Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
This movie started slowly, then gained momentum towards the middle. However, the fact that the movie ran over two nights broke that momentum at its peak. The second part really got interesting, but then gave way to a simply pathetic ending. Playing football in the yard? Really, could it get any more sappy and maudlin? Now I hear plans for a similar movie based on the '70s. I won't make any great efforts to tune into that one if it's anything like "The '60s."

actually, it was pretty funny... in a "god, how the hell did this movie get made" kind of way. if you life making fun of movies... which i kinda do... go ahead and watch it... but if you're actually thinking "is this a good movie?" eff off.
this movie sucked from the very beginning scene with the worst acting i've ever seen in any movie.... usually they get five minutes into it before you realize "this movie might suck".. but no, you know right off the bat. this movie talks about edgar allen poe... never tried to explain it though, to people who haven't memorized poe's life story... so i don't know if any of what was said is fact.
this movie is about a writer "ethan poe" hookin up with his cousin "ann".... they're both descendants of edgar allan poe... or are they?!? apparently, people give a what their ancestors did. this guy ethan poe is actually ethan "usher", who is supposed to be descendants from the story "the house of usher" that was written by edgar allen poe. ann's brother shows up sometimes to try to rape her... ann's also being stalked, at one point in the movie, by three different people on the same street (seriously, three... they're like right behind her glaring at her and she doesn't even realize). the characters that are being murdered throughout, show up at the end to try to save the day.... but they can't. at the end, ann shoots ethan while he's trying to kill her best friend. of course, before she shoots him she has to scream out "nevermore!" this movie should be seen nevermore!
Flat out the funniest spoof of pretentious art house films ever made.
This flick exposes all the clichés, and then some! Excruciatingly bad (Downs-Syndrome!) actors. Terribly heavy self important dialog. Scenes that are supposed to shock but fall flat. Jarring editing. Pointless plot points. All wrapped up in a kind of smirky miasma of disrespect for the audience and vague psych-drivel.
It achieves exactly what it was designed to. A hilarious satire of those tedious movies made by spoiled teenage trust-funders, to show to their parents when they ask them what they've been doing for the last two years! After "What Is It?" received its Cannes award, presenter Werner Herzog was rumored to have been told that the film was in fact a spoof, in part of his own films! He supposedly blew up at the info. To this day he refuses to discuss the incident.
Anyway, see it and laugh, this will be a classic of humor for many years to come.

A trio of low-life criminals, led by Matt Dillon, botches a late-night burglary. They flee but quickly cross paths with the police who just happen to be in hot pursuit of a terrorist. Of course the police mistake the burglar gang for the terrorist, the real terrorist gets away, and the burglars are forced to take refuge in a small dive of a bar, taking hostages, unaware why the police are so intent on catching them. And guess who else has picked the bar as a sanctuary for the night?
Unbelievable? Absolutely. And it goes down hill from there. Spacey did acquire a good bit of acting talent; Matt Dillon, Faye Dunaway, Gary Sinise, Viggo Mortensen, and M. Emmett Walsh, but they're all wasted. Mostly because after all the characters get stuck in the bar, all they do for the remainder of the film is argue. Endlessly and aimlessly. Long before the conclusion of the film you've stopped giving a damn about what happens to them.
I'm too old to know (or care) exactly what the difference between rap and hip-hop is. And, being Canadian, it's likely that I've never actually seen MTV, but I'm not certain.
But I thought this film was very funny when I saw it, a bright little satire. Hip-hop culture is so pervasive these days that it's difficult not to keep hearing about it over and over. (If only we could say the same about bagpipe music.) I got most of the jokes (at least I think I did). Sure, it's derived from Spinal Tap, but there are lots of targets that could stand a Tap treatment. Just not the Carpenters, they're sacred.

PROS: Akshay Kumar's performance(is it just me or does this guy always manages to trump AB in their movies together?). Some touching scenes in the 2nd half.
CONS: The whole 1st hour(the jokes were flat to say the least). Every scene involving Rajpal Yadav. Major stupidity in AB's decision making. Let me get this straight, he believes brutally insulting his son's soul in every possible way(that will likely ruin their relationship beyond repair) is a better way for him to make Akshay finally take some responsibility then actually telling him the truth?? WTF? He considers Akshaye is too soft to bear the fact that his OLD father is soon gonna die due to cancer, but thinks insulting him will make him stronger? Am I the only one who doesn't see the logic here? Easily the movie's biggest flaw.
- Akshay becoming a stunt man. LMAO!! We're told he finished 1st in college every year and has a degree in MBA. But when the time arrives to support himself, and his pregnant wife, he becomes a stunt man. LOL!! How abt actually applying for a normal job in ur field? Or Heck, anywhere else where ur life isn't in danger? This is some incredibly dumb writing.
- The ending. I hate this sort of melodramatic crap. Everything is pushed down our throats to feel sorry for AB's character, which I couldn't. The entire thing reminded me a little too much of Srk in KHNH(which I hate). This "please feel sorry for the guy with the illness" crap has run its course. I felt more like puking than sympathy for the OLD man. Couldn't watch the final 20 or so minutes because of it and thus had to fast fwd. the whole thing.
Bottomline: Waqt is just too dumb to be called a good movie. Its obvious director Vipul Shah targeted this at the emotionally fragile chicas and oldies who could care less about a story that actually makes sense. Give 'em some decent song picturizations, fancy outfits, plenty of glycerin-filled scenes and some star power and they'll happily lap-up crap like this.
I saw Jack Frost for £4:00 at my local store and I thought it looks pretty good for a low budget movie so I bought it and I was right it was good. For starters this film is about a killer snowman so that's something to laugh about and the way it looks was funny compared to the Snowman on the cover.
The acting was okay and the lines Jack Frost said had me laughing "I only axed you for a smoke" and "Worlds most pi**ed off snow cone" how funny and camp is that? The tale at the start was pretty funny and silly too "Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack gouged eyes with candle sticks". If you're looking for a for a B-Movie Comedy horror that's full of puns then check Jack Frost out. 10/10

I watched this movie, and hoped for something to get better the entire time. What is so great about a guy with no emotion? *yawn*
You never see Alex show emotion for anyone other than his son. Yeah, I know that this is why his son is the only one to cause him to lose his temper (if you can call it that), I get it.
Characters are undeveloped, relationships aren't given enough time to be understood. In one scene Sarah says they won't fall in love, and the next time we see her she's talking about how his death really shook her up because they were so close? Logic synapses abound in this film.
It's like someone watched Boogie Nights and wrote this part to mimic Little Bill. Even the scene where he "loses his temper" is the same as when Little Bill shoots his wife, down to the facial expression (or lack thereof). Yes, William H. Macy is good at portraying a man without emotion - been there, done that - can you say Magnolia?
This movie didn't only lack emotion, it lacked substance, a good script, developed characters, and a plot. And it certainly lacks my recommendation. :)
~A~
From very long, we are seeing movies on Gandhi. And mostly, the light is always on portrayal of Gandhi as freedom fighter or man with principles. But when I heard that a movie is being made which will highlight Gandhi as Father and stress on his relationship with his Son, it instantly hit my attention as this is one territory which is least being explored as it has his own dark side and less people shown courage to dwell into it. Fortunetly, Anil Kapoor (Producer) and Feroz Abbad Khan (Director) did.
The story start with Gandhi working in South Africa and his relationship with white people and his wife. Latter Akshay (Harilal) joined his father for becoming a barrister but his dream took overturn when his father (Gandhi) pushed (Or motivate) him to become freedom fighter. It showcase that Gandhi believes more on practical study rather then formal education. Harilal too try to walk on his father footstep but soon failed as its infatuation towards his wife, children and his own dream of becoming big success altered his path and then start the repulsion between son and father. He finally defeated his father in terms of pursuing his dream and to left him on his own terms. He written back to India but then start his unsuccessful stories which become bigger and bigger with time. I am leaving reader to see movie to catch further story...
Performance. First Akshay. He has given best performance of his tenure so far and is absolutely convincing in his portrayal as Harilal Gandhi. The scene in which he reach the room where his wife dead body is placed is one where you can see a fine actor which is hidden/developing in Akshay. Darshan jariwala is also good as MK Gandhi and able to live up such a larger then life character. He performed well and with quite an ease. Shefali Chaya (Now Shah) as Kasturba is brilliant actress and already proved her metal in TV serials. Bhumika chawla too performed well but actress of her candidature is waste in these kinds of role. Other actor have also justifies their performances.
Technique and Make up is also good and cinematography especially that Duo tone color picturisation was too good. Costume looks and match with context.
Overall, a worth seeing movie which is defiantly slow in progress and impatient people may find it boring but give you an insight of area which is not brought to silver screen till date. Also, the way story progress and connection of scene may look worn to some people and to critics especially but for an average movie watcher like me, it still enough to make me occupied on my seat till end.

I am at a distinct disadvantage here. I have not seen the first two movies in this series, although I have seen a lot of Larry Cohen films. Fans of the series seem to think this is a good film. Judging it on it's own, it was pretty boring.
You never get a real good look at the maniac cop's (Robert Z'Dar) face, but what I did see was pretty grim. The death scenes seem to be staged to eat up the most film, not to give any thrills. Maybe if I saw the NC-17 Director's Cut, I may be more impressed.
The ending with the car chase with Z'Dar, Caitlin Dulany, and Robert Davi was pretty intense. best part of the movie.
What a delightful movie. The characters were not only lively but alive, mirroring real every day life and strife within a family. Each character brought a unique personality to the story that the audience could easily associate with someone they know within their own family or circle of close friends.
The story has a true-to-life flow that the viewer can assimilate into and be part of the drama, the laughter and tears as the plot of the movie develops. The script does a good job of capturing the common emotions, actions and reactions of the characters to conflict, opinion, and resolve.
Not an epic, but it is a very nice movie to watch with loved ones. Plenty of knowing head nods and 'ahhh' moments to share and enjoy.

I had several problems with the movie:
(1) The screenplay -- specifically, Kim Basinger's voice over: Movies are not books; they should *show* the action rather than have a voice over *tell* us what's happening. Occasionally I find a movie with a voice over that works, but here it seemed more of a lazy way of writing the script. In fact, it sounded to me as if she was practically reading excerpts from the novel in her voice over.
(2) I felt no emotion in the relationship between Jessie and Brother Thomas and also felt that Alex Carter's acting was pretty bad. That's a significant failure for me in defining Jessie's and Thomas' characters -- with no connection between them, it seemed to me as if she just wanted a stud and that for him it was a matter of being sex-deprived. If it had been properly done, the relationship between them would have given much more context to the story.
(3) With the book, I understood Jessie's mid-life crisis. In the movie, it seemed more like just plain boredom.
On the plus side, I didn't think the movie was so bad as for me to turn off the TV . . . though that thought did occur to me.
What a perfect example of "Less Is More..." Kurt Russell (Sgt. Todd) only has 72 lines, and something like 104 words. What a challenge! Like a black and white photo, when your mind's eye has to fill in the blanks, the facial expressions, the physical drama, the emotive gesture, all combines to make a stronger impact. This is one of those top 5 movies I can't live without, right up there with the classics like Road Warrior. If you liked this, check out "Mad Max 2, The Road Warrior" and "Braveheart" both starring Mel Gibson. Also "Gladiator" with Russell Crowe and Connie Nielsen who was in Soldier also. The "Thirteenth Warrior" starring Antonio Banderas and "Blade Runner" starring Harrison Ford.

I've seen better production quality on YouTube! I pity the actors, as the writing was terrible and the direction shocking, not sure how they could get the lines out - I really doubt any actor would have been able to salvage this movie no matter how good they were. The characters were not developed at all, and there was no real cohesion in the plot which just seemed to go nowhere much. It's a shame really, as the premise for the movie was good and with better production quality, direction and script it could have been a decent movie. It certainly was not a comedy, unless you laugh out loud at the dubbing - which was amateurish, even the English actors sounded weird.
This show is so full of action, and everything needed to make an awsome show.. but best of all... it actually has a plot (unlike some of those new reality shows...). It is about a transgenic girl who escapes from her military holding base.. I totally suggest bying the DVDs, i've already preordered them... i suggest you do to...

This film has been receiving a lot of play lately during the day on either HBO or Cinemax. The reason is that they are assuming people would be interested in comparing it to the Leonardo DiCaprio/Tom Hanks caper of the same name. The only reason to see it is for the attractive Matt Lattanzi. Yum! Although I must say Matt was more than a little long in the tooth to be playing a high schooler. If he were a woman, they'd have had him playing the MOTHER of a high schooler! (Is is just me, or is his daughter starting to look like Shelley Duvall?) Oh yeah, the plot--who cares? Typical teen highjinx played by adults.
The movie only enter the cinema in Indonesia this year (2007), two years after it's official release, and after many illegal DVD's had found its way to the public. Apparently the popularity of the illegal DVD's lead to the release into the theaters, with still public coming to watch.
The movie is a great epic, bringing Japanese culture into your house in an exiting way. In a sometimes humorist way, the story is told about a theater writer who writes a story for his theater, since the regular Kabuki theater plays is something he finds boring.
At first, the audience might be a little bit confused about which story we are following, but when the story unfolds, we see that the love between a male human and a female demon leads to a great story for a new Kabuki theater piece.
The audience is left in the dark if this is a story that is supposed to really have happened in Japanese traditions and mythology, but that doesn't matter.
The way the story is told with a love for theater, expression, vivid colors, humor and tragedy, makes this a great ride on the roller-coaster of Japanese cinema as well as theater.
Let yourself go completely when you watch this movie, try to see it in a cinema instead of on your television at home.
One critical point though: the soundtrack is sometimes a little bit annoying. Though most of it is great music, there are a few moments in the movie that I think they should have chosen some more dramatic music. But maybe the fact that the story contains moments of humor made the director choose for lighter moments in music as well.

Terrible story, poor acting and no humour at all (apart from the final joke at the end)
Some sort of ugly angel is sent to earth to save a boy and his mum from being thrown out of their home. Supposed to be a kiddies movie, but even they will not be amused by this terrible film
Director Paul Verhoeven's American vehicles are of varied quality, but most of the films he made in his native country are indisputable masterworks. This is the story of alcoholic (and bi-sexual) writer who moves in with a beautiful rich and very strange woman. But the lady does not know that he is only interested in meeting the woman's handsome male lover. In the meantime, the writer is plagued with strange visions - at first they look like hallucinations triggered by alcohol abuse, but he soon begins to realize that he is actually experiencing some kind of premonitions. Fascinating Hitchcockian thriller, very original and provocative. I love films that make you think they are about something, but then you realize they are about something completely different. This is one of those movies; a thriller during the first half, and a quasi-religious surrealist saga during the second half. Very erotic, original and blasphemous, not for kids or people that go to church every Sunday. Great cinematography by future director Jan de Bont. Highly Reommended!

Birthday Girl doesn't know what it wants to be - is it a comedy,, is it a drama...it just doesn't know. What could have been a very funny or touching film ends up in no-man's land. The premise is original enough to have warranted a script full of interesting scenarios but hardly delivers any and ends up petering out. This is a real shame if you look at the cast - it's very solid all the way through but they don't get the chance to shine. Very disappointing.
"Panic in the Streets" was a decent thriller, but I felt a bit disappointed by it. The central theme of a city being attacked by a plague in modern times is fascinating, but the film never really explores or develops it. Its well made and entertaining, but its not as interesting as it should have been. The screenplay for this one is really weak and brings the whole film down. None of the central characters are really compelling or believable.
Fortunately, the film is very well made so it compensates for the weak scripting. The direction by Elia Kazan keeps the film suspenseful and moving at a lightning quick pace. There are some standout sequences, particularly the memorable chase climax. When his direction was combined with better screenplays several years later, the man could mostly do no wrong.
The acting is also very good. Richard Widmark was always a watchable leading man and does what he can with an underwritten character. Paul Douglas spends his time yelling a bit too much but does a decent job as well. The standouts in the cast are the two villains. Zero Mostel, known primarily for his comic roles, is effectively slimy as one of cinema's ultimate toady characters. Jack Palance is, unsurprisingly, a chilling villain. "Panic in the Streets" is disappointing but still worth watching. (7/10)

Unless you are mentally ill or the most die hard segal fan you will tire of this horrendous excuse for a film in under 5 minutes.
The Plot - Even for a Seagal film, the plot is just stupid. I mean its not just bad, its barely coherent.
The Acting - Unbelievably wooden. Literally seen better acting in porno's. Ironically this film tries to cash in on this audience which a 'lesbian love scene' which is utterly cringe-worthy.
Special Effects - wouldn't look out of place in a 60's sword and sorcery flick.
Unless you suffer from insomnia and have exhausted all other cures, don't make the same mistake as i did and buy this DVD, as you will be asking for that hour and a half of your life back.
E! TV is a great channel and Talk Soup is so funny,in a flash you can view the episodes change. We want more funny writings by the best writer ever Stan Evans.. The patron Saint of the mindless masses... He is a truly talented, gifted writer, actor, comic, producer,director, and creative consultant.Anna Nicole loved him , but he was not a $$$$Billionaire so he left him for a Billionaire. Many super stars wanted to make films with the actor Stan Evans, who has a "Humphrey Bogart" {Clark Gable}acting style. He should make many more movies. Maybe with Stephen Spielberg, or perhaps many other talented producers.We wish him a moment of FAME with a great fortune to gain. Has he produced any mock-U-dramas? or perhaps any docudrama??? A project about Bernie Madhoff would be a great TV movie written by STAN EVANS. How many screenplays has he written?? Is he under $$$$$$$$$$$$billion contract with Disney?? He should earn more than $50 Million... He could also write a TV movie about the late KING OF POP.. Michael Jackson. We want to view a lot more of and by Stan Evans in the movies and on TV. Thank you so very much. Elvis has left the building!!!!!

Few movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.
Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie:
* From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.
* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.
* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.
* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.
* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.
* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.
In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please.