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 was watching TV one day with a friend and we caught the last twenty minutes of "Going Bananas." Believe me when I say it was enough to get a good judgment of the film. The first scene that I saw was the monkey, the kid, the fat guy, and the black guy who looked like Dave Chappelle, flying around in a crop duster thousands of feet in the air. While everyone else was solemn about the journey, the monkey seemed to be on some kind of drug binge where he kept shouting something that resembled the English word faster. They then landed on a twenty yard long dock in Africa. After a heart felt goodbye where the monkey cried (Hahahaha), the "villains" of the film appeared. They were tearing complete ass in their vintage Cadillac when the evil monkey took an Air Jordan leap form the dock onto the boat that was sailing away a clean 40 yards away and made them sink their beautiful car into the Pacific Ocean. After seeing this film, I have a new purpose in life; to find the midget who played the monkey and stab him in the eye with a fountain pen.


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


user
A good friend of mine one said: "A monkey is funny, anytime, anywhere." There is one exception to this: GOING BANANAS. It is quite simply the WORST MOVIE I have ever seen. It's worse than PLAN 9, worse than THE BEAST OF YUCCA FLATS. It is TERRIBLE. The talking monkey gag gets old after about three minutes, and believe me that's all there is. Make sure you have a bunch of people around to revive you after you go into TOXIC SHOCK from GOING BANANAS, the worst movie ever.


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


user
I somehow failed for a few years to see this film, although it has been quite successful and generated a lot of discussions in Israel. I am sorry that I did not postpone indefinitely seeing it.
The theme of 'Kadosh' is a very real and painful one for those who know the Jewish religious world - the place of women in the orthodox family and society. The basic situation that sits at the premises of the film is possible, the problem is that the way it is brought to screen and the 'solution' that the conflicts described receives in the movie is wrong. Gitai does not seem to have too much sympathy for men in the religious world, but his approach of picking characters that are either fanatic, or unable to express their human feeling makes the whole story seem simplistic. Neither does he a much better service to his women characters, although here at least he shows more sympathy and he also enjoys the participation of two beautiful and gifted actresses in Yael Abecassis and Meital Barda. Overall Gitai's vision is too one-sided, his cinema means are too basic, he focuses on the technical details of the Jewish religious life, which may be interesting for people who do not know them but are really not relevant at all in the context of the whole story. Starting from interesting premises what we get here is a boring film which seems longer than it is, with a very static way of acting, obsessive use of music that plays in the same register not only from a musical but also from an emotional perspective and a very inconclusive if not even confusing ending. What difference between this film and 'Ha Ushpizin' inspired from and describing the very same social landscape and which succeeded to transmit human feelings on the screen. In 'Kadosh' there are both too little cinema and too little human emotions.


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


user
The one line summary is actually the punch line of a very old joke that begins "what is a Jewish porno film?"
While this film had its interesting moments, it was far too slow moving and did not do enough to explain to those of us in the audience unfamiliar with orthodox Jewish custom, exactly what was going on and why? How many people who came across this film would know that the bathtub the female characters were washing in is in reality called a "Mikveh" which is a ritual bath used to cleanse spiritual uncleanliness? The same question might be asked of why the bride was walked around the groom a dizzying number of times while her face was covered just prior to the marriage vows being performed. These two examples are but two of a large number of such moments that remained completely unexplained to the uninitiated audience.
This film does have its touching moments along with expressions of great love and emotions. The characters are presented very authentically right down to the number of garments an ultra orthodox Jewish male must wear as well as the religious rituals he must engage in upon awakening in the morning to begin his day. The attitudes orthodox Judaism has towards women in general and wives in particular is both intriguing and at times maddening. This is another reason why more explanation is needed if this story is to be understood in context.
I recommend this film to people who are familiar with orthodox Jewish tradition and ritual as well as those who might be interested in getting a brief peek at what the lives of people who practice this way of life is like.
The story itself about two sisters who in their own ways rebel against "the system" is of moderate interest at best.


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


user
As a writer and a lapsed Orthodox Jewish woman, I was let down tremendously by this movie. The dialogue is hackneyed and wasteful, the characters, too engaged with lines ranging from the wrackingly prosaic to the stunningly melodramatic, aren't allowed to expand into genuinely textured individuals. The one-trick musical score tries to make up for the blandness, swooping portentously into the silence to jar the viewer and the script out of protracted catatonia.
Like an adolescent revolutionary on a self-righteous tirade, this film is blown away by the wisdom of its revelation--patriarchy is wrong--and thoroughly squanders its energies, hammering on this point. The resultant artistic crime is a complete lack of imaginative development; the moral crime is the reduction of human beings to caricatures: martyrs and grotesques.


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


user
The film is a gross misrepresentation of Orthodox lifestyle and practice. NEVER will a Jewish court enforce a divorce between childless couples. Although the concept exists in Jewish law, the conditions are too numerous for it to actually ever take place. Childless couples do find it difficult to cope with their childlessness in a community where children are a very important part of life, but nowhere are they "rejected" by their community as depicted in the film. They are treated with extreme sensitivity. In fact, many great Rabbis have lived their entire lives without children and never considered divorce.
The depiction of Yosef, a horrible human being, is meant to - perhaps subconsciously - show the behavior of a typical orthodox male. In reality, it is as typical as a violent drunkard rapist is typical of secular society. Both exist in their own worlds and both are despicable.
It is surprising that so many people form their opinions about a society based on a MOVIE (by someone who is personally biased against a community). I have always thought that it is only the Orthodox, because of their narrow-mindedness and insular lifestyle, who judge all secular people based on the violence and immoral conduct they read about in newspapers or see in the movies.


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


user
My mother told me not to go to see "Kadosh" -- but who ever listens to one's mother?
I was so turned off by it while I was watching I thought I must have lost my feminist credentials on the way into the theater, so I checked with card-carrying feminists the next day. No, they also thought it was much more an anti-Orthodox screed than a pro-feminist statement, painting the Orthodox as equal to the Taliban.
While this Israeli movie is careful to show that the sect the story is about is the ultimate ultra-Orthodox Messianists, it is so nasty as to be unbelievable (plus that the non-fanatic Orthodox rock-'n'-roller(!) one of the sisters is in love with is incredibly sexy--even in Israel that must be fantasy).
The theater was quite crowded, so there's a pent-up curiosity to see Israeli movies; too bad this vicious movie is the one getting wide distribution. This was almost enough to drive me back to insipid Hollywood romantic movies.
(originally written 4/29/2000)


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


user
I don't know what Chasidik movement was this film about?I saw this film a year ago.I am an Orthodox woman, living in an Orthodox Chasidic? community And I can tell you I was offended by this movie!It's so far away from the reality, it's scary ! The director could at least hire a Chasidik Rabbi for a brief consultation, before making a "Realistic" movie about ultra -orthodoxs! For example Meir's Davening (Morning Prayers)! Or a Jewish wedding, or a Mikveh ( ritual bath ) customs.
Movie is loaded with technical inaccuracies..but it's not them that bothered me. It's the spiritual side. Orthodoxs are portrayed next to Taliban. Woman are powerless, while men are the ultimate rulers ! Please!No one can force a Jewish girl to the Chuppa against her will ! We ,Orthodoxs,also, live by the law (Halacha ) which clearly states man's responsibilities towards his wife.No beating and no raping,also!And no man ( even Rabbi)is allowed to peak at the woman in the Mikveh.And Balanit is not to place a hand over woman's head,while she's taking a ritual bath, the idea is to immerse the whole body at one time! Director was clearly trying to bash Ultra Orthodoxs ! But could he do so at least in a nice and more educated manner?
Love story? Cute ! But not credible.Dialogs are long and boring.The ending sucked totally.For all that drama I was at least hoping for a nice ending ,for all that sitting I felt I deserved it! Obviously someone was trying to make a nice consciousness soothing movie for less observant Jews, or for Non- Jews, perhaps..(look at those Fundamentalist, they are so evil and mean...)and they succeed! Long thing short: Was hoping for a nice Europien (Kane level ) movie, got instead a tradition bashing, unrealistic,mistakenly guiding junk. I mean , today,we live in a time of a free will as never before. Everyone has a right to choose. Malka chose a rock singer.Rivka made her choice.Meir made his. Many people from non observing backgrounds are choosing Orthodox Judaism these days.Because,in this mad world Religion might be a nice gateway !


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


user
The movie opens with a scene that simply could not be. A man wakes up and while his wife remains in bed, he begin his morning prayers in his bedroom while his wife sleeps peacefully. Morning blessings are recited, but only the ones Gitai finds controversial. the rest are conveniently omitted. then while in philactories and a tallis he kisses his wife good morning!! This is not an accurate depiction of jewish prayer in any home, let alone a chassidic home. Amos Gittai is not interested in accurately portraying chassidic life. He is interested in adding to his ever growing list of melodramatic and empty films. The mikka (ritual bath) scenes are far from accurate and his jewish wedding was laughable as it does not even approach the atmosphere of a chassidic wedding. I have many problems with the chassidic way of life, but i have no use for Amos Gittai's commentary on these issues. He would have you think that the chassidim are all dense comformists with severe bouts of depression. I may not agree with the chassidic lifestyle, but i acknowledge that chassidic life has many layers. Amos Gitai is blinded by his own secularist pseudo-intellectual stubborness and is therefore, incapable of portraying an accurate depiciton of chassidic life. Aside from his poor research and unbalanced portrayal of chassidic life, Gitai fails in other aspects as well. The plot is full of holes, the dialogue loaded with silence, the soundtrack is too repetitive and the acting while at times powerfull was too often loaded with melodrama. The movie drags on and on and the ending is not worth sticking around for. watch if you must, but be warned. If you want to learn about chassidic life go to the communities and talk to chassidim. Do not rely on Gittai's film!


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


user
This movie is best enjoyed amidst a large audience with the giggle-fits.
Very frequently the characters in KADOSH are seen staring ahead intensely at nothing. Very intense unhappy faces, very pensive, very serious. During these moments there is very serious sounding music just to make doublely sure the viewer realizes that the scene being watched is not about fun and games.
The more entertaining portions of this film come in between the many pensive stares. We learn that the women of the KADOSH community have two duties. One is to breed as many male babies as possible for their husbands. The second is to stay employed so to free their husbands from having to work. What do these men do with their ample free time? They pray. And we learn that at home they pray out loud, "I give you thanks for not creating me as a woman." And at their place of worship they pray to give thanks for possessing functioning male genitalia.
Along with the praying there are many scenes of frenzied antics, screaming, and endless head bobbing and bodies rocking back and fourth, and mixed in with everything are many intricate and bizarre (or simple but just as odd) ritualistic activities.
The cream of the unintentional comedy comes from the sex. The imagery of an hot and bothered man actively exchanging body fluids with his wife in bed while attempting to keep his beanie from falling off his scalp is unforgettable!
Every sex scene is funny, but one that stands out is when a husband rubs his face against his beautiful wife's (Yaël Abecassis) feet. Oh yes, we are finally entering the land of sensuality... but NO! The feet rubbing stops before anything happens and the husband begins his autistic looking head bobbing and body rocking until the scene ends!
There are three attractive females in near states of undress, however KADOSH contains absolutely no nudity. Technically, there is some interesting imagery and pleasing uses of light and colors by the director.
For a more believable, educational and entertaining treatment of the plight of being an unclean female unworthy of holding a book in a world where respect is measured by the speed by which a man can cite a phrase from ancient writings, I suggest Barbra Streisand's YENTL.



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


user
It is apparent that director, writers and everyone else knows nothing about their own religion or the people who practice it. This movie is endlessly flawed and overall a complete crock.
For instance, there is a scene where the rabbi enters the woman's ritual bath while a naked woman is bathing, puts his hand on the head of a woman there and blesses her. This is complete mockery of the laws, in this scene alone some of the laws broken include: Modesty, a rabbi would never enter a ritual bath house while there are woman in it.
Improper contact, a rabbi would never put his hand on a woman's head, not to mention that it is not the way a blessing is given.
The woman from the ritual bath is dunking a naked woman by pushing her head under the water, the laws regarding ritual bathing require the entire body to make direct contact with the bath water; this means nobody should be in contact with the person bathing, certainly not pushing them under!
There was more just in that scene alone, like dunking 13 times (where does that concept even come from?) not to mention the rest of the movie was a total fallacy. It is scary what ignorance can concoct!


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


user
And again, Columbia Pictures decides to merely make "hash" using the original version with Curly and without any of the gags or jokes to boot! Toward the end of this pitiful flick when Joe gets stuck riding the bull, the studio didn't even make much of an effort to re-record the sound for if you listen carefully you can still here Curly going "Woo woo woo woo". Also, when Moe and Larry throw the darts in order to "slow the bull down so he can get off", that's lifted right from the original because you can actually see Moe and Larry "magically" appear 15 years younger. Why oh why did Moe allow all this to happen? It's a burning question that probably can never be answered because as far as I know, in real life he was quite sensitive to any type of criticism and had rather high standards for his work, as also did Larry, Curly and Shemp. Don't waste your time on this one.


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


user
This short subject is a remake of the Three Stooges' 1942 film "What's the Matador?", about the boys' trip to Mexico and their bullfighting adventures. Although the original short was made during the Stooges' peak period, it isn't that memorable and I believe it is one of the more mediocre films with Curly Howard.
Having established that, I believe that "Sappy Bullfighters" is just pathetically awful, like all the other shorts with Joe Besser. Moe and Larry never should have hired Besser, because his whiny, almost feminine character was completely wrong for the violent comedy of the Stooges. His 16 films with Moe and Larry marked the nadir for the team, and those shorts are embarrassing to watch. This short was released in 1959 and was the team's swan song with Columbia. Maybe Besser was a nice guy, but he was all wrong as the third stooge.
I won't review any more Besser shorts, because I would just be giving the same scathingly negative review over and over. Do yourself a big favor and don't watch this. Instead, try to catch "In the Sweet Pie and Pie" or "Hoi Polloi".


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


user
The Three Stooges are arguably the greatest comedy team in film history. For that reason alone, they deserved a much better ending at Columbia than they received with this short.
"Sappy Bullfighters" is just not good. Granted, this is not all Joe Besser's fault. I personally feel that some of his shorts are fun enough, simply because of the departure from the Stooges usual fanfare that they contain, and for the fact that Larry is sometimes showcased more. However, this short just will not do. And the fact that one knows that it is their last short that was ever shown, well that just adds to the overall disgust.
This film just epitomizes how short subjects were on their last dying breaths during this time and how little effort went into making them. This short is so sloppy. It is a simple re-make of a Curly short, "What's the Matador?", filmed years before. As if this fact wasn't bad enough, the studio actually threw in footage of Moe and Larry from the original (which was filmed nearly 20 years prior). Are these things not obvious? Laughable or sad? You be the judge.
Another part of this short that makes it miserable is the fact that it is basically a Joe Besser showcase, with him showing that all he is (at least in this film) is a Curly-wanna-be-gone-completely-wrong! Moe and Larry have little to do in this short. As a Larry fan, I also must say that I feel it a bit disgraceful to have Besser get to use the joke that Larry originally popularized in the short "Ants In The Pantry". To see Besser say "I can't see, I can't see!" and have Larry say the simple "Why can't you see?", while Besser gets to quip "I got my eyes closed", is just wrong on all levels.
The two brave soldiers who stuck it out for all those years, Howard and Fine, have so little to do in this short. There are hardly any funny bits with them. The only thing that qualifies is Larry hiding under the bed of a jealous husband, attempting to be "Pepe", his dog.
One can't blame the dynamic duo. Larry and Moe give it their all. No matter how ridiculous things could get (and I'm sure they had their opinions by this point in their careers) Howard and Fine never gave anything less than their best. Their efforts do not pale from 1934-1959.
I often enjoy many shorts that some will dismiss as horrible. I'm all for their more "experimental", unusual shorts. At least those contain new ideas. However, this short, I think everyone can agree, is just not good.
Thank goodness TV later discovered the boys after the shorts department closed. Had they been forced to go out in THIS fashion, well that would have been a gross injustice to all the years they invested in making audiences laugh.


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


user
It's a shame that quality actors like Baldwin and Booth have to succumb to lousy stories and scripts just for the money. But, hey, it's a cruel world...
This is just another one of a long line of assassin thrillers that use all the usual narrative twists to try to make it appear more appealing than it is. Sure, it has some nice locations, it's a slick production, there is some good camera work and editing, and it's fairly well paced, overall.
So, what's the real problem? Quite simply, the whole premise is just totally unbelievable. However, instead of spoiling a rotten story for you, I'll let you find out what it's all about, that is, if you can get through it. I managed, but only because I like Baldwin and I kept hoping that it would get better.
It didn't. And, it had one of the most anti-climactic endings that I've seen for a long time. In fact, maybe never...
But, it's harmless fun, I guess, if you've got nothing better to do.


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


user
Second Nature will not go down as one of the worst tv movies of 2003, but perhaps the worst of All Time. Formulaic, derivative, and every performance phoned in, from far, far away. Everyone associated with this project should have a hard time looking in the mirror.


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


user
The movie was awful. The production company should be required to pay a fine for wasting electricity transmitting this nonsense.
There were too many holes in the plot. Why would the DOJ send a killer out to assassinate a world leader? If they weren't the DOJ, why would they send someone they thought would not do the job? To quote Butch Cassidy, "Who are those guys?" Apparently, the director does not know either because he never told us.
The characters were unbelievable. They did not behave in any way that seemed to fit who they allegedly were. With the exception of the doctor, none of the characters were particularly compelling or likeable.
If you want to waste money on the electricity required to watch this movie, feel free. Otherwise, run the opposite direction.


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


user
As usual, leader Leo Gorcey (as Slip Mahoney) and "The Bowery Boys" are hard-pressed for cash. After unsuccessfully trying to sell their old jalopy, the lads look for help at the local bank. There, hapless Huntz Hall (as Sach) has his picture taken by pretty photographer Teala Loring (as Cathy Smith). But, since the shot was snapped during a robbery, it makes Mr. Hall look like the prime suspect. With pals Bobby Jordan (as Bobby), William "Billy" Benedict (as Whitey), and David Gorcey (as Chuck); Mr. Gorcey wants to clear Hall, and collect the $1,000 reward money. "Bowery Bombshell" goes through the motions, with Ms. Loring a main strength.
**** Bowery Bombshell (7/20/46) Phil Karlson ~ Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall, Teala Loring, Bobby Jordan


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


user
I'm always interested to see neglected movies that appear to have good credentials, but in this case the film's neglect appears justified. Evidently based on some actual incidents during WWII, the film just doesn't connect with the viewer for some reason that it is not quite clear to me. One very likely reason is that - in the print I saw on TCM, anyway - none of the scenes where the Germans talked among themselves were given titles. This interesting directorial concept - to let the non-German speaking viewer just guess from "context" what the Germans are saying to each other - is, in my book, an utter flop and helps to lock the viewer out. Also, the way the movie begins - just dropping us into a very confused situation without much setup - is disorienting. Brian Keith is pretty good here, but the reputations of "The Great Escape" and "Stalag 17" will not be challenged by this flick.


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


user
Great piece of fiction played as if factual. Tonight I was looking at the Birdman of Alcatraz. Robert Stoud was not a model meek prisoner and he was in jail because he was pimping and a customer did not pay up. Once he got into jail he was so uncontrollable he spent most of his time in solitary confinement or in the prison hospital. Killed a few people in prison too. This movie reminds me of the Birdman of Alcatraz but even worse. Robert Stroud did write books and he did contribute to society in someway. And the BOA had some hints of Strouds lunacy. BUT this guy Henry Young who Murder in the First is suppose to be about was a a known bank robber who took hostages and beat them up in more then one robbery. He wasn't some poor guy who stumbled into a grocery store which just happened to be a post office and took some money. This man was a hard core criminal. He also killed a person 3 years before he went to Alcatraz. He killed another person in jail not because of the solitary confinement which ended over a year before the murder. The real story of his life would of been more interesting. They did not even get the warden thing right. You can't be a warden in 3 different prisons at the same time. And by all accounts the warden in the movie was a pretty stand up guy as wardens go. Plus if my math is right the Warden played by Karl Malden in the BOA is suppose to be the same warden in this movie. Oh Boy. Not only that, in this movie we are to think poor Henry committed suicide. And he wrote the word Victory. Not true..he might be alive right now. He was sent to Springfield where Robert Stroud was also a medical center prison then Walla Walla for another murder he committed and then was released and jumped parole in 1972, never to be found. Maybe he is hanging out with that CB Cooper guy who jumped out that airplane in Washington state after committing a bank robbery lol. Now the acting was very good. Kevin Bacon is in that class of actors which include Jeff Bridges and Dennis Quaid, the vastly underrated actors club. Gary oldman well they just might of made-up the warden part so he could play it because he was great. Christian Slater still somehow sounds like Jack Nicholson, I am not sure if that is a good thing or not. Bacons wife Kyra Sedgwick was in the movie I think just because she is his wife. I like her though but not in this flick. For some reason I felt this movie when it first came out was suppose to be a special project for Kevin Bacon. I feel he could of taken a person who is truly a victim of the penal system, there sure is enough of them and spread some light on their plight. Other then picking a psychopath to show as a victim.


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


user
Let me begin with a personal note as a film and television buff, more on the enjoyment side of life: I love what James Woods can do and has done, and I always love Melanie Griffith, and Natasha Wagner was very good in this awful, miserable, stinking "true crime" essay.
Whoever really wrote this film apparently never spent any time talking to real criminals with real criminal talents: yes, some thieves are junkies but they have very short careers as thieves. Truly successful thieves are seldom caught because they don't do "junk" or any drugs before going on a score ( job ).
The James Woods character was true to this paradigm in the beginning of this film, and then the script fell apart completely. He turns into a raging, alcoholic lunatic .... nice work for a high-strung guy like Woods, maybe, but not in the least bit believable.
Most criminals are lazy. If they wanted to work they would work.
These people in this film are beautiful, self-indulgent, drug-addled narcissistic losers. They couldn't pull off a real score in the real world, the real world where a big and beefy security guard who beats the living hell out of a skinny kid ( as happens in the early scenes of this "DOG" ), keeps him beat down and doesn't let him up. Ever.
How many ways did I find to hate this film ? Many. Even totally vulgar people -- like most sneak thieves and junkies -- have a larger vocabulary than these cretins. And the 'rip-off' scenes with the neo-Nazi bikers ? Puhlease. All rednecks ain't neo-Nazis and those who are neo-Nazi speed dealers just ain't that dumb !!
This film earned a two because Natasha Wagner was extremely good in her role as Rose and because Melanie Griffith still has 'that something special,' or at least she had it for this brutal and offensively stupid film. I'm not one to sing praises of real criminals for any reason, but the reality of these criminal types in this horrible film is that they'd all be dead or in jail by Act 2, Scene 1. Watching a lousy Zombie movie would be time better spent than this .... thing ... and I hate zombies.


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


user
I find myself alarmed that people are not so critical of a work that deserves criticism. The many similarities, both structurally and literally, with 'Amadeus' aside the 'Copying Beethoven' deliberately chooses the easy path by putting audience before art. And therefore denying the world a discerning, intelligent and creative work.
Now consider the following: Is it not possible that the real story of the creation of the ninth symphony may actually be an engaging and powerful story itself and equally so in a dramatic telling? Beethoven was completely deaf by the writing of the symphony  isn't that more interesting? How WAS the symphony conducted? Wouldn't it be great to know? So ask yourself, what possible motivation could a filmmaker have for introducing a woman as the copyist? If there was a copyist, he would certainly be a man. What was his story? (please try to be a little critical here even if you like the invention of a woman composer).
Fantasy should be much MORE than a distortion of reality to serve a writers purpose. For those who find themselves comparing and justifying the invention of Anna Holtz with the invention of Salieri's claim to have murdered Mozart in 'Amadeus', consider that he confessing to a priest in a lunatic asylum (Schaffer uses this device to great affect in the film). 'Copying Beethoven' may have worked if Anna was a figment of Ludwig's fevered imagination. But we are meant to believe she is 'possible'... Yes and that Strauss was assisted by aliens.
Most of the positive reviews I've read here so far are often expressions of a DESIRE for the film to be good; almost a deliberate amnesia. Remembering the film for what you wish it to be rather than what it is.
For those who believe that fantasy justifies the means then consider you are not only accepting an inferior interpretation of real events but also sacrificing the truth for the sake of a triviality.
Finally, a short note on the acting here that may surprise some of you. Ed Harris is NOT good as Ludwig Van Beethoven. Does that shock you? He looks awkward throughout the film, much like an actor dressed up, but off set and standing at the catering table. Most of his lines are said as cues rather than replies to Anna Holtz's lines (i.e. he is not listening to the actor). He is quite clearly an actor masquerading as the character rather than BEING the character.
Really, how many times does Beethoven have to roll in his grave before we get it right? Just ask yourself, would Ludwig approve?


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


user
I made a big mistake going to see this film. That's the lottery of going to see films I guess. After five minutes you just knew it was going to be a clunker, and I fought quite hard to stay in my seat - the old "lose two hours of your life" kind of feeling.
The fundamental problem is that, without even mentioning the whole "historical accuracy" thread of reviews, the script is achingly, painful, bad.
The first thirty minutes could have been spread out to an hour to give a plausible, real, plot development. Instead, it lurched from from one undramatic "dramatic" event to the next. Having the girl cry at the start of the film makes no sense because the audience has no emotional attachment to anything at this point. And that whole walking off into the sunset through the long-grass field at the end, what the hell was that about?
Not even the excellent Ed Harris could save this one. You could almost feel his pain at some of the lines he had to utter. The most fabulously awful one was, for no apparent reason, he stares at the girl as she copies his work in his apartment, she looks up, it all goes a bit fuzzy romantic kind-a lighting (or am I dreaming), and he says, with authority in his voice,
"WASH ME."
And she gets up and washes him, with a sponge. "Wash me" WTF? That's hilarious.
And then there was the music. The long extended session when it was just Beethoven conducting and the 9th Symphony pouring out of the surround sound in the cinema and the choir waiting, waiting, standing there silently for what seems like forever. And then, finally, launching into enormous sound. It was spine-chillingly wonderful and dare I say it, it brought tears to my eyes.
So that is where the film picked up two stars. The only part of the film where Beethoven got to say exactly what he wanted to say.
And I believed him.


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


user
About your terrible movie copying Beethoven. As a professional musician it's my duty to watch every movie made about any composer and Beethoven is one of my favorites. When Hungarians and Americans meet, it's a terrible combination of empty over the top emotions combined with the worst taste possible. You proved it in your terrible b-movie. The only thing that carries the movie is the music. Of course you didn't bother to look further than the good but in my taste contrived performances of the Tackacs quartet, but OK I have to admit that the performances at least have quality as contrast to the movie you've made. It starts of with the dying DEAF Beethoven who perfectly understands Anna who is merely whispering. Beethoven's hearing during the movie get's better by the minute, but that must be because of some vague divine thing. Then there is the quite impossible semi-pornographic "eyes wide shut" double-conducting scene which is totally over the top with the luscious Anna and the crying nephew in the end (who also cries in the deleted scenes with constant red eyes, my GOD what a performance). And as culmination the rip-off from Amadeus, with Beethoven dictating music to Anna not in notes but in total nonsense, which she understands perfectly but no-one else in your audience even trained professional musicians will understand. Of course your reaction will be that negative response is a response at least, but I can assure you that Beethoven himself is turning in his grave because of your worthless creation and with reason. This so called homage is blasphemy and I am so sorry to have rented one of the worst movies ever made even though it's about my favorite subject. Ed Harris and others, you cannot comprehend the greatness of Beethoven in your wildest dreams and certainly not after a couple of lessons in conducting and violin playing. That's the trouble with you Americans: you think you can grasp everything even when it takes a lifetime of hard work. Yeah we can do it anyway! Remember that a good product comes with hard labor, talent, devotion and professionalism. All these you creators of Copying Beethoven lack. See you in kindergarten.


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


user
This film is the proof that a good actor is nothing without a good direction. Ed Harris is awful. How could you cast an actor built like Rambo to play the "Maestro"? He shows no credibility at all and overplays Beethoven. Most of all, long hairs doesn't look good at all on his head. The main actress is missing all the subtleties needed for its character. The camera shots are cheesy and too conventional. The lights are to close of the characters feelings. Bad casting and cheap direction. Too bad! The only scene that worth the movie is when Beeth (I hope you don't care that I call him trough his nickname?) is turning the girl's song to a joke. Any way, I hope that Harris could find his way back to true movie where he can really shows his hairless talent.


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


user
Yes, I realize that half a dozen other reviewers have called this movie "Copying Amadeus", but it cannot be said enough. Scenes seemed to have been lifted directly from Milos Forman's script with only superficial changes. You can expect to see:
-The maestro's arrogant scene ("I am the voice of god. Everything else is meaningless!")
-The maestro making fun of the mediocre composer's work (complete with raspberries & simulated flatulence, just like in Amadeus)
-The mediocre composer's dialogue with god ("Why do you instill me with music but deny me the ability to compose?")
-The musical dictation from the deathbed scene ("Common time. Begin with the violins... cough cough")
-and the list goes on...
The problem is even worse. Not only were these scenes shamelessly copied, they weren't even done very well. Jeepers, if you're going to rip off an original, at least you should try to improve upon it in your own creative way.
No wait, there's something even worse than that. It's the fact that the director tried to beat the story of Mozart into the story of Beethoven. Folks, Beethoven was not a crass, vulgar slob the way this movie portrays him. Furthermore, Beethoven was not a babbling idiot who takes pointers from his copyist, a 23 year old music student. Unfortunately, films like this are responsible for butchering history.
And another thing, Beethoven (in real life) never called it the "Moonlight Sonata" the way he does in the movie. That name was given by a confused critic some years AFTER BEETHOVEN DIED, and unfortunately it stuck. But Beethoven's original title was "Quasi una Fantasia".
AND ANOTHER THING, when Beethoven (in the movie) yells "B-flat! B-flat! B-flat!" and hits the note on the piano, he's hitting a white key!
AND ANOTHER THINGGG!!! Beethoven (in real life) was completely deaf for several years before the composition of his 9th Symphony. This movie shows him as having barely a minor disability (saying "what?" every other line, just enough to be annoying).
AAAND!! ANNNOTHER!!! THINGGGG...!! The American accents...! Oh never mind. Just... never mind. I've wasted enough time on this already. Go see "Amadeus" again. Then, if you want to see an interesting biopic on the life of Beethoven see "Immortal Beloved" which takes poetic liberties, but at least they're interesting ideas. Lastly, if you want to see something on the lighter side, check out "Impromptu", a film about Chopin. But aside from those three, I've never seen a good homage to a classical composer.


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


user
I expected so much more than what I received from watching this movie. It is not that I object to literary license, (if that is what it should be called) especially when there is no overt attempt to say "based on a true story." But this movie is about Beethoven -- a real historical person who is so widely known and so deeply embedded into our musical experiences and I expected the movie to be true to history at least in the primary elements. This movie took such great exception from the historic record it could only disappoint.
My assumption (because I had not researched the movie at all) was that it was true. Half way through, I stopped the movie to look it up on IMDb. The rest of the movie was a remarkably different experience. I was relieved that this was not accurate with history because it was so hard to believe a major portion of the story. To enjoy this movie, I was required to recognize it as a fantasy, a "what if it was like this" story. The movie lacked this honest disclaimer.
What disappointed me most was the fictionalized conducting of the 9th symphony. The very concept portrayed in the film stretched my imagination to the point of incredulity. I ended up doubting anything was true to history other than Ludwig van Beethoven and his relationship with Karl van Beethoven.
I really enjoyed the performance of Ed Harris - an exceptional actor who knows how to play a role and keep himself out of it and that was about it and for that I give it a 3/10.
Those who portend that this movie is as good as or better than Amadeus have not a clue about either either composers life and are looking only for what this movie really is, for in the end it was a cheap novel of a story - pulp fiction.


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


user
Awful!
Despite the good performance of Ed Harris, Diane Kruger, and the strong budget (the reason for the 3 stars), the movie is by far the worst I saw about a composer, and the worst edition of a masterpiece of music. I agree with some fictional stuff to upgrade a biography, that otherwise couldn't be so "charming". This was done in AMADEUS with best results, but this B copy here is a flaw. Beethoven had a strong personality, but was a sensible artist. Here in this movie however, he looks much more as Mike Tyson! I wonder also, whether despite his deafness, he heard all the whisperings in the last scenes (may be a cochlear implant?). I prefer to listen to the ninth on a CD with some nice maestro. Today most of them conduct modern Wagnerian orchestras. By the way: I gave Amadeus 10/10!


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


user
Trite and unoriginal. It's like someone watched Immortal Beloved and Amadeus and decided to mix them together and, in the process, steal other formulaic plot parts from other movies to make another one. As with most historical movies nowadays, there are some inaccuracies as history is manipulated to better suit the story, which is understandable for the most part. For example, during the remaining days of Beethoven's life, it was necessary for other people to write down what they needed to say in order for him to understand them. That, of course, would have been a nuisance to have to show on screen. The script, although filled with some quotable lines, doesn't quite capture the feel of that time period and, coupled with some bad acting, seems rather contemporary. Diane Kruger is nice enough to look at but she still has lots to improve on her craft. Ed Harris doesn't work for me as Beethoven and I mostly blame Gary Oldman for that. Overall, not a very good interpretation of the musical maestro's life. Better just find yourself a copy of Immortal Beloved.
http://iwascalledclementine.multiply.com/reviews


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


user
I am a music lover and was excited to see this movie. Unfortunately, I was disappointed. I was ready to walk out half way through the movie. I didn't identify with any of the characters, which meant that I didn't care what happened to them and lost interest in the story completely. On the good side, Ed Harris looked exactly like Beethoven, and the 9th Symphony is always a pleasure to hear, so that made part of the film bearable. Also the parts where they talk about the bridge almost redeemed the entire movie, but it couldn't sustain me through to the end. The actors did what they could with what they had to work with, but the screenplay just wasn't adequate to make it even remotely interesting. The bit about "wash me" was utter rubbish. I wonder how many takes the actors had to do on that one (I wouldn't be able to say those lines without bursting into laughter.) Anyway, such a shame, it could have been so much better.


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


user
For a movie I was really looking forward to, I was very disappointed. I had no expectations of this being another Amadeus, but did expect a more significant portrayal of Beethovens last years.
The performance by Ed Harris was superb, but the story line was so weak that the film simply moved from one dreary scene to the next with no continuity.
The only enjoyable part of the film for me was the performance of the 9th, and from that point on I could quite happily have walked out without finishing.
I left feeling very dissatisfied and still have the feeling that something important was missed.


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


user
From Kreestos:
The dialog is terrible, awful, drivel. Acting poor. Many plot flaws. I don't recommend this at all.
From Wikipedia:
Artistic licenses The working manuscript of the score is attributed to two copyists [1], both of whom were male, not female as depicted in the film.
The copyists neither contributed to nor altered the score. In fact, they were berated by Beethoven for any deviation that occurred from the original score.
The movie is set in 1824 during the composition of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Throughout the movie Beethoven is shown to be hard of hearing but quite capable of understanding people who speak loudly. In reality, Beethoven had lost much of his hearing seven years earlier (1817). Beethoven never experienced permanent deafness; his condition fluctuated between total silence and terrible tinnitus. The Ninth Symphony was composed at a time when Beethoven's hearing had deteriorated severely. At this point in his life, most of Beethoven's conversations were facilitated by the use of notebooks. It can be argued, however, that he was also able to read people's lips, evidenced by his insistence that people face him when they spoke to him.
In the film, Beethoven makes an allusion to the Moonlight Sonata. This is an anachronism as the Sonata No. 14 "quasi una fantasia" was not named "Moonlight" until several years after his death.


assistant
0