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
It was easy to dismiss this film as hyperbole at the time of its release. Fonda, Douglas and Lemmon were known "lefties", but the accident at Three Mle Island provided shocking context to this fictional drama.
This film works on many levels, taking shots at both public utilities and TV news. 1979 was the zenith of the infamous "Happy Talk" format of TV news (see also "Ron Burgundy") and it's on display here in all its glory. The sonorous anchor grimly reads a story about a "grinding head-on collision" before cheerfully introducing Kimberley Wells (Fonda), doing a story about a veterinarian who makes house (or is that "aquarium?") calls. The show's producer and the station manager argue about content - or lack thereof - behind the scenes.
There are a few technical errors. The PR flack (James Hampton) shows Fonda and Douglas the requisite scale model of a pressurized water reactor plant, built by Westinghouse. Later, as Lemmon and Wilford Brimley (nicely playing Lemmon's friend/colleague, caught between duty and loyalty) fight a sudden crisis in the plant' s control room, they're obviously running a boiling-water plant (built by GE.) A small point, but curious, considering how many details the screenwriters got right.
Like any good drama, the film asks more questions than it answers. The real-world accident at TMI proves the film's basic premise. The working title for the film was originally "Power", and you'll see why. As nuclear power prepares to make a comeback in these days of $3 gas, "The China Syndrome" is as relevant today as it was over 25 years ago.


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


user
Large corporations Vs. Conscientious Do good-ers. We seem to witness events (both real life and reel life) of this sort all the time and most of the time greed wins by employing every means (dirty) necessary and the truth gets suppressed. At least in this movie Jack Godell (Jack Lemmon) got his points across and paid for it dearly. We have seen several more movies of this sort being made in the recent years, the most memorable of which was 'The Insider' where Russell Crowe played a tobacco industry scientist who tried to blow the whistle claiming that the Industry added more nicotine in cigarettes to make smokers addicted. There was also this reporter-protagonist angle where the reporter is looking for the scoop of his/her dreams and the protagonist is faced with this moral dilemma where he/she has to choose between righteousness and his livelihood and sometimes his/her life.
Jane Fonda played reporter Kimberly wells to perfection. She plays a reporter who wishes to pursue serious news whereas her bosses value her more as an 'Eye-Candy'. She and her crew (the cameraman played by post-'Coma' Michael Douglas who is also the producer of the movie) witness an accident in a nuclear power plant while they were on a visit. Cameraman Michael Douglas sneakily/illegally gets footage of that event on tape in spite being a no-photography zone and smuggles it out of the station. The station refuses to air it and informs the corporation that owns the nuclear station.
In the mean time the chief engineer Jack Godell launches an investigation of his own and discovers a lot of irregularities in the equipment that's being used for the reactor. This starts all the dirty politics of corruption and greed.
This is a good thriller and it managed to create a lot of tension in the audience till the end and the funny thing was that there was no background score to suggest all the scary moments. Now that's great and unusual in movies. Performances were all good and I love Jack Lemmon. We primarily know him for his comedic roles but he is equally good in dramatic roles. I give this movie an 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
The thirty years that have passed since the making of this movie have made the suspense wither somewhat, and will not keep the public as attentive as I am sure it did in 1979. It is still entertaining enough though - and regains some of it's power when one finds out its sad relevance today (check out the story of FirstEnergy's Davis-Besse nuclear plant). With the top of the line actors and steady pace one can learn to overlook the dated '70s environment, and see it for the political critique that it is. I doubt however it will survive the test of time. It might not be entirely forgotten thanks to its cast, but otherwise the dialog, setting and score will make a remake of this movie unavoidable . As the oil situation now is comparable to the situation in the 70's, and alternative sources of energy are again becoming a hotter topic, we can only hope the current generation gets blockbuster warnings about the risks of (privatized) nuclear power like this.


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 pretty good thriller at a nuclear power plant in southern California that was directed by James Bridges and stars Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon and Michael Douglas. Fonda plays a TV reporter who wants to be an investigative journalist but is only allowed to be a TV reporter. Douglas is an independent cameraman and Lemmon is a supervisor at a nuclear plant. Fonda and Douglas are sent on a routine assignment at a nuclear power plant and an accident almost happens and they get it all on film. Everyone tries to cover it up except Fonda and Douglas, so Douglas steals the film. Lemmon starts to investigate and finds out the company cares more about profit then safety at the plant. It's a good movie with a pretty good ending.


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


user
I rented "The China Syndrome" recently mainly because I read that it was this film that inspired ABC to make "The Day After". "Syndrome", however, is more of a thriller than a drama. The film is quite political, but I agree strongly with its message - nuclear power, though extremely efficient, is far too dangerous for common use. The risks are simply too high. Hopefully, the persons in charge of real nuclear plants are far more responsible and ethical than those depicted in the film. However, given that the real-life near-disaster at Three Mile Island happened mere months after this film was released puts that in question. (In fairness, that case was probably more one of incompetence than of corruption.)
"Syndrome" is not just critical of nuclear power, but also of modern news media, similar in vein to "Network", only much more serious. Being a print journalist myself, I am quite familiar with how people perceive the media; but it was a little frightening to see that even in the '70's TV news was already selling out. When Jane Fonda's character tries to convince her boss to let her do real news instead of fluff, she is advised not to try the change, as "research" finds that people prefer a pretty girl to do fluff, not hard news.
What truly makes the film memorable, however, is the incredible suspense generated in its final third. During this period, the viewer is constantly fearing for the lives of the protagonists, whether the danger is coming from hired thugs or the potential meltdown of the nuclear plant. And that very last scene - I won't give it away, of course - but it will keep you guessing.
On a final note, I did get a distinct feel watching the film that it seemed at times more like a TV movie than a true theatrical film. This could be, however, due more to the fact that the rental tape I was watching was quite old, and not formatted to fit TV screens the way videos and DVDs are today.


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


user
James Bridges' "The China Syndrome" is a first rate thriller; a model for those who want to make a genuinely terrifying thriller but don't know how.
Most thrillers end with the standard shoot-em-up and chase that ends with the villain getting what he/she deserves. But Bridges understands that such a standard finale isn't the case in some scenarios. "The China Syndrome" is thrilling in a way no one would expect. It has the type of ending that's so unexpected, but yet so logical.
The film stars three (then) current Oscar winners: Jack Lemmon (Best Actor 1973 for "Save the Tiger"), Jane Fonda (Best Actress 1971 and 1978 for "Klute" and "Coming Home" respectively) and Michael Douglas (Best Picture 1975 for producing "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest". This isn't your standard "spot the star" flick that became so popular in the 70s. The acting is so solid and strong that we forget who's playing the roles and believe that the characters are real people. That's a testament to the collective ablities of all three actors. They may be stars, but they're actors first.
There is no music score in the film. Asides from a few background songs from jukeboxes or TV shows, there is nothing. Bridges doesn't allow any directorial style to come through on screen. He is simply presenting the material straightforward. With a strong dramatic story like this, we don't need a score to distract us. It kind of strikes me as a predecessor to the Dogma 95 filmseries started by Lars Von Trier in 1997. It focuses on the characters and story rather than style.
The story is about a nuclear power plant located in Southern California. **SPOILER** An accident appears to have happened and basically the film is about Lemmon,Fonda and Douglas try to expose the truth. In a way this is not a spoiler, since the trailer, TV spots, video boxes and reviews all give this away. But from this seemingly simple premise, a surprisingly complex morality play springs and the suspense comes from human nature and the actions of people rather than a villain framing another guy (although this is an element in the film). That's what makes "The China Syndrome" so good.
**** out of 4 stars


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


user
This film is definetly Fonda's best film. The Plot is amazing, the acting is amazing, and the directing is amazing. An all time classic, this should have won best picture not kramer Vs. Kramer. Though it was not even nominated. Jack Lemmon and Micheal Douglas are also at their best. One of the best endings ever. If you haven't seen this film run don't walk to rent it. Should have been on afi's top 100. See it not just for Fonda but for everything.
**** out of **** 4 out of 4


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


user
The China Syndrome is a perfectly paced thriller and not slow or boring at all, as some people tend to say. The transitions from one scene to another are great and the tension build up in the film will keep you on the edge of your seat for the entire two hours. Jack Lemmon is great, as always, as the somewhat nervous plant operator and Jane Fonda succeeds again in bringing some real emotions into the story. You can see this film as a political statement of the time, or just as an intelligently made thriller. Either way it is definitely worth watching.


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


user
I wish Hollywood would make more movies like The China Syndrome. Because this one scores on every level.
It has an intelligent, believable script. It shows you that it's not only nuclear power itself, but the money involved in it, that causes danger. And the movie also gives you a great behind-the-scenes look of how television is made.
It scores as a thriller: the first time I saw it, it kept me right on the edge of my seat. And it scores as a character-movie: I really cared for the main characters. Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas, Wilford Brimley and, most of all, Jack Lemmon are great.


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


user
This is an extraordinary topical thriller. Fonda and Douglas are good, but Lemmon blows them away. He plays a man who must go against everything he thought was right. Bridges paces the film very well with a lot of tension. The last of the seventies expose films.


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


user
It was harrowingly close, but The China Syndrome received the worst kind of publicity when as it was going into theatrical release, the accident at Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant happened. I still remember the whole country's attention was glued onto hourly bulletins coming out of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. And wouldn't you know it, a scientist in The China Syndrome describes the worst case scenario as rendering an area as large as the state of Pennsylvania uninhabitable.
Less than a decade later in the Ukraine at Chernobyl, the Soviet Union in its last days dealt with such a crisis that didn't get righted in the nick of time. The China Syndrome once again became a relevant movie.
The film is more about cutting corners for safety than it is about being anti-nuclear. Jack Lemmon is a man who lived with nuclear power all his life as the captain of an atomic power submarine. What angers him and sets him off to create the confrontation that climaxes the film is the stupidity and greed of the power company managers. Stupidity and greed though are commodities found every day. The problem with them is that there are places where it can be tolerated less in human society.
Lemmon shares star billing with a couple of famous Hollywood offspring, Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas. Jane is a TV News reporter who is constantly being assigned to puff feature stories and just happens to be at a nuclear power plant when an accident occurs. The cover-up by her own station and her later meeting with Lemmon set off the chain of events depicted in The China Syndrome.
Fonda's best scene I thought however was with Peter Donat a news executive with her station. Take a look at her facial expressions as Donat fluffs off the importance of the story and patronizingly tells her that her very beauty demands she stick to puff pieces. Fonda knows she's got something and sticks with it.
Michael Douglas plays her iconoclastic cameraman, this was a typical part for him back in the day. In his TCM tribute to his father Kirk Douglas, Michael said he opted for roles showing sensitivity. Still I could have seen a young Kirk Douglas in this part.
What to do about energy for industrial and post industrial nations, a vexing problem that will bedevil our government for a couple of generations to come. This film shows what can happen with a dependence on nuclear power. Our current problems geopolitically in the world stem in part from a dependence on fossil fuel, specifically oil. Everything we use brings consequence some unforeseen.
The real hero of the film in my opinion is Wilford Brimley, Lemmon's colleague at the nuclear power plant. In the end Brimley really steps up to the plate.
See The China Syndrome to know what I'm talking about.


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


user
"The China Syndrome" could not have been released at a better time: twelve days after its release, the infamous screw-up in Three Mile Island happened. But even if that (and/or Chernobyl) had never happened, this movie remains an important look at what could happen through mismanagement of nuclear facilities. Jack Lemmon turns in a five star performance as the supervisor trying to expose a cover-up at his nuclear plant, with Jane Fonda playing the reporter trying to investigate, and Michael Douglas plays her cameraman.
I don't know whether or not the current threat of a terrorist attack makes "The China Syndrome" more disturbing, but either way, it's still definitely a movie that everyone should see.
I hope that those people who spent years pushing nuclear power saw this movie just so that they could know that their views and ideals are completely defunct.


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


user
I finally found a version of Persuasion that I like! Anne doesn't look like a scullery maid in this version, just a very thin, aging, pretty woman, quite like she's described in the book. Captain Wentworth doesn't look like he's 50, nor does he look perpetually angry but rather, as he's described in the book, he hasn't aged as much as Anne and is quite handsome. And they play their parts with such conviction and realism...that's what acting is all about. They were believable. They created real characters, and it was like the characters in the book came to life. If you haven't seen this version, I urge you to find it, order it or request it from either a bookstore, or a library if you must. It's worth the price and worth the wait.
I watched the 1995 version, and the 2007 version and this one towers over the other two. Why it isn't rated higher is beyond my comprehension. The book conveys the tenderness of their relationship and this movie makes the book come to life.


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


user
Here is one of Jane Austen's movies that I found very delightful. I read the book first then listened to it on CD and was captivated by how a young Victorian girl could be persuaded against marrying the man she loved due to his lack of a fortune or education. The joy of knowing that Anne is evidently reunited with a lost love. The fact that her godmother tries to marry her off to a good for nothing cousin who's only out for money. Looking at the snobbery that comes from the upper classes and how class distinctions can divide couples from following their hearts. Captain Wentworth realization that he still loves Anne after seven years. His final understanding that Anne's love was constant all that time and they she wasn't going to let her family interfere with her true happiness and eventual marriage to one she truly loved.


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


user
Despite this production having received a number of poor reviews, it actually holds up quite well for its age. Note also that it is not a BBC programme, it was simply licensed to them by Granada Ventures when the Jane Austen collection was released on DVD.
So how does it compare with other adaptations of the same novel? The most well-known version these days is the 1995 film with Amanda Root as Anne Elliott and Ciaran Hinds as Captain Frederick Wentworth. That film was of course shorter but a good snapshot of the story - the earlier version, with Ann Firbank and Bryan Marshall in the same roles, had four hours to tell the story and moved at a more leisurely pace.
Firbank is a good ten years too old for her role, but she is very good - Marshall is excellent as Wentworth, a man disappointed in love, and bitter about interference. And hidden in the cast are people who also contribute - Michael Culver, later seen in Cadfael, as Harvill; Richard Vernon, later seen in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, as Admiral Croft; Noel Dyson, earlier in Coronation Street, as Mrs Musgrove.
One criticism I do have is that the hairstyles are a bit distracting, and that the costumes are awful! Still, this shouldn't detract from a hugely enjoyable Austen adaptation.


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


user
This review has been written by someone who has read it (several times) and knows what they are talking about!. Firstly I have read others comments and noticed that some of the objections were really quite stupid. People who have read the book and other Jane Austens or for that matter any good book, will know that sticking to the book is vital you have to trust an author with what they do. If the viewer does not like it BECAUSE it sticks to the book well it shows they do not understand Jane Austen and obviously are not a true fan.
Firstly if the viewer truly loved the book or Jane Austen in general, watching it for four hours should not prove difficult. Secondly, their society did care a lot for looks and so big, fancy hair styles would show off how rich you were, which in their day was a key factor for getting along in "good" society. I have to confess the female costumes were not brilliant but there were only a few bad ones and the males made up for it, also this prejudice for the Naval men not in their uniform is in nice words very silly!, today people do not go out with their uniform away from school or work because they have casual clothes and it was just the same in the 19th century. Also as it goes the acting is very good, it is subtle because that is how Jayne Austen writes! and the scene at the end is beautiful. You can not compare the filming to that of the 1995 version as technology has improved so much since them it is ridiculous to compare them in that. The actress who plays Ann is too old but her air of acting and how she does it makes up for it.
People seem to prefer the 1995 version for some reason that I can not comprehend!. It does not stick to the book at all and so is flat, the ending is sentimental, they change major scenes, the only good actors are the leads and they I give you did a good job for what was given to them. Obviously the people who really, really like it are (I am sorry) stupid as they do not understand Persuasion and so need it to be overdone. The 1971 version is beautiful, romantic, was written by an excellent script writer (same who did Inspector Morse), had very good actors and really it is a film you can watch many times and during each you can be delighted with 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 know it was supposed to be a long walk, but really!!!!
The costumes were a bit yuk, but still... it was the 1970's I suppose!!!
It was a bit long and dull, so give me the newer version any day!


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 very touching movie. This is a story about a special bond between a child and his grandfather. A villager (Arun Nalawade) brings his grandson, Parashuram, to the city to get his eyes treated. But comes to know that Parashuram (Aswin Chitale) has some rare cancer of eyes and has to undergo an operation and will lose both his eyes. The movie is all about the emotions and the turmoil both them go through and how they accept the whole thing. The movie avoid any melodrama and tells this story in a simple way. Though the movie is in Marathi, language is not a barrier at all.It proves that to make good movie you do not need item songs, superstars and usual masala. Excellent performances. This is India's entry for Oscars 2004. Hope it gets the nomination at least. Would rate 10/10.


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


user
This is a film about a six year old child from a village in Maharashtra (a state in India) and his grandfather who come to Pune (a city in Maharashtra) to treat the child's eyes. here the grandfather gets to know that the child has cancer in both eyes and that they have to be removed to save the child's life. the movie is all about the main characters' and their feelings and actions until the operation.
The movie is not a typical cliché Indian movie, so dun expect to see songs or romance or melodrama. this ia a supremely crafted sensitive movie which resorts to silent expressions rather than over the top dialogs to get the point thru. witness the scene where the grandfather is told about the need to remove the child's eyes. the acting is superb, dialogs heart breaking. your heart goes out for the grandfather who has the unenviable task of telling the child and his mother about the operation.
the handling of the subject has been excellent. the film was made under great hardship by the director, Sandeep Sawant who had to knock many doors to gather the Rs. six million (approx. $130000) budget. even then the final product seems polished and has decent production values. also witness the subtle city village contrast shown by the director by incorporating some random shots of the boy's life in the village. Sawant definitely seems to prefer village life.
THe acting by all is excellent. Amruta Subhash as the social worker is competent adding the required humane touch to her role. Sandeep Kulkarni as the docter is great, showing perfect mannerisms of a doctor. Ashwin Chitale as the child is a natural. he doesn't seem to be acting. everything about him is natural and does not seem forced.
But towering above all is Arun Nalawade as the grandfather. he is astounding in his role. mere words cannot describe his work. it is a performance to cherish forever.
Shwaas is a sincere effort to make good cinema. it should not be ignored just for the fact that it shows that if things are kept simple, the the results can be really surprising. 10/10.


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


user
Caught this movie on DD while flipping channels...And thank heavens, that too when it just started.. Having studied in Pune, this film touched off many happy memories of the city...that apart, one wonders why more movies like this aren't made...Every character is so well etched-the grandpa, the kid, the doc...except for the social worker who grates a tad, the rest of the movie hardly has a flaw...a deserving entry for the Oscars, even if it wasn't nominated...definitely leaves a lump in the throat...who sez u need mush to tickle ur lacrimals ? And to think that this movie needed Sachin Tendulkar to propagate it. Inspite of being in Marathi, there was hardly a moment where I wasn't able to follow the movie...the subtitles were good.. A must watch for any fan of good cinema.


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


user
Shwaas is awesome ! considering that the producers had a meagre budget, they have done an excellent job. It is a must watch. The small kid has done an excellent job with a lot of emotions flowing through his eyes. Grandfather is at his best. The photography is superb. Technically correct and very creative. It helps in adding a lot of emotions to the mainstream content. The movie will keep u engrossed and don't be surprised if you are shaken after the movie and the story lingers in your mind for a few days.I sincerely hope that they make it to the final Oscar nomination
Enjoy and again don't miss 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 am a Maharashtrian, a teenager living in the 21st century, and its obvious that I'm not much into even Bollywood, let alone Marathi movies. Yet, when I watched Shwaas, it left me with a unique feeling, one which only an extremely effective movie is capable of generating.
It is a fact that, like most Indian movies, the movie has its true and complete effect only if viewed in its original language. A lot of the emotion and meaning of the movie is embedded in its Marathi dialogues, which, however hard one tries, can not be effectively translated into English.
Shwaas explores, in intricate detail, the relationship between a grandparent and a child. And it does complete justice to this strong bond. Dialogues like "mazha parsha pan laakhat ek aahe"(My parsha is also one in a million) enhance the emotion. Anyone who has closely observed the grandparent - child relationship will be able to relate to the situation portrayed in the movie.
Overall, it definitely worth watching. Its a movie that has left a profound effect on me. I will surely recommend it to anyone!


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


user
After a very long time Marathi cinema has come with some good movie.This movie is one of the best Marathi movies ever made. It shows how a old grandfather tries to save his grandsons eye. He tries everything that is possible in his hands to save the child's eye. Doctor and a relative of his tries to help him in his attempt.
The acting by the grandfather, the boy and the doctor are simply superb. They have shown true picture of a typical Marathi life. Every bit of action has some meaning in it. I would recommend to watch this movie, as initially I thought this one would be of documentary type but this was above my expectations.
This film is really going to touch your hearts.I would expect more Marathi movies to come up with performances like this.


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


user
It was very refreshing to watch this beautiful movie. The director maintained focus on the main subject without venturing into side plots (the doctor's family or stories of the other hospital patients), that are so typical of Bollywood assembly-line products. He kept the narrative simple to comprehend and made sure all the actors are true to the characters that they are supposed to portray. The rustic ways of the grandfather in the clinic, the cold and unemotional behavior of the surgeon, the zeal of the social worker gave the movie a feel of genuineness. I am also glad that the director did not fall for the temptation of adding songs or special effects and reduce it to the level of Anand or Safar. A couple of scenes toward the end of the movie, such as the boy visiting other blind children and a blind worker's workplace and also the final scene where the boy claps at the sound of splashing and birds chirping are sure make your eyes misty.
Many Bollywood players do not realize that Oscar committee members value simplicity of the subject and genuineness and brevity of the movie more than the glitz and glamor. Shwaas is certainly a better nomination than Lagaan, which dealt with a subject that has already been beaten to death. No MPAA member is willingly going to suffer through 4 hours of jingoistic drama and a lot of song and dance.
I look forward to more movies from director Sandeep Sawant in the future.


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


user
Hadnt heard a lot about this movie, except it being National award and Oscar entry. Its a Marathi movie, n I cant make out apple from orange in marathi. But when I saw the movie playing on DD1 late Sunday night, I just got glued. Now I am no judge of cinematic techniques and acting skills. But I have watched a good number of movies, of various genres, and for an average viewer, I will highly recommend this movie. The feel is very earthy and realistic, though there are some melodramatic moments. Watch it to feel human. Lately haven't seen any movie, which touches heart, especially in Hindi cinema. the crowning achievement of the movie is when the young kid returns home. The camera moves around to reveal the kid, wearing black glasses, having lost his eyes, the kid hears the other kids splashing in the water and starts clapping. I was awestruck. And the two hours I spent watching the movie - very much worth it :-)


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


user
James Hacker MP didn't expect that he would be the next prime minister. Unlike in America, the party is elected in Britain while we, Americans, vote for candidates regardless of their party. Despite the differences, Paul Eddington CBE's performance as minister turned prime minister almost overnight is helped by his senior adviser, Sir Humphrey, played by another knight, Sir Nigel Hawthorne, and veteran actor Derek Fowlds also returns to the scene as well. Now instead of pleasing some people, he has to please the nation rather than his constituency. Now, he has a hard job to do even more difficult than before. Now, he must approve the honors list and work with Her Majesty as well on a regular basis. Hacker is not the hacking type. He is rather than the every man who we like and don't want to dislike and turn into a villain of sorts or a vicious dictator. Now, we see the prime minister's point of view and all the pleasing that must go on as well as handle strikes.


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


user
Following on directly from the last episode of the previous series Yes Minister.
Jim Hacker now finds himself inside Number 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister of Great Britain, instead of a Cabinet Minister and a member of the government, he is now leading Her Majesty's Government.
All this after some scheming maneuvers by Sir Humphrey Appleby after the previous Prime Minister resigned at the end of Yes Minister.
Sir Humphrey Appleby is now the head of the Civil Service.
I thought that this series was better than the first series, or though it did not last as long as the first series unfortunately.


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


user
I didn't read the book "Scarlett" and when I watched this mini series I enjoyed it very much and thought it didn't need to be compared to GWTW. The story may differ from the book, but who cares its a movie. Even in the credits its based on the book, its not the book. The film is clearly under appreciated with the reviews that other people write but can't even spell the main characters names right.
The acting in Scarlett I thought was superb. Joanne Whalley and Timothy Dalton were excellent. They took the characters and gave them there touch. Now as far as other people go by, they compare them to the great Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable. They obviously did fantastic, but the leads in this film are completely different people who have there own acting methods and shouldn't be pressured of what people have to say. If you wanted certain actors to do well then you should have directed the film, I'm sure that other actors would not do as well as these with the chemistry and cleverness they brought to these roles. The supporting cast stood out with there grandness, and Jean Smart steals the scenes that shes in with her comedy genius.
The locations in the film were very beautiful and it was just grand to see Scarlett go to all those places in the film as she causes trouble and other things. Also the scene in which Scarlett talks to her dad's grave it was very dramatic and I thought from then on that there were two GREAT actresses who brought Scarlett O'Hara to life. Not just Vivian Leigh but also Joanne Whalley.
The film and the book may differ, but you must not take to heart that this is a sequel to one of the best films ever made otherwise you will think that this has to be like Gone With the Wind and you will not like this film. But this is an under rated classic that is unlike GWTW, its its own movie. Also keep in mind that "Tomorrow is another day"...


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


user
I've always loved "Gone With The Wind" and have seen it numerous times. However, its ending left me not only "hanging," but depressed, with a hopeless feeling. Finally, in "Scarlett," Ripley took us to a very plausible and satisfying end ("beginning") of the original story.
It follows that someone of Scarlett's obvious intelligence (as originally written) would eventually grow up. Although, like most people, I fell in love with Scarlett in GWTW, I tired of her constant insipid infantiilism to the point of exasperation, and I was disappointed that Mitchell did not show Scarlett using that obvious intelligence to even make an attempt to grow emotionally. Thankfully, someone finally did. (After all, isn't that nagging immaturity that conflicted with her beauty and intelligence the very reason Rhett finally gave up on her in the first place?) I think Ripley did an excellent job of describing that long-overdue process, and Whalley-Kilmer did a superb job of portraying it. Joanne W-K has all the fire, exuberance and intelligent sparkle as did Vivian Leigh, and she is certainly at least as, if not more, beautiful.
There was, is, and always will be only one Clark Gable. However, if I had to pick an actor out of the thousands to which I've been exposed to portray him in his biography, it would definitely be Timothy Dalton. Dalton possesses the same elegant charm that Gable did, which is essential for Rhett's character. I can't imagine anyone else who could come close.
In my opinion, both Joanne Whalley-Kilmer and Timothy Dalton were superbly cast and the only actors who could have possibly played Scarlett and Rhett. I think both their performances did justice to not only the late actors but also the spirit of their characters.
I enjoyed the whole cast. Julie Harris was her usual delightful presence, and Jean Smart was an adorable kick! Even Ashley's character was nicely played by Stephen Collins, and the progression of his relationship with Scarlett was totally believable.
The story became a little convoluted in Ireland, but so is life, after all, and I still found it entertaining.
All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the fruits of Ripley's imagination. I wish I'd written it!



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 common knowledge and has been said before: No one can ever play Scarlett and Rhett like Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable. Joanne Whalley Kilmer (no longer Kilmer having been divorced from ex-hubby Val Kilmer) plays her own Scarlett and although this is a sequel and not a re-make (God-forbid!!!) she still cannot rise to the occasion (i.e. her voice sounds evil on several occasions, she's got brown eyes [Scarlett in both novels had green eyes and even Vivien Leigh's eyes were green] and her vocal power was not up to the job either. Scarlett is a Southern Belle; therefore she has an incredible talent for flirting (as she did in SCARLETT the novel and GWTW, of course) and to be a great flirt like Scarlett is, you would most likely need a higher-pitched voice, like Vivien Leigh.
I suppose I'm comparing Kilmer to Leigh a bit too much but when someone possesses a role so masterfully as Leigh did with Scarlett you simply can't help but to criticize any new prospective Scarletts. Timothy Dalton should have had no accent whatsoever, due to the fact that both Margaret Mitchell's Rhett and Gable in the film had none. His acting has never been truly noteworthy (except, maybe his portrayal of the evil, conniving King Phillip of France in THE LION IN WINTER) and he gives very little (if any) freshness or vitality to his Rhett.
Standouts in the cast are most notably Tina Kellagher (a born actress with plenty of authenticity in her deliverance) as the tragic victim Mary Boyle. And then of course there's Sean Bean as the cold, calculating and not to mention, almost demonically evil Lord Fenton, Mary's nemesis and Scarlett's eventual violator. One thing I could not forgive the writer for was the fact that Scarlett is raped in this movie (a fact that never occurred in the novel; Lord Fenton is cold and of ill-repute among the Irish in the book but he's nowhere near as heartless as his screen counterpart. Another omission from the novel but readded for the film is the character of Belle Watling, played most horribly by Ann-Margret in a cameo role, which we all could have lived without, seeing as how the book was such a run-away bestseller without requiring any assistance from Ms. Watling.
For a film by itself, SCARLETT is a very good one but not quite in that lofty of a place in terms of being GONE WITH THE WINDs sequel. Another actress was highly necessary for Scarlett as well as Rhett.



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


user
First of all, nothing will ever compare to the original movie, but for gosh sakes, they're not trying to. It is just one persons opinion about what could have happened after Rhett left Scarlett at Tara. I for one thought it was a terrific movie and would like to add it to my GWTW collection. The scenery alone would make me want to watch the movie. Just view this movie as an extension of the original and don't think they are trying to replace Vivian Leigh and Clark Cable and you will enjoy it a lot. They really captured the spoiled selfishness of Scarlett in many of the scenes and you can see from the longing in the looks from Rhett that he is clearly still in love with Scarlett. The fact that you can recognize many of the actors in the movie is another plus even though some of them have only been seen on TV. I always wanted them to have other children after Bonnie Blue died in the movie and this satisfied my need perfectly.
Lore60


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


user
I loved the movie. I loved Timothy Dalton and Joanne Whaley. The movie had many different locations in it. I really liked when Ann Hampton realized she could not make Rhett love her. And when Scarlett and Ann where together and Ann apologizes for taking Rhett and Scarlett just told her not to worry she would get him back. It had a great story it told. You just can not compare it to GWTW. It just has so many great scenes. I love both SCARLETT AND GWTW! Of course do not forget to have a hankie handy.


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


user
A letter to the guys. I tried guys, I really tried! I tried so hard not to watch this movie. I would leave the room when it was on or jump on the computer when the wife watched it. This is her second favorite movie, the Godfather being first (which I love).
I ended up catching little bits of this movie and finally after maybe a year I was actually sitting down watching it with her. I can't believe I am saying this, but I loved this movie. Dalton plays a great Rhett and has his cockiness down pat. Whalley plays a delightful Scarlett. Full of fire and brimstone and NOTHING is going to stop her.
My favorite scene is when she is overseas in (Ireland?) and the government is going to tear down a peasant's house because they are behind in the rent. Scarlett gets all mad at this and pays the entire debt, thus making a huge name for herself around this small town.
All I'm saying guys is you might want to try this movie... especially if you are a fan of Gone with the Wind. It does take a little bit to get used to the new actors, but I think you will find them refreshing.


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


user
Having grown up with GWTW, I shunned both the "Scarlett" sequel book and the mini-series until now. When I recently viewed the video for the first time, I was amazed how much I enjoyed watching Timothy Dalton's depiction of Rhett Butler and Joanne Walley-Kilmer's as Scarlet. I feel "Scarlet" should be judged on its own merits rather than attempting any comparison with the venerable Selznick masterpiece GWTW. While the "Scarlet" story line and some of the dialogue suffered from lack of inspired writing, overall I thought this was a worthwhile dramatization of what might have been between Scarlett and Rhett.


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


user
Overall, I enjoyed the movie Scarlett. I am a huge fan of Gone with the Wind. I have read the book and seen the classic movie many times. I even have a small collection of Scarlett O'Hara ornaments and other things. I must admit that Gone with the Wind is my all-time favourite book and movie. Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable are remarkable actors and two of my favourites. Unfortunately, I was unable to read the book Scarlett, but I was excited to see the movie. Truth be told, the movie is not any where close to the calibre of Gone with the Wind and neither are the actors. However, Joan Whalley Kilmer and Timothy Dalton were pleasant actors in the roles and at many times Joan sounded like Vivian Leigh in her portrayal of Scarlett. Dalton also portrayed Rhett well at times. It took some time getting used to the different actors, but overall I really enjoyed it ,being the fan of Gone with the Wind as I am. One major disappointment was that Joan did not have green eyes and Scarlett O'Hara and Vivian Leigh both did. I also found the Lord Fenton absolutely appalling and I did not like his character. If you are a Gone with the Wind fan and/or enjoy romantic stories, see the movie Scarlett. However, do not expect it to be remarkable like Gone with the Wind. It is far from it although it is interesting with the new characters and so on. I am happy it is not a remake and some of the events in the story was what I imagined the continuation to be of the Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler love story. If you haven't seen it today, get it tomorrowafter all tomorrow is another day. :)


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


user
gone with the wind and scarlett are two different films they were never meant to be compared obviously the original actors in gwtw are all passed away and deserved their own separate award and praise i loved gwtw and never really expected a sequel to be made or ever live up to half the praise of gwtw but to my shock scarlett was just as well written directed and acted as gwtw scarlett in its own right deserves just as much award i now can honestly say i don't know which i like better i think the script for scarlett was a- number 1 perfect' as a sequel. Bravo! writer director producer and all actors Bravo! AS sequels rarely live up to their name sake this one runs equal to its predecessor. To those who don't like it you miss the point and a great ending to phenomenal beginning


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


user
When I saw Gone with the wind I thought that there could not be better actors than Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable to play Scarlett and Rhett but then I saw the movie Scarlet. I fell in love for this dramatic story. I love Timothy Dalton as Rhett Butler, he's fantastic. This is a movie I could watch a thousand times and it still wouldn't bore me.


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 a huge Gone With the Wind fan, and I read "Scarlett" before it was a miniseries and loved it. This is a sequel of sorts. Like you didn't expect it with that "Frankly dear, I don't give a damn" ending. Timothy Dalton was great as Rhett, though no one will ever replace Clark Gable. Joann Whaley-Kilmer, on the other hand, could give Vivien Leigh a run for her money (though I feel almost guilty even saying that.) Her attitude and presence in the film fits the character to a tee, making you love and hate her at the same time, which is how most feel about Ms. Leigh's portrayal as well. The film does move slowly, mostly because it follows the book so closely and was not released as a feature film. Excellent choice on the producer's part. I think this movie deserves some recognition for the great storyline, the revival of characters that had been gone for almost 50 years, and for being something that even Margaret Mitchell herself could have been proud of.


assistant
1