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
I enjoyed this one, because I can relate to it.
At one time in my life I was trying to make films, and experienced many of the same problems Mark Borchardt did in trying to make HIS film. And I also went through a protracted period of self-absorbed arrested development, where I refused to grow. But then, miraculously, I got married, and had kids. I realized that being a struggling filmmaker was, in all likelihood, not going to feed my family. So I got a decent job and did what I felt I needed to do to make that happen. That is what an mature, responsible adult does.
Mark hasn't faced up to that reality as yet, and so, in that sense, he is a retarded adolescent. For this reason, there is a hopelessness about him. Like Don Quixote, he seems so inept and self-deluded that he doesn't realize how bad off he really is. The viewer feels a sense of superiority and pity for him and his circle. Mark has kids and an ex-wife and bills to pay, but the film depicts him caring basically only about pursuing his "artistic vision".
Despite this, Mark comes across in the film as a likeable individual, surrounded by a very interesting family and group of friends. Unfortunately, Mark lacks many of the things necessary to be successful both in life and in a career: maturity, responsibility, education, knowledge, life experience, prioritization, financial clout, etc.. Yet he trudges on, much like Ed Wood, apparently without any semblance of a clue.
I guess we are supposed to feel encouraged by the spectacle of the "never say die" attitude of this noble individual, struggling against the odds. And man, what odds there are! Kiefer Sutherland, Colin Hanks, Tori Spelling and Angelina Jolie are all offspring of big-time film or TV people; no doubt, they will all want to direct some day, if they aren't already. How much room is there for an independent like Mark? It's like watching a guy hit himself in the head with a board, over and over again. Come to think of it, that is pretty close to what happens to one of Mark's actors, with the kitchen cabinet door, in one of the funniest scenes I have ever seen in any movie.
Despite these misgivings and seeming criticisms, I truly enjoyed this movie, and would heartily recommend it to anyone. Uncle Bill is amazing. I have a friend who met both Mike and Mark and he told me that, in real life, these guys are just exactly the way they appeared in 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
This may actually the finest film of 1999. No I'm not kidding. This documentary directed by Chris Smith captures the very spirit of artistic compulsion. Smith does the smart thing any documentary filmaker should do: he keeps invisible and refuses to judge his subject.
As the viewer watches Mark and his efforts, no matter how funkily aggressive they may prove, to finish his films. He refuses to compromise and suffers repeatedly as a result. But lest we forget, remember Speilberg, Scorsese and others started just as humbly.
And what a great subject he chooses. Mark, his family and friends are all fascinating characters, far more than any character created in last year's fictitious cinematic products.This film oscillates on the dime between comedy, tragedy, touching sympathy and leads us ultimately to inspiring any viewer with an urge to create, despite talent issues, to get off their butts and make something.
The film is about maverick artists and their passions. It is also about families, no matter how co-dependent and disfunctional they may be and how unique and beautiful that organism truly is. Mark proves in the film to be utterly devoted not only to his dreams, but also to his family as well- and they to him.
Why this film was not nominated for documentary of the year is beyond me and criminal (that is assuming it was eligible last year). This film is to be sought out and treasured.


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


user
As a "cusp-pre-baby-boomer"...born in 1944, IN Los Angeles; thereby having the dubious distinction of having been alive while Hitler was still actively involved in his "Last Great Offensive; but also with our President Roosevelt still actively fighting the offensive...this was one of the most important "first films" of my young life. Having the opportunity to see it in "re-release," several years after the 1946 opening (a common studio custom in those years), answered (even to my very young mind)oh-so many questions I had...being surrounded by our returning Vet heroes. Ensconced in all the many of William Wyler's equanimity of subtle "multi-plots"...intentionally NOT "surrounding," "mini" or "sub" plots...in all their "colors and shades of intensity"...did more, than anything else I can recall, to provide to me some semblance of "reason" and "rational explanation" of what had been going on all around me...in REAL life. (My personal experience perchance being a "new" and "different" angle when looking at this classic film.)


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


user
With WWII over, movie studios quickly rushed to focus on vets returning home. "The Best Years of Our Lives" was probably the best example. It portrays various people returning home and how they have to readjust not only to their pre-war lives, but to the overall changing world. Probably the most interesting cast member is non-actor Harold Russell. Having lost his hands in the war, he plays a man with hooks where his hands used to be, and reminds people that he wants to be treated just like everyone else; he went on to win Best Supporting Actor and a special Oscar for the role, making him the only person ever to win two Oscars for the same role. There will probably always be debate over whether this deserved Best Picture more than "It's a Wonderful Life", but I certainly think that they did a good job with it. Very well done.


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 features another exceptional collaboration between director William Wyler and cinematographer Gregg Toland, the first after Toland worked on Citizen Kane. But the talent of both these men was focused on achieving a perfectly crafted movie, understood in the good old American sense as a great story. The technical aspects of the movie are covered so as the viewer gets absorbed into the action that takes place on the screen without submitting to the power of the image. Technique is seen as a vehicle of representation unlike in Citizen Kane where Welles' baroque style almost drew the attention from the story to the way the story was told. One of my favorite moves with deep focus in this film is the drama conveyed by the returning home welcoming of Homer and Al. If Homer's girl, Wilma comes towards him perfectly in focus, Al goes over to his wife also perfectly in focus. This is a brilliant move because it shows only through the use of the image the nature of these relationships as we will see them throughout the movie: Wilma loves Homer and she accepts him as he is, Al's wife loves him also but she feels unprepared to fully welcome him home. Also later in the film we find out that their marriage has not always been a bed of roses.
Wyler is a director whose force lies in being true to his work without feeling the need to boast. He wanted to show his audience how hard it was for the American soldiers returning from the war to fit into a society that either didn't understand them or treated them with contempt. With a perfect cast and great dialogue Goldwin and Wyler produced a movie that will forever be the template for any other returning home movie. The three hours which coincide with the "rough cut" because the test audience back then never felt for a moment that the action was slow and indeed every scene from the film seems perfectly justified. The whole thing is constructed beautifully, every character gets a fair amount of exposure, nothing is left to chance and it is quite pitiful that Hollywood nowadays never manages to bring so much character conflict to the screen. TBYOOL explores the depth of the American way of life, of the American family and society to an extent that makes other movies look like "the children's hour".


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


user
So many great talents were utilized in "The Best Years of Out Lives", the result has to be somewhat miraculous. Think of what its director, William Wyler, faced; in the aftermath of a military victory over statist powers who had committed abominable crimes and engulfed the world if battles, he was making a film that argued that the US's leaders were themselves profoundly anti-individual--that they had "wasted the best years of the lives of those drafted or misled into fighting the war--which since it ignored the rights of individuals had been for nothing except argument over the degree of slavery men were to exist under." There are beautiful sets by Julia Heron, Gregg Toland's cinematography and a script by Robert E. Sherwood, author of "The Road to Rome" and other defenses of individuals against tyrannical ideas. The ironic title was used to draw the talents of actors such as Frederic March, Myrna Loy, Teresa Wright, Dana Andrews, Virginia Mayo, Cathy O'Donnell and Hoagy Carmichael into a large-scale but thematic drama. The clever plot line was the experiences of thee "couples" after the soldiers (three being spotlighted) tried to return home to a 'victory culture". Their bitter experiences and their realization of their own need to fight again against what was happening on the homefront poses a strong and sobering counterpoint to the conventional notion being sold that "all was well with "America"". March and his wife have a terrible time adjusting, and he is drinking; O'Donnell's young man, Harold Russell,, has hooks instead of hands and wonders if life can even be worth living; and worst of all Andrews' wife throws him over for a guy with dough and he has lost years, causing employers to ignore or deny his rights to a job, to consideration on his individual merits, to have even what he had before he had been ripped from his life and thrust into the arena of risk--for nothing, and loss of everything he had ever had. The shattering climax of the film comes when each of the three has to confront the need to do battle again,each for his own happiness; and all three succeed in finding the courage to go on fighting--each for his own happiness, which is now being threatened by a curiously anti-self, anti-reality indifferent an un-American United States. Wyler's direction, especially of the scene where Andrews sits in the cockpit of a mothballed B-17, alone and the scene of Russell's wedding is wonderful indeed. This is a most powerful film and a great one on its own terms, one women and men can agree on for once. Music by Hugo Friedhofer and costumes by Irene Sharaff add to its luster. One of the best and most unexpected films of all time, in stunning B/W.


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 tells the stories of several couples coping with Post-WWII life. Through many moving accounts the audience learns how the War has changed people, while their human spirit went on to triumph.
My favorite scene is where a young service man, who returned home as a double amputee (after losing both arms up to the elbow) is sure that he would be no good to his sweetheart, who still wants to marry him. His girl simply said that she would help him with the things he wouldn't be able to do, but that they would be fine together. Moved by this true demonstration of love, the man embraces his fiancée in tears.
The scene where a service man asked for a bank loan is also a highlight. When he is initially refused as a "high risk", a higher ranking bank official takes over saying "You fought for our country and kept us safe--that's good enough for me. Your loan is approved!" "The Best Years of Our Lives" won 6 Oscars, including a special statuette for the disabled actor who showed us all that life goes on and will continue to be worth living, even with a severe handicap. This film is a joy to watch over and over again. A true classic! 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
Although the wonderful soda counter in the local drugstore no
longer exists, and the clothes are definitely l946 immediate
post-war vintage, and good and evil are easy to understand, and
those old planes are really dated, this movie will never be dated.
The human adjustments and problems post-war, the beautiful
love stories, the wonderful acting (especially Harold Russell and
Dana Andrews) are as moving today in 2002 as they were in l946.
I was one of the young women who welcomed our marvelous
veterans home from World War II. Like so many, my memories of
the war years and the homecomings are as fresh today as if they
took place yesterday - this movie is very relevant for our times.


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


user
This is one of the great movies of all time. The story is fascinating and the actors are convincing. Your really identify with the characters. William Wyler proofs with this movie that he is a great director. His craftsmanship is unsurpassed.


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


user
I was blown away when I saw "The Best Years of Our Lives". The acting, script, and Master William Wyler's Direction(winner of Best Director in 1946)is Brilliant.
This film is about three WWII veterans who come home from the war and are reunited with their loved ones, but have to deal with the hardships of coming home from the war.
The first man Al Stephenson(Played by Fredric March in his Oscar winning role) comes home to find his wife Millie(played by Myrna Loy) and children Peggy and Rob(played by Teresa Wright and Michael Hall) are more grown up and different than before he left for the war.
The second man Fred Derry(played by Dana Andrews) has to find a good job and come home to a wife he had only been married to 20 days before he left for the war. He begins to find out that she is not the same.
Homer Parish(played by Harold Russell in his Oscar winning role)has lost his hands in the war and must deal with his family's and fiance' Wilma's(played by Cathy O'Donnell) reactions to the hooks he has instead of his hands.
All of these men and their families are reunited in the film in different scenes. The stories of these men are all interwoven beautifully together.
This film truly defines the meaning of a "Classic". This unforgettable drama(winner of best picture in 1946) is a film that everyone should see.
If I was asked to pick a favorite film this would be it!
Out of 10 I would give "The Best Years of Our Lives" An 10.
So next time you go to your local video store rent this movie you won't regret it!
NO objectionable material a good family film.


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


user
I was blown away when I saw "The Best Years of Our Lives". The acting, script, and Master William Wyler's Direction(winner of Best Director in 1946)is Brilliant.
The film is about Three World War II veteran's who come home together on a plane and all by chance live in the same town. They all are reunited with their families.
The first man Al Stephenson(Played by Fredric March in his Oscar winning role) has to adapt to his wife Millie(played by Myrna Loy) and Children Peggy and Rob(played by Teresa Wright and Michael Hall) being different than before he left for the war.
The second man Fred Derry(played by Dana Andrews in an excellant role) has to find a good job and adapt to a wife he had only been married to 20 days before he left for the war. He begins to find out that she is not the same.
The third man Has a much more harder adaptation to make. Homer Parish(played by Harold Russell in his excellant oscar role)He has lost his hands in the war and must deal with his family's and fiance' Wilma's(played by Cathy O'Donnell) reactions to the hooks he has instead of his hands. All of these men and their families are reunited in the film in different scences. The stories of these men are all interwoven beautifully together.
This film truly defines the meaning of a "Classic". This unforgettable drama(winner of best picture in 1946) is a film that everyone should see.
If I was asked to pick a favorite film I would pick this one.
Out of 10 I would give "The Best Years of Our Lives" An 11.
So the next time you rent a movie rent this one you won't regret it.


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


user
While watching a mundane modern movie (The Runaway Bride) with my granddaughter (age 22) she asked me "Since you've been watching movies since 1938, what is the greatest movie of your lifetime?" Boy! What a choice that is! It took me all summer of thought and relooking a some flicks before I made my decision. It is "THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES". This movie has no flaws. It is one movie in which each one of the minor characters part and dialog is essential to the whole story. There is not a single part in the film which could be left out. The young girl's fixation with her brothers lack of hands, the man coming home to young adult children who have grown up without him and with different ideas, the portrayal of a young man whose only responsiblity was as a soda jerk who became the leader of a group of men, and was awarded medals for his action. A women who must now adjust to the husband who's life has been away from her for years. The realization of the folks who were in the safety of there secure homes of the sacrifices these ordinary men made in their behalf. The look into the life of loving and living with a man without hands. A parents first look and reaction to their son's new deformities. A man used to making life and death decision in a instant, having to return to the way of plodding though a conservative bank's loan structure. This is no sympathetic, tear jerking, heart strumming act. THIS WAS REAL LIFE! It could not have been portrayed any different. This, my friends, is HOW IT WAS!! This could easily be considered a documentary. In this day of color film, please do not be turned off by the black and white because it is one of the finest B/W filming, editing and directing you will ever see. The casting was perfect. If I could, I would make it compulsory for anyone taking history, film making, creative writing, sociology, family counciling or psychology to view and report on this magnificent example of the film makers art.


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


user
This superb 40's post war classic, tends to be overlooked these
days. When it was released in 1945, it cleaned up at the 1946
Oscars, mostly at the expense of `It's A Wonderful Life.' Both films were up for best film , best
director, and best actor, all won by Best Years'. Frederic March ,
and Dana Andrews along with an amateur actor Harold Russell ( a
real life soldier,who lost both hands in an explosion,) play the
returning soldiers, finding life is very different , from what they
remember. Myrna Loy is superb as March's wife, who has to keep
the family together while he has been away.The tear jerking
scene where March and Loy are reunited is magnificent. All three
men find that they have problems readjusting to post war life, not
least Russell coming to terms with artificial hands, and his finance
(Cathy O'Donnell ) trying to be too helpful. Sam Goldywn is quoted that he doesn't care if the film makes no
money at all, as long as everyone in America sees the film ,so they
will appreciate what these men went through. If any film is worth 10 out of 10, it is this one.


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


user
Since there have been so many reviews of this fine film I will write in a list form and attempt to address issues that have not been discussed.
1. Dana Andrews was 38 during the filming of this movie. His character according to the screenplay was in his mid 20s. Andrews, a highly underrated actor, did brilliantly play a character who was supposed to be much younger.
2. Fredric March like all GREAT actors needs at times to be restrained by the director to avoid over-the-top acting. He was mugging for the cameras when he was drunk on the night after his arrival and also the next morning when he was checking out his hang over in his mirror.
3. Dana Andrews was superb as he was in "Laura," "The Ox-Bowl Incident," "A Walk in the Sun," "The Purple Heart" and many other films. Why did Fredric March win the Academy Award and why was Dana Andrews not even nominated for his outstanding performance?
4. Harold Russell gave the best performance I have ever seen by a non actor.
5. I realize this was the 1940s but Dana Andrews seemed to have no romantic interest in his exceptionally attractive wife (Virginia Mayo).
6. Ray Teal, who played the right wing bigot, years later became famous for portraying the sheriff on "Bonanza."
7. The professor from the south wrote that the film was slow moving, boring and poorly acted. The professor more than likely is uninformed about classic films. The beauty and significance of these ageless classics is that they are slow moving character studies that avoid profanity, excessive violence and gratuitous sex.
***I was surprised that zero out of 3 people found my review useful.


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


user
What can one say about any Wilder film other than they are the most human and real stories about people and what drives them, bugs them,haunts them. Billy created pictures like paintings that stand forever reflecting the human condition. He paints the good and the bad in all of us. He also paints with love. I can't imagine anyone having a list of greatest films without a Wilder film on it. They will last because they are true. I first saw this movie on TV in the 60s when I was a kid and I had to leave the room because I felt tears welling up in me and was embarrassed. Now I'm an old man and I still feel the tears welling but don't leave the room. I knew these people and loved them and grew up around them. Billy preserved them in this film and not in a 'greatest generation' way but in a most realistic way that preserved the power of the human spirit.


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


user
The brilliance of this film lies not in the filmmaking process, which is a conventional, but executed, intertwining tale of the lies of three servicemen post WWII, but in the fact that this story was told at all. Samuel Goldwyn deserves credit for having the chutzpah to push through a film who has for its leads a disabled vet with pincers for hands, an alcoholic, and an underachiever.


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


user
I first saw this film as a teenager (I'm now in my 40's), and have long considered it to be my favorite movie. The story is enormously moving, without being sentimental. The acting, especially by March and Loy, is dead-on. And the fact that Dana Andrews is too old for his role doesn't take away from the believability of his romance with Theresa Wright (whom I believe is the only major character in the film still living). This could have turned out to be another post-war melodrama, but the script and cast are simply too good for that to happen.


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


user
This is one of the great ones. It works so beautifully that you hardly notice the miscasting of then 37 year old Dana Andrews as the drugstore soda jerk who goes to war and comes back four years later, when he would have been, at most, 25. But then, who else should have played him?


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


user
This is a thoughtful film that lays bare the inequities of the so-called upper class and those who work for them, the haves and have-nots. Robert Shaw does a creditable job in his role as the obliging, correct chauffeur, Steven Ledbetter, who helps Lady Franklin (Sarah Miles) overcome her mental depression at the outset. However, Steven has many mixed feelings regarding this lady of the upper class. He inevitably falls in love with her, which of course is overstepping the societal boundaries that separate them.
I have not read anything prior to this and only judge the movie as I have seen it. I consider it a very honest story about the realities of daily living and the conflict of what we might wish or expect from life and what we get. It's a fine drama worth seeing again.


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


user
Having been familiar with Hartley's "The Go-Between" for a good while, both in its original book form and in its disappointing Pinter-Losey film adaptation, this was interesting stuff. "The Hireling" proves almost a mirror image at times; set in a slightly less distant period for the main part, featuring exposure of the British Class System, and containing a set piece sports match (boxing takes the place of cricket) that reveals rather a lot about .
This refreshes in its small-scale, character focus. You do not exactly get to 'know' Lady Franklin and Leadbitter in the novelistic sense, but this distance is appropriately played out in telling body language and inflection from the actors. Your distance from ever fully sympathizing with any one true character mirrors the dormant 'difference' that so dooms the central relationship. Miles and Shaw are wonderfully subtle, and we see more in their 'less'; never once are these actorly, showy performances. They are fittingly Stanislavskian interpretations that create the impression of these characters having life outsides the confines of the film. All other parts are very satisfactorily handled, though they are far smaller in this film than I presume in the novel and compared indeed to "The Go-Between", a stunning work about disillusionment.
The disillusion at the centre of this film is so sadly and movingly conveyed in the late scenes where Shaw kisses Miles and is rejected, and then where a drunken Leadbitter confronts Cantrip and Lady Franklin. It's a howling shame that what would have been an incredibly poignant ending of spoiled, desolate lives at either side of the screen, is 'embellished' with a decidedly odd little coda. One is entirely bemused by the jump in tone, as Shaw's Leadbitter goes beserk and ironically sings "Rule Britannia" and "God Save the Queen" as he crashes his car into things. The political point is heavily over-egged by this bombastic, rather dingily operatic ending. All sense of subtlety, so effectively conveyed hitherto, is lost, as the implicit point is heavily and noisily made. Agit-prop surely has no place in this sort of delicate period drama.
Overall, however, one cannot be too harsh. While this absurd end-piece is a major flaw, the rest of the film must be praised as a sensitive, evocative film, of sadness and detailed observation about the way British society was in the past. Hartley's languid but crystal-clear touch is very much in evidence throughout. It's just a shame that we don't end on the shattering conclusion to Shaw's drunk scene. The tragic, deluded figure of Sarah Miles' Lady Franklin is abruptly denied her place at the epicenter of the film, as the excellent human drama bizarrely slips into the realms of political point scoring. Shaw also - that most dry and yet deeply feeling of actors - is betrayed by the out-of-character excess that closes the film. Thus; a fine, small-scale triumph is sabotaged; but we ought to remember the many good points.
Rating:- *** 1/2/*****


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


user
When I was very young, my mother had a series of four Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies shorts on tape and I watched them all several times. A Coy Decoy was one of these shorts, and I was truly shocked to read in another comment that it had been banned. When I was young I probably did not even understand the Black Beauty gag to begin with. Still this is probably why it was banned, though until I watched this on a video site, I did not even remember the gag. Upon viewing the video I did remember certain shots - in particular the shrinking of Daffy's hat and Daffy's eyes becoming clockworkish as the decoy circled him in The Lake. I was not bothered by the gag that was most likely the reason the gag was banned. Instead I was flooded with childhood memories of watching this short. Because of how much I liked this short as a child, I rate it 7 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
There is only one racist joke in this Daffy Duck short, which is basically, when Daffy rides Black Beauty, it is a black woman. I can understand partly why this joke was included, as at the time few people did not know how rude it was to be racist and it wasn't even illegal to discriminate black people yet.
Aside from this point, "A Coy Decoy" is basically a fun, interesting short where Daffy meets characters in books and does things in books. I liked this short quite a lot (despite the other reviewers on here). The way Daffy is so in love with the clockwork duck is vaguely disturbing, yet highly amusing at the same time. Porky is a nice edition to the episode, though it was not vital for him to be there. The wolf is an example of how people thought of wolves in those days as well, blood-thirsty, terrible animals, which of course they never really have been (unless they are very hungry). I also liked the style of animation used - and the theme of the episode.
For people who are totally into Daffy Duck and for people who do not mind the occasional racist joke in cartoons, enjoy "A Coy Decoy"!
Available on YouTube.


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


user
I went through the highs. I went through the lows...cried, laughed, puked my ever-loving guts out. But through it all, I was made whole. I became a better person for having sat through this experience in self-imposed degradation. It's not every day we can say that we have lived through the worst, and come out the other side with something closely resembling our sanity whole and intact. Friends...neighbors-unite and be as one now. Go out and find this film and languish in its extravagancies. Place it high on the mantel and kiss its polystyrene box. Take it to bed. Take it out with you when you go shopping, or have blind dates with strange people. They will appreciate you all the better for your sublime and uniquely schizophrenic slant on cinema. And then they will throw their beverage of choice in your face (but you will have the last laugh). I ran for Governor with this little beauty under my belt (and you can too!). It is a treat worth having again and again.


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


user
I remember this film as the other person that commented said. I recorded over it but wish I had it now just because it had to be one of the worst movies ever. Funny, in a real bad way. I remember the tag line on the box was "The ultimate frontal lobotomy". I got it from my mom, who got it from a friend at work who said it was the worst / cheesiest movie she had ever seen, so my mom said "My son will probably love it." and the woman gave it to her just to get it out of her possession. I then later taped over it, which I regret. I also remember the "corck screw" thing was one of those ball catcher things.... the yellow cone shaped things, with a red "button" at the end, and when you hit the red thing, it sends a ball flying. Well, they used that with a crank on one end, and a corkscrew in the funnel. When the killer killed they would show him coming forward with the "weapon" and then cut to a close up of what appeared to be raw chicken and fake blood on the victims head. I don't know what else to say about this "gem" except that if you like bad films, it doesn't get any worse than this.


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 is possibly one of the most creative works of horror ever. It has everything you could want... suspense, drama, comedy, confusing subplots, native americans, brain eating... If you're looking for the be-all, end-all of brainsucking movies, look no further. The story of a man, bent on revenge. And how better to get it? "I know, I'll suck out their brains!" With great sound effects, and impressive special effects, I can't recommend this movie enough.


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


user
Barbet Schroeder's "Murder by Numbers" starring Sandra Bullock is solid work, though not particularly compelling. I am a big Sandra Bullock fan, and she is effective here as forensic detective Cassie Mayweather, who is not very likable and a broken person too. However, there is a sense of detachment inherent in the story structure. It's about the perfect murder executed by two spoiled sociopath teenagers, Richard (Ryan Gusling) who is the cool one, and Justin ( Michael Pitt) who is the sympathetic geek. Basically, Richard and Justin kill a young woman, because they have nothing better to do on a school night. They are very smart and very arrogant which is normally not a bad thing, but it just doesn't work here. Tony Gayton's script does a great job of detailing the investigation of a puzzling murder, and it is truly by the numbers. We have these two punk kids flaunting their superiority, and we just want them to take a fall.
This is not a great exploration into the dark side, like Schroeder's "Reversal of Fortune" about Claus von Bulow. There are interesting turns in "Numbers". The movie is not so much a thriller, but rather a character study of Cassie. Sandra Bullock balances the bravado of Cassie, her fear of letting people get in with her, and her secret past. Bullock brings courage and strength to a suffering character. Her partner and sort of love interest, Sam (played by Ben Chaplin), is more a plot unconcealing than a real character. Though Chaplin does the bewilderment thing very admirably. The other nice touch is having Richard and Justin involved a strange sexual attraction. The most interesting thing about "Numbers" are Pitt and Gusling.
There are many entertaining twists and turns throughout the movie. Everything is done very competently. I saw the movie about a week ago, and in retrospect I like it a little more than I did when I saw it. However, it is just not inspired work. Sandra Bullock and Barbet Schroeder deserve a lot better, and so do we.


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


user
this one is about a homicide detective who battles a couple of young rich kids who have nothing better to do than plan an intricate murder and cover it up, they seem to outwit the police force seemingly at will. they taunt the detective by planting clues and leading them off on a wild goose chase. this one has a decent plot with a few good twists at the end of the movie, Sandra Bullock does a fine job in this one as a woman on the edge, not sure of herself and battling her inner demons, she can't seem to keep a man in her life, especially partners, they seem to keep leaving her for some reason. Altogether this isn't a bad film, it keeps you guessing all the way the very shocking ending.


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


user
Murder by Numbers is a pretty good movie. Even though the plot rolls along at a snail's pace, what with Sandra Bullock's character getting all mixed up with her partner and the movie flashing back to a previous trauma situation she had been in, it does succeed in keeping the viewer involved in the film.
Having said that, I do think that it does a good job in setting that eerie sort of "who done it" type atmosphere. It keeps you guessing at which one of the boys really was behind the murder, if not both of them. I think Ryan Gosling and that other kid (lol) do a good job of selling that bully versus dork relationship. Not sure about Gosling playing a bad-ass, but for a guy who would later star in a movie like The Notebook, he did a pretty good job. Once the movie gets rolling, though, I really found myself involved in the story, sort of asking myself, "Oh My God, what would I do if I were in that situation?" Like I said, a good CSI type movie, maybe not for the EXTREME crime drama movie junkie, but a good all around flick.
8 outta 10


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


user
I knew little of this movie when I entered the theatre for an advance screening. I gathered from the ads that it was a thriller.
What we have is like "Compulsion" meets "Matlock". Two teens decide to commit a perfect murder. A victim is selected at random and then carefully executed so that no traces of the actual murderers is found. Then a bunch of false leads are planted that point to an innocent bystander. (Innocent of the murder anyway)
Enter Sondra Bullock as the investigating officer. (IMDB says that she's FBI, but I don't remember that. I thought that she was a regular cop) She's frustrated by the inconsistency of the killers profile ("The profile doesn't fit the profile!") and by the power and influence of the father of one of the boys.
She's also has demons of her own which figure prominently in her decicision to become a cop. But this is the only character that is really more than one-dimensional. All others are pretty flat.
For a thriller, there are really no big thrills. It's mostly a cat-and-mouse game like an episode of "Matlock" (which she's watching at one point in the film). The twist is that there are two involved in the killing. Just who is the real murderer, Justin or Richard? It'll cost you eight bucks to find out.


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


user
Now, I know that Sandra Bullock produced this film, but she needs to learn that sometimes you need to make certain sacrifices in order to advance the story...like not trying to make the whole movie about her character!
The story is about two high school students (one rich and popular, the other smart and anti-social) who formulate a plan to commit murder and follow it by the number...just to see if they can get away with it. Enter Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin as detectives trying to solve the case. The boys have planted evidence, created alibis, and cleaned up after themselves so well that the cops fall for the whole act. But Sandra has a feeling that all is not as it appears to be.
This movie could have been a great little Hitchcock-style thriller, but the movie spends too much time on getting to know Sandra's character rather than focusing on the actual crime itself. You see, something happened in her past that keeps haunting her throughout the film. And we get to know all about it...ALL about it. It just gets rather tedious after a while, especially when you are right in the middle of an intriguing murder investigation and then have to stop that investigation to hear about what happened to her in the past.
Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt are the real winners in this movie. They play their characters convincingly and with just the right amount of malice. If the script had spent more time focusing on these characters, and kept the detectives there to just do their jobs, this could have been an immensely entertaining thriller. With the way it is, most of the thrill is lost. They should have cut out all the stuff with Sandra's character and made that a separate TV movie for the Lifetime channel. But, I digress. It's still an entertaining movie, nonetheless. I do recommend this movie...but wait for the video/DVD.


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


user
Cassie (Sandra Bullock) is a hyper-serious police detective. As an ex-boyfriend once tried to kill her and, indeed, left her grievously wounded, she is determined to bring those who harm others to justice. As the result of her near-death experience, also, Cassie favors one-night stands and trusts no one. One day, a woman is found dead in the woods near Cassie's community. She has been murdered heinously, beaten severely and left to die alone. Naturally, Cassie will stop at nothing to find the murderers. Assigned to help her is fellow officer, Sam (Ben Chaplin). He soon discovers Cassie's relentless attitude and all-consuming instincts when she asks him to pick up a sample of vomit that has been left at the scene for analysis, among other actions. The trail soon leads them to two high school students, Richard (Ryan Gosling) and Justin (Michael Pitt). Could these teenagers really be responsible for the planning and execution of the perfect "joy" killing? This is an intriguing film, but viewers should be warned that the subject matter is grim indeed. Killing for the "sport" of it is seldom the topic of films that are of the "all sweetness and light" variety and this one is no different. That said, the cast is great. Bullock, without a hint of her talent for comedy, is terrific as the police officer whose own past compels her to lock up the evil folks of the world. Chaplin, too, is quite nice as the detective who is both attracted and repelled by the forceful Cassie. As for Gosling, he gives a most memorable performance as a brilliant mind with a satanic soul. The production values for the movie are good, too, with appropriately fine costumes, settings and photography. If you are a fan of Bullock's looking for a laugh, this is not the one for you. But, if you adore mysteries, even those with the grimmest of plots, you will find this tale enthralling.


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


user
This is an excellent, suspenseful, murder-mystery movie. Not only was the plot full of suspense and intrigue but you get to see gorgeous Ryan Gosling for a couple hours, what's not to love! Also, Sandra Bullock is good in this movie - I've always been a fan of hers, (I just wish she hadn't decided to be in "The Lake House" which was horrible, but that's another story altogether). Obviously since there are thousands of other murder/horror movies out there, there are bound to be similarities between them, no need to bash this movie for having some similarities to at least a few that have already been made. Anyway, this is a great movie for those of you that actually enjoy "scary" movies, it's a little dark and twisted but overall a great movie!!!


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


user
I find it hard to believe this could happen at all. We do not know if Justin and Richard were troubled or had committed crimes in the past. The movie seems to imply that they were not in and out of trouble. So the first crime they commit is murder? Just to play and jostle with the cops? How do they pick up any girl and just say you are it? Also Richard seems to strangle the woman with little or no effort nor does the women seem to struggle. Hmmm. This whole concept is really hard to believe. That said let's move on. I found myself really hating these punks and would love to have been present with my shot gun with police tactical ammo and see what their plastic suits do then. As for Cassie who was a victim of Carl Hudson has a horrible time trying to survive. The memory of having been stabbed 17 times by Carl leaves her in an emotional mess. Sandra does a superb acting job. She sure made me believe she was one angry cop. As for solving the crime, I thought it was great. This movie kept me planted in my chair. Loved the acting of all but Sam. He had no get-up and go. The one thing this movie did not need was the love scene or should I say the rape scene.


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


user
Sandra Bullock paints a believable picture as the troubled detective, though seeing her as a cynical man-eating victim-turned-persecutor requires a leap of faith (or two). The two creepy troubled kids are portrayed adequately by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt.
I do have quite a bit of trouble getting Ben Chaplin into the equation (same problem arose when watching 'The Truth About Cats & Dogs' (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0117979/). I mean, when you put an Englishman into an all-American movie, shouldn't there at least be a reason to put him there? Shouldn't there be some story leading up to the fact that an Englishman is serving as a detective on an American police force? Shouldn't there be some dialog pointing out and explaining that rather obvious fact? Or even some jokes about him being that English?
He looks out of place here, as he looked out of place in 'The Truth About Cats & Dogs'. Producers really should take notice, it distracts and annoys the audience (at least me). Nothing wrong with Chaplin's acting, it's just a matter of making an actor who is 'out of place' believable and not putting him somewhere without a good reason or a storyline.
The movie itself: well, thrillers, especially those dealing with solving a complicated crime, require some suspension of disbelief. This one's no different; actually, it requires quite a bit more effort than usual. In order to make Bullock smart enough to crack the case despite of all the pressures requiring her to let go of it, some unrealistic assumptions are being made about the evidence, and I'm sure a lot of people who watched it had a few moments of 'Come on, this is highly unlikely under the circumstances' or even 'Hey, you can't brush evidence aside like that to wrap this movie up!'.
Like I said: reasonably entertaining and watchable. Just don't use this as required viewing for detective exams. There are no shortcuts there.


assistant
1