Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Like other people who commented on "Fräulein Doktor" I stumbled by chance upon this little gem on late-night TV without having heard of it before. The strange mixture of a pulp fiction story about a sexy but unscrupulous anti-heroine on the one hand and a realistic and well-researched portrayal of war in the trenches on the other hand had me hooked from the beginning.
To me this is one of the five best movies about WWI (the others are "All Quiet On The Western Front", "Paths Of Glory", "Gallipoli" and the post-war "La vie et rien d'autre"). And the scene with the poison gas attack is really chilling; the horses and men appear like riders of the apocalypse with their gas masks.
I only wish I had taped the film.

Seeing this movie, as I just did for the first time on Turner Classic (which lists it as "Dangerous Female"), can only multiply your appreciation for the 1941 Bogart-Astor version. Ricardo Cortez must have been getting paid by the smirk. I hope he remembered his dentist and his Brylcreem salesman in his will; they made him the actor he was. The women are all good, but no better than that. Well, Una Merkel is a little better. More interesting are the "original" Joel Cairo and Mr. Gutman, who competently deliver many of the individual tics but almost nothing of the set-changing atmospherics of their successors in the roles, Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet. Humphrey Bogart and Mary Astor somehow transcended the essential seediness of their characters in the remake; here, Sam Spade and Ruth Wonderley(!) can't.
This movie doesn't exactly stink; it lies there like a big slice of ham. Its chief value today is as a reminder that great movies like the '41 "Falcon" don't just happen. On the 1-to-10 scale I rate it a 4, mainly for the camera work and the supporting players.
Some guys think that sniper is not good because of the action part of it was not good enough. Well, if you regard it as an action movie, this view point could be quite true as the action part of this movive is not actually exciting. However, I think this is a psychological drama rather than an action one.
The movie mainly told us about the inside of two snipers who definitely had different personalities and different experiences. Tomas Beccket , who was a veteran and had 74 confirmed kills, looked as if he was cold-hearted. However, after Beccket showed his day dream of Montana, we can clearly see his softness inside. It was the cruel war and his partners' sacrifice that made Beccket become so called cold-hearted.
Millar, on the contrary, was a new comer, a green hand, and was even not qualified as a sniper. Billy Zane did quite well to show millar's hesitation and fear when he first tried to "put a bullet through one's heart"(as what Beccket said). What he thought about the actuall suicide mission was that it could be easily accomplished and then he could safely get back and receive the award.
These two guys were quite different in their personalities and I think that the movie had successfully showed the difference and the impact they had to each other due to the difference in their personalities. These two snipers quarreled, suspected each other and finally come to an understanding by the communication and by what they had done to help even to save the other.
Sniper isn't a good action movie but a good psychological one.

They sell it as a horror movie, it's supposed to be a thriller, but I found it pretty funny (comedy?, don't think so), I laughed the whole movie I think it was because of the ridiculous acting and plot. I don't blame the actors, I think they were not very good, but O.K. I think Cillian is a very good "bad guy" I loved his acting in Batman Beggins, and Rachel McAdams.. whoa! she's a beauty, and a good actress as well, but let's try to be a little objective here, the story mm mm... the direction mm mm... it lacks a lot of good suspense in fact is a really boring movie, but there's one good thing tho, it's a short movie, only 1 hour and 30 minutes (FOR ME IT WAS LIKE 10 MINUTES UNDER THE WATER!!!)
I just don't know why this movie is rated so high, and in rotten tomatoes, even higher, what's wrong with good, rational and objective criticism?
I saw this film a couple of weeks ago, and it's been stuck in my head ever since. It stars two spellbinding characters in what is unfortunately a mediocre documentary. To get the true story of the Beales, I had to wade through all of the DVD's bonus material and commentaries and search the web.
Although the Maysles and their fans (not to mention Edith and Edie themselves) bristle at the suggestion that this film is exploitative, this is exploitation in the truest sense of the word. Very little effort is every made to explain the Beales or how they came to the condition they were in - the Maysles approach seems to be to just turn the camera on and wait for Edith and Edie to say something outrageous. The sound, even on the Criterion re-release is poor and difficult to follow. Although I appreciate this film was made somewhat early in the history of documentary film, it's ironic to compare it to Geraldo Rivera's (!) far superior series on the sexual abuse of mentally retarded patients at Willowbrook State School in Staten Island from 1972, four years before Grey Gardens was shot.
To paraphrase a review in the New Yorker, there were many things Edith and Edie needed in their lives, and a documentary wasn't one of them.
As for Edith and Edie, the thing I kept thinking while watching the film was "where the hell is their family"? They were living in dangerous, unhealthy, unsafe conditions. How is it that Jackie O, married to one of the richest men on Earth (or the wealthy Bouvier family themselves) couldn't afford to get Edith and Edie a decent home? Or at the very least hire a part-time housekeeper or caregiver to come in and keep an eye on them both? It's shameful and a lasting disgrace to the entire Bouvier family.
Although this review may sound negative I would strongly recommend Grey Gardens to anyone who enjoys documentaries. Perhaps someday someone will come along and do a documentary about this documentary - bringing in the rich backstory (and afterstory) of the Beales and the whole subsection of Hamptons society in the 1970's.

I just came back from "El Otro" playing here in Buenos Aires and I have to say I was very disappointed. The film is very slow moving (don't get me wrong, I enjoy slow moving films!), slow to the point of driving you crazy. All you hear is Julio Chavez breathing heavily throughout the whole film. This is a poorly made film, but more importantly, it is a film without a lick of inspiration, I felt nothing for the story or its characters.
"El Otro" was made only for the sake of making a film... making it forgetful. I would advise you to pass on this one, if you want to see good Argentinian films, look for films by Sorin.
This a Casper the Friendly Ghost short from my childhood, and I re-watch it on YouTube (Thank GOD! for You Tube); after that I love this short, and it is one of my favorite Casper shorts.
I love how the short starts off spooky with Frank Gallop's haunting narration; until we get to see Casper sitting by his tombstone in the cemetery, reading. While every ghost rose from the graves to "boo" people, Casper decides to leave in search for a friend. But in trying to make a friend, anyone who sees Casper runs away. Poor Casper sat on a log and weep; until a little fox cub comes up an nuzzles him. Casper and the little fox quickly bond and he quickly names the cub Ferdie and considers him to be his very best friend.
Casper and Ferdie's relationship is put in tremendous jeopardy however when Casper is not keeping a close eye on Ferdie while they are playing a game of Hide and Seek. While Ferdie is hiding a hunter and two of his hunting dogs come and try to kill little Ferdie and Ferdie is running as fast as possible until he is out of breath and starts panting. While the hunter is firing gunshots towards Ferdie Casper notices they are trying to kill him and flies in the hunter's direction and pleads that the hunter leaves Ferdie alone. And the hunter and dogs are terrified of Casper. Casper yells to Ferdie that the hunter and the dogs are gone and that everything is fine. But Casper sees Ferdie's body is not moving and asks if he is OK. When Casper sees Ferdie has died he starts mourning in pain because he lost "the only friend he ever had in his whole life." Casper returns back to the cemetery where he has buried Ferdie and has made a gravestone for him next to Casper's gravestone. Casper continues mourning in pain until he sees that Ferdie has resurrected as a ghost himself. Ferdie starts licking Casper on his cheek. Casper screams for joy because he has been reunited with Ferdie.
Overall, it is a really good short; though surprisingly disturbing, showing death in a family-oriented cartoon.

I am guessing the reason this movie did so well at the box office is of course Eddie Murphy. I think this was his first movie since "Beverly Hills Cop" so at the time he was hot. Considering that one made over two hundred million and it was R and this one made about 80 million and it was pg does say it was not all that popular. I have never been a big Eddie Murphy fan, so that is probably another reason I didn't care for it much at all. This one has Eddie as some sort of finder of lost kids. He must find the golden child or the world is in terrible peril. The plot is very bad, but as bad as it is it does not compare to the special effects. I had seen better stuff done in the 70's than some of the stuff this one offers, Ray Harryhausen did better stuff. Still the main reason you see a movie like this is because of Eddie, unfortunately he is not very funny in this one at all and it just seems stupid to put him in the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" type scenes. I guess they were hoping for a fish out of water effect, but to me it just did not work.
Before I watched this tv movie I did not know much about one of my favorite actresses. After watching it, I realized how sad Lucille Ball's life really was. It had it's great moments too, but I didn't realize how sad it was. This movie was very good and told the story of the beloved Lucille Ball very well. I highly reccommend it.

***Possible Spoilers***
When I saw this today I had some expectation of how it would be like, not too high, but not low either. This was nothing like I expected at all though, it seems to me like the movie makers couldn't make up their mind of what kind of movie to make.
In the begining of the film it's somewhat mysterious and kinda exciting, but that'll soon change to some ridiculous scenes - very obvious scenes... As I watched further I almost fell asleep a couple of times.
The ending is the most ridiculous of all though, almost splatter/comedy...
I'm not saying it doesn't have some good scenes it's just that the film never becomes "whole".
4/10 Movie-Man
Lisa is a hotel manager or owner and she gets on a flight to Miami. She ends up sitting next to an assassin named Jackson who tells her that she has to switch a room of a family or her father dies. The reason she has to switch the room is because Jackson wants to blow it up.
It's a great suspense movie because Lisa tries several ways to escape this ploy that Jackson has set up. The whole storyline is great and I thought that they could have spent some more time on the plane. There could have more to the plane but other than that, the whole movie was pretty good.
I especially liked the ending because it was heart-stopping. I didn't know what was going to happen and I was surprised by it. For me, this movie just took off.

The premise of the movie has been explained and if you've gotten this far you don't me to pretend that I'm a movie critic. With that being said my own opinion of the movie is quite low. I'm a fan of Takashi Miike but this goes down in the category of his not so great work along with DOA 2 and 3, and some others (many).
The movie seems to get a free pass because it is a Takashi film and nothing Takashi does can be wrong. This is a highschoolers approach to cinema. For the rest of us we'll find and hour and a half of a kid screaming for no real reason completely annoying (and yes, this does take away from the film), the pace of the film almost reaching levels of rigomortis, and the acting...well...hmmm.
If one is a Takashi fan you'll see it regardless to peak your interests. It lacks any originality (see the Neverending Story) or any character development from the lead character in the face of conflict other then a quite superficial one.
As it has been pointed out this is the first film Miike has been credited with co-writing, but that doesn't mean much as non of what we'd hope would be Miike's personality would spill over into the screen. All we get are some of the token Miike shots vis the director of photography.
The movie had the potential to be something great. The premise is not a difficult one to run wild with. But this one seemed to have been run into the ground.
My suggestion is if you're just getting into Miike is go with some of the standards like Gozu, Ichi, and Audition. Then movie into his works like Blue's Harp, Fudoh, Rainy Dog, Bird People of China.
My mother and I were on our way home from a trip up to the North East (mainly Massachusetts) when we decided to take a little detour a attend a film festival in Boston. Now, I don't know much about film so I thought this might be a bit educational. The first movie we saw was this one, THE ROMEO DIVISION. Now, I don't know about you but I thought this was great! I'm from Texas and where I come from we don't see too many motion pictures so this was a pleasant surprise. My mother insisted that it was too violent, but said that I didn't know much about what she was saying but this was a great picture. I was shocked by the fight sequences they were great. Also, I am a big fan when the good guys win so I was thrilled when Romeo ladies killed all of the bad guys. This was true brilliance. I'm not sure when it's getting released on video but if you get the chance you should check it out. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. A word to the wise though, it is rather violent and there many cuss words so you may not want to let your children watch. It's more for adults.

The first question that springs to mind after watching this rubbish is who on earth gave these idiots the right to use the Omen name on this movie? It is a shambolic , embarrassing, pathetic atempt to carry on the Omen franchise. When the film starts the backing music sounds like it has been lifted straight from a Bugs Bunny Cartoon and from then on the film gets worse! I dont know who wrote the script but i bet they got a E - for it when they took it back to show their teacher! It is difficult after a while to tell if this is a comedy because what happens is so funny and so un true to the original Omen it beggers belief. The acting is laughable , especially from the leading lady Faye Grant. she keeps pulling silly faces or is she finding it difficult not to laugh? It's hard to tell. THE worst sequal i have ever had the misfortune to witness. 1 out of 10.
This is a bizzare look at Al's "life", back when he still a hyper 20-something. The (real) home videos of Al as a kid are great, and the commentary from his (real life) parents gives a nice glimpse of just how Weird Al wound up as screwed up as he is. This video is a must own for any devoted Al-coholic.

It's pretty bad when the generic movie synopsis has more information than the film itself. The paragraph-long "plot summary" written on the movie page has details I could not glean from watching the actual movie. I found myself constantly backing it up to see what details I had just missed which could tell me what the (bleep) was going on. Alas, to no avail--this movie leaves out monstrous pieces of the story, if you could call it a story. It's like they were trying to fool us into thinking that there was some kind of movie here, filming just enough so that there was the resemblance of a story and leaving the rest to our imaginations. Newsflash to the the creators: I paid to watch you MAKE a movie. I can sit home and imagine plots and story lines for free. And Rosario Dawson? This is somebody I've never paid enough attention to to be able to put the name to the face, and I can see why. She had one of the most artificial performances I have ever seen for a leading character in any movie, A or B. I figured okay, maybe she didn't really want the role, just got a hefty offer for a movie she wasn't into? Wrong. She was listed as one of the producers. Next time you produce something, don't book yourself as the lead if you can't act. If you really can, then create a decent character for you to become. Also, somebody here mentioned the white/latino issue--yes, I hate to say it, but this movie does come across as an act of vengeance against white college-age males who wear baseball hats. That's what happens when there is nothing in the movie to endear the watcher to latino characters. The Adrian character seems like a cocky jerk who is no better than the story's antagonist. As for the Maya character, she didn't seem like a real person. Anyway I'm ashamed for Hollywood that this movie was even made.
My school's drama club will be putting this show in the spring of 2002, and I can only hope we're as good as this! I watched this film recently as sort of "research" for my role (Rosie Alvarez), and I'd just like to say, Vanessa Williams is the coolest!
Wow! The casting for this movie was right-on (with one exception). Jason Alexander, oh my gawd, is there anything he can't do? He was the most wonderful Albert Peterson ever - I especially loved all of his funny facial expressions and dancing during "Put on a Happy Face!" He is so great! Vanessa Williams, as I said before, is the coolest. She was a beautiful Rosie, and her transition from secretary to seductress was totally believable. Tyne Daly was hilarious as Albert's obnoxious mother and George Wendt was superb as the annoyed Mr. McAfee (however I LOVED Paul Lynde's performance in the 1963 version!). Brigitta Dau cracked me up as Ursula Merkle; she really hammed it up! And Marc Kudisch was an awesome Conrad Birdie..."Suffer!"
There was only one casting that I didn't understand, and, as you'll see from previous comments, many other people didn't understand. Chynna Phillips as Kim McAfee - what was that? I mean she's really pretty and very talented, but...she looks a bit too old for the role. Eh, maybe I'm delusional.
Okay well anyways, I highly recommend this movie. It'll leave you smiling!

I've been a fan since his first album. This film is a disservice to him. The performances, except for one by Rufus Wainwright and Teddy Thompson are simply terrible.
Those by Martha Wainwright, Nick Cave, Antony, and Jarvis Cocker were particularly annoying. Even the one by the McGarrigle sisters was ruined by the so called harmony of Martha Wainwright.
I've never seen my wife get up and walk out of the room on a film before and I found myself fast forwarding through the performances to get to the few interview segments, which were also difficult to watch due to the poor camera work.
There are many who have been able to interpret Mr. Cohen's songs, Jennifer Warnes, KD Lang, Billy Joel, Aaron Neville, and Willie Nelson come to mind, but those people selected for this performance were just awful.
Hopefully there will be another attempt at capturing Leonard Cohen on film that will illustrate his insight, talent, and intelligence.
So sad
I very much enjoyed watching this film. I taped it while watching so that i could review it later. I actually enjoyed the second viewing more since i was able to absorb more of the clever dialog between Natalie and Adam, the 2 main characters. I thought the way this story evolved was very thought provoking. I got very intrigued with how Natalie was going to interact with her daughter's friends , at first it seemed that she was going to spew a lot of animosity but once she started interacting more pleasantly i had to see how this visit was going to unfold. i wasn't disappointed . Gradually the secrets that Sara kept from her mother started to reveal a daughter who was not so perfect, a flawed human being like most of us who wanted her freedom from a domineering mother who thought she knew her daughter but unfortunately had to learn in a very painful manner that sometimes to really love someone you have to give them their freedom. The viewers who stuck with this film to the end saw a very touching performance from Diane Keaton (who is always wonderful, even in some of her less well received films-think Town and Country). The closing scene of Diane Keaton driving home was well worth waiting for, revealing that anyone who loves another human being has got to learn that we have to live our own lives, we love others but don't own them and ultimately we have to let go. It's a hard lesson but well worth contemplating now and then.Thank you CBS for this broadcast,it was worth the long wait.

For the knowledgeable Beatles fan, the main value in this movie is to just sit back and pick out the flaws, inaccuracies, combined events, omitted events, wildly exaggerated events, omitted people, timeline errors, mis-attribute quotes, incorrect clothing, out of place songs, and (shame shame) incorrect instruments and other boners I just cant think of right now. The flaws come fast and furious so you'll have to be on your toes.
I didn't give this a "1" primarily due the fact that it is filmed in Liverpool and the actors (the band Rain) give it their all (the Lennon character is credible and does a good job). Also, the song "Cry for a Shadow" is heard at one point and THAT counts for SOMETHING.
So,,, watch it for fun, but please don't take it as historically accurate.
I don't see how you can say that Freddy's Nightmares is cheesy and a rip-off. You obviously don't know good TV when you see it. The episodes are packed with drama and blood. Freddy is creative in the way he kills people. I love Freddy's Nightmares and I hope to get all 44 episodes on DVD. The best episodes are: Saturday Night Special,School Daze, and Love Stinks. If you think this series sucked then you're entitled to your opinion but remember it's only your opinion and it means nothing. Freddy's Nightmares will always be one of the best series ever and you'll come to accept that fact soon enough. If you don't like it then don't watch it but don't deny it's brilliance.

They screwed up this story! In the end Nell is all heroic and taking on for the team to save all their asses from Hill House and a bunch of nonsense like that! They added heads getting chopped, wires cutting peoples faces, and the ceiling turning into a giant hand! What the hell is that about??? I own and love the original movie, I read the book and I love it! The reason why the original movie and the book are so great is because it scares you so much without even showing the ghost. There is no gore. There is no ceiling hand. It is only the ghost ad how ghosts can truly kill a person. They cannot kill us, they cannot throw us about the room or fly a knife into our head. No. They can only drive us mad. Taking away all our senses of security. Nell was a selfish woman. She only wanted good things for herself. Yes, she cared a little for the others, but not too much. David Self and Jan de Bont have taken a crap on this great story! I hate this damn remake!