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
What crack are you smoking? This movie, while gloriously entertaining, is awful!
The action scenes are so obviously fake it's kind of sad. The colonel's daughter is painfully irritating. The ninja training camp is so hilarious it is almost not worth mentioning. And when Joe puts the bucket over his head and beat up the other army guy, I just about peed myself. I could go on...
Entertaining, arguably so. Good, no. Well made, certainly not.
As a commentary on America as empire, it's actually pretty good. Joe as a typical white conqueror isn't all that surprising, especially in the context of mid-1980s American cinema.


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


user
This could have been a really good movie if someone would just have known how to finish the film.
The story was going along just fine and heading towards that point in every movie like this where the "gray" characters turn "good" and the "bad" guys get their just desserts and *boom* ... it's like they ran out of script and the cast just started to make things up.
Which wouldn't have been so bad ... if the cast had just continued with the character development they had already put in place. But such is not the case and the movie soon becomes a goofy mess.
My advice is to watch this movie up to about the last 30 minutes ... and then shut it off. At this point, imagine how you think the next 30 minutes will look based on what you have seen so far.
Believe me, the ending you come up with will look far better than how this film actually ends. Trust me on this.


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


user
Look, this film is terrible... the "plot" involves twins who are neglected by their self-absorbed parents, and left in the care of a succession of nannies and babysitters, all of whom the children drive away by being completely obnoxious. Eventually the kids engineer ex-convict Beverly D'Angelo to be their new nanny, do you care why? And D'Angelo watches a TV talk show about selling children and decides she will try to sell the twins... and, well, oh, you don't want to know. It's all very unpleasant, and not at all funny. In fact the announcer slated this film before it came on the TV channel I was watching! Just don't bother wasting a single moment of your life on this pile of complete trash, y'hear?


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


user
Gordon Scott made some good Tarzan movies, but this is not one of them.
As I watched it, wincing at the bad, obviously interior sets and the hollow wooden "clonking" sounds as they walked across supposedly dirt trails, and cringing at the bad dialog and worse acting among the supporting cast, I kept thinking, "Sheesh! This is TV show level!" Then I find out it was, indeed, three TV show pilot episodes woven seam-fully into one.
It's nice to see Scott get outside (alone), away from the lame sets, in a few of the scenes; and the fights do have some pretty nice moves... but oh, ow, and ouch as to the dialog. And did I mention the acting? Heck, Cheetah (or "Cheta," in this version) was a better actor than most of the humans.
And that's not saying much.
It is kind of a stitch to see a younger Sherman (i.e. Scatman) Carothers acting as a native. But probably not worth the overall time-investment.


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


user
Tarzan, the environmental awareness leader, faces four trappers who by most unorthodox means abduct animals to get them to Zoos. Tarzan has a bland but sexy enough wife with an impeccable hairdo, and a kid. No one should fault Tarzan for being grieved by the vicious actions of the hunters.
This Gordon Scott Tarzan flick is one of the silliest, completely and unnecessarily silly; for one reason or another, the team did not find anything charming to sustain the movie, and so it's just some silly rubbish. Tarzan and his family are threatened by a group of evil trappers ,because Tarzan's environmental awareness brought him into open conflict with the evildoers. The kid and the chimpanzee, both belonging to Tarzan, are kidnapped by the malevolent trappers; so Tarzan summons the unleashed animal forces of the jungle to release the kid and the chimpwith Tarzan leading the attack. TARZAN AND THE TRAPPERS is silly, unappealing, quite uninteresting. Maybe as a kid I would have liked it? Now one has to be too meanas viciously mean as those pathetic trappers punished by Tarzanto ask a Tarzan flick not to be silly; this I concede. But one is also truly entitled to ask these Tarzan flicks, however silly, to have and to show some gustoa bit of gustoeven a tiny bit of gusto. Some kick, some excitement, some fun. Now the Gordon Scott Tarzan failure is too silly exactly in the sense of not having any gusto at all, of lacking all excitement. (Yes, I liked the sequence of the jungle beast eating a snake. What beast? Watch the movie, kiddos, now here I just gave you one excuse to do so.) For one reason or another, the villains look somewhat pathetic and elicit mercy rather than virtuous anger.
The books leave the impression that Tarzan seemed quite bright in his own way; and if finding a decent bodybuilder or another sportsman to look clever enough for the role might prove a too demanding, next to impossible task, Gordon Scott was anyway too far from meeting that ideal.
The wife chides Tarzan for disliking books.
The script suggests Tarzan was uneducated, almost illiterate, and adverse to learning; but the book says otherwise, and we know that Tarzan studied much, by himself, using the books of his gone family, before even meeting white people.
And I did not like that yell.
(It's supposed, dear kiddos, to be a genuine wild yell, not a missed yodeler.)


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


user
Gordon Scott with his well coiffed hair, hourglass figure and weird pidgin English has to be the worst of all the Tarzans. As for the other actors in this mess, they're on a par with any 4th grade elementary school drama class. I've seen Used Car Dealers in TV commercials who can act better. They make Clayton Moore look like Laurence Olivier! And where does Jane (the dull Eve Brent) get her lipstick and eyebrow pencils in the jungle? I realize these were made for kids but Wow! The plot line seemed OK but the director should have required more from his actors. I realize even the Weissmuller films have a few flaws but this one seemed so "low budget".


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


user
I went out of my way to get this film, and was fortunate to get it on VHS. Being a big Gloria Grahame fan, it was an excellent addition to my collection. Other than that, I really cannot say a lot to recommend this picture. The plot is predictable (and weak) and the only interesting aspect of the film is watching Sterling Hayden get into deeper trouble with his own department. Ms. Grahame is always fun to watch (if you like her, as I do), but the dubbing of her singing hurts this picture a lot. She works in a dive, so let her use her own voice. It can only lend to the atmosphere. I must agree with an earlier reviewer; the ending borrows heavily from THE BIG HEAT. To the point of detracting from the ending. I have seen worse films with Ms. Grahame (MACAO), but I will never pass the opportunity to see her on screen. If you are having a movie night and looking for a second feature film, this is your movie. Enjoy the picture.


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


user
I went to see this on the strength of Albert Finney alone. He's one of my favorite actors and he rarely fails to deliver. I'm not sure if the plot is interesting or just silly: it's about a little boy who is about to be born, but as his mother goes into labor, he refuses to come out! This sends God and the whole human being factory into a crisis and Albert Finney is called out of purgatory to try and convince the boy to change his mind and decide to want to be born. So Finney takes the unborn boy for an adventure in the Big Apple in hopes of showing him all the reasons he should want to live.
Despite the ridiculousness of the plot, I could have accepted it if the director had not tried to turn this into your typical Hollywood sentimental moralistic message film. Directorially, the film was rendered unbearable by a horrible soundtrack of the stock sentimental music that Hollywood directors seem incapable of resisting.
He further butchered the somewhat unconventional story by giving away its hand at every moment. Whatever twists and turns were in store in the plot were completely given away by the way the story unraveled. It was as if the director assumed the audience is just a bunch of idiots who cannot see the obvious hints coming from a mile away.
Even Finney in his performance, though satisfactory, seemed a bit awkward and out of place; and the little boy with curly locks, though he was supposed to be cute, was in fact rather dull. Bridget Fonda seemed intent on trying to duplicate Demi Moore's performance in 'Ghost', shedding tears at a moment's notice.
I understand that the film has been unsuccessful thus far at getting distribution in the U.S., which surprises me as I think it has the box office potential to be a modest hit, appealing to both kids and sentimental adults. As far as the quality goes, it's not an awful film, it's just not very good. (4 out of 10)


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


user
I went to Crooked Earth to see a piece of New Zealand. What I found was a badly scripted and badly acted echo of the people I know.
Great moments between characters  including many of Temuera Morrison and Lawrences Makoares scenes together  were often ruined by long and wordy monologues that the actors were forced to stumble through. Beautiful and ill-fitting phrases rattled away from Lawrence in particular as if he were the new Maori Messiah at his pulpit of beer crates.
When watching any film with Maori actors, I've found that I can always pick a half dozen characters that remind me of someone in my life. With Crooked Earth I struggled to find one key character that rung true for the entire two hours. Most  including Wiremu and Peka  wound up saying or doing things that I didn't understand and couldn't connect with. By the end of the movie the writer had succeeded in alienating the audience where the Maori weren't able to relate to it and the Pakeha were therefore given license to dismiss it. My feeling is that the movies message  or at least the main one of several that was being lobbed at the audience  is important enough to avoid using character extremities. Unfortunately, no one who read the script before it was filmed thought to pass this piece of advice on.
The soundtrack was invasive, and, as irritating as that horrible `bing-bong' noise that they laced through `Eyes Wide Shut'. The audience was not so subtly auto-cued to laugh, cry or be angry when the music changed. It reminded me of Darth Vader's entrance music in Star Wars: obvious and mildly amusing.
I think that there are some people out there that might enjoy this film. It's funny in parts, has a fair amount of action and has some really powerful scenes. Calvin Tuteao and Quentin Hita did bang up jobs as well. As a whole though, I didn't enjoy the experience as much as I know I should have. Barb Wire, Speed 2, The Island of Dr Moreau and Crooked Earth look like they're going to be Tem's quartet of crap.


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


user
I mean, come on! This movie had such nice potential but it's like they ran out of money to finish the script and just telegraphed the whole damn rest of the movie about 2/3rds of the way through. Characters start spouting this movies whole reason for existence to other characters who didn't ask for the information on extremely flimsy premises. They also fall into some stereotypical behavior because that must be what's expected in this genre of movie. It's really pretty sad because this movie could have been so much more.
I was really hoping this would be a good movie. There was some good acting. Mark Hamill does an excellent job until the movie falls apart, so does Sally Struthers. It was fun to see them working and succeeding at their craft. Majandra Delfino was pretty good for awhile until her lines just became untenable. I felt sad for her that she had to say these lines that just shot the whole movies credibility for any thinking movie goers. Brad Hunt does an excellent job. He really has a surprising range of talent judging from another of his movies I recently saw, Lucky 13. (which was a piece of crap). This guy could be a star if he could pick the right scripts and get lucky with the right director.
Almost forgot! The music was so heavy handed you might think this project was handed to some minor film school to be scored. I call this kind of music "Teller Music" because you can just tell what's coming next based on the music. Less is more sometimes.
Cut half of the music from this movie, get a good film editor, a small rewrite or two and this would be a very 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
The summary was promising but watching the movie was a huge disappointment. Nothing happens in this movie. Plot is linear and without surprise. Normal characters stay normal until end of the film, weird characters stay weird until end of the film. There is even not a single tentative to foul the viewer into thinking that the bad guy is someone else than the most obvious candidate. On the positive side, actors play quite well, and there is a tiny bit of atmosphere in the movie, but much too little to be any significant.
People who vote 10 for this movie either didn't see it, or are member of the movie production team ! 4 is well paid.


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


user
This show started out okay, but then it turned into a nightmare. The worst part about it was the contestants. Most of them were weirdos. They did stupid things for a living and they also did strange hobbies. In the second season, one guy said he that he talked to his pants. That is sick and repulsive. Also, no one cared about winning money. All they ever wanted to do was make alliances like it was "Survivor" or something. The men were always afraid that the women were going to team up together. The women were the same also. I just couldn't take it anymore. I had to stop watching it. It was truly one of the worst shows ever.


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


user
(This review will have some very obvious spoilers, so beware.)
A friend brought this over, and we made it through 45 minutes of the movie before we decided that Fast Forward 8x Speed was the only way that this film should be watched. There were points when we were watching the movie at normal speed where I would leave, prepare part of lunch, and return, to find that literally nothing had happened. 2 lines of meaningless dialogue were exchanged. Nothing happened the background, no important facial gestures were made, nothing but mind-numbing awkward silence.
This is NOT how to make a thoughtful film, especially when the movie's plot follows all the same basic Hollywood movie tropes. If I told you that Disney was making a film about 4 girls starting a band, and the singer was a French exchange student, what you would expect to be the "conflicts" that arise?
The lead singer has to overcome stage fright? Someone has an unspoken crush? The band is late for their performance, and a side-character has to buy them time?
*SPOILER ALERT*
All of those things happen in this movie.
At no point in this film do you have even the slightest fraction of concern that these girls won't be able to accomplish their goal.
*THIS ENDS THE SECTION OF SPOILERS*
I like Japanese films. I've spent a lot of time in Japan. I work for a Japanese company. Heck, I even know all the bands referenced in the record collections and MDs that they're going through, and I've sung along to the title track with friends at karaoke.
This is probably the worst film from Japan I've ever seen. Do not be confused. Though the characters will have points in the movie where they do typical Japanese high school things, this is not a "typical day in the life of" movie. This is "a day in the life of 4 extremely random, heavily-conflicted, awkward Japanese students."
There are noticeable problems with the DVD, as well. Viz decided that a great extra would be a producer reading aloud the Wikipedia entry about the Blue Hearts. What a value! In addition, they care so little about the subtitling that the band's name in the subtitles, "Paran Maum" is different than it is in the chapter selection menu, "Paran Marum". In the final auditorium scene, there is a VERY visible reflection/ghosting effect on everything, but this seems to be the fault of the original film.
2/10, do NOT view if you do not absolutely love awkward silences.


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


user
First separate the story from the film. The story about a second continuing war in heaven is good, very good. Religious themed films aren't the main choice for a lot of people but angels at war is. I really loved the story, and some of the imagery provided to back it up like the field of angels on spikes....awesome imagery. The actual film though was just poor, i can't find any reason for the main character - the priest-cum-cop being in there at all. The lead female also...no reason to be there, the main characters dialogue was just empty, it had no substance, the story could have been told well without them. Now, some sterling performances did feature, Walken, Stoltz and Mortensen pulled off some wingers, though their scenes were mostly with the lifeless leads.
One other thing i am not getting from this film is why it features native American rituals to purge the dark soul. The child that carries it is clearly of native American origin but apart from the end scenario there is nothing that connects here with that heritage. The plot concerning the dark soul itself it barely told, odd considering that the dark soul is the driver for the whole premise of the film. The back story of its original owner (the colonel) is briefly touched but not enough to allow understanding as to why its his soul that is the special one.
I cannot find a justification for the scrolling scenery shots in this film either, several of the plains around 'chimney rock'. I get the feeling they had a helicopter and wanted to make the most of it as none of the shots have any relevance, nor are they in keeping with the mood -> Horror. The film falls into the sci-fi category more than it does horror. There was no real shock or scare scenes, some mild gore and blood but no fear element.
So, aside from 3 roles played damn well this film is a big ole' dud. Unfortunately the dud factor outweighs the good acting factor, just too many weekend actors.


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'd like a great April Fool's joke, then please by all means show this film to someone. However, it is important that you in no way criticize the film but instead talk about what an artistic triumph it is and how "they just don't make great films like this any more". As your victim watches many disconnected and nonsensical scenes (such as a cute dog getting punted for no apparent reason, a cow standing on the bed, a woman licking a statue's feet or Jesus apparently raping a woman), make lots of comments using words like "brilliance", "juxtaposed" or "transcendent"--all the while acting as if the film actually makes perfect sense and isn't a complete waste of an hour of your life. Also be sure to keep a straight face and feign shock when (and if) they say that they either didn't understand it or thought it had all the artistry of a cow patty. Then, to further mess with them, show them all the comments on IMDb, as nearly all (except for a few trouble-makers like almagz and rooprect) talk glowingly about what genius and artistry this film is! By the time you are done with this little charade, they'll most likely think they are idiots and will make an appointment with a psychologist.
This, to me, is the ONLY possible reason to watch this horrid mess of a film!!! That, or you could show it to the prisoners at Guantanamo in order to get them to talk!
If you ask me, the famous painting of dogs playing poker or a velvet Elvis painting are superior artistically.


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


user
Some movies you'll watch because they touch your soul or challenge you in ways that grow.
Some you'll watch because you want to be exposed to adventure or shock outside your experience; these won't directly feed you, but they'll help you situate yourself in a larger world than you otherwise would have. And after all, the hard parts of life are in what you choose not to accept.
And then there are movies that do neither of these things, that you will watch out of obligation, or because you have a need for historical context. These are pretty worthless experiences in terms of building a life.
The problem is of course that often you don't know which of the three a film will be, going in. You might get some indication from people you trust, but because a life in film is so personal, you really won't know until you go on the blind date.
For me, this was pretty worthless. Yes, yes, I know for many Bunuel is the epitome of the sublime and rich. And you should know (if you don't) that among my greatest film experiences are some very strange films, very strange indeed.
It isn't that this isn't cinematic, or symbolically deep, or apolitically/politically friendly to the way I think. Its how it gets there that is off base. Its the deviance from real deviance that annoys me.
Part of the problem is that this is successful alternative art, which means that it is successful commercial art. Which in turn means that it can be simply explained and the explanation is not only widely acceptable but simply coded in shorthand. Surely all this is true.
When the term "surreal" is used, generally it is used incorrectly to denote any film image or world that differs from reality or seems strange. But when it is used correctly, meaning according to consensus theory, it always revolves around Bunuel, and in particular this film and the one he genuinely did with Dali. So because they invented surreal cinema, they define and control the term. That by itself chafes me, and I have my own alternative definition that doesn't come from their philosophy.
Its because the philosophy is wholly contrary. It isn't a philosophy at all but a rejection of philosophy, an anti-order. Its packaged anarchy, carefully selecting the things that they use and the things they oppose without clearly differentiating them.
So okay: against linearity, against narrative, against history, against religion (an easy one), against deliberate love. But for an illinear linear narrative, for establishing its own history (celebrated by countless film school professors; what else can they do?); for a sort of transcendent "accidental" love.
It is its own enemy. If there were a Bunuel alive today as he sold his image, the first thing he would do is attack the church or the surreal.
My regular readers know that in nearly all matters cinematic, I cleave to the Spanish and avoid the French. But in the matter of the surreal, I'd like to you consider the reverse: get your surrealism from Alfred Jarry, not Bunuel.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.


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


user
A man kicks a dog 2' in the air.
A woman kicks a cow out of her bed.
A man kicks a violin down the sidewalk.
A woman sucks on a statue's toe for 15 seconds.
A man kicks a blind man in the stomach.
Jesus rapes a young girl.
There you have it. I just saved you an hour of your life. Surely there are those to whom this "shocking vanguard of cinematic expression" would appeal. But I found it no different from the puerile, disconnected videos I used to shoot with my friends in the 9th grade. Except we never had a real cow.
Having heard endless sermons from beard-stroking art connaisseurs of how this is such an important film, I thought it would be worth my time. Make no mistake, this is crap. If I hear one more person call Buñuel the "father of cinematic Surrealism", I think I'm going to punch someone. If anything, he issued a major step backward from the Surrealist beginnings pioneered by his seniors Fritz Lang (Metropolis), F.W. Murnau (Faust) and Robert Weine (Caligari) 10 years earlier. This made a joke out of the whole thing, as if Buñuel didn't have the confidence to truly embrace the art sans sarcasm, sans l'absurdité. It would take Buñuel another 40 years before he would refine his style into something admirable. Skip the early stuff and hop straight to 1970 if you want to be more impressed by his work.
I'm sure he would agree. In 1977, Buñuel himself stated that he would happily burn all the prints of his old movies. In this case I would be happy to pour the lighter fluid.


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


user
I'm a big fan of surrealist art, but this film by Bunuel (with some ideas from Dali) left me cold. Bunuel had a life-long grudge against the Catholic church and delighted in trying to offend Catholics in fairly silly ways. This is one of the silliest; almost like what you'd expect from a smart-aleck 18-year-old in film class. The last few minutes of the movie, which have nothing to do with anything else, are a final nose-thumbing at religion.
If you read the "scholars" regarding this slow-paced, occasionally amusing film, it's all about how the church and society are guilty of sexual repression. If that is indeed the point, then Bunuel expresses it in the most roundabout fashion possible. The central male character is a nasty brute who loves kicking dogs and knocking blind men down in the street, and who mentally turns billboard ads into strange sexual fantasies. Is this behavior the church's fault (for interrupting his lovemaking), or is he just a jerk? I vote for the latter. I think Bunuel must have had a lot of personal hangups and chose the Catholics as the ones to blame.
There are a few moments where you might cry, "Aha! surrealism!": a cow in a bed, a giraffe falling out a window (a poor model), a man shredding a feather pillow, a woman flushing a toilet while we watch pictures of seething lava (or a mud pit...hard to tell in B/W). The rest is forgettable self-indulgence. Unfortunately, Bunuel was still chasing the same bogey-men through the rest of his career (Viridiana, Discreet Charm...). If you're interested in seeing surrealism on the screen, check out Jean Cocteau's early work.


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


user
The Man (Gaston Modot) and the Young Girl (Lya Lys) go through the film consumed by passion for each other. They long to be together but their moments together are constantly interrupted. The film is strewn together with imagery and comes to a halt after an hour.........do the lovers find happiness....?..
The film starts interestingly with footage of scorpions but you soon realize that its all a pretentious piece of nonsense. It's made as a silent film with occasional dialogue and it has a non-stop soundtrack playing that at one point is so irritating that you will turn the sound down and want to watch it as a silent film. The continuous drum rolls must have driven cinema audiences mad. There are some genuinely funny moments, eg, when the Man kicks a dog and when he knocks over a blind man. Unfortunately, this humour is carried out in the name of art so its just pseudo nonsense. The film is crap.


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


user
When something can be anything you want it to be or mean, it's bound to register with someone as being rather special. But just as the shape of a cloud in the sky may appear to one of us or remind us of a battleship, and to another of his aunt's rear, and yet to another absolutely nothing other than a cloud, this does not make this cloud meaningful except for the viewers' interpretation. Anyone who might find throwing a stuffed giraffe out of a window brilliant, or worthwhile for that matter, without relating it in some context, is possibly merely trying to impress us with his or her intellectuality.
Submitting to this movie as the dreams of a madman does quite nicely, especially since there is no standard or expectation for what said dreams would be like, and even if we were mad ourselves, this would hardly give us sane reference points for comparison. A love affair with this movie entails the same risk as seriously interpreting Nostradamus. Whatever real meaning was being conveyed at the time might be buried in the private jokes, musings, or provincial minutiae of its day, and to a select few radical intellectuals at that! I did spot a bit of an agenda even with my limited capacity though.
The movie is definitely anti-Fascist and to some extent anti-Italian. I noted that although the years 1929-30 were years of great public works and urban renewal in Italy, any indication of this seemed avoided. Furthermore, (avant-guarde academic spinners take note of this for your next class) the very short cropped haired man with the mustache in the party segment near the end is a caricature of Victor Emmanuel III and his tall female companion none other than Queen Helen, formerly Princess of Montenegro. Without an understanding of potential historical relevance, even the apparent irrelevance is beyond the competence of academic or other intellectual poseurs who would bask in irrelevance to impress us.
I gladly add my own paint buckets to the defacement of this cinematic joke. But in an adaptation of the famous mot by the little boy; The movie really has no face (to deface). Paint would help it burn though.


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


user
OK, it's a piece of historical film making that caused an uproar, shocked people, and was banned. I'll give it that, which is why I gave it a 3 rather than a 1. It may have been ahead of the times, but it's certainly way behind the times now. I am a BIG fan of Salvador Dali and I loved Un Chien Andalou. That short was captivating with one creative scene after another. L'age d'Or was way too long and dull - just a self-indulgent piece of pompous film making created simply as a feeble attempt to try to out-do Un Chien Andalou by creating a full- length movie (and shamelessly leverage Dali's name and fame even though he had little to do with it). Total junk except for a (very) few shots of "shocking scenes" separated by long stretches of boring non-action. A waste of time and money. Both of my thumbs are down, way down. It'll go onto my shelf never to be watched again.


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


user
How do I describe the horrors?!!! First, some points: First, this review should be taken with a grain of salt -- I saw this over 20 years ago, when I was a boy, at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.
Secondly, I am giving away some scenes and plot points. However, it does not have much of a plot.
Finally, I don't enjoy these type of art films anyway.
This film was directed by proto-auteur Luis Bunuel. He was a surrealist and dadaist. These were modernist themes or movements popular critically in the 1920's and early 1930's. Surealism was the school of art that made things hyper-real, yet often had Freudian symbolism. Dadaism is based on what is supposedly the first word made by an infant -- Dada, or father.
Made in black and white, it was also made by a band of communists (or as they preferred the term, socialists). Bunuel and his group of fellow film-makers and artistes had been working on a number of symbolic ideas and issues in Spain and France between the world wars.
Dadaism and surrealism influenced a lot of artists -- The Police (Doo doo doo da), poet Arthur Rambaud, Edvard Munch (The Scream), Rene Magritte (floating hats in space), Salvador Dali (melting clocks), and even Hitchcock (Psycho). No Norman Rockwell.
Here's what I recall most about this film: a girl meets up with a cow; her eye gets slashed by a razor; clownish men cavort in a meadow. There is not, as I said, much of a plot, but then again, that must be the point.
This was attacked as porn back then, and would be again today. One of the trade-marks of surrealism is a significant anti-feminism.


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


user
The price of a dream - and some dreams can be "too" expensive.
Only having viewed the English-translated version, it is perhaps the reason for a low rating from this viewer.
It made the overall film poorer than the story material hinted at...
...and other comments seem to suggest the subtitled version would be better.
But some plot elements remained unexplained, leaving an unfinished feel.
It also leaves the thought "is there a series to follow?".
A pity there was no more (at this stage at least, anyway).


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


user
Fred Astaire is reteamed with Rita Hayworth one year after their big hit for Columbia, "You'll Never Get Rich". That was the movie which put Hayworth on the Hollywood map, yet her performance in this wan romantic musical hardly gives a suggestion why she was so suddenly popular. Down Buenos Aires way, a tyrannical hotel owner demands that his four daughters marry in order of age; one may think film takes place in the 18th century, but no, it's modern-day 1942. Astaire is an ex-hoofer-turned-gambler who goes back to dancing to earn some money, getting mixed up in impersonating a letter-writing admirer to Hayworth's stone-cold society beauty. Fred gazes at Rita with a brotherly smile, but she's so mannequin-like (lip-synching to her songs like a wide-eyed wind-up doll) that all romantic sparks quickly sputter. They do dance together quite comfortably, however, and the Jerome Kern score is unmemorable but not too bad. ** from ****


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


user
On the pure theatrical side, Last Stand was great, as the reenactments and soundtrack are very entertaining, but there are better accounts of this battle found elsewhere that, while not as long or as flashy, are far more historically comprehensive.
Certain little details, such as the misuse of the word "hoplon" for the Greek hoplite shield and the mispronounciations of various names and words, really ate at me.
My guess would be, that because "Last Stand of the 300" was aired the eve of the theatrical release of "300", the History Channel was only trying to ride the coattails of the movie's hype.
If you're looking for a depiction that's historically accurate in all respects possible, you'd have better luck elsewhere.


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


user
The thesis of Father Brown is that a good dose of Roman Catholicism will solve all of life's problems. A little proselytizing I don't mind, but this gets a bit ridiculous at times.
Some fine actors have played Father Brown over the years, Kenneth More and Barnard Hughes are two good examples. Alec Guinness plays him in this film and does all right by him, but you didn't see any great demand for future Father Brown films.
I suppose if you are a committed Roman Catholic it all makes perfectly good sense. It's far more important to catch the thief and convert him to your religion than see he's brought to justice.
But that's what were asked to accept here. In fact there is a preliminary story before the main action of the film. Guinness in clerical garb is caught trying to put back stolen articles that one of his parishioners Sidney James had heisted during a robbery.
That's the story he gives the local cops and of course this is something that James has confided in him so he can't break the confessional.
Now on to bigger game. Master thief Flambeau, played by Peter Finch has stolen a cross that is entrusted to Father Brown and was said to belong to St. Augustine back in the day. But Father Brown is more interested in getting Flambeau to go back to his faith than seeing him brought to justice. So he misleads the cops so he can accomplish his mission.
I'm sorry but this whole thing was just too much for me to swallow. Father Brown I'd hate to say it was guilty of obstruction and ought to have been arrested. And he was under no obligation not to reveal anything he knew about Flambeau, the man had not come to him as a penitent seeking absolution and spiritual advice.
Author G.K. Chesterton, a very noted Catholic lay person in his day, finds all this very reasonable. Carried to his logical conclusion we should replace all police forces with an army of priests.
Guinness borrows from his own Reverend Ascoyne D'Ascoyne from Kind Hearts and Coronets and from Barry Fitzgerald in Going My Way to create Father Brown. Granted though Brown is a lot shrewder than the other two. There's also a bit of Colonel Nicholson in this portrayal. In The Bridge on the River Kwai, Guinness also was playing a character who's rather weird interpretation of the rules caused him to lose sight of what was important in the situation Nicholson was in.
Father Brown's an entertaining fellow when he's solving mysteries and making the authorities look foolish. We've enjoyed Brother Cadfael do it in a medieval setting and American audiences liked Father Dowling played by Tom Bosley a few years back.
This film should have stuck to being entertaining.


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


user
There are so very few films where just the title tells you all you need to know about the film. Such a film is I Was A Communist For The FBI. Another example would be I Married A Monster From Outer Space.
The really interesting thing about this film is how in heaven's name did this get nominated for an Oscar in the documentary category? It is not a documentary in any sense of the word, it's not even in that hybrid category of docudrama. It's just a rather exploitive film about the work of an FBI undercover agent named Matt Cvetic who infiltrated the Communist Party in Pittsburgh and got active in trying to take over the Steelworker's Union for the Communists and reporting on said activities to his handlers in the FBI.
A documentary of that work might have been interesting, but what we got was a film to fit those paranoid times. I found it fascinating that when Cvetic finally broke his cover it was to the House Un-American Activities Committee rather than the trial in New York of the Communist Party leaders. There was a moment in the film where head Communist James Millican tells his followers to start spreading the word that the House Un American Activities Committee was composed of a bunch of right wing yahoos looking to get their names in front of the camera. Now what could have given him that idea? Anyway just connect the dots and no doubt the word their came from J. Edgar Hoover trying to give some credence to HUAC by having an effective undercover come out there rather than at an actual trial. Little thing there called cross examination.
Warner Brothers who produced I Was A Communist For The FBI later produced Big Jim McLain which starred John Wayne about a HUAC investigator in Hawaii. HUAC did grab on to credit for the work done by the Honolulu PD in breaking up a Communist spy ring there among the dockworkers. But at least in John Wayne's film nobody claimed it was a documentary.
Frank Lovejoy is in the title role as Cvetic and his FBI handlers are Richard Webb and Philip Carey. Dorothy Hart plays a Pittsburgh school teacher who says that there are 30 or so like here in that school system indoctrinating the young among whom is Ron Hagerthy, Lovejoy's son. She has a change of heart about the Communists and Lovejoy has to save her from a homicidal fate planned by his superiors. Ironically Hart left the movies and went to work for all places, the United Nations which as we know has been accused often of being a Communist nest in the USA.
Over half a century later and we really have very few objective works on film or in print about the Communist Party of the USA. They were in fact a very active bunch in the labor movement. The real heroes in stopping them were labor organizers like Walter Reuther in the UAW or David Dubinsky in the ILGWU. But since they were people of the left they just don't have the following on the right to be suitable propaganda material.
Anyway I Was A Communist For The FBI is an exploitive work based on a real life character and a testament to those paranoid times.


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


user
Matt Cvetic is a loyal communist in a Pittsburgh steel mill who works to recruit workers into the party, even though this isolates himself from his son, family, and neighbors. What makes this even more difficult is that Cvetic is actually an FBI agent posing as a Communist in order to obtain information about party activities. The party is trying to create a strike at the mill, whereby the pro-strike movement will lead the workers into a wave of propaganda. Cvetic also has to contend with beautiful Eve Merrick, a party member and teacher at his son's school who finds the fact that Cvetic is a double agent. When Eve learns the ugly truth about the party's real motives, the reds decide she must be liquidated and Cvetic must aid her without endangering himself. The film should have plenty of suspense and double crossing but there is very little in this film but (by today's standards) very cheesy propaganda and little action or thrills. Lovejoy is very good in the main role, but even he and the rest of the cast seem listless. Few surprises here and how did this film receive a Oscar nod for best documentary? Rating, 4.


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


user
The most disturbing thing about this film is not that it's a load of hogwash (the CPUSA was never really as much an espionage threat as the movie makes out). The troubling aspect is the way that it whitewashes the wholly unsavory tactics of the FBI and the UnAmerican Activities Committee. Secret informants, gossip turned into accusations, warrantless searches - these are the kind of things secret police thugs like the KGB did, and presumably, what the good patriotic Americans were fighting. Yet the FBI did them and didn't bat an eye. That's the only realistic part of this movie, and they present it with no sense of shame at all. Add to this undermining the Constitution itself by having only Communists invoke the Bill of Rights. The film also makes thinly veiled accusations that the black civil rights movement was communist-inspired, another pack of lies. It's extremely difficult in this day to excuse such outrageous propaganda, even understanding the paranoia of the times, when one realizes how damaging it was to real people then.


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


user
A stunningly beautiful Charlotte Lewis stars as a woman who is terrorized by a ghosts who torment her on the phone.Driven to the edge in terror Charlotte is forced to confront this chilling mystery in order to save her sanity and her life.I can't believe that Ruggero Deodato,the director behind "Ultimo Mondo Cannibale","Cannibal Holocaust" and "House on the Edge of the Park" directed this absurd piece of trash.Admittedly the music by Goblin front man Claudio Simonetti is pretty good,but the story is painfully stupid.The script by Franco Ferrini is ridiculous and it makes no sense,the acting is bad and there is absolutely no suspense.The scene in which a prospective rapist of Charlotte Lewis is killed by coins ejected from a subway telephone is more than laughable.Don't waste your time with this piece of crap.There are far better Italian horror movies out there!


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


user
I admit, I was taken in by the provocative stills of Charlotte Lewis from this film, as well as a comment on the IMDb message board devoted to her, calling this picture a "great underrated film". And so I got, with great difficulty, my own copy of "Dial Help".
What a waste.
Nothing but a cheaply-made blood and gore movie with a ridiculous premise which I'm not even going to repeat, with several telegraphed sequences (for instance, when we see Lewis lovingly feeding her fish, we know right away what's going to happen to them later). Not even Lewis, with her beautiful raven hair, large and luminous brown eyes, full and pouty lips, and stunning figure, can save this film. Lewis fans would be better off with "Bare Essentials", "Sketch Artist", or even "Golden Child".


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


user
Well, I was hoping I'd heard wrong about this film as I'm a big fan of Ruggero Deodato and really didn't want to see him slip up; but unfortunately, this Giallo-styled supernatural load of nonsense is just as bad as I'd been lead to believe it would be - and that's pretty terrible! The plot doesn't work at all, as the film attempts to blend murders and a supernatural theme through a telephone and it all feels very forced and silly. Furthermore, the plot doesn't make much sense at all, and you have to ask yourself "what's the point" numerous times throughout the movie. The plot focuses on a young woman living in an apartment block and being terrorised by a telephone. The best thing about the movie is undoubtedly the presence of the beautiful English actress Charlotte Lewis, and unfortunately the good points pretty much stop there. There are a handful of deaths scenes, some of which are gory; but all of which are incredibly stupid, the one that sees someone get killed by coins sticks out especially in that respect. Overall, I really can't recommend this to anyone; non-Deodato fans are unlikely to impressed, and Deodato fans are likely to find the film depressing. Avoid!


assistant
0