Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Madhur Bhandarkar goes all out to touch upon taboo issues and gives the most realistic picture of the modern society. One gets the impression of the director even from his earlier movies like Satta and Chandni bar. The issues just hinted on in the latter movie are explored and exposed in totality here. The casting is amazing and one can see the judgements on each scene from many angles. Mostly, the movie leaves you wondering on lots of facts around. As you start guessing the things, you end up at most being close, but missing the mark in many a scenes. It leaves a lasting impression in the end.
Actors to watch are Konkana Sen Sharma, Boman Irani & Atul Kulkarni among others. The dialogues are well written and you feel you've lived around some of these people. There are still some scenes that make you think of more depths. The songs are in the background saving time and Lata's voice in a very meaningful song "Kitne Ajeeb" leaves you feeling you're left all alone in the midst of the modern society!

This movie does have some great noirish/neorealist visuals, and it tells a story that is refreshingly free of Hollywood's sugar-coating, which was only possible because it was essentially an independent foreign film. But some of the scenes go on for much too long (the wedding, especially), and I found the exaggerated acting and unrealistic dialog to be more fit for the stage than for the silver screen.
The dialog was particularly distracting, and it seemed to get worse as the movie went on. Most of the characters were either Italian-Americans or Italian immigrants living in New York in the twenties and thirties, but their dialog sounded like they were practicing lines for a Shakespeare play while they mixed cement and laid bricks. Toward the end I was laughing, and not because the filmmakers wanted me to. I guess the stilted poetry could be defended by saying that the characters would have been speaking Italian, and the dialog is a literal translation of how they would really talk. But it absolutely did not work for me.
Another line of dialog made me laugh for a different reason: the main character's son, born and raised in New York in the 1920's, suddenly picks up a lovely lilting British accent. I'm only guessing this had something to do with the fact that the movie was made in England.
I give this movie an 'A' for effort and intention, but a considerably lower grade for execution.
I don't have words to describe how good this movie is. Only a genius like Amrita Pritam could have written such a real depiction of the days of partition. The movie kept haunting me for many days.
Urmila did the role of her life in this movie. She put life in the role of Puroo and Manoj Vajpai did no less in his role as Rashid. It is hard to imagine anyone other than these two doing the role of Puroo and Rashid. The Punjabi costumes looked so natural on Urmila and Manoj looked like a natural Punjabi Mussalmaan.
Sandhali Sinha as Lajjo and Suri as Ramchand did fabulous job. Priyanshu Chattarjee did good work as Triloki.
Some of the scenes you just can't get out of your mind. When Puroo meets Lajjo for the first time, it brings tears to your eyes. The climax is just killer. I was expecting a tragic ending but thankfully, the ending was wonderful.
This movie is in the same category as Pakeezah, Mughal-e-Azam, Banaras etc. Not to be missed.

Like too many recent British films, this one takes a great cast and gives them a flimsy, cliched script to work with. The performances save it from total disgrace, and it has some charm but it certainly didn't make me laugh. Where are all the great British writers hiding?
I first saw this film over 25 years ago on British TV and have only just caught up with it again last week on a DVD copy bought off ebay. I had remembered the musical sequences, the colour and the gorgeous fashion plate poses and clothes but the plot is weaker than the earlier Anna Neagle/Michael Wilding film Spring in Park Lane and Maytime doesn't stand up so well to the passage of the years. But Michael Wilding is a joy in the film, charming, funny, debonair, appears to be having great fun and on top of his form. Worth watching for him alone. Anna Neagle appears a little matronly beside him, and a little too old for the part she plays but by the end of the 1940's their film partnership was well established with the cinema going public. Spring in Park Lane had been a top hit for 1947 and a big money maker. In his autobiography Wilding wrote at length of his great regard for Herbert Wilcox the director and instigator of this London series of films.

For a fan series, I must admit that Hidden Frontier is not at all that bad. But, reviewing this series can not be based on whether it is a fan series or not. The initiative in itself is commendable. The creativity as well. I reckon these are people with ordinary jobs, and a big enthusiastic heart for Star Trek. But, doing all this work. Pulling all these resources. Taking all this time, and still all those flaws.
First of all the acting, and the lines are awful. For most. The dialogs belongs in a 70's military show, not in Star Trek. The captain (Mr Squinty) looks like he is about to burst into laughter anytime. And most characters are just reading their lines. The directors should be aware of the fact that "retake" is not just a word in the dictionary. But I also guess that the series are made in the manner of "Two Takes Frakes", who directed many of the TNG episodes and movies Also, I could not help but think that most of the actors are typical Trekkies. Without going any deeper into that assumption.
My biggest concern regarding the whole project, is the quality of the releases. When they first decided to spend so much time, and resources on this series - why didn't they make it available in decent quality? Using the quick time format, with low low resolution is a waste of talent. Even the "higres" episodes is considered bad quality compared to the standard quality series are released in. Using Xvid codec, with a larger resolution and file size would have improved the experience massively. If band with problems was the issue, setting up a torrent tracker would have solved that.
Let's hope the crew decides to brush the series up, and perhaps release it on DVD, giving it the quality the project deserves.
"Stairway to Heaven" is a outstanding invention of movie making, probably never duplicated. I rank it with "The Wizard of Oz" and "African Queen," although it is a totally different type of movie than "African Queen." "Stairway to Heaven" is a psycho-drama that uses performance concepts and technical effects that, to my knowledge, are totally unique.
For example, there is the combination of B&W and color footage - as in "Oz," but the significance of the contrast goes way beyond the simple - but beautiful - effect achieved in "Oz." In "Stairway" the purpose and effect of the contrast can only be described as powerful.
Another brilliant aspect of "Stairway" is the concept of "time" and how it is used here. How could anybody have conceived of a better way to make time stand still  literally? And then there is the Stairway itself!
If you have any imagination at all, you will agree with me. "Stairway to Heaven" is a true gem.

This movie contains no humor for anyone who has lived with a family member who has a mental illness. So many scenes reminded me too graphically of my own life experiences. This movie was the man's version of "Mommy Dearest." It depicts both graphically and accurately the life many children of a mentally ill parent goes through. It also shows how easy it is for a psychiatrist to become corrupt and act like they are God.
Someone told me it was funny. No way, I say! It is sick humor at best.
The movie is so intense and depressing that my son and I had to leave the room. The best use for this movie is for people who don't understand mental illness or don't believe what we families actually do live through.
...this is a classic with so many great dialogs and scenes nobody should miss. Nice story, funny riches-to-rags situations, Mel Brooks is not a bad lead, maybe not perfect but he is funny ;D Don't pay attention to the rating, it's BS. Watch it, then watch something like final destination (2009) and tell me that Life Stinks deserves about the same rating. If you do, I don't think we can be friends XD At this point I recommend the fourth season of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" to every Brooks fan ;) Vote 10 against the ignorant opinions of inchworms! I've to make 10 lines here to post a comment? I don't wanna write a book here :P

I found myself very caught up in this movie, at least at the beginning, and any credit I give to this movie, is Lacey Chabert, she was fantastic!! But thats where it ends. I seem to be very good at figuring out who the killer is, and I like it when a movie is able to completely baffel me, but I felt out and out lied to, they whole time they lead you in one direction and then suddenly they decided to go in a completely different direction at the end, they gave no hit to it at all, thats not misleading that very bad writing and planning, someone did not think at all!
I felt the movie would have been much better if they had stuck to the plot that the lead you on, they also seemed to not answer anything, why did Jane(maria) burn down the professor's house.
Its a great pity as I felt it started out as a relatively good movie.
I just bought the DVD and i must say, (after seeing Brazil and Fear an loathing in Las Vegas) Terry does it again. As well of being a fan of the Monty Python movies, Terry Gilliam's genius follows through in this sci fi thriller, whom Bruce Willis plays a wonderful role as James Cole, and as well (perhaps my favorite character) Brad Pitt who played the insanity of Jefferey Goines. A must have for sci fi fans, or movie fan of any type really, because it includes suspense, drama, action, etc.
any way the plot, In the future, 1% of the world's population survives a disease intended to wipe out the human race, which is unleashed in the past by "the army of twelve monkeys". James Cole( Bruce Willis) is sent back to 1996 (which is when the virus was unleashed) to find out about the disease, so scientists in his time can find a cure. Before i go further, James Cole lives in an underground society, and the animals rule the world on the surface due to the disease that will kill the humans. anyway when he is sent back in time he is actually sent back to 1990 where he is sent to a mental institution because of his tellings to people of the virus. During his stay he meets Jefferey Goins( Brad Pitt) who is later mostly responsible for wiping out the human race. He also meets his psychiatrist ((Madelein Stowe) who eventually teams up with Bruce to save the world ( as she sees that he is correct in his tellings), he is sent back and forth from his time to the past and eventually sent to 1996 where he then questions his own sanity but later pulls through to reveal a suspenseful end quarter of the movie and later builds up to the somewhat shocking climax, where he tries to stop the man carrying the virus( not actually Brad Pitt) and is instead shot by the police as the killer gets away.

The only thing that kept me from vomiting after seeing this movie was the fact that these are just actors and not the freak show that usually appears on the TV show. This is also the main reason that fans of the TV show won't like the movie, but not the only reason. This movie has about as much entertainment value as getting a root canal. It approaches the abyssmal depths of bad movie making, and then gets even worse. I won't waste your time describing this movie in further detail; suffice it to say that I pity the poor camera people who had to suffer through watching this c**p the first time.
This movie is completely ridiculous. Not only is the plot atrocious, but the acting is horrendous. The special effects are asinine and the entire movie is set in a post-apocalyptic desert. Yet, it is by far the most amusing movie ever given permission to be produced. It is 101 minutes of laughs due to the fact that we all know there will be no fuel in the year 3000, or any El Camino's. There are also other aspects which I will not spoil, just because they are what makes the movies so wonderfully moronic. I highly recommend this movie, just because of its utter idiocy. I have no idea who would watch this expecting it to be a high quality feature, but if a good laugh is what you need, watch Exterminators of the Year 3000!

This was a nice attempt at something but it is too pretentious and boring to rise above it's low budget trappings. The use of virtual sets almost works but at some points it fails miserably. They made good use of the small budget I guess. I just wish the story and most of the acting was better. There are a lot of parts where you see what they were aiming for and it would of been great if they actually hit those marks but they don't. Confusing and unbelievable story. Bad DVD transfer too. It doesn't take much for me to watch a movie in one sitting. This I had to shut off. It was too boring. I can do slow movies. But just make them appealing in some aspect. Visually, story-wise, acting, etc. This was lacking in all departments so it never added up to an engrossing experience. Maybe the film maker's next attempt will be better.
This silly movie is really fun for the younger audiences. Its heros are a couple of dud detectives whose sophomoric attitudes lead them down some very silly roads. Chasing the big murder case, you will see these detectives go to every length to solve the crime. No nudity, but lots of sexual implication, slapstick silliness...everything adolescents go for. Low budget, but very entertaining. Definite cult classic potential.

I watched 'Envy' two nights ago, on DVD, at a friends house. The premise of this film is quite promising, Jack Black and Ben Stiller in a comedy with a lot of potential, but it completely fails to deliver. I watched it with about five friends and no-one laughed for the entire film. The jokes (which are few and far between) are NOT funny in any way... the story line is crap, and they never answer the question... WHERE DOES THE SH*T GO? Of course the answer to that is NO ONE CARES. This film lacks any sort of comedy value, and as a few other users have said the only thing that makes it even almost worth watching is Christopher Walken as the J-man. None of the characters are developed, the plots so thin it's nearly transparent - and is that song throughout the film supposed to be funny??
Deathtrap runs like a play within a movie about who did what to whom, as it primarily takes place on one set. The premise is that an accomplished playwright, whose star is falling, receives a magnificent manuscript from a former student and so he plans to off his protege and appropriate his play, to the (loud) protests of his wife. Or so you think, for the first half of the movie. Past the halfway mark, Deathtrap begins to throw in twists and surprises that turn its premise on its head, then right around, and then in a mad spin, all the time keeping its title appropriate. It's an excellent mystery movie soaked in wit.
Michael Caine, as the senior playwright, plays himself in this movie - a slightly loony and very dramatic Brit. No surprises here - he does his usual good work. He gets the best line of Deathtrap, which he executes perfectly: "What is your definition of success, being gang-banged in a state penitentiary?"
Christopher Reeve, on the other hand, juggles comedy and drama in a surprisingly strong performance playing the ambitious (and psychopathic) young playwright. He also gets to show off his very toned body, which he must've retained coming off the Superman movies.
Caine and Reeve have collaborated in another movie that's one of my favorite comedies - Noises Off. It similarly revolves around a play as well, although this time Caine is the director and Reeve is an actor. They are joined by comic veterans Carol Burnett, John Ritter, Marilu Henner (Taxi) and Mark Linn-Baker (Perfect Strangers). Together, they demonstrate the calamities that befall the bed-hopping cast and crew of a play. On the surface, the movie looks to be mostly slapstick but upon watching you find that they are many subtle jokes that require more than one viewing to catch. Wish this underrated movie was available on DVD.

The only reason I saw "Shakedown" was that it has Erika Eleniak in it. She's sexy as always, but she plays second fiddle to leading man Wolf Larson. It's a pity, because she has more action capabilities than she's allowed to show here. The film largely consists of endless shootouts that quickly become monotonous - especially when most of the time you are seeing the bad guys armed with machine guns constantly missing Larson and him armed only with a revolver (that NEVER runs out of bullets) taking them all out rather easily. The earthquake effects are decent, but there is also a lot of blurry motion and poor CGI explosions. As the psychotic "spiritual leader", Ron Perlman tries, but the pseudo-religious mumbo-jumbo he has to spout is simply boring. Eleniak, Perlman or Larson (assuming he has any) completists might want to give this one a look, for others it is barely worth a rental. (*1/2)
If you like "Othello," you'll love this flick since half the movie revolves around the stage production of the play.
The film has a great cast with Signe Hasso and Shelley Winters as the women in Colman's life while Edmond O'Brien plays the enterprising press agent.
A couple of the supporting players I particularly liked were Millard Mitchell as the grizzled reporter who finds an angle and Joe Sawyer, the 1940's answer to Drew Carey, who plays the cop on the case.
Great raw moments in this one with noir realism throughout.

Well I'm blowed, a Woody Allen film that I walked out of after half an hour (I'm aware of the moral fragility of commenting on a film of which I've seen less than half, but I hope you'll understand why). Basically, it became apparent very early on that we were going to be patronised from the screen with: a script that set out its conceit as if with bullet points; a cast that were all trying to be characters from Hannah and Her Sisters (with the exception of Chloe Sevigny), and were badly directed into doing so; and a camera that sat around portentously, only for there to be nothing to film but chat and the actor delivering it. Drama? None; it's partially pre-narrated, but the action does nothing to develop a dramatic situation.
Maybe I did leave too early in this case, but by then I'd decided against another hour and a half of one-liner-Allen clones. The script has its funny moments  I went almost entirely on the back of Will Ferrell's excerpts in the trailer (trailer-hooked again, doh!)  but there's little pace to let them fly off nonchalantly, as is best. Worse than this there's no fluidity. Saying this film's wooden makes a forest look like a jelly: the opening café-bound discussion being the most abject case-in-point. The only thing that should be done by numbers is potted reviewing  2/10.
zero day is based of columbine high school massacre. and its a video diary of two boys. at first you don't know whats going to happen you think it is just a bad student film. until they start talking about the horrible things they are going to do in this quite school. until they start talking about pipe bombs and guns and going shooting in the woods. they is a lot to say about this movie. all know this film is well a film you forget you watching a film and watching a real video two boys made.
the two boys act like they are in a weird cult. they burn all there stuff. like play station games books dvds homework stuff school stuff. these two boys can be anybody your friends you brothers or the people you see walking down the street. it goes through there daily actives (and that is making a gun. in the videos they make it mentions the bullying that happens to them and how people said stuff about there clothes and the things you are into I'm not saying its right but many people do do things like that.
and also the thing is with this people are suspected to like it because of the sensitive topic they have chosen on this film.
so thats my review on zero day.
and lets just say the end shooting scene is messed up.

In a college dorm a guy is killed by somebody with a scythe. His girlfriend Beth (Dorie Barton) discovers him and tries to commit suicide. She's institutionalized. A year later she's out, has a new boyfriend named Hank (Joseph Lawrence) and is about to spend Spring Break with Hank and four other mindless friends in a BIG, beautiful condo in Florida. Naturally the killer pops up (for no reason) and starts killing again.
Lousy slasher thriller--a textbook example of how NOT to do a low-budget horror movie. For starters, large portions of this film are ENDLESS filler of these six idiots videotaping themselves, having "fun" (more fun than the audience), getting drunk, acting stupid etc etc. Also there is NO nudity in here at all. I'm not saying a horror film needs nudity but ANYTHING to liven this up would have helped. None of the deaths are really shown (you hear them), are only a little bloody and there is no gore. There's one REAL gruesome one--but that's not till the end.
With a few exceptions the acting sucks. Dorie Barton is dreadful as the main woman and Tom Jay Jones is lousy as Oz. Chad Allen pops up as Brad and he's TERRIBLE. Lawrence is actually very good--handsome and hunky and giving this crap his all. And Jeff Conaway pops up in a small role doing a pretty good job.
Logic lapses abound--after they realize a friend has been killed two of the girls casually talk about sex; Baston's non reaction to seeing a friend getting killed is kind of funny and WHAT happens to Lawrence? His character disappears without a trace at the end! Dull, stupid, no gore, no nudity--skip this one.
Rated R for Graphic Violence and some Profanity.
Michael Stearns plays Mike, a sexually frustrated individual with an interesting moral attitude towards sexuality. He has no problem ogling naked dancers but when women start having sex with men that's when he loses it. He believes that when women actually have sex that's when they lose any sense of "innocence" and/or "beauty". So he strolls through the Hollywood Hills stalking lovemaking couples at a distance, ultimately shooting the men dead with a high-powered rifle with a scope.
The seeming primary reason for this movie's existence is to indulge in sexual activity over and over again. The "story" comes off as more of an afterthought. This is bound to make many a happily heterosexual male quite pleased as we're treated to enough protracted scenes of nudity (the ladies here look awfully good sans clothes) and sex to serve as a major dose of titillation. Of course, seeing a fair deal of it through a scope ups the creepiness factor considerably and illustrates the compulsion towards voyeurism. (For one thing, Mike eyes the couples through the scope for minutes at a time before finally pulling the trigger.) This is all underscored by awfully intrusive if somewhat atmospheric music on the soundtrack.
Those with a penchant for lurid trash are bound to enjoy this to one degree or another. It even includes one lesbian tryst that confounds Mike and renders him uncertain *how* to react. It unfolds at a very slow pace, but wraps up with a most amusing ironic twist. It's a kinky and twisted rarity that if nothing else is going to definitely keep some viewers glued to the screen.
7/10

...that seem to be fooling people into seeing qualities in this film that are just not there.
Near Dark covered the same territory but with much more class, and action.
why the script kept their 'big secret' so long was a total mystery to me - I guessed it at the breakfast scene at the start of the film. By the time it was revealed to the viewer it was just a case of 'big deal, tell me something I don't know.'
I found this to be pointless movie that may have challenged the genre conventions, unfortunately those conventions are that horror films are tense and packed with genuine sense of horror. This was woeful