Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Some people have stated that as of the 11th season, South Park has started a trend of leaving behind their politically biting satire for shallow spoofs; but this could not be further from the truth.
While this episode does spoof the Living Dead series, there is more. It is a satire of how people treat the homeless. Characters say things like "They're pretending to be just like us" or "They want to be human." This episode attacks a culture of people who ignore the lower class who are often just down on their luck.
So yes, it is still a satire, and also a wonderful spoof. What more could you want?

First off, the title character is not even the main character of the movie. He is the sidekick of the cult leader. The actor who portrays Igor believed that screaming loud, laughing hysterically, and having a crooked smile while bugging out your eyes would be an excellent way to scare people. Igor also had the annoying habit of yelling (because he never actually just spoke) in a high pitched voice. He would also say idiotic one-liners. For example when the cult leader murders one of his followers with a buzz saw, Igor upon seeing this, yells out "Paul! No Paul! Why'd you do it? I could have cut her clean! So clean!" In another scene Igor tells a victim that she would have to 'get her own tools for surgery because right now, it was his time to operate.' Aside from the bad acting, the ending did not make sense because while the story builds up what little steam it has towards the climax, which is Igor getting a crossbow arrow to the head and the rest of his lunatic buddies being killed, he shows up again two more times to kill the remaining 'good guys'. The movie offers no explanation of this, only telling the viewer that Igor escaped from the mental hospital. What??? Bottom line is do not waste your time watching this movie. I wish I could get back the moments I lost watching this.
The last time I saw the movie I was around seven years, so my opinions might be jaded over time. At the time I enjoyed the filming that switched between cartoon and live action. At the time I felt sad for the blue camel and his sad life. Also I felt glee when after Captain Contagious kidnapped the heroine (a princess or toy shepherdess) the tables the were turned on him. Unfortunately the producers never decided to transfer this movie to VHS, so all I have are twenty year old memories. I am sure that if I saw the movie again I would consider it corny and sappy, but I really enjoyed it the movie at the time.

0.5/10. This movie has absolutely nothing good about it. The acting is among the worst I have ever seen, what is really amazing is that EVERYONE is awful, not just a few here and there, everyone. The direction is a joke, the low budget is hopelessly evident, the score is awful, I wouldn't say the movie was edited, brutally chopped would be a more appropriate phrase. It combines serial killings, voodoo and tarot cards. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. It is not scary at all, the special effects are hopelessly lame. laughably bad throughout. The writing was appallingly bad. The cinematography is real cheap looking, and very grainy sometimes, and the camera-work is dreadful. Again, what really does the movie in is how badly all the actors are. Cheesy.
Road to Perdition, a movie undeservedly overlooked at that year Oscars is the second work of Sam Mendes (and in my opinion his best work), a director who three years before won Oscar for his widely acclaimed but controversial American Beauty. This is a terrific movie, and at the same time ultimately poignant and sad.
It's a story of a relatively wealthy and happy family from outward appearance during difficult times of Depression when the, Michael Sullivan, a father of two children, played by great Tom Hanks (I'm not his admirer but ought to say that) is a hit-man for local mafia boss, played by Paul Newman. His eldest son, a thirteen years boy Michael Sullivan Jr., perfectly played by young Tyler Hoechlin, after years of blissful ignorance finds out what is his father job and on what money their family live. Prompted by his curiosity and his aspiration to know truth he accidentally becomes a witness of a murder, committed by John Rooney, son of his father boss. Such discovery strikes an innocent soul and it caused numerous events that changed his life forever. The atmosphere of the period, all the backgrounds and decorations are perfectly created, editing and cinematography are almost flawless while the story is well written. But the main line of the movie, the most important moments and points of the movie and the key factor of the movie success are difficult father-son relations in bad times. They are shown so deeply, strong and believable. Tom Hanks does excellent and has one of the best performances of his career in a quite unusual role for him and all acting across the board is superb. Finally worth to mention a very nice score by Paul Newman and in the result we get an outstanding work of all people involved in making this beautiful (but one more time sad) masterpiece. I believe Road to Perdition belongs to greatest achievements of film-making of this decade and undoubtedly one of the best films of the year.
My grade 10 out of 10

The original "Cube" is a fantastic B-movie rich with paranoia, meaty characterization, and fine over-the-top performances. It's creepy, cryptic, and cool. And it stands perfectly well, on its own, without a stupid sequel like "Cube Zero."
This third (!) film in the Cube series is part retread (most of the booby traps are sadly recycled), part aberration. It takes the bold step of explaining what the cube is - something that was never revealed in the first movie - but, since said explanation is bland, I'd rather it was kept a secret. There are some potentially interesting references to the society that exists outside of the cube, but they never develop beyond hints about some kind of political-religious totalitarian state. So, what little social commentary there is feels flat and unfocused.
What works? Basically nothing. The acting is purely amateur hour, the pacing is slow (how much of this movie consists of two nerds watching a screen?), and the gore effects, while revolting, fail to convince. In short, "Cube Zero" reminded me of a "Cube" fan-fic, a sloppy and sophomoric clone of a good movie that definitely did not need a sequel.
This is a story of two dogs and a cat looking for their way back home.Old and wise Golden Retriever Shadow, young American Bulldog Chance and Himalayan cat Sassy flee from the ranch and go into the wilderness to be reunited with their family.Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey (1993) is a family adventure directed by Duwayne Dunham.It's a remake of a 1963 film.This movie got a sequel three years later.Michael J. Fox is the perfect man to do the voice-over for Chance.Fox has some youthful energy he brings to the role.Sally Field does great voice work as Sassy.Don Ameche is fantastic as Shadow.This was this veteran actor's second last movie.Also the visible actors are great.Kim Greist plays Laura Burnford-Seaver.Robert Hays is Bob Seaver.Benji Thall plays Peter Burnford.Veronica Lauren is Hope Burnford.Kevin Chevalia is Jamie Seaver.Jean Smart portrays Kate.It's quite amazing to watch these pets trying to survive in the wilderness.We see Sassy taken by the river and she seems like a goner.The bear scene is exiting and funny.Chance has no chance with that big, hungry bear.And his meeting with the porcupine looks painful.This is some great fun for the whole family.

Unfortunately this film, 54 was a pathetic attempt of the true story of 'Studio 54.' The only thing that was good about the picture was 'Mike Myers' who was a joy to watch. 'Neve Cambpell,' although her role was little was unfortunately bad. The bottom line is that this film lacked a good performance from the actors, except one and that the conversion of the true story was a desperate attempt for a good screenplay.
The only part lacking in this movie is Shue's part as the daughter wanting to follow in her "aunt's" footsteps as a daytime soap star. Otherwise it would be a perfect 10.
It seems that every actor enjoyed their parts and overacting to fulfill their own enjoyment as well as the script - I have to wonder if a little ad lib'ing wasn't taking place in parts. It was well cast and there are some classic lines that will stick with you.
It's a fantastic movie everyone should see at least once. I'd recommend not drinking anything that would sting coming out your nose.
You'll definitely want to watch the last scene closely, 'Nurse Nan' has a little secret she'd rather not have shared with you.
If you love daytime soaps or despise them, this move pokes fun in all the right places.

James Gandolfini is a good actor so what ever did he take a role in this piece of unfunny rubbish. Affleck is just a lightweight who just can't cut it, the rest of the cast are truly unforgettable. I saw this in the USA in an empty theatre, I soon knew why the place was empty after about 10 minutes. I walked out before the end it was so bad, so imagine my surprise when back in England I saw the movie had a glowing report from that yoyo "Paul Ross" in one of the down market Sundays. I always rely on Ross to save me money on cinema tickets, if he says the movie is good, I get straight on this very website to check it out. This movie should have gone straight to £1.99 DVD in a supermarket near you.
Page 3 is most definitely a very enthralling and captivating eye-opener that very cleverly exposes the hypocrite lifestyles of Mumbai's elite. From the fake kisses to the plastered smiles, Page 3 leaves no stone unturned in revealing the shocking lives of the rich and the famous. Backstabbing, gossip, corruption, and scandal lurk in every dark corner in the world of glitz and glam. Humanity and generosity are analogous to an oasis in the desert in this world where Social Darwinism is the prevailing mentality. Everyone is constantly craving for more money, more fame, and a higher reputation, driving them to do the most shameful things imaginable ranging from signing film contracts at a funeral to child molestation. Anything is possible in this metropolis where there is a such a wide gap between the social classes. The audience sees the ugliness of both of these classes through the eyes of the protagonist. She observes the suffocating atmosphere and the mind-boggling frenzy that the socialites live in. Bollywood, business tycoons, politicians, and the underworld are all intertwined in a completely convoluted mess! Kitne Ajeeb Hai is a nice track as is the peppy Kuan Main Doob Jaongi. Terrific film with excellent character development!

This isn't cinema. It isn't talent. It isn't informative. It isn't scary. It isn't entertaining. It isn't anything at all.
I got this because my cousin says, "Diablo! COOL!" Yeah, right. The only thing cool about this experience was the lone fact that I didn't buy it but rented it instead.
It's shot like a bad soap opera. No wait. Soap operas at least LOOK professional...sorta. This? This looks like it was shot with someone's camcorder. It's horrid! Wretched! It sux.
The cinematography is detestable! WHO IS this director anyway? I don't even care enough to look him up. He STINKS! The performances by these poor unsuspecting actors were far better than this crap-fest deserved.
2.6/10 on the "B" scale.
That registers about a 0.3/10 on the "A" scale from...
the Fiend :.
This is a very interesting project which could have been quite brilliant. Gathering 11 prominent international directors and allotting each of them 11 minutes, 9 seconds and 1 frame to create a segment of their choice; each short exploring the global reverberations of 9/11. Without using any spoilers, I would say that Ken Loach's piece is the jewel in the crown, and Mira Nair's short (segment "India"), based on a true story, deserves to be made into a full feature film. One also realizes, while watching his short, why Alejandro González Iñárritu is one of the best directors in the world today  he simply is a master of the medium, who has also a profound understanding of the subject matter. Unfortunately, not all 11 parts are made as well. Youssef Chahine, in his segment "Egypt", assumes the Arab stance of the self-inflicted collective guilt, which piece could have potentially been the most interesting one. He fails miserably. Chahine's short is poorly written and badly executed, at least enough to stand out amongst other, superior chapters of the film. Despite the imbalance in quality, I would still give the film 7/10 for concept, if not for execution.

Heavily re-edited and often confusing, the original screen version of Man On Fire was at least ten years out of date when it was made and the passing years haven't made it any better. This is the kind of movie that producers with too much money and too little experience make to get attention and everyone else does just to pay off their outstanding alimony or their drug dealer, with Scott Glenn's bodyguard going out on a limb to rescue his 12-year-old charge, the kidnapped daughter of a wealthy Italian family. An interesting cast - Joe Pesci, Brooke Adams, Danny Aiello, Jonathan Pryce - have all done better, the action is sluggish and sparse and only John Scott's exceptionally fine score (part of which turned up in the last reel of Die Hard) makes a positive impression. One case where the remake (made by Tony Scott, the original choice of director for this version) is an improvement.
There's so many things to fall for in Aro Tolbukhin. En la mente del asesino (Inside the killer's mind), that it's very hard to talk about it without giving any kind of warning. Let's just say that this movie is like an exercise in cinema but really, really great done. It´s made with super 8, black and white shots, 35 milimeters, color, interviews, flashbacks. Aro Tolbukhin it´s like a movie made a documental or viceversa, which most peculiar aspect relays on the doubt that leaves you wondering, did he really ever existed? The movie follows the later life of an hungarian sailor that arrived in Guatemala, worked in a religious mission and then killed some people. An act for which he got caught and death penalty sentenced. The movie starts because some french documentalists got interested in this character so they interview him prior to his death. Nowadays, some more people got involved and make a deeper research of the character. The one we are witness of -the movie.
For the main part in the history we are guided by a semi slow phase to go look inside Aro´s mind, mainly in order to decode why he did what he has done. Nevertheless, the important thing is that the filmmakers never gives us a sided point of view; they left the judging for all of us and even as we may understand his actions, we clearly never justify them. So, the first half is based upon recollecting information; later things turn into Aro's childhood, giving the movie such an incredible new force (even tough never got weak or boring).
I don't mean -and don't want- to spoil anything; so the only thing left to say is that if by any chance you get this movie near you, believe me, the trip to see it is more than worthy.

After seeing the trailer for this movie and finding out Spike Lee was directing, I was excited to hear about this event. I wasn't alive at the time, I didn't live in New York, so I expected more of a history lesson than anything. What I got was some interesting acting, a lot of sex, and about 30 minutes worth of film that actually had anything to do with the Son of Sam. I guess the film wasn't about the Son of Sam, but it was a peek into the summer of '77. Label me disappointed.
I saw the film for the first time at BBC on July the 27 of 2005. For me it was a good interpretation of the person Conan Doyle,and I truly wonder what the sherlock fans think about it. I also think it is a movie for these fans whether they agree or not what is mentioned.You may ask yourself was A.C. Doyle a strong person or did he put himself in question. However he was the creator of the famous Holmes,but how much of it was a sort of semi-biography? Not the less I strongly put this adaption forward, it is a movie you have to see - even if you aren't interested in the Sherlock Holmes movies or books - look a it , enjoy yourself and have your own opinion of it.

OK, here it is: "Nazi mountaineer befriends the Dalai Lama." What we do is, first we get a major star with no idea whatsoever how to do a Germanic accent, and we let him flounder around between French, German, American, and British for over 2 hours. Then we concoct a series of wildly improbable events and space them apart very widely, so that the plot inches along almost imperceptibly. But just to make sure the viewer doesn´t fall asleep, we throw in details which are shockingly absurd, such as our hero smoking a cigarette at an altitude of 22,000 feet. Naturally, we must also remember that our target audience does not want to read too many subtitles, so we have every character, even the lowliest peasant in the forbidden closed-off city of Lhasa in 1943, speak perfect English, also with dubious accents. Of course, the trickiest part is how to handle the spiritual and political aspects of the story, so what we do is this: we have the Dalai Lama befriend the now-reformed Nazi because the latter is so good at fiddling with film projectors, radios, antique cars, and any other devices with represent the freedom of the capitalist west. In return, our hero learns from his young protegé a kind of vague, undefined Buddhism which is never really brought out or treated in a serious fashion. We also have lots of scenes with the hero flaunting all the marks of respects and protocol which the rest of the Tibetan society accords the Dalai Lama, even as we pretend that the hero has deep and profound reverence for these people and their spiritual leader. In other words, we just expect the audience to believe that this guy is now a Buddhist, sort of, in his own way, even though we ourselves don´t seem to know what his transformation entails or how far we want it to go. And last but not least, we hang a statistic onto the end of the film about how appallingly the Chinese have treated the Tibetans (which is certainly true), thus opening ourselves up to charges that we have made a "political" movie, even though it is nothing of the sort. So, zat ist my idea. Vat do you zink? Can ve make zis movie?
What an amazing film. With very little dialogue, the whole story is told with glances and body language. Very involving almost voyeuristic. My only gripe is that it has not been released on video in Australia and is therefore only available on TV. What a waste.

Demer Daves,is a wonderful director when it comes to westerns and "broken arrow" remains in everybody's mind.As far as melodrama is concerned,he should leave that to knowing people like Vincente Minelli,George Cukor or the fabulous Douglas Sirk. The screenplay is so predictable that you will not be surprised once while you are watching such a tepid weepie.Natalie Wood 's character was inspired by Fannie Hurst's "imitation of life" (see Stahl and Sirk),but who could believe she's a black man's daughter anyway?Susan Kohner was more credible in "imitation of life")and Sinatra and Curtis are given so stereotyped parts that they cannot do anything with them:the poor officer,and the wealthy good-looking -and mean- sergeant.Guess whom will Natalie fall in love with?France is shown as a land of tolerance ,where interracial unions are warmly welcome.At the time(circa 1944) it was dubious,it still is for narrow-minded people you can find here there and everywhere.
For those who think of Dame May Witty as the kindly, slightly batty, old lady from Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes, this movie requires an adjustment. Here, she's anything but kindly or batty. Instead, her son, George Macready is the loony one. Just don't give him a knife, otherwise his eyes light up and no furniture cushion in the house is safe. Now we know what he has in mind for the trapped Nina Foch if he can just get out from under Mother's domineering hand.
Really tight little woman-in-danger film that keeps the suspense on high throughout. The script never strays from Foch's dilemma. She's held prisoner in a big old Gothic house on the edge of an angry sea. They're going to kill her, but why. Her predicament makes no sense. The tension mounts as she tries one escape ploy after another, but even strangers seem against her. We begin to feel her helplessness and mounting paranoia as the world turns away from her.
Director Joseph H. Lewis took a big step toward cult status with this film and understandably so. Then too, watch Foch run subtly through a gamut of emotions without once going over the top. Witty too shines as a really intimidating matriarch who knows what she wants and how to get it if she can just keep her wacko son in line. My one reservation is the climax which seems too contrived considering the timing of the events. Nonetheless, it's a good, nerve-wracking way to spend a little over an hour, courtesy Columbia studios.

This movie was not very entertaining, certainly NO WHERE as original or as good as A Christmas Story. The characters (except the youngest) try to emulate the preceding actors, and they fail. The hillbilly neighbors come out of nowhere as they weren't a part of the first movie. This really sucked, might have been good with the original cast, then again maybe not because the story is so weak. Skip it.
If "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" is the father of all horror films (and of German expressionist cinema), this pre-WWI film is the grandfather. The titular student, starving in an empty garret, makes a deal with the Devil-- the Devil gives him a bottomless sack of gold, in exchange for "anything in this room." The Devil chooses the student's reflection in his mirror. He walks off with the student's doppelganger, who commits crimes for which the student is blamed.
The film is marred by some limitations arising out of the technically primitive state of 1913 filmmaking; the plot cries out for chiaroschuro effects, but the film is, of necessity, virtually all shot in shadowless daylight. But the scene where the reflection walks out of the mirror still packs a wallop.
More interesting for the trends it fortells than for its own sake, The Student of Prague is still worthwhile.

Edward Montagne's Tattooed Stranger is supposed to play like a crime thriller with a little film noir mixed in for flavor. Instead, it's a poorly acted, witless look into low budget and uninspired film making. The plot is absurd and the acting excruciatingly stiff and amateurish. John Miles, who had a rather thin resume in the industry, grins and guffaws throughout, and everyone else acts with the same verve as characters in a government-made filmstrip about driver safety. The movie anticipates shows like 'Leave it to Beaver' and 'Father Knows Best' in its unnaturally wholesome view of New York in 1950. Why, the viewer doesn't even get to see anyone light up a cig until some shapely woman is interviewed in a flophouse halfway through the movie. The only thing the movie has going for it (besides its brevity) is the excellent location shots coordinated by William Steiner. The low budget of the film works in the cinematographer's favor, as the viewer is treated to well-framed shots of New York City's interiors and expansive exteriors. Unless you wish to enjoy the film for the choice of settings and camera angles, I suggest watching practically any other movie.