Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
I enjoyed the story by itself, but the things that I learned about WWI Planes & boats, make this movie a must see. The close-ups on the plane & the torpedo boat & how they were used were completely new to me. I heartily recommend.

There is only one thing essential to thorough appreciation of The Indian Runner. Unzip your trousers. Peek inside. Is there evidence of a Y chromosome? Okay, you'll do.
This film has all the male requisites: blood, guns, car chases, fond women, death, multiple tattoos, cigarettes, liquor, violence, pyrotechnics -- what have I left out? -- oh, yeah, blowtorches.
As a woman, I seriously hope Sean Penn regards this as a `when I was a child...' kind of effort. Since he both wrote and directed the thing, he's nearly solely responsible. An uneven cast (Viggo Mortensen as usual demonstrating brilliantly how the job's supposed to be done) tries to save Penn. Too late. The lines and action are there. Even devoted, skilled acting can't change those.
I found this movie puerile and silly, as well as predictable. The dialogue staggers along -- Sandy Dennis has my respect for trying to breathe life into a woodenly maternal monologue without motherly authenticity. Then she dies. After a bit, so does the protagonists' father, played by Charles Bronson. Their absence is hardly noticeable.
At intervals, the pyrotechnics, etc., noted above appear to liven things up and scare the audience into thinking something significant is occurring.
If you're male and under 25, you may adore this film. Plan to return to it at 35. Think you'll still like it?
I don't think so.
After the usual chase scene, Jerry accidentally winds up inside a bottle of invisible ink, which was part of a chemistry set. He quickly discovers he's invisible...so the predictable results occur, meaning he uses his new hidden condition to torment Tom. Jerry often is just defending himself, but often he has sadistic streak in him that torments the cat whenever possible, even when unprovoked.
Here, he makes Tom think his eyes are deceiving him when cheese from a mousetrap disappears before his eyes, or milk from a dish. Tom can't take anymore so he tries to sleep this nightmare off, but Jerry sets fire to his paw! Man, I hope little kids didn't ideas watching these cartoons back in the '40s and '50s! I always found Jerry, the little mouse, more evil than cute.
Thankfully, in cartoons, generally, whatever damage a character suffers is gone within seconds and he's back to normal.
The best part of this cartoon is about two-thirds of the way through when Tom figures out what the story is with Jerry, and tries different methods to detect where the mouse is located (such as putting flour on the floor to see his footprints).

Having low expectations going in, the opening new footage (clocked at over five minutes) of 'Husbands' came as a pleasant surprise. I won't say the new footage was grade A material, but it provided a very solid foundation for what "could have been" a good all-original film.
Unfortunately, this was put together in 1955, during a time of one day shooting schedules. After the new footage, Jules White decided to just thumbtack stock footage from 'Brideless Groom' into this short, making for a not-so-smooth story transition, which Jules and Felix Adler try to remedy with a quickie bit of new footage at the end, giving us the old, worn-out ending of the boys (Moe & Larry in this case) getting shot in the butt.
3/10
There are few films or movies I consider favorites over the years. The Gospel road was one of them. I watched this as a young teen and would like the opportunity to watch it again. My favorite parts were the fact that
1/Jesus was blond,
2/the last supper was a huge meal,
3/ he liked playing with the children,
4/His death was for all people and for all time.
The movie may not have been theologically sound or high quality acting, but it touched my heart at that time. Besides I am a Johnny Cash fan and it was a brave venture. If it ever comes out on DVD, I will purchase it purely for sentimental reasons.

The movie was not a waste except for some boring scenes in between.But the women cast gave a pretty good show than the males who were laughable.
But Krista Allen really rocked in the movie .Her voice was so seducing and sexy.The scenes in the bed involving Krista should have shortened but she made it so watchable and sexier than any one could do.Krista really is one of the best in such roles.She also enacted quiet well as the baddie in the last 5 minutes,which is the interesting part of the movie.
Burt Reynolds was not that good and this was not his best as an action star.He could have chosen a better script than this.Ireally think he did for money.
This truly funny movie has a zany cast of characters, just about every voluptuous middle-aged female in Hollywood, and a touching, funny love story. The Capomezza's and the Malacici's are rival caterers in an Italian neighborhood in New York. They are also at opposite--extreme--ends of the taste scale. Their children are cast in the lead roles of a church production of Romeo and Juliet. Naturally, they fall in love. On stage! The mayhem and confusion that this causes, as the parents feud with each other and their kids, is played out for us against the backdrop of the Capomezza's magnificently tasteless home, and their magnificently tasteless catered weddings.
Besides the four over-the-top parents and the charming young lovers, the characters include a vaguely wise priest, a plain-speaking grandma, a lady who waves a wand and passes on spiritual advice she receives from a medium called The Blessed Roscoe, a motel with beds shaped like the back seat of a car, and two doves. There is not a sight gag or a punch line that doesn't click in this fast paced movie.
Even the family names of the two families are part of the fun. "Capomezza" could be interpreted as "low-brows," and "Malacici" could mean "stuck-up snobs."
If you are sensitive about Italian stereotypes, you may not like this movie. If Bette Midler embarrasses you, you may not like it, because all of the women in this movie make Bette Midler look like Martha Stewart. The rest of us should love it!

Jennifer Jason Leigh and Mare Winningham are a good match portraying vastly different siblings, but only Winningham is able to bring something convincing or substantial to her role. Leigh, playing bar-band singer and alcoholic Sadie Flood, constantly leans on older sis Georgia, an acclaimed folk singer in the Joni Mitchell mold. Perhaps due to her double duties as co-producer on the film, Leigh seems to have boxed herself into a corner: she isn't credible as a singer and, even if this is intentional, gives herself far too much screen-time at the microphone. Probably hoping for a tour-de-force, Leigh is wire-drawn and nervous and jagged; however, we simply do not see any talent within this character (Leigh is obviously a solid actress, but she makes decisions here that wall us off from her). If Sadie had even the slightest bit of charisma or appeal, we might be able to buy into the concept that she gets the (small) breaks that she does. As it is, the likelihood of her ever getting up on stage is slim. Director Ulu Grosbard crafts a few intense dramatic sequences, and the editing at the finale juxtaposes Sadie's bar performance with Georgia's sold-out arena show--both singing the same song--and it's a sadly nuanced moment...but really, what's the point? *1/2 from ****
This cool Marvel superhero game pays proper tribute by staying true to the comics. Of all the Marvel superhero games that have been so lame with weak graphics and gameplay, Spiderman improves in both departments. It also features the voice of Stan Lee, the creator of Spiderman comics.
As you'd expect Spiderman does whatever a spider can. He does more than spin webs. In fact, he uses them as weapons and shields. When he's not using web in combat, he punches and kicks as well. Spidey has his hands full as he battles Venom, Rhino, Mysterio, Scorpion, and Dr. Octopus to name a few. Look for Captain America in a cameo.
Most of the levels are challenging, but some of them require patience to beat. The only complaint about this game is that it's so short and can be completed in less than three hours. If you're a real Marvel superhero fan, this game is for you but don't expect long gameplay. Better luck in "Spiderman 2." My evaluation: 9 out of 10.

If 1977's "Exorcist II: The Heretic" did him no favors, it's hard to imagine what thespian extraordinaire Richard Burton saw in this drab exercise in non-thrills. You've seen it all before: Burton plays a writer who discovered at an early age he possesses the power to move inanimate objects through force of his mind (and you thought "Carrie" had no impact on Hollywood!). Though adapted from a novel by Peter Van Greenaway, "Medusa" plays like recycled goods, though the special effects in the cathedral finale are solid (if typical). Lee Remick is somewhat present as a doctor, but otherwise the supporting cast is extremely weak. Burton is hammy but weary...not even telekinesis could save him at this point. *1/2 from ****
This film has very tight and well planned dialogue, acting and choreography.
Recommended film for anyone who wants to see masterful writing and plot.
Question: Does anyone know where the house is actually located? It is one of the most interesting houses, a 19thC windmill.

As was to be expected, A Mazursky film made in the 70s would be counter-culture, sympathetic towards the hippies - and have a lot of hippies in it - and, naturally, it is childishly anti-authoritarian (e.g. the scene on the Mexican border, when Sutherland provokes a custom's officer by showing little respect and then accuses the latter of making him open his luggage only because he (Sutherland) has long hair). The constant left-wing dribble could have gotten on my nerves had I not been prepared for it beforehand; Sutherland muses aloud to his family and friends about potential movie ideas for his next film, and most of these ideas are either about blacks or Indians (needless to say, he would be welcomed with open arms in today's Hollywood). One of his movie ideas is about a black uprising in Beverly Hills - a race-war, so-to-speak, in the middle of L.A.. This is the kind of nonsense that Mazursky thinks about when writing scripts for his movies. Fortunately, some of Sutherland's hippie friends make fun of this black-revolution premise, and the resulting dialogue isn't bad; a little later, the Jewish guy makes a crack about Sutherland making a movie about "masturbation and the black problem", when the latter starts talking about masturbation. Another funny moment is when Sutherland's older daughter performs some PC crap on stage with her white school-mates, and they all say: "We, the black people of the Republic of South Africa...".
There is always a certain amount of self-indulgence when Hollywood makes a movie about Hollywood - especially when it's Hollywood making a movie about Hollywood discussing Hollywood doing movies. Now, that's very, very self-indulgent, indeed. The scene with Fellini (playing himself) is more amusing than annoying, though. Mazursky throws in the standard flower-children and anti-Vietnam bullshit into the soup, and also pokes fun at corporate Hollywood, but he was/is just as much a part of the "phony Hollywood" (lyrics from that song in the surreal war segment) as anyone else; I am pretty sure that he, too, makes phony small-talk in Beverly Hills parties and grins fakely while shaking the hands of people whom he either doesn't know or like, but whose money he wants badly for his next (left-wing) project. As for his hair: he has the worst hair I've seen in a very long time (on film or elsewhere); it's sort of like the kind of long hair that a middle-aged accountant would have if he grew it long. The film remains relatively interesting in spite of its aimlessness, but it bogs down somewhat into tedium in the last third. If you'd like to read my parody/biography of Donald Sutherland (and other Hollywood actors), contact me by e-mail.
I was lucky to see "Oliver!" in 1968 on a big cinema screen in Boston when I was a young teenager. Later, during the summer of 1969, I was pleased to see this film was still playing at a prominent cinema in Leicester Square, London, after it had won the Academy Award for Best Picture of the previous year.
Th success of "Oliver!" on both the stage and screen reminded me that not all talent begins on Broadway and ends in Hollywood. This legendary story by Charles Dickens, which is part of the literary heritage of all English-speaking people, was admirably brought to the London stage by Lionel Bart of Great Britain. His charming musical then became a hit in New York and throughout the world. The film adaptation was made in England during the summer of 1967 and then released in 1968. The sets and musical numbers are mind boggling. The song "Who Will Buy?" required hundreds of actors and the British film director truly deserved his Oscar for putting it all together in a seamless manner. Some Canadian and American talent is also part of this wonderful production, but mostly it is a tribute to the fine craftsmanship of the British film studios, such as Shepperton. Good show! Other film studios at Elstree, Boreham Wood, Bray, Denham, and Ealing have also given the world many films to treasure over the years.

This is a horrible movie. All three stories are bracketed with a psychiatrist hypnotist line which is unnecessary and all the stories are bad. The first is about wild wolves and some lady, there are some things that don't make sense, but the hypnotism thing makes up for that. The second one, with bad Bill Paxton as a maniac roommate should not be viewed by anyone. The last one, sadly the best is almost incomprehensible which I guess makes it better than the other garbage.
Having previously seen the abridged print presented by David Shepard, I finally got a hold of a complete--or nearer complete version, which was about 56 minutes compared to the 30-minute version more widely distributed. The Shepard print for Image Entertainment is certainly of superior quality, and the best parts are there, but it's nonetheless good to see the rest of the film and fill in some loose story ends.
In the Shepard print, the film ends with Mary stating, "You see, I've changed my mind--I'm never going home." Yet, in the complete version, Mary and Kenneth Driscoll end their relationship soon after that scene  Mary returns home to the country  and Driscoll rekindles his relationship with Vivian. This additional footage develops the character Vivian, who had little relevance in the Shepard version. Moreover, in the complete version, the film begins in the New Jersey countryside with Mary, where she reads and fantasizes about her ideal lover. She's disappointed by the reality of the advances by farm "chore boy" Johnny Applebloom (a character completely absent from the Shepard version), but after her affair with Driscoll, she returns to the country to presumably and eventually become a farmer's wife.
Regardless of the print, 'A Girl's Folly' is a good little film for 1917, made by one of the top directors of the 1910s Maurice Tourneur. In it, Tourneur takes plenty of jabs at his own business, including by playing a caricature of himself--the director of the film-within-the-film. The two leads also give quality performances by early screen-acting standards: Robert Warwick, an actor playing a skirt-chasing star, and Doris Kenyon, as an ingénue aspiring to play an ingénue on the screen.
Self-referential films, which made film-making the focus of the films, were nothing new by now. Mack Sennett had already parodied this type of film three years prior with 'Mabel's Dramatic Career'. Several aspects of this one stand out, though. Frances Marion's intertitles are humorous, including illustrations of the actors on a chessboard with a hand directing them--remarkable for 1917. I especially liked the film's final title cards where two observers remark on the film's happy ending: "Gee but ain't that romantick!" And, the other replies, "Romance, nuthin!  That's movin' pictures!" Fellow female screenwriter Anita Loos made a similar self-referential conclusion to another film from 1917 'Wild and Woolly'. Both writers helped change the role of their professions in the business and art.
Some of the photography by Tourneur and John van den Broek is good, especially concerning the film-making business. The use of mirrors in several scenes is a nice reinforcement of the film's self-reflexivity. Furthermore, the editing is exceptional. The quick crosscutting during the studio scenes is especially salient; it serves to punctuate the hectic pace filmmakers work at, especially back then.

Me and my friend rented this movie for $2.50. And we both agree on one thing:
THIS IS THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE!
Also me and my friend counted 475 face shots. (Which makes up 95% of the movie).
So in other words: DO SEE THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU LIKE WASTING MONEY! And I do!
This movie is the first time movie experience for several people in the cast. All of them are experienced actors and have played in several TV series and plays. Sahan Gokbakar is a well known comedian in Turkey. It's kind of strange to see him in a thriller, while he is at the peak of his comedy career in Turkey. This movie is Togan Gokbakar's first long shot and pretty much the first experience as a director. But they all did a good job. We are happy to see such enthusiastic young cast. They seem very promising for the future of the Turkish film Industry. Doga Rutkay being long time sweetheart of Sahan Gokbakar, is also a talented actress, who is known for her recent play in "number 27" theatrical play and several TV series.

After seeing the poster from the film Smother,I knew I was about to live one of those intolerable film experiences which make me want to take my eyes out.However,I felt a slight optimism because the movie had a solid cast which I thought it was going to rescue the movie.Unfortunately that did not happen.Smother is a horrible movie,but it is not execrable.That is the best I can say about it.
The screenplay from Smother (written by the same guys from License to Wed,something which explains they have anything but talent for writing movies) is full of cheap and predictable humor.Seriously,I did not laugh even once watching this film.Besides,the solid cast I previously mentioned is absolutely wasted.After the big number of garbage she has been involved in (like the monumentally atrocious and execrable Because I Said So),some people may think the career from Diane Keaton is extinguishing.However,it is impossible for me to forget the excellent performances she has brought in previous decades,on films like Annie Hall or Baby Boom.On Smother,she makes her best effort with her performance,but her character is so horribly written she cannot do anything with it.Dax Shepard has left on me a good impression with his solid performances on the films Baby Mama and Idiocracy.However,he does what he can with his character.Mike White also makes a good effort,but he does not reach too far away.He is a very talented screenwriter (like he has shown on films like The Good Girl and School of Rock),so I would have liked to see he was one of the screenwriters from this movie,instead of only acting on it.Liv Tyler suffers from the same situation of all the previously mentioned actors : being wasted.
The worst fail from Smother is being absolutely boring and unfunny.Its screenplay is nothing more than a collection of forced scenes and situations we have seen on sit-coms.Stay far away from this crappy comedy.
I suppose I always felt that Hotel du Nord was studio-bound, the movement of people cars and camera were just too effortlessly smooth and stagey to have been filmed on location. But no problem - it's still a much underrated lovely composition from Marcel Carne. The plot seems a bit choppy at times, as if they were making it up as they went along, but because it is unpredictable holds the attention to the bitter end. The money shots when the 2 lovers are alone in their room are saddled with some rather stilted dialogue, but it's all so lovely to fall into any inanity can be accepted. Are these 2 young people symbols of a cancerous hopelessness in pre-War France or simply idiots? Suicide pacts are fairly common; if the suicidees are young and healthy with their lives before them untrammelled would you think anything other than that they were just misguided fools?
Arletty played the part of prostitute well - she kept that zipper on her dress busy throughout anyway! I've only seen a few films with Jouvet - he is the most impressive invention as pimp in HDN - my trouble is shallow: every time I see his face I think of Sonnie Hale in Evergreen!
A remarkably atmospheric, well acted and photographed film with so much happening it needs a few viewings to get it all in place. Annabella and Aumont made an exceptionally beautiful couple; Francois (Heurtebise) Perier in his 2nd film had a small amusing part as a gay man. All in all: wonderful.

Most book adaptations are bad but this film left out key parts of the storyline and changed the description and some characters. They rewired the storyline and combined scenes and changed the order. They added ridiculous things into it that never happened in the book and would never happen.
If i hadn't read the book beforehand it would have been an incredibly dull film, it didn't make you care about the characters, like them or dislike them. It turns the characters into jokes.
Awful.
Ridiculous.
Waste of two hours of my life.
This movie is an amusing and utterly sarcastic view of pop culture and the producers thereof. I was impressed with the photography that consisted of vivid colors and spin doctored settings, especially when you think that this is Zukovic's first large scale attempt.
One warning, do not take the movie's message that seriously. It is not for mass consumption ( and that is not a compliment). The message is a somewhat stylized post-college, neophyte view of society.
I did enjoy the basic plot line of a fictitious 'zine editor verbally whipping the mobocracy of the 90's.

Although Twenty Minutes of Love is a harmless attempt at an early comedy, it was difficult to follow and the film quality was not very good. It does have a couple of moments that are funny, but I have seen better by Charlie Chaplin.