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
After visiting the Kimbell museum in Forth-Worth, Texas, USA, enjoying the art and the architecture (also of the adjacent Modern Art Museum), and having a delightful conversation with the knowledgeable bookstore lady, I purchased this a propos DVD with rather high expectations and was not disappointed in the least.
The thematic approach, dramatic tension, revealing interviews, archival footage and stunning architecture are also mixed in a coherent whole to explore the life of the late iconic Louis I. Khan.
The documentary begins: contemplative classical music plays, archives are scanned with a reflective shadowy face superimposed, blurring letters symbolically referencing a train window passing a backdrop landscape  a journey , focus and out of focus, the search eventually culminates to an article in a newspaper. Nathanial Khan reads from the front page of the New York Times where his father is simultaneously praised as the best American architect alive and his death announced.
"When I first read that obituary, I have to admit, I was looking for my own name. I was his child too, his only son. I didn't know my father very well. He never married my mother and he never lived with us () He died when I was eleven."
So years later, this illegitimate son is still haunted by unclear fragmented thoughts and feelings about his father who seems to be a great professional and public figure, but who's secretive personal life escapes him and affects him to the point where he intends to do something about it.
"For years, I struggled to be satisfied with the little pieces of my father's life I've been allowed to see, but it wasn't enough. I needed to know him. I needed to find out who he really was. So I set out on a journey, to see his buildings and to find whatever there was left of him out there. It would take me to the other side of the world, looking for the man who left me with so many questions."
So the documentary is two-fold, by a slow systematic discovery of the world-renown architect, we get to know: 1) his ideas, buildings and the architectural perspective and 2) his families, coworkers, people's life he affected and the human perspective
The DVD also offers added insight with a Q&A with the writer/director and additional footage that includes such great Louis I. Khan quotes as "Everything that everybody says is the truth. It's their truth. It might not be factual." and "A good idea that doesn't happen is no idea at all."
This movie is a journey of discovery. Self-discovery and discovery of a man, a great man, yet a human, imperfect like all of us. We get to know him through the eyes of an admiring and slightly bitter son, but with the openness and objectivity to really explore without making easy conclusions and without judging.
By key interviews with people who interacted with him in various capacity. We slowly put some pieces together until that final interview with this man from Bangladesh who really seems to bring it back home with visceral and sensible comments.
Brilliant architect, brilliant documentary.


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


user
I never heard of architect, Louis Kahn, until this documentary. In this almost two hour documentary which goes very quickly, his son, Nathaniel Kahn, explores his father's life from Estonia to the slums of North Philadelphia to the University of Pennsylvania in West Philadelphia where he studied and taught. He travels to Bangladesh, Israel, Connecticut, Trenton, and La Jolla, California as well as New York City to explore his father's creative genius. Personally, Louis Kahn had three families including his wife, Esther, who refused to give him a divorce and their daughter Sue Ann. Nathaniel includes his family members. Louis also has another half-sister Alexandra Tynge from his father's previous relationship with Anne Tyne, a fellow architect. Louis' passion was his art.


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


user
Louis Khan was one of the most influential architects of our time, and this film speaks volumes about how little everyone really knew. His son's desire to find out who, and more importantly what he was is moving, and emotional.
This film captures the spirit of what architecture is really about, what good design is, and the emotional price that is paid for it. Equally haunting is the sound track. If you see the film, and then listen to the sound track you can revisit the film simply by listening. As a practicing architect of over 30 years, my heart ached and rejoiced over the film and its very straight forward, albeit emotional honesty and sincerity.
I had the honor of seeing this film previewed in Chicago at the National Convention of the American Institute of Architects. The film was introduced by Daniel, and he was kind enough to do a question and answer session afterward. During the entire presentation of the film, not a sound, not a cough, not one distraction took place. The entire audience sat mesmerized, and the real treat, was Daniel's mother was present during the showing of the film.
I will always remember the film, and play it over constantly in my mind every time I listen to the soundtrack...


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


user
I rented this film because it was a documentary and highly rated. It's more a study of a bastard son trying to find out who his biological father was, than anything about architecture.
More than anything else, the underlying theme of the movie is that we have an eccentric, highly praised, possibly genius architect who had little regard for anything or anyone outside is profession.
The tragedy of the film is the broken families he left. His baby-mothers came across more as scorned fans than irresponsible women, which can only have negative results on the children.
That said, Nathaniel, the producer of the film and son of Louis Khan, came across as fairly stable and curious, if not bitter. The people he interviewed were of course more interested in talking about Louis Khan's buildings than his personal problems, but I find the mix of themes made the film interesting.
As for his buildings, I found them like abstract art - strange, non-practical, and usually only appreciated by so-called critics.


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


user
i think the title of the movie describes it well. if you are looking for a documentary on louis kahn and his work, you'll have to look somewhere else. although some of that is covered in this film.
of course, i eat up pretty much anything i'm fed, and i don't know much of the family history revolving around this case. so i believed what i was told about nathaniel and his father, etc.
for what this movie was, i thought it was pretty good. a little slow and grabbing for attention at time, i wish that nathaniel would have focused a little more on his father's work than his family drama (although much of the history was interesting, louis was a bit of a player).
this really is a journey through someone's life, and i was happy to tag along for the experience. a learning experience for me, and so it seems, for the filmmaker as well.
oh, and the footage of some of kahn's work is *stunning*


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


user
An absoloutely wonderful film that works on several levels. It's a story about a great architect, a son seeking his father, about very loving relationships, and about loss. It's also a great flm about architecture.
Very intelligent and very moving. A real treat.


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


user
Video Vault By Shawn K. Inlow
My Architect: A Son's Journey 2003 - Nathaniel Kahn Not Rated: 116minutes Vault Rating: 7
What a thing to be fatherless. "My Architect: A Son's Journey" follows Philadelphia filmmaker, Nathaniel Kahn, as he desperately seeks answers from his father, the renowned architect, Louis I. Kahn, dead these 30 years.
Louis Kahn died in a train station in 1974 and left behind more than one family. The funeral service, when the filmmaker was just a boy, was, shall we say, an unpleasant surprise.
We find that Nathaniel only knew his father en passant, from his sporadic visits with his mother, whom, we are told, he loved deeply. This movie is about a boy seeking his father and perhaps himself by visiting his work, as if the magnificent structures hold some secret.
To be sure, Louis Kahn was a gifted architect, but "architect" is a cold word. The man was a sculptor on a grand scale who spoke of his craft in airy terms of silence and art.
Among his notable works, explored lovingly in the film, are the Salk Institute (1965), The Kimball Art Museum (1972) and the monumental capitol complex in Bangladesh (1983). The portion of the film where Nathaniel first visits Dhaka, Bangladesh, finds the work, but not the man.
The film benefits greatly from having much footage of the very public man as he worked in New York City and as a professor at Yale and the University of Pennsylvania. Many of Khan's contemporaries and collaborators also help flesh out the filmmaker's ghost- father.
Even so, the viewer seems not to come to a particularly satisfying place. The answers Nathaniel Khan is looking for seem hollow. Not good enough.
In scenes where the director meets with his half sisters, both from different mothers, one can feel the tensions of the years, the slights and hurts. One might expect them to burst into anger, but only the camera saves them from hostilities. Each of these children has visibly lost something.
It might be pointed out that Khan, who seemed a driven perfectionist, never became rich. Instead, he became noteworthy. It was as if he sacrificed his family for his art. This is a crushingly sad and great thing.
April 28, 2005


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


user
I just returned from viewing this academy award-nominated doc, and I was thoroughly touched and interested in exploring the works of this fellow I'd never heard of before. Of course I'm someone who's captivated with beautiful architecture, so I realize others won't care.
We can only imagine if there had been a couple more visionaries in Philadelphia back in the late 60's when Kahn's plans were a possibility, what a wonderful city center there would be. If you wonder whether you'll see more about the Bangladesh building at the beginning of the movie, be patient, for there it will provide the climax of the film at the end.
His son's personal discoveries in the process of making this film are quite interesting, sometimes touching, and even funny at times. There is one of the most comical anti-visionary rants ever captured on camera.
Rounding out the good points of this doc is a touching musical score with some excellent expressive string music. And expressiveness is a major point to be found in Kahn's architecture. The points made by other architects about the spiritual nature of matter, and how Kahn's buildings brought that out tie together the overall experience of this movie.


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


user
Then again, I like Rachael Ray. She is fun, sweet, fresh, and such a joy to watch. I have to alter just about everything she makes as I am a vegetarian...but it's great to see her with a program that shows more of her personality. After all, she is a television personality. I think it's cool that she is so inviting with her fans and still appears to be down-to-earth. The studio audience appears to be rather small, but that just makes for a cozier environment. Some people have posted that the show sucks. I guess it depends on your own interpretation of it and of her. If you notice the early episodes of 30 Minute Meals you will see a completely different personality than in those of the past few years. I'm sure she will find her comfort zone with this show as well. Good luck Rachael!


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


user
I've been a fan of Rachael's since the beginning of 30MM on the Food Network, so I have seen her grow over the years. The minute I saw her interact with Oprah, I predicted that this show would happen, because I saw how taken Oprah is with her, and with good reason: she comes across as very natural, and willing to laugh at herself, which is very engaging. The set is appealing, and there are some fresh ideas (I love the lazy Susan that the audience sits on). There's just enough of a celebrity segment, and she stays away from controversy and debate (there's enough of that on daytime TV). The show is a lighthearted escape, and she hasn't moved away from her strength (cooking), which is very good planning. I know there are people who hate her and hate her show; that's OK, you can't please everybody. And somehow, I think Rachael knows and accepts that. So just turn the channel; I don't think she'd mind.


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


user
Rachael Ray appeals to viewers of all ages and backgrounds, beginner cooks or "seasoned" veterans. You'll be dazzled with a variegated presentation of delectable yet time-efficient dishes, jazzed up with her unique brand of spunk and candor. Most importantly, this hip chic keeps her audience drawn in by stimulating all five senses. Let me explain. Her program provides enlightenment to your visual sense, auditory sense, and sense of feeling through a rich, luminous ambient backdrop, light-hearted, casual, yet engaging topics, eye-pleasing, appetite wrenching meals, and her hearty smile and laugh, which will simmer down anyone's nerves.(Sense of smell and taste are rewarded when you test out the recipes in your own kitchen and among your own family and friends). Check out her show guys.


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


user
Loved today's show!!! It was a variety and not solely cooking (which would have been great too). Very stimulating and captivating, always keeping the viewer peeking around the corner to see what was coming up next. She is as down to earth and as personable as you get, like one of us which made the show all the more enjoyable. Special guests, who are friends as well made for a nice surprise too. Loved the 'first' theme and that the audience was invited to play along too. I must admit I was shocked to see her come in under her time limits on a few things, but she did it and by golly I'll be writing those recipes down. Saving time in the kitchen means more time with family. Those who haven't tuned in yet, find out what channel and the time, I assure you that you won't be disappointed.


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


user
OK, so I loved Rachael Ray before, but now, I ADORE her! How innovative. I love that she has a cooking section- I admit that occasionally I skip that part, only because it makes me WAAAY too hungry! But I also love that you can get the next day's grocery list on her website. I love that she has regular helpers and that she's made some of her viewers become her regulars. I love how personable she is and how creative she is. I also like how she does her Mystery Guests. She just seems so much more genuine than so many other talk show hosts. She still gets a little starstruck occasionally and I love that. I love that she talks about her personal life on there and reminds people how happy she is. She's even mentioned tabloids before and it's so funny! She also has the funniest stories! Anyway, I'm a fan for life. Even my 2 year old knows who Rachael Ray is and he loves her too!


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


user
I was a junior in high school when "Flesh" hit the big screens, but had the good fortune to see it at midnight movie houses in NYC just two years later.
Flesh is the first part of a so-called "trilogy" of films, featuring Joe Dallesandro, as an object of desire. It bears the "Warhol" name, but is more the work of Paul Morissey. Essentially the story concerns itself with the exploits surrounding one day in the life of a street-wise male hustler (played by Joe Dallesandro). Joe is young, beautiful, and a bit naive... but he manages to bring home the bacon to his wife, for reasons which should not be explained to appreciate the film fully.
Of special note to film buffs is that this film (along with the remaining two of the trilogy), had no script, per se. Warhol's superstars were given simply a premise... and the words and actions which the viewer sees are quite natural (even at times ridiculous or non-sensical). But all in all it works... "Rolling Stone" noted in its review that the film was better than "Midnight Cowboy", a film of the same year, more polished by Hollywood (An Academy Award winner for Best Film) , with big name talent (I equally admire the film)... but FLESH, being improvised, was somehow more gut wrenching and realistic, without the need for complex sub-plots and any "cause de celebre" .. or for that matter any cause at all!
The film grossed more than $3 million dollars and was an absolute sensation, particularly in the German market (which, ironically, thought they were given a "censored version" of the film because of the post-editing....see note below).
Curiously, the film is very much "cut and paste" with "pops". "clicks", "flashes", and dialogue literally cut off mid-sentence. It is almost as if Warhol/Morissey are stating a simple truth that it is a "day in the life" of a superstar, snippets for your voyeuristic tendencies. Far better than earlier Warhol works of 8 hours of sleeping, and the statue of liberty as a 20+ hour movie.
FLESH, in my opinion, is the first of the Warhol films that actually is digestible (given a wide pallette) and Warhol's/the Factory's first legitimate response to the Hollywood phenomenon of "stardom".
As the first of a "trilogy", it portrays a young, desirable male icon, naive, sought after, responding to invitations to please his family. Subsequent films would show the "same character" with a differing set of values. (See "Trash" and "Heat")


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


user
In a lot of ways this film defines the essence of everything I love about cinema, in terms of capturing those strange, elusive moments of unguarded truth. In other ways, it is undeniably an amateurish, unfocused result of junkies self-indulgently fooling around with a camera. Ultimately it comes out somewhere between pure brilliance and unwatchability (thankfully much more so the former than the latter). Part of me wants to reward it solely for it's absolute innovativeness and moments of pure sublimity, but at the same time I can't completely ignore the occasionally downright awful "acting" and overtly bad production values. At first the editing seems overwhelmingly sloppy and needlessly distracting (or maybe just wrongheadedly "innovative"), but after a while I got used to it, which is, in the end, the true sign of whether a film succeeds on it's own terms or not. I guess that answer basically sums up my all-around feelings for the film. That is, despite it's in-ignorable flaws, on a whole it does work very well. And, if nothing else, a film like this really shows how false and contrived the faux-documentary, shaky-cam style can sometimes be when it so obviously applied purely for effect (such as in films like the otherwise admirable Roger Dodger). Here the aesthetics are plainly derived from the necessities of the filming situation, and are not just used arbitrarily to make it look "cool".


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


user
Snap, crackle, pop! The jarring sound of every change in camera angle. And that's not to mention the white flashes and the clipped endings to almost every spoken sentence. What on earth were they up to in the editing room? Or could it be that this approach was intentional? Surely not. What purpose could it serve? Despite all its technical short-comings, this is an interesting film depicting a day in the life of Joe, a hustler, determined to earn $200 for his wife's pregnant girl friend. Joe Dallesandro is outstanding as the easy-going, passive, laid-back young man who is willing to let the other person do most of the talking while he listens with a faraway look in his eyes.
The story is meagre and sketchy, documenting the uncertain life led by a man who relies on casual street sex to support his young wife and baby. One thing is certain, Joe is uninhibited when it comes to disrobing for sex or posing for an artist. Understandably so, for he has a handsome face and and equally handsome body.
There is a scene in the film that is remarkably effective. There is no sound, no dialogue. Joe stark naked is crouching on the floor feeding crumbs of cake to his little baby. There is a beautiful serenity and tenderness captured in these quiet moments.
Another scene of amusing interest is the one in which Joe desperately seeks a loan of $100 from a gym friend, coming to the point of asking in a very circuitous approach.
Joe tries to look interested but is hesitant in his conversation when an artist gives him a non-stop resume of Greek and Roman art. It's a preliminary to another occasion when Joe divests himself of his clothes and poses as the discus thrower in true classical style.
At the end of the film we gain the impression that we have got to know Joe pretty well. After all he has uncovered more than his soul.


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


user
"Flesh" is hard to describe with a solid summary because, well, there basically isn't a plot. The film pretty much just shows the day in the life of a hustler named Joe (Joe Dallesandro, who is in the underrated Louis Malle picture "Black Moon") as he makes his rounds, sleeping and modeling around to cash in the bucks to pay for his wife's lover's abortion.
Not much, and since the film is quite a lengthy eighty-nine minutes, you would think that "Flesh" would be a slow-moving and boring hour and a half. You think wrong. The film is made up of improv, no screenplay and the angles of the film are pretty on-the-spot as well, yet there is some kind of truth beneath every frame that gives the film its dementedly entertaining vibrancy. Everything makes sense and serves purpose in what happens to Joe in this one day. He meets a regular john that is obviously lying when saying he wants to see Joe again, a photographer who talks so much that it bores Joe to tears, two drag queens who read out of tabloid magazines as Joe receives head from a mousy-voiced addict who mumbles on later about how she wants to get a breast lift, an old friend of Joe who reads male-on-male rape stories to him, and then a final scene with his wife and her lover that eerily echoes the scene at the start of the film (one of the best openings to a film I have seen in quite some time)  and tells completely what the film is overall philosophically about.
It's astounding how the film's messages and styles feel almost timeless, even though it's set in 1960s New York City, in real time, in real place, and is filmed like an obvious independent flick from that era. It's certainly not a film that could be made today, which adds on to its delicious mystique.
Fueled by unexpected jump cuts; and absent of a score to advance its images  "Flesh" is about as raw, gritty as a film about male prostitution in the 60s can get.


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


user
I was delighted to see this gem of a film available on DVD. Despite being a 'TV Movie' and shot on 16mm, it provided a wonderful insight into the different types of people who wanted to become a 'London cabbie', along with their foibles and family commitments. Even the most hapless of candidates, 'Titanic' with his uncommunicative wife, it was possible to see how Jack Rosenthal was able to craft an often funny and sometimes tragic snippet of London life into an entertaining 90 minutes.
Originally premiered as a vehicle for Mick Ford (pun intended), the quality of the acting from an ensemble cast including Michael Elphic, Nigel Hawthorne, Jonathan Lynn, Lesley Joseph and Maureen Lipman (Mrs Rosenthal) meant Mick may have had top billing, but he had to work hard in the face of such competing talents.
Even 15 years after its 1991 release, it is still as fresh as ever!


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


user
Just to correct something in a previous review here, I don't believe this film is only for people who know London, it's a case of a very specific situation being used to make universal comments. Jack Rosenthal says in an introduction to the published script that it was meant to be about characters who, by going though this gruelling Knowledge test, gain some measure of self-knowledge.
I think it's one of the most perfectly-written dramas I've seen: technically it's supremely adept at conveying quite complex details but it's also joyous in how it involves you. At the start you know no more about this London Knowledge test than the main characters but you get scooped up right along with them until it's vitally important to you. You become tremendously proud of those characters who succeed, and you are crushed for those who don't. Especially one whose downfall, without giving anything anyway, will make your hands fly to your face.
Also just as a point of fact, Nigel Hawthorne's character, Mr Burgess, is called the Vampire, not Dracula. You don't need to know this, I'm not saying it's crucial, but it's a measure of the drama: once you've seen this, you will want everyone to and you will evangelise about its every detail.
I hope you get to see it.
William


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


user
I must have seen this on the television when it was first broadcast some decades ago. I thought it was brilliant then, and as I remember so much of it now I may have been right. While I have lived in and around London I cannot call myself a Londoner and do not know it at all well - who does other than taxi drivers? Once the viewer understands the premise; that here is a group of men trying to learn the seemingly unlearn-able and rise to the status of demigods, then the rest is sheer joy. The characters are well contrasted, their family relationships are equally diverse, and so differently affected by the events of the film. Don't think this is a documentary - it is pure drama, and The Knowledge is one of the characters. I have never seen anything like this film, before or since. Watch it!


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 "The Knowledge" during a Thames Television marathon on one of the local independent stations in Los Angeles back when it was new. I enjoyed it very much along with danger UXB.
That a movie I saw once over twenty year ago should stick so well in my memory is a testament to it's originality and the quality of the performances by the cast.
I looked for a DVD copy here in the U.S.A. And found none. I finally gambled and bought a UK DVD off Ebay and was delighted to find that it has no Region Code. So those of us that would like to see this little gem can get a copy.


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


user
As someone who used to spend hours driving around the backstreets of North London in an attempt to avoid the horrific congestion, this film immediately appealed. Throw in my interest in what London was like back in the late 70s and you have the basic premise for my version of TV heaven! On paper the film ticked all the right boxes, and having just watched "The Knowledge" the actual movie itself certainly lived up to, if not exceeded, my high expectations.
Visually, I was surprised how different London looked back then (I lived in Islington in the 90s, long after gentrification had transformed the area). It truly came across as grimy, tatty and down-at-heel. London may still have bad housing estates, but the general feel of the place is much cleaner, brighter and pleasant nowadays (based on what this movie shows rather than my own memories).
As for the story and the acting, well top marks obviously go to Nigel Hawthorne as The Vampire. Absolutely brilliant! He acts deliberately unpredictably, alternating between total straight-faced severity and surreal mindgames in order to unnerve the Knowledge Boys as he puts them through test after test.
All in all this was an excellent, thoroughly enjoyable trip back into a very specific time and place that I find endlessly fascinating. But even if you're not especially interested in London circa 1979, you'll still enjoy following the witty dialogue and likable characters of "The Knowledge".


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


user
The Knowledge is a typical British comedy for the period. To someone who is not familiar of the process of becoming a London cabby the film is bound to seem very average with a few laughs from a few old faces.
The Knowledge however comes into its own for Knowledge boys like myself or their wife's who know what these poor individuals are going through. And find yourself comparing incidents of your own to that of the characters.


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


user
Thank goodness for the Coen Brothers. Their success has brought them bigger budgets,but hasn't rid them of their creativity. I had planned on seeing another movie, but it was sold out so I went to this one instead. By the time it began, I had forgotten what movie I was there to see. I was surprised in more ways than one. This movie is hilarious, but they don't make any cheap jokes just to get the laughs. The writing is brilliant, and delivered with great skill by George Clooney (after this, nobody can say he's just a pretty face) and the rest of the cast. It can be appreciated on many levels, whether you remember the Odyssey or not. I can't remember the last time I saw a movie that was this clever. I've seen others I would describe as beautiful, intriguing, funny and charming, all of which also describe "Oh Brother," but this movie reminded me of older seinfeld episodes where all the subplots came together in the end. You can feel that their journey is building up to something, but you can't tell what. And the Coen brothers do not fail us, the end is certainly not disappointing. It's surprising, and ties up all the loose ends neatly, without wearing the story out.


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


user
The Coen Brothers have truly outdone themselves in this wonderful saga of three escaped convicts. Though it is based on "The Odyssey," the ancient work of Homer, you do not have to have read "The Odyssey" to be able to follow the story. The brothers Coen have woven a tapestry of celluloid and aural delights! The soundtrack is intrinsic to the film, indeed it is as though the soundtrack is the product and the film is wrapping paper. Each character is wonderfully exploited and harkens back to the days of old when films were rich with character actors whose very appearance in the film adds richness, texture and authenticity. George Clooney is magnificent as the grease haired Everett Ulysses McGill, a honest con on the run whose pompous linguistics and vocabulary are comical and endearing. O Brother, Where Art Thou is easily the best Coen film to date as well as Clooney's best effort. Clooney is good enough to warrant a best actor nomination as is Tim Blake Nelson's portrayal of the dimwitted friend Delmar, while the film itself is deserving of a Best film nod.


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


user
Not being a fan of the Coen Brothers or George Clooney, anyone can see the skepticism I took into the theater. Once again, someone in Hollywood dares to create something different. This time it was those zanie (for a temporary lack of a better word) Coens doing "their thing" to one of the great works in literary history. Who would've ever thought Homer had this in mind? I don't know where this film is going to fit in the history books of Hollywood, but it will be in both mine and many others DVD or VHS library. It is one of those films that you can watch over and over. The story is brilliantly written. Clean and entertaining, with a couple of Gumpesque brushes with fame, great performances by Clooney, Turturro, Nelson, and a brief but hilarious Holly Hunter. Being born in Mississippi and raised in other parts of the south, I wish more people would poke a little fun at us like this. They even invoke a soundtrack fitting for the rural south. You are NOT doing anything better this weekend, go see this movie!



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


user
Having seen most of the Coen Brothers previous films I expected something different and slighty off centre. OBWAT is certainly those things, but it also has a heart as big as..well..as big as Mississippi. It is one of the most plainly enjoyable movies to have come out in recent times, intelligent, well-crafted, clever and superbly acted.
Characters are delivered in their myriad shades by a group of marvellous actors. George Clooney winning me over completely with his Clark Gable-ish looks and character. Having only ever seen him in Three Kings and his Thin Red Line cameo, I am now a fan. More comedy please George.
John Tuturro and Tim Blake Nelson ably assist, especially Nelson. If ever "The Simpsons" is made into a movie then he must be a natural to play Cletus the slack-jawed yokel. I don't think there is a performance that falls short of excellent from the entire cast. My special favorite is Stephen Root as the blind Radio Station Man.
Great old-timey music, a jiggy type dance by Clooney that I am trying to learn, and a feel of depression era southern US enhanced by sepia-like photography make this the best movie I've see so far this century. The only drawback to the film is that it has almost sent me broke buying the soundtrack, the DVD and a DVD player to play it on....it's THAT good!



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


user
This was the best film I saw in the year 2000. The Cohen brothers have never let me down before, and they certainly didn't this time either.
It's one of those rare movies these days - it's witty, intelligent and vastly entertaining. I left the cinema with a warmth in my heart. Of course, there's lot of Cohen stuff in there - odd characters and peculiar gadgets, well-developed plot and magic camerawork. But no Cohen film is resembling any other Cohen film, if you overlook the general quality of them, of course.
The big surprise for me was that Clooney is so good. But the true master performance in this movie comes from Tim Blake-Nelson. But the rest of the cast is superb too.
A film that is lightweight comedy with a musical touch that evolve it's story round rednecks and old time country music - dripping with wit and intelligence. Thats a very unlikely combination. But it's exactly what this picture is.


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


user
I was into the movie right away. I've seen the other Coen movies, with the exception of Raising Arizona, and I've noticed that each of their movies has a color. Fargo is gray/white, Lebowski is bright orange, and this movie is a pleasant yellow.
The bright pleasant qualities of this movie start right away. Soon the look is accompanied by the great, great music. It's the old folk sound, the kind of music that was written during a time when music was enjoyed as a part of day to day life. Enjoyed by everyone, chain-gangs, church choirs, and even prison escapees.
Now, about the prison escapees. I don't know what crime their characters could have possibly committed, as they are a very very friendly group of guys. Clooney is fantastic, completely nailing his role.
Go see this as soon as possible. I believe that it can be enjoyed by anyone at some level. For some reason, the theater I was in was full of old ladies and old men, and they loved it.
You'll love it too, I promise. I was compelled to get my hands on the soundtrack right away.


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


user
The Coen Brothers have done it again. Three depression era convicts(George Clooney, John Turturro and Tim Blake Nelson)escape a Mississippi chain gang and head off in search of buried treasure that will fund their new lives. Along the way, they sing on the radio and become much sought after stars as well as escapees. Great laughs and a soundtrack that is a lesson/introduction to bluegrass music.
Clooney is outstanding as the fast talking, quick witted Ulysses Everett McGill. Holly Hunter plays his estranged wife. Turturro and Nelson are flawless stumblebums. Also in the cast are John Goodman and Charles Durning.
Dan Tyminksi provides the singing voice for George Clooney on "I Am A Man of Constant Sorrow", the Soggy Bottom Boys song that serves as a template for the bluegrass laden soundtrack that also features Alison Krauss, Ralph Stanley, The Whites, John Hartford, The Cox Family and Gillian Welch. Toe tapping, knee slapping fun for the whole family. You'll be surprised with how relaxed and funny this movie is.


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


user
My husband received DVD of OBWAT for Christmas and it was the best gift we received! We watch it every time we need to laugh and so far we have viewed it 12 times!The scenery in this movie is beautiful and the music is outstanding!We also purchased the soundtrack and we play it in our vehicles and at home when ever we need a pick me up and that too is daily!If anyone needs a suggestion for a good gift for movie lovers this movie is it!The characters are hilarious , charming , and their facial expressions are too funny to describe!I have always been a fan of George Clooney but now I am also a fan of Tim Blake Nelson(Delmar ) and John Turturro (Pete)and am now looking for them in other movies! You gotta see this movie!!!


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


user
This film makes Clooney. All his films combined before this have all been based on the same character. This film he transcends his previous body of work and proves his capability as a top notch actor. The soundtrack defeats most one-handedly. The brothers have truly made a classic. One to own and watch repeatedly.


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


user
The first time I saw this movie, it didn't seem to go anywhere. When I watched it a second time though, it made a lot more sense. Give it a chance, watch it more than once, there are a lot of key elements that shape the story that could be missed the first and even second time watching it. The Cohen brothers brilliantly weave actual happenings of the early 20th century into this story to make a believable setting and storyline. The combination of Clooney's leading role blends well with Turturro and Nelson's supporting acts. John Goodman's appearance in the movie is hilarious. The soundtrack is great as well. This movie has become a household favorite for my family. 10/10, for sure.


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


user
About the discussion on the South, the rednecks and the hillbillies... Well, I am from the South: Argentina, near the South Pole to be exact. Is this southern enough? Seriously, some stories are universal. We have never been to Greece, nor lived the classic period of Homer, but he speaks to us today. So does Shakespeare and Dante. And stories from far unknown places also reach us, when told with sensibility, intelligence, humor, just like "O Brother". Besides, we all (the rest of the world) have our own hillbillies too! And our own depression era (ever heard of Argentina during year 2001?), our politicians and racism, our gentle souls just like Delmar and Tommy... I simply loved this movie, folks. Despite the subtitles, despite being on the other side of the world. (And please forgive my errors in English, I tried my best)
PS: I believe nobody quoted this favorite phrase: when Delmar asks George Nelson what does he do for a living, while handling him the machine gun...


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


user
I thought this movie was great! I saw this when it came out in the theaters so I do not remember all the details. I remember it being based on Homer's tale on Odysseus. Names places and events are changed but you can still see the resemblance to the tale.
I found it funny how they would get themselves into trouble and how they would get themselves out of it. I really enjoyed this version of modernized old tales much better than the Romeo and Juliet with Clair Danes.
I will agree that in some parts of the tale it does get a little to silly at times but all in all it is a great adventure with some big name actors.


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


user
I originally saw this several years ago while I was sitting on the couch and got stuck watching it on HBO. With the remote out of my reach I decided to go with it and was awaiting a miserable movie that I had been avoiding for a year. So it started off and I wasn't very optimistic about it, but after about ten minutes I found myself laughing. The complete opposite as I was expecting. The comedy was smart, the acting pretty good considering, the cast worked very well together, and the story (though slightly awkward and fake) was actually quite entertaining.
Three convict brothers manage to escape their sentence and eventually go in search of their fortune. The movie is set in the 1930's. So along the way, they encounter a number of funny and interesting charatcers. All have a different story or achievement they are striving for. Really the majority of the movie may seem random. Some may say it was pointless and boring, but if you look for the smart comedy (and occasionally stupid) that is integrated into the movie, I'm sure you'll enjoy this one.
I liked the performances given by George Clooney, John Turturro, and Tim Blake Nelson. All of them did very well in their roles, an they worked great together. But to finish this off, "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" is a smart, funny, and a movie adventure that I wouldn't let pass up.


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


user
I was truly and wonderfully surprised at "O' Brother, Where Art Thou?" The video store was out of all the movies I was planning on renting, so then I came across this. I came home and as I watched I became engrossed and found myself laughing out loud. The Coen's have made a magnificiant film again. But I think the first time you watch this movie, you get to know the characters. The second time, now that you know them, you laugh sooo hard it could hurt you. I strongly would reccomend ANYONE seeing this because if you are not, you are truly missing a film gem for the ages. 10/10


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


user
They loved him up and turned him into a horny toad! God, that gets to me every time.
This is a great movie. Memorable lines, from "Thank God your momma died given birth; she'da seen ya she'da died of shame" to "I don't understand, Big Dan." Great scenes, from the opening train scene (laughed so hard I cried) to the bluegrass.
Watch it. It's good, it's great, it's funny, and it's based on a famous story. Worth your while, believe me. Don't watch this if you have a weak bladder, for you will definitely wet your pants laughing.


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


user
This a fantastic movie of three prisoners who become famous. One of the actors is george clooney and I'm not a fan but this roll is not bad. Another good thing about the movie is the soundtrack (The man of constant sorrow). I recommand this movie to everybody. Greetings Bart


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


user
Great movie, great actors, great soundtrack! I loved it! Settings are perfect, dialogues, situations, storyline... all together mixed to give this masterpiece! Clooney and Turturro are magnificent and the Soggy Bottom Boys are simply charming and contagious with their music! :)


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


user
I've seen just about all of the Coen brothers' films now, and I have to say this is one of their better films. I wouldn't dare say it's better than "The Big Lebowski", but it was very good in it's own right.
I thought the story was very interesting and hilarious at times. I loved all the characters, especially Tim Blake Nelson (Delmar) and John Turturro's (Pete).
There really isn't anything bad I can say about this movie, but this movie isn't for everyone. It might be safe to say that if you liked the other Coen brothers' films, then you'll hopefully like this one too. And if you liked what you saw in the trailer, I think you'll like the film, but don't hold me to it.
Anyhow, I hope that you like(d) the film as much as I do. Thanks for reading,
-Chris


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


user
The Coen's strike again. I had no presuppositions going in and I was amazed at the bizarre telling of a good-bad guy story. Although Clooney is easily replaceable in this, his cornball style is welcome. Turturro and Nelson are dead ringers. And I loved "I Am a Man of Constant Sorrow" as performed by the "Soggy Bottom Boys". Catchy tune...
8 of 10


assistant
1