Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I just want to add my two cents worth, and forgive me if I am repeating something that has already been posted, but I feel it is worth reminding people of the everlovin' genius of Damon Runyon. Without the wonderfully street, hilarious writings of Damon Runyon this film would never have been made - nor most of the other great classics that deal with gamblers & the like from before 1960. Damon Runyon worked as a newspaper man, and he was from Colorado, but he sure did _get_ the street scene of the East Coast. If you are not a dedicated fan of old Hollywood comedies, I would recommend a few other flicks from Damon Runyon's writings; "the Lemondrop Kid," and "Little Miss Marker," both feature Bob Hope, who, aside from his politics, has always been a funny man. (As a West Coast liberal, I find his politics fairly funny, too!) Damon Runyon lives!!!!

What was an exciting and fairly original series by Fox has degraded down to meandering tripe. During the first season, Dark Angel was on my weekly "must see" list, and not just because of Jessica Alba.
Unfortunately, the powers-that-be over at Fox decided that they needed to "fine-tune" the plotline. Within 3 episodes of the season opener, they had totally lost me as a viewer (not even to see Jessica Alba!). I found the new characters that were added in the second season to be too ridiculous and amateurish. The new plotlines were stretching the continuity and credibility of the show too thin. On one of the second season episodes, they even had Max sleeping and dreaming - where the first season stated she biologically couldn't sleep.
The moral of the story (the one that Hollywood never gets): If it works, don't screw with it!
azjazz
I had no idea what Jane Eyre was before I saw this miniseries. I had read and watched many classics before, and I believed that most classics were boring, over-worded, and overrated stories with moderately interesting plots at best. This Jane Eyre miniseries completely changed my conceptions.
Zelah Clarke is a fabulous actress, and she gives a wonderful portrayal of Jane Eyre. Her accent is delightful and her quiet, yet firm nature matches the young governess' character exactly. Timothy Dalton is an amazing Rochester. His passion and energy in the film makes me believe that he was born to play the brooding master of Thornfield Hall. I couldn't sleep at all the night after I had watched this miniseries. The plot is both haunting and inspiring. The characters are masterfully performed, and the story is incredible. This is the best version of Jane Eyre to ever appear on film.
I read the book later and was amazed at how closely this miniseries followed Charolette Bronte's writing. Jane Eyre is now my favorite film and book. If you want to see a masterpiece that will change your life, watch the 1983 BBC version of Jane Eyre.

Question: how does a bourgeois director treat a subject like immigration ? Answer: by turning it into an existential alienation parable.
Yes, we're back in the early 90s, just after the disintegration of the Eastern block and the subsequent flooding of immigrants in the European Union, and what better way to deal with the subject than making a film about an existentially alienated middle-class journalist, an existentially alienated upper-class politician, his existentially alienated rich wife, and so on.
In the background, immigrants are asking for political asylum in an unnamed Greek village near the borders. I guess that way Angelopoulos can show some social awareness, while dealing with the existentially troubled upper-classes. I mean honestly, the scene where some top-ranking army-officer curses his destiny cause he sent his daughter to study in London is enough to make you puke.
Anyway, it can't be that bad, Angelopoulos is a master of the cinematic art after all, right ? Wrong. It's at this point when his mannerisms start getting too artificial, sort of like a filtered image in Photoshop. His usual tricks show up: there are blurred windows, blurred lights, a weird wedding, a walk by the river-shore, and people with yellow water-coats. Also Mastroianni breaks new ground for most sleepwalking performance ever. Avoid really. Go for his early films.
Seeing as Keifer Sutherland plays my favorite character in the history of TV, it was a foregone conclusion i was gonna go to the movies and spend $15 on this. I also think this applies to Eva Longoria fans.
The movie revolves around a leak that a Secret Service agent is planning to assassinate the President. As the investigation unfolds, it seems the only likely candidate is the highly decorated Pete (Michael Douglas). Pleading innocence, Pete goes on the fun, fugitive style, to search for the truth.
It's solid, but certainly not spectacular. A decent cast, a decent story but it left me feeling a bit empty, but you could certainly do far worse.

As there was nothing wrong with the acting etc etc the writing for the episode is way off for this series phantom or no phantom. It was a waste of 42 minutes to see the martian man hunter. You have to know that in the middle of the 6th series no matter what happens it is not true what is going on and really brings nothing to the story of the series except meeting the martian man hunter again and to waste 30 minutes to do this is by far another case of bad writing in the soap opera of smallville. I really like the show but mainly due to the cast and the 3 or so good episodes each year but who ever is on the writing cast that works or used to work on the soaps needs to be canned. This was by far one of the worst. With in the first 4 minutes you know that what is going on is bogus and anything happening is a dream based on Clark's infliction obviously caused by a phantom zone character and when he wakes up he will win and blah blah blah so the writers don't have to really create a villain that will progress the story line any this week. May as well have added another villain to die in the last episode the martian man hunter was in and made him fly away again or come back and tell Clark he forgot his sunglasses to get a closer look like in this episode and call it a day.
I would just like to state that this may be biased, as I am a producer on the film. However, I will maintain some sense of dignity.
The star of the film, Oscar Ovies, gives a stellar performance as Jeff Grinderlin, a nebbish hypochondriac who spends more time worrying than living. He brings a certain touch to his character that really allows the audience to connect with him, by stating his mind often and with a sense of harsh comedy. His mother, played by Christine Haber, is the constant support beam, that without, he would crumble upon himself. His friends also lend a hand in Jeff's life, often making choices for him rather than letting him use his free will... which often times he neglects is there anyway.
The writing is superb, and the conversations flow like scenes from a Kevin Smith movie, with half as much Ben Affleck boo-hoo fests.
The camera work is a little shoddy at some points, and the sound could also use a boost, however the performances out shine the minor details. It is also backed by a beautiful soundtrack with local talents and an exceptional composer.
All in all, this was a treat. A rare gem, among many jewels.

...but this just isn't working and I am surprised to see how many people consider it good. On what grounds? There are some loose hints here and there, but the whole material is self-indulgent and unconvincing. Lynch's movies are generally intriguing because they generate a sense of confusion and yet, are very playful when doing that. There is some visual sense, there are some subplots, characters, ideas etc. But this is dull and yes, pointless. Because whatever there is to explore is either to "small", either too far-fetched, or simply told before in a superior manner. It's just Lynch exploring DV, nothing more so it should be treated like this. 1/10
This is an astounding film. As well as showing actual footage of key events in the failed coup to oust Chavez, we are given the background picture which describes a class-divided society. Many of the rich, it appears, have a choice with the people's democratic choice, and are willing to use the military for regime change. 'Be careful what you say in front of your servants' is a revealing comment. The head of the country's biggest oil company appoints himself as the new president, with US backing, and these young Irish film makers have it all on camera. A great film to educate young people about democracy. We see transparent documentation of how media can be manipulated, and force used, in the interests of big business, against the interests of the democratic wishes of the people. Riveting stuff.

Doris Day never lets a bad script get her down. Even in the most trying of circumstances, Day gives 100% and usually comes out unscathed. This comedy, perhaps inspired by a real-life New York City black-out in 1965 but actually adapted from a late-'50s French play by Claude Magnier, gives Doris little to do but spoof her own goody-goody image and, in the second-half, be comically sedated (which is amusing because of the spin Day gives to the situation). There are some funny lines here, yet the staginess of the material has obviously been carried over from the play...and instead of conjuring up some amusing incidents within the Big Apple, we get stuck in the suburbs. Doris' co-stars (Patrick O'Neal, Robert Morse, and Terry-Thomas) are not well-suited to her, and neither is the shapeless hairdo they've got her wearing. Still, it's not terrible, it features a few big laughs, and for Day-buffs it's a must-see. ** from ****
Although a tear jerker it is definitely a "feel good" movie. All the actors were excellent and Will Smith as always, does the job and does it well. I could go on but pick any ten of the "10" ratings and they've said it as well and likely better than I could.
BUT, since I must include at least 10 lines to post a comment I will say that Rosario Dawson was largely unknown to me as a viewer. Her performance was most enjoyable and I look forward to seeing her perform in many films to come.
AND, this film demonstrates that Will Smith has nothing further to prove in terms of his ability as an actor.

When I saw this trailer on TV I was surprised. In May of 2008 I was at Six Flags in New Jersey and this was showing at a 4-D attraction (you know, the attraction that the seats move). I take it that the version I saw was a shortened version (15 min.) and also re-created to add the motion effects. It was a cute movie... but that was it. It was educational and told about the first mission but the ending of a CGI spacewalk seemed a bit...well...trite. I was not a big fan of the movie but i would recommend this movie for any parent wanting to inform their children in a fun way about the first moonwalk. I will say, the character actors were well selected and the characters themselves were cute. So all-in-all, I would say, if you want to bring the younger kids... go for it. But if you are wanting to take your older kids, take them to another movie... they will thank you.
Having no knowledge of this film prior to seeing it on Rialto Channel I found it to be a pleasant, poignant and enriching film.
The casting was excellent. I loved all the characters, they were a little exaggerated in places, (but this IS a film). The way it looked and the enjoyably giddy ride the main character took until it turned badly, as real life can and does. Yes, I thought Andy MacDowell was great. I was particularly interested to watch this film once it began because people so often joke about her acting abilities (I find this quite wierd because she's always a solid actress in my opinion).
I loved the bit at the end where Andy's character said "sometimes I feel he was never here" etc., it was so completely how it really is in a situation like that (which I can personally identify with), then there was that gorgeous classical piece "Nocturne" I think by Chopin, which was a beautiful way to end (bar the light comedy at the end, which was probably unnecessary).
I say "well done" to the film makers - I have seen 1,000s of worse films!

Was this movie stupid? Yup. Did this movie depth? Nope. Character development? Nope. Plot twists? Nope. This was simply a movie about a highly-fictionalized Springer show. It shows the lengths that some people will go to get their mugs on TV. Molly Hagan did a great job as Jaime Pressly's mom. Jaime is....well...GORGEOUS! This flick wasn't so much made to be a "breakthrough" movie, rather, it was intended to life in a trailer park (I live in a trailer park and ours is nothing like the one in this movie) where everyone sleeps with everyone else, all the girls get pregnant by different guys, and all the guys drive rusted-out '66 Ford pickups (exaggeration, of course, but that's the picture everyone sees when you mention "trailer park"). Some people over-analyze movies (case-in-point: Star Trek freaks). I watch movies purely for the entertainment value; not to point out that the girl is wearing a different shirt in a different scene (read the "Goofs" bit about Connie's shirt. Could it have been better? Sure. But it was funny as hell.
I will start by saying that this has undeservedly be panned by just about everyone! The fact is it wasn't what anyone was expecting, especially from Guy Ritchie. What everyone was expecting was cockney geezers and good one liners "do ya like dags?" etc, but this is far more mature than his previous works. I would agree that it is confusing but all the facts are there for us we just have to see them and listen harder, this film demands all your attention! Look past the cool and dazzling look of the film, try to listen to the dialogue rather than admire the performances and i think we will all get a more thorough understanding of the whole film.
Yes this has its influences from modern classics( fight club, pulp fiction etc ) but it is in the whole original in both direction and pacing with a music score second to none. I feel that if everyone watched this film over and over they would understand it a lot more and maybe appreciate it for the fine piece of modern cinema that it is and i hope also that Ritchie continues in this vain as i far prefer this to his mockney "masterpieces".

I read the book Celestine Prophecy and was looking forward to seeing the movie. Be advised that the movie is loosely based on the book. Many of the book's most interesting points do not even come out in the movie. It is a "B" movie at best. Many events, characters, how the character interact and meet in the book are simply changed or do not occur. The flow of events that in the book are very smooth, are choppy and fed to the view as though you a child. The character development is very poor. Personnallities of the characters differ from those in the book. The direction is similar to a "B" horror flick. I understand that it would take six hours in film to present all that is in the book, but they screen play base missed many points. The casting was very good.
This is simply a classic film where the human voices coming from the animals are really what they're thoughts are. I don't know whether my video copy has a scene missing but it never shows how the dogs got out of the pit. It also shows an animals survival instinct and tracking abilities.Put humans in the same position ant the helicopters would be out. For once an original film is improved by a remake as the voice-over for the first has been removed. Only the use of animals can work in a film of this kind because using people would have had to spice out the story by turning it into murder,proving that,after all,animals are more interesting than people

I'm a big fan of camp, but when every plot 'twist' is predictable and bad, while obviously not trying to be, even I lose interest. I was going to rate this a 3, but the ending dropped it a point easily. Its only saving grace is that I hated other movies more. Not enough beer in the world for this one.
And this somebody is me. And not only me, as I can see here at IMDb or when leaving the theater. Why did the people love it? It's obvious: Everybody knows zombies by now (at least the Horror fans by heart and the others through the "Dawn of the Dead" reinvention or Resident Evil movies etc.)
Or at least they thought they knew everything about zombies ... that is until this movie came along. And you'll see zombies in a new light (perhaps). This is not a horror movie, although it does contain some violent scenes, but is rather a comedy. A satire to be precise. And it never runs out of steam! That is why I rated it so high. Pacing wise it's incredible, the acting is great and the script has no (obvious) mistakes ... quite the contrary: It's a gem and if you're only a little bit interested in zombies you ought to see it! And even if you dislike them, watch it! Because it's a great (comedy) movie!

Where to begin?
#1 Amitabh's son, played by Akshaye Khanna, is 30.
Amitabh's been in prison for 33+ years... he
A) Telepathically transmitted the sperm home?
B) Asked a nice Pakistani guard to mail it for him?
C) They allow conjugal visits in secret Pakistani Jails
D) All of the above
E) The producers were having a little too much bhang at
the time they approved the script?
#2) Amrita Rao (Yummm!) wants Khanna - he's yum, yum, yummy... and apparently he wants her - who wouldn't, right?!... But, when her dad gets ratted out, and then killed (I hardly think this is a 'spoiler' as you'd have to be brain-dead and blind not to see this coming in the film) he's pretty emotionless towards this catastrophe and with the tip (metaphorically) of his hat, leaves her behind to save his dad, never mind her loss, and says (paraphrasing) "If god wills it, we'll meet again"... Basically meaning, "I'm gonna get my dad and MY job done, sorry for your loss - CYA! Buh Bye!" - callus beyond even low-life Hollywood standards...
#3) There are so many holes in this horrible waste of time called a movie, that you can drive all the jeeps, trucks camels and any extra stuff through it. Pass - really, complete and total waste of time - Oh! There is a great dance sequence (yes, only one - as in dance sequence - regardless of quality) great belly dancing - but NOT worth watching just for this.
Rent Veer-Zaara or Lakshya (will Hrithik Roshan ever take acting lessons?) for better Indo-Pak conflict movies... In fact, Veer-Zaara is pretty damned good - 7.5/8 I'd say!
The creators of south park in their own film here, this is a brilliant film with a huge entertainment factor. If you like Naked Gun films and are not young and not too mature or serious on your humor, you'll love this.

I have never posted a review before, but I had to do it for this film! This film is SO bad, I found myself trying to justify how bad it is by trying to think of it as kitsch or parody. But it ISN'T. It is truly, un-self-consciously BAD. This is a serious attempt that flops gloriously. Other reviewers have pointed out the film's many flaws, so I'll try not to repeat these, but I do urge you to see this film. Throughout it I was either speechless, literally gasping with disbelief, or rolling on the floor in hysterics. I haven't had so much fun watching a film in years. In fact, I'm going to try to get all my friends to see it because it's the kind of movie that needs to be shared.
My favorite parts: -- When Arthur auditions to be a go-go boy (his dancing is unbelievable) -- The gratuitous nudity (the director/leading actor just had to get a nude shot in) -- The preacher's office with its cardboard and crayon rendition of Christ -- Of course, the famous wedding scene with the palm trees and the forgotten rings (what narrative function does this play?!?) -- The ex-wife's wrestling match with Ben to get possession of her gun -- The detailed sequence wherein Arthur kills the preacher; he apparently burns him up with this incredibly measly match -- Yes, the gay religious-fanatic brother with his bleached hair and WeHo fashions -- And, my favorite, the use of Joplin's "The Entertainer" as the opening soundtrack and "Pachebel's Canon in D Major" as the closing soundtrack! -- the list goes on and on -- a MUST SEE!!!
With few exceptions, most of George Bernard Shaw's plays have virtually disappeared from the theater these days. Too arch, too talky appears to be the general verdict. This BBC version of one of Shaw's funniest plays doesn't refute that verdict. It is certainly arch and talky, but it is also wonderful. And because of the quality of British theater, it is perfectly cast with actors whom -- with the exception of Helena Bonham Carter -- most of us have probably never heard of. Carter is splendid as the Bulgarian girl who shelters the professional "chocolate soldier" (Pip Torrens) and later falls in love with him. One might quarrel with the especially ridiculous interpretation of Sergius (Patrick Ryecart), the Bulgarian cavalry officer who led the charge into the enemy's lines and succeeded only because the enemy had the wrong ammunition for its machine guns. However, the role invites over-acting and Ryecart was obviously told to over-act. The other players are letter perfect. Carter as the self-dramatizing Bulgarian "aristocrat" and Torrens as the Swiss soldier-of-fortune are at the play's center, of course, and they are wonderful. Yes, "Arms and the Man" comes across as a filmed play. But you're unlikely ever to see a Shaw film that doesn't betray its origin. The plots are generally clever. However, Shaw is all about the dialog. The action is minimal (even in St. Joan) and the sets are immaterial. Enjoy this for what it is.

The Lack of content in this movie amazed me the most. First i though that people was going to compare this to Rock On! but i'm really surprised myself to say that this was worst than Rock On! So-so story Horrible cast Ajay Devgan Jamming with Salman Khan and Asin you gotta be kidding me. The music was Okay Khanabadosh was the track of the movie the rest was bad! Vipul Shah hasn't still learn from Singh is King's critically bashed comedy. Now Asin.. where do she come from sorry for Asin's fan out there but she suck*d big time in this movie seriously bad acting she didn't look good at all overdose of make-up! My final verdict go watch Aladin with your family instead wasting your time here.
Paulie sounds like the most saccharine, lachrymose and sentimental garbage you could ever find, yet it's actually much better than you might expect. The daftness of the plot could so easily have set the tone for the whole film, but actually in most other departments the film is charming.
In case you're wondering, Paulie is a parrot. Bought for a little girl with speech difficulties, Paulie becomes her best friend and goes everywhere with her. He even sits on her shoulder during speech therapy lessons, and eventually becomes a super-intelligent speaker himself. However, Paulie is sent away by the little girl's mother and he spends the rest of the film trying to get from N.Y.C to L.A to be re-united with her.
So, why does this awful-sounding film succeed relatively well? Firstly, it boasts some interesting and impressive animatronic effects. Secondly (and far more significantly) it has the courage to embrace its ludicrous premise and tells a genuinely moving, often humourous story without worrying too much about the obvious flaws in the storyline. Thirdly, it has several surprisingly strong performances, including Jay Mohr as a wily crook, Gena Rowlands as a kind old lady, and Cheech Marin (yes, the dope-smoking Cheech Marin!) as a musical immigrant. It might not be a classic, but Paulie is sound entertainment for kids of all ages.

Quite typical for swedish movies of this type. Strange that the acting was soooo bad, these actors usually give a good show. The casting was poorly done, it made you expect something (I won't tell you what). The lead character was awful... I don't know where they find her. Anyway, stay away from this and go see "Den Tredje Vågen" instead, this is swedish action in is prime.