrassing to watch. Ecclestone's I.Q. also has to be questioned for agreeing to be part of this nonsense. Whoever financed this £1000 joke should leave the movie business before they end up selling their own underwear on street corners.
I'm a huge fan of the Dukes of Hazzard TV show. And I really enjoyed this flick. I enjoyed myself here a lot more than I did with other summer blockbusters.
It's funny hearing people rail against this movie with excuses like "lame plot" and "it's much cruder than the show." Does ANYONE remember the crudeness of the humor in the pilot episode? Daisy makes incest jokes and Bo says that Luke had probably fathered half the kids in the orphanage. The only reason it was cleaned up is because it changed to and earlier time slot.
And as far as the plot goes. It was the perfect Dukes plot. In fact as a remake it probably stays truer to the source material than any TV show that has migrated to the big screen.
While Sean William Scott and Johnny Knoxville aren't EXACTLY like their small screen versions, they do a great job and work very well together. I wasn't too keen on Burt's Boss Hogg though. And I would have like a little bit more incompetence from Sheriff Roscoe. In the movie Roscoe is a little... scary.
And who didn't have a smile on their face as the General Lee is racing through the streets of Atlanta and the back roads of Hazzard?
Folks, allow yourself to enjoy a movie that is just an excuse for nostalgia, bikinis and car chases, you won't be sorry. It's just a great dumb movie!

I was very excited about this film when I first saw the previews. Normally I see a preview this good and I buy the film outright. Something told me to... you know watch it first. I'm glad I did. Keira Knightley ruined all future films for me with this role. In the 2nd Pirates movie when it came out I went to see it. All I saw was Domino Harvey and I hated her more for it. I think that had to do with her hair and having to cut it short for Domino.
Domino who? Who is Domino Harvey? I still don't really know or care. I don't know who she was in real life or who she was in this film. I didn't care about her character and even Keira getting partically naked didn't make it worth the movie. The direction was definitely lacking. The writing was trite and shallow. The editing was horrible. I don't mind the style so much as the poor overuse of it. There's a place for it. Good examples of choppy, MTV style, colorful editing (not sure if there's an official name) would be Fight Club; just off the top of my head. Even Enemy of the State had a semi similar editing style at parts. It was used tastefully and wasn't used as a crutch. I mean this is the same guy who directed Top Gun and Crimson Tide. Tony Scott please give me my time back.
I understand there are many people who liked this movie. I guess the idea that you'll either completely love this movie or completely hate it is a fair assessment. Frankly, I hate it.
This is the best movie I have ever seen.
I've seen the movie on Dutch television sometime in 1988 (?).
That month they were showing a Yugoslavian movie every Sunday night.
The next week there was another great movie (involving a train, rather than a bus) the name of which I don't remember. If you know it, please let me know! In any case, how can I get to see this movie again???? A DVD of this movie, where?? Please tell me at vannoord@let.rug.nl
The next week there was another great movie (involving a train, rather than a bus) the name of which I don't remember. If you know it, please let me know! In any case, how can I get to see this movie again???? A DVD of this movie, where?? Please tell me at vannoord@let.rug.nl

I'm not sure what HK movies the other reviewers have been watching, but Enter the Eagles is nowhere near the top of the heap in HK action. Michael "Fitz" Wong should be glad he can get acting jobs in HK, because he couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag in English. Shannon Lee looks good and is a fantastic fighter (even better with the leg fighting than her dad), but her acting skills are also sub-par. In fact, all the English dialog (90% of the movie--even more than in Gen-Y Cops) is so bad that I switched to Mandarin audio just to spare myself the misery of the bad dialog delivery and the redundancy of the English subs. Sure, there are some decent gunfights (but nothing we haven't already seen before) and good cinematography, but the cheesy visual effects really spoil the action.
That said, it's worth the price of admission to watch Shannon and Benny "The Jet" Urquidez go at it. Spectacular, and almost worth watching the rest of the movie for.
Finally, you might notice some scenes that seem "familiar" to you, notably a shootout at an outdoor market (think Matrix) and Fitz diving out of a helicopter wearing black fatigues (think MI:2). Guess someone thought at least a few things in this flick were worth ripping off.
This film captures the true struggle with identity that is ongoing in our teenage years. It is really moving and it feels strangely like a documentary-not contrived but very real. It is very interesting and unsettling

This was surely the stupidest, crudest, most repulsive film I have seen in quite some time. I was tempted to turn off the VCR, but, as in the fascination watching a horrible car accident, I literally found it COMPULSIVELY HATEABLE in every conceivable way and slugged it out through to the end. I am by no means a prude who objects to the comedic portrayal of sexual antics on the screen. Animal House, Porky's, There's Something About Mary, both American Pie movies, and even the notorious Freddy Got Fingered I have found highly enjoyable on their own crude terms. Mamie Van Doren's breast-baring sponge bath is the most horrifying appearance by a naked geriatric since The Shining. Ineptly edited and shot, with incredibly annoying performances from Devon Sawa and Jason Schwartzman, the film ended, without the benefit of having made me giggle once. The only useful purpose for the film is as a textbook example of how not to make a gross out picture. Oh, and it would also serve nicely as a lawn fertilizer.