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
Since Paul Kersey was running short of actual relatives to avenge, the third installment in the "Death Wish" saga revolves on him returning to New York to visit an old war buddy. He arrives only to find out that Brooklyn entirely changed into a pauperized gangland and that youthful thugs killed his friend and continuously terrorize all the other tenants of a ramshackle apartment building. Kersey strikes a deal with the local police commissioner, conquers the heart of his blond attorney, blows away numerous villains with an impressive Wildey Magnum gun and gradually trains & inspires the petrified New Yorkers to stand up for themselves. Okay, there's no more point in defending the "Death Wish" series after seeing part three. The 1974 original was a masterpiece that revolved on the social drama as much as it did on the retribution and, even though it was pure exploitation, part two still had quite a few redeeming qualities and at least the events were a logically linked to those occurring in the first. Number three frequently feels like a totally separate franchise. Apparently, Kersey isn't an architect anymore, he's ten times more social and talkative than he used to be and suddenly nobody, not even the police, is against vigilante actions anymore? All these changes and several other aspects make it more than obvious that Michael Winner and Charles Bronson reduced their "Death Wish" success to being a purely brainless and exploitative action series, with a death toll that gigantically increases with each episode, armory that becomes more and more explosive and criminals that get nastier, sleazier, meaner and a lot harder to kill. However, the gentlemen didn't seem to realize that the non-stop spitfire of violence actually creates an opposite effect, namely this extremely monotonous and much more boring than the previous two. I once read a brilliant review that referred to "Death Wish 3" as the pure definition of cinematic masturbation. This description couldn't be more spot-on, as the script tiredly moves itself from one repugnant execution sequence to the next. Particularly the final twenty minutes are a complete "orgy" of gunfire, explosions and executions realized through improvised homemade measures. Yi-Haaa! This entry in the series has quite an interesting supportive cast, including Martin Balsam ("Psycho", "12 Angry Men") as the fatigue neighbor who keeps machine guns in his closet, Ed Lauter ("Family Plot", "The Longest Yard") as the slightly unorthodox copper and even Alex Winter (from "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure!) in his debut role as one of the thugs.


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


user
The 3rd in the series finds Paul Kersey (Bronson) turning vigilante to get revenge on the thugs that murdered his old buddy. I don't know why this movie shoved me into it, but somehow it did. I found myself rooting for Bronson to wipe the floor with those punks. Every time he blew one of them away I felt good. This movie does not take itself seriously, but what if it did? There is a good build-up to the fireworks finale in which Bronson goes on a rampage. But as far as acting and plot go, it just doesn't measure up. If I lived in that neighborhood, I would get out as fast as I could, but it seems like the people are asking for trouble. I know there is that mentality that we need to save our streets, but there is a limit here folks. I had to give it a 4. Sure there are good "blow 'em away" scenes but that's about it. At that time, Bronson was 64. I'm sure if those thugs really wanted to they could have their way with Bronson. Bronson takes the place of a Schwarzanegger or Stallone in this movie. This movie gives you a sense of rejoice. The common man can save the neighborhood, save the day. To sum it up, this is far from being the original Death Wish, but it is rather good if you are just looking for an hour and a half of shoot 'em up.


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


user
Naked Deanna Troi!
Richie's brother Chuck (from "Happy Days") with a reverse mohawk!
Death Wish 3 has all this and more, including one clever scene where Chuck Bronson's character sets up a mousetrap like device that brains a punk when he opens the window.
Chuck also places a board with a bunch of nails on the floor near another window and smiles when he returns and sees bloody footprints leading away.
All I can say about Death Wish 3 is that it is one of most incomprehensible "serious" movies that I have ever seen--loaded to the hilt with mayhem, and nearly zero police response, despite the use of military weapons to mow punks down by the score.
As I understand it, Bronson disowned this film, but happily cashed the check from Golan Globus.
If you enjoy quality movies, avoid this one, but if you're in for a cheap "Jackass" kind of thrill, check it out.


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


user
OK, I just flipped channels and caught DW3. I watched it knowing it would be trash..BUT..as a person who has seen tons of films, this one stands up there as one of the most purely bad films I have ever seen...I'm not kidding. It is so bad you have to watch it, like a bad accident you can't turn away from. Sometimes these kinds of films work, IE, Troma movies...but watching Martin Balsam and Charles Bronson slum it up like this is painful....What's even funnier is I pulled up IMDb to see what other people said and it actually scores a 4.1/10??? I can't believe it made it past 1.5! Equally as funny is this is not even the pinnacle of this series...somehow this garbage warranted part 4 and 5? And to top it all off, some dude's comments on here referenced this as the best of the series and his favorite film of all time??? Statements like that scare me about this world!


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


user
"Death Wish 3" is the movie equivalent of a shooting gallery. All the characters (apart from Bronson's Paul Kersey, of course) exist merely to be killed, either as "provocation" (the good guys) or as "retribution" (the villains). The director simply pours on the mindless violence (people even get burned alive and blown up), turning this into an urban version of "Commando" (and Charlie, like Arnold, rarely bothers to protect himself from the enemy gunfire). Fans of this short of thing (and, apparently, there are many) will enjoy it, others....beware. (*1/2)


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


user
This is slightly less sickening than the first two films, but otherwise it's business as usual: a scuzzy, sleazy and unbalanced slice of diseased cinema. Charles Bronson is back, blasting into action when his friend is killed by yobs terrorising the neighbourhood. Crime, you see, is up 11% in the South Belmont area... so what's to be done? A stronger police presence? Tougher jails? Harsher sentences? Nope, the only solution is to send in a loose cannon like Bronson to mete out bloodthirsty revenge  or, as the writers would have it, justice: this time he's the personal killing machine of police chief Ed Lauter.
The writers bend over backwards to make Kersey the hero, sending the useless cops into the area only to confiscate a weapon from an elderly resident who keeps it for protection, and supplying a scene in which Kersey has his camera stolen and shoots the thief right in the back, to applause from the watching crowd. Capital punishment for theft? Well, okay. The attitude of everyone in the film is that this is a solution, and the dishonest twisting of the characters into ciphers who exist only to cheer Kersey on or back him up is appalling.
Sure, these villains are scum, but shouldn't the film leave the audience to make up its mind, rather than slanting the entire thing towards Kersey and his mindless answer? Funnily enough the beleaguered residents don't fear gang reprisals or blame Kersey for any of the violence, which is odd as one character is killed precisely because of Kersey's involvement. At the end of the film they all take guns from their sock drawers and gleefully join in with the massacre, never stopping to think things through or struggle with the thought of having to kill another human being.
The atrociously shallow performances don't help  Bronson has literally one facial expression throughout and can't even put inflection on the right words. New heights of stupidity are reached here  a machine gun? A rocket launcher?!  and new lows of misogyny: the movie contrives to desecrate every female character in sight, whether by rape, explosion or throat-slashing; and it sets them up in supremely stupid fashion, like one victim who ventures into the crime-ridden, gang-controlled neighbourhood to ask out a stranger, or another who goes shopping alone at night. This is dreck, pure and simple, mindless garbage put together without style or sense.


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 lacked credibility for two reasons. One, no mayor of a major city, and New York is certainly as major as it gets. Would allow a borough in his city to degenerate into such a violent place to live; especially for voters who could have much to say about his or her future job security. All of the victims in the movie were mostly elderly, Jewish or defenseless. At 62-years of age, I have never seen a movie that depicted such utter lack of respect for authority as this movie did. Even "Escape from New York," which was fictional, up front, i.e. they told you that this was science fiction, didn't resort to such deep-seated violence. In this movie, most of the elderly victims were victimized and yet had guns but were unwilling to use them. Also, in this movie and I have not seen the prior two, is more lawless than the "Escape" movie. Secondly, gangs as far as my research shows have never been as cooperative as this movie makes them out to be. On the one hand they catch a gang member from another gang working in their area and he's killed. Yet when the heroes start shooting at the local gang bangers, the next gang over is welcomed with open arms. Outside gang members are always viewed as outsiders and are stopped. We are supposed to believe that when automatic weapons are used against our gang, the other gangs want to be all into it. Why did the outside gangs come to help? I believe that more than one gang from outside came to help. What did they come for? Another question, why was the gang leader in jail and why do fellow jail inmates ask his permission to attack Bronson's character? This was not a great movie and I could go on, but I won't.


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 could very well have been a propaganda movie for the North americian falangist party - or some similar group... The strong man (Kersey) places himself above the law (but not outside the law) and liberates upstanding citizens by killing worthless trash. The only thing that made me think it wasn't made by the KKK was the fact that a jew starred as a good guy... Try watching it again while thinking of it as a propaganda movie for an extreme right wing group - and you'll see what I mean...
It's a tragedy that Jimmy Page actually made music for this movie... :(


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


user
I was disappointed with the third film in the "Death Wish" series and wouldn't recommend this unless you are really into Bronson. He is his usual self in this one, maybe a bit lighter hearted than in the others; the rest of the cast is good if your watching a movie of the week on T.V. - the whole film has the production value of a bad episode of the A-Team and I like the escapism fun of a show like the A-Team but not on the big screen, even if it is an action movie that doesn't claim to be anything to sophisticated. The film takes a while to get going and then when it finally does, it gets out of control to the point of ridiculousness. The plot is something out of an episode of "Highway to Heaven" and Bronson seems like a fish out of water with the majority senior citizen cast and the gun play is so out of control you don't even get any satisfaction from Bronson's revenge against the bad guys. Skip this and go on to the 4th installment which I highly recommend.


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


user
I would put Death Wish 3 in the same box as Stallone's Cobra and Commando. The box that I would sell for $2 at a garage sale with all the videos inside. The story is about the main character coming back from the previous movies' success to ruin it all with this load of trash. Why did the makers want to destroy the reputation of the past 2 films with this cheap junk. The story is so lame that had to be a outrageous sequel. I mentioned Cobra earlier because it has the same mood, that one man can kill 20 or 30 gang members without a scratch. Both this movie and Cobra were bent on showing the hero firing his guns at hip level and the enemy falling in large numbers. Police officers spend hours at the shooting range so why did they get gunned down by gang members firing aimlessly from their hips? This movie was so bad I thought for a minute it was Death Wish 4.


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


user
Three businessmen are involved in a bar fight with three mysterious men. The three businessmen take revenge, which escalates to a murder after another. Supposedly the story is about the violence that could happen to ordinary people.
The plot has too many holes. The details were ignored in order to move the story forward. The acting was uneven. The color balance was awful even though I watched this movie in DVD. The small budget and tight schedule were apparent. The whole thing seems to be an excuse to shoot the final gun fight, and the ending was just unbelievable.


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


user
Seeing this film for the first time twenty years after its release I don't quite get it. Why has this been such a huge hit in 1986? Its amateurishness drips from every scene. The jokes are lame and predictable. The sex scenes are exploitative and over the top (that is not to say that Miss Rudnik does not have nice boobs!). The singing is "schrecklich". The only genuinely funny scene is the big shoot out when the gangsters die break dancing, a trait that dates the movie firmly to the mid-eighties. It's really quite puzzling to me how incapable I am to grasp what evoked the enthusiasm of the cheering audiences in 1986 (and apparently still today, reading my fellow IMDBers comments).


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


user
This tale of the upper-classes getting their come-uppance and wallowing in their high-class misery is like a contemporary Mid-Sommerish version of an old Joan Crawford movie in which she suffered in mink. Here, people behave in a frightfully civilized manner in the face of adversity. A well-heeled London solicitor, (Tom Wilkinson), discovers that not only is his wife having an affair with the local gentry but that she has also killed their housekeeper's husband in a hit-and-run accident. He throws up, but otherwise his stiff-upper-lip hardly quavers.
Written and directed by Julian Fellowes, who won an Oscar for writing "Gosford Park", (this is his directorial debut), from a novel by Nigel Balchin, it's quite comical although I am not sure how much of the comedy is intended. It's like a throw-back to British films of the forties where characters all behaved like characters in books or plays rather than like people might in real life. However, it's not all bad. Wilkinson is terrific, even if you never believe in him as a person while Emily Watson, (the adulterous wife), and Rupert Everett, (the highly amoral high-class totty), are both very good at covering the cracks in the material. Tony Pierce-Roberts' cinematography ensures that no matter how hard it is on the ear it's always good on the eye.


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


user
I was pulled into this movie early on, much to my surprise, because I hadn't intended to watch it at all. Now I wish I hadn't. The suspense starts out well, with the hit-and-run resulting in death and the question of whether the guilty character will confess, or be found out, or (doable now, though a no-no in the old days of movie-making) get away with it. The plot's been done before--what plot hasn't--but the tensions inherent in it, with the additional complications and motivations arising out of the illicit love affair, make for an absorbing first half. Then the film abandons the hit-and-run to embark upon a misty exposition of two unrequited, all-suffering loves. The two tracks of plot--hit-and-run and unreasoning love--just don't have enough to do with each other, and that they involve the same characters doesn't bind them enough to justify the departure from the original story line. The screenwriter should have chosen one plot or the other. At the end of the film, in the midst of the movie's second funeral, I found myself thinking, "Now, what does any of this have to do with that hit-and-run?" The filmmakers may think the answer obvious, but I think the movie was plotted and executed flabbily.


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


user
First of all, I would like to say that I am a fan of all of the actors that appear in this film and at the time that I rented it, I wanted to like it.
I think that the main reason that I was so disappointed was that the outside box promised me a suspense thriller. In my eyes, a suspense thriller for British movies is like something out of a Ruth Rendell novel, something that has a lot of dark twist and turns and leaves the viewer with an ending that is unlikely to be forgotten anytime soon.
This movie started out with the promising note of being such a film. We have our main character, that suspects a man that he does not like, of being involved in a hit and run that killed the husband of one of his servants.His notions prove to be right, but the idea that his wife might be involved, does not occur to him until that she confesses to him that she was a part of the crime.
The elements of a good suspense thriller were in place, at this point, but from there, I felt that the film took a different direction and became almost some sort of a mild soap opera about who wants to be with who and what the love of a real relationship is. The film might have been enjoyable to me, if the outside box had talked of a twisted lover's triangle and had not been labeled as suspense thriller.This seemed to be more of a soap opera story and the beginning setting seemed to be a mild distraction to the true content of the film. I felt like this film could have done a whole lot better than it did. I felt like it kept leading the viewer up to a big event that never materialized. So, I have to give it a lower rating than I would have liked to and say that it fell short of my expectations.


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


user
The basic genre is a thriller intercut with an uncomfortable menage-a-trois. Fellowes has tried to make a lot more out of this, using the lies of the title in order to bring about all manner of small twists, invariably designed to surprise the characters more than the audience.
It's really rather messy though. Fellowes doesn't seem interested presenting the thriller elements in a fashion that will keep us seat-edged. Rather his focus is on the moral predicaments themselves.
The dialogue is inconsistent, stagey here, vernacular there and with the constant surprise of realism undone by the occasional cliché-landmine. Though there is no fussing over the locations so that the actors can get on with existing in their space the dreadful score can't create a further dimension and often works against the emotional momentum of given set pieces. There's also a very prosaic, dare I say it British feel to the filming. I didn't want to see a document of two successful middle class people caught in an extraordinary situation, I wanted to see some sort of artful recounting of the story.
Finally it is, in fact, the story which lets the rest down. Just as the elements of suspense are rather flat so the story is an asymmetric sum of subplots of different shapes and sizes, woven as a vehicle for character examination. Wilkinson and Watson support this meta-essay with good performances and John Warnaby's ebullient colleague Simon to Wilkinson is a welcome foil for much of the brow-furrowing.
I'm disappointed; not that it's bad, but that it could have been much better. 3/10


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


user
Starting with a tearjerking poem and images of american missiles, starving children and mutilated palestinians I quickly realised that this was not going to be a objective documentary. 5 youths convicted after the gothenburg riots are interviewed and give a very confused explaination why they had to trash the citycenter and then (oh my god) actually have pay for what they have done. I kept watching and many questions are raised, were the trial properly done and did the cops have the right to do what they did? Lots of questions asked... and then dropped. No interviews with judges or going through documents about the trial.. nothing.
In short: Nothing new from what every Swede has seen on tv a hundred times - just poor propaganda.


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


user
Writer & director Robert Downey, Sr., a pioneer of the underground film movement in the 1960s, satirized the New York Madison Avenue advertising world with his avant-garde comedy "Putney Swope." Downey doesn't confine his ridicule to advertising, but tackles black militant culture, the dynamics in Hollywood's portrayal of race, the elite white power structure, and character of corruption in any power struggle. As audacious and ambitious as "Putney Swope" strives to be, it qualifies as a terrible film, amateurishly made on a shoe-string budget with a no-name cast and humor that lacks hilarity. Everything about this movie reeks with improvisation. "Putney Swope" stirred up controversy during its initial release with its politically incorrect handling of race issues and consumer culture. Like most Marx Brothers movies, the plot is thin, providing an excuse for Downey's anecdotal gags, most of which are terrible.
The chairman of a prestigious Madison Avenue ad agency dies during a board meeting. Before the body has been removed, the board holds a secret ballot vote to determine who will replace him. Each member understands that they are forbidden to vote for himself. Sheer accident occurs when everyone votes for the token black member, Putney Swope (Arnold Johnson), since none thought anybody would cast a ballot for him. Swope pink slips all but one of the white executives, surrounds himself with black, pistol packing employees, and renames the firm "Truth and Soul Advertising." Swope decides to alter the face of American advertising. He refuses to accept clients whose products are alcohol, tobacco, or war toys. Swope's clients stage an exodus after he becomes the CEO, and grandstanding attracts a new line-up of clients that show up at his office lugging bags of money and prepared to suffer abuse from Swope's militant employees. Swope exploits his African-American staff, too, ruthlessly appropriating their ideas after he fires them and conjures up a number of offensive advertising campaigns, all of which are hailed as a 'new wave' of marketing genius. Incredibly, Swope's conservatism proves successful but the agency becomes the target of government operatives who argue Swope's advertising tactics constitute "a threat to the national security." The high point of this black & white, 85-minute comedy are the television commercials shot in color. Unfortunately, Downey doesn't know when to cut off these ads that consistently start out cleverly but wear out their welcome. The funniest part of "Putney Swope" involves our eponymous protagonist's dealings with U.S. President Mimeo in Washington D.C. (Pepi Hermine), a marihuana-toking midget with a Kissinger-like Teutonic adviser (Larry Wolf) spouting tasteless jokes while trying to convince Swope to come up with an advertising campaign for his new car, the Borman 6.


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


user
Black and white satire of a Madison Avenue ad agency being taken over by blacks. They're headed by Putney Swope (Arnold Johnson) who is determined to change things. However he turns out to be even WORSE than his white predecessors. That's about as original as this gets.
I'm sure this was considered daring and shocking in 1969 but it just seems silly today. The jokes are either unfunny (the president is a midget. HOW is this funny?), cruel or obvious and the film is full of unlikable characters. It's done in a very experimental way which makes it even harder to take...or understand. The movie just gets more bizarre and surreal as it goes along. The ending comes out of nowhere. To make it worse, with the sole exception of Johnson, ALL the acting is bad. Antonio Fargas (a regular in these types of films) is especially annoying as the Arab. This gets three stars because the commercial parodies (done in bright color) ARE amusing and there's a rare good line here and there. I heard this was a cult classic but this is more interesting than good. Skip it...unless you're in experimental 1960s films.


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


user
I think Downey was perhaps inspired by French new-wave.
Who wasn't?
Unfortunately, what he ended up creating here was more along the lines of crackhead new-wave.
A synapse is obviously a terrible thing to lose and Downey appears to have lost plenty.
Just say no, indeed. In more ways than one. Including to watching this film.
I couldn't bear it after a while and began fast forwarding through it. It would have been wiser to have just skipped it altogether.


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


user
This is a poor excuse for a movie. A film noir done by Busbee Berkeley? Please! First, let's forget about the plot, a truly simple-minded version of a cynical tough guy turned into a saint by the love of a pretty blonde. Yechh. So what turns her from despising him to loving him? Along with a group of other guys, he helps keep a kid from drowning as they all swim in a water tower and try to survive as the water is siphoned off, stranding them. It isn't exactly heroics, but she's suddenly smitten. It's truly painful to watch Claude Rains trying to portray a hard-bitten, tough-talking, noir-type cop. A crooked grimace is his main and rather pathetic acting tool, along with a growling voice. Most of his energy seems to go into trying to hide the intelligence that shines in all his other roles. How he ever got talked into taking this job I'll never understand. Enjoy it, if you can, for a few period details, the old cars and gas pumps, but don't expect a decent film experience. It wasted 1-1/12 hours of my life.


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


user
The Monkees "Head" is one of those peculiar phenomenons I've noticed- that when something doesn't make sense, people will try to read things into it and give it great deep meanings, which its creator never intended. Such is the case here.
The movie is a stream-of-consciousness spectacle of The Monkees floating in and out of various sketches, blackouts, set pieces, etc. similar to the ones on their TV show. But while the TV show was played for laughs, this doesn't seem to be played for anything except a sort of deep, trippy, pseudo-intellectual state that this brand of psychedelia imposes. All in all, it's The Monkees doing the same schtick, but now it's "consciousness-raising" because the laugh track is removed. There is not a stitch of humor or meaning to the whole thing; it just drones on with colored lights.
The music in "Head" should prove to anyone, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the Monkees had not a scrap of songwriting ability. The tunes are mostly garbage; the only one that's even listenable is "Porpoise Song", which opens and closes the film. But the thing is, that was a Gerry Goffin-Carole King song, and, while it's above-average for the Monkees, it's below-average by Goffin and King standards. It's like hearing one of the old Peter And Gordon songs that Paul McCartney wrote for them: you might think it's a pretty good song, but then you find out who composed it, and you realize it's a throwaway. Mike Nesmith's song is maybe passable, the rest is worthless. Davy Jones has, I guess, what the filmmakers imagined to be "the big number" in the picture, since it's the only song presented As Show Biz and not cut into a film montage or dream sequence, but it falls flat, too, just because the song isn't any good.
I have to admit I always liked the Monkees, so the movie is a real disappointment. Sure, they were cheesy, but they were so cheerful about it.
They knew they were cheesy and they were cool with it. But then they got ambitious. In "Head", they actually joke about being a manufactured pop product, but the truth is, they wanted something more. They wanted to be Great Musicians and taken seriously as artists. Maybe not like the Beatles, but something approaching that. "Head" proves that they failed on all counts. 1* out of 4


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


user
at a Saturday matinee in my home town. I went with an older friend (he was about 12) and my mom let me go because she thought the film would be OK (it's rated G). I was assaulted by loud music, STRANGE images, no plot and a stubborn refusal to make ANY sense. We left halfway through because we were bored, frustrated and our ears hurt.
I saw it 22 years later in a revival theatre. My opinion had changed--it's even WORSE! Basically everything I hated about it was still there and the film was VERY 60s...and has dated badly. I got all the little in-jokes...too bad they weren't funny. The constant shifts in tone got quickly annoying and there's absolutely nothing to get a firm grip on. Some people will love this. I found it frustrating...by the end of the film I felt like throwing something heavy at the screen.
Also, all the Monkees songs in this movie SUCK (and I DO like them).
For ex-hippies only...or if you're stoned. I give this a 1.


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


user
As their entire career was a pale impersonation of The Beatles, it is no surprise that, shortly after the great fiasco of the Beatles "Magical Mystery Tour," the Monkees would follow up with their own insipid and creative morass of a movie, called "Head." Both movies are not so much a true story with a plot (though MMT attempted to define a plot) as they are a hodge-podge of skits and snippets, interspersed with music and songs and out-takes.
"Head" has no plot, other than the pre-fab-four trying to break free of "the box" they are in (i.e. the type-casting of being "Monkees" and the surrounding commercialism) and yet, always finding themselves back in the box. Most skits involve breaks in the "fourth wall" and crossing over into other, seemingly unrelated scenes. Filled with anti-Vietnam war messages and attempts by the group to show their other talents, the film bounces around haphazardly- also to be blamed on the multiple directors.
The film, like Magical Mystery Tour, is now excused by some fans as "wonderful symbolism and misunderstood artistic statements." Phooey. Like MMT, it is too many guys with access to too many drugs all trying to make something artsy and making crap.
Like MMT, "Head" has some clever moments and offers some relatively unknown Monkees songs that are quite decent. It does develop a bit more charm than MMT and is a bit easier to sit through, but it is not ironic at all that, like everything else the Monkees did, this was just a mimicry of something the Beatles did first... even when it comes to laying an egg.


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


user
This is possibly the worst movie i've ever seen, it was horribly done it didn't flow it was very choppy, because of that many people didn't understand the movie at all. I had to watch this movie several times before I got an idea about what was happening, OK its like this a kid stole someones car and while running from the police he totals it, for some reason the cops let him off and he has to face his parents who sent him to live with his uncle out in the wilderness, there he meets a girl who loves to rock climb and he gets into the sport and has to beg his uncle to let him enter a contest for climbing, and yeah thats about it like i said horrible movie.


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


user
Talk about being boring!
I got this expecting a fascinating insight into the life of the man who wrote the mythical Night on the Galactic Railroad. I expected to see crazy stories and hijinks of an eccentric man and to discover his inspirations for such bizarre material. Boy, was I wrong.
Spring and Chaos is mostly boring with only sporadic moments of innovative animation. It's certainly nothing to write home about and nowhere near as good as NOTGR which is something that I suggest you watch instead. Leave this bore alone. If you absolutely MUST see then either rent it or find it somewhere cheap. Do not pay top dollar.


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


user
Being a history buff, I rented this movie because of the subject matter. The idea of the Ellis Island experience at the turn of the century focusing on one small group is intriguing. Unfortunately, the movie falls flat. Much of the story is simply boring; nothing much happens for long stretches. The director uses goofy imagery (offered up in the form of daydream sequences) in an apparent attempt to break up the glacial pacing, but instead, it clashes with the authentic look and feel of the movie. The characters are also poorly drawn. In the end, we don't really care as much about them as we should. It's a shame that this wasn't what it could have been. I would still like to see a good movie about the American immigrant experience, but this one isn't it.


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


user
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW***
What a long and mostly uninteresting movie! Who were these characters? Why didn't I care about them? If I'm going to watch a movie for two hours, I'd like to care about somebody or something.
We know that Salvatore dreamed of the riches to be found in the new world. Beyond that, though, we learned little about most of his family's hopes, fears, etc., as they embarked on an adventure into the unknown.
And why was Lucy even in this movie? She said little; we knew little about her or what she was doing (was she forced to service men in exchange for being allowed to board the ship?) or what her plans were upon reaching New York. To those who might suggest that she was needed to underscore the point that a single woman, however cultured, could not get into this country alone, I say that that fact is not enough justification to give her so much screen time. That point could have been made in five minutes, with Lucy as a momentary character.
More questions: Why wasn't the twin brother at the boat to meet the family? We heard about the brother, and some closure on that point would have been helpful in giving the movie some cohesiveness. Also, how long was the journey from Italy to New York? Given the conditions on the ship, it makes a difference to the viewer if the voyage took five or 10 or 50 days. (Someone said something about seeing land a "week" at one point, but I think that was when they were already en route.) I needed these types of details to better appreciate what they were going through.
The only scene I really liked was when the boat, filled with passengers, left the dock.
If you choose to rent this movie, do so with remote in hand; you may want the Fast Forward button handy.
Finally, may I suggest that, with the right voice-over providing helpful information about the times and the circumstances for immigrants--particularly during the slow stretches of endless shots of the countryside, people walking, etc.--this movie might have made an interesting public TV documentary.


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


user
The best part in this movie is the first one, located in Sicily, I suppose. Crialese shows a good talent for photography and the movie start is delightfully surprising. The rest of the story is quite boring. Crialese uselessly insists on stereotypical situations and characters, trying to melt neorealistic suggestions and video-music technique, Fellinian surrealistic remembrances and a very annoying and completely off-topic soundtrack, leading the whole thing towards an end which gives you the sensation of an exaggeratedly long story cut abruptly short. Frankly, this is a real overrated movie and Crialese is a real overrated director.


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


user
The most generic, surface-level biography you could hope for. Busey's impersonation of Holly is accurate -- but who wants to hear Gary Busey sing "Maybe Baby"? Typically, the members of the Hollies are used for comic relief and melodrama (Smith and Stroud, respectively) instead of as people or even characters. When Holly uses a string section, the old jewish-looking guys who come in tell him he's using the same techniques as Mozart. It's just this kind of cheeky statement that makes film biographies like this (and "Amadeus", about the aforementioned Mozart) so worthless. Some entertainment can be derived from Holly's excellent styles and songs done in a B-variation.


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


user
I always think it would be nice if you could somehow have a 'sneak preview' at some of the old movies that are re-released on DVD, before you purchase them. That way you could save yourself some time, money and a certain degree of aggro when you feel so utterly let down.
"The Buddy Holly Story" is such a movie.
I do not wish to go into the characterizations, or the holes in the plot, or the messing around with historical facts that this movie encompasses, for I had already come to terms with them twenty years ago, when I first began watching it.
I had recorded it on the old (Monaural) Beta machine back in the early 1980s, and liked it so much, that it became a regularly-played favourite. The best part, to my mind, was Gary Busey's performance as the young Buddy, and his near-perfect vocals and guitar playing.
I looked forward to the day when I could have it in ...STEREO..., and that is where the disappointment comes in.
This DVD version is (supposedly) re-mastered in both audio and video, according to the shell information, but I'm afraid it left me sadly let-down and glancing at my watch, wishing for it to end.
The sound is murky, bordering on the unintelligible, and so unprofessionally mixed that it had me yearning for the crystal-clarity vocals of my old Beta tape!
Despite what you think of the images, or the plot, or the characters, the real draw card here is the MUSIC......and if you can't hear the lead vocals because they are drowned out by the cymbals, or the backing harmonies, or other ambients, then there's not much left, is there?
I'm going to convert my old Beta version to (Mono) DVD for subsequent viewings, and put this one where it belongs, out with the rubbish!
"Extinction is the Rule, Survival is the Exception..."


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 would have been alright, indeed probably excellent, if the directors would have left the interviews and the concert footage separate. "Into the Void" is a great song, and I hate how it is cut off at the best part to go to an mumbling interview with Ozzy Osbourne. That should have been at the end of the film, or located in a special feature. The best part of concert DVDs is to put them on and let the music play, but "Black Sabbath: The Last Supper" is hard to put and and simply let play because the music is continually interrupted. Nevertheless, there are a few strengths to this film; the concert footage, when it does play, it excellent. Black Sabbath returns to the stage after a long hiatus without Osbourne and this film captures that well: Sabbath basically rocks the fans. The fans, of course, have a sweet advantage in the film because they are seeing the band live, of course, but also they do not have to put up with the incessant interviews that the DVD viewers are burdened with. Shame on Jeb Brien and Monica Hardiman (the directors) for doing this to the film! Also, shame on Wyatt Smith for editing the film in such a way.


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


user
To remake "Lost Horizon", as a musical, the need for a Rodgers & Hammerstein or Lerner & Lowe type musical composition was needed. Burt Bacharach and Hal David were the wrong choice. Having said that, my favorite thing about "Lost Horizon", is its score. It's just that the score doesn't fit the piece. The cast, is made-up of mostly non-musical talents (Ullman, Finch and Hussey, were all dubbed, and still don't sound all that great).
Frankly, the novella, on which this, and the earlier non-musical film versions were based, is mediocre, at best. While the possibilities for a truly good, cinematic musical version exist, they are not realized here. The film succeeds at being a good, rainy-day vehicle, to pass the time. Otherwise, you are better off, buying the CD of its soundtrack. Only recommended as a curiosity piece, due to the film's awful reputation. I've seen much better; but I've seen MUCH worse.


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


user
I was an extra on this film, in the part shot at the airport in the first 15 minutes or so; I was one of the fleeing (mostly Mexican) Bangladeshi refugees running across the runways at Ryan Field in Tucson. At one point, standing around in our turbans as we waited for another shot, one of my fellow extras turned to me asked me what the move was going to be about. I told him it was going to be a remake of Lost Horizons, only as a musical. There was a long pause, then he replied: "Man, this movie is gonna suck". Pretty perceptive of him, I thought. I had a good time and made a bit of money, but even with some interesting personal memories attached to this movie I can't sit through the whole thing.
If you ever saw the movie "The Swarm", you can pretty much get the idea. You get to see a lot of famous and talented people wasted on an an idea that on the face of it is just BAD. The idea seemed to be that if you throw enough money at a movie and hire enough big names, then a good story and good writing aren't necessary. Just turn the big crank, and out comes the product. It's just not worth watching.


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


user
..but unfortunately no one thought about having Van killed in order to save this doomed production. The only positive thing about him in the film is his nice singing voice...too bad the songs are mostly insipid and sappy. Why did I hate Van so much? Well, throughout the film he seemed like he was doing a third-rate Soupy Sales imitation--with lots of mugging, bad jokes and way too much energy spent trying to make everyone laugh. The worst of these moments was when he was "teaching" the class--these kids laughed at EVERYTHING he did. Heck, Van could have read the phone book or showed them autopsy photos and they probably would have laughed! Now Van was not the only bad casting decision in the film--he was just the most obvious. Of course, having John Gielgud (a lovely actor) play an Asian was ridiculous as well as having Michael York play Peter Finch's brother!! The bottom line is that because of these insane casting choices, the film was doomed from the start....and the worst of them was the god-awful Bobby Van. Now in real life, he might have been a lovely person and it's sad that in real life he died so young, but with the material they gave him here I just wanted to rip out his tongue to get him to be quiet.
Now I also mentioned the songs--egad, those terrible songs!! The original LOST HORIZON by Frank Capra was a subtle delight throughout--and not a single song and dance number in the film. So why did they decide to add a bazillion songs that did nothing to help the film? They only served to make it seem like a gooey mess--like the original DOCTOR DOOLITTLE combined with LOST HORIZON. The end result is a sickly sweet children's movie--not one that can be enjoyed by anyone over 8.
Now if you can remove these problems, you have the basis of a decent film. After all, the plot is lovely and is still hidden beneath all the goo. Peter Finch is particularly good (though certainly not the equal of Ronald Colman in the original). But, considering that the original was a near-perfect classic, why bother with this sticky confection. Who wants to wade through the treacle?!
By the way, this film was included in "The 50 Worst Films" book by Harry Medved. While I, too, disliked the film, it wasn't bad enough to merit inclusion in the book. I think it was included mostly because it was such a huge box office failure and because it was released just a few years before the book appeared. An excellent book--just not one of the best selections to the "hallowed hall" of dreck.


assistant
0