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".

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.
I have seen a lot of Saura films and always found amazing the way he assembles music, dance, drama and great cinema in his movies. Ibéria shows an even better Saura, dealing with multimedia concepts and a more contemporary concept of dance and music. Another thing that called my attention is the fact that, in this movie, dancers and musicians, dance and music, are equally important: the camera shows various aspects of music interpretation, examining not only technical issues but also the emotional experience of playing. The interest of Saura on the bridge between classical and contemporary music and dance is one more ingredient in turning this movie maybe the most aesthetically exciting among his other works. That's why I recommend it strongly to those who love good cinema, good music, good dance, great art.

I've read comments that you shouldn't watch this film if you're looking for stirring Shakespearian dialogue. This is true, unfortunately, because all the stirring dialogue, this wonderful play contains, has been cut, and replaced with songs. I've read this play, and recently was lucky enough to see it performed, at it remains one of my favourite Shakespearian Comedies, but this movie seems to take all that I like about it away. The Princess, though no doubt doing what she was directed to do, had no regal bearing, and all the girls seemed to lose the cleverness of their characters - also affected by unwise cuts, which not only took away the female characters already sparse dialogue, but took comments out of context - it was a little unnerving to hear the Princess proclaim; "We are wise girls to mock our lovers so!", when mocking had not taken place at all. The news reels throughout the film also disrupted the flow, and took away many excellent scenes, as they showed the information in the scenes after them, and were in modern phrasing. In conclusion, an excellent play, ruined by an odd concept, and unwise cuts. Kenneth, I usually love what you do. What were you thinking?
This movie was beautiful. It was full of memorable imagery, good acting, and touching subject matter. It would be very easy to write it off as being too sentimental, but that is the sentiments this type of a movie is trying to achieve. I was totally involved in the story's unfolding and presentation. There were a few cheesy shots, but such is to be expected in a religious propaganda film. The only complaint I can conjure is there wasn't a ton of details. However, this movie wasn't created to explain every element of Joseph Smith's life, ministry, triumphs, controversies, failures etc.; it was designed for a quick glimpse at a few highlights of one of the most amazing American and historical religious figures of all time.

Three writers made a valiant attempt to adapt Jane Stanton Hitchcock's novel for the tube, yet this television movie has ultimately been injected with too much melodrama and just doesn't know when to quit. Struggling artist Meg Tilly suddenly finds herself employed by wealthy, enigmatic Ellen Burstyn, who desires a mural painted on the walls of her unused ballroom. After learning about the last gathering held there--Ellen's daughter's coming-out party--Tilly decides on her artistic theme, never dreaming the daughter died mysteriously before the function even began, nor that she and the deceased bore a striking resemblance to one another! Two superb actresses lend their services to an incredible yarn which doesn't bear close scrutiny, one that fails to match either lady in emotional intensity. Burstyn's role teeters on camp, while Tilly gets stuck doing the dreamy-eyed-waif routine. Only one sequence late in the film (the morning after the mural is finished) is charged with honest feeling, anger and betrayal. The rest is piffle.
This is a long lost horror gem starring Sydney Lassick ("Carrie" and others) and Barbara Bach. It is sometimes difficult to locate a copy of this film but it's worth it. This film is creepy yet cheesy at the same time. It seems that 3 young newswomen (Karen, Vicky, and Jennifer) travel to the small city of Solvang, California to cover a festival when a mix-up occurs involving their hotel room and they seek refuge at the home of Earnest Keller (Lassick) and his strange wife Virginia. Vickie stays behind, feeling ill, as the other 2 are off to film their story. She is soon murdered at the house, in a VERY cheesy way by some unknown force hiding in the ventilation system (she is decapitated by the closing cover of the vent as it comes crashing down on her while she is being tugged through and into the basement). Soon Karen returns and she is murdered in an even more brutal fashion by having her face rammed through the vent cover. Jennifer is fighting with her (ex?)lover in a rather boring sub plot and when she returns home, her hosts (whom by now we have discovered are brother and sister and that whatever it is that is in the basement is their son) devise a plot to try to murder her as well. Virgina does not totally agree with Earnest's plan to murder Jennifer but she is tricked into going into the basement where she meets Junior. Here the film turns almost comic as Junior (portrayed hysterically by Stephen Furst) is a deformed, mentally deficient, manchild whose actions and motions will cause a few chuckles even though it's supposed to be scary. This is where the pace of the film picks up and the ending is well done. The actors/actresses do a terrific job with the material especially Lassick, Furst, and Bach and although it's not the most horrifying film ever made it is highly entertaining!

Not as bad as some are making it out to be, though obviously pathetic compared to the original. In my opinion Amitabh was great as the villain Babban Singh - try not to compare to Gabbar in the original as they were clearly not going for the same effect. Other than some mediocre action scenes however, the rest of the film is flawed. Character development was poor and the development of the story was hopeless, with many loopholes, and missing pieces of information which i wouldn't have known if i hadn't read the back of the DVD case. The worst part of the movie was the support roles from Nisha Kothari and especially this new dude called Prashant Raj. Nisha is just plain annoying from the time her lips first open. As for Prashant Raj - seriously who is this guy? where is he from and why on earth was he present in the film studio for anything other than to serve drinks?. His acting ability is zero and he has the same tone, dialog delivery and staunch expression in every scene, whether it be action, comedy, or even a scene when someone has just died. Ajay Devgan was average, at least his expressions changed which is more than i can say for his mistake of a companion. overall, RGV's Aag is worth watching for Amitabh's solid performance, and also a very sexy Urmilla Matondkar in a special appearance.
This is a smart drama about the way of life in a Texas honky tonk in the early 1980's. John Travolta and Debra Winger turn out two very believable performances as Bud and Sissy Davis. This film really opens up the country music scene and helped introduce America to the mechanical bull. If you love a good romance film, then you will love this movie.

Three giant sabretooth tigers(..created in a laboratory from mitochondrial DNA, a "genetic breakthrough" derived from fossil material)are on the rampage accidentally set free through a series of events(such as a computer geek's introduced virus in order to unlock security measures keeping the resort novelty shops closed during construction & a security guard's leaving a gate open while searching for the missing page from a porn mag that flew away in the breeze)that threaten the lives of those it comes in contact with. The tigers are always hungry, but are unable to digest what they eat. So pretty much the tigers just rip their prey to shreds. Victims include a group of college kids(..the stereotypes include a goth girl, jock and tech nerd), security personnel, and those somewhat developed rich scoundrels who we can easily despise and wish horrible death.
Rounding out a series of bad sci-fi channel flicks, Attack of the Sabretooth has some of the most wretched computer simulated animals I've seen yet. And, the final death sequence is so putridly presented, you'll demand within the deepest recesses of your soul the time spent on this truly awful exercise in the creature feature canon. There's some good dark humor deriving from heads being torn from necks, but even here the prosthetic work is unconvincing. Prosthetic body parts and blood aplenty as victims are pounced upon, crying for help and receiving none. I'm starting to sound like a broken record, repeating myself in every user comment I write for these sci-fi channel flicks. I think maybe it's time to move on to other kinds of cinema. Robert Carradine has a role as a ruthless businessman who is being wooed by his truly repellent ex-brother-in-law, Nicholas Bell, the one opening "Primal Park", a resort / zoo featuring genetically created sabretooth tigers as it's major attraction. Stacy Haiduk, still quite yummy, is a security officer who attempts to convince Bell to get the investors he hopes to goad into putting money in his multi-million dollar project to leave the island. Brian Wimmer is Haiduck's lover and his role is a mechanic keeping operations running smoothly.
Bell's fate at the end, resulting from a dislodged tooth from a sabretooth tiger statue is the pits. Carradine spends a great deal of the film taunting Bell, his arch nemesis. The tiger's point-of-view shows humans in a bright color as it moves towards them. The film ultimately consists of characters walking through darkened corridors(..the tech nerd's virus cut off the power)worried for their safety. The college kids commit breaking and entering to score certain items needed(..it's a scavenger hunt type of activity)to enter a fraternity / sorority. The cast playing these kids do not rise above their clichés.
Bedknobs & Broomsticks is another one of Disney's masterpieces. It was filmed with sequences of animation and the actors and actresses interacting with the animations. (A similar concept was used in Mary Poppins when the children and Mary disappear into the sidewalk art.) I am mainly rating this film through child's eyes because I have not seen it in years. Back then, it was one of my favourite films. It was magical and mystical, and the last scenes (the conflict beginning with the ghostly armour walking into battle) were my favourites. There was also a lot of stop-animation used with the spells (ie, people turning into rabbits), which may be a little dated and silly now. (Also, I believe that the film starts off slowly.) Through the eyes of a child, this is a fun film and it is easy for children to put themselves into the places of the children in the film. It is an imaginative film which is sadly largely-forgotten today.

the only thing great about the movie is its title. In this case, "Snake On a Plane" is example of not judging the book by its cover, the title says nothing about the movie. When I went to the theater, I wasn't expecting Citizen Kane, I was expecting Independence Day, a movie that's pure popcorn fun, but instead, I got that horrible Roy Liotta movie called " Turbulence" Yes, this is how bad SOAP is. The only thing make SOAP better is its title. And it's not even the apporiate title for the movie, the wasn't even a glimpse of "snake" or "plane" 40 minutes into the movie! What a false advertising! If it wasn't for its title, SOAP would be just another unforgettable cheap B-grade summer movie. And the R rating? It has to be the most undeserved R rated movie of all time! The makers of the movie only add a few f word to make this a R, All of the violence are kept pg-13 level. You know what's really R rated? The R rated superstar Edge! See him at Summerslam instead of waste your money on a snake!
I suggested renting this movie to my friend and he obliged since he had already seen the film and he said it was okay. I thought the title was a bit campy since the version at our store was called "The Fear:Halloween Night". I expected this movie to be somewhat of a Halloween rip off with a killer wooden guy. But it opened with a good scene and the killer murdered two victims immediately and flashed forward twenty years later where his son who had witnessed him kill the two people(including his mother) and he even witnessed his fathers suicide is going to a secluded cabin in the woods with his friends and his girlfriend where he attempts to face his fears until a wooden statue comes to life with his fathers spirit. Pretty good for a sequel and I never even seen the first.

I don't like this film, but then I didn't think much of the book either which, although lauded by many as a "masterpiece", I found lacking in character development and disjointed and illogical in plot, although it was far more readable than Fante's dreadful first effort "Road to Los Angeles" not published until Fante became fashionable in the mid 80s.
I was intrigued to see what sort of soup Towne would make with such meager ingredients. He has worked hard script-wise to repair the many shortcomings of the book but for my money didn't rescue it. There was never a movie in Ask the Dust while ever he tried to stay faithful to the book. I consider this film Towne's folly.
In a word: forgettable.
This movie is outrageous, funny, ribald, sophisticated & hits the bullseye where 99 % of Hollywood movies don't even make the target. Paul Bartel should be recognized as one of the great directors of this or any era. He's the American Renoir & Bunuel _ combined!!! Glad I have the videodisc.

Shallow, shallow script ...stilted acting ...the shadows of boom mikes lingering over the actors' heads in scenes ...worth watching because Kate Mulgrew plays the most selfish mother in TV movie history and it's all before Ben Affleck got his teeth capped.
This is a very funny movie, easy to watch, that entertains you almost all the time. The work of the Director is recognizable and the type of humor is his trademark. The movie is a typical police partners history like lethal weapon, but the jokes and comedy are of Argentinian sort. The twist is that one of them is a psychologist played by Peretti and has to go with detective Diaz (played by Luque) on his assignments while he also assist him (Diaz is troubled because his wife cheated on him). Some of the dialogs are hilarious worldwide: understandable and laughable anywhere. Is very good overall, it would deserved an 8, but I rated 7 because it gets a little down at the end. On a personal remark I must add that is a "bravo" for Argentinian Filmmakers, considering the little good is coming lately.

Clint Eastwood is Bronco Billy, the leader of a Wild West troupe, one of six regular misfits who comprise a struggling-to-break-even touring show. The seventh member of the bunch is a woman, Billy's assistant, but such women never last long, and the position is chronically open. Enter Antoinette Lilly (Sandra Locke  Eastwood's girlfriend at the time). It seems Miss Lilly, as Doc (Scatman Crothers) calls her, is a would-be heiress who will only receive her long-deceased father's estate if she's married by the time she turns 30, so on the eve of that birthday she gets hitched to the cartoonish Geoffrey Lewis.
So, what's the plot of this film? It's hard to say. There's the romantic tension between Billy and Miss Lilly, but the problem is that for the first half of the movie she's so haughtily insipid and detestable that when she suddenly becomes 'one of the troupe' halfway through the film, it's not only unbelievable, but the audience is well past caring about her. There's the chronic lack of funds behind the Wild West show, but this topic isn't touched upon enough to really be the raison d'etre of the film. There's Miss Lilly's predicament of being stranded in the rural west, cut off from the funds that fuel her spoiled life of luxury (she's mistakenly believed to be dead by her family and the press). But are we really supposed to believe that she couldn't get back to New York and her waiting fortune if she gave it a bit of effort?
No, the point of this film seems to be that Billy is the leader of a family, a lovable bunch of losers who hang together through thick and thin. This is a warm, fuzzy film  or at least tries to be.
Along the way, Clint shows us his skills with a gun, even foiling a bank robbery in a shooting that is grotesquely out of place in an otherwise relatively non-violent film. One of the gang is arrested on an old draft evasion charge; Billy bribes the local sheriff. The show's tent burns down; an orphanage makes them a new one. But numerous mundane pitfalls do not a plot make.
Compounding the problem is the acting, or lack thereof. Aside from Scatman Crothers, the supporting cast is quite amateurish. Eastwood isn't on top of his game either, though he looks better simply by virtue of being surrounded by such a lackluster bunch.
And for all this, the film plods on for 116 minutes. To what point? Good question
4 out of 10
You sit there for a half an hour and watch a story, believing it all, then watch another half an hour of the same story utterly unraveling... and then put back together again. Brilliant.
One of the most exciting feature films at the San Francisco International Film Festival is a documentary. I don't know if - other than Andrew Jarecki's "Capturing the Friedmans" - there has ever been anything like Anna Broinowski's "Forbidden Lie$." It features, exposes, defends, reveals, and questions everything about Norma Khouri, author of "Honor Lost," the acclaimed and lambasted 2001 bestseller about honor killings in Jordan.
What is quite incredible and what makes the film so exceptional is that this "exposure" of Khouri is made with Khouri's full participation.
For the initial portion of the film, Khouri presents her story about the supposed honor killing of a friend of hers in Amman, the story of the book. She sounds completely believable, convincing.
Then her story is taken apart, exposed, by eminently believable and convincing people, such as women's rights activists in Jordan, investigative reporters there and in Australia, where Khouri lived for a while.
Khouri comes back and denies the accusations, taking a successful lie-detector test in the process. There comes another segment of devastating exposures - not to be specified here because that would lessen the shock value... and then Khouri comes back and faces the accusations (not all, but the essential ones in the matter of the book).
And the Houdini act continues, with round after round in this heavy-weight, seesaw prize fight, surprise after surprise - and there is no "happy ending" in the sense of resolution. Brilliant.

This is one of the weakest soft porn film around. I can't believe somebody wrote this stupid story before making some changes. The guy Mike is a major wimp and moron I can't believe he didn't want to take a shower with his bride-to-be Toni and be in a threesome with the french photographer Jan. He does do a threesome with Toni and Kristi but that was short I hate that every time in Soft Core Porn Films threesomes between a woman, a man, and a woman is short but a girl-girl thing is about an hour. To the makers of these films have the threesomes alot longer this film should've have two threesome scenes not one but two.