Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
This movie can be interpreted on many different levels. Don't listen to the other comments bashing the movie and saying that it is a played again story or w/e and that it is just about drugs. It has very overt superficial metaphors about drugs; however, the rest of the movie (and why I think it was personally made) is really not about that at all. It is really mocking psychology and the conditioning of society. It shows, for a split second, that the main character's brother is watching those sick videos online. Why? My interpretation is that it is to demonstrate that all of this gruesomeness that we are exposed to makes it easier for us to be mechanical in our professions instead of seeing people as people. As far as the scene about logic, it is also reaching out to the people who were in the federally mandated 1% smart classes who are confused and frustrated because life isn't as predictable and mathematical and logical as it seems on a macroscopic level. You have to apply Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (along with all the other laws and principles of uncertainty) not just to physics but to life and leave room to change your plans and adjust along the way. One of the best movies I have ever seen. It just might go way above your head; it isn't for you it is for those people who are are having trouble coping with life not working out like a math problem. When you are critically analyzing a movie or writing your critical review's try not reading the back cover first (written by marketers and parapsychologists)

Perhaps I'm not a sophisticate. This and Closer are two of the more supposedly cerebral films I've seen recently, and both suffer from exactly the same problem to an excruciating extent. The dialogue is false false false. Nothing that comes out of anyone's mouth seems remotely believable. Perhaps the way this film is set up that's the way it's supposed to feel, but it was unwatchable. And boring. I walked out after 20 minutes of tedium.
I'll stick with Sleeper and Bananas for my Woody Allen fix. If I ever come across this on the teevee, I'll turn over and try to find an episode of Quincy instead.
I was born in 1982. Most of my childhood memories are in the extreme late 80's and 90's. I watched the Groove Tube for the first time in 2001, when I was 19.
And I found it hilarious.
So for anybody who thinks that something "dated" can't be quite funny 30 years later....think again! It's funny even if you have no idea what the 70's were like, and the thought of bell-bottom pants make you cringe. Who can argue with a Bozo the Clown type who reads adult literature? There is plenty to laugh at. The scrotal puppet show at the end is the best.

Sorry, but I will spoil both the plot line and the ending for you in hopes of avoiding a holiday fiasco like the one that I now face. The father dies and the mother asks Santa in a letter to bring him back to the family for Christmas,...and Santa does. Dad is peachy, happy healthy and totally unaware of the fact that he had died. All ends syrupy sweet.
But as a parent who recently watched my five year-old lose his best canine friend, it was a horror flick. Now my son is convinced that all he has to do to bring his buddy back is to ask Santa! Do not underestimate the willpower of a young heart- no amount of persuasion will convince him that it was only a movie and that his dog is NOT coming back for Christmas. It has been heart breaking to watch his joy only to know that Christmas Eve he will have to face his loss afresh.
Shame on you on behalf of all the believers that have lost a loved one recently. It is hard enough to deal with the loss one time for a child, but there are some wishes that we shouldn't even portray as a possibility.
Read Eric's review again. He perfectly described my own feeling for this film so more eloquently than I ever could. I'm only writing here to further encourage you to look for and see it.
I saw it many years ago on TV, the IFC I think. It is such a unique film I hesitate to make comparisons. It was filmed in northern Mexico, somewhere in the relentless badlands of Coahuila/Zacatecas/San Luis Potosi. This isn't the Sedona-like Durango,Mexico (of the John Wayne films) but a truly stark and wild place. I have to find the novel now to check on the original location of the story. Like the location, this movie is strange and wild and wonderful and weird and absolutely not for everyone. It is the kind of production that almost motivates me to study film.
I hadn't actually forgotten this movie, it is indelible. Yet, over the years, I had forgotten of its existence. I know nobody who has seen it, had never read of it, nor seen any reference to it. Erendira is such an unusual name, I'd even forgotten the title. Well, I'll be looking to buy a copy now.
**I have since the above posting become a huge fan of Gabriel Garcia Marquez and so regret not having read him before.
Relative to MsMyth's comment below; the movie was filmed in Mexico but the author is Colombian and was not commenting on Mexico or Mexican history in any way, although Marquez now lives in Mexico for "political" reasons. This story is universal.
I am still trying desperately to find a copy of this film for my library. Liked the movie? You have to read the story and then everything else Garcia Marquz wrote. And, by the way, the original location in the story was Colombia.

In this paranoia-driven potboiler, our reporter hero battles hindersome authorities, duplicitous co-workers, renegade UFO debunkers, and silent, skulking aliens. (Though capable of mind control and zapping objects from afar, it takes three of them to operate a control panel of about two dozen buttons.) The script clomps from event to event,leaving puzzlers aplenty. Why did the aliens blind the dog? Why do they fry the soldiers with radiation when they're only patrolling an empty landing site? And what space dudes worth their moon cheese abduct the ugly photographer first instead of his model? Inquiring minds want to know! Writer-director Mario Gariazzo apparently researched his subject by skimming a stack of UFO-themed tabloids as he took in a Sunn Classics double feature. (The closing screen crawl boasts that it's based on actual events...just like "Plan 9!") Some may feel burned by the abrupt finale, but it should still appeal to conspiracy cranks.
Yes, this is one of the great musical movies I grew up with with such great entertainers as Frank Sinatra and Gene Kelly, not to mention the petite and glorious voice of Kathryn Grayson. The music and dancing is superb. I understand Frank took lessons from Kelly; and there is Kelly dancing with Jerry Mouse, which is quite unique for the time. Betty Garrett plays the waitress who falls in love with Sinatra. She is one of Hollywood's great underrated stars. I saw this again on A&E TV and as well have it in my old VCR tapes. Never get tired of these old musicals. Whatever happened to Hollywood??

This movie has not aged well. Maybe it's just the impact and artful characterization, acting, and directing that we've seen with The Sopranos, but I just viewed Prizzi's Honor for the first time, on DVD, alone.
The experience of watching it with an audience 24 years ago must have been quite different, but I have to say, I was just appalled at the ending. Not just the violence of it, but the mere idea that somehow this would be a satisfying ending.
I enjoy a good shocker, but this seemed so out of character... Also, when was this move supposed to be set? The cars all seemed like they were from the 1960s, and yet the World Trade Center towers {completed in 1973} were clearly visible in many cityscape scenes.
Another way in which the film has aged poorly is the mere idea that a passenger could travel coast to coast with a knife on his person.
Somehow, mid-1980s audiences found this film charming and funny. Mid-eighties, meet the late oughts: only of you can live.
I remember seeing this in a the Salem movie theater (where I used to attend "Kiddie Matinée"s almost every Saturday) in Dayton, Ohio when I was a young boy and have never forgotten it. It simply amazed me and my friends. I do wish there were some way I could see it again! I have tried to find some compilation of shorts or something like that to no avail. I only recently discovered that it was a Cousteau film and that blew my mind even more. How the heck he accomplished this is beyond my understanding. The fish is ACTUALLY IN THE CAT'S MOUTH at one point, if I remember correctly! If anyone could help me find a way to see it again I would be extremely grateful!

What do you call a horror story without horror and story?
This is the most irritating thing about the film: I get the feeling the writers never really decided what's actually going on in the film! It's a different thing to know it, give hints for the audience and not completely reveal it, but here, you get the feeling the screenwriters don't know it, characters in the film do not know it and audience sees that no one knows! (Remember "Cube"? Even that film knew more about itself.)
I've consumed a lot of 80's horror / gore films and this movie certainly has its roots deep in those films. But a lot of important things are missing. We really know nothing about the characters. They keep repeating empty lines over and over again. The story isn't really developing - it never goes anywhere. B-acting is OK in this type of horror films, but there's not much to act in the script. We don't care about the characters. There's nothing to remember about them. There's not even cheesy humor or unnecessary sex. And most importantly - no thrills, no chills.
You only get some commonly used elements of the horror film genre. They show the Lordi monsters one by one but their characters don't really contribute anything for the story.
I honestly believe that this amount of story, character development and atmosphere could be achieved with minimal amount of crew and equipment. Oh yeah, film makers used to do that - and more - some 20 years ago! I felt the shared embarrassment of the audience as the film ended. Too bad really.
Govind Nihalani's directorial venture of Vijay Tendulkar's novel is brilliant. Om Puri plays an inspector Velankar who is forced to protect underworld don rama shetty, played brilliantly by sadahiv amrapurkar. This is Govind Nihlan's Most talked about movie. This is a very good and a classic film. Smita Patil plays the female lead opposite Om Puri. Naseeruddin Shah is brilliant in a cameo role. Although Sadashiv Amrapurkar has only 4 scenes in the movie he dominates the movie. This was Sadashiv Amrapurkars acting debut.Om Puri won a national award for this film for the best actor. Filmfare award winner for Best Film,Story,Supporting Actor(Sadashiv Amrapurkar).

The sign of a classic movie is that it ages like a fine red wine. This movie is no Cabarnet and certainly no Casablanca. I agree with the other reviewers that the children in the movie are an unfortunate mutation that now plagues us nightly in sit-coms and the dialogue is stilted and preachy. But let's look at the obsolete theme of the movie.
With the passage of sixty plus years of history comes wisdom. Since Watch on the Rhine, author Lillian Hellman has been exposed as a Bidenesque plagiarist with her so called real-life story "Julia" from her book "Pentimento". As one of the most odious of a plethora of Western-based USSR apologists, it is obvious her theme in the play and movie was to stir America to action to save the bloody Soviet dictator Stalin and international communism from the fascists, who had just proved their military superiority in Spain.
As one reviewer correctly noted, this is not a pro-American play and movie, as Lillian went to her grave an American-loathing communist. This film chronicles that familiar smug stupidity of the intellectual elites that made up the American Left then, just as now the full mooner Left of The Daily Kos and Michael Moore has bought into the conspiracy theories and once again given aid and comfort to those who would destroy America.
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.

How can a major German TV station broadcast a mess like this? It's amazing how the main actors avoid every acting talent - Even the well-known Gottfried John is acting very poor - especially in the double murder scene - how amateurish.......! The screen plan is very , very extended - perhaps to fill out 2 parts of the movie. Be careful not to fall asleep while watching! The set is obviously very often a blue screen, f.g. the scenes on the ship with unreal sea in background...! In the German version the sound and the dubbing is very poor - probably reason: different languages of actors - but: other international productions do handle this much more professional. Advice: Do NOT watch - it's a diabolic waste of time!
This is a reunion, a team, and a great episode of Justice. From hesitation to resolution, Clark has made a important leap from a troubled teenager who was afraid of a controlled destiny, to a Superman who, like Green Arrow, sets aside his emotions to his few loved ones, ready to save the whole planet. This is not just a thrilling story about teamwork, loyalty, and friendship; this is also about deciding what's more important in life, a lesson for Clark. I do not want the series to end, but I hope the ensuing episodes will strictly stick to what Justice shows without any "rewind" pushes and put a good end here of Smallville---and a wonderful beginning of Superman.
In this episode, however, we should have seen more contrast between Lex and the Team. Nine stars should give it enough credit.

Why is it that any film about Cleopatra, the last phaoroh brings out the worst in movie making? Whatever attraction the woman had for the greatest Roman of them all, Julius Ceasar, and his successor, Mark Anthony, never seems to come across on the screen as other than the antics of over sexed high school seniors. Despite lavish sets and costumes, this movie is as bad as any Italian "sandals and toga" extravaganza of the 50's. Admittedly, this kind of spectacular belongs on the big screen, which is why "Gladiator" went over well, but "Gladiator" did not have all the romance novel sex.
Miss Varela has as little acting talent as Elizabeth Taylor, but Timothy Dalton has talent to spare. Pity some of it didn't wash off on the others.
The actors play wonderfully, especially Kenneth Branagh himself. It's good that Robin Williams got the comedy role of Osiric, otherwise it could be a bit strange to see him in such a production. It is really great that Kenneth decided to use the fullest version of the text, this happens definitely not too often... Thanks to that the viewers can see the whole, not the chosen - by the director - parts. Also - thank God that the film is in a classical form; NO to surrealistic fanfaberies ! Although "Tytus Andronicus" was impressive nevertheless, but still Hamlet is a different story, at least that's my point of view.

Banned as a 'Video Nasty' in the UK, Unhinged has naturally gained quite a bit of notoriety. However, the most shocking thing I found about the film was its amateurishness in all departments. The bloodletting I could handle: the terrible acting, shoddy editing, awful direction, lousy script and abysmal soundtrack were much harder to take.
Three girls on their way to a music festival crash into a ravine during a storm. They are rescued by a friendly stranger who takes them to a nearby house. The owner of the house, a batty old lady, and her spinster daughter, welcome the girls in, allowing them to stay for a few days in order to recuperate. However, someone doesn't want the girls to leaveever! One by one they fall victim to an unseen assailant.
Taking a long time to get going and featuring some of the worst performances ever in a horror film (and that takes some doing), Unhinged is a truly awful film. The music is a total mess (it sounds like a three year old has been let loose on a synthesiser) and as such, it complements the movie perfectly. Only a couple of bloody scenes towards the end and a bit of gratuitous nudity save Unhinged from getting the lowest possible score.
If you are a horror completist (and unfortunately, I am), you will want to see this in order to tick it off the Video Nasty watch-list. But be warnedit is really, really bad.
This is a fine musical with a timeless score by one of my favorite composers (Gershwin) and a nice 'Parisien' atmosphere which gives the movie a lot of charm, but in terms of a story.. well it's not really there. Or at least, not very well worked out. The acting is also not so smooth by Caron. But I liked some of the dialogues, I liked the scene at the Seine, I liked the character played by Levant, the colors; and the dancing of course, which is quite magnificent.
A 7.5 - 8 seems on the dot to me.

This movie is just not worth your time. Its reliance upon New-Age mysticism serves as its only semi-interesting distraction. The plot is one that has been re-cycled countless times.
I was only prompted to even spend the time to put in a comment when I noted that some have tried to prop-up the reputation of this drivel. Their motivation & objectivity is dubious, since they encourage you not to look at the movies faults, but at its well intentioned message of New Age consciousness.
So would it be alright for some twenty to thirty Evangelical Christians, or Islamic Fundamentalists to pour in positive ratings about movies/television that support their views? In spite of the poor qualities of production, or the lack of truth in any of its supposed historic basis? I hope not.
I am sure the followers will come right behind me to say flowery things about this movie, in spite of the truth.
Blonde and Blonder has Pamela Anderson and Denise Richards in almost every scene and if you want more from a movie you're being utterly unreasonable. It feels like a late era Carry On, when the series was no longer blazing trails, but was still more funny than not, think Behind or England and you won't be too far off the mark. Pamela and Denise are bubbly, charming and clearly aware this isn't a masterpiece they're making, although you can give me it over lots of things I'm told to like. The supporting cast are energetic, even if some of them aren't particularly good; I can't see a couple of duff turns in a movie that's already practically forgotten making much difference to anything, so just smile. I really do think Blonde and Blonder is ace and I hope you hate me for it.

this movie begins with an ordinary funeral... and it insists so hard on this ordinary funeral feel that i lost interest within 5 minutes of watching, and started skipping scenes. it seems to me whomever made this movie is afflicted to the extent of becoming trapped in a permanent morbid trance, unable to contemplate anything else but death and destruction. well, i ain't one of the dark kids from Southpark, i want a movie that within 10 minutes gets me well into an interesting story, i won't sit and watch 10 minutes of nothing but preparations for a funeral.. my grandma on her last years was fascinated by funerals, perhaps she might have enjoyed this "movie".
10/10 for this film.
i'm a british india doctor, currently in india. the word Beckham put me off, 'cos i'm a die hard Liverpool fan, and personally think that Owen is really cool. Since Liverpool and Man Utd are rivals, i was DEAD sure that i wouldn't watch the film.
But then i was in delhi to meet some friends, and i had an early morning flight, so i thought, "what the heck, let's bide time by watching this film", 'cos it was a late night show.
What a moron i was. I should've seen this film the day it was released. I guess using Beckham's name was to draw audience attraction (which had back-fired in my case!!!), but then i really can't think of a better title for the film.
And Nagra, Knightley (drop dead gorgeous), and Rhys-Myers did a superb job.
If you hate football, dislike Manchester United (or England for that matter), then this is DEFINATELY the film for you. In fact, i'm just 29 yrs old, a psychiatrist by profession, but a kid at heart. This film has knocked "Star Wars" off my no.1 position.
Surprisingly, there aren't very many comments on this film by indian-brits like me. I wonder why?
10/10 for this film.

I like a lot of the actors/actresses involved in this project so being insulted by the movie felt even worse than if they used a unknowns .The main problem was this movie was clearly just a concept created to appeal to baby boomers .In 20 or 30 years Nbc will probably do a movie just like this about the early 90's . I can see it now a black family where the kids are involved with the la riot's and the white family has the kids rebel and listen to grunge rock music .The soundtrack will feature bands like Nirvana , N.W.A , Public Enemy , Soundgarden etc .The movie like this will be just as cheesy as The 60's and I gurantee you NBC will do it .See the biggest problem with period pieces when done buy networks is that when you are living in a certain time period you aren't thinking i am living in the 60's or whatever decade is trendy retro at the time .Next time someone does something like this they should put more weight into there project