Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Home Room really surprised me. In comparison to other movies that were written regarding Columbine high school this one is the best. Home room does not show the school shooting but rather the aftermath and the effects of the community and the town. The movie focus' on two opposite characters., Alecia(Busy Phillips) and Deanna(Erika Christensen). Alecia is an outcast who witnessed the entire shooting. She seems to show no emotion about it. Deanna is a popular girl and the only surviving victim. Alecia is forced to visit Deanna at the hospital in order to graduate. Meanwhile the police are investigating Alecia as she might have known the shooting was going to happen. Alecia and Deanna are very different and do not get along at first. Eventually they develop a mutual understanding for one another and become friends. (very much in the style of the breakfast club). Home Room Beautifully shows the power of closeness and turmoil after a school shooting. I would recommend this film to anyone and everyone.

Definitely the worst movie I have ever seen... Can somebody tell me where should have I laughed? There's not a single hint or shadow of an idea. The three leading actors are pestilential, especially the one (I think it's Aldo) from Sicily who _can't_ make a Sicilian accent!!! Not to say about the dream-like insertion about Dracula... just another expedient, drawn from the worst cabaret tradition, to make this "film" last a little longer. Massironi and Littizzetto do what they can, but this so-called movie was really too, too hard to rescue. I would have given it "0"/10, but the lowest mark was 1/10 and so I had to overestimate it by one mark.
Considering the lack of art with in African cinema (or Black American Cinema). The Idea offers a multidimensional look at a community assigned to hoods and dealers. But the funny thing is this is not at all the focus or even the subject of the short. But it is the unstated assertion of independence from these themes that is most sticking. The genre is unique and not the typical expectation. It is almost this departure which first catches the eye, so watching it twice is critical. The film has an aesthetic quality which lends its self to the true art of cinema.
And it is this true art that with an African voice that is extremely rare. The film doesn't copy to attain its message, it innovates and provokes by pulling at subtle stereotypes (not racial but character based stereotypes), From a writers perspective the film is brilliant. It carries multiply messages which include a very rapid character development. It must be remember this film is less than 10 minutes and it manages to establish character very quickly. The usage of colour texture and music is also to be commended. But considering the director, Owen Alik Shahadah's last venture 500 Years Later, music is to be expected. But from a theme point-of view it seems like the idea is a departure but the satire eludes indirectly to a social problembrilliant stuff!

Slasher films are often seen as the derivative, repetitive and frankly unoriginal. I happen to to be a horror movie fan, but this film was just so poor, words fail me. The script is severely lacking, the plot is ridiculous, the acting astoundingly bad. Just an all round stinker, that I wasted time of my life on. This had all the entertainment value of a 15th sequel to a film that was dire in the first place.
Who greenlit this mess?
I only liked two things in this movie. The first was the killer's mask - which was nice. The second was the Austrailian affinity with humourous profanity.
Save yourself, and avoid this hideous mess.
Let me get the bad out of the way first, James Hanlon is absolutely terrible trying to act his descriptions of what was going on with the rookie training and events of the day. Really it is in stark contract to the other fire fighters without acting aspirations who are natural in their delivery.
That said it is an amazing film that is impossible to watch without tears in my eyes. I am an English guy from London but I love New York and have visited many many times before and after September 11th. It is a second home to me and I can't help but feel devastated at the loss of life but also the destruction of part of such an amazing beautiful city. This is the real deal, in with the fire fighters with everything collapsing around them. I am so glad the footage exists to show people how it was on the day. It is a shame that they didn't use any footage of people jumping from the buildings because friends who were there tell me this is such a major part of their memory, it should be included to show future generations just how terrible it really was.
Conspiracy theorists can go to hell by the way.

This film started out very promising with the story about a director who loses his sight and a blind woman who is bound to help him. However, somewhere in the middle it seemed like the script writers didn't know where to go from there.
One unbelievable event followed the next (Russia must be very small because they are all bumping into each other all the time), the motivation of the female lead character comprehensible (why does she still follow him after they got off the ship? Why doesn't she try to borrow a mobile phone on the ship to call somebody?), the side stories were completely ridiculous (was the story with the mother and the boyfriend supposed to be funny? And what was the story with the younger sister about?). Still with all this seeming arbitrariness of the plot, the movie managed to be completely predictable.
The saddest thing about it is that there was a lot of potential. As I said, the idea of the film was good, the visuals and the score were very beautiful and the actors of the main characters were good, too. So this could have been a really good film... but it wasn't.
breathtaking, this is without doubt the best anime cartoon ever made. i first saw castle in the sky in the late 80s as a child and it left a lasting impression. years went by and i forgot the title of the film, and only by chance browsing on the internet i found this masterpiece again. after reading other peoples reviews and analysis I'm not surprised it has such acclaim and touched so many because it does leave an impression. a true fantasy adventure, a must see for all children and adults. its best not giving the story away so i would say watch this movie will a clear and open mind. if you have kids treat them to this i promise you they will love it. there's not much to say about this piece of art but if you've not seen it watch it and enjoy.

I was so excited and hyped up about watching this film when the promos first came out in November! It looked awesome and the songs! I was quite disappointed when I went to watch it! This is a film which weaves 6 couples together. It has a multi cast of 12 people! A huge amount of stars have worked on this film. I think the director, Nikhil Advani, has not managed the situation well and should not have had many people in this movie as this would of made it easier for him. Compared to Nikhil's directorial Debut 'Kal Ho Naa Ho' , 'Salaam-e-Ishq' falls quite behind. I think Nikhil should have a smaller star cast. I think the best factors of this film is the songs! The songs are excellent and I think that all of the songs are awesome, Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy done an excellent job and have done an excellent jobs over the years. I think the ratings of this movie may go up because of the excellent songs! One thing I was disappointed with, is that the director should not have included nudity in this film which is done by Sohail Khan and Isha Koppikar. I found this extremely rude watching this with family! Although, some may find this nude as comedy, it is not something you would want to watch with parents! I think the best acting was performed by Salman and Priyanka Overall, I think its an alright movie!
I love Claire Danes, and Kate Beckinsale looks amazingly immature in her role. The movie is flawed only because it seems the two accused seem to be in some Monastery, working like monks in the grass and under strict almost martial-arts-like discipline. The acting and filmography and amazing colors of what is supposed-to-be Thailand is eye-catching, but Claire Daines steals the entire movie, and is unexpectedly profound in her learning the hard lesson of life itself to the very end, in an act of amazing unselfishness unheard of and completely unexpected in the real world. The flaws are minute and I recommend the film, which seems buried sadly forever to rare TV showings. I for one want the film for my collection- a collection of only "10" rated films. Watch it, you will be very touched.

The Good Earth follows the life a slave girl and a poor farmer in China. The movie is based on the novel by Pearl S. Buck. The story is great, but I hated that they decided to cast Anglos in the lead roles. Walter Connolly is laughable as the farmer's father. He has such a heavy American accent, as do most of the lead actors, that I could not bear listening to him speak.
It is a shame that Hollywood could not get past their racist beliefs to cast Asians in the lead roles. To take Anglos and make them look like Chinese is akin to Anglos putting shoe polish on their faces to play African-Americans.
A strong pilot, this two-hour episode does an excellent job of setting up the characters and background for "Enterprise," the "prequel" to the original "Star Trek" series. It stumbles a few times into "Trek" convention and cliché--candy-colored space strippers never seem to go out of style, and I can already foresee snickering references to T'pol as "Seven of Vulcan"--but the ensemble looks strong, the characters are well-drawn, and one can already see hints that this particular crew will have to be more resourceful, in different ways, than those of earlier (later?) series. Scott Bakula hits the right note as a captain with Kirk's brashness and daring but without his smugness and swagger, and I look forward to the ways in which the series will feature the engineer, weapons master and communications officer (not just a glorified phone operator anymore!) as supporting players. The writers seem to have picked up on the one big mistake made in "Star Trek: The Next Generation," "Deep Space 9" and "Voyager": Instead of starting with a big ensemble cast and giving characters short shrift, it's starting with a smaller core of characters to which a little more variety can be added later--which I hope happens, because after about a half-dozen episodes, more variety will be needed.

A pretty average scifi film. The plot was more or less obvious from the start. Although the acting was reasonably good, the writing seemed very cliched, using ideas taken from numerous films.
The basic plot: Scientists working on a deep space research platform rescue a fighter from crashing into the red dwarf that they have been orbitting. Onboard they find a stasis pod, which coincidently malfunctions at that very moment. After 2 or 3 minutes of the man in the pod waking up, you realise that he is a complete lunatic. Something which totally escapes the 3 person crew of the research ship...
After that it becomes a rip off every other film involving a psychotic madman terrorising innocent victims, overall I think Speed 2 was a better exploration of the subject matter, which I didn't consider to be a good film either.
Not a good film, get Aliens out and watch that again.
THis movie shows us once again, how genius the Japanese directors are and were. This movie could be seen as a sort of a "Silent - Movie Tetsuo". Well Eisenstein...:)

Here's an interesting little movie that strictly gives the phrase "low budget" a horrible name. Our physics teacher who has about nine kids creates a strange serum that causes "molecular reorganization". Students are hopelessly killed from fake coincidences of submarine sandwiches and flying school supplies. Sounds like a resurrection of classic B-movies from the 50s, right? Nope! It's not an example of high camp fun, which is way, WAY off the mark. A glamorous showcase of breasts and butts ensues our desire for pleasure, opposing the horror that should have had 99.44% more in the first place. Bottom-of-the-barrel entertainment at its best, aided by pints of red blood and dead student bodies. Atrocious movies like this would make the ultimately catastrophic GURU THE MAD MONK (1970) the work of an intelligent genius who has a Master's degree in film production! It's an automatic "F", so rest easy!
Written by Oliver Stone and directed by Brian De Palma, SCARFACE paints a picture not easily forgotten. Al Pacino turns in a stunning performance as Tony Montana, a Cuban refugee than becomes a powerful player in the drug world as he ruthlessly runs his self made kingdom of crime in Florida. This gangster flick is harsh, violent, loud, gross, unpleasant and must hold the record for uttering the word "f--k" the most number of times. Almost three hours long, and yes it can get repulsive. A stout hearted constitution keeps you in your seat cheering for the demise of a ruthless crime lord.
Also playing interesting characters are Michelle Pfeiffer, Steven Bauer, Robert Loggia, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, F. Murray Abraham and Angel Salazar. Pacino proves to be one of the greatest of his generation. He manages to bring reality to his character that leaves a strong impression. This will not be a movie for everyone for you leave thinking you walked away from a disaster. Is that powerful enough for you? Crime does not pay for long!

I desperately want to give this movie a 10...I really do. Some movies, especially horror movies are so budget that they are good. A wise-cracking ninja scarecrow who can implement corn cobs as lethal weaponry...definitely fits this 'budget to brilliance' system. The depth of the movie is definitely its strong point and the twists and turns it implements, keeping the audience at the edge of their seats really drives the creepy...ninja... puberty-stricken... pre-thirty year old student...non-cowboy drawing...wise-cracking...son-of-a-bitch scarecrow into the limelight as the creepiest horror icon of the year. All I can really say is, 'can you dig it' and recommend watching movies such as Frankenfish if you enjoy this sort of hilarious horror.
(WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY SMOKING!?'
One piece of trivia that is often forgotten about this family film is one of business.
At the time, in 1994, this movie held the record for the biggest movie premiere in motion picture history (and may continue to hold). It was held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - no doubt in honor of the original film's "Angels" who "haunted" the Pittsburgh Pirates. In this remake they "haunt" the California Angels.
Anyway, the premiere was held at the long gone Three Rivers Stadium which was the home of the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Pittsburgh Steelers at the time (the Pirates are now housed in PNC Park and the Steelers at Heinz Field). The premiere was held on a movie screen that was five stories in height inside the stadium and held (and may even continue to hold) the record for the largest movie premiere in history, shown to 60,000 fans. Danny Glover, Tony Danza and Christopher Lloyd were all in attendance to the admiration of thousands of sports fans.

Saw this movie in my English class this afternoon and was surprised by how bad this version was. Don't get me wrong, George C. Scott was terrific as Scrooge, but the rest of the cast fails so very badly. Sometimes I couldn't stop laughing at the stupid acting and the repeated line: "Merry Christmas to everyone!" Other times I almost fell asleep.
The movie is based on a Charles Dickens short story about a rich guy, who don't think Christmas is nothing but humbug. After 30 minutes, the rich guy is visited by three ghosts, who persuade him to celebrate Christmas after all.
I can not understand how this movie, with a script so bad it must have been written in five minutes, can be so well-rated. Instead of this piece of garbage, I recommend to you, the Bill Murray comedy Scrooged. That at least, was funny...
This is one of those movies that's difficult to review without giving away the plot. Suffice to say there are weird things and unexpected twists going on, beyond the initial superficial "Tom Cruise screws around with multiple women" plot.
The quality cast elevate this movie above the norm, and all the cast are well suited to their parts: Cruise as the irritatingly smug playboy who has it all - and then loses it all, Diaz as the attractive but slightly deranged jilted lover, Cruz as the exotic new girl on the scene and Russell as the fatherly psychologist. The story involves elements of romance, morality, murder-mystery, suspense and sci-fi and is generally an entertaining trip.
I should add that the photography is also uniformly excellent and the insertion of various visual metaphors is beautiful once you realize what's going on.
If you enjoy well-acted movies with twists and suspense, and are prepared to accept a slightly fantastic Philip K Dick style resolution, then this is a must-see.
9/10

This must be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I was actually expecting a bad movie but I was caught by surprise believe it or not. The storyline is the traditional, all clichées are included.
The dialogue is so poorly written that you actually laugh when the otherwise half-descent actors are trying to make it sound real. The photo is not too good, the music is so malplacée it actually made me angry, the actors are not even trying, altho the script makes it almost impossible you could expect more from people that have been acting for 30 years and the so called action scenes actually manage to lack the "action" itself.
I dont understand why these types of bad movies keep on coming, who is financing this shit? Where is the screening ? And why on earth do actors take on this mission impossible script?
There are a million hollywood-movies in this genre without even aspiration of reaching the theaters, but even them Straight To Video things actually manages to look professional in comparison.
I can not say anything positive about this except the title which explains it all, I feel robbed of 2 hours of my life.
So terrific, so good. I have never seen a man be more funny than Eddie Murphy. In this stand-up-comedy you will see a lot of imitations more done by anyone!
If you have seen Raw (1987) you will have to see Delirious. It's so funny! It's so professional!

There was nothing about this movie that I liked. It was so obviously low-budget with bad lighting and camera work (almost like Blair Witch Project, only it wasn't supposed to be that way). There wasn't really much to the plot, and the movie just drug on and on. I actually fast-forwarded through the last 1/3 of the movies, but that did not help matters much. It looked like it might be good from the box, but I must say again: nothing about this movie even resembled good. No good actors, the special effects were so fake, the camera work was horrible, and the dialogue was painfully terrible. On my own personal scale, I give this movie a 0 of 10. Yikes!
I'm not at all picky about horror movies, and I'm willing to watch pretty much any of them. That doesn't mean that I'm willing to re-watch many of them, or that I won't have criticism for them. This movie is creepy, and is very well done. In fact, I think this movie would make an excellent double-bill with Session 9.
I should specify, before I get to my comments, that I watched this alone. I started watching it before going to bed, and got about 15 minutes in before I realized that it was too effective, so I saved the rest of it for the morning. Even while watching it in broad daylight, it was still creepy. However, I can't vouch for how effective it would be when watching in a larger group.
After the death of their daughter, a couple move to a remote cabin as a means of trying to come to terms with this death. Let me make note of this death - this is one of the rare movies that doesn't shy away from the death of a child. This is much more important, as it both sets the tone, as well as explains much of the acting that permeates the movie.
The couple is not doing well. The wife has distanced herself from the relationship, and the husband is doing what he can to try to bring her back. While some of the comments have complained about their acting - one specified that they act more like a father and daughter than husband and wife, and that's legitimate. He's trying to give her more direction. It's a role that men sometimes take on.
There are a variety of scares in the film, and most are fairly non-violent, though grotesque in some ways. The story itself feels very straightforward for most of the film, and takes an odd turn near the end. While the turn is not absurd, it is certainly not what you expected from the way things had been progressing.
Moody, atmospheric, and very well done for something that appears to have been shot on video.

Reading through all these positive reviews I find myself baffled. How is it that so many enjoyed what I consider to be a woefully bad adaptation of my second favourite Jane Austen novel? There are many problems with the film, already mentioned in a few reviews; simply put it is a hammed-up, over-acted, chintzy mess from opening credits to butchered ending.
While many characters are mis-cast and neither Ewan McGregor nor Toni Collette puts in a performance that is worthy of them, the worst by far is Paltrow. I have very much enjoyed her performance in some roles, but here she is abominable - she is self-conscious, nasal, slouching and entirely disconnected from her characters and those around her. An extremely disappointing effort - though even a perfect Emma could not have saved this film.
One of the last classics of the French New Wave. For direction, cineaste Jean Eustache drew from the simplicity of early-century cinema; for story, Eustache drew on the torments of his own complicated love life. So many things can be said of this film - observationally brilliant; self indulgently overlong; occasionally hilarious; emotionally draining...etc. etc. In my mind, whatever complaints that can be leveled against this film are easily overshadowed by its numerous strengths. Every film student, writer, or simply anyone willing to handle a 3 hour film with no abrupt cuts, no music video overstyling, no soap opera-like plot twists, and no banal dialogue should make it a point to see this movie. Everything is to be admired: the writing (concise, clever, surprisingly funny), acting (everyone, quite simply, is perfect in their respective roles), and, simple direction (the viewer feels like a casual observer within the film) make this film unforgettable. This is undoubtedly a film that stays with you.

Störtebeker is truly one of the worst TV mini-series ever made on this planet.
The acting is unbearable and the historic background is mostly nonsense: Just two examples: Visby was shown as a village of three houses. Instead, it was a major city at this time, it's best days already passed by. Secondly, Hamburg would have never been the city taking care of pirates in the Baltic Sea. Hamburg had no access to the Baltic Sea, the major town at that time was Lübeck.
But worse than all that: The directing! How can a dilettante like this guy be allowed to direct a movie like this? Impossible! There was not a single believable scene it, the fights were ridiculous and I could not suppress laughter at most stern scenes.
I can't understand at all how a major television station could be so incompetent.