Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
This is by far one of the better made movies and didn't leave me disappointed at all. The sound track along with finely shot hand-held camera work was exquisite . The are always chances a movie won't hold ones beliefs as well as another, but I felt that rhythm of this picture and the timing was excellent. Dakota Fanning is rapidly becoming a staple in movie that require a child with an old soul personality and she has never disappointed me with her talent. As for Mr. Washington and of course Christopher Walken they both exceed the challenge of showing the darkest sides of humanity trying to move to the light.

"Smithereens" is the kind of worthless flick which just hangs out among the cable channels taking up space like a cheesy dime novel in the public library. A worthless bit of tripe and first effort for mediocre director Seidelman, the film is fraught with bad acting, bad sound, bad camera work, and poor quality in all aspects of the film. Many better films never make it to market and why junk flicks like this one do and never seem to go away is one of life's great mysteries. (D-)
This has the funnist jokes out of all the Cheech & Chong flicks. It's the first one I saw with these guys. I found it to be really good. My dad actually recommended me to get it. WHAT A GREAT ROLE MODEL, and my GRANDMA actually bought it for me, knowing what it was like. What a family I have. Well this movie is pretty good and great to rent when you want to see a good classic. I must warn you though, this isn't gut-busting funny. It has its moments but not as funny as There's Something About Mary. Check it out anyway. I'm sure you'll laugh. Unless your an anti-drug activist or something.

This movie is really nothing besides an admittedly well-crafted series of tense sequences punctuated with an inevitable "gotcha!" at the end of each. Really, there is no character development and no real plot to speak of. There are only the most skeletal of motivations for the characters to do anything while they trudge forward to their unavoidable dooms. It's all just an excuse to show a creepy ghost kid (who seems to have gotten some of the family cat mixed up in his ectoplasm) and his ghost mom (with long black hair hanging in her face kind of like "The Ring") take down a bunch of cardboard cut-out, two-dimensional excuses for human characters.
This English-language version of "The Grudge" is the equivalent of cinematic junk food; satisfying momentarily, but not really what you ought to be living on.
Not recommended.
ROAD TO PERDITION can be summed up by Thomas Newman's score . It's haunting and beautiful but you're aware that this music is similar to Newman's other work and while listening to the soundtrack you're reminded of SCENT OF A WOMAN , MEETING JOE BLACK and THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION you're reminded of other films as the story unfolds on screen . As the Sullivans drive round America trying to escape from a psychotic hit man you think of THE GETAWAY , Irish gangsters is MILLER'S CROSSING whilst the subtext of guilt and redemption can be summed up by Coppola and Leone's gangster epics. Despite having a seen it all before feel this shouldn't be taken as a heavy criticism of Sam Mendes film which I repeat is haunting and beautiful and the only flaws that work against it is a very slow opening twenty minutes and I was slightly confused as the events that caused Michael Sullivan to be betrayed . But if you stop to consider how much of a sentimental mess Spielberg might have made with the story that revolves around a father and his twelve year old son running for their lives you can't help thinking what a superb director Mendes is
ROAD TO PERDITION is a film where the entire cast give flawless performances . I've never been all that keen on Tom Hanks but he's every bit as good here as he has been in any starring role , probably better . Paul Newman plays a character with an Irish accent but at no point did I believe I was watching an American screen legend putting on a false accent - Newman's performance works due to the subtle body language , his character is torn up by guilt but Newman never milks it or goes over the top . While never upstaging Newman who gives the best performance in the movie the two Brit supporting actors Craig and Law are also very memorable as American gangsters and while Law will still have a long career as a leading actor one wonders how Daniel Craig might have progressed as a character actor if he hadn't decided to become James Bond , a role which heralds the end of an actors career

I saw this movie originally in the theater, when I was 10. Even at that age the 'humor' was mildly insulting to my adolescent intelligence.
In the past, whenever I would see Ed Begley Jr. or jeff Goldblum I would cringe and start to feel very uncomfortable and even slightly sad. Until I was reminded of the existence of this movie today, I was unsure why I felt that way. Apparently I blocked my memory of this movie yet my negative feelings towards two of the perpetrators remained. Apparently I forgot that I saw this movie but subconsciously mourned the pieces of my soul that had been stolen, nay EATEN by the creators of this inhuman work.
I haven't been brave enough to try watching it as an adult. I imagine that as part of the healing process that I should probably look at confronting this childhood fear so that I can *truly* put it behind me. Some regression therapy and / or hypnosis might not be a bad idea either.
Most of the comments have been positive but I would like to add that viewers should also focus on the sets. The set designer used a lot of beautiful art deco treatments along with beautiful buildings, stairs, doors, furniture and so forth. It is worth paying attention to. The movie is driven by characterization and symbolism which is very rich. All the gangster actors were cast - it was like seeing old friends and it was a treat. The dialog was amusing at times but stilted at times and I suppose it was meant to be that way. This is a film buff's film. It was made by people, for people who love the medium. Don't miss this one.

So i had low expectations for this movie to start with, but it failed to meet even those. while there were some funny parts, even one or two laugh out loud parts, this movie fell terribly short of what i would call good. the funniest jokes were unexpected and over very quickly, leaving us sitting there going "WTF just happened?" in addition, there were a few jokes that just dragged on and on and on. the part where he falls down the mountain had me yawning. also, the editing was really lacking. there were some poor scene transitions, but that seems to be the style nowadays. It made me laugh, but i wouldn't watch it again, and I'm very glad i waited for it to rent. give it a chance, you might enjoy it, but don't think you are in for anything along the lines of the 40 year old virgin, or Superbad.
As always, controversial movies like this have mixed reviews. You either love it or you hate it, and not everyone will like this movie. This shows the perspective of the killers, which is something I personally feel is something important to consider. You may hate them, you may claim to understand them and feel as though you can relate, but regardless this movie will make you think about school shootings from a different perspective.
The movie is shot entirely using a hand-held camera, something that I think works quite well as it makes it more realistic. It is told completely from the killers point of view, from their "missions" to family outings, all leading up the big day "Zero Day" in which they are planning on a massacre at their school. Zero Day does not offer answers, but merely presents a glimpse at the lives of two troubled young boys and lets the audience decide for themselves. Our feelings towards the boys are something mixed between sympathy and hatred, but yet we are left confused as to why two ordinary young boys would do such a thing. They are shown to be surprisingly normal, typical teenage boys leading ordinary lives, and if we didn't know what they were planning we wouldn't expect a thing (They make it clear throughout the whole movie that no-one else knows about their plan)
The acting is extremely good considering the two actors are complete unknowns. We can only hope to see more work from the both of them in the future. Despite how this is a fictionalized movie, one cannot help but notice the obvious similarities to Columbine. Calvin and Andre are scarily similar to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, (not so much in looks, but in manner) As someone who has researched Columbine very extensively, I could see the similarities and it is almost certainly based on it.
The actual massacre is shown through surveillance cameras at the school and is one of the most chilling things I have ever seen. I was completely in shock after seeing it, and its a feeling that stays around for a while. It is very realistic and well-done, and it is very difficult to watch.
All in all Zero Day is an excellent movie, and I think everyone should at least check it out. In the past, we have always simply branded killers "psychopaths" and assumed that either they were biologically wired for disaster or had media influence, but as Zero Day shows sometimes the motives are deeper than that, and we can never truly understand why tragedies such as school shootings happen until we have seen it from the perspective of the killers.

Cheap and mind-blisteringly dull story and acting. Not a single good line, not even a line bad enough to be good, and no memorable delivery. Even the blooper reel included with the DVD showed how inept the actors were and how little fun any of them were having. The esoteric and occult basis was apathetically inauthentic, and the antagonists failed to be creepy or believable. The 'homoerotic' overtones were pointlessly tame and dissatisfying, and were limited to young boys caressing their chests while flaccid in their boxers. I'm not gay enough to appreciate it, but a little action might have at least kept me and my girlfriend awake.
Very interesting and moving documentary about the World Trade Center tragedy on 11th September 2001.The main theme of it is the heroism of American fire-fighters who tried to rescue as many people as they could.The film is deeply emotional and rather disturbing-many people seen on screen have lost their lives!Recommended.

Well...now that I know where Rob Zombie stole the title for his "House of 1,000 Corpses" crapfest, I can now rest in peace. Nothing about the somnambulant performances or trite script would raise the dead in "The House of Seven Corpses," but a groovie ghoulie comes up from his plot (ha!) anyway, to kill the bloody amateurs making a low-rent horror flick in his former abode! In Hell House (sorry, I don't remember the actual name of the residence), a bunch of mysterious, unexplained deaths took place long ago; some, like arthritic Lurch stand-in John Carradine (whose small role provides the film's only worthwhile moments), attribute it to the supernatural; bellowing film director John Ireland dismisses it as superstitious hokum. The result comes across like "Satan's School for Girls" (catchy title; made-for-TV production values; intriguing plot) crossed with "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things" (low-rent movie about low-rent movie makers who wake the dead); trouble is, it's nowhere near as entertaining or fun. "The House of Seven Corpses" is dead at frame one, and spends the rest of its 89 minutes going through rigor mortis, dragging us along for every aching second...
I first heard about this film about 20 years ago when I was a kid in grade school(!), it just so happened that I was thumbing through the encyclopedias in the classroom one day, and under the entry for movies (or cinema, I don't remember), were several stills for different movies from mainstream to experimental, and one of them shown on the page was a still for OffOn. It really intrigued me, since it stood out the most on the page (it was a still from the film of the scene with the eye with other elements superimposed over it).
About 18 or so years later, the public library here where I live had available for checkout the whole 4-DVD set of "Treasures of American Film Archives" released by the National Film Preservation Foundation. So when I was reading the notes on the DVD cases for the set, I was quite pleasantly surprised to see that OffOn was on one of the discs. After all these years, I could finally see the film! After viewing it, it slightly wasn't was I was expecting it to be (it tended to be a more organic-looking film, not that that's a bad thing, but I was expecting it to have a more electronic aesthetic), but it was still an impressive film, IMHO, considering the techniques Scott Bartlett used to make the film, including hand-tinting the film itself, and using video equipment for some of the film's scenes (filmed off of a video monitor), giving it a more distressed, lo-res look.
Don't get me wrong, the techniques used in this film were quite ground-breaking for 1972. That's why it's still one of my favorite short/experimental films, and a creative inspiration for me as well...

The often-reliable Leonard Maltin says this is a "delightful romance" and that Sanders is "superb." Maltin must have confused this movie with something else. Sanders is snide and droll and superb, as usual,  you can imagine his delivery of the line regarding adultery, "Sometimes the chains of matrimony are so heavy they have to be carried by three," but dull, wooden and dated describe this movie more accurately. The storyline itself, an autobiography with Sanders as a suave jewel thief, Francois Eugene Vidocq, who becomes chief of police but can hardly resist the lure of fine jewels, is entertaining enough, but it has the same kind of hollow historical Hollywood treatment that marred such period epics as *Marie Antoinette*, and certainly the deplorable *Forever Amber* (which screams for a classy remake). Though, in his defense, Sanders tries mightily to add some depth to his character, it is all for naught. I am an unabashed Douglas Sirk fan, but this is 1946, and it is one of Sirk's earliest American efforts, lacking many of the signature touches that would define his florid, breast-heaving potboilers. Sirk is just getting his feet wet here, and made a number of unmemorable films over the next ten years until he struck gold with *Magnificent Obsession*, and hit his stride, bombarding us with such estrogen-fests as *All That Heaven Allows*, *Written on the Wind*, and *Imitation of Life*. But *Scandal In Paris* is hardly his best work  a relatively low-budget affair with cheesy sets and ineffective costuming.
Plenty has been written about Mamet's "The House of Games"; most of it good. I decided to revisit the flick to see how it held up after 17 years and was surprised at how much I enjoyed viewing it again. The film's success and durability probably has much to do with two principal ingredients which are always fun on film; a good story and a good scam. Mamet manages to bring his signature moodiness and obvious histrionics to the film while scamming us, the audience, and the mark simultaneously. Then he explains the art of conning only to do it again, etc. all the while building the story. "The House of Games", now a freebie on cable, is worth a look for first timers and an okay rerun for Mamet fans. (B+)

I really can't believe this movie is not in the IMDB worst 250, it is absolutely terrible. When I originally saw it I remember talking about it in a college class and two other people had also seen it. We were all telling other class members not to see it because it was so horrible. By the time we were done some others wanted to see it just because they could not believe anything was as bad as we were saying it was. Don't be like them, just pass this by. I'm sure everyone involved with this movie would also prefer you never see them in this movie.
In this grim melodrama, Barbara Stanwyck plays the eldest of three wealthy sisters who become orphans when their father dies in France. Threatened with the danger of losing the opulent family home, Big Sister makes a grand sacrifice and secretly marries a real estate developer so she can inherit her... aunt's fortune. A few years later, she learns that he is after the family estate and wants to tear it down so she leaves him and tries to stop him. More time passes and the husband ends up taking her to court when he learns that she has borne him a son without telling him. The part of "Gig Young" was played by actor Byron Barr who later assumed the name before he became famous.
Anyone interested in purchasing a copy let me know by writing to me at: iamaseal2@yahoo.com

A very good story for a film which if done properly would be quite interesting, but where the hell is the ending to this film?
In fact, what is the point of it?
The scenes zip through so quick that you felt you were not part of the film emotionally, and the feeling of being detached from understanding the storyline.
The performances of the cast are questionable, if not believable.
Did I miss the conclusion somewhere in the film? I guess we have to wait for the sequel.
Tiempo de Valientes fits snugly into the buddy action movie genre, but transcends its roots thanks to excellent casting, tremendous rapport between its leads, and outstanding photography. Diego Peretti stars as Dr. Silverstein, a shrink assigned to ride shotgun with detective Diaz (Luis Luque), who's been assigned to investigate the murder of two minor hoods who seem to have been involved in am arms smuggling conspiracy. Diaz has been suspended from duty, but he's the best man for the job and must have professional psychiatric help in order to be reinstated. Silverstein and Diaz soon find themselves enmeshed in a conspiracy involving Argentina's intelligence community and some uranium, and the film separates them at a crucial point that allows Silverstein to develop some impressive sleuthing skills of his own. Peretti and Luque are excellent together and remind me of screen team Terence Hill and Bud Spencer, though Peretti isn't as classically handsome as Hill. Remarkably, even at almost two hours in length Tiempo de Valientes doesn't wear out its welcome, and indeed writer-director Damian Szifron sets up a potential sequel in the film's charming coda. All in all, a wonderful and very entertaining action comedy that neither panders to the lowest common denominator nor insults your intelligence.

at the beginning i was happy to know about a new superman movie , i though that will be great but it wasn't.
is a bad copy of the Richard Donner work,Lex is again a villain that makes no more else , even played by Kevin spice.
the evil plan is the same of the first movie of Donner just a lot forced.
the script is predictable and simple (all stuff Luthor finds in a museum or an old lady).
the story is the wrong thing , it must be the Kevin Smith Script and may be it could be better.
i just hope a sequel without Brian Singer and with a new talent director to do something new and not a copy.
all read you later
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.

I liked Boyle's performance, but that's about the only positive thing I can say. Everything was overdone to the point of absurdity. Most of the actors spoke like you would expect your 9-year-old nephew to speak if he were pretending to be a jaded, stone-hearted cop, or an ultra-evil villain. The raspy voice-overs seemed amateurish to me. I could go buy a cheap synthesizer and crank out better opening music. And what's with the whole 1984ish police torture stuff? It was totally superfluous and had nothing to do with the actual events of the story. Cox added a lot of things, in fact, that he apparently thought would be really cool, but had nothing to do with the story. That's a big disappointment because one of the things that makes Borges' stories so good is his minimalism -- they are tightly bound, with no superfluous details. This movie is just the opposite. I stopped watching after the scene where Lonnrot is questioning the guy from the Yidische Zaitung, or thereabouts. I wasted $4 renting this, but at least I can get some satisfaction from writing this review and hopefully saving others from making the same mistake.
An excellent cast makes this movie work; all of the characters are developed exceedingly well and it's clear that the actors enjoyed filming this movie.
It's not quite the comedy I expected, much more a lighthearted look at the attempt to reclaim youthful glory than bawdy humor. For music fans there are quite a few subtle references that in themselves are intelligently funny.
I hate drawing direct comparisons to other movies, but so much of this movie reminded me of Alan Parker films I can't help it: imagine if The Commitments actually did make it big -- and then tried to recapture said glory 25 years later.

What can I say about Seven Pounds...well I watched on a flight from Seattle to Tokyo and as that flight was long and boring the movie definitely didn't help. Will Smith's character Ben Thomas is almost completely unlikable even with his redemption in the end. The movie's two hour plus run time wastes most of the screen time with random garbage that just strings the plot along as slow as possible. In the movies defense Rosario Dawson's character adds a little life to the film although not much. I don't understand how anyone could actually cry during this film when all I wanted to do was turn it off. Also Will Smith kills himself with a jellyfish at the ended proving that killing yourself with a jellyfish is the stupidest way to die.
A SHIRLEY TEMPLE Short Subject.
It can get mighty rough at Buttermilk Pete's Cafe when the local contingency of diaper-clad WAR BABIES come in for their midday milk break.
This primitive little film - a spoof of military movies - provides a few chuckles, but little else: tiny tots talking tough can begin to pall in a short time. Shirley Temple, playing a duplicitous hip-swinging French miss, hasn't much to do in this pre-celebrity performance. Highlight: the real signs of toddler temper when a few of the infants unexpectedly get well & truly soaked with milk.
Often overlooked or neglected today, the one and two-reel short subjects were useful to the Studios as important training grounds for new or burgeoning talents, both in front & behind the camera. The dynamics for creating a successful short subject was completely different from that of a feature length film, something akin to writing a topnotch short story rather than a novel. Economical to produce in terms of both budget & schedule and capable of portraying a wide range of material, short subjects were the perfect complement to the Studios' feature films.

Sorry. Someone has to say it. This really is/was a dull movie. Worthy perhaps, but dull nonetheless. I nearly cried with boredom when watching it. The acting is pretty dire, the story drawn out and predictable, the score and camera-work totally standard and unexciting. It's one of those movies you are not allowed to hate (becase it is about disabled people) but hate it I suspect nearly everyone does. It is interesting that critics have been so kind to this movie. I suppose they too are not allowed to be objective. This was made to win awards - which I remember it duly did. But it was neither interesting nor entertaining. I haven't seen the play so cannot compare.