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
Okay, I had reasonably high expectations for this. The controversial subject matter was a good concept. As a horror fan I admit I was fascinated and very excited about this.
It turns out they had a great idea, but it was terribly executed. Let's see. This movie seems to run in 3 modes: Happy, Sex and Dark. The problem is that the movie never decides what it wants to be. The "Happy" parts I believe were meant to contrast with the "Dark" parts, but it doesn't work. The soundtrack is one of the reasons.
The movie transitions between these 3 modes very badly, I can't even begin to say how much the directing and editing suck. There's sex in the most unappealing and unerotic way. I'm not complaining but even for Horror standards they were unnecessary and filler.
The characters are all unlikeable with the exception of Paula (Potente). Her friend from Munich is a slut and possibly one of the most annoying characters in movies I've come across recently.
There's a bit of plot which I won't go into detail... It's not stupid and in more talented hands would make a good movie. There's even a nice twist and a cool conspiracy going on. Don't try to understand everything because there are giant plot holes here.
It's all so shoddily done that you don't care for the victims, the perpetrators, anyone. And to think this could have been great. I can say ONE good thing about it which is, the movie shed some light on today's unethical medical procedures. With genetics and controversial sciences advancing, this could have been a great philosophical film that raises and discusses these questions. But you won't find that here, just a series of scenes loosely pasted together with people and things that you don't care about.
Skip this and go watch Flatliners instead, you're welcome.
3/10


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


user
1st watched 6/24/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Stefan Rujowitzky): OK thriller, but a little too predictable. This story is based in Germany, which is also where the movie is made. It is about a young medical student who gets a shot to go to a premiere school in Heidelberg and arrives seeing some strange things occurring. Someone she met on the train there and saved, shows up on the school's experimentation table and she's suspecting foul play right away. She does some investigation and the disappearance of her friend leads her to a secret society called AAA(and no it's not Alcoholics Anonymous) that has something to do with the anti-Hippocratic oath and is used to perform experimentations on live people that doctor's wouldn't normally be able to do. She finds out her grandfather(who was a dean at the school) was a big part of establishing it and it's pretty readily filled by members of the school. It's an interesting story but the problem with this movie is how quickly the audience is told what's going on and then it's kind of a horror movie with the heroine fighting off the bad boy of the group that's taking things to the next psychotic level. Although this movie was made in Europe, it plays to a young American audience with it's focus on gore, sex and the horror film premise(which is really it's big downfall) and explains why it probably made good money and spawned a sequel but doesn't necessarily make for a good movie.


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


user
Anatomie isn't very unique in horror genre, in fact it isn't even scary at all. It reminds me of its American cousins, horror slashers. It's just a copy of any other horror slasher and as a German movie it's just too American with nothing to add to it.
Actually Anatomie is too predictable and boring, its plot is not intact and consistent. It's got stupid scenes to it which don't even fit into a horror movie genre. Amusing sex scenes with pop music and topless women in underwear. Why do they need to have it all in just one movie? They should have made a cheap German adult movie instead.
I can't recommend this movie to anyone because it's just too boring.


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


user
Finally got to see this movie last weekend. What a disappointment..it barely reaches "made for TV" level. Given the list of actors, I would have expected something substantially more sophisticated. The movie lacks a good story, well, actually any story for that matter. It has no credibility, instead lots of predictability. Save yourself the money and the time.


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


user
This is by far the worst non-English horror movie I've ever seen. The acting is wooden, the dialogues are simply stupid and the story is totally braindead. It's not even scary. 2 out of 10 from me.


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


user
Anatomie was a German made Movie and subtitled.It was also overlong and boring.If it was supposed to be a horror movie,it failed miserably for me.The actors went through their paces looking more like they wanted to be some where else.The film work was ok but more attention should have been applied to the awful banal script.I paid nothing to see the video and I still feel cheated.Go read a book and save your money.


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


user
This is a pretty lousy picture.It offers nothing unique or original or even interesting.
A medical student discovers that a secret society at her university is engaged in macabre medical experiments.And of course she becomes involved in solving the weird deaths at the school.This movie started out promising with a few cool special effects in which a guy is partially dissected while alive and tries to get away after he wakes up but then even that fizzles and the rest of the special effects are pretty routine plastic models of the human body and that unreal looking blood that these second rate horror movies always seem to have.
And as if the routine plot and the lousy acting wasn't enough this movie had subtitles that many times didn't even match the dubbed English that you hear being spoken and then add that to the mouth movement not matching the dubbing ..well let's just say trying to coordinate all that in your head isn't worth it for this mediocre movie.
I was at least counting on some skin in this movie and except for a bit during the opening credits this movie didn't deliver on that either.
This is a boring routine run of the mill horror/gore movie---short on horror and gore.Skip this movie unless "Ernest goes to Camp" is the only rental left.


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


user
I had high expectations going into this film, but alas, I feel let down. I bought it for 5 bucks at a used VHS place, and the version I bought was the English dubbed version. The dubbing is awful, so beware. "Lola" just wasn't as good in this film as in "Run Lola Run", and the bad guy just kinda came out of nowhere. And "Lola" starts to catch on to what's going on the second she gets to the university. Seems unrealistic to me. I was also wondering if in the original version there were American songs in the soundtrack... they seemed extremely out of place. Too bad for this film, I really thought it was going to rock.


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


user
I watched this basically for the sole reason that it was supposed to have Third Reich references in it. It turned out a pretty brainless and predictable slasher film that appeared to be made to appeal to feminists or something.
Let me tell you something, if you wait an entire movie to see the attractive female lead's breasts, the last thing you want is a "tastefully" done sex scene with annoying camera angles that don't show anything. Her busty friend didn't get hers out either, but we saw plenty of men's butts and pubic hair and guys with their shirts off. And at the end you have our heroine magically dodging the scalpel thrusts and swings of the villain (who turns out to be the hunk, funnily enough) and she easily out fights him (uh huh) while her male love interest is tied down and waiting to be rescued. The funniest part was when she picks up a chair and "swings" it at the guy and it breaks over him. Now it'd be about as much as she could manage to lift the chair let alone smash it against a person with enough force to break it! It looks ridiculous, she basically brushes it against him and it falls apart. If you are going to do this sort of "role reversal" rubbish (which has already been done to death) then you have to at least make it semi plausible.
There was one good bit though. The bad guy did get the better of her slutty friend, teaching her a lesson for being such a tramp and sleeping around. That's not exactly something feminists would like.
Pretty stupid really. Not that American slasher flicks are generally much better, but you have to wonder why they bothered. It brought nothing new to the genre at all.
5/10


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


user
On assignment in scenic Italy, beautiful lip-synching Lana Turner (as Fredda Barlo) meets older singer and prince Ezio Pinza (as Mr. Imperium). The two fall in love, while enjoying the pretty Italian countryside. Unhappily, Mr. Pinza is called away to his Kingly father's death bed, leaving Lana in the lurch. Twelve years later, Ms. Turner is a Los Angeles actress, about to make a motion picture about falling in love with a King. Turner is being romanced by co-star Barry Sullivan, who wants to marry her - then, King Pinza re-enters her life
"Mr. Imperium" provides a tired storyline for sex symbol Turner and debuting bass vocalist Pinza, who appeared for several decades with the New York Metropolitan Opera. Pinza likely earned his MGM feature film career after appearing in the hugely successful stage production of "South Pacific" (1949). The cast album, and Pinza's golden "Some Enchanted Evening" single, sold millions. Supporting casters Marjorie Main, Cedric Hardwicke, and Debbie Reynolds give the film a even greater sense of wasted resources.
*** Mr. Imperium (1951) Don Hartman ~ Lana Turner, Ezio Pinza, Barry Sullivan


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


user
Simply miserable Lana Turner-Ezio Pinza vehicle. Pinza had a beautiful voice but he rarely uses it in a film that reminded me of "The Student Prince" with adults. Pinza is no leading man either. He looks like an elderly man ready to collect social security and go fishing.
The plot is extremely thin and the supporting cast of Barry Sullivan, Marjorie Maine and Debbie Reynolds are given so little to do. Sir Cedric Hardwicke comes in at the end to announce that our King Ezio had better return to his people. As far as I'm concerned, the faster the better. Is that Lana Turner really singing with Pinza? Not bad if it is her. The picture would also remind me in a way of the 1960 movie "The Prince and the Showgirl" with Marilyn Monroe and Laurence Olivier.


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


user
This brief review contains no spoilers since the movie spoils itself. It is wooden and pedantic. It has no saving grace whatsoever. If someone invites you to his house to watch "Mr. Imperium", don't go. Even the title of the movie is dreadful and portends what garbage lies within. The whole plot is so bad that it could drive Mother Theresa to despair!!! It wasn't a stroke that led to the early demise of poor Ezio, it was having to act in this clunker that did him in. It must have haunted him the rest of his days. Perhaps he was an enemy alien and wanted revenge upon the Americans for his confinement. He found a perfect vehicle for his wrath in this travesty.


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


user
Alan Rickman & Emma Thompson give good performances with southern/New Orleans accents in this detective flick. It's worth seeing for their scenes- and Rickman's scene with Hal Holbrook. These three actors mannage to entertain us no matter what the movie, it seems. The plot for the movie shows potential, but one gets the impression in watching the film that it was not pulled off as well as it could have been. The fact that it is cluttered by a rather uninteresting subplot and mostly uninteresting kidnappers really muddles things. The movie is worth a view- if for nothing more than entertaining performances by Rickman, Thompson, and Holbrook.


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


user
It's not easy to find Judas Kiss on VHS (it's not available on DVD), but I wanted to add this rather obscure movie to my Alan Rickman movie collection.
I can't understand how the talented Mr. Rickman gets into these mediocre films? Judas Kiss boasts several wonderful actors, an interesting plot and intriguing twists, but its strange visual wanderings and chopping editing ruined what might have been a great crime drama. Many scenes seem to be missing vital information to explain the character's actions: Why was our hero immediately suspicious of his bosses? Why did he mistrust the detective he replaced? There were times when I honestly couldn't tell if the director meant Judas Kiss to be a legitimate crime drama or a campy spoof. Why else would he toss in a topless/alien/lesbian porno scene in the first two minutes (that little surprise certainly made me scramble for the remote since my kids were playing nearby!)? Did he purposely instruct his two distinguished English actors (Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson) to use such awful New Orlean's accents? As an Alan Freak, I confess that I still thought Mr. Rickman was sexy: in a rumpled, weary, "take-him-home-and-tuck-him-in" sort of way.
Judas Kiss isn't a great movie, but it does have some intriguing moments, but I don't recommend it unless you're trying to immerse yourself in Alan Rickman.


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


user
This film would like to be the kind of shocking, cerebral, and intense movie that many others in its genre have successfully been, but it's not. It is at best confusing and absurd. When the twists and turns finally revealed themselves, rather than saying "Ahh, I get it!" I muttered something along the lines of "Okay...whatever." In my opinion, when a movie reveals a major plot twist it shouldn't have to employ a flashback sequence to prove that it did give some hints that would enable the viewer to discern the truth himself. But this movie does have a flashback; and here's the kicker: it flashes back on scenes that weren't even in the movie!
The characters were stereotypical, unsympathetic, and wholly ridiculous. I feel that the "steamy" love scenes between the romantic leads were the most untitillating and unsexy that I've ever scene in a movie that wasn't porn. It seems that the director was going for shocking and kinky with the love scenes, but they were really just plain silly.
And don't EVEN get me started on the crappy accents and second-rate sets. I guess the movie was set in New Orleans, but Aside from the afore mentioned accents and a couple bland city shots the movie could have been in Anytown, USA.
My recommendation: don't bother!


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


user
This series continues to frustrate and annoy. How are they going to drag this out for another year? Each episode offers up more and more questions, whilst providing the answers to very few. To quote another very popular website, I believe that this show has now jumped the shark!
Will, I keep watching it?
Probably,
Will they manage to keep the show on-air till it ends?
Probably not...
How did two qualified doctors fail to notice that Naomi was still alive? How did 30 plus people not notice a corpse wake up and walk off with a knife still in her back? How did someone have enough strength to create two trails and climb up a tree to ambush Kate?
We've now introduced a ghostbuster...
Same time next week? yep!


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


user
I felt last night's episode was slow and kinda of boring at times. I honestly don't think it has to do anything with the writing. Because I know the story was well staged and tried to keep things in place. I thought it wasn't that bad but overall, I didn't enjoy it. The most blame has to do with the director of that episode- Stephen Williams. I always hated Stephen Williams's directing. If Jack Bender continues with this episode from the season premiere, he would have kept it in a good pace and keep things float to keep things interesting. I'm glad Jack Bender is directing next week's episode and it'll be much better and I'm glad he got first Syaid episode to direct and I'm curious what he will pull off this time since Stephen Williams had directed too many Syaid episodes before.
I always keep thinking that Stephen Williams needs to be thrown off from the show. He doesn't even do anything interesting with the show.
Why does the opening have to be done with a target thing while being in the helicopter? IT was so BORING! Bad perspective of camera work too!


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


user
After seeing the film version of Heart Of Darkness, I feel as if I wasted 100 minutes of my life. Though the book was not my favorite, I was very disappointed to see how poorly Nicolas Roeg portrayed the story. Despite the fact that he left out many bits of important information, the cast just did not seem to fit their roles and the whole film seemed vastly emotionless. The book depicts vivid scenery and detail that are completely disregarded in the movie.
You'd think a director would be able to fit 76 pages of a book into a film of at least an hour and a half. The differences completely changed the story for me. For example, when the character of Kurtz's fiancée is nonchalant to the fact that Kurtz has died, it completely modifies the ending the book had given. Not to mention the sets and scenery used in the film were not nearly as beautiful as they were described. It sincerely feels as if Roeg was filming another story with references from Heart Of Darkness embedded in it.
If you watch the movie without knowing the title or expecting it to be anything like Joseph Conrad's tale, you may find it good. Though I thought the camera work was poor and the cast unfitting, it is a captivating story all the same. However, if you are looking for a good movie version of the famous classic story, don't look for it in Roeg's film.


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


user
Overall, the movie "Heart of Darkness" was pitiful compared to the book. Anyone who has ever read the book and had a sufficient understanding of it would be able to see the countless obvious flaws. There is an immeasurable difference between the two. It seems to me that the director was walking into a losing battle. I couldn't imagine that someone would take on the monstrous task of recreating "Heart of Darkness." The immense detail and magic of the story would be impossible to justly interpret. Conrad's story had so many layers and so much depth that it would seem pointless to try to make a visual interpretation.
First, capturing the details of the story is unattainable. The colossal fine points created by Joseph Conrad cannot be rightfully recreated through film. Marlow's feelings and emotions cannot be equally construed in the movie. If you have taken on the enormous task of tackling Conrad's work then, you know as well as I that Conrad only wrote half the story. The additional half is a series of connections made by the reader. You, as the reader are required to be capable of inferring and connecting Joseph Conrad's ideas. As a result, several crucial details are absent in the movie.
Also, although the movie was an adequate length, the film seemed short. It seemed that Conrad was able to pack many more details into 75 pages than the movie could pack in an hour and a half. The speed of the movie kept the viewer from getting to know the characters. Marlow was much more of a stranger. The viewpoint of the book puts you into Marlow's shoes. However, in the movie, you're almost watching Marlow from a distance. I began to think that the director was trying to utilize the same "read between the lines" method as Conrad did. However, the connections were weak. I know that if I had not read the book then, I would, in no way, be able to begin to understand the depth of the situation and the characters.
Finally, Kurtz also seemed to be interpreted incorrectly. His role was short and the details weren't all included. It was impossible to comprehend the true Kurtz in the length of time he was shown. An important detail in the book was that Kurtz had become a god to the Africans. I didn't think that significant detail was defined. Also, in the book, Kurtz represented a soulless being. He had died inside long ago. I believe the director comprehended this detail. However, instead of recreating it, he just had Kurtz mope around and mumble everything. Moreover, it seemed like the director attempted to make Kurtz seem mysterious, however, instead, he seemed entirely unidentified.
Altogether, this movie reminded me of a teenager cramming to finish a science project, due the next day. It appeared to have been crafted effortlessly and in hardly any time. The characters were alienated, crucial details were left out, and, overall, the central plot was lost in translation.


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


user
Despite the excellent cast and the potential of the story, this movie fails on many levels. I was convinced that the director was a beginner. The movie is very poorly edited, shows a lot of non-important and annoying flashes, has very visible goofs and has no suspenseful atmosphere whatsoever. The question which repeatedly popped up in my mind while watching this was: "so what?". I couldn't care less about the protagonist and what happens to him. It's not that the story isn't compelling, it's simply the way it's told. The movie tells the story. PERIOD. It's like an actor who mumbles his lines, without knowing what he's saying. The movie simply tells the events that happen, without any soul. And the director's to blame. He doesn't know how to make something interesting or suspenseful or enjoyable. (And believe me, I'm NOT somebody who wants to see die hard 8 or 2 fast 2 crappy. On the contrary, i especially like slow-paced movies.) So i was convinced the director was a beginner. But to my amazement this man has years of experience and has worked as a cinematographer or camera assistant on a lot of marvelous productions. Guess he had a bad year back then.


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


user
The movie Heart of Darkness is an insult to the book by Joseph Conrad! To be quite honest the movie made me want to fall asleep. On the other hand, the book was definitely extraordinary. I feel that the movie left out several key elements and missed some of the main points from the book. In addition, the actors were boring and lacked originality and enthusiasm.
The book, while not an adventure story or easy to understand, is full of hidden meaning and interesting twists in the plot. The book, though very confusing and complex, is astonishing. When you do finally understand it, you feel as if you have actually learned something. The novella, or short story, had several key ideas like futility and craziness, which the movie left out. In addition, several key scenes were changed, which in return affected the entire plot. Many of the scenes seemed to be very "choppy", in the sense that they did not fit together. In summary, the movie seemed to be a bad interpretation of the book.
I would only recommend watching this movie if you cannot picture or understand the book, but otherwise I would skip this one. It was dreadful, and in complete disarray. If you have never read the book then, definitely do not watch the movie because you need the basic information from the book to understand the movie. The movie was a horrible spin-off of an outstanding and detailed book.


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


user
To be honest, I've never been to the Congo or even Africa, and after watching the made for television movie Heart of Darkness, I do not think I'd want to. The movie completely shames the book to the highest level possible. Though the book was not the best I have read, after watching the movie, I seemed to appreciate the book a hundred times more. Nicolas Roeg, the director of the movie, did a horrible job portraying Joseph Conrad's novella into a movie. I give Roeg some credit for trying to attempt the impossible by making the book into a movie, but this may not have been the job for him. The movie was unsuccessful to express any part of the novella other than the basics of the plot. The set and scenery also lacked the beauty Conrad portrayed of Africa in the book. In the book Marlow had seen so many great wonders, but in the movie you did not get that same experience. No, I'm not blaming everything on the director; the acting in the film was just terrible. All of the actors were dull and uninteresting. Throughout the whole movie I felt as if the actors were not putting forth any emotions, as if they were reading from the script the entire time. Tim Roth, who plays Marlow, did not portray Marlow's sense of adventure for his journey into the Congo well. Marlow's journey to find Kurtz was supposed to venturesome, but I didn't experience that in the movie. I would not recommend watching this movie, especially if you have read the book already. It does not come close to doing justice for Joseph Conrad's novella. Conrad's words capture the reader and take them on the journey with Marlow, on his quest to find Mr. Kurtz, where as the film did not. A great novella, but a very poor film. Heart of Darkness, the movie, is based on the book written by Joseph Conrad also called Heart of Darkness.


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


user
A made for television version of the Heart of Darkness seemed like a good way to add more insight to the book, well, that was the wrong assumption. The movie made it even worse. I was highly disappointed about almost everything in the movie. I hoped that the movie would possibly help put the pieces of the book together that I didn't comprehend, but it did no such thing. It still left me confused and hanging. It is one of those movies that makes one feel like it would be more fun to watch the grass grow instead of watching the movie. Not exactly anyone's cup of tea. It was an overall dreadful, boring, and slow movie.
To begin with, Nicolas Roeg must have been pretty desperate when he decided that he wanted to undertake the task of making the already boring book into a movie. It's a guaranteed loss. It's like going into a knife fight, but forgetting the knife on the kitchen counter. The knifeless person is going to lose; and in the case, the knifeless person was Roeg. All I've heard about the movie are bad things, and the movie deserves those bad things to be said about it. From watching the movie, I got the impression that the people who made the movie, just skimmed over the book to get the key points.
Furthermore, although the movie did follow the main story line of the book, it left out quite a few details, and it also changed the ending. I am not a fan of that. Roeg left out when Marlow and his crew came across the Russian sailor's camp, and at that camp they found the book. Also it didn't show when at the camp they came across the sign that says, "Wood for you. Hurry up. Approach cautiously" (Conrad 110). Also, at the end of the book Kurtz dies on the boat, not at the inner station.
On the contrary, Nicolas Roeg did one good thing while he was making his movie; he managed to hire some pretty decent actors to play in the movie. For instance, he acquired Tim Roth and John Malkovich, both of whom would later go on to have successful careers. In doing so, he added a little something to the horrible movie. Also, though I am ripping his book to shreds, I do have some respect for him, because it takes a lot of courage to try to take on The Heart of Darkness. It isn't exactly the easiest novel to portray into a film. Twus a valiant effort, though! In conclusion, if for whatever reason someone actually wants to watch this movie, I suggest the reading of Heart of Darkness first. This way, you'll get all of the scenes that were left out of the movie and you won't be completely lost when you watch it. But I really suggest you don't read the book and that you really don't watch the movie; both will be a complete waste of your time. Trust me. I was forced to do both by my English teacher, and now I wish that the book and the movie didn't exist. If either the book or the movie are pursued, good luck!


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


user
After reading the book, Heart of Darkness, the movie did not do it justice. The movie puts the book to shame and anyone who has not experienced the book would frown upon the story and plot because it was portrayed so poorly by the movie. In the film, the characters and set were just some of the let downs that occurred in the movie. The director left out so many important and interesting aspects of the book that made it one of the best literary works ever made.
Of course any book is better than the movie but these weren't even comparable. Joseph Conrad as a writer was brilliant in vocabulary and the cleverness of the written word. The movie doesn't even start to show any of this. Some of the very important and influential scenes from the book were completely left out, like how Kurtz was not in the boat when he died. Also when Marlow went to deliver the news to Kurtz's intended, she reacted differently in the movie, rather than the book. Another major difference was that Marlow saw the picture of the lady that was blindfolded at the end of the movie, not at the beginning, like the book. This was influential on how the audience perceived Marlow, and the movie totally messed that up.
The book was so fine tuned on what every location looked like, but the scenery in the movie was a let down. There was a bunch of cheesy fake backgrounds and to compliment, a bunch of bad actors to go along with it. There was one exception to the awful actors and that would be Isaach De Bankolé, who played Mfumu. His character was depicted the best. Though the movie wasn't that great, I still would recommend it ONLY if you have read and understood the book very well. That way, you can see what the differences are in the movie and book and contemplate them. If you have not read the book, I do not recommend the movie because it is a boring, lifeless mess. I loved the book, so you should definitely read it and enjoy it.


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


user
Heart of Darkness Movie Review Could a book that is well known for its eloquent wording and complicated concepts ever be made into a movie good enough to portray the deep meaning in the book? So far, that goal hasn't been achieved. The Heart of Darkness was attempted to be made into a movie in 1993, but it was a failure in comparison to the book.
It is hard enough to make any book into a movie. There always is the worry that it won't be as descriptive or have the same meaning. So why the novel, The Heart of Darkness, is made into a movie, I am clueless. There is so much description and hidden meaning throughout the entire book. When just reading the words plainly, I think that a person would think it is pretty boring and wouldn't get the symbolism. I think that is what happened in the movie; the movie just skimmed the story at the surface.
The movie didn't even follow the full storyline of the book, major changes were made that I thought made the movie worse. For example, the manager did not go along on the boat with Marlow and the rest of the crew, the spy did instead. I think that took out some major plots and took out the great deception of the manager in relation to Kurtz. Also, Kurtz wasn't even on the steamboat when he died, which especially made the entire journey even more futile, which just got annoying after a while. And when Marlow was telling Kurtz's fiancée about his final moments and words, it was no where near as descriptive or important, the fiancée didn't even get that upset.
As far as the acting went, none of the actors did a very good job except for the actor that played Mfumu. In my opinion, Kurtz was not very evil, and that was kind of an important thing in the book. Also, other characters such as Marlow, the manager, and the fiancé didn't do the characters justice that they deserved from the book. Their acting wasn't very exciting or memorable at all. Over all, I don't think that this book should have even been attempted to be made into a movie. I think it is fine to use some of the themes in a different story line like in Apocalypse Now. But as for following the same exact story line of the book, it just does it shame.


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


user
If you've ever heard the saying, "the book is always better than the movie," Heart of Darkness is no exception to the rule. I believe that it was much easier for me to comprehend the details of the novel over the movie because I read the book aloud with my English class. We discussed each paragraph in great detail so I grasped the concept pretty quickly. I couldn't really understand the plot as well while watching the movie. This may be because there were no discussions held in class, but I suppose it is also because I couldn't paint my own pictures in my mind of the events of the novel. If you're the type of person who believes in that well-known saying, then leave watching the Heart of Darkness movie off your to-do list.


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


user
In a sense, this movie did not even compare to the novel. However, it was good to have a visual of what the Congo looked like and also the natives if you are not good at visualizing as you read. I would never recommend watching the movie rather than reading the book. I hardly suggest even watching this film, let alone any other films based on this literary work. This movie; and many others, did not fulfill this book. One important part that is missing from the movie is MArlow's sense of how government of lack of there in Africa was forming an early genocide. Also in the movie, MArlow and his companions didn't stop and get the note and wood. Likewise, Kurtz' African mistress knocks Marlow out towards the end of the story which has a major influence in the story but was not in the book. In the novel, Kurtz died on the ship, however he died in his hut in the movie. The fiancé's reaction to Marlow's interpretation of Kurtz' last words also differed. This movie is only effective if you wish to visualize more clearly the novel.


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


user
If you're looking for a movie that puts you to sleep, then Heart of Darkness is the movie for you. The book wasn't what I expected to it to be, and the movie disappointed me even further. The cast list was pitiful, and the all around plot was pathetic and was not like the book, except for a few scenes. I understand that everyone has their own point of view as they read Heart of Darkness, and they create their own movie in their head, but they director cuts important scenes and adds pointless ones. If there was someone in the movie who was supposed to be of a certain culture, they should've used an actor that was of that culture. There are actors from every where, and I'm sure that they could've found better ones to fit the roles. Joseph Conrad was a respectable man and created a book that will entertain you if that's what you're looking for, but the movie was cheap and pointless, and someone who could make the movie as respectable as the book should've done it. If you want a movie that drags you into darkness, then Heart of Darkness is the movie for you.


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


user
The movie adaptation of Heart of Darkness is disappointing, both as a movie and as a representation of Joseph Conrad's classic story.
There are several small differences between the book and movie, but that's expected in any book to movie transition. Kurtz dies in a different location; the manager does not accompany Marlow on his voyage; Kurtz's mistress spends much more time with him than in the story. The real issue is the amount of footage that's put into the movie but has no basis in the actual story. For some reason, the director finds the need to "spice up" a few of the scenes, adding drama or actions that seldom make any sense and are always unimportant to the story. Some examples that come to mind are Kurtz's "mistress" beating Marlow over the head and knocking him out. Nothing happens while he's unconscious and Marlow didn't even provoke the attack. A couple hours pass and he wakes up: total waste of time. Kurtz has a pet monkey which, for some random reason, he kills on a whim. Also, when Marlow leaves Kurtz's station, he makes the "noble" decision to leave behind all the priceless ivory he had obtained, for no real reason at all. One other flaw is Kurtz's character. John Malkovich is a terrible choice to play the man who is described as tall and inspirational: a man with a commanding presence. He practically whispers all of his lines which, in a more capable actor's hands, could have been very thought provoking. I can't remove the image of John Malkovich playing a mentally disabled farmhand in Of Mice and Men when I'm watching him botch the role of Kurtz. Over all, I would rate the movie at 3 out of 10 stars. It's a good movie if you've read the book and want to see it in movie form, perhaps to help you visual the scenes, but as a source of entertainment, I would never recommend it.


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


user
The 1994 film production of Heart of Darkness was in no way capable of living up to the outstanding book. The film contained unnecessary scenes that confused the viewer rather than aiding them in understanding what was going on. The director was obviously not experienced, and if he is, then he didn't show it. On top of that, scenes from the book were left out or changed, scenes that were rather important. The movie left me feeling rather bored and was a complete waste of my time. The characters acted as though they had no idea what was going on, and the actors did not portray the emotions that Marlow and the rest revealed in the book. Overall, the movie was terrible and completely lacked the suspense that was otherwise necessary to make it even remotely interesting.


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


user
Joseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness, had a vivid sense of description that made this book astonishing. When reading this book I had every scene totally drawn out in my head and I knew what every character looked like. This book had many pieces and when I finished reading this book it seemed as the puzzle had been completed. After I finished reading Heat of Darkness, I watched the movie, which was a mistake. The movie cut out so many substantial parts. For example, in the novel Marlow waited a very long time for the rivets to come for him to fix his boat. This was a big source of futility. In the movie that part was just left out. The movie added more parts that were useless and made no sense. For example, when Kurtz was talking to Marlow at the end of the book and Kurtz snapped the monkey's neck and killed him. What purpose did that scene have, other than to make the audience feel sorry for the monkey? It's as if the script writer didn't even read the whole book and just put the parts that he read in the movie. If I had not read the novel before I had watched the movie I would have been thoroughly confused. The book was amazing and it is truly a classic in American Literature, but the movie could have defiantly been nominated for the worst picture in the Razzie Awards.


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


user
Heart of Darkness Movie Review Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness is pretty dark, deep, and very profound. I would have to say reading the novel is way better than the movie. The character Mr. Kurtz, played by John Malcovik was totally the wrong actor to do the part. He fit the character in "Of Mice and Men." The movie left out man key parts that I consider important to get the true message of the story.
The movie is poorly edited. It shows a lot of non-important and annoying flashes. In the novel it has a very suspenseful atmosphere, but in the movie it lacks that kind of feeling. In the book there is so much that was left to the imagination of the reader. For example when Marlow spent timeless hours and days waiting for rivets and that entire scene was left out of the movie. In the novel Marlow waited very long time for the rivets to come for him to fix his boat. This was a big source of futility in the novel. The movie added more parts that were useless and kind of didn't make sense. For example, when Kurtz was talking to Marlow at the end of the book and Kurtz snapped the monkey's neck and killed him. That kind of just ruined everything, didn't make any sense to me what so ever. So my suggestion to you is don't view the movie, just read the book. You will understand more and have a better interpretation of the story.
~Chris C.


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


user
The movie 'Heart of Darkness', based on the 1899 book by Joseph Conrad is one with little to no detail and has an almost schizophrenic like plot line. If you have read the book then you know that little to none of the important "story making" scenes were put into the movie. In the book there is so much that is left up to the imagination and I feel that that is one of the part that make the book what is it. An example would be when Marlow spent timeless hours and days, even months waiting for rivets and that entire scene was left out of the movie. Again if you have read the book then you would know that this scene in the book is one that almost describes the main, theme of futility, best. Finally I feel that the movie was too cut and dry. Not enough though was put in to the original text and how that made the story what it is today.
If you have not read the book, 'Heart of Darkness' (preferably, the Norton Critical Edition) then don't waist your time in renting or buying the movie. However if you have read the book then I think that you will appreciate the book a lot more if you decide to watch the movie
Eric 2007


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


user
Roeg's take on Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" was not quite what I had expected. Although based on one of history's most studied and interesting texts, the film just became sort of dull. The story just never manages to grasp the viewer. It just comes across as indifferent in a way.
The traces of the text are easily spotted, but still this is not really Conrad's "Heart of Darkness". Benedict Fitzgerald's (who also wrote "The Passion of the Christ") script just uses Conrad as an inspiration, and thus becomes Fitzgerald's "Heart of Darkness". The film is just not worth it, unless you are particularly interested in Conrad or perhaps John Malkovich.


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


user
Joseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness is a dark, profound, and lasting novel that portrays the futility and irony taking place in Africa. If you are looking for a great book to read over the weekend this is not the book for you. Conrad holds nothing back when describing 19th century imperialism, but the novel is meaningless without giving it the reflection and consideration it deserves. If I read this novel looking for a great adventure story I would say that I wasted my time, but looking at in the perspective of explaining the futility of 19th century civilization, I would say this is one of the most significant novels I have ever read. Because of the fact that I read this novel in my English class, and we analyzed every page, I think I appreciated the book more than someone would who was just reading it for entertainment. I am not going to lie, this book was difficult and it challenges the reader to dig deep into this novel to find the true meaning. The movie on the other hand I found tiresome and boring. The movie, "Heart of Darkness" comes no where near giving the book justice. The movie left out many key parts that I consider important to get the true message of the story. If you are having difficulty understanding and visualizing the novel then the movie might be a good recourse but I would not recommend seeing the movie as an alternative to the novel or even a different perspective.


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


user
After completing the lackluster novel, Heart of Darkness, I moved on to watch the movie, which was a complete and absolute disappointment. At the onset, I expected that the movie would help put together the jigsaw puzzle of a book. However, even though I had read the novel, the movie still made no sense at all, so I can't imagine how lost I would be if I had skipped the book altogether. It seemed as though the writers picked out their favorite parts and put them in the movie, and left out anything that may assist the viewers in comprehending the meaningless plot. This dreadful movie made no sense at all, and I would strongly recommend against watching it, as it will do nothing more than leave you completely baffled and bewildered.


assistant
0