Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Madhur Bhandarkar directs this film that is supposed to expose the lifestyle of the rich and famous while also providing a commentary on the integrity of journalism today.
Celebrities party endlessly, they like to be seen at these parties, and to get due exposure in the media. In fact the film would have us believe that this exposure MAKES celebrities out of socialites and the newspapers have a huge hand in this. IMO there is much more synergy between the celebrities and media and it is a "I need you, you need me" kind of relationship. However, the media needs celebrities more and not vice versa. Anyhow, in this milieu of constant partying is thrown the social column (page 3 of the newspaper) reporter Konkana Sen Sharma. She is shown as this celebrity maker, very popular at the social gatherings. She has a good friend in the gay Abhijeet and in the struggling model Rohit (Bikram Saluja). She rooms with an air-hostess  the sassy Pearl (Sandhya Mridul), and a struggling actress - Gayatri (Tara Sharma). The editor of the newspaper is Boman Irani and a firebrand crime beat reporter is played by Atul Kulkarni. The movie has almost too many plot diversions and characters but does work at a certain level. The rich are shown to be rotten to the core for the most part, the movie biz shown to be sleazy to the max with casting couch scenarios, exploitation of power, hunger for media exposure. Into all this is layered in homosexuality, a homosexual encounter that seems to not have much to do with the story or plot, rampant drug use, pedophilia, police "encounter" deaths. In light of all this Pearl's desire to have a super rich husband, a socialite daughter indulging in a sexual encounter in a car, the bitching women, all seem benign ills.
The film has absolutely excellent acting by Konkana Sen Sharma, Atul Kulkarni has almost no role  a pity in my opinion. But the supporting cast is more than competent (Boman Irani is very good). This is what saves the film for me. Mr. Bhandarkar bites off way more than he can chew or process onto celluloid and turns the film into a free for all bash. I wish he had focused on one or two aspects of societal ills and explored them more effectively. He berates societal exploitation yet himself exploits all the masala ingredients needed for a film to be successful. We have an item number in the framework of a Bollywood theme party, the drugged out kids dance a perfectly choreographed dance to a Western beat. I hope the next one from Madhur Bhandarkar dares to ditch even more of the Hindi film stereotyped ingredients. The film is a brave (albeit flawed) effort, certainly worth a watch.

I am sorry to say that it was one of the worst films I've ever seen. Although visually fascinating (e.g. the use of colour was absolutely stunning), it was pretty boring and disturbing (see the father/son incest).
What's more, music is totally absent, and if you think of those wonderful soundtracks by Michael Nyman (who wrote the soundtracks for most of Greenaway's films) then you can imagine what a difference it makes.
A powerfully wonderful movie. You are held in a death-grip once you let yourself get involved with the story. A successful dentist, Alan Johnson(Don Cheadle), is torn in a life crisis of balancing his career with his family. He notices his former college roommate Charlie Fineman(Adam Sandler)and wants to touch base. He finds that Charlie, who lost his wife and family in the 9-11 attack on America, is no longer in touch with reality...choosing to involve his mind with his favorite music from the past and video games. The former roommates rekindle their friendship and strengthen their former bond. Johnson has his friend Angela Oakhurts(Liv Tyler), a psychiatrist, to try and bring Charlie out of his grief...but it is Alan that accomplishes in getting his friend to emerge from his deep darkness. Jada Pinkett Smith plays Johnson's wife. Writer and director Mike Binder plays the role of Charlie's attorney/guardian. Also in the cast: Saffron Burrows, Donald Sutherland, Adell Modell and Robert Klein. Outstanding soundtrack featuring the likes of Bruce Springsteen, Graham Nash, Pear Jam and The Pretenders.
NOTE: I have never been a Sandler fan; but I found him outstanding in this role. In some of the scenes, I thought out loud...why has he never been approached to play singer/songwriter Bob Dylan in a biopic.

I'm sure deep in the recesses of Jack Blacks mind the character of Nacho Libre is absolutely hilarious but no it isn't. You can tell ol Jacks having a whale of a time hammin it up playing a smarmy, slimy Mexican friar with dreams of becoming a wrestler but this movie is a total misfire in just about every single department.
I just sat there through most of the movie thinking "Is this supposed to be funny" and "This is the guy from Tenacious D right?". The truth is this film has NOTHING to offer. AT ALL! It's a lousy script with crappy characters and really naff acting and direction. You'll watch endless moments where you think something funny is surely about to happen but it just doesn't. I was bored stupid about 10 minutes in but though it would surely pick up. It didn't. 90 minutes later I'd barely managed to stave off an aneurism it was that painful.
It's like, remember years ago when you'd see anything with your fave actor in it, even some of their really early pap from before they were famous, and you'd be really embarrassed that said actor was actually in such a load of plop. Yeah it's like that.
I've enjoyed some of Jack Black's earlier movies like Shallow Hall and I'm really looking forward to seeing Pick of Destiny but come on man. If you do this to us again Jack I'm gonna have to come round there and hammer your kneecaps or something. At the least give you a serious talking to.
I know it's a cliché but this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen and for so many reasons....
This movie is the first of Miikes triad society trilogy, and the trilogy kicks of to a great start. The movies in the trilogy are only connected thematically, and these themes are actually apparent in all his films, if you look close enough. Shinjuku Triad Society is about a cop trying to prevent his kid brother from getting too involved with a rather extreme gang of outsiders, struggling their way to the top of Tokyos yakuza. The kid brother is a lawyer, and the triad gang is becoming increasingly in need of one, as the movie progresses. The movie takes place in a very harsh environment, and is therefore pretty violent and tough. Miike has done worse, but since this is a serious movie it hits you very hard. As usual there is also a lot of perverted sex, mostly homosexual in this one. The movie is in many ways a typical gangster movie, but with a great drive and true grittiness. If you've only seen Miikes far-out movies (Ichi the killer, Fudoh etc.) this is worth checking out since it is sort of a compromise between his aggressive over-the-top style displayed in those movies and his more serious side, as seen in the other films of the trilogy. And as always with Miike, there are at least two scenes in this that you'll NEVER forget (see it and figure out which ones for yourself).
8/10

SOME NOT-SO-SPOILY SPOILERS AHEAD
Why do people, when they are disoriented or sick or scared at a club, cut through the middle of the crowded dance floor on their way to the bathroom?
Who in their right mind would hide under a bed when someone breaks into their room?
How often do you knock on a stranger's door and when they don't IMMEDIATELY answer, you open the door, walk in, shout a few hello's and then start going through their stuff?
If you were being pursued by someone you just discovered was a murderer, what would you do? Quietly sneak off and hide under a wooden platform or among metal implements? Run, quietly of course, to a ratty old barn or other decrepit structure?
I could be talking about almost any thriller that's come out in the last few years, but since this is the "The Return" page, obviously I'm talking about "The Return." I saw it free because I work at a movie theater and make a point of screening all the "scary" movies. I thought this one was tolerable... aside from the well-worn clichés. Sarah Michelle Gellar is really drab and looks kind of "Huh?" through most of the film. The details of the plot are slowly given out as the movie progresses and it's almost enough to make it interesting except there wasn't enough explanation as it moved on and so I was almost lost until the last 2/3 of it.
If you're a die-hard thriller fan, it's worth seeing at least once. If there's nothing better at the theater and you really want to watch a movie, eh, I guess it's worth a matinée ticket. If you thought the trailer made it look like an interesting movie and you can't wait... wait.
this is best showing of what i think jesus really was like. most movies show jesus as being effeminate, lobotomized, or tortured. this jesus laughed, played, and was serious when it was necessary. this is the kind of jesus people could be attracted to, not the usually hollywood version.
the movie took some liberties, attempting to "fill in the blanks." but the fillers didn't seem impossible, or even improbable. one thing i might argue, was that it never really explained what the romans had against jesus (movie portrayed that the romans were the main driver of jesus' death, not that the jewish authorities were against the idea).
it seemed that the movie was researched well. one example was the offhand comment to a teenage boy who was called "mark." it is believed that mark (or john mark) was the boy referred to at the garden of gethsemane whose cloak was pulled off and ran away naked (mark 14:51). i get the feeling that they tried to make the movie as accurate (even in spirit) was much as possible.

Undeveloped/unbelievable story line,(by the time I sort of figured out where it was going, I no longer cared) bad casting.(come on... William Macy as a hit man???) bad directing,(have you ever seen Tracey Ullman perform SO badly?)(Was I supposed to care what happened to the unethical incompetent, uncaring John Ritter character?) bad script...( Really, I'm not looking for a formula script but this was really awful) the only Really good thing in it was the kid. Ten lines? It's not OK if your comment is less than ten lines? COme on-- whose rules are those? Why can't I say what I have to say in less than 10 lines??? Isn't that kind of arbitrary? Why isn't it OK to have less than 10 lines of comment?
Who can watch a movie, look at Lucy Liu and not be overjoyed. That woman is amazingly beautiful & a talented actress. That's a tough combination to find now a days. And Jeremy Northam. i heard his name plenty of times, but i never really noticed him. My advice to Hollywood is : "use him more".
now about the movie: I watched it in one of my graveyard shift. I don't recommend that to anyone. It's a bit to complicated & mysterious for that. i still can't believe i didn't see the ending coming. I'm not gonna say what cause that'll spoil the hole movie. although saying this is spoilment enough.
now i'm suppose to cast my vote about this movie. I love the dark mystic story, the actors did a good job & i love the directors (natali) work in the past. There's not a big audience for this kind of thing, that's also pretty risky. you know what, i'm just gonna give this work a 8 cause everybody should see this. Then again, 1 point deduction cause there is always space for improvement.

This is actually a pretty bad film. The ideology is not as perverse as in those films Collins made later. However, my main misgivings about the film are that it is implausible and quite frankly boring for a long time. The whole concept of an ex-SAS man joining terrorists for no particular reason isn't very convincing and you can't help wondering why a group of highly organized terrorists (who later become pretty clueless) fall for it. The film starts with a pretty powerful scene but then meanders for quite a long time building up towards the great finale. Overall, I think Who dares wins could have been an interesting 45 minutes episode of The Professionals but the story doesn't carry a feature film. Although reasonably successful at the time this film initiated the demise of Collins' career who in the eighties mainly made cheap and dubious soldier-of-fortune or army films. Pity, because he actually is quite a versatile actor but at the end of the day Martin Shaw chose his roles more carefully and has a career that's still successful.
Gojoe is part of a new wave of Japanese cinema, taking very creative directors, editors and photographers and working on historic themes, what the Japanese call "period pieces". Gojoe is extremely creative in terms of color, photography, and editing. Brilliant, even. The new wave of Japanese samurai films allows a peek at traditional beliefs in shamanism, demons and occult powers that were certainly a part of their ancient culture, but not really explored in Kurosawa's samurai epics, or the Zaitochi series. Another fine example of this genre is Onmyoji (2001). I would place director Sogo Ichii as one of the most interesting and creative of the new wave Japanese directors. Other recent Japanese period pieces I would highly recommend include Yomada's Twilight Samurai (2002) and Shintaro Katsu's Zatoichi: The Blind Swordsman (2003).

I never expect a film adaptation to follow too closely to the novel (especially a beloved one, like Evening) but when I saw that the book's author, Susan Minot, was a screenplay writer and executive producer on the film, I thought that Evening would be a good adaptation.
If you enjoyed the book, don't bother with this movie. It is so far afield of the book that the two hardly bear any resemblance to one another.
Here, our characters are completely different: the bride is in love with Harris. Harris is the son of the housekeeper. Buddy is a drunk, in love with Ann and/or Harris. I don't think a single character made it from the book to the screen; oh it just gets worst with every passing moment.
And, really, didn't we learn from Bridges of Madison County that cutting from the story we are meant to be enthralled in, to scenes of our heroes' grown children having obnoxious and juvenile fights, simply does not work on film? This film is a disaster. Skip it.
EUROPA (ZENTROPA) is a masterpiece that gives the viewer the excitement that must have come with the birth of the narrative film nearly a century ago. This film is truly unique, and a work of genius. The camerawork and the editing are brilliant, and combined with the narrative tropes of alienation used in the film, creates an eerie and unforgettable cinematic experience.
The participation of Barbara Suwkowa and Eddie Constantine in the cast are two guilty pleasures that should be seen and enjoyed. Max Von Sydow provides his great voice as the narrator.
A one of a kind movie! Four stars (highest rating).

I don't think any player in Hollywood history lasted as long as David Niven did given most of the weak films he had to carry by dint of his incredible charm. He could act, got an Oscar for it, but most of the material he did was as light as one ply of two ply tissue paper.
Happy Go Lovely is a case in point. It's a musical and for the most part you'll remember Vera-Ellen's dancing. You'll remember that they are in Scot's costume as the film is set in Edinburgh during their festival. But if you can recall a single song from it you must have a photographic memory.
The plot is light. Vera-Ellen is the American lead in a musical that apparently is getting its out of town tryout in Edinburgh. She starts in the chorus and runs late one day. She gets a lift from the chauffeur of a millionaire greeting card king. Everybody now assumes she's the main squeeze of the millionaire. Doors open up as they've never opened before.
The millionaire is David Niven and he goes along with it and the various situations that are engendered by the mistake. Cesar Romero has some good moments here as the frantic producer of this musical.
In the end though Happy Go Lovely is light and harmless fluff which David Niven did so much of and got so tired of.
An enthralling, wonderful look at the films that inspired the excellent Martin Scorsese. Many of the films he speaks of are easy to relate to his works, particularly the earlier ones, the silent era. Very enjoyable despite being a bit long, I found this to be one of the best documentaries on film yet. Required viewing if you admire Martin Scorsese and his work.

Bela Lugosi plays a doctor who will do anything to keep his wife looking young and beautiful. To this end, he drugs brides during their wedding ceremonies to make it look as if they are dead so he can steal their bodies. I'm not exactly sure what he does with the bodies. I don't remember it ever being fully explained. All I know is that he extracts something from them and injects it in his wife. (I'll just guess that it's spinal fluid. Spinal fluid was all the rage of mad scientists in the 40s.) You can pretty much guess the rest from here.
There are a couple (well, really more than a couple, but I'll only write about two) of problems that I have with this movie. One is the way Bela is used. Sure, he does a decent enough job in his own overacting sort of way (BTW, the rest of the cast is simply abysmal). But, to have him hiding in the back of a hearse or having him creep into the female reporter's bedroom to do nothing is just silly. Also, why have him beat and/or kill every henchman he has? Is it to make him look evil? Well, someone who is kidnapping comatose brides doesn't really need to be made to look more evil.
The second problem I have is the idea of drugging brides. Why brides? Wouldn't any female under the age of 20 do? Watching Bela go through these gyrations to get his victims, I was reminded of the idiotic Fisherman in I Still Know What You Did Last Summer. In each case, there would appear to be an easier way of reaching your objective than employing a seemingly impossible plan that depends way to much on circumstances out of your control. (BTW, an alternate title for this movie is The Case of the Missing Brides. I guess that partially explains the need for 'brides'.)
It is a well known fact that when Gene Roddenberry first pitched Star Trek to NBC, the original pilot episode, The Cage, was rejected for being "too cerebral". When the series was given another chance, Roddenberry thought it would be fun to establish the events of the rejected episode as canon, and did so by writing The Menagerie, which has the unique distinction of being the sequel to what was still, at the time, an unaired episode.
This time, rather than exploring a new planet, Kirk and his crew are on Starbase 11, paying a visit to the former commander of the Enterprise, Christopher Pike (Sean Kenney), now horribly disfigured and paralyzed because of an accident. Pike joins his successor on the starship, where an unpleasant surprise awaits: Spock, who used to serve under Pike, has effectively hijacked the vessel and set the course for Talos IV, a planet which is off-limits (the punishment is death) since Pike and Spock's last visit there, 13 years earlier. Naturally, being a logical creature, Spock turns himself in and arranges a court-martial so that he can justify his actions.
There's no need to say more about the plot, since the rest will play out in Part 2. What really impresses is how Roddenberry creates the connection between The Cage and the rest of the Star Trek universe, by coming up with a particular type of flashback (to say more would be too much) that allows everyone, on screen and off, to see what could have been of Trek, had NBC not turned down the original project. In particular, it's fun to see Jeffrey Hunter (who was unable to return in The Menagerie) play Pike as a more serious captain than Kirk usually is and Nimoy's early days as Spock, whose personality hadn't been fully established yet: this is the only time in the entire series that everybody's favorite Vulcan spontaneously grins.
In short, not just a great "mystery" episode, but also a treat for those who can't be bothered to track down The Cage in its original form (it's available as part of the Season 3 box set).

Ever wonder why Pacific Islanders seem to automatically assume the sense of humour of Black Americans? regardless of their ethnic origins? Well this film will not provide any answers to this often pondered question - but it will provide an excellent case study.
From its onset this film acts as a sort of "Old School" for Pacific Island New Zealanders, which immediately raises the question what exactly is the point of such a task. Is it meant to perpetuate ingrained stereotypes of Pacific Island New Zealanders? or is it intended to exploit this potential market? The story is weak, jokes humorless, and the ending is expected. This film has done nothing for New Zealand cinema, as it is merely an appropriated romantic comedy that is devoid of any merit.
#3 in young John Travolta's trilogy of blockbusters. He dances to disco, rock 'n' roll and country. He heads to Houston to find work and love. Gilley's is the hot spot, and it is the time of the mechanical bull. Not to be outdone, I rode the bull at a club in Nashville. I recently saw this nearly forgotten film on television and remembered how good it was and how good a year 1980 was. I wore a black cowboy hat that year just like Travolta. Debra Winger was in her prime. She looks stunning in her red top. There is plenty of charisma. Bud and Sissy seem the ideal couple even if they are trailer trash. They split up just because it feels so good getting back together. Urban Cowboy has an amazing soundtrack. We get to hear Lyin' Eyes by The Eagles and Lookin' For Love by Johnny Lee.

This movie is so bad, you almost feel contaminated by it. Actually, there is a strong sense of relief when it's over, relief that you can now put the cassette back in the rewinder and RUSH this back to the video rental store before it contaminates the rest of your video collection. I jokingly suggested when we rented it that it looked like the kind of film where William Hurt would "phone in" his performance. I meant that he would not be trying very hard. But lo and behold, in a huge number of scenes in this film, Bill Hurt is actually ON THE PHONE! Our realization of this irony was the only pleasure we derived from this confusing mess. The cinematography and editing are murky and befuddled, the story is chaotic, and the soundtrack is barely audible. There is a very slight resemblance to "Falling Down", but that film had a boldly disturbing story-line, great writing and acting, and an engaging soundtrack. "Contaminated Man" is just some kind of broken down old European tourist trap, and watching it is like driving along some unfamiliar back road in an unknown country where you don't speak the language in a steady rain just after nightfall as the windshield keeps fogging up. You get the picture? Don't get this one.
I lived during those times and I think the program caught the heart of the era. I do think it should have dealt with more of the Afro American issue but I think it cover a lot in the program. It was scary to sit and watch the riots on T V hoping that they would not go as far as your families home and that it would not get burnt down. I thought Jerry O'Connell did a great job portraying a vet coming back from the war. I went to school with guys who came back. Some had changed more than others and some not so much. It bothers me when someone comments that an issue was not covered enough or it was not entertaining enough. Live through it and then make comments. I thought the movie was great and that everyone in it did a remarkable job. Thank you for a trip (sad and good) down memory lane.

This third Darkman was definitely better than the second one, but still far worse than the original movie. What made this one better than D2 was the fact that The Bad Guy had been changed and Durant was not brought back again. Furthermore there was actually some hint of character development when it came to the bad guy's family and Darkman himself. This made my heart soften and I gave this flick as much as 4/10, i.e. **/*****.