Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
These are one of the movies that don't require any brain or thinking, it's a very funny time pass which you forgot in the next hour or so. I was really surprised with John Abraham's acting he usually playing the gangster like character with the emotionless face,so from that to playing the complete opposite and does it successfully,by managing to shine amongst the comic geniuses such as Paresh Rawal and Akshaye Kumar. I was also quite surprised with the Akshaye's 3 girls because there roles don't require much talent but mostly moaning about Akshaye's dissapearence(to the other girls) i was surprised as they managed to establish and actual persona and you could differentiate between them which is a good thing ,also majority of songs are good,it is colourful and fun so on a boring Sunday evening this will sure lighten your mood.

I see people writing about how great this movie was. It was horrible! The acting was sub-par at best. It made a lot of money because teenage girls went to see the movie 7 times in the theaters because of Leonardo. Where the hell did they get the money? Anyway, I wanted to learn more about the Titanic; why it sank, what was running through a lot of people's minds; maybe even a little conspiracy stuff. Does anyone realize that certain people didn't even board the ship because there was a fire on board before it even took off? No, you don't because all you see is a rich girl falling for a poor boy and he paints her naked (did that corny junk at least tip you off that the movie was stupid?).
I did cry in during one scene, though. The scene when they showed the water that was filling up in the ship. It looked like pool water! I'm thinking this movie made all this money and they couldn't even make the water from the ocean look real? unbelievable...
Ohhh the band played on while the ship sank.. Just ridiculous. This was the worst movie until Pearl Harbor outdid it in the "Nothing to Do With Reality" department.
The film notes describe the main role family, as Turkish immigrants which living in Denmark. However, it is so clear to understand that the fact is, the behavior and the culture point the family is absolute Kurdish. Similar social pressures and even cultural murders keep going on Turkey today on Kurdish ethnicity societies. What a worry...
It is widely accepted issue in Turkey today, the Kurdish immigrants living in European Countries today, which have moved from Turkey at 70's are culturally connected to the feudal moral laws system, by growing daughters and women under pressure, are giving harm to the Turkish International Image. Also, as same as widely accepted another issue is the Turkish or Kurdish immigrants on these countries are the reason negative aim about the Community Europe Nominee.

I'm not usually one to slate a film . I try to see the good points and not focus on the bad ones, but in this case, there are almost no good points. In my opinion, if you're going to make something that bad, why bother? Part of the film is take up with shots of Anne's face while she breaths deeply, and violin music plays in the background. the other part is filled with poor and wooden acting. Rupert Penry Jones is expressionless. Jennifer Higham plays Anne's younger sister with modern mannerisms. Anne is portrayed as being meek and self effacing, which is fine at the beginning, but she stays the same all through the film, and you see no reason for captain Wentworth to fall in love with her. Overall the production lacks any sense of period, with too many mistakes to be overlooked, such as running out of the concert, kissing in the street, running about in the streets with no hat on (why was this scene in the film at all? the scene in the book was one of the most romantic scenes written.). To sum it up, a terrible film, very disappointing.
A highly atmospheric cheapie, showing great ingenuity in the use of props, sets and effects (fog, lighting, focus) to create an eerie and moody texture. The story is farfetched, the acting is merely functional, but it shows how imaginative effects can develop an entire visual narrative. This movie is recommended for its mood and texture, not for its story.

I am so disappointed. This movie left me feeling jipped out of my time and mental energy. Here was the quintessential Woody Allen film all over again: the neurotic upper-class Manhattanites debating whether or not they will cheat on their spouses. Woody, I've seen these characters already, I've seen the storyline from you ten times already. Where did your creativity go??? You need to open your eyes and look around you. The world has changed dramatically since Annie Hall - and you need to change along with it.
There are far more interesting and funny scenarios to which you can apply your brand of angst and neuroticism - why not try them out instead of rehashing the same old slop over and over and over again.
When I hear that Woody Allen has a new project coming out, it does nothing for me - because now I've come to expect his old standby: the couple who are growing tired of each other and end up cheating. Depressing and same old, same old.
If Woody wants to win his fans back, then he has to understand that our sense of humor and intelligence has to be stimulated - not insulted.
I really have to say, this was always a favorite of mine when I went to see my grandma. And it still is. It is very, very close to the book. The way it is filmed, and the players were just all excellent! I have to recommend this movie to everyone who hasn't seen it. Almost everyone I talk to hates TV movies, but this was really great! I gave it 10/10.

For this review,a list of good points and bad points.I'll start with the bad.
Bad points:The casting choices(especially Burt Reynolds as Boss Hogg),the acting of said badly chosen cast,the storyline,the idea of setting the film in the modern day,the direction,the editing,the soundtrack,and above all,the whole idea of making a feature film out of a television series that wasn't that great to start with,despite it's popularity.
Good points:Jessica Simpson in a red bikini............that's it!
One might make an analogy here.In the scene where Jessica Simpson as Daisy Duke struts her way up to Michael Weston as Enos,and asks the question,"Enos,where's Boss Hogg and Roscoe?",in his clouded judgment, tells her where they are.She might just as well have asked,"Enos,is this a good movie?",the red bikini would have clouded his judgment into saying yes,even though in his right mind he would have said,"No, not really."As good as she looked in the bikini,she could have been stark naked,and even that would not have saved this horrible piece of film-making.Stay out of Hazzard!
This film is a quite entertaining horror anthology film (along the lines of Tales from the Crypt) written by Robert Bloch (author of Psycho). It's good fun for horror fans and has an excellent cast. The movie should also be required viewing for Doctor Who fans since Jon Pertwee (the third Doctor) has an amusing role as a rude and obnoxious horror star!

I recently bought the DVD, forgetting just how much I hated the movie version of "A Chorus Line." Every change the director Attenborough made to the story failed.
By making the Director-Cassie relationship so prominent, the entire ensemble-premise of the musical sails out the window.
Some of the musical numbers are sped up and rushed. The show's hit song gets the entire meaning shattered when it is given to Cassie's character.
The overall staging is very self-conscious.
The only reason I give it a 2, is because a few of the great numbers are still able to be enjoyed despite the film's attempt to squeeze every bit of joy and spontaneity out of it.
The entire 10:15 minute presentation is done in a very non-threatening and non-medical way that even preteen children can easily understand. It dispels many of the myths surrounding menstruation that were going around in those days (1946) While sex is not explicitly mentioned, the part about fertilization is. This is also, purportedly, the first Hollywood production to ever use the word "vagina" in the dialogue.
It is cute how the animated character is shown topless in the shower in a purely animated character way with no defining features as was the way of the day. Many of the Betty Boop cartoons showed her undress without revealing any defining features either. Max Fleischer was a bit of a card and did this with many of the Betty Boop cartoons which required frame-by-frame viewing to find them.
There is no mention at the beginning or end of the film as to who the female narrator is. In fact, there are no credits whatsoever other than those mentioning Kotex and Kimberly-Clark Corporation.
This title is nearly impossible to attain; but for those who are Bittorrent downloaders, it can be found out there in the ether. This is one of those "keepers" that will become increasingly hard to find as older short subject features fade into obscurity.

This movie was horrible, simply put. It was so bad I registered with IMDb to warn you of its dangers.
I am a campy horror film expert, per se. I have watched "Redneck Zombies", "House of the Psychotic Women", "Slumber Party Massacre II" and many others. I know my schlock. And I know this movie sucks.
Three fourths of the film is comprised of scared individuals running from one side of the screen to the other. When they are not running, they are spouting non-sequitur lines, devoid of emotion or motivation. When the actors begin to be acceptable, the direction falls to pieces. There were so many jarring low-angle shots; I figured Leif Jonker had a 3 foot tall tripod. He used what I call the "Leif Maneuver" several millions times: that is, zooming out from an object of interest like an amateur. Apparently the film crew couldn't get up early enough to film a sunrise, so they filmed a sunset... and played it in reverse. With direction this lazy, you are actually impressed with the final gory scene. The only thing you can figure is that the last five minutes was filmed before the first eighty-five minutes.
If you want a good (bad) gory movie, rent "Riki-Oh" or the foundational "Dead Alive." If you are a schlock buff, and are looking for a challenge, give "Darkness" a go.
Quote o' the movie-
Vampire: It's die time!
Can Scarcely Imagine a Better Movie Than This
Hey, before you all go "Chick Flick" on me. I am a very Large Strong & Masculine, Macho Man, who happens to think this was one of the better movies of the last 20 years.
The acting was Superb and the Story was Marvelous. This is wonderful medicine for the heart and soul. The Acting could not have been better nor the movie better cast.
I have known for a Good while that Mercedes Ruehl, along with Holly Hunter, Joan Plowright, Dame Edith Evans, Sissy Spacek, Judi Dench is among the greatest actresses ever to appear on film. And of course Cloris Leachman (also in this film) in my view may in fact exceed them all in the shear magnum of her talent and varied roles she has appeared in over the years.. At any rate this was an Amazing cast. This film was like a book that you cannot lay down, and when you have reached the last page wish for more...still more. I cannot for the life of me understand why this film here on the IMDb only rates a 3.9
That rating here is utterly Amazing to me. Or perhaps not. Perhaps in fact I do understand it ever so well and that is what makes me really sad. It makes me ever so sad that films like "American Beauty" "Leaving Las Vegas" "Sexy Beast" and "Fight Club" ratings skyrocket off the charts in popularity when they in fact at least in this viewers opinion should have received an "R" rating...R that is for "Rubbish". Hey o.k., I realize there are a lot of different stories in this world for a lot of different audiences, but it is a sad commentary when this lovely, powerful...extraordinarily, Directed, Acted, and written film seems to be over looked.
It obviously was at the Academy Awards as well....How Sad. And How predictable. My summation is that if you want to see a powerful, Happy, Sad, beautiful story? watch ......preferably own this film...

Mae Clarke will always be remembered as the girl whose face James Cagney showed a grapefruit into in the same year's THE PUBLIC ENEMY. She will not be remembered for this weird little story about a a hood's girl who finds that her past will always be with her.
In some ways, this looks a bit antique for 1931, almost as if you are looking at 1928's famously inert LIGHTS OF NEW YORK. But don't be fooled. Although Ted Tetzlaff's photography is still in the big scenes, there's lots of movement, indicating distraction to the moviegoers in the set-ups to them. But in competition with the fast-paced stuff that it seems that everyone was doing at Warner's, this attempt to bring the woman's viewpoint into the genre as a tearjerker doesn't work, nor is Mae Clarke the actress to carry the effort.
So Mary and Rhoda have aged--who hasn't? I was a teen when Mary premiered, and a "young adult" when it left the air. Yes, it was great to see Mary and Rho together, and yes, maybe the film didn't sustain the comedy of the original series, but there were enough moments that recalled the spirit of the series to make this a fitting tribute. Example: the producer who hires Mary and then dictates the idea for a new series about "old people." Isn't this typical of the mentality of present-day Hollywood TV and film "bean counters?" This may not be THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW at its best--but it's a pretty damned good look back at one of the best shows we grew up with in the 70s.

As I am not a blood and guts fan I found the gory scenes totally unnecessary (you spell it) and too real for my liking, if you're the type of person who gets their rocks off on beheadings on the internet or snuff movies I say go for it, it beggars belief what sort of person dreams this sick crap up though.
Apart from that it had the potential to be a great movie, the music was top class too (through the movie and especially the end credits). Some parts though were a bit unbelievable, like you've just been found by your girlfriend trust up awaiting torture and death and all you do is tell her about what had happened and how you got there, (why didn't he ask her if she happened to have any wipes or even some air freshner or a piece of gum while he was at it?), come on now, most would probably just scream "hurry up and untie me then lets get the f*** out of here QUICK!". where were the flys, maggots etc, and when the girl accidentally came across the place surely the stench of rotten flesh would have sounded a few alarm bells! I would only recommend this movie to friends of Dennis Niellson and the like, I'm sure a video like this would make sickos like that have a very happy Christmas.
Had this been the original 1914 version of TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY (also starring Mary Pickford), I probably would have rated it a lot higher, as this sort of extreme melodrama and sentimentality was pretty typical of the teens. However, by 1922, this film was already starting to show its age. And, compared to many of Ms. Pickford's other films (such as DADDY LONGLEGS, SPARROWS, MY BEST GIRL and SUDS), TESS comes up a tad short--and not every Pickford film merits a 10 (even if she was "America's Sweetheart"). Now this isn't to say that it's a bad film--it certainly isn't. But, I just can't see how so many have given this film a 10.
The film has a very long and complicated plot--especially because most films of the era were shorter. A rich old crank builds a mansion at the top of a hill next to the river. At the bottom of the hill are some dirty squatters who he hates but who he cannot evict. So he tries to come up with a variety of ways to get them off the land. One ends up in tragedy, when his daughter's fiancé is killed in a scuffle with the po' folks. The man accused of the murder is dear old Mary's father, though he is innocent. To make things a lot worse, the only witness to the real murder won't talk AND the dead man had gotten his fiancée pregnant! So, at this point, we have an innocent man in prison waiting to be executed and a pregnant lady afraid to tell her sanctimonious father she is "in the family way". There's a ton more to the film, such as the crank's son falling in love with Mary, but it's best you just see the film for yourself.
The film excels in some ways. The plot, while very complicated, is also rather interesting and the cinematography is top-notch. The very final scene is also pretty cute. However, there is so much overt sentimentality you can practically cut it with a knife. Mary is SO good and SO sweet and So plucky, at times the viewer might find it all a bit hard to take. While it worked great in 1922 (making her the biggest star in the world), today it's very dated. This is NOT true of all her films, but this one certainly is.
By the way, the Image Entertainment DVD is of decent quality, though a few scenes are badly degraded--something that isn't very surprising considering the age of the film. Also, the only extras included are a brief filmography.

Somehow they summed up the 60's, ten years that radically changed our country, in four hours. And what a painful four hours it was. They trivilized the major events and happenings and they "claimed" it was about two families yet you barely saw the african-american family. If I were NBC I would be ashamed and embarrassed for airing such trash. What was amusing was this happy-go-lucky family you saw in the very beginning was tortured in so many ways, but managed to attend every major 60's event through the country. And the second family was such a non-factor. They devoted maybe five or six scenes total to this family. That poor son... Please NBC, do not make any movies about any other eras....leave that to PBS and the History Channel
Certain DVD's possess me until I just have to go out and buy it. This was one of those movies. Like many on here, I remember seeing it as a child and loved it. I never knew there were scenes and musical numbers that were cut, so I was intrigued to see what they might be. I will agree that the "Portabellow Road" sequence is now a tad long (as is the soccer game) but other than that, I found no qualms with the remaining scenes that were put back in their respectful place. Perhaps Disney should have had the original version (which IS the restored version) on one side with the restored version on the flip side, then people could choose what they wanted to view. All in all, it's still an entertaining movie that still manages to recapture some of my childhood memories.

This "film" is a travesty. No, wait--an abomination. NO, WAIT--this is without a doubt the absolute WORST film ever made featuring beloved characters created and established by other actors.
I thought "Inspector Clouseau" with Alan Arkin (!) instead of Peter Sellers was ludicrous and sacrilegious, but even daring to "remake" Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy is asinine and money grubbing.
Mr. Laurel and Mr. Hardy have been dead, respectively, since 1957 and 1965. Why anyone would even begin to imagine that suitable updates for L & H would be in the persona of Bronson Pinchot and Gailard Sartain is beyond me. I tuned in fully expecting to be horrified and embarrassed and I certainly wasn't disappointed. Everyone involved in this pathetic, moronic, disgrace should be blackballed from anything and everything associated with Hollywood and film-making. AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS--YOU HAVE BEEN DULY WARNED.
The name of this film alone made me want to see just what it was all about, so I taped this film during the early hours of the AM. If you ever wanted to see what miners had to go through during the early days and actually see a dramatic scene when the mine crumbles in on the men. This film clearly wants to show that Germany and France can work together and be friends after WW I and how the Germans came to the aid of the French miners much to the unbelief of the French townsfolk. The actors were all outstanding, with unusual scenes in the mine with a horse and a small young boy who worked in the mine. There is an old old retired miner who manges to go down the mine by ladder when the elevator breaks down. If you are a real film buff, this is a film you will not want to miss.

Enough is enough...sometimes they just need to stop making movies based on a concept that is long dead. The first Tremors movie was great. The second one was ridiculous. The third one was nauseating. The tv series was depressingly awful. And this movie just drives the stake deeper.
Basically another excuse for cheap computer effects and puppetry, now we have the series set in the Wild West, in the 1800's, and they fight graboids. Like a rehash of the first one, they have to learn how to beat them all over again. Mildly entertaining I suppose. Otherwise this straight-to-video release, just like Tremors 2 and 3, is just going way too far. Oh and I continue to wonder how there is never any record of these events taking place...did they just simply forget to record this unprecedented event? I think something like this would be history-making, so our pals in the first film wouldn't be so unprepared.
Movies like this that ruin the original just make me crazy. Avoid this garbage.
i found it highly intellectual and artistic in every way! i felt that the script was conveying all the things i feel physically and emotionally when i got home from work and watched, it. this is a tribute to cinema in the highest form and format.
holy guacamole! how i wish those days would come again. i tried putting a bubble window on the side of my car (honda civic 1984), but the vacuum formed muffin trays didn't quite cut it. also in my civic, sexual positions are limited and are not supported by water bed as is brilliantly depicted in 'the van'.
'the van' is of the utmost side splitting hilarity and can even substitute for porn if you watch some scenes privately.
i highly anticipate that Sam Grossman (the director) has achieved his opus.
Ratings john: ****1/2 Sam: *****

I read all these reviews on here about how this is a such a good movie. Jeez, this movie was predictable and pretty boring. The acting was below average most of the time, especially by Mckenna. I haven't seen a more pathetic attempt at making someone "badass" in a movie. Oh man, this movie was a letdown. I also read somewhere this might be a cult classic. I know there are followers of the director, but this movie was just a average piece of film.
The script was lame, for the most part the acting was lame, this movie was lame.
Oh and pray for the guy that used to be in Cheers. He looks really bad.
The best actor in this movie was probably the guy in Office Space, and he was only in this movie for about 8 minutes.
4/10