empathielabs/imbd_dataset_v0 huggingface dataset:
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Spin-offs, for somebody who don't know, are not usually successful because most of the original characters are absent.
Here they are and you couldn't ask for a better ensemble in what is essentially a silly little cartoon, not meant to do anything but entertain.
J. P. Manoux, replacing David Spade, does an admirable job of retaining Kuzco's ego and yet not seem as annoying as Spade's character (a character Spade has done for decades and gets on one's nerves after a while). He has a softer voice but it fits somehow.
Eartha Kitt, reprising her part as Yzma, is brilliant. She hasn't really been given much accolades since her turn as Batwoman centuries ago, except maybe for her vile part in Boomerang. It's funny how much the character looks like her, though.
And Patrick Warburton. There is no way that he can't be funny, except when he was thoroughly wasted in Men in Black 2. I have been a fan of his since Seinfeld but unlike that character, he plays a genuine likable guy who is sucked into doing not so nice things.
The animation is really beautiful as all Disney usually is but sometimes the character design is a little too sugarcoated. Oh, well. Two out of three ain't bad.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
It helps that the characters this show is based on are among the best Disney has ever come up with. The writing is what really makes this show. It's a total classic. Given, you need to appreciate the type of humor to enjoy it, and this is hard to explain. The humor is akin to the old school scenarios of 40's and 50's Disney, with modern spins. It never degrades into fart jokes or anything of that type. It's not adam sandler humor either, though I have enjoyed that. It is the exact same humor of the movie, only expanded upon for the length of time a TV show permits. So if you didn't like it in the movie, you won't like it here, but IMO The emperors new groove was the best thing to come out of Disney since Gargoyles.
A+


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The new voices scare me! Kuzco doesn't have to pass some frickkin' academy to become emperor again! It's the same thing over and over, isn't it? This IS a kids' show, right? Yzma turns Kuzco into something stupid, like an animal. He learns a lesson. EVERYTHING IS THE SAME!!!!! David Spade and John Goodman never returned... *sniffle*! Nothing changes 'cause Disney won't do anything 'bout it. It's probably one of the most retarded shows ever! The first movie was so damn better! Malina's probably the only person I like. Kuzco's such a crybaby! Kronk is retarded! And Yzma's retarded-ER (if that's even a word)! What I meant to say is... How could you, Disney... why?


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Forever strong is one of those sports movies you can actually watch. It reminded me a lot of Remember the Titans because it included comedy, sadness, and just awesomeness. I saw it at a pre-screening and all my friends liked it and easily put it in their top 2 sport movies. The acting is great in the movie. Even though it is similar to Remember the Titans it there is something very unique about this movie. I feel this is definitely Oscar worthy and will receive many awards. Everybody should definitely go see this movie and it is worth your $10. I'm going to have to see it again when it comes out because it was that good. I cant say one bad thing about the movie.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Like most sports movies which have come out in the past, this movie is similar in respects, that it is based on fact. What sets this movie apart is that its about a rugby team, a sport that not too many Americans are familiar with. Set that aside, this movie is very rewarding piece of film noir. It reminds me of "We Are Marshall" , but with a smaller budget and an independent movie feel. Its a fine effort by director Ryan Little to bring us a story about a rebellious teen played by Sean Farris (Never Back Down), as Rick Penning that finds himself in an odd place, both on and off the field. Despite a few plot lines holes, this film has heart, rewarding each of its viewers with good characters that we can identify with. Also good performances by supporting actors Gary Cole as coach Larry Gelwix & Neal McDonough as coach Penning(Ricks dad). I felt myself go through a lot of different emotions watching movie, in the end I was left with a feeling of faith in mankind & a hope for the future for my children, especially if there are coaches out there like Gelwix.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
First of all, I know almost nothing about rugby, so although I found the rugby-aspect of this movie to be interesting it could have been any sport and I think I would have enjoyed it just as much. The fact that it as about rugby didn't make it any better or worse for me.
What made this movie great is the story itself, based on actual events that have occurred over the last 30 years with the Highland Rugby club. Coach Gelwix is the kind of coach that most every parent would like their children to have, someone who cares more about the person than the sport (even though they have won 17 national championships and have only lost 9 games in over 30 years!). The more I have learned about the coach and team the more I like this movie and its message.
I have seen other sports movies that seemed great at first, but then I researched the details only to find that most of those movies were 10% fact and 90% fiction, with the 10% of facts being greatly exaggerated. Not so with Forever Strong. It may seem too good to be true, but that's what's so amazing about it. If it were fiction it would just be an enjoyable story and nothing more. Instead, the movie is inspirational and makes you want to be a better person.
Don't miss this movie because of a few negative reviews by professional critics. I have been reading some of their reviews and most of them have given the movie horrible reviews. These are generally the same critics who rave about movies that most people hate. In fact, I would be worried if some of these critics had given the movie good reviews because I almost always disagree with their opinions.
Go see this movie and post your review (positive or negative)! Currently most of the audience reviews are enthusiastically positive (here and on Rotten Tomatoes and similar sites), and I am interested to see if this trend continues. Thanks!


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Now before people start having a breakdown about this movie (those who play rugby anyway) this is a film! It's been given the Hollywood treatment to entertain people and therefore those who play rugby (myself included) are naturally gonna pick holes in the choreography of the game in the film. Althogether it is a decent film and bring to the attention the morals and ideas behind the game of rugby.
The film is based on a real team, a real coach and his work helping guide kids in the right direction to be better people in the future, and also is based on real people who have played for the highland team. Its just a typical sports movie with a character who is misguided and eventually finds his way on the right track again through the rugby medium in this case. Is generally a feel good movie that is enjoyable but has flaws in terms of it's portrayal of the game. however, like i said it is a film under the Hollywood treatment.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I just watched it last night and it was great.I can see why some ppl have ill feelings towards it from a rugby fan and maori culture point of view but other than that I have no idea what's so negative about it. The movie is great. It has a lot of heart. Very inspiring and encouraging to all ages. Great family movie! They did a pretty good job considering that it was a budget movie. I love movies based on true stories/events. I was raised around rugby all my life, it is a great game but I was never really taken to it because (please forgive me if I offend anyone, nothing personal this is just how I saw it) I thought, their trainings are not as ruthless or hard, the players are not as disciplined and don't seemed as serious like other sportmen and it looked like it's all just muscle and blooming tackling each other etc. But after watching Forever strong, I was like, wow! I was proud! It did good things for rugby (well it changed my view of rugby) and also the New Zealnd Haka. I actually cried. I am not even New Zealander and I was proud of their culture. Didn't even know what the chant meant until this movie. The movie is NOT about rugby techniques or rugby, it's not even about New Zealand All Blacks or the Haka or etc......Mother of pearls!!!!! hahaha SHUX!
So to all you beautiful negative ppl, You are missing the point! I am sure if they had the means, it would have been better, the haka is in there because that was part of Highland Rugby culture, tradition or what ever you want to call it.
So any new members on this site such as myself, please don't be put off by those negative comments. See it for yourself! Must see movie! There is a lot you can learn from this movie, ppl of all ages. It definitely makes you want to be a better person and be humble! This movie reminded me of a lot of things that I already know and was raised with but I kinda lost along the way! Loved it! Happy reading ppls and All the best!
Muawha!


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I think a several of America's baseball movies are among the best movies ever made. When this movie was in production and heard it described as a rugby movie. I'd read about the Highland team in the newspapers, but didn't have high expectations for this film about a sport that didn't interest me.
Last night I viewed it "on-demand" and loved it almost as much as my favorite baseball movies. Ryan Little and the cast and crew did an amazing job. Neil McDonough was especially convincing. As the "bad dad" he displayed fine range and a subtle, but moving character arc.
I also enjoyed the Pacific Islander actors. I've been fortunate to know many of these fine people and this film captures their wonderful spirit and culture. A flashback showing how the Islander culture became such a key element of Highland's team would have been a excellent addition to the film.
Some pretty tacky movies have been shot in Utah recently. It's good to see a quality film like this from the Beehive State.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie has made me a rugby -- and Coach Larry Gelwix -- fan. The story's characters slipped and fell before they begin to grow as they struggled through incredibly strong conflicts. Those were understandable and completely believable. Like life, there were no easy answers for the problems facing them all. Superb actors and an excellent script brought this true story to life. I wish there were more movies like this one. These days, I watch almost exclusively, worthwhile true stories because they are typically far more interesting than fiction. Additionally, this one is inspirational and it teaches us to not to give up on anyone too quickly.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
A very positive message for our youth is shown in this movie. Through the sport of rugby as a mean, a High School rugby coach leads his players in their behavior and lifestyle, ON and OFF the field.
The acting and directing are good. The rugby shots are just OK if you know some rugby or really cool if don't know much about it.
I recommend this movie, worth watching, especially at a point in time when this sport is gaining more and more adepts every day.
The plot is based on a true story taking place in Utah. The coach portrayed in this movie has been at the helm of the Highlanders for over 30 years (and loosing only game every 3 years).
Enjoy!


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
My family truly enjoyed this movie. As far as what this movie will do for Rugby in the USA...well I am sure that will be debatable. But as for me and others around me, I know that we were more curious about the sport after seeing the movie and I personally gained more respect for the game. You may wonder how this possible, especially since the movie does not dive in and explain Rugby. But the simple fact is it drew you into the players and emotion of the game and life. The film was inspirational as well as entertaining. It made us laugh and cry. The chemistry between Sean Astin, Big Budah and Sean Faris worked well. Some may think the movie is a little cliché, but I seriously wish Hollywood made more movies like this. I couldn't help drawing analogies of the game and life's struggles. At the end of it I found myself examining my own life to see what I needed to do better, in order to be the best person I could be. Honestly I was grateful this movie taught morals, values and teamwork, there is so much to the contrary. After watching this I really hope my kids are coached by someone who has a philosophy like Coach Gelwix.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I wanted to see this movie ever since the previews came out. I don't understand why everyone is so hard on this film. It may not all be technically true to the sport of rugby, but this film is not mainly about the sport. It's about a rugby team that is taught how to be more than the world expects of them. They are taught to become men, and not temporally vain boys. Hollywood is never 100% correct in their productions. They are there to make a product that sells. Something entertaining. The story of Coach Gelwix and what he has taught over the years is simply amazing. He teaches about service, honor, integrity, and moral cleanliness. How many other movies are teaching that to our youth these days? I was proud to see such an amazing story that taught reverence and respect.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I wonder how someone could diss on this movie. It is based on an actual story. It is not necessarily about "Rugby" itself so to the one that posted on here that they need to make a "real" rugby movie, you missed the point. This is not another typical sports movie where a team sucks, they hire Emilio Estevez and turn the team around and win the championship and give everyone the warm and fuzzies. It focuses on a STORY. It shows how someone can change his or her life for the better. The movies now days are all about sex, drugs, partying etc. That is Hollywood. I am a big fan of movies, but I have to say this was an inspirational movie with a great message. If you consider yourself a "tough guy" don't watch the movie, it won't live up to your standards. If you want to watch a good, inspirational movie, this is a good one.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I am huge movie enthusiast and also an active rugby player who believes that rugby is the greatest game ever played. Forever Strong is a mix of Coach Carter and sloppy rugby. This movie is full of great acting, well developed characters and in action shots that will have you ducking and dodging in your seat, but with more arm tackles than pee wee football and almost every shot cuts away as soon as a player touches the ground its filmed to almost seem like football. If you want to bring your kids to see a movie that will build character from within and could inspire a blind man to see again I can easily give it 9 out of 10, if you want to see a great rugby movie that truly shows the sport your going to have to wait for the next one because Forever Strong is mostly practice, running, and a one ruck film, for this I give it a 7.75 out of 10.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The movie forever strong will never be nominated for an Oscar, it will never be nominated for best acting, for best motion picture. But this movie does have things that other movies don't. In a nation with so much scandal, so many problems, movies being poured out with little thought to the morals of society, at least this movie promotes good. What is wrong with standing behind something that promotes happiness? We should support movies that tell our American teens that there is more to life than sex drugs and alcohol. As for this Haka debate as previously stated, the Hakka is not exclusive to the New Zealand All Blacks, various Utah high school football teams and colleges perform this ritual before games. Including Hawaii, BYU, etc.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Like most sports movies, it's not surprising that people who know something about the sport can find flaws in it. As a soccer referee, I have yet to see a movie or TV show get it right when depicting a match. "Forever" has good actors, but I found Sean Astin to be a bit young to be an administrator in a juvenile jail. I was very thankful that the plot did not involve the lead character turning his fellow inmates into rugby players and taking on Flagstaff as well as Highland. Which gets to credulity: a police squad car just happens to pull up at precisely the time the Flagstaff baddies are hazing Rick Penning. Even though rugby is not a sanctioned high school sport nationally, the team is a school-based club sport -- much like rodeo. That said, I find it hard to believe that high school officials would allow students to play with open wounds: That just isn't done in this day of AIDS and Hepatitis. I don't care what the tradition and macho image is. Despite that, it was a cool movie in that teens were expected to act like adults (and sometimes actually did). Sadly, far too many coaches are like Flagstaff's -- or worse.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Young Warriors (1983)
While this is a deeply flawed (and in some ways idiotic) movie, the way it continually defies expectations makes it decent viewing for the adventurous sleaze fan.
Meet yuppie college student Kevin and his gang of lovable frat boy buddies. In what starts out as a particularly egregious teen sex comedy, we follow this bunch of jerk-offs and their antics, which involve, among other things, making pledges tie bricks to their genitals. The movie abruptly shifts gears when Kevin's high school freshman sister is brutally raped and beaten into a coma by a gang of bikers who apparently have nothing better to do. When she dies in the hospital, Kevin vows revenge, much to the chagrin of his detective father.
So far, we've gone from Porky's-lite, through Last House On The Left territory, into what is apparently shaping up to be your typical urban vigilante revenge flick. However, Kevin and his gang's portrayal goes from vaguely sympathetic until they become kill-crazed lunatics. It's to the film's credit that it doesn't glamorize the fascist anti-crime rhetoric that Kevin continually spouts, while still making it understandable that he would feel the way he does.
The mood goes from lighthearted to grimy and downbeat very quickly, and by the end it's so over the top and exploitative that it'll leave you incredulous. And that's the strength of this film. You never know what to expect next.
At over 100 minutes, it's a little lengthy for this kind of fare, but you won't get bored. Poorly acted for the most part, with cardboard cutouts for characters and some particularly ludicrous situations and rather stupid dialogue, this won't be topping anyone's list of forgotten classics anytime soon. I got a kick out of it though, and I'm sure anyone reading this knows if they're up for it.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie starts off as a college T'n'A flick, but turns pretty ugly after the main character's sister is gang raped by a biker gang driving a van. It has a pretty good pace, and James Van Patten does a pretty good job in this Cannon tax write-off movie. This was the first movie I ever saw at the Parkway Drive-in, here in Toronto. The main feature was "Alphabet City", and "Young Warriors was the added feature. Out of the 2 movies, "Young Warriors" was by far more entertaining and memorable. If you are a fan of blow 'em up, excessively violent movies, this one would make a great addition to any collection.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I caught this a few times on TV in the late 1970s. It only played late at night (past midnight).
Peter Lorre plays a kind, happy man whose face is disfigured in a fire. He is rejected by his girlfriend and left alone and filled with despair. He turns to a life of crime and eventually becomes very successful. He makes a mask to hide his disfigured features and falls in love with a beautiful girl (Evelyn Keyes)...who is blind! He tries to go straight for her...but he can't escape his life of crime or his hatred of his own scarred face.
A no budget B film. Very short (runs only a little over an hour) but well made and superbly acted by Lorre. This has a lot more depth than you would expect from a quickie B picture. Ankers especially takes the thankless "girl" role and makes her character fresh and appealing. This has sadly disappeared from TV and was never put on video or DVD (as far as I know). TCM did show it recently and it was great to see the movie still holds up.
Highly recommended.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Peter Lorre turns in one of his finest performances as a Hungarian watchmaker coming to the United Staes to make a new life for himself and someday bring his girl across the big pond to be with him. Lorre's infectious optimism and bright outlook come off very effectively which makes the performance all the better when he has his face hideously burned in a hotel fire and, when no one will give him a chance to work, turns reluctantly to a life of crime. Lorre's range as an actor is seldom as apparent as in this movie with his jovial, good-natured immigrant, to his depressing, melancholic, disfigured self searching for the truth behind what he believed America afforded him, to his suave, intelligent, better-than-your-average hood, to his sympathetic dealings with a blind woman with whom he falls in love. The story is well-paced, has some interesting twists, and gives Lorre many opportunities to shine. Director Robert Florey does a quality job behind the lens, and all of the supporting cast help aid the film with Evelyn Keyes giving a particularly good turn as the blind girl. I loved the ending - and the truth - that was shone to exist in Lorre's character despite all the negative things society had done toward him. For a little B picture, The Man Behind the Mask is good movie-making for its time.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This film stars Peter Lorre as an exceptionally nice guy who immigrates to America. Unfortunately, shortly after his arrival, he's in a horrible fire and his face is horribly burned. Because he looks so awful, no one wants to hire him and out of sheer desperation, he resorts to a life of crime in order to earn the money needed to buy a mask to hide his ugliness. Where exactly the film goes from there, you'll just need to see for yourself.
I scored this movie an 8 because, for the money spent to make it, it's a heck of a good film with a lot of good twists in the plot to keep it interesting. The film could have degenerated into a simple horror or crime film, but it goes far beyond this an offers some genuine surprises. In addition, the excellent acting by Lorre shows that he was capable of more than just supporting roles. This is an excellent film and delivers more than most "A-pictures" of the day.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This film grabs you from the opening scenes and never lets go. You watch indulgently upon viewing Janos Szaby's excitement over coming to America. He's a likable fellow. You cannot help being fond of him even when his eagerness is replaced by bitterness as his fortunes turn. You know that in his circumstances,you would be forced to make the same choices he does to survive. This movie comments on society's worship of beauty and all things superficial and is only more true in the culture of the twenty-first century. Janos himself becomes victim to this philosophy when he tells his blind girlfriend "you're young and beautiful; if you could see, you would have the world." And like many a modern gangster movie, when her safety is threatened, he extracts a powerful revenge. His innocence is not altogether lost however for he demands an equally high price of himself, knowing he deserves his fate.
Peter Lorre is in fine form in this starring role. Only a few actors could convincingly accomplish this character's transformation from innocent to embittered criminal in sixty nine minutes. Lorre is well supported by all the cast making this a real ensemble picture and not just a vehicle for one star. With a bit less preachy dialogue, this movie would be a 10. Highly recommended.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Mike Nichols in finest form. I was not a fan of "Closer", so it's refreshing to see him again right back on top with this comedy set in the darkest of circumstances. Just one slip in tone could have wrecked this compelling picture but Nichols and his very strong A-list cast never put a foot wrong in this biopic of a deeply flawed but utterly compelling Congressman.
Philip Seymour Hoffman as usual is scintillating and brilliant - here playing a damaged but ultra-smart CIA manipulator, and it is in the exchanges between Hanks and Hoffman's characters where the comedy soars. Rarely is movie humour laugh-out loud and also smart... This hits the spot time after time with a biting satirical edge that makes you both laugh and weep at the state of the world (often simultaneously).
One other major plus is the length of the picture. The film is based on George Crile's fat book of the same title. The temptation for screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (his claim to fame is "The West Wing") must have been to make a fat movie, but what we get is a breath-taking 90 odd minutes of great story with sweeping implications.
This film deserves to be seen and to be recognized for finding an extraordinary balance between the darkest of dark subject matter and the lightness of touch of it's sparkling witty script - even if it does flunk the obvious link between the help that Herring and Wilson provide and the ultimate consequences (9/11).


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Told in flashback, the film opens in 1989 with Charlie being given award for his role in the defeat of Communism. I must admit my heart sank as at the thought of have to endure yet another earnest, somewhat boring and overlong life story. How wrong was I, because that short scene is as close as the film ever gets to boring.
The film is full of entertaining & amusing set ups and cracking dialogue in some of the most unexpected places. The next scene after the Awards ceremony is Charlie in a Hot-Tub with some naked women and a guy trying to get him to invest in a TV programme. Another rather amusing scene is about 3 quarters into the film comprises Charlie, a group of his rather sexy Secretaries, Phillip Seymour Hoffmans CIA Man and a bottle of Whisky. As to dialogue what about this for a line, "The Senator says, He can teach us to type but can't teach us to grow Tits.". OK, School-boyish I know but the film is laced with great lines.
As to performances well Phillip Seymour Hoffman as usual steals every scene he's in. Hanks is OK but surprisingly to me anyway was Julia Roberts who is very good in the role of a rather eccentric Texas Oil Millionairess.
Charlie Wilson's War is one of the best non Musician Bio-pics in a long while as well as being that rare thing a film that entertains, amuses as well as informs all in equal measure.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I like Tom Hanks, and he is one of few actors who will draw me into the theatre regardless of any misgivings I may have concerning the film. I worried about Mr. Hanks return to "light comedy" as this is the arena where he made the transition from TV to film- remember "Big"? Well, "Charlie Wilson's War" is not light comedy. It is political satire, and extremely well-written political satire at that. The script is the star of this film, and the word-smithing by Aaron Sorkin is some of the best on offer this year.
Mike Nicols holds the entire escapade together, delivering a film that zips along in a very quick 90 minutes (timing is everything in comedy, and nothing is ever funny if it drags). Nicols' choice in sets and lighting are also very reminiscent of '70's and '80's TV, a move used deliberately to root the piece in period.
The return to the use of model work and stock photography over digital special effects also enhances the retro look and believability. Note to the production designers in your choice of stock footage: I know the difference between an F-16 and a MiG, and a Bell and a Hind. But that may have been part of the joke, too.
I saw this film in Philadelphia. It was interesting to watch and listen to the audience NOT get the historical references to their own history. History tends to repeat because the recidivists have forgotten what happened the first time around.
Kudos to both Mr. Hanks and that chameleon Phillip Seymore Hoffman. Sorkin's script is brought to life by these actors, and the entire production team is on the top of their game.
Heartily recommended.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I quit watching "The West Wing" after Aaron Sorkin quit writing and producing. It just wasn't the same. Imagine my thrill at seeing a film that he wrote again. It has been a long time - The American President, A Few Good Men. His script was a beautiful blend of humor and tragedy. He made a compelling story believable, and made me weep at the same time.
Tom Hanks was incredible as a small-time Texas Congressman whose constituents only wanted lower taxes and to keep their guns. Not a hard job, so he had plenty of time to fool around - and that he did. His office staff looked as if he were at the Playboy Mansion. Like he reportedly said, "You can teach them to type, but you can't teach them to grow tits." Despite his sexist attitude, which fits right in with a Texas Congressman, they were fiercely loyal, especially his aide, Amy Adams (Junebug & former Hooters girl).
Now, add a rich Texas socialite who wants something done in Afghanistan, played perfectly by Julia Roberts; and a pain-in-his-boss's-ass CIA agent, superbly done by Philip Seymour Hoffman, and you have a movie well worth watching.
Outstanding writing, and superlative acting, and a story that needed to be told. What more do you want at the movies?


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
In one of the better movies of the year, Tom Hanks stars as Congressman Charlie Wilson in this sardonically funny and extremely relevant (given reasonably current events) historical comedy-drama surrounding the 1980s Afghan/Soviet fiasco. The Soviets were attacking Afghanistan killing hundreds of people. Why should anyone care? People are dying, right? No, the reason the United States got involved through Charlie Wilson was because the Afghans, in fear they would get blown to sh_t, started illegally coming into Pakistan which in turn p_ssed Pakistani President Mohammad Zia ul-Haq off. Charlie Wilson in an effort to fix this situation teamed up with the sixth richest woman and religious fanatic in Texas, Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts) and a amusing and robust American spy for the CIA, Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) to help supply Afghans with high-tech weapons to destroy Soviet fight air-craft that would try and attack their land.
Although certainly not a serious Oscar contender for Best Picture, 'Charlie Wilson's War' is probably one of the best of the many political films of the year. Academy Award Winner Mike Nichols provides solid directing as to be expected while Emmy Award Winner Aaron Sorkin (Sport's Night, The West Wing) provides a remarkable screenplay that near-flawlessly balances comedy and drama. The acting is great for the most part as well. Tom Hanks delivers his best and most enjoyable performance since his 2000 Oscar-nominated turn as a FedEx worker stranded on a tropical island in 'Cast Away'. Hanks takes a slimy character like Wilson and with his trademark charm turns him into a likable guy. Amy Adams and Ned Beatty are reliable as always, but the real stand-out performance of the film is from Philip Seymour Hoffman. Arguably the finest actor working in the film industry today, Hoffman takes a small supporting role and upstages everyone around him. From his first scene where he's screaming at his boss before violently breaking his window, Hoffman sucks you in. The only disappointing cast member is unsurprisingly overrated Hollywood starlet Julia Roberts. Hamming her way through yet another movie, Roberts' overbearing and over-the-top portrayal of a rich Texas oil woman hits all the wrong notes and is at most times flat-out annoying. At 97 minutes, the movie is short and sweet, and that isn't to say it doesn't drag at some points but when it does drag it's for a very brief amount of time.
In conclusion, 'Charlie Wilson's War' is not a perfect film by any means, but it's certainly worth a look. Grade: B+


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Aaron Sorking raises the same questions as Shakespeare did or does. How could they possibly know so much about the inner workings of palace life. Here like in The West Wing, Sorkin opens surprising doors that are hardly a shock but seem ton confirm our worst fears. Everything is so casual and at the same time so directly responsible for so many people's lives. A puffy Tom Hanks tells us one way or another that things can be manipulated with semi pure intentions but without weighing the consequences and Julia Roberts in a blond southern hairdo reminds us of the powers harbored in the sidelines. The subject is serious but the treatment is light, intelligent but light. Philip Seymour Hoffman, as the invisible middle man, steals every scene he is in, just like Charles Laughton did in every movie he was in.The dialogue is fast but not fast enough for us not to catch up and discover that this is not an ordinary comedy. The seemingly casual pace filled with strokes of wit and provocation grants another badge of honor in the Mike Nichol's collection.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Nice to see a comedy for grown ups. Masterfully structured by Aaron Sorkin via Mike Nichols's own mastery. Mr Nichol's mastery is to present characters in all their shocking truth, from the sad and riveting Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in "Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf" to the sad and riveting Julia Roberts, Clive Owen, Jude Law and Natalie Portman in "Closer". In "Charlie Wilson's War" the shocking truth is outside the characters and the sad and riveting Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams are at the service of something else, it's personal only to a point. Hanks has to bury his brilliance in single malts and Julia Roberts throws parties and introduces characters with blatant straightforwardness. Amy Adams witnesses and exist as a character, witnessing. An insurmountable task that Miss Adams manages to surmount, beautifully. It is Philip Seymour Hoffman's Gus with a t, however, that monopolized my attention. His character may not be a first but it is a first the way that Hoffman presented him to us. Someone who survives the disregard with which he's treated by the absolute conviction that he's smarter than all of them put together. Hoffman is superb. The pacing of the tale helps enormously not to fall in a myriad of useless questions. A sharp, short, smart, sad comedy and when was the last time I was able to say that?


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Well we definitely did see and I and many other people were actually expecting worse. It did have some good parts too it that I was not expecting it still did fail in other areas though.
First off the acting was above average. I love Phillip Seymour Hoffman in this movie and I liked Tom Hanks. Hoffman was the glue to this movie. If it were not for him this movie would have crumbled and hit rock bottom. His performance was by no means stunning but absolutely necessary. He gave a good witty, cynical performance in what most other actors could have easily made his character into a cliché. Tom Hanks really gave a nice loose performance and did not disappoint but he certainly did not impress. What I could not stand was that Julia Roberts was involved in this movie. She was as big of a miscast as I have ever seen. For one she is a bad actress, at least to me, she was to young for her character and was to phony even for the character she was playing.
The directing was average to me. I'm not really a big fan of the recent Mike Nichols movies and I'm not exactly impressed by this one either. It was made with such a Hollywoodish, cartoonish touch hat I could not stand. The worst part about it was that he tried make it be a really meaningful movie at the end. I love meaningful movies but not when a movie tries to rush a scene or two at the end and show something that tries to justify the rest of the garbage spread throughout the whole movie. That is something that Mike Nichols has seemed to have done a lot in his recent track record.
The one impressive part of this movie was the writing. The dialog was put together very well and was able to let the story play out. The writing was what was able to really able to take this movie to an above average level. In so many scenes I found myself laughing in part by the writing.
Well that is some of what we saw at least. A lot of the scenery was good in the movie if you get what I mean but not a lot other than that. I did like that this movie did not glorify everything America had done. It is obvious that during this whole war in Afghanistan the U.S. gave weapons to the people who are now against us. This movie kind of show we are too blame for that. It shows that what may seem good in the short term may turn into something horribly wrong in the future. This movie did have a good original message but it just did not deliver it right. Overall though it was entertaining.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
It's possible to have a good time with this film while, at the same time, regretting all that it isn't. In the 1980s, a raffish U.S. congressman (Tom Hanks) engineers support for Afghan partisans resisting the Soviet Union.
Hanks is in breezy, hail-fellow-well-met form as roguish, politically incorrect Charlie Wilson, first glimpsed sharing a hot tub with three deeply available looking women. If only the film had the same air of insouciance; but apart from Philip Seymour Hoffman's turn as a cynical CIA agent, it tries to be perceived as patriotic too. Aaron Sorkin's trademark staccato dialogue serves its purpose, but the story is no more plausible than one of Wilson's tall tales. And there's an oddly unspoken subtext: Wilson's Afghan pals later mutated into the Taliban and other anti-western groups, leaving the world worse off than it was when these events occurred.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Charlie Wilson's war is an excellent example of how films should be made. This movie is of the highest quality and is cast perfectly. Tom Hanks play the lead and delivers an exceptional performance. Furthermore, Tom Hanks is complimented by the unparalleled acting ability of the incredible Philip Seymour Hoffman. I have never seen him in a role that suits him so perfectly.
The film is witty, intelligent and well written. Julia Roberts also stars in this film but is easily over-shadowed by the other two leads.
I rated this film 10/10 and am pleased to recommend this film to anyone that is interested in quality cinema.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Here is a movie that almost gets it all right, with good performances from everyone, and three strong leading performances from Hanks, Seymour Hoffman, and a fine turn up from Julia Roberts that had me spell bound from the first few seconds, these are performances that lift the production to the stars, and keep it there for the duration.
Apart from one or two very minor factual problems with the script, the only thing that lets this movie down, is the technical direction, there are far too many bad cuts (fudged continuity)and a number of camera "cheats" that simply do not work. This is surprising for a movie of this stature, and is a little annoying to watch, but it does not destroy an otherwise beautifully crafted film.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Charlie Wilson's War, based on a true story, tells the tale of a Texas congressman and a CIA agent working to secure funding for covert support of the Mujaheddin in 1980s Afghanistan following the USSR invasion of the country. This conflict played a major role in the final years of the Cold War between the US and the USSR.
In terms of film making, Charlie Wilson's War is a definite winner. It well-written, well-acted, and well-shot. While most of the attention has gone to Tom Hanks for yet another fine performance, I was even more impressed with Philip Seymour Hoffman's turn as CIA operative Gust Avrakotos. Scenes of Soviet attacks on under-armed villages and of the refugee camp effectively tug at the heart. The film also gives a good behind-the-scenes look at the wheeling and dealing that Congressman Wilson must go through to secure the desired funding.
There are, however, two complaints I have about the film. The first is that there is a subplot involving an scandal investigation that is not well-developed and as such only serves as a minor distraction to the story line. The second complaint is that the film lacks some of the context of the war. The film makes the Mujaheddin look like innocent victims, and while they did suffer large civilian casualties, the Mujaheddin were in fact rebels trying to topple the government of Afghanistan. This government, ignored entirely in the film, not surprisingly fought to suppress the rebellion, later calling on the Soviet Union for support in their effort. The film also ignores that the US was aiding the Mujaheddin prior to the Soviet deployment in Afghanistan. The film did hint at the unintended consequences of our covert actions -- consequences we are still feeling today -- but it seems as if screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and director Mike Nichols were willing to sacrifice some historical context to provide a cohesive narrative. (Not having read the book, I do not know if George Crile made the same compromise.) Those complaints notwithstanding, I did enjoy watching Charlie Wilson's War and do recommend it. I would have preferred a film that more accurately depicted the complexities of the situation, as Stephen Gaghan did in Syriana, but the audiences connected better with cohesive narrative of Charlie Wilson's War than with the ambiguities present in Syriana.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Consistency is perhaps this movie its biggest problem. The movie starts of as a fast, stylish and just plain fun political satire but in its second halve the movie gets more serious of tone, in an almost Oliver Stone kind of way. It's of course also a very serious subject but I would say that the movie would had been way better and also more effective if it had been completely done in the same style as the first halve of the movie got shot in.
For a biography and a movie concerning the subject of this movie, the movie is also quite short with its mere 102 minutes of running time. The movie because of this feels like it isn't telling the whole story. Of course the following up of the events after the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan gets hinted at in the movie but the movie doesn't go deeper into it and it doesn't explain much about it, which feels like a cheap way to just glorify Charlie Wilson, without showing the other side of the medal. Also the actual events in the movie itself gets rather simplified, even though the story still gets told (needlessly) complex at times.
Yes, the movie would just had been way better if it was not trying to be so serious at times and overall more light with its style and atmosphere. The movie should had been for instance more like "Wag the Dog", that achieved to find a right combination of satire and sensitive political issues.
Because of this incoherent style and way of storytelling, the acting performances are also mixed. When Tom Hanks is playing his character more playfully and in a more comical kind of way he's just excellent. But this just makes it sort of hard to take his character serious in the more serious and sensitive/shocking moments of the movie. Philip Seymour Hoffman is always excellent though, as he is in any movie that he plays in. He also received an Oscar nomination for his role in this movie. Most of the other actors just seem to walk around in this movie, just to be in the movie. This goes mostly for Julia Roberts, whose character I found just too mysterious to seem to have a clear enough purpose for the movie. She made a redundant impression on me and is therefor also really forgettable in this movie.
It's not that the movie is a bad watch, it actually is quite good and also enjoyable but if the movie would had dared to be a bit more edgier the movie would had been a better and foremost also more effective one at what it tried to obviously achieve.
7/10


assistant
1