Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
This sci-fi masterpiece has too many flaws after the editors had butchered it after its opening in 1936. Visually it is a wonder to behold, but the script allows too many intellectual speeches about war and progress.This gets very corny when the actors are given to recite a lot of high minded messages at all times.Raymond Massey and Cedric Hardwicke,both great actors,come off as quite a pair of fanatics. Ralph Richardson is very good as the "The Boss" a megalomaniac warlord. The prediction of World War II was very eerie considering that the world was on the brink of the most devastating conflict in human history at the time. I'm sure glad that war didn't turn out as it did in the movie. There are some visually stunning montage sequences bridging the leaps of time between the movie's different episodes. Although its not as entertaining as I hoped it would be,this movie sticks in your mind long after you've seen it.

This film was terrible. OK, my favourite film is 'The Wicker Man' (1973), so I was always bound to be a little biased.
The plot rambles along, throwing out enough of the key elements of the original to make the term 'remake' highly dubious. (He's not a virgin, but IS allergic to bees. WOW!) So many things happen that make no sense and are unexplained, which I'm afraid Mr LaBute does not a horror movie make. (How are two people we clearly saw blown up in a car at the start alive and well at the end of the film?) Cage looks haggard and bewildered throughout, and his character is prone to calling out "Rowan!?" at the slightest noise. The 'nods' to the original are irritating as they come off as tacky rather than as intelligent homage. For example, certain incidents mirror the original (The girl falling out of a cupboard pretending to be dead when Woodward/Cage is searching the island) and several lines of dialogue are plucked straight from Anthony Schaffers original screenplay and shoehorned in.
I'm sure others will provide a better and more detailed analysis than this, I really can't be bothered to write any more about this film. It lacks any kind of substance. Throw it on the scrap heap with all the other remakes that have sullied the good names of the films they were 'based' on (in this case very loosely).
This is still the benchmark to judge all Golden Age whodunnits by, and taking into account the limited technology and dubious ethical standards of the authorities (on screen) bears up well against all generations of similar attempts since on film and TV. Fast and furious with plenty of Warner Bros wipes, and thankfully no time for a love interest it gallops along, taking the splendid cast with it to the violent end. I never understood why the DA had to trail Vance around everywhere, I always thought they were deskbound. Palette as the detective but especially Girardot as the doctor are delightfully eccentric and un-PC - when glancing over the second murder victim he sniffs that there were too many people in the world anyway. Of course it is William Powell as Philo Vance (and Michael Curtiz as director) that makes the film what it is - when did Powell ever make a dud?
The army of cops at the crime scene didn't really do a very good job in finding the second dead body and unconscious dog did they! The best bit is where Vance narrates to us all the sequence of events surrounding the murders - dodgy model sets combine with fantastic roving camera angles to produce a very modern feel, and startling with what has gone before. The only problem is as usual the conclusion can't match the overall deductive processes displayed throughout and a somewhat contrived ending is invoked; some Chan's, Moto's and many others of course could only be concluded this way too. But because it happens so fast and is ... slightly dubious morally it doesn't lessen my opinion of KMC's status as a classic!
All the prints I've ever seen of KMC are (at worst) like looking into a goldfish bowl, so if you're interested in seeing it bear with it until you're sucked in.

I think that it was just pointless to produce a second part of a movie like "My Girl". "My Girl" was a very good movie but it is ridiculous making a second part of a movie in which one of the main characters (Macaulay Culkin as Thomas J.) dies. The story was over after the first movie. I wonder why someone tried to find a way to make the story going on. That was senseless!
Say what you will about schmaltz. One beauty of this film is that it is not pro-American. It is a morality about some Americans being called to high purpose and how they rose to the occasion. It is inspiring because it is about people of noble purpose.
To me, the most interesting part of the film is the education of Fanny and David Farrelly (Bette Davis' mother and brother). As Fanny says, "We've been shaken out of the magnolias."
In today's political climate where, led by a president who shamelessly lied to us and used 9/11 to bring out the absolute worst characteristics of human beings, we sunk to the level of the 9/11 murderers to seek blood-thirsty vengeance. It can't all be blamed on Mr. Bush - after all, we allowed him to lead us in that direction and even re-elected him after his lies had been exposed. Now, with complete justification, we Americans are reviled throughout the world.
Today, we watch this film with a new awareness: That the rise to power of Nazis in Germany was not due to a flaw in the German character, but, a flaw in human beings that allows us to rationalize anything that will justify our committing immoral and heinous acts. I'm not comparing George Bush to Adolph Hitler. But, I am pointing out how a leader can whip us up into a frenzy of terror, hatred, and hyper-nationalism to do despicable things.
Sadly, the blackmailer, who will do whatever needs to be done for his own agrandizement, no matter how immoral, is most like the leaders of our country, those who support them, and those who have buried their heads so deep in the sand, that they can't even be bothered to vote.
A film like Watch on the Rhine reminds us of what we once aspired to be - a force for the betterment of humanity - and that we have it in us to once again aspire to lofty goals.
Geoff

This is a very bad movie. I laughed once or twice, and the storyline sucks! There is maybe one funny joke, it is stupid and it is boring. Through the whole short movie, I was falling asleep and wondering when it was going to end.
No one acts human, and everyone acts stupid and ridiculous. Rob Schneider acting like an animal isn't something I would pay to see. It looked funny, but the bottom line: DON'T WASTE YOU'RE PRECIOUS TIME ON SUCH A RIDICULOUS AND STUPID MOVIE.
I was wondering when it was going to end, even though it is a short movie. In the beginning we thought it would get better; but it gets worse. Stupid, all the way to the end. I walked out of the theater, and I would remember that movie as extremely bad forever.
The writer and co-producer of this film is a Simpsons TV writer, but this is nothing like The Simpsons (this movie sucks!!!)
I would have given this otherwise terrific series a full 10 vote if Claudia Black had not continued on in it! Her inclusion as the silly 'Vela' has brought the series down in my estimation. To bring her in as a regular at the same time as including Ben Browder to replace RDA was a mistake.
Unfortunately we were just reeling from the loss of 'Jack' and really didn't need this great series turned into new episodes of 'Farscape'.
I was a great fan of the film "Stargate" and when the series was first announced I had reservations that it could live up to the film, but after watching the first episode I have to admit I was hooked. I have always looked forward to new episodes with great anticipation

In order to hold the public's attention for three hours, we were treated not so much to a family's romp through four generations and 120 years of Hungarian history, as to sexual liaisons with a sister, a sister-in-law and other adulteries. Oh yes, there was also a totally gratuitous rape. Having said all this, the first story of the relationship among the children of the patriarch was fresh and sensual - thanks to Jennifer Ehle.
This is one of my favorites along with the Mariette Hartley and Robert Lansing "Sandy" and the Agnes Moorhead-and-the-tiny-spacemen episodes.
It is an important take, from mid-1961, on the long Cold War that the U.S. was then embroiled in. The beaten-down city-scene, the near-starving characters' sparse dialog, their threadbare uniforms, and the minimal action "says" it all: the absurdity of an on-going conflict that threatens to destroy human life, modern civilization, and all that is sweet and redeeming about it.
It is a "fable" because it was made in a time in which, had events turned out differently, such as the second Berlin Crisis (Spring 1961) and the subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis (Oct. 1962), it would have actually been a reasonable representation of one of the U.S.'s major cities, ruined and replete with a few miserable survivors. I also see it as a "fable" because it is not only a cautionary tale, but because it is the most redemptive of all our popular myths: it is a love story, set in an impossible situation, and involving two highly mismatched lovers.

The animation looks like it was done in 30 seconds, and looks more like caricatures rather than characters. I've been a fan of Scooby Doo ever since the series premiered in 1969. I didn't think much of the Scooby Doo animated movies, (I'm talking about the TV Series, not the full length movies.), but some of them were pretty cool, and I like most people found Scrappy Doo to be an irritant, but this series is pure garbage. As soon as I saw the animation, and heard the characters, (and I use that term loosely) speak, I cringed. Also, Mystery Inc., was a team, and without the entire crew to compliment each other, it just seems like opening up a box of chocolates to find someone has already ate the best ones, and the only thing left are the ones nobody wants. What's New Scooby Doo was better than this. If you're going to have a Scooby Doo TV series, include the elements that made the series endure so long. The entire cast of characters, and quality animation. They need to put this one back under the rock from where it came.
My discovery of the cinema of Jan Svankmajer opened My eyes to a whole tradition of Czech animation, of which Jirí Trnka was a pioneer. His Ruka is one of the finest, most technically-impressive animated movies I've ever seen.
A potter wakes up and waters his plant. Then he goes about making a pot. But in comes the huge hand which crashes the pot and demands that the potter make a statue of itself. He casts the hand out, but soon it returns and imprisons him in a bird cage where he's forced to sculpt a stone hand. He sets about it, fainting from exhaustion, but eventually completes the task.
In a marvellous sequence of metacinema, the potter uses a candle to burn his visible puppet strings, which keep him in thrall, and he escapes back home. He shuts himself in and is accidentally killed by his own beloved plant when it falls on his head.
This movie doesn't hide the fact it's pure animation, unlike modern movies that strive to be realistic (why?). The hand, for instance, is clearly someone's hand in a glove. Everything else is clay. Strings are visible and are part of the narrative, making it a precursor of the movie Strings. The atmosphere is eerie: that hand going after the little potter managed to instill more dread in me than many horror movies combined.
The movie is obvious but it avoids being totally manipulative for its simplicity. it's a fable about artistic freedom and tyranny which can't help winning the heart and mind of anyone who holds freedom as a natural right.

I remember this show being on the television when I was a kid back in the early 1990s, and there was this rage about kids with goofy leotards doing kung fu on one another and riding around in plastic dinosaurs. It was called power rangers. I remember that little kids would go around hitting each other and then the shirts and the stuff from the show was banned in many school districts all over the country because this show taught kids how to fight each other in solving their differences.
I never really thought of this as a show, especially when better shows like The Tick were playing on Fox Kids. Most older teens always looked at power rangers in a ridiculous and scornful manner, and it's not hard to wonder why. The footage is ridiculous at best. The colored rangers costumes look like stuff you would work out in and the dinosaurs look like plastic nonsense. Then you get into the acting, and of course those really laughable haircuts. All the guys run around with earrings on, half of them are wearing 90's mullets, and they always wear the same clothes everyday, and then change into leotard wearing power rangers.
The toys are especially ridiculous as well, and was the joke of many late night talk show hosts. And of course two of the worst movies ever made, and I do mean two of the worst movies ever made were based on this show with nearly every critic trashing both the films, and the shows it was based on.
Power rangers is nothing more than a bad television commericial for especially bad toy merchandising. As an adult, I don't look at it fondly, but rather as another embarrassment of 1990s kids shows, fashion and guys' earrings.
Eddie Murphy Delirious is by far the funniest thing you will ever see in your life. You can compare it to any movie, and I garuntee you will decide that Delirious is the funniest movie ever! This movie is about 1hr. 45 mins., and throughout that time, there was barely a moment where I wasn't laughing. You will laugh for hours after it is over, replaying the punch lines over and over and over in your head. Eddie Murphy has given so many funny performances over his career (48 Hrs.,Trading Places,Beverly Hills Cop,Raw,Coming To America, The Nutty professor,Shrek,etc.),but this is by far his MOST HILARIOUS moment. I have seen this movie so many times, and it is funnier every time. It never loses its edge. From this day forward, every great stand up performance will be emulated from Delirious. ***** and two thumbs up!

I watched this movie when Joe Bob Briggs hosted Monstervision on TNT. Even he couldn't make this movie enjoyable. The only reason I watched it until the end is because I teach video production and I wanted to make sure my students never made anything this bad ... but it took all my intestinal fortitude to sit through it though. It's like watching your great grandmother flirting with a 15 year old boy ... excruciatingly painful.
If you took the actual film, dipped it in paint thinner, then watched it, it would be more entertaining. Seriously.
If you see this movie in the bargin bin at S-Mart, back away from it as if it were a rattlesnake.
The final installment in the action thriller franchise is just that probably the hardest hitting of the three films. It goes further to play the anti-Bond theme. Bourne doesn't like what he is doing and wants to know about his blurry past. Everything about this film hits it on the nail from the cinematography to choreography/stunt work to the script to acting.
The film starts out in a flurry as Bourne is running from the Moscow police. The story seems to pick up right where the first film left off. Or does it? The time is a little muddled here, but we get the fact that Bourne is remembering things. A sudden flashback while trying to clean himself up nearly gets him caught, but he makes it and doesn't kill anyone. They aren't his target. From there we get more of the intrigue of his past with a new player, Noah Vosen, who seems to know everything about Bourne and will protect it at all costs. Pamela Landy is back as well as Nicky Parsons who seems to have a past with Bourne as well.
The cinematography is in your face following tight on practically everything. The car chase is even more intense if that seems possible than the ones from the first two. And the veteran cast chasing Bourne is superb with a nice part by Albert Finney. It also has slight political overtones in relationship to rendition and other government policies, but that is minor and integrated very well within the plot. All in all this is the best of the trilogy conclusions this year, if not the best action trilogy ever.

I wanted to watch this movie, but one bizarre ridiculous scene after another forced me to shut it off. Character's don't seem to react to anything. Consider this: Heath Ledger is walking a night (through a cemetery I believe) when he is attacked by spirits, which he drives away. Once past this ordeal he calmly walks away and meets up with a friend that saw it all. When asked what happen he says blandly "attacked by demons, nothing serious.", as if this is only a little more exciting than a flat tire.
I shut it off when they go to ask something-a demon or something, I stopped caring-a ques ion. The answer can only be rented out of someone with the energy of their death, and the priest watch in what appears to be vague annoyance as a man is strung up and hung and they ask his thrashing, dying body question.
0 out of **** stars.
I saw the movie recently and really liked it. I surprised myself and cried. This movie is in the same niche genre as "Away from Her" - or even "The Bucket List" but handles the whole aging theme with incredible authenticity. It's really really tough to have the main character as unlikable as Hagar. The director does a masterful job with the challenge. Hagar's hard to understand. Her world has hard edges and she isn't a warm endearing woman at all.
The first scene gets this across without any compromise. Hagar (Ellen Burnstyn) is being taken to a nursing home by her son and daughter-in-law. She figures it out en-route and freaks out. Her edges are really hard. She is mean. She is belittling and selfish. She is a stone. I didn't like her - not even a little bit.
Throughout the course of the movie, we get insight. We find out why she doesn't like petunias, why she favors one son over the other, how her losses have formed her character... I started to see the angel... and I started to like her. I especially liked her when she poured out her secrets to the boy in the shack. Ellen Burnstyn, you are a brilliant actor. Kudos. Kudos. Kudos. What a scene!
This isn't a "feel good" movie, but it is certainly a movie that brings the viewer to empathy. I understand more clearly that hard edges in a person's life are there to protect, they are there for a reason...
Hagar isn't my mother - she isn't even my mother-in-law or neighbor... but parts of her are present in many women (and men) in my life. Those parts somehow make more sense to me now that I've watched The Stone Angel.

I would perhaps give 6 or 7 to this propaganda film because it shows when and how a propaganda film becomes successful. If there are people who watch this piece and think that "well then Jews must have done something to be treated the way they were treated in WW2", then the movie is very cleverly made to conceal 'why's and 'how's as well as mix correct and false observations on how a people live. What more can a propaganda movie aim for? The part in which an American movie about the Rothschild family is included is re-used very shrewdly here, for instance. The question of why the Jew keeps his wealth away from the officer is never asked. No one mentions the system of taxation within that particular social strata.
Besides, the level of excitement (or, the level of disgust) in the movie increases slowly and the solution-like end of the movie suits the aim and the musts of doing propaganda. The audience would leave in joy and gratefulness to the times that are coming up...well done.
In the movie, there is a kind of simplicity that addresses the most basic emotional perception of the audience. The movie is kind of history today, so no need to fuss much about it actually. However, in this simplicity of words of ethnic degradation, a careful watcher can find relevance to today's cultural hatred, violence, decivilization as well as the problems of integration. Overall, fine trash.
This is a pretty decent example of film noir. The setting is the early 50's with the Communists trying to steal weapon secrets from the US Government.
Richard Widmark is the suave pickpocket without scruples. He gives a pretty decent performance but there is nothing A-List about him. The interesting thing was that he was not only an anti-hero but through most of the film, an unlikeable anti-hero. That is not very normal. Jean Peters gave a so-so performance as the hooker with the heart of gold. That great character actress Thelma Ritter shines as the stool-pigeon.
The plot had its fair share of twists and turns, wisecracks and tough talk. There is a fight scene near the end of the movie (in the subway station) that was pretty gritty and exciting.
I think noir fans (like myself) will enjoy this film. For non-noir viewers, it may seem a little dated and the whole Commie thing a tad overdone.

True, the setting in Paris is great. The actors are fine. The story is a twisted morality play. Is it supposed to say that if you want someone badly enough, it's OK to hurt everyone else along the way? In a real romance, you sort of want less cliché than the man who has become bored with his wife and is willing to dump his family, and the woman who is OK with encouraging him to do this. So what if they are decent looking and if Karen Allen shows off her body? The characters are still self-absorbed and reprehensible. Maybe the moral of the story is "you get what you deserve". I give it a 4, only for the fast scan potential through the "male interest" bits.
This is the kind of movie England can do in its sleep, and that's meaning it as a compliment. Because of the success of very British comedies of manners situated at the end or beginning of the Twentieth Century, most notably adaptations of E. M. Forster novels, this very Merchant-Ivory like production was received in the light it brought when it was released in 1992. It was an exceptional year for actress Miranda Richardson, having appeared as the wife of Jeremy Irons who discovers her husband has been having an affair in the worst possible way in DAMAGE, and as the IRA terrorist who eventually dons a wig and gets a nasty comeuppance in THE CRYING GAME. Here, she plays a quiet, serene type of woman in Rose Arbuthnot, one who with Josie Lawrence who plays Lottie Wilkins, embarks on a trip that is filled with self-discovery. They are joined by an unlikely pair of ladies: one Caroline Dester, played by the enigmatic Polly Walker who resembles a very vamp Louise Brooks (and not just in the style of hair she wears), and Mrs. Fisher (Joan Plowright). This foursome will eventually merge together into becoming deep friends only because the story is so filled with spring and an overwhelming, dreamy sweetness it almost preordains it, but this is fine; it's the movie it wants to be. Alfred Molina and Jim Broadbent (then relatively new to American audiences) fill out the cast as the husbands of the two main characters, and all in all, Mike Newell makes with his movie a living thing of near-magical elements, full of quiet moments and wonder.

I doubt this will ever even be a cult film. I loved Gram Parsons to be sure and I did not expect much out of this film and got even less. What could have been clever and moving was campy. It was devoid of the music that made Gram and had more filler than cheap dog food. There was no background on Gram or the colorful people of that era. The characters shown were not familiar to me even as a fan of Gram's and all the versions of his "afterlife adventures" I have heard. Rock and roll is full of tales, good ones too but they should taken with a grain of salt. They can be great stories even though exaggerated. However, this movie took a good story and turned into tripe. Stealing any dead body and the ensuing implications should never be a dull tale but they made it dull, somehow. I am tempted to steal every copy of Grand Theft Parsons, head out to the desert and burn them all.