Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
This movie is a half-documentary...and it is pretty interesting....
This is a good movie...based on the true story of how a bunch of norwegian saboturs managed to stop the heavy water production in Rukjan, Norway and the deliverance of the rest of the heavy water to Germany.
This movie isn't perfect and it could have been a bit better... the best part of the movie is that some of the saboturs are played by themselves!!!
If you're interested in history of WWII and film this is a movie that's worth a look!!

A warning to potential viewers: if you are looking for an adaptation of the classic story "The Most Dangerous Game," look elsewhere. "Seven Women for Satan"
only superficially addresses the original work by using the name of Zaroff and having said character murder people.
Some of what follows might be considered by some to be spoilers. Or not.
Boris Zaroff is played by writer/director Michel Lemoine. Whereas his ancestor hunted men because they were the only prey that were truly challenging, Boris' victims are usually in a position where they cannot defend themselves. The film rambles from scene to scene with a near-total lack of clarity. The director seems to have totally disregarded pacing and left the viewer with a suffocatingly dull film. A few individual scenes are mildly interesting (such as a torture rack sequence), but as a unit, the film fails to entertain. Viewers who are more
interested in an assortment of attractive and semi-attractive actresses in various stages of undress might find the film watchable. Most will probably find their time is better spent watching Mentos commercials.
In a side note, the DVD extras included a fair amount of information on the film's history. Apparently, it was banned for several years in its native France which pretty much ruined any chance it had for widespread distribution.
The 60's is a great movie(I saw it completely in one night) about the hippy movement in the late 60's. Although the title would suggest otherwise the first 5 years of the 60's are not really important in this film.
The main character of the movie is Michael,a political activist who goes on the road in the US against the Vietnam-war. There he meets his girlfriend,Sarah.Michael's brother,Brian,goes to Vietnam to fight(what a surprise!).He comes back from the war and changes in a "Tom Cruise Born on the fourth of July" look a like and then into a Hippy.His dad is a pro-vietnam war type of guy(what a surprise!!).Michael's sister Kate gets pregnant from a Rock & Roll artist and runs away from home and goes to San Francisco during the summer of love. The ending is very poor(father becomes a liberal and everybody is happy),but I let this slip away from my vote(the rest of the movie is very good!).
The performances by the actors are pretty good and the soundtrack of the movie is absolutely brilliant. All the main events of the sixties are in the movie,like the murders on JFK and Martin Luther King aswell as the big hippy protests,the summer of love and Woodstock! Look closely for Wavy"Woodstock Speaker"Gravy(What we have in mind is breakfast in bed for 400.000!) as a first aid employee at the Woodstock festival!
In the end,the 60's is a beautiful movie about a beautiful decade! 10/10

Power Rangers, the completely awful kid's show from the 1990s still continues to disturb young children with it's complete cheesiness, and awful settings.
This show was not entertainment, it was an excuse to teach children violence in showing kids how to fight one another in order to solve their differences.
The toys were further demonstration in how to promote a violent television show and such.
I have never been able to figure out what the purpose of this completely ridiculous show ever was.
As such, it remains one of the worst kids shows ever made.
This movie re-wrote film history in every way. No one cares what anyone thinks about this movie, because it transcends criticism. Every flaw in the movie is easily overcome by the many amazing things the movie has going for it. It is an extremely beautiful movie, and I doubt many of us will see anything like it again. I've seen it more times than I care to count, and I still become transfixed every time, with a feeling which is hard to describe. One for the ages.

What a poor image of Professional Police Officers is displayed on the Television in the watching of this alleged Reality show. One can only hope that the actual reasonable suspicion that leads to probable cause that leads to the totality of the circumstances involved to make a "stop" , then the "Pat Down" of the outside of one's Garment, then to be able to articulate why the officer went into someone's pocket and retrieved contraband, was cut out of the scenes, because if it wasn't, the arrest in most places are going to be tossed, should they even get passed a supervisor. A report of a warrant over the radio does not constitute the actual existence of the warrant unless the person dispatching has the original warrant in hand. If the dispatcher is reading from a computer printout, it is good enough for an arrest, but it does not necessarily mean the warrant is still in effect. Since I haven't seen a Dis-claimer from CBS (I may have missed it), CBS could be in trouble.
The story is quite original, but the movie is kinda slow building up to the point where they steal the cars. Its kinda nice though to watch them prepare the stealing too, but the actual stealing should've been more in picture... However the stunt work on this movie was excellent and it is definetly a movie you HAVE to see (7/10)

It utterly defeats me why Godard is taken so seriously - and One Plus One is a great example of his ineptitude as both a filmmaker and an 'intellectual' polemicist. It's hard to credit that Godard actually believed all that Marxist and Maoist kant. Anyone with half a brain could work out the bankruptcy of those 'isms' and how many people they had destroyed and were continuing to destroy even as Godard was making his films supporting them. As a filmmaker, ask yourself: would you have boring voice-overs reading tedious political diatribes at your audience, and then, when you couldn't think of anything else to do, layer another voice-over to the first voice-over, which had lost its listeners after the first 100 words in any case? Brilliant, Jean-Luc! As for Godard insisting on making a film with the Rolling Stones: of course he did; wouldn't you? It was the only guarantee of getting such mindless rubbish seen in the first place: the genius of the Stones eclipsing a talentless and babbling political idiot set loose with a camera. The bookshop scene wasn't worthy of even the worst fringe theatre, and was an insult to the intelligence of even the young children who were used to play in it - as could be readily seen. Copping-out by allowing friendly critics to claim that all this artless crap was a satire on mainstream film-making is no more than a safe get-out to offer those who clearly see Godard's poverty of intellect and arrogant contempt for his audience. Ironic that Godard's one-time great friend, Truffaut, with Nuit Americain, made the best film about film-making ever, and Godard made the worst with Le Mepris! Incidentally, Godard didn't choose the Stones' track of Sympathy With the Devil. It just happened to be the track they were working on when the 'film' started shooting at Barnes Olympic Studios.
Clint Eastwood reprises his role as Dirty Harry who this time is on the case of a vigilante (Sondra Locke)who is killing the people that raped her and her sister at a carnival many years ago. Eastwood makes the role his and the movie is mainly more action then talk, not that I'm complaining. Sudden Impact is indeed enjoyable entertainment.

Yes, about the only thing this film is memorable for is that it starred a youngish Tom Hanks who only a few short years later would be a relevant star in Hollywood. Here though is not a movie that is going to showcase his talents much at all and the only other thing that might be considered somewhat entertaining about this flick is the scene where he thinks he sees a monsters and runs a guy through. Yes, this movie is about the evils of playing a game that makes a group of people use their imaginations and try to come up with interesting scenarios. Basically, an after school type special about the evils of the game Dungeons and Dragons cleverly retitled here as Mazes and Monsters. Apparently, the makers of this film thought that nerds should not have fun of any sort unless they were going to go out and do underage drinking, drugs, having lots of unprotected sex and harass other weaker children like all the popular kids were doing. No, these bad people were playing a game that actually required one to use there brain, heaven's no! Not that, if they have a brain they actually may be able to think for themselves and not be brainwashed by certain groups out there. Yes, I think this movie is utterly stupid and a waste of time. Granted, it could be a movie against addiction, but there are a lot fewer people who died taking Dungeons and Dragons to far in its entire existence than than say what drunk driving claims in like a month.
Like "My Sassy Girl", this movie is based on a true story posted from the internet, but that's where the similarities end. The story is generally about this rebellious guy named Ji-Hoon (Kwon Sang Woo) who is still trying to finish high school, whose parents hire a tutor named Su-Wan (Kim Ha Neul), a woman who comes from a poor background, but happens to be the same age as him. Add to that some obstacles, martial arts (thugs are always after Ji-Hoon for revenge), a scorned, thuggish love-sick girl who is after him, his proclivity for ditching the lessons, and you generally can guess the whole story. Did I mention it's a romantic comedy? This movie has some good fight scenes, great visual humor and a lot of spunk, thanks to the good chemistry between Kim Ha Nuel and Kwon Sang Woo, that bring a lot of energy to the story. The romantic elements also work because of that reason. And, I must say, I'd want a girlfriend more like Kim Ha Nuel than that girl from "My Sassy Girl" (personality-wise, at least). She has some spunk, but it's more on the cute, sweet, good-hearted way. Characters are already mostly likable (so one might say it had less of a hill to climb than "My Sassy Girl"--an obstacle that worked for that movie to its credit), and the movie is quite clever and interesting most of the way. The story kind of sags, though, about 2/3 of the way (where it sort of treads on familiar, standard fare, where nothing really interesting happens), but near the end, it picks up a bit again. Overall, a fun, cute movie. 8/10

The Crater Lake Monster is easily one of the most awful, amateurish film I've ever seen - ranking right up there with Manos, the Hands of Fate in terms of poor acting, useless direction, and kindergarten-level production values. In this movie a silly-looking claymation/stop-motion animated dinosaur wakes up after a meteor hits a lake in Bumblebum, CA, and begins dining on the local hayseeds. In the thrilling climax, the creature, described by one local as "a giant alligator with flippers", drags it's ponderous bulk over the ground to chase its would-be lunch, before a bulldozer bumps it a couple of times & it dies from boredom. Every character in this moovie is a complete moron. One pointless subplot shows a hick go into a liquor store to purchase a $4.75 pint of Ripple; instead of simply buying the bottle, the idiot shoots the cashier and another bystander, shoots at a cop, gets chased towards the lake, all so that he can eaten by the monster. Unfortunate close-ups of the monster reveal it to be nothing more than a piece of styrofoam. There's a fake magician struggling with a phony British accent (to make him seem more legit), two overly-bumbling redneck boat renters, some cheesy "pre-historic cave art" done in crayon, and annoying banjo-pickin' background moosic. In one painful scene, the fake magician and his dopey wife/girlfriend/accomplice manage to pad the movie an extra 4 minutes by cowmenting on how may stars they can see in the night sky, even though it is clearly day time still. Even on constant fast-forward, this moovie hurts, and hurts bad. MooCow says call the fumigators, 'cause this cow pie really stinks! :=8P
Slow but beautifully-mounted story of the American revolution. Griffith's story-telling seems a lot less heavy-handed than in his earlier historical epics and his tableaux work is fully integrated into the action. Lionel Barrymore is an utter swine, Neil Hamilton is poor but dashing and Carol Dempster is.... well, Carol Dempster is most of what is wrong with Griffith in this period, but she doesn't show up often enough to slow the pace and drama.
Note that the trivia for this movie says it came in originally at slightly more than 2 hours when first released, but that no cut exists that runs longer than 90 minutes. However, the dvd release has been presented at a slower fps rate that increases the tension and brings it back to a bit over two hours.
Far better in terms of story-telling than sound versions, such as THE PATRIOT. While not quite in the league of Griffith's best, such as WAY DOWN EAST and BROKEN BLOSSOMS, an excellent way to spend a couple of hours.

I couldn't tell if "The Screaming Skull" was trying to be a Hitchcock rip off or a modernized Edgar Allen Poe tribute. These days, someone would have chopped it up a bit and presented it as one of those TV anthology episodes from the old "Tales From The Dark Side"...but only after an extensive rewrite.
The sad thing is, there seems to be a nice, nasty little story trying to get out from under the rubble of this movie, and the actors are obviously doing the best they can with both their talent and the material they have to work with. But the director just didn't know how to stage or pace a dramatic scene; the special effects simply didn't work; the screenplay telegraphed its threadbare plot points so plainly that a bivalve could have seen them coming; and the soundtrack kept playing German "oompah band" music when it was supposed to be trying to scare the audience.
They tried; they tried really hard. But this is of interest only as a period piece.I suppose someone very young who hadn't seen a lot of suspense or horror might get a charge out "The Screaming Skull", but someone that young probably wouldn't get most of the subtext or plot motivation. ("Mommy, why is that nice man trying to scare the twisty faced scaredy-cat lady??")
This is the second movie based on the life and times of ultra hung porn star, John Curtis Estes, better known as John Holmes. Boogie Nights is also roughly based on his life. Maybe someday someone is going to do a movie on the life of Tommy Byron instead.
The problem is, that the story is not very well told. There are many Law & Order episodes that have more twists and turns than Wonderland, and the director never gets the criminal case going with any kind of gusto. Val Kilmer has two problems - he is not nearly as hung as Holmes is (and no prosthesis this time around, unlike in Boogie Nights), and he is much better looking than mope Holmes.
The director does not introduce one single likable individual among the cast. The racist, immature lowlifes he hangs out with, or his wife, and the police don't get much in the way of characterization.
The best part of the movie is Eric Bogosian telling Paris Hilton to "get lost".
Having said all that, anyone interested in the sleaziest side of the porn business in the 1980s or true crime shouldn't miss it.

This was an impulse pick up for me from the local video store. Don't make the same mistake I did. This movie is tedious, unconvincingly acted, and generally boring. The dialogue between the young priest and his uncle is particularly poorly written and delivered; I cringed at every scene they shared. Dennis Hopper makes a few sparse appearances and is his usual disjointed self; his role was clearly not a stretch for him. And although the movie is supposedly set in Puerto Rico, it feels a lot more like a Hollywood movie lot; all of the main characters are Caucasian and several tend to speak English with pseudo-Irish accents. Odd. Anyway, when you see this one on the shelf of your local video store, keep walking.
Its time to pay tribute to the great Charton Heston after his recent passing but this film is not the one. His other films of a past generation were BEN HUR, THE TEN COMMANDENTS, OMEGA MAN and PLANET OF THE APES were his better works.
This film made in 1973 attempts to prophesies a future earth , in 2022, that is so overpopulated that the human race has been manipulated by authorities to eat a universally produced food product called "Soylent Green" which is manufactured with Human flesh. This bizarre and implausible film was as ridiculous at the time of its release as it is now and assumes India's population which would be about 2 billion by that stage would be then meat eaters without knowing it.
Charlton Heston's character this supers secret international conspiracy that world powers have concocted to meet the nutritional demands of overpopulation by using cannibalism.
Unfortunately for the producers of this film the Green message they deliver is not the Greens Party of today's ethos thank god. Cannibalism was practiced by the indigenous populations in New Zealand , Fiji and Borneo up until only 40 years before this film was made but has been long abandoned by human civilization.
Another silly prediction in the film is that women become quasi sex slaves turning back the tide of radical feminism which was on the rise in 1972 when this film was made.
The film was stupid then and is as silly now but does contain a very unmemorable last film performance by the late and great Edward G. Robinson but still no a valid reason to revisit the film other than for academic reasons.
This is a dud of a film and I wouldn't even recommend it to baby boomers or Charlton Heston fans. All the other reviews of this film I have read all sound the same referring to a dystopian society in the future of which the centralised theme only seems to involve the USA in which an ecological disaster has occurred.
The only merit in the film is that earth does face overpopulation.

The concept was ok but hardly original. The acting was plastic. But the real spoiler was that there was only one joke and a grubby one at that. This is a film for fourteen year olds who have been let out on their own for the first time. Don't dare to watch it with your kids.
William Powell is Philo Vance in "The Kennel Murder Case," a 1933 film also starring Mary Astor, Paul Cavanagh, Eugene Palette, Helen Vinson and Ralph Morgan. A dog show in which Philo has entered his Scottish terrier Captain serves as the background for a locked room mystery with too many suspects. The mystery is very clever and the denouement both complicated and interesting. Since the talkies are still quite young, the camera work is a little static, but Michael Curtiz does a good job directing the action.
The supporting cast is excellent; the entire cast brings the film up a notch. Lots of actors have played Philo Vance, including Paul Lukas, Basil Rathbone, Wilford Hyde-White, Edmund Lowe, James Stephenson, Alan Curtis, Warren William and others. Powell played it the most (five times) and is the best fit for the role - very relaxed but serious at the same time. This was made before "The Thin Man" catapulted him to big stardom - he had spent about 12 years in film by then, beginning his career on stage in 1912 at the age of 20. A remarkable man, a remarkable screen presence and a remarkable actor who lived to be nearly 92. We're so lucky to have his films available on DVD and on TCM today. "The Kennel Murder Case" is a great story and a fun film - don't miss it.

This movie was heavily marred by the presence of Steven Seagal. Or as I should say Steven So-dull! Like before Seagal is either too good or too stupid to re-dub his own lines, leaving someone to impersonate his voice for the shots where the sound needed to be looped. A few films before this was he has done this too, but I don't think to this extent! To be honest the film looks pretty good, the script could use some work but parts of this film looked like a real movie! Of course, all told, this film is pretty bad.
It would have been much better without Seagal who has become a cartoon of himself. Don't bother. Anything over a buck for this one is too much! I honestly think this is the last time for me and a Seagal film. What's taken me so long to realize this?!
Dick Tracy was originally a comic book created in 1931 by Chester Gould. He is a plainclothes detective who tracks down a crew of villains, ranging from all types of visually original characters such as Flattop to The Blank to Big Boy Caprice. (These villains became so popular in the 40's that Warner Bros. created their own take on the Tracy-style villains in such cartoons as Daffy Duck) Tracy's comics were known for their liberal use of gunplay and the up-to-date technology advances (notably the wristwatch communicator), which got their fair share of screen time on this excellent movie. The music was done wonderfully by Danny Elfman, and the original songs by Madonna were interesting, but they were not the high point for her career. It's weird because as you watch the film and see the suspenseful moments, the film feels so much like Batman because of Elfman's memorable sound to his pieces.
I love the tough-talking kid, Pacino's acting as Big Boy Caprice (and that chin!), Madonna's take on villainy, and the cinematography and directing were impeccable. This film was very professionally made and features tons of great actors who were known as great actors for a while before this film was made (Warren Beatty, Al Pacino, William Forsythe, Dustin Hoffman, Kathy Bates, Mandy Patinkin, Catherine O'Hara, Dick Van Dyke). The film was directed by Beatty himself, which was interesting. It is almost like Beatty saw himself as Tracy in a past life or something because he really fit the part.
I had to give this film an 8/10 for everything that it brought to cinema that got overlooked (for whatever reason). There have been tons of misunderstandings over the rating of this movie on IMDb, and I still don't understand why. The characters were completely original and vibrant, as was the style of the sets, wardrobe, lighting, and everything in this film. Go buy it today. You will not be sorry.

Well, not yet, at least.
It's not listed in the worst 100...
So let's all team up, and put it in it's rightful place.
This is truly a bad movie. (And I liked Ishtar!) ;)