Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Well, "Cube" (1997), Vincenzo's first movie, was one of the most interesting and tricky ideas that I've ever seen when talking about movies. They had just one scenery, a bunch of actors and a plot. So, what made it so special were all the effective direction, great dialogs and a bizarre condition that characters had to deal like rats in a labyrinth. His second movie, "Cypher" (2002), was all about its story, but it wasn't so good as "Cube" but here are the characters being tested like rats again.
"Nothing" is something very interesting and gets Vincenzo coming back to his 'Cube days', locking the characters once again in a very different space with no time once more playing with the characters like playing with rats in an experience room. But instead of a thriller sci-fi (even some of the promotional teasers and trailers erroneous seemed like that), "Nothing" is a loose and light comedy that for sure can be called a modern satire about our society and also about the intolerant world we're living. Once again Vicenzo amaze us with a great idea into a so small kind of thing. 2 actors and a blinding white scenario, that's all you got most part of time and you don't need more than that. While "Cube" is a claustrophobic experience and "Cypher" confusing, "Nothing" is completely the opposite but at the same time also desperate.
This movie proves once again that a smart idea means much more than just a millionaire budget. Of course that the movie fails sometimes, but its prime idea means a lot and offsets any flaws. There's nothing more to be said about this movie because everything is a brilliant surprise and a totally different experience that I had in movies since "Cube".

A wealthy Harvard dude falls for a poor Radcliffe chick much to the consternation of his strict father (Ray Milland).
Syrupy, sugary, and most of all, sappy story about a battle of the 'classes' when rich-kid Ryan O'Neal brings home a waif of a librarian for his snobbish parents to ridicule. Ali MacGraw is the social derelict with the filthy mouth while John Marley plays her devout-Catholic father, but no one in the film is more annoying than O'Neal himself with his whimpering portrayal as Harvard's champion yuppie.
Followed 8(!) years later by 'Oliver's Story'.
This is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. All of you who regard this movie as absolute sh*t obviusly are not intelligent enough to grasp all of the subtle humor that this movie has to offer. It shows us that real life and "ficticious" action can produce a winning combination. Also, as a romantic comedy, it has one of the most clever ways for two people to find each other. Name me another movie where you can see all of that as well as Donald Sutherland singing a song like "They're Going to Find Your Anus On A Mountain On Mars."

I like Billy Crystal, and I thought it would be fun to watch this film, since I know he admired Alan King and they would be funny together. I thought I had seen all Billy's movies but couldn't remember this one, and now I know why. It's so full of clichés and phony emotion; you can smell each scene coming (and going!). Billy doesn't even get to be funny very often. He's too busy trying to cry fake tears or show his angst at how badly his father let him down. Alan King himself is fairly likable, as is the subplot about being an extra in the movies. But what a coincidence that Billy just happens to visit his father just as a major health crisis takes place, etc. etc. Or that two busy doctors can just shut down their practices to moon around in LA. And when the end comes, boy, does it come quickly! Almost as though the writers realized they had painted themselves into a corner and the only way out was to do a death scene. Mostly disappointing with a few glimmers of good humor.
OK, this movie was cool. I don't think it was the best movie ever made but it sure was fun. My brother and I still act out scenes once in a while, and will occasionally yank the movie out of the cupboard, blow off the dust and pop it in. Enjoyable all the way until the end, but a great concept. This is a movie that one has to just forget criticism all together and just enjoy. Judgment is victory for Robot Jox.

...but I regret having seen it. Since the ratings on IMDb are relatively high (and they must also have been relatively high on Netflix), I guess I put it in my queue because it is advertised as a gentle comedy from the UK, a category that has produced many films I liked immensely. "Saving Grace," on the other hand, falls into the category of laugh-less comedies usually populated by Hollywood movies produced and directed by the talentless. Brenda Blethyn is a capable actress, and I have liked her in other movies. The concept -- a gardener growing marijuana to overcome the penury she finds herself confronting after her husband's death -- does not offend me. Notwithstanding the strenuous efforts on the part of the cast to produce humor, the film falls flat on its face (falling flat on its arse might have been funnier) as far as I and my wife were concerned. Be forewarned, oh gentle reader, not all offbeat British comedies succeed. This one is a dud.
In "Brave New Girl," Holly comes from a small town in Texas, sings "The Yellow Rose of Texas" at a local competition, and gets admitted to a prestigious arts college in Philadelphia. From there the movie grows into a colorful story of friendship and loyalty. I loved this movie. It was full of great singing and acting and characters that kept it moving at a very nice pace. The acting was, of course, wonderful. Virginia Madsen and Lindsey Haun were outstanding, as well as Nick Roth The camera work was really done well and I was very pleased with the end (It seems a sequel could be in the making). Kudos to the director and all others that participated on this production. Quite a gem in the film archives.

We should all congratulate Uwe Boll. He's done the unthinkable. He may be the only director to have two movies in the bottom 100 on IMDb! He's like some kind of cinematic cockroach. No matter how little talent he has, and no matter how bad these movies are, he manages to keep making them. I know, he finances them all himself through some kind of bizarre German fund, but even so, his ability to keep making movies despite absolute, complete failure is one of the great mysteries of the universe.
It wouldn't be so bad except that video game developers keep giving their best properties to this guy. I really enjoyed the Alone in the Dark series of games. Even the latest one, the New Nightmare, was good for a few hours of game play. There was a good movie to be made out of Edward Carnby's adventures, but this is not it. Now Uwe Boll has gotten his hands on Bloodrayne and Hunter: the Reckoning. What's next, Silent Hill? Doom? I can only imagine the swath that this guy is going to cut through game-to-movie adaptations if he's not stopped. Someone needs to take away his line of credit, or these video game publishers need to wise up and realize that when they make a bad movie out of a game that kills the franchise, no one is interested in that title any more.
Think about it, is House of the Dead or Alone in the Dark a viable game title anymore? No way. A new House of the Dead game comes out for X-Box and nobody's gonna care. The title is dead, and all because of Uwe Boll. So if any of you out there work for a game publisher, or know a game publisher, or have access to a game publisher... please warn them.
This movie itself is not even worth reviewing. I can't separate what I didn't like about this pile of dung from the rest of it. Literally, everything about it sucks. The writing, the acting, the music, the CG effects, the editing. I thought that if I waited until it came out on DVD and then rented it with low expectations, I wouldn't be disappointed. Boy, was I wrong. Never underestimate Uwe's ability to turn out a big, steaming pile of BOLL sh*t.
I chose to watch this film at Tribeca based on Judd Hirsch and Scott Cohen and found it to be one of the best movies in the festival. Both leading actors deliver a well rounded sensitive performance that seems to match the characters on a personal level. The director did a great job bringing the characters and story to life with skill that is usually not seen in a first-time production.
One interesting aspect of this film is the love of woodwork and New York City (Brooklyn in specific). The movie revolves around the family furniture making business and weaves delicate cinematography of both carpentry and ordinary Brooklyn life  again kudos to the director on this fine choice.
This is gem and I would whole heartedly recommend it (I'm sure it will make it to the screen).

Actually, this is a lie, Shrek 3-D was actually the first 3d animated movie. I bought it on DVD about 3 years ago. Didn't Bug's Life also do that? I think it was at Disneyworld in that tree, so I'm saying before they go and use that as there logo. Also, Shrek 3d was a motion simulator at Universal Studios. They should still consider it as a movie, because it appeared in a "theater" and you could buy it for DVD. The movie was cute, at least the little flyes were. I liked IQ. I agree with animaster, they did a god job out of making a movie out of something that is just a out-and-back adventure. I recommend it to families and kids.
Working-class romantic drama from director Martin Ritt is as unbelievable as they come, yet there are moments of pleasure due mostly to the charisma of stars Jane Fonda and Robert De Niro (both terrific). She's a widow who can't move on, he's illiterate and a closet-inventor--you can probably guess the rest. Adaptation of Pat Barker's novel "Union Street" (a better title!) is so laid-back it verges on bland, and the film's editing is a mess, but it's still pleasant; a rosy-hued blue-collar fantasy. There are no overtures to serious issues (even the illiteracy angle is just a plot-tool for the ensuing love story) and no real fireworks, though the characters are intentionally a bit colorless and the leads are toned down to an interesting degree. The finale is pure fluff--and cynics will find it difficult to swallow--though these two characters deserve a happy ending and the picture wouldn't really be satisfying any other way. *** from ****

I rented this film on Netflix after it won all the Oscars, to see if it was really that good.
The Hurt Locker is a very realistic portrayal (for the most part) of a group of soldier's rotation in Iraq. The film centers around Will James, a reckless soldier who gets his adrenaline fix from taking risks, and defusing bombs.
Where this film seems to lack in my opinion is the Plot and Direction of the movie. This film has no clear plot unlike other films such as Black Hawk Down. What this film tries to do is focus more on the characters, and their different attitudes about the war. Bigelow does an okay job of focusing on the characters, but there are many points in the film where the dialogue seems to drag. Hurt Locker is 131 minutes long, yet it feels like a 3 hour movie.
One scene in the movie that was particularly awful, and ruined the films perfect credibility, was the sniping scene halfway through the movie. It was both unrealistic, and very long.
Overall, I thought this film was OKAY, but the reason I gave it a 6 instead of a 7, was because it was a major letdown for winning Best Picture at the Oscars. I felt like this film could have been so much better considering Saving Private Ryan lost Best Picture, but was much better than this film. Another notable mention is Black Hawk Down which only won 2 Oscars. I honestly do not know how this won best picture.
If you are looking for an action packed war flick, rent Black Hawk Down. This film will be forgotten in a year or two.
First off, I would just like to say what a big fan of Bette Midler's I am. Stella is a very good movie with a wonderful cast (Bette Midler, John Goodman, Trini Alvarado, Stephen Collins, Marsha Mason) This is one of my favorite films of all time. It deals with a mother raising a child on her own, she goes through a lot of things that are out of her way to bring up her daughter Jenny played wonderfully by Trini Alvarado. This movie is very good and I suggest that you pick up a copy to watch it. Roger Ebert gave is 3 1/2 stars! And it deserved 4! WONDERFUL! I give it 4 out of 4!

This movie could have been so much better, especially considering the talent. Larenz Tate's portrayal of Frankie Lymon was not good, especially in musical performances. He doesn't lip sync well and his stage mannerisms are Larenz Tate, when he should have been Frankie Lymon. The portrayal of the women as a bunch of gold diggers has Hollywood written all over it. The powers that be obviously pushed it, but it only made the characters more unrealistic. The positives of the movie were Miguel Nunez's portrayal of Little Richard, and the cameo of Little Richard himself. Lela Rochon is eye candy, as usual, even in a conservative role. It's too bad that the talents of Halle Berry and Vivica A. Fox were wasted. The whole Frankie Lymon saga was fascinating in real life. Too bad this film was a wasted opportunity.
Firstly, I would like to point out that people who have criticised this film have made some glaring errors. Anything that has a rating below 6/10 is clearly utter nonsense.
Creep is an absolutely fantastic film with amazing film effects. The actors are highly believable, the narrative thought provoking and the horror and graphical content extremely disturbing.
There is much mystique in this film. Many questions arise as the audience are revealed to the strange and freakish creature that makes habitat in the dark rat ridden tunnels. How was 'Craig' created and what happened to him?
A fantastic film with a large chill factor. A film with so many unanswered questions and a film that needs to be appreciated along with others like 28 Days Later, The Bunker, Dog Soldiers and Deathwatch.
Look forward to more of these fantastic films!!

when you get to the scenes that involve Albert Brooks without his shirt... try not to gag on a fur ball.
I like Albert Brooks. I've seen most, if not all of his movies but it was the first time seeing this one. Modern Romance is an interesting take on the subject of love. There are few movies that handle the desperation of love as well or as overtly as Modern Romance, although 1979's Chilly Scenes of Winter comes very close. They both essentially deal with obsessed men that are too psychologically attracted/obsessed to their respective women.
Where-as Chilly Scenes of Winter borders on the subject stalking, this movie has a more grounded foundation with the subject of love because both people are already in a relationship.. and out of the relationship.. and back in it again.
And because it's a movie that was released in 1981, it is of its time in terms of styles and such. That's the main reason I like this movie. My basic rule when it comes to movies is "If it sucks at least it may have some historic relevance", you know time capsule stuff.
Which leads me to the horrific scenes of Albert Brooks sans shirt.
The man is hair. Very hair. Like he's wearing a black curly fur sweater-hairy. And what's worse is he almost looks burn victim-hairy. It's not a pleasant sight and the scenes with him without a shirt go on and on. Back in the early 80's hairy men were seen as normal and nothing shocking. But in 2009 the sight of something like this is just plain revolting. Sorry, Albert! I wish at some point someone said "hey let's try this scene but with you wearing a simple t-shirt, I mean you might scare people". It's just really bad and I feel sorry for the poor pretty actress that had to deal with Albert Brooks naked body on top of hers. She was probably pulling out his hairs from her teeth for days after that.
Anyway, it's an OK movie. It could have been better if I hadn't see Albert Brooks without his shirt for what seemed like 10 long continuous minutes because that will forever taint my viewing of this movie.
Nick Cage is Randall Raines, a retired car thief who is forced out of retirement when he's forced to save his the life of his brother Kip (Giovanni Ribisi) when he screws up on a job, by completing his brothers job of stealing 50 cars in one night. He has to get together his old crew that he can trust to help him pull it off and get his bro out of dutch. But the cops are onto him, so can he pull it off? This was one of the great candidates of a film to re-make as the Original was far from a classic. And if you don't go into it expecting much, and turn the thinking portion of your brain off so you can ignore the plot hole ans just take the movie for what it is. You'll end up enjoying the ride. Watch it on a double-bill with "The Fast and the Furious" for a night of high-speed hijinks, just don't take the car out for a spin right afterwards.
My Grade: B-
DVD Extras: 7 minute Jerry Bruckheimer Interview; Bruckheimer Bio/Filmography; Action Overload: Highlight Reel; The Big Chase; "0 To 60" featurette; "Wild Rides" featurette; Stars On The Move; The Cult "Painted On The Heart" music video; Theatrical Trailer, and Trailers for "Shanghai Noon", "Mission to Mars" and "Coyote Ugly"

Absolutely horrific film. Ameteurish and it isn't funny at all. Lead character played by Mehmet Ali Erbil is very annoying. Edits by E.T and star wars is just plain stupid.
Actor Yilmaz Goksal is the only good think about this movie. He should master his English and move to Hollywood. Hollywood can not find an actor with his qualities. Other than Goksal this movie is a garbage.
Director Gani Mujde is a comic writer and this movie is his worst written work to this date.
Music of Cem Karaca is another plus of this waste of money. Actor Sumer Tilmac also have some presence. Actor who plays the three sons has no talent what so ever.
MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS is a mesmerizing 1945 B thriller from Joseph H. Lewis, arguably one of the very finest directors of Hollywood noir films. This 65 minute Gothic oddity from Columbia Pictures came after Lewis' lengthy apprenticeship as the helmer of a string of poverty row westerns, East Side Kids comedies, horror melodramas (including the incredibly bizarre Bela Lugosi shocker THE INVISIBLE GHOST) and standard studio B product (SECRETS OF A CO-ED, BOMBS OVER BURMA, THE FALCON IN SAN FRANCISCO, etc)---all of which set the stage rather nicely for what was to come from the enormously talented and inventive Mr. Lewis. MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS (as well as SO DARK THE NIGHT from the following year) introduced a director who had mastered the rare and delicate art telling a dark and probing tale swiftly and efficiently on the most modest of budgets. Later Lewis productions like GUN CRAZY (1949) and THE BIG COMBO (1955), despite the expanded scope of their narrative structure, continued to rely upon deft, lucid camera work and effective low-key lighting. And very modest resources.
MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS probably owes more to the tradition of British mysteries (it's set in a studio-bound England) than it does to conventional film noir attitudes and trappings. A young woman (Nina Foch) agrees to take a position in the home of an elderly woman (Dame Mae Witty). Two days after her arrival she awakens from a deep sleep in a completely strange house and, mysteriously enough, with a brand new identity---that of the old woman's daughter-in-law. Told that she's been the victim of a nervous breakdown, she struggles to grasp the utter and seemingly hopeless nature of her predicament. But before long she begins to piece together the strange and troubling truth behind this dark mystery, that her "husband" (the always menacing George Macready) most probably murdered his real wife and that she's been duped into participating in a harrowing and sinister scheme. Much of what distinguishes this otherwise modest tale are the indelible touches that Lewis brings to the production, marking it as the first of his truly serious endeavors as a film director.

The novelty of hearing clean-cut Jay Leno spout four-letter words is the only memorable aspect of this formulaic mismatched-police-partners caper. In COLLISION COURSE, the pelican-faced comedian teams up with the late Pat Morita to track down a stolen prototype turbocharger (think car lover Leno played a hand in the plot?). The two leads try hard, they really do, but Leno is no actor and Morita's fish-out-of-water routine gets old in a hurry. The film carries a bit of cheesy '80s appeal, but its worthy moments become increasingly scarce as it fills out its overlong 100-minute running time. Fans of Leno's considerable comedic talents will feel let down; everyone else will just be bored.
Anyone find it interesting that the Ood look strangely similar to the 'Great Cthulhu' of H P Lovecraft vintage? hmmm?
Great pair of episodes (not referring to Billie Piper as most seem to do!) in The impossible Planet and The Satan Pit.
Also the link to 'Legion' I think also used in Who before and also referring to Satan in various novels post Exorcist era...
Great suspense episodes utilising fear and faith elements. The new team for these 'who's are working great magic for TV.
This certainly creates new fears and 'hide behind the sofa' feelings not seen for many, many years in this continuation of a superb BBC series (pity it is confirmed by the BBC that Billie Piper is quitting - perhaps not permanently - after end of series 2) :O(((

Some might scoff, but there is actually a real art with making particularly bad films. This misses out on all fronts.
A bunch of young people -- women with heaving breasts and continuously wet T-Shirts, naturally -- go to film "blood surfing" and end up running into a 31 foot crocodile.
Not only was the croc obviously fake, but some of the props [notice the boat hitting the reef in particular] look like they've come out of thunderbirds!
No good, from start to finish. Don't see it!