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
***LIGHT SPOILER ALERT*** The story sounds good and if you've read the novel, then you're probably expecting a deep and intense movie that could offer some insight for some interesting and insufficiently explored human relationships.
True enough, the script tries to do that, the director tries to do that, but the main cast fails miserably. Maria's acting is so dry that lacks any feeling whatsoever, her most intense moments seem almost comical. Sometimes she seems to be nervous due to the camera. Her only really feeling scene is near the end where she gets dumped by her girlfriend.
Ioana seems even more tense than Maria and even worse, she doesn't seem natural at all. Maria had the attitude, even if it was artificially pushed towards being obvious, but she had it and her character received some credibility. And to make matters worse, we don't have an insight on her: where does she come from, how come she got involved in the lesbian relationship, how did the relationship evolve? We only get some bits from her parents and their relationship just seems to 'be' there: it has a content and and end, but no beginning. Just like her partner Maria, she has only once scene that is truly touching, the scene where she dumps Maria's character Kiki.
Tudor is the only person in this movie (aside from the landlady, great acting there) who manages to prove some acting talent. He has his character's attitude and it fits him. Only once or twice he seems to falter (the scene at his parents' meal, he tries to be obvious when it wasn't necessary at all).
I love the story, Tudor Chirila is OK there, the landlady actually acts and Puya delivers his couple of lines with style, but this doesn't save the movie. Too bad, the entire setting had huge potential and the Romanian cinematography could've used a movie on this theme.
Oddly enough, the incestuous relationship between brother and sister seems to have more credibility than the no-background no-feeling (well, Maria's spoken interludes are a nice try in this direction) lesbian relationship of Maria and Ioana. I'm quite sorry for spending money on a ticket, I'd rather had watched it from the comfort of my room.


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 movie that relies solely on the somewhat controversial image of incest and lesbianism to get noticed.That is it.The dialogs are pathetic and the sensuality of the "sex scenes" is absolutely absent.The acting and the dialog are more suited for high-school children,yet the subject is intended for adult audiences. It is a gutless and shallow movie.It could have been way better if it had a story and more drama. Ah and on top of that, one more thing: why are inner monologues so excessively used? Makes it seem so cheap.All in all an embarrassing movie for Romanian cinema as well as for mature audiences attempting to view it.I know the means are scarce but, that is not always an excuse for a movie flopping as this one does.And please start using some good actors in your movies and stop recycling them from musicians (Tudor Chirila) - they can't act!


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


user
I am not so much like Love Sick as I image. Finally the film express sexual relationship of Alex, kik, Sandu their triangle love were full of intenseness, frustration and jealous, at last, Alex waked up and realized that they would not have result and future.Ending up was sad.
The director Tudor Giurgiu was in AMC theatre on Sunday 12:00PM on 08/10/06, with us watched the movie together. After the movie he told the audiences that the purposed to create this film which was to express the sexual relationships of Romanian were kind of complicate.
On my point of view sexual life is always complicated in everywhere, I don't feel any particular impression and effect from the movie. The love proceeding of Alex and Kiki, and Kiki and her brother Sandu were kind of next door neighborhood story.
The two main reasons I don't like this movie are, firstly, the film didn't told us how they started to fall in love? Sounds like after Alex moved into the building which Kiki was living, then two girls are fall in love. It doesn't make sense at all. How a girl would fall in love with another girl instead of a man. Too much fragments, you need to image and connect those stories by your mind. Secondly, The whole film didn't have a scene of Alex and Kik's sexual intercourse, that 's what I was waiting for. However, it still had some parts were deserved to recommend. The "ear piercing " part was kind of interesting. Alex was willing to suffer the pain of ear piercing to appreciate kik's love. That was a touching scene which gave you a little idea of their love. Also, the scene of they were lying in the soccer field, the conversation express their loves were truthful and passionate.


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


user
Considering that this movie had a serious and quite successful launching campaign, I would have expected something to be worth the fuzz...from the opening scene on (in which the two brothers "sensually" caress each other, laying naked in a bed) it goes rapidly downwards...nothing to get the attention, not a mind-catching thing in the whole plot, baaad baad acting (a few minor exceptions, but artificiality is at its best). Incest and lesbianism are promising themes, but the script analyses none of the two in depth ( mind that a possible excuse of the makers, saying that they aimed for a subtle movie would be hilarious, unless subtle and superficial mean the same thing...). The too curious viewers will not get any interesting scene...at this point, that could have saved some of the movie...so you can imagine how bad it is. Many other things could be said...but please watch the movie yourselves...I am an egoist and I would like as many people as possible to waste about 1 1/2h of their lives...like I did :(


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


user
Yes, indeed, it could have been a good movie. A love biangle, (sorry for the poetical license, but is not a triangle!) an interesting story, unfortunately badly told. The image is sometimes weird, sometimes OK, the picture looks crowded and narrow-sighted. The sound needs more attention (it usually does in Romanian movies), the light and color filters are sometimes badly chosen. The soundtrack is short and is not helping the action. About the acting... sorry but the best actress is the landlady. The others are acting immaturely and cannot convince the viewer. The acting is poetical when it should be realistic, and realistic when it should be poetical. It's a picture for adults, told by the children. Bother only if extremely curious.


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


user
Closer to reality and containing more depth than "Breakdance", Stan Lathan's "Beat Street" is still a pretty dull show. Again this pic is really only cashing in on the 'breakin' craze but at least we get a little bit of entertainment from the plot, which concerns the lives of three young friends and a younger brother, all growing up in Queens, New York. Each has their own unique talent. One is a hustler, one a d.j., another an artist who creates 'burners', while little bro' Lee is a hot 'hip hop' dancer.
Lathan is unable to generate any real audience interest in the story though, and his young cast are likewise struggling with their characters. Therefore it is left almost entirely to the funky music and the 'fresh' dancing to save the day.
Choreography is again sharp for both club and street scenes, but this alone is not enough to lift ""Beat Street" to greater heights. Unfortunately the film really falls flat late on, after showing a glimmer of hope that it just might get interesting.
Sunday, August 25, 1996 - Video


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


user
Hilariously obvious "drama" about a bunch of high school (I think) kids who enjoy non-stop hip-hop, break dancing, graffiti and trying to become a dj at the Roxy--or something. To be totally honest I was so bored I forgot! Even people who love the music agree this movie is terribly acted and--as a drama--failed dismally. We're supposed to find this kids likable and nice. I found them bland and boring. The one that I REALLY hated was Ramon. He does graffiti on subway trains and this is looked upon as great. Excuse me? He's defacing public property that isn't his to begin with. Also these "great" kids tap into the city's electricity so they can hold a big dance party at an abandoned building. Uh huh. So we're supposed to find a bunch of law breakers lovable and fun.
I could forgive all that if the music was good but I can't stand hip hop. The songs were--at best--mediocre and they were nonstop! They're ALWAYS playing! It got to the point that I was fast-forwarding through the many endless music numbers. (Cut out the music and you haver a 30 minute movie--maybe) There are a few imaginative numbers--the subway dance fight, a truly funny Santa number and the climatic Roxy show. If you love hip hop here's your movie. But it you're looking for good drama mixed in--forget it. Also HOW did this get a PG rating? There's an incredible amount of swearing in this.


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


user
Maybe you shouldn't compare, but Wild Style and Style Wars are original Hip Hop. Beat Street does have a lot of the original artists of early Hip Hop, but they've been obviously made clear that this could be their big break, of course for some it was and that's nice. But if you view this as original Hip Hop Culture you're wrong. It's overproduced and has a Hollywood sauce. Rather look for the first two movies i mentioned. They have convey the grittiness that comes with life in the ghetto. Yes, the rating for this movie is low, but the reviews are mostly positive or even raving. This is probably because although the story, the acting, the dialogues and the direction all are dreadful, the music and dancing is what the people love about it. Me, i do love the dancing but at the time thought that electro was the death of Hip Hop (i was so glad when round '86 a new generation of now classic Hip Hop artists appeared, like Krs One, Public Enemy, Ultramagnetic Mc's, Jungle Brothers, Bizmarkie to name a few), and i still don't like most of the beats in this movie and that is why it doesn't work for me. I mean, Wild Style has not much of a story but the music there is great and authentic. Of course tastes differ and that's alright. But as far as i'm concerned, this movie is trash except for the break dancing and some of the music and so i can't rate it higher than a 4 out of ten.


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


user
I could never stand watching Happy Days after Chachi joined the cast, so I knew I was in trouble when the best scene in this movie featured Scott Baio (a skateboard chase scene!). Jodie Foster in her first "grown-up" role turns in her usual professional performance but that is no excuse for this boring mess. Two hours out of my life that I'll never get back! No noteworthy characters, unbelievable storyline, questionable editing and horrendous cinematography but worst of all, I couldn't have cared less. The story of California teens in the 1970's, where the kids live miserable lives and all their parents are idiots. Don't waste your time watching this ugly excuse for a movie.


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


user
Horrible film with bits of the Ramones strewn about. Your worse than average 1970's/80's comedy format of the cool kids taking over the school with some whimsical plan. This movie is terrible. The plot consists of a girl who enjoys the Ramones and a school bent on fighting against their oppressive administration. Forget this movie and watch something like Wild Zero starring Guitar Wolf if you want an entertaining B movie. Terrible acting, terrible writing, terrible plot with the stamp of approval of the Ramones who probably needed some money quick so they said yes to this movie. That is the only logical thing I can think of because this movie blows.


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


user
This movie is a 90 minute Ramones concert with brief periods of stupidity and absolute boredom. What kind of high school is this anyway?
Unless you are a major Ramones fan, DO NOT and I repeat DO NOT waste your time like I did. This is utterly unwatchable from start to finish. This movie should be called Ramone Fever. Everyone appears to like them in this movie. There is not a plot to be found in this flick. As far as teen comedies go, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one.


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


user
I gave this film 2 stars only because Dominic Monaghan actually put effort through in his acting. Everything else about this film is extremely amateur. Everything associated with the direction of this film was very poorly executed. Not only should the director rethink what she is doing for a life career but maybe she should watch a few films. As Dominic Monaghan is a very credible actor, placing him in a film of this caliber makes him look awful. Whomever the "actor" was that played Jack's best friend should never have stepped in front of the camera. I didn't expect much from such a small film, but perhaps a little more time and effort should be put into the characters and their surroundings. Don't waste your time or money on this film (like I did) you will be sorely disappointed.


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


user
I jumped at the chance to view this movie uncut and uninterrupted, remembering rahs and raves for it. But wherever it seemed about to slip into being truly scary, it backed off and went somewhere else. The dripping water throughout the house, the black rain, the prophetic dreams, taking the wrong turn in raw sewage were dropped before they could work up to a scream.
What a disappointment. Chamberlain's nearly expressionless mask of a face offered little but confused disbelief, something I found myself mirroring as the film wore on. What could have been eerie Aboriginal chanting and instruments in the background were instead a cacophony seemingly designed to beat terror into one's head. The ideas that modern people can embody ancient gods, that the Aboriginal peoples believe red-haired white men were the first priests, and many other possibilities are passed along more like a shopping list than a hint at another dimension (the Dream Time).
[SPOILER] In the final scene, it wasn't clear to me what the director was trying to tell. Is there a big wave? So what? How big? A tsunami? Yeah, okay. That's devastating but not apocalyptic. Is it the end of the world? From a wave? The last wave? That'd have to be a pretty darn big wave. Why? Was the world that bad a place? It didn't seem so awful in this movie. Actually I didn't think the wave came off, since the shadow left Burton's face that had been cast by the wave. Was it only Burton's apocalypse? Heck, that happens every day to people who lose it. It wasn't of any interest if it was only him.
The most frightening scene, and the one that gives the best indication of Weir's potential, was in Charlie's apartment where Burton has gone to confront the old man for scaring Burton's wife. Charlie keeps asking him "Who are you?" and it becomes truly disturbing after a while. Unfortunately, the movie never followed suit.


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


user
The perfect murder is foiled when a wife(played by Mary Ellen Trainor, once the wife to director Robert Zemeckis, who helmed this episode), who murders her husband with a poker, has the misfortune of receiving a visitor as she is about to move the body outside..an escaped insane madman dressed in a Santa Claus suit(played by a deviously hideous Larry Drake). She fends for her life while trying to find a way of hiding her husband's corpse. She decides to use an ax, once she downs the Santa killer who misses several chances to chop off the woman's head, to frame the killer for her husband's murder. Santa killer locks her in a closet and pursues the woman's daughter as she tries desperate to free herself to save the child.
This episode of TALES FROM THE CRYPT just recycles tired material involving the old "Santa kills" theme while also adding the oft-used(add nauseum)woman-murders-her-husband-for-a-man-she's-been-cheating-with routine. It's essentially Trainor trying to find a way to avoid being caught with a dead body she kills while also keeping a safe distance from a maniac. There's nothing refreshing or new about this plot which pretty much goes through the motions. Not one of the show's highlights.


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


user
That's not the sound of bees, that's the effect induced by watching this extremely long, extremely boring, badly acted movie. How I ever made it through all 3 1/2 hours without falling asleep I'll never know. The plot is simple...3 thoroughly unlikable morons talk about sex for 3 1/2 hours. And you thought Rohmer was deadly. This is even worse, if that's possible. > I must really be a masochist if I could watch this entire movie without turning it off...or killing someone.


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


user
Iberia is nice to see on TV. But why see this in silver screen? Lot of dance and music. If you like classical music or modern dance this could be your date movie. But otherwise one and half hour is just too long time. If you like to see skillful dancing in silver screen it's better to see Bollywood movie. They know how to combine breath taking dancing to long movie. Director Carlos Saura knows how to shoot dancing from old experience. And time to time it's look really good. but when the movie is one and hour it should be at least most of time interesting. There are many kind of art not everything is bigger then life and this film is not too big.


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


user
That reviewers liked this movie surprises me. The plot is a muddle. The characters are wooden. Michael Bowen spends most of the film spying on the other characters and misjudging all of them. No one has any redeeming quality or point-of-interest. This is not an edgy work. It is not imaginative. It is not ironic. It is no clever. There is nothing straight forward about this tedious work. That is missed theatrical release is not surprise. That the "This Network" airs it diminishes that venue. I definitely recommend turning to a rerun of the Garden Smart show on PBS or even a good informational if you encountered this mess on late night television. If you encounter it on daytime television, take a long walk. Even if you walk in smog, you will feel better not having suffered through this shambles. Life is short. This movie is long.


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 terrible movie, terrible script, bad direction and nonsensical ending. Also, bad performances, except from Clancy Brown who is criminally underused here, and Michael Pollard. Watching this movie was purgatory--you do it to unload enough bad movie karma to actually see a good one further down the line.
The movie presents a father and son who look like they couldn't every possibly have been related. The part of the male lead is not well written and seems uncharismatic in this role. You can see the plot points a mile away. The actions of the female lead and that of her brother, the cop, also make no sense. So, a major action on her part at the end of the movie makes no sense script-wise.


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


user
Burt Kennedy used to be a very good director, but you'd never know it by this lumbering mess. Not only does this film look cheap, it IS cheap--most of the battle scenes are lifted from the far superior "The Last Command" from 1955, and that footage, shot 32 years previously, looks more contemporary than anything in this picture. The few action scenes that were actually shot for this movie are disorganized, confused and incompetent, looking just as shoddy as the rest of the picture. This has the look and feel of a bad student film (and the budget didn't seem to be a whole lot more). It moves like molasses, the acting for the most part is either over-the-top ham or under-the-top comatose--although Raul Julia comes off better than most of the rest of the cast--and it's chock full of annoying historical inaccuracies. On top of that, it's WAY too long. If you're going to make a boring film, do it in an hour or so and get it over with--don't stretch it out over three hours, like this one does. If you want to see a good movie about the Alamo, check out John Wayne's 1960 version, or even the 1955 film from which this movie stole its action scenes. Hard to believe it took six producers to make a movie this lousy. Skip it.


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


user
While being a great James Arness western, this film has gone down as the worst Alamo film ever made. The story was terrible, inaccuracy all through it, and just downright untruths to boot! Continuity was cast to the four winds. Anybody catch the cannon sequence? The Mexicans were dumb enough to fire cannons that obviously had mud and ramrods still sticking out of the tubes. Come on! Then there is Brian Keith's ridiculous hat! Costumer must of been away or something. Or just out of their mind!


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


user
This movie is flawed on many fronts. Like many before it, it portrays more of the mythology of the Alamo than the history. The production is poor, overall giving the impression of a welfare project for lots of actors who might have otherwise had to work on Hollywood Squares. This to me was the greatest flaw - I know the ages and general personalities of the real Alamo protagonists and the geriatric ensemble of TV actors chosen to portray them never let any hint of believability intrude.
As a native Texan, I grew up with the mythology. I later learned more about the history. I can accept a decent production from either perspective (although I prefer more historical accuracy), but this never gave me a chance to enjoy it. Even John Wayne's or Fess Parker's versions had more life than this stolid mess, while being only slightly less accurate.
Very disappointing - avoid it.


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


user
Slow and riddled with inaccuracy. Over-looking its flaws this is still an interesting account of the famed and heroic siege of the Alamo during the Texas fight for independence from Mexico. James Arness as Jim Bowie. Brian Keith as Davy Crockett. Alec Baldwin as Col. Travis. Raul Julia as General Santa Anna. This made-for-TV project also stars David Ogden Stiers, Kathleen York and Jim Metzler. Very good original music by Peter Bernstein.


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, The Alamo:Thirteen Days to Glory, is utter rubbish. The acting is awful, it is far too patriotic and its historical accuracy is not always at its best (Historians would have a field day). It does have a few good moments but not enough to keep interest because it is far too long. Rating * out of **********.


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


user
The story by Norman Maclean is a masterwork; Redford's film is a mediocrity. He adds banal scenes of the Maclean brothers going over a falls and of them double-dating in a seedy bar that were not even hinted at in the story. The cipher, Brad Pitt, trying to play the charismatic Paul Maclean, a genius outdoors, proves either risible or depressing, depending on what the original story meant to you. Some of the fly casting scenes are beautiful. Also, Tom Skerritt as the father and Craig Sheffer as Norman are strong and masculine, as men were once expected to be. None of the women make an impression in the film, which is regrettable, because Maclean loved the women in his story and made this clear, even poetic.


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


user
The only good part about this film is the beautiful scenery. This movie was long and boring. The minister should have retired from the pulpit the time his son Paul strayed from the teachings he proclaimed. How many times can his boys take the Lord's name in vain in this film being from a Presbyterian background? It doesn't fit. I wished Paul was swept down the river without a boat at the very beginning to spare us the silly, smirkish, selfish story of Paul (Brad Pitt). So Norm becomes a teacher and Paul becomes a compulsive gambler who Norm wants to rescue but doesn't-so what. It's very uninteresting. We see the prejudiced whites being stood up to by Paul because of his native American girl. That was the only part that had some interest and maybe could have been developed into a real 'wild western'. What we only see is a sleepy town where the two minister's sons have nothing to do but 1. Norm chase a lame girlfriend and deal with her family and 2.Paul make up dumb stories at the newspaper shop while scratching his head and take a lot of swigs and tie a lot of flies. I'd rather watch a show about fishing that that film again-which will be never.


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


user
... to not live in Montana and especially not to live there at the end of the 19th century.
"A river runs through it" certainly is a well made movie from a cineastic stand-point. Great landscapes, Redford acting well.
Unfortunately, the story is bad (if there is a story at all).
I felt sorry for the narrator / author, who is as dry, narrow-minded a character as his father, a preacher. Being driven, not driving his own life, he is left to watch his brother, who is also caged in the small town environment, losing his life. The author never even comes close to undestand his brother's motivations, but at least realizes, that he is lacking the slightest amount of homour / fun. All there is, is fly-fishing, where he follows even as an old man the style of his father.
The end is not surprising, it is forseeable from the very beginning.
Definitely NOT a must-see (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
I always felt that a good film should have a plot. This particular film was missing one, and I feel that it would have been more effective with a plot. This was made even worse by the fact that it seemed to go on forever; I was anxious for it to finally end. However, I just noticed that it was only 123 minutes long; it felt like four hours. Not only was there no plot but the film also lacked a notable conflict. It's not the worst movie I've seen, but I used to say that it was until I saw "The Fast And The Furious". So, don't think this review of mine is from someone who needs nothing but action. I actually hate most action films out today; it's just that this film is all the way on the other side of the spectrum. Not much really happens in this movie. However, the scenery and costumes were nice.


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


user
This movie has beautiful scenery. Unfortunately it has no plot. In order to have a plot there must be a conflict. This movie had none. It spent two hours painting a beautiful scene and failed to ever place any activity in it. The picture tries to be artistic but fails to pay attentions to the fundamentals of story telling.
If you love Montana scenery and fly fishing you will find some value in this film just don't expect a story. There isn't one.


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


user
This movie has beautiful scenery. Unfortunately it has no plot. In order to have a plot there must be a conflict. This movie had none. It spent two hours painting a beautifule scene and failed to ever place any activity in it. The picture trys to be artistic but fails to pay attentions to the fundamentals of story telling.
If you love Montana scenery and fly fishing you will find some value in this film just don't expect a story. There isn't one.


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


user
Sorry, gave it a 1, which is the rating I give to movies on which I walk out or fall asleep. In this case I fell asleep 10 minutes from the end, really, really bored and not caring at all about what happened next.


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


user
The five or so really good westerns that Mann made are unequaled as an ensemble in Hollywood. Even John Ford never made that many with so much quality. The curious thing about them all is how uneven they are. Ford's My Darling Clementine is worth about two and a half of any of them. Or at least two.
The real hero of them besides Mann and Stewart is Chase. Chase being responsible for the brilliant Red River. Chase wrote far country, bend of the river, and probably some others. But none of them are as finished as My Darling Clementine, but then very few films, western or otherwise are.
Each of the five films of Mann have huge gaps, or is it six, lets see. Bend, Far, Man of the West, Furies, Winchester 73, and yep, six, Naked Spur. Each have magnificent scene after magnificent scene, with fairly glaring lapses. Yet so does Red River, which is still the single greatest western ever made. So perfection isn't everything.
But The Far Country has huge, huge holes. It's mawkish, and really comes alive only when Stewart and Mc Entire are locking horns. The rest is pretty pedestrian, with the usual exception of Mann's camera. Mann's camera is a one man course in cinematography. It is about as good an eye as anybody who ever got behind a strip of moving film. It is almost never in the wrong place, never.
The Far Country has one amazing moment. And as usual it comes from Stewart. Nobody in the history of cinema ever received physical punishment with the authority of that man. He is absolutely amazing: look at him in Bend, Far, Winchester, and Man from Laramie: in Bend has been beaten up and is hanging by a thread so believably and with such boiling hatred he looks like somebody displaced from Dachau, in Far he is shot off a raft with such violence, it looks so convincing that you wince, and of course when he is dragged through the fire in Man, well you find yourself looking for the burn marks. What an actor. Not to mention the moment in Winchester when he is beaten up early in the hotel room, also as well as anybody ever did it.
But that was Mann's territory: look at Gary Cooper fighting with Jack Lord in Man of the West. As painful as any fight scene ever recorded. Cooper while not being quite as convincing as Stewart, nevertheless is somehow his equal in looking exhausted at the end of the fight. In short, nobody but nobody but nobody ever showed the human being in extremis as well as Mann.
What a great, great director.
See every western he ever made. They are his real monuments, even if all are scetchy. But so what. When he gets roaring with his great scenes they are as good as anybody, including Ford. And his six westerns as an ensemble are the best ever done by anyone, period.
Thanks, Anthony.


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


user
Mann photographs the Alberta Rocky Mountains in a superb fashion, and Jimmy Stewart and Walter Brennan give enjoyable performances as they always seem to do.
But come on Hollywood - a Mountie telling the people of Dawson City, Yukon to elect themselves a marshal (yes a marshal!) and to enforce the law themselves, then gunfighters battling it out on the streets for control of the town?
Nothing even remotely resembling that happened on the Canadian side of the border during the Klondike gold rush. Mr. Mann and company appear to have mistaken Dawson City for Deadwood, the Canadian North for the American Wild West.
Canadian viewers be prepared for a Reefer Madness type of enjoyable howl with this ludicrous plot, or, to shake your head in disgust.


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 an action Western. James Steart leads an all star cast in the scenic Northwest, which is filmed in great splendor. The scenery and costumes are great. There is action and adventure. Stewart plays a wealthy cattleman who runs afoul of a crooked government in the old Nothwest.
The main drawback is the stereotypical cynic that Hollywood has always made into a hero. Even when this movie was made, the cynic was the stereotypical hero, and the one Stewart portrays really has few saving graces. He is kind to his two partners, and that does give him an extra dimension of credibility and likability.
However, he is so piggish to everyone else, it is hard to really care for him, or to accept him. He is much like the one dimensional spaghetti Western characters (cut not that bad).
Still, the minor characters are quite enjoyable. Walter Brennan, Royal Dano, Harry Morgan, and others make this worth watching.


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


user
This is the worst sequel on the face of the world of movies. Once again it doesn't make since. The killer still kills for fun. But this time he is killing people that are making a movie about what happened in the first movie. Which means that it is the stupidest movie ever.
Don't watch this. If you value the one precious hour during this movie then don't watch it. You'll want to ask the director and the person beside you what made him make it. Because it just doesn't combine the original makes of horror, action, and crime.
Don't let your children watch this. Teenager, young child or young adult, this movie has that sorta impact upon people.


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


user
Ah, Channel 5 of local Mexican t.v. Everyday, at 2:00 a.m. they air Horror movies from the 70's to early 2000's. It was "Return To Cabin By The Lake" the movie that aired yesterday. I regret for watching it.
The original "Cabin By The Lake" was a regularly popular low budgeter and it was good accepted. The problem is that this sequel is horrible, not even unintentionally funny and tries to imitate the original. Ugh. The plot is really stupid in all the sense of the word.
The movie at some points looks like a soap-opera because of it's absurd dialogs, cinematography, and direction.
My advice is : avoid this one at all costs. It's a movie that it shouldn't be watched by anyone. Not even for lovers of mediocre film-making.
You have been warned.


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


user
Preposterous sequel stretches credibility to a great degree as diabolical sociopath Stanley Kaldwell returns this time infiltrating the movie production of the novel he wrote for the garden drownings, assuming the identity of a second unit director he murdered.
Film pokes gleeful fun at Hollywood, with a tongue-in-cheek script taking shots at tyrannical directors who sleep with their actresses(..looking for a way up the ladder)and dislike anyone challenging them for complete spotlight. Brian Krause, who I thought was dreadful, overacting to the point where the satire felt incredibly forced, portrays the loud, temperamental director who doesn't like the fact that his second unit director and screenplay writer, Alison(..played by Dahlia Salem)seem to be taking over the production. Andrew Moxham is Paul Parsons, who is the brother of a victim from the first film. The film's dark humor this time takes the idea of a serial killer actually operating as director of a movie set and exploits it for all it's worth. Nelson again ably slides back into his psycho role without any difficulty, with Stanley as clever as ever, using his brains to commandeer a film production, killing whoever he has to in order to maintain full control of his work, letting no one stand in his way..that is until Alison realizes who Stanley really is. Alison is the type of ambitious writer who wants to capture the essence of her subject..what motivated Stanley to kill, why would he do such a thing, and what led such a man down this dark path? The humor of Alison actually working with that very man is also part of the satire at the heart of this dark comedy thriller. Of course, you get the inevitable showdown between Alison and Stanley, with a really ridiculous, unbelievable conclusion regarding the killer's fate(..quite a hard pill to swallow). Unlike the first film, which was photographed with sophisticated polish, director Po-Chih Leong uses unnecessary techniques which are not needed(..such as shooting an all kinds of weird angles, slow-motion in a sepia color, and several instances which are captured on video)and rather annoy instead of impress. This sequel, to me, just wasn't on target as much as the original, with a lot of the humor less effective and more obvious.


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


user
Return to Cabin by the Lake just.... was lacking. It must have had a very low budget because a fair amount of the movie must have been filmed with a regular video camera. So, within the same scene - you'll have some movie-quality camera shots AND simple video camera shots. It makes for a very odd blend! I think they should have found SOME way to not do the "home video" type effect!
I think it's worthwhile to see it IF you have seen the original CBTL because then you can compare and see the differences. But if you haven't seen the original CBTL.... you'll never want to see it if you see this one first! It will probably seem way too cheesy and turn you off from even caring about the original one.


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


user
This movie was made-for-TV, so taking that into account, I'm not going to rip into it as hard as I would a feature film. The script is sub-par, but it does succeed in being mildly humorous in spots, whether it means to be or not. The acting is mostly over-the-top, but that is true for many lower-budget movies.
The aspect of this movie that I really hated, though, was that 90-95% of it is shot on film, but in random places, there will be 5-10 seconds where the footage is shot on video. You can tell because there is less contrast, the colors are less vivid, and the footage is clearly 30 frames per second instead of film's 24 frames per second. I'm not sure if maybe these scenes had to be shot later and at that time they didn't have the money to shoot on film (I assume this is why, anyway), but it is disorienting and really makes the film look shoddier than it had to look.
Anyway, I've definitely seen worse movies, but I definitely wouldn't say that I enjoyed this movie and I can't recommend that anyone see it.


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 are planning to see this movie, please reconsider. I don't usually post my comments about something I've seen on television, but this one was such a waste of my life that I needed to do something productive to get that bad taste out of my mouth. Critiquing this movie would take far too long as there are so many things wrong with it. I will just simply say, please do not ever see this movie. It was a complete waste of my time and it WILL be a waste of yours. Anyone that wrote a positive review of this movie is one of two things; utterly inept, or working for the company that produced it. Again, I guarantee that you will indeed regret seeing this movie!


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


user
I saw this on the Sci-Fi channel. It came on right after the first one. For some reason this movie kept me interested. I don't know why, stop asking.
---SPOILERS--- Okay... It was cheesy how this guy got involved with the making of the movie. In the first movie, he had a "reason" to kill people, but in this sequal, half of the killings/attempted killings were basicly for no reason. Stanley killed the director due to creative differences, he captured the co-writer due to creative differences, but what was the deal with trying to kill off the cast? No cast, no movie. He wanted it to "look real when they died"? If this was supposed to be such a high budget movie, use the special effects, MAN. Of course like the first one, the captured girl gets away, and Stanley ends up getting messed up, and dissapears. Woooooow (sarcasm). This movie HAD potential. And the saddest thing of all... the really sad part... I would watch a "Cabin by the Lake 3". Only because I like Judd Nelson, and he's the only good part about this sequal.


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 Cabin by the Lake this afternoon on USA. Considering this movie was made for TV is was interesting enough to watch the sequel. So, I tune in for the airing this evening and was extremely disappointed. I knew I wouldn't like the movie, but I was not expecting to be perplexed by the use of DV (digital video). The movie would have been tolerable if it wasn't for these juxtaposed digital shots that seemed to come from nowhere. I expected the plot line to be tied in with these shots, but there seemed to be no logical explanation. (WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MAYBE A SPOILER!!!!) The open ending in Cabin by the Lake was acceptable, but the open ending on the sequel is ridiculous. I can only foresee Return of Return to The Cabin by the Lake being watch able is if the movie was shown up against nothing, but infomercials at 4 o'clock in the morning.


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


user
A decent sequel, but does not pack the punch of the original. A murderous screenwriter(Judd Nelson)assumes new identities in order to direct his own novel CABIN BY THE LAKE. Still ruthless killing, but movie seems very tongue-in-cheek. Any humor is not of the funny kind. Total project seems to have the quality of a quickie and at times Nelson is way over the top. This movie is about a script being rewritten before going to the screen...this should have happened to this script.


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


user
Return to Cabin by the Lake does not, in any way, stand up to the original. With only one main character (Stanley) returning for the sequal, the film is not even worth the 2 hours of your time. I am a huge fan of the first film, the story line and acting was really good, but this is one movie that I will never again watch. It is basically equal to what the sequals to Urban Legends and Blair Witch were like, but with much worse acting. I've personally seen better acting in soap operas, it is so pitiful that you just have to laugh. I, in no way, recommend this movie to anyone, watching it will just detract from the first.


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


user
I thought Hedy Burress (who managed to escape from the watery grave of part one) was going to be in part 2 Guess not. I just think they should of killed her off like in Friday The 13th Part 2 (you know what I mean).
This movie like Scream 3, and Urban Legend 2 followed movies within a movie.
This was PURE CRAP! The whole Movie within a Movie crap.
BAD STAY AWAY!


assistant
0