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
Angels are a bit of an American obsession, but are often rather boring. They are the messengers of God, and also the arc angels are great warriors (Lucifer being the toughest and best looking until he was kicked out of heaven).
So what happens if you don't believe in anything, let alone angels and you are sent to investigate an angel story, only to meet one with wings and less than angelic attitude.
Maybe that is what America needs, being a puritan is different from being good. Michael is a rude, obnoxious, womanizing messenger of heaven who will fulfill your wishes, and make you care enough about the world that you will be touched.
Funny, but not greatly so, touching but not overly sentimental, intelligent without being clever...it is just a good simple, small comedy. Watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon.


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


user
I really enjoyed this movie for what it is: A funny little film that doesn't take itself too seriously. Plot summaries are available everywhere so I won't go into details. Michael isn't about a complex plot anyway. It just builds on a great premise and takes the viewer on a wonderful road trip.
John Travolta's performance as a chain-smoking, lady-loving, bar-brawling, pie-eating angel is just perfect. And who doesn't love Sparky?
Watch this if you want to have a few laughs and a overall good time. Highly recommended.


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


user
John Travolta was excellent as "Michael" in the movie by the same name. I don't think a better portrayal could have been done. The movie was funny, yet touching. Michael is a very "human angel" (If their is such). Andie MacDowell is superb in her role as a reporter, as she goes from disbelief to belief. Bill Hurt and Robert Pastorelli are great as fellow reporters, each bent on proving the hoax of the angel on earth. Each of the supporting cast is wonderful, especially the older woman (I do not know her screen name), who plays Michael's mother! One of the cutest movies I have seen in years... I could watch this movie dozens of times!


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


user
This is one of my favorite "Capra-esque" comedies. This movie is just meant to be enjoyed, not deconstructed, microscopically analyzed. It's not religious commentary. It's fun. It's fantasy. The surprisingly negative comments (IMHO) reflect a level of expectation that professional film critics have led us to think must be a part of every movie.
Others have described Travolta's role (it's the reason you'll watch the movie over and over) and the excellent supporting cast (including Sparky!).
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar; sometimes a movie is just fun.
Enjoy!


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


user
Caught this movie on TV and I watched it again. I said to myself, it's been a long time since I watched this movie, so why not. And once again this movie thrilled me. It is so easy, so watchable and so human that I don't know why some people dislike it.
John Travolta shines as Michael (his dance and every move), angel that can hardly be related to this word. He smokes, drinks and he eats like some savage, but he's got big heart. On his way Michael helps all people he meets. Dorothy Winters (Andie MacDowell) in her singing and finding a right man. Frank Quinlan (William Hurt) in developing himself as a good and decent man. Michael even helped dear old Pansy Milbank (Jean Stapleton) - that last scene is beautiful when they dance on the street.
Travolta had great help in other actors. Andie MacDowell is so beautiful and likable, William Hurt is great as usual, late Robert Pastorelli shows his talent. Jean Stapleton and Teri Garr are also good, but my favorite supporting actor in this movie is Bob Hoskins as the tabloid owner.
So we've got here a solid movie about people with a warm story also and attractive cast. Just don't take this movie seriously and I can guarantee you'll have fun.


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


user
This is another of John Travolta's "come back" movies, and if he continues on with characters and movies like this one, his come back will take hold.
This is so sweet...sickeningly so if you're not into the romance comedy scene. If you are, this is one innovative RomCom. Every performance (including that of Skippy the Dog) was beautiful, without much more than a trace of the irreverence found in "Dogma." (Although, as movies go, I loved Dogma!)
Travolta is not nearly as brash in his performance as the previews would lead you to believe. He is an angel and if you consider yourself to be well read, then you understand that angels were far from perfect. You will not, therefore, be insulted by this film. Even those who are overly sensitive to such things shouldn't be insulted by this work, as Nora went to great lengths to see to it that it was the least abrasive as possible, given the subject matter.
I love this, and love it more each time I watch it. It's beautiful and sweet, engaging, and endearing.
It rates a 7.3/10 from...
the Fiend :.


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


user
Continuing his comeback, John Travolta played a mildly twisted angel in "Michael". He may be a messenger of God, but he's not the nicest guy, as reporters Andie MacDowell and William Hurt discover. When I first saw this movie, it was before I had started watching "All in the Family", so I didn't recognize Jean Stapleton as Edith Bunker. Now that I recognize her like that, I try to imagine Archie snapping at her for harboring an angel (whom he would probably rank alongside blacks, Jews, etc).
I know, that doesn't really relate to the movie. But I just like to associate things that way. Anyway, it's a pretty interesting movie. Also starring Bob Hoskins, Teri Garr and Richard Schiff.
What John and Paul said...


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


user
Michael is probably too cutesy for most action movie fans and too Hollywood for the intellectual crowd but I found it both extremely funny and very touching, despite it being both cutesy and formulaic.
When three skeptics are sent to investigate a man claiming to be an angel they end up escorting him on a grand tour of the mid-western country side only to find that it is each of their own hearts that need investigation.
When taking this film apart, as with most films today, there isn't a lot of new material but when taken as a whole it has a refreshingly original approach and is off-beat enough to entertain one all the way through.
While not being a "Family" film it is suitable for all ages and a good film to share with the whole family or that special someone.
"Michael" isn't a great film but it certainly is a good film, a touching film, and well worth seeing.
KWC


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


user
Though this film doesn't stand out particularly from the movie crowd, its still a very nice film to sit down and watch with your feet up! There maybe the odd one or two mistakes you catch, and the cinematic are a little slipshod, the film itself is very enjoyable and has a wonderful atmosphere to it. The music contributes a lot to the mood of the movie.
The acting is none the less impressive (especially the dog he he!) with John Travolta taking the lead of the fun-troublesome-loving Michael. Other characters feel very genuine and perform very well within the film.
So after a long day at work, stick "Michael" on in the evening with some ice-cream and enjoy a very quality film in its own right :)


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


user
Chicago reporter Frank Quinlan decided to go to Iowa to confirm the existence of a so-called angel. He was not alone. His partner Huey Driscoll and new colleague Dorothy Winters also joined him. When they arrived at the destination, they found that the angel Michael was quite different from what they expected. However Frank still persuaded Michael to go to Chicago with them. So an interesting journey began.
Although Michael did not look like a saint, he was a kind and funny angel. In fact Michael owned irresistible charming for women. Even due to jealousy of other men, he was involved in a riot. The climax appeared in the pizza restaurant. Dorothy sang lively country songs for Frank. That was just what Michael wanted to see. But the next day Huey 's dog was crashed to death by a running car. Michael was asked to save it. That would be used to verify whether he was a real angel.
Andie Macdowell shined in this comedy. She also showed her singing ability. John Travolta proved his comedian talent again. Of cause Pulp Fiction still was his typical work.
A comedy that will warm your heart. 8/10


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


user
As an earlier reviewer said, Travolta stole every scene he was in. Recognize the character? It was Vinnie Barberino, all grown up and still a bit sleazy, but still likable, oh yes!
Disappointing were William Hurt and Bob Hoskins, perhaps because their characters were badly written, or they just didn't care. I kept seeing one of the Baldwins (never can remember which) in the Hurt role so Hurt's incredible talents weren't wasted.
Andie McDowell is a sweetie, but not very believable; partly the writing. Character development just wasn't a big thing in this film. Just watch it for Travolta, sit back and enjoy.


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


user
That pretty much sums it up ... corny. MacDowell's inability to act is at times painful, and Hurt must need money to take such muted roles, but I still enjoyed it.
Why? In a single word, Travolta. He is GREAT in this movie. Still, I can't give the movie too high a score, but it certainly deserves better than it seems to be getting.


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


user
I enjoyed this film which I thought was well written and acted.
There was plenty of humour and a thought-provoking storyline. A warm and enjoyable experience with an emotional ending.Good fun.


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


user
honestly, i loved Michael. although there were "give me a pillow i need to take a nap" parts, it was cool. i think everyone did a great job in this film. and nora ephron is in my "ok" list of directors.
it's nice to see John Travolta as a pot-bellied angel. it's not very often i see one in a movie. some people might call this a boring movie, but for me i loved it. angels and all.


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


user
I found the movie to be very light and enjoyable. One knows that the story is not real life like, yet the depiction is superb.
Lyrics are really good and John Travolta in his usual style. I like the scene wherein he as an angel gives up his own stuff to bring life back to the dog.


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


user
An off beat but very delightful performance by John Travolta sets off this very funny comedy. His interpretation of the archangel is as a scuffy, womanizing, overweight, ladies man. And, he certainly has a mesmerizing effect on the women he encounters on his trip to Chicago. John Hurt is very low keyed in his role as chief reporter for Chicago Tabloid owner, Bob Hoskins. Angie MacDowell plays role much as she did her role in "Four Weddings and a Funeral." Maureen Stapleton is neat in a cameo. Her comment, "Michael doesn't suffer fools," is just one of many memorable moments. Bob Hoskins is the only one of the lead performers who fails to connect, a little to off the wall. Mainly you're there to see Michael take on a bull, mesmerize the waitresses and lady dancers at a western style restaurant, and fully demonstrate that he is complete free soul. It is a memorable comedy that is worth more than one viewing.


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


user
Warm hearted flic depicting arch-angel Michael as a brawling, overweight, cigarette smoking slob who loves to dance and cavort with the opposite sex. He does have a good side, however, as he strives to set things right in the lives of a couple of burnt out losers before being recalled to heaven. Funny, well played out film; very enjoyable although somewhat irreverent.


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


user
I have done a lot of international travel, both on business and as a tourist. For both types I assure you the best advice is also the oldest: Always drink the wine of the country. In this movie the archangel Michael comes to Earth on business, wraps it up quickly and decides to hang around for a little touring. Boy! Does he "drink the wine of the country."
Could man be drunk forever with liquor, love and fights
He'd lief rise up of mornings and lief lie down of nights.
These are things you can't do in Heaven so he enjoys them while he's here! Of course it turns out he had a couple of other jobs to tackle and, if he is less direct about them than he was about the first one, he is just as successful. The final scene is a little schmaltzy but it is also wonderful. Jean Stapleton gets to dance with John Travolta.


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


user
Wow, I think the overall average rating of this film on this site is incredibly low. There's really no reason to dislike this film. "Michael" is a simple, but fairly original, and easily enjoyable romantic comedy. The plot involves a group of reporters/experts going to examine the mysterious appearance of an angel (John Travolta) in the midwest. The angel proves to be less saintly and more worldly than we would expect, and that's what makes it entertaining. His interest in women and the Beatles takes a new spin on the angel thing. The romantic side of this film involves Michael the angel trying to get Andie MacDowell and William Hurt together. The two of them may not have the all-time greatest on-screen chemistry, but they certainly have enough to make it work well. Everyone who has rated this film so low (a 5.4??), come on! The film is not that bad. In fact, I found it quite funny and memorable. Sure, it's not the best thing you'll ever see, but it's still good. This is a film I feel has been remarkably underrated. It's fun, romantic, and recommended by me.
*** out of ****


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


user
This movie is an all-time favorite of mine. I'm sorry that IMDb is not more positive about it. I hope that doesn't keep those who have not experienced it from watching it.
I've always loved this movie. I watch it about once a year and am always pleased anew with the film and especially the stellar performances by entire cast.
I've always wondered whether Jean Stapleton actually did the ending dance with Travolta???? If anyone knows this piece of trivia, please leave a comment.
Thanks and ENJOY!


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


user
Why would this film be so good, but only gross an estimated $95,000,000 and have NO award nominations? John Travolta knows what he's doing. He knows he's Michael, a cigar smoking, womanizing, magical arch angel that came down to live with a dying lady and is now in a car with the staff of "The National Mirror" and their dog, Sparky, on the way to Chicago. It then turns into a road trip that's both horrible AND great. I don't even think the death scenes (3 to be exact) make this a tearjerker. The soundtrack is the best with "Heaven Is My Home", "Up Around The Bend", and "Chains Of Fools". I have very great expectations about this and I say that it should have had a little more respect in the 90's. Read my comment. Bye!


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


user
It's a movie with a theatrical message blended with some clever moments. Films like these are the stretching grounds of great actors, they enjoy tossing the ball in open pieces like these. The Angel that wasn't what we see in old books and churches is quite a nice change. It is echoed in Kevin Smith's piece, Dogma, almost in the same slapstick vein.
-=0) Watch this film for a good day after you suck it all in. Could it be that so many films are trying to be complicated that we forget the simple movements of films like this? Possibly one of the most fun pieces I have seen in a while, I ran into this one on VHS in a trash can because someone's basement was flooded this summer, and I grabbed a handful of tapes.
Whether in a trash bin, or on the silver screen, mild comedies like this are fun, you just don't have to tell everyone at a hip nightclub that you like it, or a swank political party. Just keep it for yourself, and I'll bet plenty of people will borrow it from time to time.


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


user
What is it about certain films that generates such polar opposite reactions?
Some people here have called High Roller "disgusting." Some have called it "extraordinary" (as would I, actually).
Why? I think it's because films like this don't make heroes out of jerks, or glamour out of degeneration, and some people just can't deal with that emotionally. They NEED a hero. And I'd also add that if they're gamblers or poker players, they might feel personally betrayed when their existence isn't justified.
High Roller in NOT a poker movie. It's a PEOPLE movie. It's not perfect, but it looks good, is well-written, and wonderfully acted. And best of all, it generates an emotional response and inspires reflection.
And maybe that's what makes some people so damn mad.


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


user
stuey unger was a card playing legend. he was quoted in an interview as saying, "Some day, I suppose it's possible for someone to be a better No Limit Hold'em player than me. I doubt it, but it could happen. But, I swear to you, I don't see how anyone could ever play gin better than me." there's a gin rummy scene in this movie that is so amazing you could have plopped it in 'X-Men' as a showcase for a superhero's mutant power. that's how incredible this man was.
i have a few minor problems with this movie. as dark as this movie was, stuey's real life was darker. poker pro todd brunson said, "During the last World Series of poker, Bob Stupak, Mike Sexton and I had a drink and talked about Stu. Mike told us how he could barely talk, hadn't showered in weeks and how his fingers were burned black by a crack pipe." in the film, michael imperioli looked far too healthy to be stu unger in the final years of his life. when stuey won his last wsop he looked like a skeleton, but let's face it, this production lacked both the time and the "deniro" to make that kind of transformation. my other problem was that i wish there was more poker playing, with actual hands and situations. sure it might have bored the average non poker enthusiast, but it would have been nice for the hardcores. too bad the movie wasn't 6 hours or so longer.
i watched the movie with 3 non poker players and they all thoroughly enjoyed it. just like you don't have to be a former member of the colonial army to enjoy Gibson's "the patriot", you don't have to be a poker player to see this gem. can't wait for the DVD. (8 out of 10)


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


user
This movie was well acted and kept my interest in the main character for the entire movie. Stu Unger lived an extraordinary life. Imagine if Stu were alive today! This movie paints a picture of what Stu Unger's life might have felt like. It was interesting to see how connected was growing up. I would have liked to seen more detail on Stu's partying, his gamesmanship and his relationship to Bob Stupak. But all in all, this movie was well done, well acted and the story touched on many facets of a life that was full of many events that were larger than life.
This movie is worth renting.


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


user
This movie has a "big production" feel that I was not expecting from an independent film. The characters are each developed and dealt with in a way that not only helps to tell the story, but left me with a satisfied viewing experience.


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


user
By many accounts, Stu Ungar was not a very nice guy. He spat on dealers, stiffed people he owed money to, and was verbally abusive.
Many filmmakers might choose to sugarcoat the man, making him into some sports hero that would triumph despite adversity. But High Roller doesn't do that. And that's a tough row to hoe.
Instead, we have to look VERY closely to see a man that never matured passed the frightened little boy from the streets of New York, despite all his successes. And the only real approval he ever gets is from death himself. Very brave (because people won't get it) and very touching (when you do).
What is also brave is the use of a Scorsese feel. "Aha! How derivative," people will say. Really? But there's virtually no violence. And Stuey LOVED gangster movies. Maybe the feel reflects the man Stu and not the director Marty? And if it really is a low budget film and looks that good, bravo!
Finally, the linear flashback structure. Wow, will that get hammered. Yet, not only does it work, it works exceptionally well, even for those who don't see the connection to the "Seventh Seal." (PROOF: In SS, Knight plays game of chess with death: In HR, Stuey says "We can play a hand of cards for, ya know"... Death says "Never much good at cards.." Damn great last line.)
No tricky effects or camera moves. No shaky camera. Nothing trendy at all. Just solid, tight storytelling.
Maybe that makes the movie too basic and somehow flawed. But then again, so was the guy. And that makes it just about right.
9/10


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


user
The basis for this dynamic docudrama is the true story of one of the most extraordinary card players ever.
STUEY is a tight, cohesive biopic of a true poker Ace whose life is a one-way trip down the Highway to Hell with few detours.
This dramatic feature stands wide apart from other films about poker. It represents a rare and earnest attempt to bring to the silver screen a true story of ultimate gambling compulsion. The complete obsession that annihilates any proximity of spirituality and nullifies any chance of redemption. This is the least likely movie a Vegas Casino executive would recommend. And it is the sole poker DVD you are likely to find on the shelves of Gamblers Annonymous.
There are scenes in this movie that poker buffs are sure to refer to as some of the best gambling scenes ever. Stu reading his opponent's hand and, particularly, a Texas hold'em bluffing scene.
Prophetically, early on in the movie we see a young Stu bullied out of his pocket change by a bunch of neighborhood hoodlums. Poker is for loners seeking revenge. It is a game of patience which bullies lack. 'You can't bully me!' may very well be an underlying sentiment of the punishing force that a champion poker player unleashes upon his adversaries.
Conservatives will look upon this film as a cautionary tale of a soul lost in sin. They may evoke Mark Twain: 'The best throw at dice is to throw them away.' The young and liberal masses will inevitably have a more simplistic and sympathetic outlook. They may not have heard of Twain's quote, but will sure remember a remark made by Stu's stunned pal who learns from up-and-coming Stuey that he'd won a car from a local character in an overnight game. 'You tell'em to go to hell and they look forward to the trip'.
The mosaic of Las Vegas vignettes that we see in STUEY will long linger in memory. Frank Sinatra, the most generous tipper? Forget about it! Nobody tips as extravagantly as a hot-shot gambler. And for Vegas visitors who may not know the impact of tipping on the quality of their stay, check out the scene of Stu checking in a Vegas hotel!
'This is what i was meant to do, this is where i was to be. Movie stars in Hollywood, politicians in Washington and gamblers in Vegas.'


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


user
I saw the movie at the Nashville film festival on May 1, 2003! It was amazing! All the things that I had read about Stuey were portrayed incredibly well by Tony Vidmer (writer, director, producer, editor), Michael Imperioli (incredible job as Stuey), and all the others involved in this. I'm glad he (Vidmer) didn't go down the "Leaving Las Vegas" routine with Stuey's bad habits, but instead put us inside his life, family, and his gift. Tying the whole story from the motel room where he died was a great vehicle and showed his screenwriting skill. A big "thumbs up" on this one!


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


user
After watching the series premiere of Talk Show with Spike Feresten I took a moment to really think wow there are actually good shows on after 12 besides SNL and I was also sad to see that it was only 30 minutes long. His great writing skills helped this show overcome a series lack of money and helping hands. Electronic Lincoln was hilarious and I really think this will be a good Dark Horse Talk Show.
I was very happy with the way he handled it and gave Andy Richtor some good lines to work with. As you would have suspected it was a little shaky but for that kind of time slot it was very good.
Overall if you are not someone on weed or even if you are and you don't have something more important to do than watch this great piece and have a fun time doing 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 say remember where and when you saw this show because I believe if Fox gives Talk Show a chance Spike will be right up there with Conan in a few years because like Conan he is incredibly funny and seems to be just grateful at having his own show which adds to the humor.
The funniest bits Spike has had so far are The Idiot Paparatzi and Comedy For Stoners and if your not high and get CFS what does that say about you.
In summary this show is funnier in 25 minutes than SNL in an hour so lets hope Talk Show gets the attention it deserves such as an extra half hour, more money and a band.


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


user
This show was a pleasant surprise after watching Mad TV on a Saturday night. Spike is an excellent host that you can tell is still getting used to it but he is doing great adjusting to his new job. I can imagine it being a difficult transition from writer(Seinfeld) to host however, unlike a lot of new talk show hosts he does not let airtime ride while trying to figure out what to do next. He is quick-minded and each segment and section rolls into one another smoothly. It also doesn't hurt that he's kinda sexy in a nerdy type of way so he's not hard on the eyes like Leno or Letterman. I can't remember the exact episode date that was my favorite but I especially LOVED the Idiot Paparazzi skit with a fake J-Lo and Katie Holmes. Great New Show!!


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


user
Spike Feresten is a comic genius. 'Talkshow' demonstrates a fresh take on the kind of odd ball irreverence that have made shows like Letterman and The Daily Show successful. His likability is palpable. He seems to find the unique angle of the joke, not the predictable sitcom path...thank God. His comedy is reminiscent of the award winning Arrested Development (cross your fingers that 'Talkshow' has a longer life span). The topics he highlights tend to be those things that pass by unnoticed by everyone else, yet when he creates a joke around them out you wonder how you missed it the first time around. I particularly enjoyed the sketches..."Unfair Target" will be a cult classic in no time. Set your Tivo's people...this is a show not to be missed.


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


user
I am appalled and dismayed that the Network has canceled Talk Show with Spike Feresten !!
What is wrong with The Fox Television Network, Canceling Talk Show With Spike Feresten and replacing it with Wanda Sikes? For those at the Network with a short attention span, Wanda At Large was canceled because the audience grew tired of her nasty insults that would make the audience cringe, and Wanda Sykes spewing out her very own brand of vindictive mud slinging jokes is not humor, it is nasty and repulsive.
Apparently The Fox Television Network has rewarded Wanda Sikes because she has garnered a self important appearance front of President Barak Obama. There is no doubt that Wanda's recent ill tempered in front of the President of The United States are not funny and the audience laughter was only to patronize and please Barak Obama.
Talk Show with Spike Feresten has a genuine sense of humor and has never deliberately or vindictively insulted any guest or performer. Spike's well rounded personality always gleefully, poked fun of life and himself.and his Filed Pieces during the first two seasons with AFTRA Actress Mary Mae Atwill, as the Mae West of the 21st Century were absolutely hysterical with Spike Feresten's skits:Judge Joe Brown, Trading Spouses and Last Season's James Kyson Lee Episode where Spike chats with Erica via the Internet on the show.
Despite the Network's budget constraints for elaborate field pieces and the Second Season's WGA Strike, Spike Feresten did not waiver his sense of humor or show integrity. Talk Show with Spike Feresten always had up in coming new talent and his Comedy for Stoners spoofs of Nanny 911 and Idiot Paparazzi were considered cutting edge and had excellent production value.
On a professional level, Spike Feresten, was the best Executive Producers, and Set Producer, Brett Webster along with his fabulous production crew were one of the best production teams that I have worked for in my AFTRA Career .It would really be very foolish and sad shame to cancel Talk Show with Spike Feresten.
Unfortunately, its success could conceivably be taken to Comedy Central or another Network and Financially speaking, that would become a valuable revenue loss for FOX Television..
On behalf of the late night Saturday Fox Television audience, supporters of Talk Show with Spike Feresten, including all cast and crew, we beseech the Network to retain the Talk Show With Spike Feresten Franchise and give the crew a second opportunity to become a successful Fox Show.


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


user
Talkshow with Spike Feresten is one of those shows that will definitely polarize audiences. Either you like it or you don't. Personally, I find most of the bits hilarious, but it does have some "huh?" moments.
Staples like "Idiot Paparazzi" are always good for a laugh, but my all-time favorite bit has to be the one-off "Hollywood Douchebag". "Comedy for Stoners" is the only regular bit that generally leaves me confused (which is part of the point!) Spike and his team of writers manage to churn out loads of fresh comedy time after time so the show never feels stale. Feresten's brand of humor may not be for everyone, but it's definitely worth trying.
The masses have spoken! We like this show and want more. Please note I am not a friend of or affiliated in any way with Spike Feresten, "Talkshow with Spike Feresten" staff, or Fox network and affiliates. It's just plain funny!


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


user
I saw it last week and the sketch about the Korea towns was funny . Very tongue in cheek and suitable to the political climate. Full points to the writers and Spike for that. The part where he makes the translator pull a rickshaw and throws out Korean words could have been pulled off only by Spike. This is a brave attempt by Fox . This is a brilliant show and I hope that it pulls off . My wife and I have been TIVOing it regularly and although it clashes it with a couple of other programs we watch it now on MySpace. I hope Fox dedicates full resources to the show and makes it daily. I can't wait to see Bobby Lee on his show . With people like Bernard Abedalla behind the show this is on the right track. Also Mary Mae as his wife looks beautiful.


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


user
This is a great show with total freshness and innovation. That usual chair (couch for a woman) host, that mandatory band playing monotonous tunes, the same old jokes, the same pattern copied from the days of Nebuchadnezzer ....probably the pattern of Johnny Carson, copied by one and all, Latterman, Leno, Conan... Daly, this show does not seem to have any of these.
I fell in love with this show within the first 10 minutes and I am going to stick to it. Though it's too early to say that, this show seems to be devoid of any intellectual pretension most talk shows try so hard to project, and I hope that that is what would make this show different from all the rest. I hope that this show will last long!
Returning back after months, I still love this show, and I love his self-deprecating humor (For example, his affirmation that only pothead loners would be home to watch his show at Saturday midnight and thus, the jokes are funny only to the stoned guys) which, however, does not involve the usual monkeying of Conan O'Brien, for example (I know it's a cardinal sin to be repelled by O'Brien's antics; but I do really dislike his style and repetitiveness).
I again watched it the other night with Tom Arnold in it. Ferensen's spoof of Trading Spouses (and Nanny 911 in an earlier episode) are hilarious. Idiot paparazzi are fun, especially when a security guard cautions them against taking people's pictures, and (if I am not mistaken) they start taking his pictures shouting "Gary Coleman".
Added on 16th April, 2007: Coming back once again, I am left confused by the neighbor and her dog. I cannot decide if it is a joke or a real thing. Either way, it was funny as hell.
I do not expect Spike Feresten to read these pages, but maybe he does. He is crazier than a bunch of monkeys and so, I would better write down my suggestion here for him: I would like him to do a full 30 minute show with Crazy Gideon, the star of late night TV commercial. I would like Crazy Gideon to have an interview in Spike's talk show, sing a song (and play guitar), do a skit in the line of SNL, and also to answer questions from the audience regarding his potential mayorship of Los Angeles (I know, Crazy Gideon may not be aware of this, but there are websites detailing why he would be the perfect candidate for the post of the mayor of LA).
God willing!
Returning back on 14th July, 2007: Someone wrote here that the people who praised Spike's talkshow must be bribed by Spike. I confess that Spike really bribed me, but I must also confess that Rockefeller named me in his will and last night I had sex with Cindy Crowford.


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


user
"Who do you dream of? Hoot Gibson ... Howdy Doody? I'm talking about the *theater*!" [Harry Crystal]
Nothing beats a great stage show ... nothing! And Harry Crystal lives that belief. A stage actor still waiting for his big break, Harry brings the magic of live theater to a small town and to Artie Shoemaker (TOM HULCE) ... a young man who has big dreams (but just didn't know it until he met Harry).
With scenes and songs from many of America's classic musicals ... Those Lips, Those Eyes conveys both the ups and downs of the people that, for 2 hours, take us to a fantasy land, but who manage to keep that magic alive in their hearts all day long!
Like Artie ... once you've seen Those Lips, Those Eyes ... "You're hooked, kid!" [Harry Crystal]


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 film while I was working as a musician doing musical theatre in summer stock. If you've ever done any work in theatre - especially at a summer stock theatre - you'll really enjoy this film.
Yes, there are some moments of really bad writing in the film, but overall it's a lovely tribute to the theatre and why people love it.


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


user
And what is its genre? The backstage expose story; what theatrical life is really like behind those Broadway (and other) curtains. It certainly has a lot of competition: Singin' in the Rain both I and II (1929 and 1952), 42nd Street, Golddiggers of (You name the year.); Dames of 1934; Noises Off (1992) from the farcical side and A Star is Born I and II from the 1930s and the 1950s from the tragical side: not to mention Summer Stock of 1950: the list keeps rollin' along. So what makes this movie so special? And why are there so few comments about this stunningly great movie? Have so few people actually seen it? How amazing to see a younger Frank Langella pre-Dracula and pre-Frost-Nixon by 30 years! How amazing to see the fresh and talented Tom Hulce so pre-Amadeus! And yet another superb Stiller! What a wonderful line-up of talented people at their very best from so long ago! And such a script! Who was this David Shaber? So full of realistic disillusion and pathos compared to the usual sentimentality and feel-good comedy! As especially exemplified by the Star-Is-Born-like episode where the heroine achieves Broadway while the Langella character has to content himself with still another provincial tour.
Langella's subsequent hysterical and sadistic blowup against the star-struck Latin teacher and his granddaughter in which he vents his fury and frustration is just one of many fantastic and psychologically real moments in the film. (The Latin teacher and his love affair with backstage life certainly echo Marlene Dietrich and her seduced professor in The Blue Angel of 1929.) Another in the series of mercenary and cold-hearted agents like Kevin McCarthy who was preceded by Burt Lancaster in The Sweet Smell of Success (1957) and succeeded by Alan Alda in Clubland (2001) in movie history. The sexual liberation of the Hulce character recalls similar incidents in O'Neill's great comedy Ah, Wilderness.
And what a tribute to the vanished operettas of long ago: The Red Mill of Victor Herbert; Rose Marie and The Vagabond King of Rudolf Friml; The Desert Song of Sigmund Romberg etc. What satirical insertions of bits from the great plays like Romeo and Juliet. Tributes to the theater itself as expostulated by the star Langella. The richness and depth of this movie are simply endless. And to be saddled by such a title! Who could have an inkling of what this great movie is about from such a ridiculous and unsuggestive title? But on the other hand, what title could one have applied to such a magnificent drama which might have lived up to its stirring, emotional content?
PS: I just saw (2009) Frank Langella in his latest acting spectacular: as Richard Nixon in Frost-Nixon. How this great actor after 30 years simply goes from triumph to triumph!


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


user
The warmest, most engaging movie of its genre, Those Lips, Those Eyes, made me smile and cry as it reminded me of the work it takes to pursue a dream and the pain of disappointment. Hulce and Langella are superb and the story seems to write itself. A brilliant screenplay by David Shaber (one of my favorites! - see The Warriors and Nighthawks for more...) and beautiful sets filmed on location (I think) at the actual summer theater in which the story takes place. You can't see this movie and not want to drop everything and get into the theater! Please check this video out if you can find 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 must have seen a different version than the first person on the user comments section.
It's really, really good...Steve Zahn and Karl Urban are great together. Val Kilmer's character is much like he was in the novel, although the emphasis is on Gus and Call and the Comanches. We get to see what happened with Call and Newt's mother as well. I won't spoil it, but it gives a lot of insight into Call's character.
All the actors did a really convincing job. Steve Zahn had the biggest challenge, I thought, to follow Robert Duvall! There's a lot of action, humor, tragedy. It's got something for everyone. I can't wait until it airs, my family are all jealous I got to see it early!


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


user
There have been some harsh criticisms of Comanche Moon on IMDb. I think this is for three reasons. First, purists are disappointed that the mini-series is not exactly like the book. Second, it's not as good as the original Lonesome Dove. Finally, people like to complain on IMDb and the greatest films in the world will have bad comments.
I would like to say that no movie is going to be as good as the book. That's just the way it is. Lonesome Dove wasn't as good as the novel it was based on. Additionally, the movie of Lonesome Dove had some things left out ans switched around. That's just they way its going to be with a film adaptation of anything. So its a futile argument when looking at Comanche Moon.
I do agree it's not as good as the original Dove. But hey, nothing is. I know people that guide their lives by the lessons they learned from the Dove. If I was going to compare every book I read, movie I watched, and TV I viewed by Lonesome Dove; I would be perpetually unhappy.
This is a made for TV miniseries based on a prequel to Lonesome Dave (the novel) and sequel to Dead man's Walk, and that's what you get. It's the best TV I've seen in years. It's a fun set up for Lonesome Dove. We get to learn about the history of the Rangers we came to know and love in Dove. Zahn does an amazing job in recreating Gus McCrae. Elizabeth Banks and Linda Forenelli (sp?) also do great jobs as creating characters that help fill in the past of the rangers and Newt.
If/when it comes on again, I promise you'll enjoy it more than some crumby reality show.


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


user
What has hurt this film is everyone and their Aunt Matilda is comparing it to its illustrious predecessor, which is always going to hurt any show. If you take it as a western, it's a darned good show. We discover how our characters in 'Lonesome Dove' wind up in the situations they start up in (Such as: Why do two Texas Rangers, who live on adventure, wind up in a dead town? And how did Gus manage to lose the love of his life?) The performances are very good, and we see the exact same mannerisms the characters will have down the road. The actors did a very good job. The cinematography was superb, and while the music didn't live up to the legendary score of nearly two decades past, that was an impossible task, and it was still fine.
It also helped that we had three episodes, which you just don't see in a miniseries anymore. Heck, it's downright impossible to see a two part telefilm these days.
Fans of the western, rejoice!


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 consensus is pretty unanimous about this recent TV miniseries: it's okay but it's a far cry from "Lonesome Dove." It gets compared to the latter simply because this a prequel to that famous story.
"Commanche Moon" is definitely worth a watch for any fan of westerns. Just don't expect it to be as intense as "Lonesome Dove." Steve Zahn and Karl Urban are not Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones, and the characters they play aren't as strong as how Duvall and Jones portrayed the same two guys. Some say it's unfair to criticize this movie because of the comparison but you have to compare it - it's the story of the same two leading Texas Ranger characters: "Woodrow Call" and "Gus McCrae."
The main difference, I found, was that this prequel is a lot of slower and more relational (the two Rangers and their women) at times. Yet, I didn't mind that because the two main women were pretty ladies and generally likable and agreeable people. They were played nicely by Linda Cardelini ("Clara Forsythe") and Elizabeth Banks ("Maggie.").. They helped make this long movie palatable. If you've seen pictures of women in the Old West, none of them looked half as pretty as Cardelini and Banks, though. They were a joy for these male eyes to ogle. Maggie's son "Newt" was a wonderful kid, too - the kind of boy every parent would want..
The most interesting character, I thought, turned out to be "Inish Scull," played by Val Kilmer. As in the western film, "Tombstone," Kilmer almost steals the show from the leads. "Scull" is really an original, if I ever saw one: a strange dude, indeed.
Actually, all of the supporting actors in here did a fine job, from Keith Robinson's "Deets" to Wes Studi as "Buffalo Hump." I always find Studi to be fascinating, no matter what role he plays. I wish he had had a bigger role in this miniseries.
One thing this film has in common with "Lonesome Dove" and other good westerns: the scenery and photography. It's just beautiful at times and is a joy to watch. We also have an excellent director of this film: Simon Wincer, who directed "Lonesome Dove" and an another outstanding TV western, "Crossfire Trail." He also did two of my other favorite feature films, both based in his home country of Australia: "Phar Lap" and "Quigley Down Under."
Unfortunately, although I enjoyed this, "Commanche Moon" is nothing as good as the above-mentioned films.Yet, I still watched all of it and was sorry it ended, if that makes any sense. It made me want to watch Woodrow and Gus again, this time with Tommy Lee and Robert.
Note: The title page says this is 360 minutes. That must have included the TV commercials. The two-disc DVD version I saw was about 4 hours and 40 minutes.


assistant
1