Sachinkry/imdb-preference-10k huggingface dataset:
Go, Igor, go, you are the proof that Slovenian films may, should and must be different. There's soul in it, and this is rare. Don't let anybody put you down!

Celia Johnson is good as the Nurse. Michael Hordern is good as Capulet, though it's his usual neighing and whinnying and not a patch on his King Lear. John O'Conor reads the verse well as Friar Laurence though he never takes it anywhere. Alan Rickman is good as Tybalt, in the first of his "yuk" roles that would make him famous. Christopher Strauli's Benvolio is sympathetic.
The sets are pretty, if not stunning as in some of the other BBC Shakespeare's.
And that's it. The rest is weak to dreadful. Rebecca Saire turned 15 during production, and hasn't a clue about how to act Juliet - she opens her eyes real wide and whines every line in exactly the same way. Patrick Ryecart is poorly matched to her, and his self-regard is inexplicable. The Balcony Scene flows smoothly and uneventfully with zero emotional or erotic impact. Their deaths come as a relief. If I had a dagger, I would have offered it to them hours earlier.
Anthony Andrews is unspeakable as Mercutio, a great shock if you remember his fine work in "Brideshead Revisited." He breaks the mirror of Shakespeare's verse into a thousand shards of two or three words each, and then shouts the fragments in as disconnected and unintelligible manner as possible. In this production, Queen Mab abdicates. Awful.
The director, Alvin Rakoff, shows only an intermittent gift of putting the camera where it will show us what we want to see. The opening brawl is notably incoherent. However there is humor when in a later fight, Romeo apparently knees Tybalt right in the cobblers. Tybalt then grabs the offended region. However did that get through?
R&J is a long play. This version is not recommended for classroom use, or much else.
Simply the best Estonian film that I have ever seen, although it is made by a Finnish director Ilkka Järvi-Laturi. Tallin Pimeduses is an entertaining thriller about a bunch of gangsters who are trying to steal a huge amount of gold, a national treasure that belongs to the republic of Estonia. But at the same time it is some kind of a summary of the conditions of many Eastern European countries at that time. In the early 90s Soviet Union fell into pieces and many countries, such as Estonia, became independent. Now the conditions may be better in most of those countries. But in the beginning of the 90s many of those new nations had to fight against corruption and organized crime that the Soviet era had left them as inheritance. (And many of them still do...at least on some level...)
Tallinn Pimeduses is a very realistic film of that era with believable characters and with a well-written script. The actors are also very good, especially Jüri Järvet (perhaps the best known Estonian actor, plays Snaut in Tarkovski's Solaris), playing and old gangster who's slowly becoming tired of his way of life. But the most astonishing performance comes from Monika Mäger, a child-actor playing Terje, a boyish girl in her early teens, whose presence in the plot is quite essential. (and her name is not even mentioned in the IMDb-credit list!!!)w
There are not many films in the world that manage to be entertainment and artistic at the same time. But Tallinn Pimeduses does that. Unfortenately Järvi-Laturi's other films are far from this kind of achievements. His first one, Kotia päin was too artificial and his latest, History is Made at Night was just a weird mess.

This movie could have been great(cause its got a somewhat fascinating premise) but it never rises above sheer caricature. The acting is severely flawed and there were moments where i cringed so severely that i thought i was going to fall of my seat in the theater. Never and I mean never Watch this godawfull piece of .... Danish cinema has been getting a lot of good pr the recent years but if this piece of .... crosses the border I'm afraid nobody sane will ever want to rent a danish movie. This movie is the reason why i chose to register here. I really felt i needed to steer people away from this piece of .... my sympathies go out to the people who already went to the cinema to watch this
I loved that this film recognizes the intelligence of the viewer, allowing the layers to peel from the characters through their interactions with each other about the unspoken loss that has so affected each of them.
The cinematography is a beautiful, and is an inspired reflection of the vision of someone I believe is an extremely talented new filmmaker with the maturity and artistic insight to tell a story that others with much more experience have failed to accomplish. I see a bright future for this writer/producer/director who had the ability to focus on a goal and accomplish it with integrity.
Kudos for this achievement.

Being a Film studies graduate I would like to think that I have seen a diverse range of films, some good and some bad, but I would have to say that 'Summer rain' is by far the worse film I have ever seen! I chose the film in the hope that it was going to be a great British classic such as 'Secrets and Lies' or 'Lockstock' but oh no this was so bad that my flat mates and I ended up laughing and cringing at the ridiculous acting and cheesy script (reminded me of a bad 'theatre in education' school production). The main characters Michelle and Gary began to annoy us from the start. 'Michelle' the main character who lives with her two friends has the type of face that you would never get tired of slapping and Gary was so wet (he kept breaking down in tears every 5 minutes) that by the end of the film I really didn't give a damn about either of them. All I could think was ' I paid £3 for this pile'. I have never written a review before but after watching this film it has spurred me on to warn people of this disastrous production. So please avoid at all costs. Thanks for reading.
The autobiography on which this movie is based remains one of the most heart-rending books I have ever read. It tells the amazing stories of two sisters, both who earned devotion and respect working well into their 70's as a teacher and a dentist, then lived another 30 years with dignity. Ruby Dee steals the film with her perfectly nuanced performance as the rebellious "blacker" Bessie, the dentist. She not only expresses her anger, angst, and wisdom well; she lets you know exactly where they've come from using an economy of words. Diahnn Carroll has the feel of the older sister, the teacher, down perfectly, but I'm afraid she never makes me believe that she's over 100. No matter -- the stories are well worth telling. Amy Madigan is a bit too extreme and intrusive in acting overwhelmed and insecure in the first half of the movie as the Caucasian NY Times reporter. This, too, is only a minor distraction. The stories, all true, are the attraction and although two or three get slightly damaged in the translation, most of them make it through just fine.
I recommend the book as essential reading to all people I recommend any books to. I cannot quite but this TV-movie in that rarefied air, but it certainly captures enough of the flavor to be highly worthwhile in its own right.

As I write this review in 2008, we are mired in a remake culture. Movie studios seem determined to ruin as many classic films as they can with thoroughly pointless updates including 'King Kong, 'The Wicker Man' and practically every film that ever starred Michael Caine. This lazy remake mentality is not a new phenomenon, however, as 'Dough for the Do-Do' proves. An entirely pointless colorized version of Bob Clampett's surreal masterpiece 'Porky in Wackyland', 'Dough for the Do-Do' sucks the life out of the original by splashing colour all over Clampett's original footage and adding some lame new footage overseen by Friz Freleng. Freleng was an entirely unsuitable director to be tampering with Clampett's source material, although in truth no director could hope to come close to Clampett's inspired insanity. Inevitably, then, 'Dough for the Do-Do' is nothing more than the raping of a classic with an appalling new title attached. For cartoon fans like myself, its equivalent to a colorization of 'Casablanca'.
I just bought this movie on DVD and watched it for the first time the other night. I've been a fan of Tolkien's work for about 4 years now, ever since I got out of high school. I didn't grow up on this movie...perhaps my mother kept me away from it. It's definitely not for children. Not that it's bad in a graphic sense, but that the themes would go right over most 10 year olds heads. Overall, the animation was excellent considering this was made in 1978/1979. I thought the story followed the book fairly well in a loose sense. But I am bothered that Bashki didn't just add another 40 minutes or so and tack on the Return of the King parts. That would've made it the ultimate movie. I was bothered by it's abrupt end, and then when I heard Return of the King sucked, I was bothered even more. Too bad it wasn't one great animation film. It might have garnered a higher vote from me. I give it a 7. I can only hope Peter Jackson will do the books justice with the new live action LOTR.

Encouraged by the positive comments about this film on here I was looking forward to watching this film. Bad mistake. I've seen 950+ films and this is truly one of the worst of them - it's awful in almost every way: editing, pacing, storyline, 'acting,' soundtrack (the film's only song - a lame country tune - is played no less than four times). The film looks cheap and nasty and is boring in the extreme. Rarely have I been so happy to see the end credits of a film.
The only thing that prevents me giving this a 1-score is Harvey Keitel - while this is far from his best performance he at least seems to be making a bit of an effort. One for Keitel obsessives only.
Saw this a couple times on the Sundance Channel several years ago and received a nice cinematic jolt to the system. A semi-surreal yet hard edged take on modern media culture (or the lack of it), focusing on some seriously wacked, way-beyond-the-Hollywood-fringe dwellers. It had an amusing early performance from Mark Ruffalo, and some memorable cinematography from the DP who did the Polish Brothers movies. There was a savage umcompromising humor and a weirdly original feel to it that definitely set it apart. This film had cult classic written all over it, and I'm surprised it's not yet out on DVD.
Hopefully soon.

The best Laurel and Hardy shorts are filled to the brim with mishaps, accidents and destruction, mostly caused by Stan, but with Ollie receiving the bulk (!) of the punishment-- see the great 'The Music Box' (1933) or 'Towed in a Hole' (1932) as some some classic examples.
Here, however, for some reason (is it because it was based on a sketch by Stan's father?) the boys play it 'straight' in a 'comedy' built around jokes and supposedly funny situations. It doesn't come off. It's merely another third-rate tedious 30s comedy, heightened only by the personalities of Stan and Ollie who never really display any of their trademarked gestures (Ollie's finger wiggling, Stan's blank stares, etc.) or comic abilities.
The film begins with them running from the police. Since we never see or know why, it's hard to believe or accept their fear of being caught, and thus hiding in Colonel Buckshot's mansion. The premise for the 'humor', Ollie passing himself off as the Colonel and Stan passing himself off as both the butler and the maid are never very engaging. They are not playing 'Stan and Ollie' in this film. Their parts could have been played by any of the pedestrian studio actors and it would be just as poor.
Stan could mime and make whatever he would do funny, but he doesn't get the chance to do any of that here. He's constrained by uttering too much dialog to 'move' the plot, but none of it rises much above the silly. We are treated to endless third rate comedy chestnuts such as the running gag of not correctly pronouncing Lord Plumtree's name, the "Call me a cab! Okay you're a cab!" joke, cops losing their clothes and being seen in long johns, and a non-sequiter ending of Stan and Ollie as the two parts in a painfully obvious horse costume as they make their escape on a bicycle for two, and James Finlayson is still doing his silent-era full body takes and Keystone Kop jumping jacks.
Stan and Ollie do much better in a situation comedy in 'Sons of the Desert'(1933) where we get to see them do what we love about them -- be themselves. In fact, 1932-34 seem to be their best years.
Since this film does not play to any of their strengths, why bother with it? I have to give it a 3.
I've just watched Roll and what a pleasure it turned out to be. Toby Malone's performance really stood out, I found myself actually caring about what happens to Matt throughout the whole of the film, which itself is a lot of fun, very pacey with a good mix of well rounded characters, quite an achievement considering it's short running time. There are plenty of good twists throughout as well, it will keep you guessing until the end. Other characters to watch out for are the totally insane Tiny and the sneaky attractive Jesse. It may not have the huge budget of a Hollywood blockbuster but don't let that put you off, you could do a lot worse than checking this out, you won't regret it. Good Fun. 7/10

If Mr Cranky had rated this, I'd be tempted just to copy his review and paste it here. But as he hasn't, I'll have to give it a go myself.
The only thing giving this movie a 1 instead of a 0 is that Malcolm McDowall's acting is excellent. However not even he can save this film from disaster. The director must have been really distracted when he worked on this one because it is just a conglomeration of scenes that were thrown together with very little continuity - reminiscent of bad '70's movies. Even worse, both the actors and director appeared to be making it up as they went along which probably showed how bad the original script was.
It's not even worth discussing the story line although it revolves around a futuristic corporation called the Proxate Corporation who put together a crew of dispensable people to carry a dangerous cargo on an old container/slave ship to Nigeria. This ship's computer is a baby kept in a glass jar and wired into one of the crew via USB 12 or something. The company should have been called the Prostate Corporation as the entertainment value of this movie is on a par with an examination of the same name.
I honestly can't find one scene that I could say was well made and made any real sense in the context of the movie. I only watched it to the end as I had a touch of the bird flu and this movie reminded me that there were people out there who were actually worse off than me - Malcolm McDowall in particular. I won't hold this against him as he's a great actor and every great actor is entitled to one bad movie in their career and this one is a doosie.
So, unless this is the only movie your shop hires out or you're male and you're doctor isn't doing prostate examinations this week and you somehow feel this is a bad thing then give this one a really wide berth unless of course if you're really community minded, buy a copy to support Malcolm and then use it as a drink coaster.
Raggedy Ann & Andy is the first movie I ever saw in the theaters. My dad took my sister and I, and the funny thing is - when we got home, dad asked us "what do you want to do now?" and we said we want to watch Raggedy Ann & Andy again! lol, and my dad actually took us back to the theatre to watch it again -- at least that's how I remember it. I was five years old at the time.
This movie was pretty scary for a five year old. The scene with the giant ocean of sweets, and the hypnotic camel scene.. i don't remember a lot from this film, naturally, the beginning was magical, and a few scenes -- I wish I could find it again, and will likely seek it out now.
I remember I loved Raggedy Ann & Andy.

Before I start...let me say that I fully believe in God. I believe in Heaven and in Hell. Kay now that thats out of the way, I just wanna say that What in the world do these morons that call themselves "hosts" think they are doing?? The last time I checked a host doesn't discriminate, spew hatred filled rants on TV, or try to shove their own beliefs down every unfortunate soul that ventures onto the channel. ALl of these that crazy, idiotic, conservitive, bible thumping, Fred Phelps lover Pat Robertson does daily. I am all for free speech, but since when does that cover a guy who pretty much says that if you venture off his ideal way of life you are right away sent to hell? This is just a perfect example of why religion is the cause of SOOOO many problems. One day in my class room we had a substitute teacher in so we decided to watch some TV since the teach didn't give us any work. And we (against many of us's will) watched 700's Club, and of course that jerk Pat was on ranting and raving about the bible, and he said Simon along the lines of "God says Homosexuality is a sin" and I actually heard a kid go "Hmm I guess he's right." WTF??? Seriously, if the host is trying to make people think that someone else's sexual orientation is a huge sin, then they seriously need to take that host, duct tape them, and throw them off of a cruise liner in the middle of the arctic.
This group of English pros are a pleasure to watch. The supporting cast could form a series of their own. It's a seen before love tiangle between the head of surgery, his wife, and a new pretty boy surgery resident. Only the superior acting skills of Francesca Annis, Michael Kitchen, and the sexy Robson Greene lift this from the trash category to a very enjoyable "romp". The only quibble is that it's hard to accept that the smoldering Francesca Annis would fall in love and actually marry Michael Kitchen, who like me, is hardly an international, or even a British sex symbol. You can readily understand why Robson Green would light her fire, with apologies to the "Doors". The guy who almost steals the show with a great "laid back" performance is Owen's father David Bradley. Watch him in "The Way We Live Now", in a completely different performance, to get an idea of his range. Daniela Nardini as Kitchen's secretary, sometime sex toy, is hard to forget as the spurned mistress who makes Kitchen sorry he ever looked at her great body. Conor Mullen, and Julian Rhind-Tutt, as Green's sidekick surgery buddies as I've said could have their own series. They are that good. The whole thing is a great deal of fun, and I heartily recommend it, and thank you imdbman for letting the paying customers have their say in this fascinating venue.

While watching the film, I'm not sure what direstion it was to take. There's a reason a writer shouldn't direct his work and even act in it as well, you can't do it all. I felt the story really suffered in this film due to the director wearing so many hats. Ms. McTeer is the film. To add to her amazing talents, her portrayal of this woman was why I was engaged. Here is a British actress who can do anything. In my view, conflict is what makes drama and a great story. I felt this film didn't have that. Everything was somewhat easy for the characters, there were no real obstacles preventing the chahracters from getting what they wanted. Watch the film for the sweetness, but most of all for Ms. McTeer's brilliant performance.
I for one have shamelessly enjoyed every episode of Pushing Daisies this season, and hope that the writers' strike won't brutally end the beginnings of a very good show. Ned is a pie maker who owns a restaurant in the middle of town and has a secret talent. Emmerson is a private investigator with his own unique quirks like his love of knitting. Charlotte (Chuck) is the once-dead-but-not-anymore childhood friend and sunny spot of Ned's life. Olive is the jealous but good-hearted waitress. Oh, and add the dog. Jim Dale brings all the characters together with his wonderful narration of the show. Chuck, Ned, and Emmerson along with Olive and occasionally the dog solve multiple murder mysteries with the assistance of Ned's special gift of bringing dead people back to life. The show is funny, clean, and romantic in a very cute and good-hearted way, and I'd recommend it to anyone.

I'll give this movie two stars because it teems with beautiful photography. Otherwise, it teems mainly with clichés and stereotypes: mountain people are either dumb white trash of the fanatically religious or ragged racist kind, or wise white Indians. Indians are magical people who move around without a sound, can disappear in the blink of an eye, talk to animals, and read minds over large distances. And so on and so forth.
Throughout the movie I kept wondering what the point of the film was (other than showing me pretty pictures of mountains, log cabins, woods, an assortment of animals, free-spirited mountain-dwellers and freaky people in church).
The plot touched a whole range of issues but explored none of them in depth. This was neither a story about growing up during the depression, nor about about being an orphan, nor about a struggle for identity. It tried to be all of those things and more, which made it superficial and unsatisfactory.
Although the movie was supposed to be about Little Tree's education, we learn almost nothing about it. He was given a brief summary of the history of his people (who were brave and stoic) and a distillery demonstration; tried his hand at chopping wood (at which he failed) and whiskey running (literally); learned how to read (and maybe to write) with the help of grandma and her dictionary - and that was it. Apparently he didn't learn much during his stint in boarding school because he was locked up in the attic.
However, grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character made sure that in the end Little Tree became a very spiritual person whose main goal as an adult - after, and I'm paraphrasing here, "riding with the Navajos" and "getting caught up in a couple of wars" - was to "catch up" with grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character in heaven (instead of, say, dating girls, getting married, having children or other such nonsense).
Last but not least I must say that I found grandpa's trade offensive. Why of all things did it have to be a whiskey still? To counteract the stereotype of the "drunken Indian"?