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
Mani sir as usual brings out another amazing story with Kannathil Muthamittal. Such an amazing relationship between parents and child is brought out in a beautiful fashion. Mani Sir as usual without much special effects and not much outdoor shoots.(In fact this was the only movie where he went outside India ever..that too just to sri lanka).Mani's class is written all over the movie...and to add to it ARR's music..which is just amazing...Vellai Pookal is one of my most fav songs ever... Maddy,who is what he is in the film industry has impressed a lot too. Starting from alaipayuthey ,to kannathil to ayutha ezuthu to guru.. Mani ratnam has showed to the world what a versatile actor Maddy is. Simran has been really good too. She has showed that she can act too in non-glamorous and character roles. In all an amazing movie. Sad that the tamil public could not appreciate this gr8 movie and it bombed at the box-office....


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


user
Recently had the pleasure of seeing this emotionally charged film by Director Mani Ratnam at the 2002 Toronto International Film Festival. I have bestowed my highest honour of the Film Festival on this feature. Make sure that you do not let an opportunity to experience this cinematic gem pass you by ... but be forewarded: this film will make you shed a tear if you belong to the species known as homo sapien! A 10 !!


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


user
Touching Bollywood epic melodrama about a 10 year-old girl who finds out that she's adopted, and is determined to find her birth mother. The film's major success is the performance of P.S. Keerthana, who plays the girl. The first half of the film is very good. There are a few really good songs, too, especially the number that introduces the protagonist. Unfortunately, the film's second half, which takes place in war-torn Sri Lanka, feels like an entirely different, and disappointing movie. It's big on explosions and special effects, with Sri Lankan soldiers and rebels dodging grenades, running from fireballs, and being yanked by stunt wires. All the film can offer as insight are cheap platitudes like, "Some day there must come peace" and "Perhaps the children will find a way". The final sequence, where the daughter and mother are reunited, is good, but so over-the-top with the music and a well-timed downpour that it feels like a cheat. I know, I know, it's all in the style of Bollywood. But this is a story where big moments simply detract from the simple, powerful central story. Bollywood could certainly use a little restraint at times, too.


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


user
My favourite movie of all time. This was a flawed piece of work by Coppola and seeing the documentary 'Heart of Darkness' made it even more compelling. Coppola at this point was king of Hollywood after making 'the Godfather' and 'GodfatherII' and had developed the ego necessary to even dare try to make a movie like 'Apocalypse Now'. Through sheer arrogance he went to the Phillipines with a partial script and thought he would know what he would do when he got there. Just as Captain Willard thought he would know what to do once he got to Col. Kurtz's compound. And just like Willard, he DIDN'T know what he was going to do once he got there. This is such a masterpiece of American cinema, beautifully photographed and the river is such a perfect metaphor and backdrop for the story. What I like most about 'Apocalypse Now' is that it offers no answers or conclusions. Consequently, because of this open-endedness, it infuriates some viewers who like their movies to be much more obvious.
This movie defies categorization. Some call it a war movie which it isn't at all, really it is more of a personal study of man. The best pic about Vietnam is 'Platoon' in my opinion and if a viewer is seeking a retelling of the Vietnam War go there first for answers.
Coppola should be commended for his take on the bureaucracy of war which he conveys quite effectively with the meeting with Gen.Corman and Lucas (Harrison Ford) and the Playmate review. The sheer audacity of Kilgore makes him an unforgettable character and the dawn attack will always be a Hollywood classic.
It is an almost psychedelic cruise to a very surreal ending which makes it a movie not accessible to everyone. Very challenging to watch but rewarding as well. I could offer my explanations on each scene but that would be totally pointless. This movie is intended for interpretation and contemplation as opposed to immediate gratification.
A little footnote, definitely if your a first-time viewer of Apocalypse Now, watch the original version first, the 'Redux' version is, I think, more intended for the hardcore fan and is more of a curiosity than a 'new and improved' version of 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
I first saw APOCALYPSE NOW in 1985 when it was broadcast on British television for the first time . I was shell shocked after seeing this masterpiece and despite some close competition from the likes of FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING this movie still remains my all time favourite nearly 20 years after I first saw it
This leads to the problem of how I can even begin to comment on the movie . I could praise the technical aspects especially the sound , editing and cinematography but everyone else seems to have praised ( Rightly too ) these achievements to high heaven while the performances in general and Robert Duvall in particular have also been noted , and everyone else has mentioned the stark imagery of the Dou Long bridge and the montage of the boat traveling upriver after passing through the border
How about the script ? Francis Ford Coppola is best known as a director but he's everyway a genius as a screenwriter as he was as a director , I said " was " in the past tense because making this movie seems to have burned out every creative brain cell in his head , but his sacrifice was worth it . In John Milius original solo draft we have a script that's just as insane and disturbing as the one on screen , but Coppola's involvement in the screenplay has injected a narrative that exactly mirrors that of war . Check how the screenplay starts off all jingoistic and macho with a star turn by Bill Kilgore who wouldn't have looked out of place in THE GREEN BERETS but the more the story progresses the more shocking and insane everything becomes , so much so that by the time reaches Kurtz outpost the audience are watching another film in much the same way as the characters have sailed into another dimension . When Coppola states " This movie isn't about Vietnam - It is Vietnam " he's right . What started off as a patriotic war to defeat communist aggression in the mid 1960s had by the film's setting ( The Manson trial suggests it's 1970 ) had changed America's view of both the world and itself and of the world's view of America
It's the insane beauty of APOCALYPSE NOW that makes it a masterwork of cinema and says more in its running time about the brutality of conflict and the hypocrisy of politicians ( What did you do in the Vietnam War Mr President ? ) than Michael Moore could hope to say in a lifetime . I've not seen the REDUX version but watching the original print I didn't feel there was anything missing from the story which like all truly great films is very basic . In fact the premise can lend itself to many other genres like a western where an army officer has to track down and kill a renegade colonel who's leading an injun war party , or a sci-fi movie where a UN assassin is to eliminate a fellow UN soldier who's leading a resistance movement on Mars , though this is probably down to Joseph Conrad's original source novel
My all time favourite movie and it's very fitting that I chose this movie to be my one thousandth review at the IMDb


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


user
As I peruse through the hundreds of comments that loyal readers of the IMDB have posted on this film, I find it very interesting how few ,"middle of the road" comments there are. Everyone either loves it, or they hate it. Having seen Apocalypse Now approximately 30 times, and having recently dissected it on DVD (how did we ever live without those magical digital machines?????), I can say without hesitation that I am one of those who have a very special place in my heart for this film. "Why would you like a film that's so confusing?" ask many of my associates. The answer is this: Forget the war, forget the brutality....This is a classic story of society protecting itself from those that refuse to fall in line with the status quo. Brando represents the individual that has his own way of getting the job done. They (Big Brother) sent him out to do the job, he does it too well, without adhering to the accepted "standards" of death and destruction (Am I the only one who's troubled by the fact that we have 'standards' for death and destruction????), so they send the "Conformity Police" out to eliminate the individual. Hmmmmmm....Draw any parallels between this and things you see every day? With the deepest respect to Mr. Coppola, whom I believe is one of the best directors of all time, I think he transcended his original intent of the movie, and probably didn't even realize it until after the movie was released. The subtle sub-text that permeates the entire movie has way too much to it to have been planned and portrayed; instead, it seems to have 'grown' itself, like some wild flower in the middle of a vegetable garden. Again I must reiterate: I think FF Coppola did a bang-up job on this entire production, as did the cast and crew, but the sum of the movie exceeds the individual efforts ten-fold. So if you haven't seen the movie, rent it, watch it, then watch it again, and maybe a few more times, and look for all the generic parallels to everyday life. Only then make a judgment on the quality of the film. Those of you that have seen it, watch it again with the mindset previously described. I think you may just have a whole new appreciation for the film. Or maybe not! No matter whether you love it or hate it, be sure and give credit to Coppola for his masterful story-telling style!


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


user
During the final throes of the Vitnam war, our central character, Capt. Willard (Martin Sheen) is dispatched by the CIA on an illegal one-man mission to assassinate a renegade US Marine commander, Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando), who has allegedly gone 'completely insane', but who is successfully waging a private cross-border war from his base in Cambodia, a neutral and therefore off-limits country.
The entire narrated story of what Willard sees and does as he is ferried up the Da Nang river by an undisciplined and terrorised navy patrol boat crew to murder Kurtz is a grand metaphor for the excesses, decadence and ultimately the weakness of the Anglo-Saxon psyche: If we don't understand something, and we are unable to control it, exterminate it. Kurtz had eventually come to know this.
Unless you pay complete attention to every emotional gesture, to every word of the dialogue between the protagonists, especially in the scene where the two of them are alone in Kurtz's darkened lair, you will miss one of the central themes of this incredible movie. Kurtz's subtle deal with his executioner, his unilateral 'surrender' in return for Willard agreeing (did he nod?) to tell Kurtz's 'son' (another metaphor for us, the next generation, the ones watching the movie) the truth about all the horrors that they had both seen in Vietnam, is mind-expanding stuff.The bonding between the two men whilst Kurtz cross-examines Willard,--interlaced with some of his own horror stories, is incredible, nay, genius, film. The closing (intercut)scene of the ritual slaughter of a sacrificial bull is the single most powerful of symbols. Coppolla has made, intentionally or not, the ultimate anti-war statement, one that should resonate through the ages.


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


user
i have lost count as to how many times i have watched this movie. i've never grown tired of it since this is a movie that can be enjoyed and interpreted on so many levels. they just don't make movies like this anymore.
after recently finally watching the riveting documentary on the making of this film (Hearts of Darkness:a filmmakers journey into madness), i'm even more amazed that this film even got finished, yet alone turn out so great.
the fact that they actually filmed this movie in the jungles of the Phillipines is the film's greatest asset. you actually FEEL like your in Vietnam.
all of the actors are fantastic with my favorites still being Robert Duvall ("I love the smell of napalm in the morning!!") martin sheen, and the great Marlon Brando.
a lot of people complain that the film gets too murky, weird and cerebral near the end. well, remeber what Coppolla said about this movie, "This film is not about vietnam, it IS vietnam!" what he means is that this film is about MADNESS and not the war.
this movie is based on the short story "Heart of darkness" by Joseph Conrad and is set against the vietnam war instead of the civil war as in the book. i think that was a brilliant combination in my opinion.
this is perfect, challenging film that is dark, violent, humorous at times and well done in every single possible way.
a true classic
rating:10


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


user
Somewhere on IMDb there is a discussion about the greatest director of all times (Spielberg, Copolla and others are named there). The greatest argument was around Spielberg and whether he is or isn't a great director. The problem with Spielberg is that while he is a master technician, most of his films lack depth.Saving Ryan is really outstanding from a technical point of view, but its message is dull and while its very entertaining, it doesn't make you think about anything. AN is the best movie I ever saw because it combines great shooting with a deep philosophical perspective on so many things, starting from war in general, the clash of civilizations, the condition of soldier in wartimes (is a soldier a hero or an assassin? Brando says he is neither, the french lady says he is both ...) and many others. The problem with some people is that they try to argue about whether these points are true or false. But a great movie, and a great piece of art in general is supposed to spark arguments, not to solve them ... Maybe Coppola is right, or maybe he isn't, nobody holds the truth anyway. You can watch this movie for its outer beauty, amazing scenes, great acting and memorable quotes and you will be entirely satisfied. But what really make this movie a masterpiece is its inner quality. You can't help but make a comparison with the recent Fahrenheit documentary.Both Copolla and Moore tackle similar issues, but while Copolla presents matters from an outside , objective point of view, Moore takes a very partisan position that really compromises the whole point of a documentary ... It is really a shame that a film like Fahrenheit 9/11 won a prestigious award like Cannes. But anyway, if you want to start to understand a little of the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, the second World War and any war in general, you should definitely see this movie, and not the other one ...


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 changed the art of film making, telling a complex story in a powerful new way. The film mixes brutal realism with fantasy, intercutting a modern war with strange scenes full of technicolour smoke. The film uses music not as a score laid in later, but as a practical part of the scene playing from speakers, radios etc. Coppola uses a classic piece of literature as inspiration, taking scenes and characters, and putting them into entirely different surroundings. That is a tricky and brave thing to do. Then he takes a superstar, Brando, pays him a fortune, and films him so that you can barely see his face. The pure guts that such a move requires is astounding, and it works beautifully. This movie belongs in the top ten.


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


user
After the success of the first two 'Godfather' films in 1972 and 1974 respectively, Francis Ford Coppola embarked on an ambitious attempt to bring home the reality of the war in Vietnam, which had concluded with the fall of Saigon to the Vietcong in 1975 The plot was loosely based on the book 'Heart of Darkness,' a story by Joseph Conrad about Kurtz, a trading company agent in the African jungle who has acquired mysterious powers over the nativesCoppola retains much of this, including such details as the severed heads outside Kurtz's headquarters and his final words, "The horror the horror"
In the film, Sheen plays an army captain given the mission to penetrate into Cambodia, and eliminate, with "extreme prejudice," a decorated officer who has become an embarrassment to the authorities On his journey up the river to the renegade's camp he experiences the demoralization of the US forces, high on dope or drunk with power
Although, as a result of cuts forced on Coppola, the film was accused of incoherence when first released, it was by the most serious attempt to get to grips with the experience of Vietnam and a victorious reinvention of the war film genre In 1980 the film won an Oscar for Best Cinematography and Best Sound
"Apocalypse Now" was re-released in 2001 with fifty minutes restored As a result, the motion picture can now be seen as the epic masterpiece it is


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


user
From all of the Vietnam war movies this is probably the most frightening and disturbing and that is really saying a lot with so many spectacular ones that have come out. It has this freakish feel to it. Everything is so chaotic in the movie it scares you. It is not like it shows a lot of different things compared to the other Vietnam war movies. What does push to such a high level is the:
The directing was spectacular here. Francis Ford Coppola shows of his talent in his last epic movie. Unlike other directors he makes you feel as if you are in the war. Most others just display and show you the horrors of war. Coppola though makes you feel confused, shocked and scared. These feelings of war are usually told to us from a movie or story. This is something that I have only experienced very few times while watching a film. The writing was of course amazing too. It brought you write into the middle of the movie. It never made me bored and this movie is three hours. The cinematography goes hand in hand with the directing which very much added to the freakish experience of watching this film showing all the chaos around you even when everything seems calm.
The acting was bone-chilling. Just look at Marlon Brando also giving his last great performance playing a deluded, out of whack colonel. When ever I think of a crazy gone made soldier I think Marlon Brando in Apocalpyse Now. With Brando n this film you don't want to look into his eyes. Like the movie he was freakish. To me this performance is as memorable as the one he gave in The Godfather. Martin Sheen gave a very deep performance and probably the best one of his career making you see everything through his eyes all the craziness he is experiencing and yet wanting him to get to his goal. It is just a wonder why these two did not get Oscar nominations. Robert Duvall was able to show part of that craziness with his ludicrous battle strategies, among those playing music to tell the enemy he is coming. Also Duvall's character asking one of the soldiers to surf in the middle of a battle was just shocking but believable. Other great supporting performances were given by a young Laurence Fishburne, Sam Bottoms and Frederic Forest who all summed up the attitudes of many of the soldiers at that time without becoming a cliché. Also for once cameos were put into good use having Dennis Hopper and Harrison Ford who I both love.
I would definitely recommend people to watch this movie. It has a message and everyone involved in the making of it is at their best. There is nothing more I could ask of this movie with its great acting, directing, writing, cinematography and great ending. Watch and you will see why it lives up to its title Apocalpyse Now.


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


user
Well, I've watched this movie for over 25 years now and it's still almost as interesting as when I first saw it. It is definitely one of the most unique films ever made.
I still think Martin Sheen got "dissed" big-time in the billing, too. He dominates the film yet gets lesser billing than Marlon Brando, who only appears in the last 30 minutes of this 2 hours, 17 minutes film (theatrical version). How unfair is that?
Sheen is fantastic in here, especially his narration, which runs throughout. It's one of the best narrations, if not THE best, I have ever heard in a movie. His voice is just haunting as he relates his thoughts on this incredible, nightmare-like adventure. I never fail to appreciate his work in this movie.
The other thing that strikes me about the film over the years are the number of memorable scenes, ones I have never forgotten, such as......
Sheen losing it in his hotel room in the movie's first scene; Robert Duvall and the totally out-of-place surfing scenes and then the ensuing attack with Wagner's dramatic classical music blaring out of the helicopters; The Playboy bunny entertaining the troops; Frederic Forrest being freaked out seeing a tiger close up in the jungle; the weird scenes on the long riverboat ride; the appearance of hippie journalist Dennis Hopper greeting the crew in Cambodia and then Brando's bizarre character. It goes on and on with strange scenes.
That's not to say I enjoyed everything. No, there are a few very unpleasant scenes, such as the one in which an ox is sliced in half (can't watch that anymore), an innocent family is slaughtered on a small boat by Sheen's young stoned-out crew, and the crew is a little too goofy at times. Then, there is the huge amount of profanity, led by way too many f-words.
So, there is a lot of good and a lot of bad things in this movie for almost anyone who watches this One thing for sure: it is a film you WILL remember!


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


user
I have always loved the ironic symbolism and brilliant cinematography of Coppola's masterpiece. I was lucky enough to meet Martin Sheen outside the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium one night in 1981, as he waited for Charlie and Emilio to leave a concert. He was very humble about the praise I shared with him for this work of art, especially his portrayal of the young Captain. This is, without a doubt, a must see, a complete 10 and an important part of American Film History. "Charlie Don't Surf". Robert Duvall's famous line (the other one) does not need repeating as it has become an oft repeated anthem and his Pattonesque character will long be remembered as a classic American war hawk in the John Wayne tradition. It is a surprise to see how young Laurence Fishburne looks.


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


user
Francis Ford Coppola's masterpiece was a great ending for a golden decade of American cinema. In the 1970s there was an atmosphere of tolerance, open-mindness, and progressiveness among the studios that allowed the making of major films by a few of the best directors that the United States has ever had. I am not a historian, but all the events that preceded the decade (a few being the violent deaths of major figures of the American political and cultural scenes, the racial struggles, the emergence of the 1960s counter-culture, the increase of violence and death in the streets...) seemed to influence the vision of filmmakers who were willing to dare, be different, and create entertaining and intelligent motion pictures. Coppola's film is a strange blend of humanistic thinking and skillful film-making, following the parameters of war and adventure films, and at the same time subverting them with its flowing reflections on the value of life, the reason of death, or the ethics of war. It is also a passionate work, made against all odds, chronicled in the 1991 documentary "Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse"; a motion picture that went beyond any previous reflection on the Vietnam war ever to reach the screen. This may not be the definite Vietnam motion picture, but dealing with it Coppola defied the formula of classic melodrama found in two Vietnam movies made simultaneously, "The Deer Hunter" and "Coming Home", or in latter ones as "Platoon" and "Casualties of War", before Vietnam became the starting point to make products of any genre, as horror in "Jacob's Ladder", or comedies as "Good Morning, Vietnam", among the more respectable. Coppola had the courage to take that economic and political conflict as the background of a search for answers to questions faced by any man every day of his life, without betraying the dramatic consequences of that war.


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 believe that this movie is much more appreciated by viewers who have actually read Joseph Conrad's "Heart Of Darkness", the book that was the literary basis for the movie. With that said, I believe that this movie is astounding. It is an excellent war film that doesn't so much concentrate on the gore and brutality of the Vietnam Conflict, but more the psychological toll that it took on the young, inexperienced "kids" who were sent to fight it. Coppola showed real genius in the art of film-making, using many visuals to help tell the story. The acting I felt was definitely all-around up to par. Marlon Brando's part in the movie is what really got me as far as acting. His elucidation to Willard at the end of the film reels you in, and reveals the hollowness of a man that you've heard about and wanted to see throughout the movie. Those who would consider this just another war movie need to give a detailed look to all the literary elements that are entwined with this film, because there is a great amount of meaning behind it all. In my opinion, this is one of the most sculptured and best-made films of all time.


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 that film that loads of people hail as a classic - Apocalypse Now, now a re-cut, re-up, Redux 22 years after it's original release.
The film is loosely based on Conrad's Heart of Darkness, it's main plot (if it has one) being Capt. Willard's journey on a naval boat through the Vietnam conflict on his way to terminate a rogue Colonel. (Colonel Kurtz) We see the characters and situations he meets, and he tells the Colonel's story along the way.
My initial feelings towards the film is that it's not particularly gripping at times, especially early on, but at least a good dose of comedy is put in, in the form of surfing fanatic Col. Kilgore. As the film progresses however, a good deal of tension is built up with Willard's reading through various reports on Col. Kurtz until the end is in sight, when everything comes together and the atmosphere of the film reaches an incredible level and holds it there until the end.
The usual aspects everyone looks for in a decent film are all of a good standard. Cinematography in particular stands out as exceptional, and I found the performances of Martin Sheen, Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall and Frederic Forrest to all be worthy of a special mention. The score I found initially sounded out of place, but as the film progressed... I'm not entirely sure if it did actually get better, or it fitted better, or if it had just grown on me, but by the end of the film I was thoroughly enjoying it.
This is the second time I have seen the Redux version, (I have seen the original around four times) I'll say now that the first time I saw it I was disappointed. I was expecting a "classic" film, with lots of war. The fact that Willard got the mission at the beginning of the film and didn't carry it out until the end had me bored because all of the character interaction on the way that IS the film seemed unnecessary. This is due to the fact that the plot is not entirely defined (as the focus is more on the character and the journey more than the plot), in most cases a second viewing is needed to appreciate the film fully (as with all films that are more character than plot based), as the second time around, you know where the plot is going. I had a similar experience with It's A Wonderful Life, which is now one of my favourite films.
With the big four Vietnam films, Apocalypse Now wins over the rest on atmosphere, but lacks the action and involvement of Platoon, the emotional intensity of The Deer Hunter, and cannot really be compared to Full Metal Jacket (probably my favourite of the four). Apocalypse Now is a great piece of work, especially towards the end where it becomes staggering, and is to be recommended for anyone who enjoys a good character based film and doesn't mind some casual violence.


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 a must see for any war movie buff. One of the greatest movies of all time and loaded with great quotes such as:
Kilgore: If I say its safe to surf this beach Captain, then its safe to surf this beach!
Kilgore: Smell that? You smell that? Lance: What? Kilgore: Napalm, son. Nothing in the world smells like that. Kilgore: I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end...


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


user
Brilliant actors and brilliant picture!! I love the chopper scene with the music in the beginning, it is just SO touching and at the same time real but at the same time surrealistic! The Vietnam War was far from human and I believe this movie kind of shows have terrible human beings can act under certain circumstances. Modern war movies are spending so much money on effects. This is just a straight forward smart movie that takes you beyond your imagination. A movie that really pictures evil and hate mixed in fearness and fate. How insane the world is and the power of will and friendship, love and passion. A must seen movie and without any doubts the best war movie ever! Many tried to copy but still there are no movie even close as good as this!!


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


user
I have seen this movie 4 times in 5 months and i never get tired of it just because it is perfect. And it has also got the best film music ever and the best supporting roles ever written for a movie. I mean you just have to love Robert Duval , Marlon Brando , Martin Sheen and Lauerence Fishburne in this movie but specially Duval. I can not believe that Kramer vs. Kramer did win an Oscar in stead of this amazing war movie. So this is my conclusion if you take the director of the worlds greatest movie ( The Godfather ) and the best of Hollywood actors you can only succeed. Now I just have to writhe something to get this preview so do not read this except the last line. This movie rules !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


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


user
You can find an anti-war statement here without looking too hard; that layer is hackneyed. Or you can find a value neutral comment on the madness of war (stripped of "judgement"); that layer is completely uninteresting.
Or you can watch this for the darn good entertainment value of Duvall's one-liners, but that's just a coating for commercial mastication.
You can try to view this as a 'realistic' Vietnam war film, but ask any veteran and he'll swat down that notion -- most vets will say it stinks.
Or view it as a 'will he or won't he' morality play -- nothing rich there, either.
Where I found the value was in the superb self-reference. Coppola needed a container with great enough dimensions (the war) to fit the greatness of the skilled multi-dimensional actor playing 'a great man'.
Brando the man was as much of a maverick as the Kurtz character. The studios were uncomfortable with his acting 'method', yet he always excelled and won accolades; the 'generals' are uncomfortable with Kurtz's 'unsound methods', in spite of his strategic genius.
So Coppola makes a movie all about Brando's greatness. To hammer on the point, he places himself in the movie (as Hopper, a manic photojournalist laden with multiple cameras) to spout his praises. Brando himself is only seen in half-light and silhouettes -- brilliant cinematography by Storaro that only increases the actor's power. And he goes out like the sacrificial bull to complete the narrative equation. Oh, yes: "the horror..."
Other pieces of interest: the great use of point of view camera perspectives, including 'being in the firefight' long before "Private Ryan"; the ground breaking use of sound, notably the ominous flanging sweeps and the sonic depiction of an acid trip.
Don't get caught in the outer layers; the rich part you should despoil from this is the brilliant core of sound, vision and self-reference.


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


user
It carries the tone of voice that narrates the book into the jungle of Vietnam and into the wild-eyed look of Martin Sheen and Dennis Hopper and the mystical morbidity surrounding Colonel Kurtz.(I don't say Marlon Brando because after watching the documentary, "Hearts of Darkness," I am skeptical as to how much credit Brando is due for that quality). The tone of voice I'm talking about is brooding and dramatic without being overbearing: "Everybody gets what he wants. I wanted a mission, and for my sins they gave me one. They sent it up with room service." It is indulgent without being narrow and alienating. A good example of is Hopper's indulgence into aphoristic madness, generously installing lines written by T.S. Eliot and Rudyard Kipling into his stony monologues: "I mean, the man's a geniussometimes he'll walk right by you without even saying a word, and sometimes he'll grab you by the collar and say "did you know that 'if' is the middle word in 'life'if you can hold your head while all around you they are losing theirs" and then "I mean he's a wise man, he's a great man; I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across the floors of silent seas" (The first one's Kipling, the second one's Eliot.


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


user
I would like to submit the following goof.
During the bridge scene, soldiers are seen wading out in the river, asking to be taken away and seeking to escape. Some of the soldiers approach Captain Willard's boat and attempt to board carrying with them suitcases. Soldiers are not issued nor do they ever carry suitcases into a combat zone. They have duffel bags, packs and footlockers but not suitcases. The use of a suitcase in this scene is absurd and out of keeping. Additionally, if you look closely, you will see that the suitcase is floating on top of the water. This is probably a very good indication that it is empty,otherwise it would sink.


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 apocalyptic vision of the hell of our contemporary world. The social criticism of our shallow, commercially oriented values is what makes this film an exceptional vision of the "war is hell" cliché, underscored by a mythical journey upriver to Cambodia by a special forces captain whose mission is to eliminate (with extreme prejudice) a rogue colonel, who's left behind the army's concepts of justice to create his own world. When I saw Apocalypse Now in 1980, I thought it was a deeply flawed masterpiece. In particular, I found the final segment of the journey with Brando, which encapsulates Conrad's Heart of Darkness, to be rather boring. I finally got around to seeing Apocalypse Now Redux and the flaws have been taken care of. Redux makes the movie an outright masterpiece, certainly among the top 100 films ever made. Brando's performance now seems full and complete, perhaps rather less mysterious, but much more profound. Martin Sheen is brilliant at the heart of one of the best acting ensembles ever assembled. It's great to spot a young Harrison Ford, Scott Glenn, etc. in early screen performances that suggest what fine actors they will eventually be recognized as. The work of Robert Duvall, Fred Forrest, Lawrence Fishburne and Sam Bottoms is greatly enhanced by the additional footage. If you've never seen this film, skip the original and head straight for Redux. I wish we could get a Gangs of New York Redux from Scorcese to fill in all the gaps in that deeply flawed potential masterpiece.


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 classic war movie. One of the best, a stark image fest of flashing lights, harrowing dark backgrounds and helicopter blades morphing into ceiling fans. A star-studded spectacle of immense power.
Martin Sheen is a mercenary sent up river to assassinate the general gone astray, a sadistic dictator played beyond belief by the great Marlon Brando. Also along for the ride are, Robert Duvall as an over the top DI with a penchant for "napalm in the morning" or at least the smell of it. Dennis Hopper is an edgy photojournalist with a view slanted views about the war and about his leader. Also in this amazing film you'll see up and coming stars such as Laurence Fishburne, R. Lee Ermey, Sam Bottoms, Albert Hall and keep an eye out for Harrison Ford too...
Behind the lens is Francis Ford Coppolla delivering a film with maybe more intensity and drama than the acclaimed Godfather films, he highlights war in it's most basic form, which for the most part is something you can't see, you can only feel it, as the boat carries on up river the feeling of the war tightening in is quite unbearable. The feeling of this is a rather claustrophobic feeling and really makes for unusual moods from the viewers. Honestly no films has ever made me feel like that.
Criticism is hard to find. The biggest qualm from some is that Brando earned tons of money for a ten minute role, but in all fairness this is unjustified. It was money well earned, a role that physically restricted him, being at the time an unwell man, and a role that he really made his own. I can't picture anyone better for the role. And if you get the Apocalypse Now Redux version, there's some extra bits of the great man, and I think the Redux does make the film miles better.
Final impressions are that if you are lucky to get the Redux version then you will be blessed with a completely satisfying film with a cool 49 minutes extra footage. If not, then still you won't be disappointed, this film is up there with the best, and deserves some great recognition, and a firm place as one of the top 50 films ever made...


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


user
Breathtaking at it's best, intriguing at it's worst, Francis Ford Coppala's groundbreaking epic 'Apocalypse Now' is one of the most iconic and celebrated motion pictures of the 20th century, and in my opinion, the greatest ever film depiction centered around America's involvement in Vietnam.
What I like most about 'Apocalypse Now' is that it is uniquely different from any other films of the same genre. Growing up as movie buff, and with a particular interest in war films, I've seen many films, which have attempted to portray the 'images' and 'feelings' of Vietnam but have been unsuccessful in doing so. Films such as 'Hamburger Hill' and 'We were soldiers' fall into the category of trying to capture the atmosphere of Vietnam by depicting 'heroic battles' which are, more often than not, tainted by the zeal of Hollywood film production.
In 'Apocalypse now' there are no battles, no heroes or villains, there is nothing in the film that suggests that it is intended to reflect the imagery of Vietnam through the physical aspects of war. Rather, it is a film, which powerfully investigates and explores the human psyche when it has been tormented by the absolute 'horror' of what was the darkest military conflict of the previous century.
The sheer brilliance of the acting (in particular the interpretation of taciturn Captain Willard by Martin Sheen), along with the spectacular cinematography (filmed in the Phillipines), which provides crucial realism to the backdrop of the film, makes 'Apocalypse Now' an unforgettable epic.
Evoking a myriad of emotions and leaving us with a maelstrom of mediation, 'Apocalypse now' is not for the light-hearted moviegoer. It is masterpiece that demands multiple viewings to be fully appreciated.


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


user
I have to admit that I had low expectations for this movie. But I was surprised to find it entertaining, interesting, and funny. It's an entertaining thriller and not so much a horror film. There were moments that made my hairs stand up! Even better, though, were the highly amusing, occasionally hysterical, comedic moments in the film (you'll know which ones I'm talking about). There also are a few great special effects (and the humor and the special effects aren't necessarily separate).
The acting, on the whole, is very good--way better than a typical low budget horror film. The lead (Jackie), in particular, and many of the smaller, supporting roles (like the lawyer, the couple living next door, the pizza man) are well acted. If they hadn't been, the film wouldn't have kept my interest and I would have lost my belief in the story. This is a good, interesting low budget thriller and definitely worth a rental!


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


user
One thing that came across to me in watching this film is that it was fun/exciting for the cast and crew; I could sense that they were going up against the budget constraint with enthusiasm & dedication because they apparently liked the people involved.
I tend to like B movies that are original and have heart, and I think this is one such work. The actors seem to me to be putting there hearts in it more than usual, maybe because of some good direction from the lead actress/director, and they evidently were clear enough in their parts of the story to make a coherent, watchable piece of art.
The critiques of this film that more or less say, "why not just rent a hardcore porn movie," make the point as to why they didn't like the film. Going to this film hoping for a lot of T&A without patience for the material of the plot is why it is so unenjoyable for them. One could say the movie is more of a romantic work than a softcore porn movie, even though I take it the star has done her share of soft porn. I think she graduated.
In terms of the writing, the dialog is not a huge part of the movie, like in a Tarentino film, but the plot is decent and the twists are original and sometimes fun. Particularly the ending is not a disappointment but a pleasure, with the villianess/heroine and the "leading man" learning from their complex web of feelings.
I understand that the producer got a 3 film deal out of this. Hats off for proving a few tens of thousands of dollars can go pretty far if you have some artistic sensibility and pride.
Gabriella and the other girls with scenes of nudity were likable along with being hot, not just airhead bimbos, so as an erotic science fantasy piece with some gorgeous nude art, even with the limits of B-movie land, not disappointing.


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


user
Anyone who critiques 'Jacqueline Hyde' as anything more than the playful and undeniably erotic romp that it's intended to be is just not playing with a full deck. Just from the title, it's obvious that this low budget horror comedy isn't meant to be taken seriously... it's as tongue in cheek as a nympho's french kiss, and just as titillating. The female cast members are all great and fun to watch. Check this out, Rolfe Kanefsky is the clown-prince of soft-core horror. Unlike most soft-core horror flicks, this one is entertaining all the way through with charismatic and exceptionally attractive actresses. The movie doesn't even attempt to follow the storyline of the Robert Louis Stevenson classic, but instead seeks out every way possible to create risqué sight gags and erotic situations. Blythe Metz, the brunette femme fatale who portrays the sexier, homicidal side of Jacqueline, is a real knockout. Watch and enjoy!


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


user
Jacqueline Hyde is a good quality film and does manage to be likable because of what it is. Everyone out there will like it! Sandwiched between the amount of breast shots, the times Jacqueline rubs herself, the various times Jackie spends chatting to herself and the times spent heaving in the Magdelena Mountains, this could create one hell of a dishwasher if your career were to end.
Unlike most horror movies that take place in space or in some restless tranquility with ripe green apples, this one takes awhile to guzzle. The performing is good. Other than great acting by Dan the pizza delivery guy (must see), there are no standouts, but no notably bad outcroppings from my recent dinner either (and I do mean recent). Excellent acting overall because there are no typically dreadful actors which you'd find in movies of the four "Skin" related data fields or in the biological skimmer's found in any IBM shop. In addition if you see a female in this movie, the likelihood is that she will be butt naked by the next scene! Now that I think about it, there is quite a bit of action in this movie. Between the first and the second electro yank obtained from a hot chick and the time you observe her "buckets naked", keeps em' speculating. I loved it!


assistant
1