Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
They probably could have skipped some of the beginning - I'm not sure why this starts out in the Asian part of Turkey. If it was because starting in the Mediterranean, they could have gotten closer starting in modern day Lebanon.
One the cameras and crews get to the Bakhtyari tribe, it's the beginning of an amazing 48 day journey. 50,000 people with about 250,000 goats, camels, cattle, and horses make this amazing trek across what seems to be a very fast moving Karun River. They use rafts that are kept afloat by inflating goat skins - you can see where the head and legs were removed. The other "bank" of the river was very steep - I'm guessing about a 60 degree rise.
Just watching that was incredible, but there was much more to come. To get to the pastures, they also had to cross a major mountain that had about 4 feet of snow, if not more. Being able to climb this mountain was pretty amazing in and of itself, but they (and all of the animals) climbed this mountain barefoot! Yes, barefoot.
The one drawback to this documentary were some of the inter-titles with poor attempts at humor.
If you want to see a documentary from the silent era, or the incredible challenges that this tribe not only face, but conquer. This is just an incredible document of a little known group of people facing all kinds of challenges.

Since this picture is classified a "pure entertainment" work and since there are already many comments on it, I'd like hereby to address something relevant to the abuse of humour. We can see that Marlon Wayans is playing the joker role in this film. Certainly as long as he has been involved in the casting job, he has always been acting as a little man-an actor can change his customary dress but can hardly change his physical appearance-and the latter one can be an advantage when necessary. However far away from what I expected, I saw an image very disguising, pretending to expose different aspects of the baby life by mistake of a forty-year- old criminal. And with a ridiculous happy ending. So what is the point? Many elements are mixed up, some principal ones are violence, sex and criminal activities, amongst which the story is badly composed and to some extent, lack common sense: where is Vanessa when the peace of her house is violated and her husband's life being pursued? In addition the diamond is even bigger than the world's No.1 Cullinan! But the most sickening facet is the continuous attempt to make up the little man as a superman by showing his physical weak points. And they call it humour. A diamond is precious, hard and fragile; it cannot be cut by any other material but only be conquered by the hot blood of a male goat. Hence it's no more a diamond but pieces of debris.
Didn't know anything about the movie before watching and I think it was the "no expectation" factor that helped me endure at first and later like it more than I anticipated.
The setting was interesting, strange but interesting. The storyline had gaps/jumps that I think throws the audience off a bit. There's no great soundtrack playing in the background, creating the "romantic" ambiance. BUT they all didn't matter.
The chemistry between Emma and Luis was simply exquisite. There was some inexplicable strange chemistry that I couldn't resist; I fell in love with it and here I am, writing this review. The subtle love portrayal by the two actors was superb, and I believe, that is the core of this movie.
This movie is not an everyday romantic comedy; in fact, not all of us will appreciate it. I had to sit a while and then slowly began to comprehend the little things I didn't catch at first. I cannot guarantee everyone will like it, but I hope YOU do.

No words can describe my utter hatred for this appalling rendition of the BTK killer. Rating this film one out of ten compliments this truly disastrous excuse for a film. From start to finish, there was not one single highlight. The entire thing was horrendously put together; the script, acting, plot, lighting, direction, ACTING, factual information, ACTING, just to name a few. A number of scenes are literally laugh-out-loud-funny, for the atrocious way in which the entire thing is put together. This review may seem like an unjust and scathing attack on a low-budget film, but this is not the case. Just thinking about the movie I have just seen makes my blood start to boil. How this film was ever granted rights for production i will NEVER know. I am almost tempted to actually recommend BTK, because it is truly a stand-out in regards to how pathetic, and disturbingly awful it is. I can honestly say, in all my years of film-going, this is the WORST. MOVIE. EVER. I wasted over an hour of my life on this useless garbage, and would gladly have jumped off the nearest building beforehand, had I known what I was in for. ZERO out of TEN.
This one grew on me. I love the R.D. Burman music and in spite of the cruder elements of the story I found much to be moved by as I kept re-watching the movie. The brother-sister plot line is powerful, I thought; there's also more probably obligatory stuff, like bar fights, a loony crime story, etc. that are just distracting. (Though not unfunny from a certain point of view.) Also the English translation is definitely by someone for whom it was a bit of a stretch, and as loony as it is I am grateful to him for doing it.
Like many of the Bollywood movies I've seen, this one is melodramatic and opera-like, including here notably a song sung first by a little boy to cheer up his abused and unhappy sister, and then the same song sung 12 or so years later by the man who has travelled to Kathmandu seeking to re-connect with this girl, grown up and troubled (she had been told her brother and mother were dead), numbing her pain with drugs.
A super thing about this 1971 movie is that it is about the hippie movement, which brought hordes of seekers to India, from an Indian point of view, that sees them as people driven to India by a spiritual hunger aroused by the failings of their own societies, but nonetheless, in India, living only for the pleasures of the moment. The hippie singing-dancing-drugging scenes are truly wonderful, and accurate in their tone (I'm old enough to remember), and I feel pretty sure that the masses of young white zoned-out kids are actual hippie extras, as I remember hearing about kids on the caravan to the East getting this kind of work in Bollywood.
(It is not about the actual Hare Krishna movement, though the movie hippies sing a Krishna/Rama chant, as do a group of actual Indian devotees, unrelated to the hippies, in the opening scene of the movie.)
~Virginia

How is it possible that a movie this bad can be made. Bad acting. Bad script. Just an embarrassment all around. This is just one bad cliché after another.
This movie actually has some big name stars in it. Unfortunately they're singers and not actors.
This movie made hardly any money for a good reason. The appeal of black cowboy movies just isn't there. It's a shame they didn't have a good story to tell.
This movie actually has some big name stars in it. Unfortunately they're singers and not actors.
This movie made hardly any money for a good reason. The appeal of black cowboy movies just isn't there. It's a shame they didn't have a good story to tell.
This is just a short comment but I stumbled onto this movie by chance and I loved it. The acting is great, the story is simple and touching, and the lines, especially from the 4-yr-old Desi, are so cute and sad. Seek it out.

A far as B-movies go, SCARECROW is one of those that are so bad, that it becomes incredibly annoying to sit through. A lonely loser high school student who is constantly picked on by classmates and rejected by girls, ends up walking in on his trailer trash mother having sex with a drunk redneck. He then chases the kid out into a nearby cornfield and kills him. Apparently, the kids soul was transfered into a scarecrow which then goes around killing the bullies who tormented him as well as teachers. This scarecrow, aside from having a snappy one-liner for each of his victims, can also do Matrix-like flips through the air and kill people on sidewalks in broad daylight. Also, why did he always look like a rotted corpse? Just like the two needless sequels that followed this, this isn't even worth a laugh.
I saw this movie on the BIFFF Festival in Brussel, spring 2004. What a surprise! This German production, a stylish and imaginative shocker, is one of the scariest flic i have seen. Be warned: this is not a joke! This terrorizer has a big cast of good actors (as an example:Peter Martell as a European guru has a strong presence), excellent direction, nice production design, a very good soundtrack and a lot of heavy gore sfx like Italian horror movies in the eighties. Flesh ripped clean to the bone...and the blood runs red ...this savage Heart Stopper will grip you...and give you some dark dreams ... A must-see!!

The movie is very lengthy and unfortunately pretty different from the Novel. If you want to see the movie then don't read the novel first as it will shock you. However, cinematography was OK and if you are a person who loves adventure genres which explores Africa then go for it. Acting performances are adequate, however, many important events that were present in the novel are omitted. In the novel, Sir Henry Curtis was in search of his missing brother rather than a lady in search of her father. Gagool was cunning and was killed in the cave whereas here she was shown to be a good person who preferred to stay with the new king.
I got to see the movie " On Thin Ice" on the television in India.. I must say the movie was really well done, and really sent a chill down my spine.. the basic story makes me ponder what makes certain addicts decide to move on where as others still remain addicted...
however, I felt that Diane Keaton was at her best... the scene where she has cravings, and begins rummaging her home for cocaine... was the best... the two boys are good, and Lynda Boyd also showed what a good actress she is....The script is well done as is the cinematography and direction.. and casting
A must must watch movie..... for everyone

Not to be confused with the above average supernatural thriller "The Sentinel". The Sentinel was a big bore of a movie for me, not delivering the consistent action, a couple of critics promised on the back. To me it seemed like everyone was Halfassing it, and only there to make some quick cash, because this felt very much like a made for TV film. The Sentinel is a rehash of several better films, like "In The Line Of Fire" this does not have any originality in it, and watching Michael Douglas run around, felt kinda silly in my opinion. The Main problem besides it's unoriginality, had to be the poor pace. I often got distracted while trying to view this movie, while looking how much run time was left, more then once. Not only the miscasting with Eva Longoria, who couldn't convince worth a lick.
Performances. Michael Douglas is usually a dependable actor, here is obviously going through the motions. He does not convince as a man on a run, or a secret agent. His chemistry with Bassinger, was also off. I'm a big fan of Kiefer Sutherland, but here he is only OK, nothing more then that. He tries to come across as a gruff, but managed to be more bland then anything else, and to be honest, he didn't seem that interested. Eva Longoria Parker is pretty mediocre. She does not convince in her role, and was pure eye candy. Kim Basinger is pretty terrible as the 1st lady. She looks bored to tears, and her role is a throw away, more then anything else. Martin Donovan has a big part in the end, but not enough to matter for me.
Bottom line. The Sentinel is yet, another political thriller, that bored me to tears. It's too old, too tired, and most importantly the lack of effort sucked. Not recommended.
4/10
Moonwalker is absolutely incredible !!!!!!! What else can I say !? Michael Jackson is the true King of pop, rock and soul !!! Moonwalker has everything ! Great story line, fantastic music, great visual effects, and of course it has Michael Jackson !!!!!!

There's something frustrating about watching a movie like 'Murder By Numers' because somewhere inside that Hollywood formula is a good movie trying to pop out. However, by the time the credits roll, there's no saving it. The whole thing is pretty much blown by the "cop side" of the story, where Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin's homicide detective characters muddle through an awkward sexual affair that becomes more and more trivialized the longer the movie goes on. Although Bullock is strong in her role, it's not enough to save the lackluster script and lazy pacing. Ben Chaplin's talents are wasted in a forgettable role (he did much better earlier in the year in the underrated 'Birthday Girl') as well as Chris Penn, who has a role so thanklessly small you feel sorry for a talent like him. Anyway, the plot really isn't even a factor in this movie at all. The two teen killers played by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt are the only real reasons to see this movie. Their talent and chemistry work pretty good and they play off of each other quite well. It's too bad they weren't in a much better all-around film. Barbet Schroeder is treading way too safe ground here for such a seasoned filmmaker. Bottom Line: it's worth a rent if you're a genre fan, but everyone else will live a fulfilled life without ever seeing it, except maybe on network TV with convenient commercial breaks.
1933 seemed to be a great year for satires ("Duck Soup" for instance) and this one fits in well even though it is about the obsession with contract bridge. The tone is like a humorous piece from The New Yorker, appropriate, since the film begins with the "Goings On About Town" page of that magazine. The only thing odd is the casting. Made a few years later William Powell and Myrna Loy would have been perfect. However, after 1934, you wouldn't have had adultery handled in such a sophisticated fashion, the young and beautiful Loretta Young in some shear and slinky outfits, or a group of prostitutes listening to a bridge contest on radio. Even if you know nothing about bridge, you may still want to check out a rare example of Hollywood satire.

Lethargic direction ruins an otherwise compelling period story that stars the wondrous Zhang Ziyi, in an excellent role as a woman who joins an extremist group in 1928 China, just prior to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, and reunites with a former lover who is now working for Japan. Every bit of drama and forward motion of the story is sucked dry by director Ye Lou's somnambulist directorial style. Characters stand still staring at each other for long minutes, saying nothing, hand-held cameras hold forever on faces showing interminable reactions way longer than they need to, edits repeat the same reaction is triple redundancy. We know nothing about the characters as the story begins and are given little new information as the story progresses, only silence and static shots of lovers who don't speak, who interaction through silent dances but share no apparent emotional intimacy. A very sleep inducing film.
Although I didn't like Stanley & Iris tremendously as a film, I did admire the acting. Jane Fonda and Robert De Niro are great in this movie. I haven't always been a fan of Fonda's work but here she is delicate and strong at the same time. De Niro has the ability to make every role he portrays into acting gold. He gives a great performance in this film and there is a great scene where he has to take his father to a home for elderly people because he can't care for him anymore that will break your heart. I wouldn't really recommend this film as a great cinematic entertainment, but I will say you won't see much bette acting anywhere.

May contain spoilers.
I say that, but anyone savvy enough to be reading this can probably figure out every plot turn right from the start.
This is not a movie that I liked. I didn't hate it in the way of some movies that insult your intelligence, but it all felt too predictable on its trudge to the requisite happy ending. There were funny bits along the way to be sure, but few were original. At least it didn't go for the gutter.
Christina Applegate looks fresh, and Ben Affleck works hard. Their scenes together are actually the only redeeming feature. Everyone else is a cardboard cutout, including, surprisingly, James Gandolfini, who must have made this as a favor to someone.
All in all, it's a harmless, but not inspiring, 90 minutes.
Saying a film is depressing isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm very willing to watch a depressing film if there is a point to be made and this one certainly has one. It's the often heartbreaking story of a Chinese man and his family as they experience many years of both hardship and plenty. BUT, I must warn you that this might just be about the most depressing film to come out of Hollywood in the 1930s--because peasant life in China was TOUGH to say the least. Be prepared to watch segments about famine, death and disease.
About the only negative other than the persistent tone of misery is that the lead is played by Paul Muni. While he was an exceptionally talented man, it's just a real shame that Hollywood always cast people of European descent to play Asian leads during this era. If you are paying attention at all, it's pretty obvious that Muni is wrong for the part.

I saw this movie at a 'sneak preview' and i must honestly confess that I do not like films with Meryl Streep that much. This picture was the worst. Half the theatre did not return after the break halfway the film. I couldnt blame them, if this wasn't a true story there had been absolutely no need for the second half of the picture. Just before the film goes forward in time about ten years I myself was expecting the credits to appear.
I am amazed that movies like this can still be made. I watch all kinds of movies all the time with my friends and i can say that this is one of the best i ever seen. Never thinked that a movie of 146 minutes can make me think about it on and on.
Washington, charismatic and intense as ever, plays Creasy, a washed-up ex-counter-terrorist agent who's taken to the bottle. Once he's assigned to protect young Pita (Dakota Fanning) in Mexico City, his emotional and redemptive arc is jump-started in the way only an adorable little girl can provide. Inevitably, Pita is kidnapped by thugs, and Creasy decides that most of Mexico City must pay the price for daring to take away his character's teddy-bear-clutching catalyst. Yes, he has become...a Man on Fire.
You must see this movie.

I am a huge Charlton Heston fan. He is without a doubt one of the greatest actors of all time, but what was he thinking when he made this movie. Normally if he made a bad movie I could blame it on the screenwriter or director, but in this case it's all him. The suckiness of this movie is all his fault. It proves that not even Heston can make a Shakespeare story interesting. I wasted 2 and a half hours of my life on this snooze fest and I'll never get that time back. This is by far THE WORST Heston movie that I've ever seen. If you are a Shakespeare fan maybe you'll find this movie entertaining, but if you're not don't waste your time, you'll regret it in the long run.
Extremely tense thriller set in the urban chaos of São Paulo, the biggest and ugliest third world nightmare in Brazilian urbania. For the sake of making it easy for anyone who is curious about this intriguing and truly well made film, it has the grit of Mexican feature "Amores Perros" with a character not too far off Max Cady, from both Cape Fears, although this is not, by any means, a film about a psychopath. Two partners (Alexandre Borges and Marco Ricca) in a construction company pay hitman Anisio (Miklos) to off their third partner (and majority share holder) in said construction outfit. The murder is blamed on the city, but things begin to look very grim indeed when witty and charismatic walking nightmare Anisio decides he wants to be around the ever so nervous partners in crime, not only trespassing but, more importantly, deconstructing the strict social codes that make up Brazilian society. Anisio turns poverty into an attitude and he wants in. The look is almost entirely handheld, grainy, the performances outstanding throughout, especially so as first time actor (and member of classic Brazilian pop band 'Titãs'), Paulo Miklos, dazzles and baffles the viewer with his pretty funny social terror.
I saw the film at the Brasília film Fest in November 2001. It has since done very well in Sundance and Berlin. Kleber Mendonça Filho

There aren't many good things to say at all about Underneath, Soderbergh's untrue endeavor into neo-noir. Soderbergh remakes Robert Siodmak's decent noir Criss-Cross faithfully, not altering the plot very much at all, however the adaptation drains it of every ounce of its state-of-the-art film noir atmosphere, giving it the same story set in the very least appealing places, lifestyles and anachronisms. Soderbergh, who would later make wonderful crime films like Out of Sight and the Ocean's series with great style and atmosphere, takes the dangerously obvious route to modernization by renovating the story with the ugliest, dullest and flattest fashions of the early 1990s. Nightclubs have terrible, revoltingly dressed garage bands, Peter Gallagher's uninteresting version of Burt Lancaster's anti-hero is left by his femme fatale girlfriend for compulsively buying cinematically lifeless modern appliances like stereos, TVs, and other up to date pieces of equipment that suck the reaction out of the film.
It could've been more entertaining and less boring had it a few saving graces like a good score, more flesh to its characters, more than just William Fichtner giving performances that aren't wooden, a crisper pace. Unfortunately, Underneath has none of these things. Soderbergh, a fine director, does not utilize his dry detachment to the benefit of his film this time. That disposition works wonderfully when he's helming a crime movie with more tongue in its cheek like the George Clooney pictures previously mentioned, or a social or character drama like Traffic or sex, lies and videotape. With a movie like Underneath, it intensifies the boredom experienced by the viewer.
There should be more movies about our Native Americans. I especially think that using actual real Native Americans, would be the the right thing. I know that this Archie Belaney, who was played by Pierce Brosnan he did an excellent job in portraying that character, since he was an Englishman. But my suggestion to Hollywood, is to put more American Indians into the roles, and never use anyone else. The Sioux Nation has been put on the back burner far too long. Their poverty is a disgrace to our country. It is my firm belief that our country should return the Black Hills to the Sioux. We ask Israel to return their lands to the Arabs, but we do not make any effort to do the same, we should be ashamed of ourselves. We must practice what we preach!

... so I thought I'd throw in a few words about William McNamara. Not a bad way to spend a couple of hours if you want to see him in his tighty-whities -- it's obvious he pumped up for this role and he looks pretty darn good in them -- or less. There's an extended sequence in a cave where he has to strip down to his undies. There's a nice bit where he has to chase after Miss Eleniak in the buff, with only his hands cupped over his groin. William McNamara is naturally a little on the skinny side, but he has a nice, generous handful of a booty. Also, there's a moment when he's getting out of bed that if you pause the action at just the right moment you can see the whole enchilada. If you're inclined to do so, and come on, half of the people who choose to watch a movie about Navy men on a "road trip" are. I'd just like thank Dennis Hopper for his equal opportunity gratuitous nudity. Can William McNamara act? Heck if I know.