Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
The second of the Why We Fight Series concentrates on Hitler's grab of the Sudetanland and beyond as he makes a chump out of Neville Chamberlain and embarks on his conquest of Europe.
Clearly meant as propaganda in its day this series over the test of time has become an informative documentary as well with most of the "Allied bias" turning out to be historical fact. The Fuhrer hoists himself on his own petard with smug pronouncements before his people and the world as he says one thing and does another as his army moves East. The Czechs and Austrians quickly capitulate but the Poles put up an heroic struggle against overwhelming odds.
The disparity between Hitler's military might and Chamberlain waving the Munich treaty like a white flag, declaring "Peace in our time" to this day has durable propaganda qualities. Here in its original context it resonates even more powerfully as the darkness of World War ll sets in on Europe leaving the American viewer with two options, freedom or slavery. In 1943 there was no evading this simple truth and The Nazis Strike makes its point effectively.

(SPOILERS IN THIS)
"Rosenstraße" is a movie about heroic women in German Nazi time. But it is way too long, it is not touching and sometimes even boring! There are too many clichés and not enough good acting.
The storytelling (storyline) is bad. Like in James Cameron´s Titanic an old woman remembers events of her live. Good, now we´ve got a point of view. Than there is another woman introduced who does the same. Confusing is that they both are recalling events of lifes of other people! Come on! This is a lack of knowledge of basic story telling...How can Riemann know about the fate of the little girl´s mother and her interrogation for example?
The scenes are shown in the wrong order and you rarely know when it took place. For example the scene when Riemann is proposing to Fabian. When did that happen? The scene looks like it is set in the Twenties...
Riemann´s character is of course a talented pianist, well, she is even a Baroness! Wow. Her brother comes back from the Eastern Front, he has received a "Ritterkreuz" which he is showing in some scenes. So he is a war hero and still a fine man who preserved his conscience. And he gained knowledge of massacres committed by Germans. He even made some photographs! And so it goes, cliché after cliché is piling up and this is why the movie does not work.
Basically von Trotta made a chick flick out of something what could have been a decent movie. And in the end it´s all very simple. Riemann finds a way to get Goebbels into bed and - ta da! - everyone is free. Which is not a historical fact but pure imagination despite the "true story" claim at the beginning. Like "Sass" it is vaguely BASED on a true event.
It is sad but true, this IS the typical German movie these days. It is bad! Macaulay J. Connor
Yowsa! If you REALLY want some ACTION, check out the babes and bombs on this non-stop thriller! Veteran star MARTIN SHEEN leads a trio of supermodels on a mission to stop nuclear terrorism... but director Dean Hamilton doesn't let this heavy plotline get in the way of massive doses of TEENSY-SWIMSUIT scenes, jiggly beach jogs, hubba-hubba hot tubs and the like! Want action? You'll get more of it here than in PEARL HARBOR. Want babes? You'll get an eyeful every two minutes. Want more? Go out and BUY THIS VIDEO! Yowsa, Yowsa, Yowsa! That's some mighty spicy meatballs!!!

note to George Litman, and others: the Mystery Science Theater 3000 riff is "I don't think so, *breeder*".
my favorite riff is "Why were you looking at his 'like'?", simply for the complete absurdity. that, and "Right well did not!" over all, I would say we must give credit to the MST3K crew for trying to ridicule this TV movie. you really can't make much fun of the dialog; Bill S was a good playwright. on the other hand, this production is so bad that even he would disown it. a junior high school drama club could do better.
I would recommend that you buy a book and read 'Hamlet'.
I love this movie, Jouvet, Arletty, Blier, Carné... almost everything has already been said about the movie, but there is one detail I'd like to shed some light onto: no footage of the real, still standing, Hôtel du Nord (is it still? I heard it was to be demolished...) has been used for the movie - the whole scene has been rebuilt on set, the main reason being that they could not stop the traffic on the St Martin canal for several weeks.

The night of the prom: the most important night to any shallow girl composed almost entirely of plastic. And so the characters kept reminding us every ten minutes when some head-peckingly miniscule event occurred in their miniscule lives.
There really is no excuse for Prom Night. There is less than nothing original about it and I truly would have given it zero or less stars were it possible on IMDb. The only part of my viewing that I enjoyed was when a group of teenagers sitting in front of us decided to play a game of 'ghosts'. It was a lot more exciting than whatever was going on on the screen in front of them.
The plot was basically some guy going on a rampage. And the thing was, it wasn't even a slightly exciting rampage. Maybe if the guy had been remotely frightening rather than a tame Robbie Williams lookalike with a baseball cap, I might have sat there feeling slightly anxious. The fact that I cared less about the characters than I did about the colour of the cinema carpet didn't really add to the effect, either. And to make matters worse, the rest of the characters were equally one-dimensional and oblivious. The hotel staff didn't seem to notice or care that one of their maids had vanished and are further proof that a murderer is unrecognisable after he has had a shave. I was incredibly surprised that the bitchy, stereotypical girl in the blue dress was the only person to notice who he was. She realises this and then proceeds to fall down the stairs, entangle herself in a plastic sheet and then knock over a pile of paint buckets. Nice one.
The worst thing was, I hold the belief that that the director was trying his absolute hardest. He really pushed all boundaries by not showing any killing actually happening. Shocking! And the music, don't even get me started. It was almost as appropriate as stripping at a funeral.
I really wish that Prom Night was a joke. It was terrible and stupidly predictable. No one, in their right mind or otherwise, has any reason to see this film. Mainstream cinema seems to be going downhill and films like this worsen the situation. If you get the urge to see this absolutely awful film, hear my plea. Don't do it. There are better things to spend six pounds on. Like a sheet to play ghosts with.
When I first read the plot of this drama i assumed it was going to be like Sex and the City, however this drama is nothing like it. The stories the characters seem more real and you empathise with the situations more. The concept of the drama is similar, four 30 something women guide us through there friendships and relationships with problems and strife along the way. Katie the GP is a dark and brooding character who you find difficult to relate too and is best friends with Trudi a widow. Trudi's character is heart warming as you can relate to difficulties she is having along with the fact she is the only mother of the four. Jessica is the party girl very single minded and knows what she wants and how to get it. She is a likable character and is closest to Siobhan the newly wed who whilst loving her husband completely can't help her eyes wandering to her work colleague. Over all the drama is surprisingly addictive and if the BBC continue to produce the series it could do well. It is unlike other female cast dramas such as Sex and the city, or Desperate Housewives. This if played right could be the next Cold feet. Plus the male cast are not bad on the eyes too.

There was nothing about this movie that I liked. It was so obviously low-budget with bad lighting and camera work (almost like Blair Witch Project, only it wasn't supposed to be that way). There wasn't really much to the plot, and the movie just drug on and on. I actually fast-forwarded through the last 1/3 of the movies, but that did not help matters much. It looked like it might be good from the box, but I must say again: nothing about this movie even resembled good. No good actors, the special effects were so fake, the camera work was horrible, and the dialogue was painfully terrible. On my own personal scale, I give this movie a 0 of 10. Yikes!
I loved watching ''Sea Hunt '' back in the day , I was in grammar school and would get home do my homework and by 4:30 would be ready to watch ''Sea Hunt '' and Mike Nelson in his underwater adventures .I loved it ! He took to you a place not very accessible at that time , under the great blue sea . Pre ''Thunderball '' or even before Cousteau became common , there was Mike Nelson sparking the imagination of kids .I'd be willing to wager that more than a few kids developed their passion for oceanography or biology or one of the sciences from watching this show .Underwater photography also progressed , the fascination for exploration is easily stimulated thru watching this show . Watch and enjoy !!!

I don't think I've ever been so bowled over by the sheer absurdity of a movie in my entire life as i was when i walked out of this piece of crap. NOTHING in it makes any sense. none of it is clever or well thought out. out of lack of truly suspenseful moments they repeatedly use that total cop-out trick where you build up the music before the character does something like open a door or push aside a curtain and then nothing's there. thats OK to do once, maybe, but i counted three times. there are things thrown in for no apparent reason, characters, half-formed story lines.... the characters weren't well developed at ALL. the ending was.. bad. bad, bad, bad, everything, every component, of this film is terrible. and I'm just here to warn you all of that.
This is an excellent but hard to find trippy World War I spy thriller in the inimitable 60's Italian style. From the psychedelic graphics of the introductory credits and the great score by Ennio Morricone to the lesbian love scene with Capucine and the elaborately produced apocalyptic no man's land battle scenes with poison gas and German cavalry in full gas proof 'storm trooper' gear, this is a movie that should not be missed. It is a film that captures the horrors and cruelty of war and the ruthlessness of the players on and off the battlefield. Apart from the battle scenes, some of the production and special effects are primitive, apparently because the bulk of the budget for this movie was saved for the battle scenes, but for lovers of 60's cinema it should not be an issue. I first saw this movie on television many years ago and had the foresight to tape it on VHS. I still have the tape and enjoy watching it again from time to time.

Robin Williams gave a fine performance in The Night Listener as did the other cast members. However, the movie seems rushed and leaves too many loose ends to be considered a "must see." I think the problem happens because there isn't a strong enough relationship established between the caller and the Gabriel Noon(I had to spell it this way, because IMDb wants to auto correct the right spelling to "No one") character. The movie runs a little over 01:30 and within the first 15 minutes, or so it seems, Noon begins his search for Pete Logande, the boy caller.
This happens after he talks to the mysterious caller about 3 or 4 times. The conversations aren't too in-depth mostly consisting of how are you... I'm in the hospital...why did you boyfriend move out... etc. In the book, the kid almost becomes Noon's shrink and vice versa and the reader understands why he goes in search of this boy, once he finds out the kid disappears and thinks he might be a hoax.
In the movie, Noon becomes obsessed with finding Logande, but the audience is left to wonder why? Since there really isn't a strong enough bond established between Noon and the caller, why bother? Who cares if the caller doesn't exist?
I know there's a difference between a book and a movie, but those calls and that relationship was critical to establish on screen, because it provides the foundation for the rest of the movie. Since it doesn't, the movie falls apart.
This is surprising because of Maupin's other work, Tales of the City. When it was made into a mini-series, it worked beautifully.
This film has good characters with excellent performances from the cast. David Strathairn is diabolically sincere as the child molesting salesman and Danny Vinson plays a perfect pussy-whipped southern husband. The slick soundtrack betrays the murder ballad tone of the film.

If, in the first 10 minutes of this film, you don't realize that the main character, who writes a life advice column, is going to have the tables-oh-so-cleverly-turned and learn some valuable life lessons himself, then there is probably something wrong with you. The set up is so predictable as to ruin the movie, even if the rest of the movie was good (which it isn't)
There's almost no chemistry between the leads, and Steve Carell's stalker-ish behavior is embarrassing, not funny. It's hard to believe Binoche's character would have any interest in him. Then in the end it's all wrapped up so wonderful and everyone lives happily ever after. Isn't that great America!
I'm 14 years old and I love this cartoon. Burt Reynolds and Dom Deluise make a great pair. This movie is really funny and I love the songs. My favorite songs are "You can't keep a good dog down" and that song about sharing, I think it's called "What's mine is yours". This was the last movie with Judith Barsi, who played the voice of Anne-Marie. My favorite character is Charlie but I find Itchy's voice is so fun to hear. Although some scenes I actually found scary, I still have a hard time watching the scene with Charlie's dream, and Carface scares the crap out of me. Other characters like King Gator I found really funny. The ending was adorable and was actually sad, made me cry a little. I give this movie 7/10.

If you like the standard Sly flicks that involve over the top action, unbelievable stunts (unbelievable is not intended to be complimentary here), and retarded dialogue; you will love this steaming pile of mountain goat dung. I had high hopes based on the trailer. I thought that Stalone was going to be forced in his "has-been" days to yield to smarter people and make an action film that would place a credible hero in a credible situation where the story, setting, and (believable) action would prevail. I crave action that is at least close enough to reality that you can imagine the fear and excitement that would come from such an event. My limited knowledge of hypothermia and its effects rendered at least one scene laughably ridiculous. Judge Dredd is only better because you know going into the theater that you are going to see a comic book made into a movie. The character, setting and everything else are beyond comparison to anything we might encounter ourselves. Cliffhanger on the other hand turns a mountain climbing guide into Rambo before you can say "yo, Adrian!"
This is one of my all time favorite movies, PERIOD. I can't think of another movie that combines so many nice movie qualities like this one does. This flick has it all: Action, Adventure, Science Fiction, Good vs. Bad and even some Romance (without even an innocent "peck" on the cheek between the Pazu and Sheeta). Maybe best of all, you don't have to be in Mensa to "get it" and enjoy the movie like you do with some of Miyazaki's other movies (I don't know about you, but I watch movies to take a break from thinking). This is just a flat-out enjoyable movie that everyone will like, so do yourself a favor and go buy it. The only sour note is the American Dubbing. I found Vander-Geek to be just plain annoying. But all is not lost, the original Japanese version is on the two-disc set and it rocks! Who cares if you can't understand spoken Japanese? If you can read at a second-grade level then watch the original Japanese recording with English subtitles. You won't regret it.

Without question, the worst film I've seen for a long while. I endured to the end because surely there must be something here, but no. The plot, when not dealing in clichés, rambles to the point of non-existence; dialogue that is supposed to be street is simply hackneyed; characters never develop beyond sketches; set-pieces are clichéd. Worse, considering its co-director, the photography is only so-so.
Comments elsewhere that elevate this alongside Get Carter, Long Good Friday or Kaspar Hauser are way way off the mark; Lives of the Saints lacks their innovation let alone their depth and shading. In short, their craft. A ruthless editor could probably trim it down to a decent 30-minute short, but as it stands it's a 6th form film project realised on a million-pound scale; rambling and bloated with its own pretensions. That it received funding (surely only because of Rankin's name) while other small films struggle for cash is depressing for the British film industry.
What a stunning episode for this fine series. This is television excellence at its best. The story takes place in 1968 and it's beautifully filmed in black & white, almost a film noir style with its deep shadows and stark images. This is a story about two men who fall in love, but I don't want to spoil this. It is a rare presentation of what homosexuals faced in the 1960s in America. Written by the superb Tom Pettit, and directed by the great Jeannot Szwarc, we move through their lives, their love for each other, and their tragedy. Taking on such a sensitive issue makes this episode all the more stunning. Our emotions are as torn and on edge as the characters. Chills ran up my spine at the end when they played Bob Dylan's gorgeous, "Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now," as sung by the Byrds. This one goes far past a 10 and all the way to the stars. Beautiful.

Definitely the product of young minds, this piece may very well appeal to the 20s crowd, who is still trying to find their place in the world, while obsessing over every neurosis. However, I can't imagine that the heavy amount of narcissistic navel-gazing, trite humor, or banal subject matter would be particularly engaging to anyone over 30. Another problem is that the peripheral characters, whom the filmmakers obviously have nothing but contempt for, are hyped up to such absurd caricatures for comic effect, that they fail to be relatable in any real way.
However, one has to give some style points to the filmmakers, who obviously grew up in the video generation, and use every conceivable editing trick in the book in order to spruce up an otherwise non-existent plot. There are 2 points to remember here. First, beware of festival darlings. Second, even though we live in the age of youtube, not everyone's account of their mundane lives deserves big- screen treatment. But these young filmmakers have every right to make their film, and if others 20-somethings can find something in it to identify with, then all the better. Yet I could not help but think at the end of this film how this latest generation, just now coming of age, will fare in the real world that presents so many challenges and complications. In the age when every child is constantly reassured of how special they are, and that they all deserve their 15 minutes of exposure, resiliency and the ability to deal with adversity does not exactly appear to be this generation's strong point.
I enjoyed watching Cliffhanger, at the beginning when that woman (Sarah) was full of terror when she was slipping, i thought that was a terrifying scene as i would think that when you see that see, your nerves in your body get to you because it makes you get full of fright and your heart beats faster. I did like watching Cliffhanger, i think Silvestar Stallone is a great actor and i think he'll be known as playing Rambo and Rocky.

I hate this movie. I hate the show. i hate just about everything about it. it's so annoying and stupid. everyone's saying that nat and alex wolff are heroes in the music world and that they're going to make it big. WHAT KIND OF DRUGS ARE YOU TAKING???!!!?!?!?!?! nat and alex are going to end up as either hobos or end up like Jane Hudson from "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?". i could only get through not even 20 minutes of this one, barely 30 seconds of the show, and i managed to survive about half an hour of 'Battle of the Bands'. How anyone could cheer for these guys in the audience at the Kid's Choice Awards, i have no clue. days before the movie premiere on Nick, most of the teen girl actresses on Nick (Jamie Spears, Emma Roberts, Lindsey Shaw, etc.) showed up in a commercial influencing brain-dead kids about how awesome nat and alex wolff are. first off, they didn;t trick me, and second of all, nat and alex probably either drugged them or payed them loads of money in order to say that and sound convincing, because i don't see how anyone could find this show/movie entertaining. the music is just awful. nat's singing sounds like a sick, dying moose on crack. alex is the most annoying movie/TV show character EVER. he's not funny, he's annoying, he's really weird, and he thinks he's hot and knows everything about girls. this guy's lucky if he ever manages to get laid. you know this show is fake when you find out that some of the characters (in real life) don't even exist!! the character Jesse is actually played by Nat and Alex's cousin jesse Draper (they mustve had some budget problem). Their father is not single, he's married to Polly Draper, but she doesn't appear on the show, making it seem the Wolff's are mom-less. Rosalina doesn't exist either. Her name is Allie DiMeco. I'll tell ya, the Naked Brothers are gonna be in some deep sh** when their "fans" find out the whole thing is staged. 0/10
The accountant Shohei Sugiyama (Kôji Yakusho) is feeling bored with his routine life, limited to hard work and stay at home with his wife Masako Sugiyama (Hideko Hara) and his teenager's daughter. One night, while traveling home by train, he sees the beautiful face of Mai Kishikawa (Tamiyo Kusakari) in the balcony of a dance school, and a couple of days later, he decides to visit the school and secretly take ballroom dance lessons every Wednesdays night. However, he becomes ashamed to tell his family his secret. Meanwhile, Masako feels the changes in the behavior of her happier husband, and hires a private eye to investigate whether Shohei is having an affair.
I have just finished watching "Shall We Dansu?" and I really loved it. What a lovely and delightful movie! The story is amazingly good, with drama, comedy and romance. The cast is excellent, and I was particularly impressed with the cold beauty and graciousness of the wife of the director Masayuki Suo and professional ballet dancer Tamiyo Kusakari. On last September 06th, I saw the American remake of "Shall We Dansu?" for the first time, and I found it a delightful entertainment. But now I can say that it is another unnecessary remake, and I recommend this original film instead. My vote is ten.
Title (Brazil): "Dança Comigo?" ("Dance With Me?")

Apparently, the people that wrote the back of the box did not bother to watch this so-called "movie." They described "blindingly choreographed intrigue and violence." I saw no "intrigue." I instead saw a miserable attempt at dialogue in a supposed kung fu movie. I saw no "violence." At least, I saw nothing which could cause me to suspend my disbelief as to what could possibly hurt a man with "impervious" skin--but here I am perhaps revealing too much of the "plot." Furthermore, as a viewer of many and sundry films (some of which include the occasional kung fu movie), I can authoritatively say that this piece of celluloid is unwatchable. Whatever you may choose to do, I will always remain
Correct,
Jonathan Tanner

P.S. I was not blinded by the choreography.