Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Radiofreccia is a movie about all of us, about our dreams, our friends, our obsessions, our addictions, our fears. It is a brilliant movie where a group of friends like all of us have lives through the hardships of growing up in a small town in one of the most significant decades in the last century. The movie doesn't take a happy or sad approach on things, it just tells us a story, one that all of us could have experienced. One of happiness and excitement, sadness and grief. The power of this story is in that we grow to love the characters, it is one of those movies you will watch over and over again, feeling closer to the little town in Emilia Romagna where it takes place. Hoping one day to be able to finally walk its streets next to Freccia and his friends, listening to the music that changed the world through the crackling sound of an old radio playing Radio Raptus International, playing their dreams, our dreams. Radiofreccia will make you laugh, it will make you cry at times, it will shock you and comfort you, it will give you and take from you. Personally I believe it to have played an important part in my life, and that of my friends, and I suggest you all watch it and let it become part of yours.

This movie looked good - good cast, evergreen topic and an explosive opening. It went downhill from there. Why was it filmed by hand held camera? It shakes, judders, part captures scenes and simply confuses the viewer. A poor choice indeed. As if this was not enough, the worst edit in memory assumes a drugged viewer - mandatory if you want to get any enjoyment from it at all. And then it commits the worst sin of all. After leading the viewer down all sorts of unlikely and implausible scenarios to the point of exhaustion, they roll credits without revealing the denouement - the ending - the payoff -like what the heck was the motive? How can you expect to succeed by making thrillers without an ending? Doh! This movie had great promise and ending up doing a face plant in the mud. What a waste of effort. Poor effort by writer and director.
This film is fantastic as it explores storytelling and fantasy in the way a child would, for adults. The idea of a child's drawings becoming a place she can physically visit and have influence over is wonderful. At the same time you could get all child psychologist about it and say she's really exploring her subconscious, just as we all do in our dreams when we sleep. The bit that gives me goose-pimples is when her Dad is in the paper house, and chases her. The only thing I can't stand is that it was marketed as a horror film...it really isn't. If you want to see something British with plenty of storyline which keeps you guessing without the usual cheap thrills most films have to use, then watch Paperhouse.

The only redeeming qualities this movie has are the fairly original death scenes. Other than that this movie is a big DUD. We have Kim Basinger, the beleaguered housewife slowly meandering thru the local mall for the first 30 min. of the movie, which added nothing. Then the movie picks up a bit as she has a confrontation with 4 punks who took up 2 parking spaces on this busy xmas eve. They begin to chase her after offing the local security guard who tried to help her. From there this movie gets worse, way worse. I know its only a movie and you've gotta go with the flow but she's got about a 5 min. headstart and she can't hide or find someone to help her. Instead she drives to a half built subdivision beside a forest. In typical fashion she does everything she can to allow her followers to easily track her. But now she turns into one tough mofu. You get the point. Do not under any circumstances buy or rent this movie no matter how much you like this type. It's so illogical you'll be questioning every scene. It is embarrassing for Basinger and Craig Sheffer and the rest of the cast, as well as the consumers.
2005 Toronto Film Festival Report It is official; "Takashi Miike" is whacked.
The annual midnight screening of the new "Takashi Miike" film, "The Big Spook War" or "The Great Yokai War" or "Yôkai daisensô". Call it what you will this is a fanatical ride.
Colin Geddes, the fearless programmer stated this film was originally geared towards children in Japan. Think of "Lord of the Rings" or "Neverending Story" for Japan. After the screening I can understand where they were going with that, but damn this is "Takashi Miike" after all. He directed the '01 film "Ichi the Killer", when it screening at the festival barf bags were handed out at the screening. And no, that wasn't just a marketing ploy.
Plot Summary: A young boy with a troubled home life becomes "chosen," and he stumbles into the middle of a Great Spirit war, where he meets a group of friendly spirits who become his companions through his journey.
This is not really for kids, well not 'too' young. Certainly see them getting scared shitless with some of these spirits (even the friendly ones) on display. This is unlike anything I've seen in the movie theater before. A fantasy naturally, some very funny (but dark) material. You will not be bored can guarantee that. Will this ever hit North America? Doubtful.
My rating = B

Any movie in which Brooke Shields out-acts a Fonda is going to be both an anomaly and a horror. Shields actually is only bad because she's youthful, inexperienced, and clearly not well directed by her co-star. Peter Fonda is bad because, well, because he's bad. I liked him in Ulee's Gold, years later, but Lord above, he's awful here. Not that anyone else is good. There's not a single performance (outside Henry Fonda's delightful cameo) that is even passable. I've never seen a movie with this many bad performances. In the case of Luke Askew, the chief villain, it's clear this is because of poor dialogue and direction, as he's done good work in the past. But his partner, played by Ted Markland, is an embarrassing ham. The writing is just bloody awful, and the actors cannot be faulted for the terrible things they have to say. But they say them so badly! The editing and direction are worse than pedestrian. Shots are held way too long for no dramatic reason, or cut off before the impact of the scene can be realized. This picture was far worse than I'd imagined and would have been utterly forgotten (and probably never even made) without the participation of a couple of famous names. One bright spot: the cinematography in the Grand Canyon is exquisite, capturing the beauty of that area in a way even big-screen Imax productions have not quite done so well. And finally: either this is a bad version of Paper Moon, with a lovable pair of father-daughter types, or it's a bad version of Pretty Baby, with a considerably more icky romantic relationship between a forty-something and a 13-year-old. It suggests more of the latter than the former, and thus is pretty disturbing.
One of the finest films ever made! Why it only got a 7.6 rating is a mystery. This film is a window into the world of the black experience in America. Should be mandatory viewing for all white people and all children above age 10. I recommend watching it with "The Long Walk Home" as a companion piece. If you think Whoopi Goldberg's work is about "Homer and Eddie" or "Hollywood Squares," think again. Don't miss this movie, which should have won the Oscar. (And read the book, too!)

the only scenes wich made me laugh where the ones with christopher walken in it(the crazy filmdirector)the rest of the movie was just boring.in the first hour or so nothing really happens.jokes which supposed to be funny aren't and zeta jones douglas is really overacting.julia roberts does a routine job of the former ugly duck (yeah right!) into the girl next door (where did i see this before?) who gets the guy.for short.i really didn't care what would happen with the main characters.if cusack really fell of the building in a suicide attempt the movie could have been more interresting to watch.
There are moments in the film that are so dreadful, your teeth ache. But knowing that there were only weeks left before the Code made movies innocuous and bland, Paramount rushed this into production before innuendo and leering went out of style. Vanities is so horrifically anti-female that it's delicious. As Kitty Carlisle sings, women are displayed with price tags that would insult a Bronx hooker. They emerge from clams (nudge,nudge;wink,wink) in postures of absolute submission. Minions of the law, so stupid they cannot find the door, get to look up their skirts and snicker. Bare-breasted chorus girls sit uncomfortably in giant cacti (Could they be a source of hallucinogens, perhaps?) while we listen to "Sweet Marijuana" and watch as blood falls on a chorines's breast.
Sure, Carl Brisson learned his lines phonetically and doesn't seem to have a clue what he is saying. But it's all worth it as Norma steals the show while no one is looking.
Taking one moment of this fragile fluff seriously is missing the point of the whole exercise. Watch this with a charter member of NOW and prepare to justify the whole Hollywood machismo sch tick between body blows.
Toby Wing, by the way, is the icing on the cake. And Duke Ellington doesn't hurt either.
A must stroll down Memory Lane.

I just watched The Convent for the second time. I had enjoyed it previously and figured it would make for a good drunken Friday night film, some gore, some style, bit of humour and suchlike. I was saddened to find that I could no longer appreciate it much. It seemed like someone had set out to revisit cheeseball epics like Night of the Demons for a modern audience but lost the things that made the original worthwhile. For the record I'm not even a huge fan of Night of the Demons, but there were some things I really dug about it. The Convent does the cheese but the not the goodness so much. Apart from the main girl (likeable performance from Joanna Canton), the goth girl and a sweet cameo from Adrienne Barbeau pretty much all the characters were excruciatingly unlikeable, festering at the absolute lowest levels of moronic, offensive jockhood. The film is then gravely hampered by the complete lack of gratuitous nudity which means that, given the awful dialogue, it is difficult to watch the characters and harder to appreciate the good points of the film. The evil nuns are original in design and get lots of good scenes, though not scary their certainly kinda cool, and the film also fields a fair amount of neat gore. Towards the end, when Adrienne Barbeau is on the scene the film becomes quite entertaining cause all the obnoxious people are dead and its an evil nun bashing frenzy. The stylised direction also occasionally yields good results, although sometimes the camera just moves too fast. All in all, this was a film where for me the shining good points just can't make up for the things I hated. Those more fond of this kind of film may well enjoy it a lot more, but for me it wasn't a good time.
Hollywood North is a satirical look at the time in Canadian film history when the Canadian government offered huge tax breaks for films made in Canada. Most of the time it was treated as a tax shelter or a cheap way to get American films made. For example, Porky's came out of it. Anyways Matthew Modine plays a novice producer who wants to make an adaptation of a beloved Canadian novel. However, in order to get the money he needs a American name star. He gets a loose cannon and learns he has to compromise to the point where the film no longer resembles the book it was originally based on. It plays well in Canada but may not be understood outside of the Great White North. Americans will think we're satirizing ourselves but will miss the point that we're actually satirizing them. For Canadians 8/10 for the rest of the world 5/10.

There is so much that is wrong with this film, but to sum it up: Terrible acting- so bad it must have been on purpose. poor script - they may have had some good ideas but this was not the best way to present the story. ridiculously bad ending- in some cases the ending manages to save the film-not in this case. if you manage to sit through the entire film you will want to kick yourself at the end because the ending is not even worth waiting for. This is the worst film i have seen in a long time. It was complete torture sitting through this film, i would have appreciated someone warning me in advance. So do yourself a favor. Watch this film only if you have absolutely nothing better to do. Even then you will regret having put yourself through the unspeakable torture.
(SPOILERS IN FIRST PARAGRAPH) This movie's anti-German sentiment seems painfully dated now, but it's a brilliant example of great war-time propaganda. It was made back when Cecil B. DeMille was still a great director. (Ignore all his later Best Picture Academy Awards; he never made a very good sound film.) This movie lacks the comedy of most of Pickford's other films, and really it was DeMille's movie, not Pickford's. The vilification of the Germans can be compared to the way "The Patriot" of 2000 did the same to the British. The only good German in the film was a reluctant villain who had the ironic name of Austreheim. They even had Pickford take an ill-fated trip on a luxury ship that gets torpedoed by a German submarine. So what'll get the Americans more stirred up to war? The sinking of the Lusitania, or watching America's favorite Canadian import sinking in it? All throughout the film DeMille runs his protagonist from one kind of horrible calamity to another, barely escaping death, hypothermia, depravity, rape, execution, and explosions that go off in just the right place to keep her unharmed. The way she is saved from a firing squad is no more believable than the way the humans in "Jurassic Park" were ultimately rescued from the velociraptors. If I was any more gullible to such propaganda I would punish myself for having a part-German ancestry.
Was it a good film? Aside from a humorous running gag about Americans abroad thinking they're untouchable  that was apparently a joke even back then  you might not be entertained. You'll find it more than a little melodramatic, and obviously one-sided, but the first thing that came to my mind after watching it is that it was years before Potemkin's false portrayal of a massacre revolutionized the language of cinema as well as a movie's potential for propaganda. It made me wonder: what became of Cecil B. DeMille? Somewhere between the advent of sound and "The Greatest Show on Earth" he seemed to lose his ambition. Ben Hur looked expensive, but not ambitious. In a sentence, this movie is for 1) Film historians, 2) Silent Film Buffs, 3) Mary Pickford fans, or 4) DeMille fans, if such a person exists.

I saw this movie on t.v. this afternoon and I can't see how anyone can sit through this piece of trash. It's not funny at all and it takes your I.Q. down a few notches. I know this movie is for kids, but that doesn't mean the writers should take their intelligence for granted. I bet that writers were sitting around a large wooden table and figured that a) The word "poop" equals big laugh. b) A four foot tall kid can dunk on a ten foot tall basketball net. c) Kids should always fight kidnappers armed with guns because the kidnappers will fall for anything and d) 3 months of karate training is all you need to beat up so-called "ninjas" with swords. One good thing I can say about this movie is it contains the weakest suburban "gang" in the world that couldn't scare anybody. Maybe the guys at MST3K could use this movie for a good laugh. Don't bother with this lame-ass excuse for a movie.
Personally, I find the movie to be quite a good watch. It outlines the actual situation of triads in Hong Kong and gives the viewer a glimpse of how triads are organized.
Not only that, it also shows the viewer how the Hong Kong police control the triad situation and why the police don't just go all out and wipe out triads.
Overall, the movie is rather violent due to the gangland methods of killings & torture. Nevertheless, the movie stays true to the real world, thus the violence on screen is just a reflection of what really happens.
I'd recommend this movie to any Triad/Mafia movie fan. Another good watch would be Dragon Squad. That movie has more guns than this, as in this movie there's more knives than guns (in fact I don't remember seeing a single gun).

Can it ever be said that there are some movies that have no redeeming features whatsoever? Answer: Yes, and this is one of them. After helming the appalling 'House of the Dead' director Uwe Boll has now cast his less-than-talented eye towards yet another video game adaptation. Don't these guys get it? To anyone who can't understand, here it is in block capitals for you: VIDEO GAMES DO NOT MAKE FOR GOOD MOVIES! The acting here is, at best, sub-standard. The set design and special effects are poor. Unlike the video game (which did have its scary moments) the movie has no atmosphere of impending doom, no sense of danger or menace. Pacing and plotting is confused and the paper that the script is printed on would have been better used as toilet paper. The main culprit is the director. Uwe Boll uses the camera with the grace and skill of a monkey using a paintbrush. Hackneyed zooms, swoops and pans are spliced into the whole dreary affair at unpredictable moments leaving the audience disorientated and bored. Why this guy was ever let near a movie set in the first place must stand as one of modern cinemas greatest secrets. Avoid at all costs.
I loved this movie. First, because it is a family movie. Second, because it offers a refreshing take on dealing with the news of HIV in a family, with far less hysteria than what I have normally seen in the movies. The brothers are very close, yet are not judgmental. Their desire to protect the youngest brother is noble, but not needed in the end. I understand that Leo's choice on how to deal with his treatment may not have been the most popular one with people, but I believed it was the right choice for him. I can't believe that this was a french television programme. It had great production values. I gave this movie a ten, and I think you will too, once you have seen it.

Except for the Brady Variety Hour, this was some of the hokiest television I've seen in a while. The video production qualities weren't too bad, but the overall look and feel were unmistakeably early 80's. And Marie Osmond looks like she did battle with the Avon Lady.. and lost big time. WAY too much eyeliner.
It was kind of embarrassing to watch veterans Danny Kaye and Eric Severeid take part in this. Even more interesting was watching Alex Haley talk about the African Pavillion in World Showcase that would be opening 'in about a year.'
As of this writing it is 17 years later and it hasn't opened yet (Unless you count Disney's Animal Kingdom.) All in all though, for all the shortcomings, this still an interesting visual piece of Disney history.
Last year we were treated to two movies about Truman Capote writing the book from which this film was made - Capote and Infamous.
I cannot imagine a movie like this being made in 1967. A stark, powerful and chillingly brutal drama; elevated to the status of a film classic by the masterful direction of Richard Brooks (Elmer Gantry, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, The professional, Blackboard Jungle).
It is interesting that Robert Blake, who starred in this film, has had so many problems of late that may be related to his portrayal of a killer in this film.
This is a film that stays with you after viewing.

This one was marred by potentially great matches being cut very short.
The opening match was a waste of the Legion of Doom, but I guess the only way they could have been eliminated by Demolition was a double-DQ. Otherwise, Mr. Perfect would have had to put in overtime. Kerry von Erich, the I-C champ, was wasted here. And this was the third ppv in a row where Perfect jobbed. Remember, before that he never lost a match.
The second match was very good, possibly the best of the night. Ted DiBiase and the Undertaker were excellent, while the Jim Neidhart had one of his WWF highlights, pinning the Honky Tonk Man. Koko B. Ware continued his tradition of being the first to put over a new heel (remember the Big Bossman and Yokozuna?). This was a foreshadowing of Bret Hart's singles career, as he came back from two-on-one and almost survived the match. He and DiBiase put on a wrestling clinic, making us forget that the point of the match was DiBiase's boring feud with Dusty Rhodes.
Even though the Visionaries were the first team to have all of its members survive (and only the second since '87 to have four survivors), this match was not a squash. This was the longest match of the night, and Jake did a repeat of his '88 performance when he was left alone against four men and dominated. I think he could have actually pulled off an upset. These days, the match would have ended the other way around.
One of the shortest SS matches ever was also one of its most surprising. Possibly the most underrated wrestler ever, Tito Santana was the inspirational wrestler of the night, putting on war paint and pinning Boris Zukhov, Tanaka, and even the Warlord in the final survival match. It was so strange to see him put over so overwhelmingly, then go right back to his mediocre career. Sgt. Slaughter also did well, getting rid of Volkoff and the Bushwhackers, but that just wasn't a surprise. Tito was.
I think the only point of the survival match was to have Hogan and the Warrior win together at the end.
This show was boring and the matches were too short. The Undertaker's debut was cool, but Tito Santana is the reason I will remember this one.
One of the things that interested me most about this film is the way the characters and their associated histories are developed on the fly. I suppose the writers wanted us to gain interest in the characters by not force feeding their characters. The premise of using the art and craft of furniture design and construction was a unique theme and/or analogy for what families/siblings go through in life. The complexity of having a twin serve as a surrogate father and even husband added great tension towards making this film emotionally interesting. Also, although the story was not one that the masses might directly relate to (i.e. Jewish/twins/family business) the themes are fairly universal as every family has a black sheep in it. That made it very engaging.

This film was positively the worst film I have ever watched. I couldn't sit through the whole thing. I also think writer must have some weird fetish for women peeing puking and crapping... I mean what was that all about! I cant believe this was even made and am disgusted at have #ingwasted a £4 rental fee. The quality both picture and sound are terrible, the acting... well doesn't exist . It was a poor excuse for a film and the scenes of pee, crap and puke were reminiscent of 2 girls 1 cup. Urghh....... AVOID AT ALL COST! The girls looked like they had been picked off the street and only got the part cos they'd be willing to take their tops off... While these girls have nice bodies it certainly didn't make up for the fact their shrieking was awful unconvincing and a pain to my ears.
This was like (possibly worse) than an ammateur school production without any proper direction and hey there is no need for a set as it all seems to revolve around a car?!
Definatey not one to buy folks. Sorry if my first comment is terribly negative but I could not find anything positive to say and I would like to think I may save someone else wasting their money like I have.