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
This move reminded my of Tales from the Crypt Keeper. It has the same sort of idea of people get what they deserve. I think that's always the them in a Crypt story. The same goes for the bad acting. Very bad acting. I enjoyed the movie knowing that most people didn't like it and I wasn't expecting much. Whenever I watch a stephen King movie I don't expect much because all his movies are awful compared to the genius of his novels. I have read The Shining and Carrie and they were great books. I love how Carrie played out like it was a true story and the whole book is a bunch of reports and theories and such. It was so good. But I noticed that both of the novels were nothing like the movies. The endings were very different then the movie versions. I assume from those two novels that all of his novels are changed greatly and the endings are always cheesy. I ending of Thinner is the worst. So Cheesy. I want to read the book to find out the real ending. I suggest everyone who intends to read stephen King's novels to watch his movies before hand so that you may compare. And that way you will be greatly satisfied in the book. I intend on doing so with all his novels that were made into movies. I'm sure if they were made into movies they were real good books... and the screenplay went terribly wrong.


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 one of those who think King is a great writer, his books are fine distractions for a few hours, and often have interesting premises, however they, in my opinion, fall apart pretty rapidly if you give them any serious thought.
This film suffers from being a pretty exact re-telling of King's story. If you have read the book, there are zero surprises, no changes, no altering of scenes or characters. This is a film made by King fans for King fans.
For the rest of us, there is nothing terrible about the film, it is a 'gypsy curse' horror, with its twist being the curse being something many people wish for, to become thinner. The final third has some severe structural problems, and the slightly forced ending seems to break the rules of this genre a little.
There are worse ways to spend 90 minutes of your life, but you might as well read the book, because there is nothing new here...



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


user
I began watching this movie with low expectations, as a matter of fact i only noticed it because it was an adaptation of a S.K. novel ( a novel i never read).
I'm glad my expectations were low because the movie wasn't nothing close to good, but it manages to keep you interested. What really drags this story down is the work done by the director and the actors. The movie is overlong, hasn't no "nice" shots and no scares, the dialogs are dumb and the special effects are crap.
The only things good are that, as i said, it keeps you interested ( i guess the book must be good) without using much horror cliches.
My Vote 4/10.


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


user
To call a movie like "Thinner" bad is like calling the earth round or Pauly Shore un-talented. No news, but how they got that way is what people want to know.
As far as this movie.... The book was good, even if it was a little derivative of other stories from the "be careful what you wish for" genre. Burke plays an overweight lawyer who kills the daughter of a gypsy and is cursed by her father (Constantine from TV's "Room 222") to several pounds a day.
Like I said, it starts out good, but why involve the mobster (Mantegna)? Why fire automatic weapons so much? Why turn it into something so heavily dependent on FX? I thought it would have been much more effective if it focused more on the subtle ramifications of weight loss crazes, diseases, death, gypsy lore and such.
But no, it's not to be. Remember, this is Stephen King we're talking about.
And the ending... almost the same as the book, but a little too talky. In fact the whole movie talks too much, feeling it has to explain every plot turn to us. Not that I expected "The Dead Zone", but I could have done without another "Pet Sematary", thanks anyway.
One star for at least trying to do a halfway decent makeup job. However, the rest of the movie is left to be... say it with me... "Thinner".


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


user
So 'Thinner'... Yep.. This Steven Bachman (read Steven King) yarn about a man who gets his just desserts from a Gypsy Elder who he just killed, The story itself is there, no doubt about it, but I don't know why I didn't enjoy it more than I could have. I guess what really distracted me was the actors. I mean, who's the lead? Robert John Burke? Who's he? And fer crying out loud, can someone please stop hiring Joseph Mantegna for every Italian Mafioso role there ever is? And while we're at it, does every Mafioso have to have a pasta cooking Italian mother? The only good acting job done here is under 10 pounds of makeup, Michael Constantine as the Gypsy elder. He's pretty good. But the rest, I make you all, "better actors..."


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


user
A fun concept, but poorly executed. Except for the fairly good makeup effects, there's really not much to it. There are obvious problems; for example, after taking what seems to be weeks and weeks to get from fat to normal size, the main character seems to go from normal size to deathly thin in days... and once he's deathly thin he stays pretty much equally deathly thin for what seems to be a long time.
In any case, the movie has far worse problems than that--the cinematography is decidedly low-budget-TV-show quality and most of all the acting is pretty awful all around. Robert John Burke seems to always be trying for some kind of weird snarling Charlton Heston impersonation and is literally painful to watch... the only scary thing is that Lucinda Jenney and Kari Wuhrer are both even worse.
The only reason why I'm giving this movie as high as I am is that once the movie enters its last 1/3 or so and Joe Mantegna's character takes over, the movie develops a fun, campy 'cheesefest slaughterhouse' feel, and the gangster's crazy schemes for tormenting the totally obnoxious gypsies are somewhat fun to watch. The ending, if predictable, is also nicely mean. Avoid unless you're a King-o-Phile or are REALLY psyched up at the idea of the voice of Fat Tony from the Simpsons terrorizing a gypsy camp.


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 absolutely terrible. I can't believe I paid to see it in the theatre. I wouldn't watch it on free cable t.v. I'm surprised that Joe Magtena even made it. Do not waste your time with 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
It seems to me that Stephen King's "Bachman" pen-name was a way for him to put out some of the grimmer, rawer, more mean-spirited stuff that he wanted to write without 'contaminating' his 'brand name'. If you look back at the "Bachman Books" (Running Man, The Long Walk, Roadwork, Thinner) you notice they have a sealed-in feeling of airlessness and hopelessness about them that is distinct from mainstream King. I realize that we are talking about the guy whose first novel featured a humiliated, blood-covered, emotionally crippled teenage girl slaughtering everyone at her high school prom...but mainstream King always at have characters and plot elements that leaven the grimness of the proceedings a bit, and mostly have endings that offer at least a glimpse of hope and human feeling. Bachman books are just plain mean and always end badly. (BTW, "Pet Semetary" could have easily been a Bachman book if King hadn't revealed the alias by then. And "The Dark Half" seems to be at least partially about his "Bachman" persona.)
"Thinner" was the last Bachman book, and man, with its themes of class warfare, revenge, and death by starvation, it is nasty. So it should be no surprise that the movie follows suit.
What is a surprise is that the adaptation seems to be filmed at a "TV Movie Of the Week" level of talent instead of something worthy of a theatrical release. (These days, something like this would probably go directly to DVD or cable). The makeup work and the striking motif (starving to death in the midst of plenty, a metaphor for the overfed, undernourished American middle class if there ever was one) is all that keeps you watching this misfire.
What went wrong? My first thought is that the director was going for the nasty Bachman vibe, but he also somehow sucked all the interest out of the movie with poor casting choices - the actors here (with the exception of Joe Monetegna) simply can't carry the movie. And then he squished the warmth and life out of the rest of the movie with awkward pacing and scene structure. Plus he couldn't leave the plot alone, and his changes don't really help. The script and dialog ought to work, but mostly the movie just lies there. Everything is muffled, dull, airless, and no fun to watch...with the vivid exception of the spectacle of the main character getting....thinner, and thinner, and thinner.
As other have pointed out, "Thinner" is by no means the worst King movie ever made (or even the second worst). And it does have a dreadful, compelling fascination owing to the theme and the careful makeup work. But first time viewers should approach this one with lowered expectations.


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


user
It's a waist to indulge such great actors in such a weak and boring movie. Besides all the unanswered questions posted in the other comments, what's so difficult about capturing the robbers? Just eliminate the bank workers, see who was at the bank-from all the cameras' footage angles-prior to the robbers entry and you have those extra 4 remaining robbers among the hostages. Where is the suspense every body is talking about? It was so obvious the moment the hostages were asked to change into this identical uniform that they were all going to walk out the front door... seen it many times. At least Mr. Spike Lee could have seasoned the movie with some good music score and artistic shooting. The Movie is not worth it. Pronto!


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


user
My wife and I found this film to be highly unsatisfying. While the plot keeps you interested and busy wondering just what is going on, when you leave the theater, there are just too many loose ends that make no sense at all. (SPOILERS AHEAD) Christopher Plummer, enormously wealthy head of a NY bank has a terrible hidden secret. Profiting from WW II deals with the Nazis and hiding loot stolen from Jews, he keeps the evidence (including diamonds and documents with the Nazi swastika) in a safety deposit box in his bank. Why? If he wants this never to be revealed, why did he not burn and destroy the documents years ago? And the diamonds? Obviously, he does not need them - why keep them rather than dispose of them? How did the bank robbers find out his secret? How did they know to zero in on this very safety deposit box #232? Ace detective Denzel Washington also discovers bank records show SD Boxes No's 231 and 233, but no #232. Curious. He meticulously found time somehow to do an exhausting search of bank records to unearth this one curious fact. All the while dealing with a red hot hostage situation and bank robbers threatening to start executing them momentarily. Wow! Talk about super powers for a detective.
The bank robbers leave behind millions of dollars in loose currency in the vault they have opened. They take only the contents of SD Box #232, ostensibly for the purpose of blackmailing the bank president. This defies any rational attempt at a logical explanation for what the film depicts as a criminal mastermind, or for his henchmen with lesser brains.
Jodie Foster, using her political connections with the Mayor of NYC, gains permission to enter the bank which is under the control of the bank robbers while holding many hostages. She offers the chief bank robber a deal to buy back the documents he now has in hand, but he ain't interested. So what's his point (if any?).
My wife was offended by the arrogance of all the players, Christopher Plummer (Bank President), Denzel Washington (ace detective), and Jodie Foster, crack trouble shooter for high-powered problems.
The last Jodie Foster movie I saw, "Flight Plan", was also riddled with holes that made no sense at all. I thought I liked Jodie Foster, but I will probably avoid her future films.
Now my problem is that I can rarely persuade my wife to go to the movies. I cannot disagree with her on this one ... "A WASTE OF MONEY, AND A WASTE OF TIME." Be forewarned. A well crafted film, fine actors, lousy script writing.


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


user
A yawn-inducing, snail-paced disappointment, Inside Man tells the story of a detective (Denzel Washington) who is under investigation due to his possible involvement in a case of missing money. When a bank is robbed and hostages are held against their will by a mastermind thief (Clive Owen) and his team, the detective is assigned to coerce the thief to surrender  his one shot at proving he is innocent and worthy of his position. Enter a powerful woman (Jodie Foster) with secrets and intents of her own, sent to recover an item from the bank owner's safety deposit box that is stored within the bank, and you have quite the three-way dilemma. Unfortunately, all you get it set-up in the film, and nothing pays off in the end. Denzel Washington is at his most uninteresting in an ineffective and distastefully egocentric performance. The only saving grace for the film is its competent co-stars Jodie Foster and Clive Owen, who are much better than the film itself. In fact, Jodie Foster delivers the most surprising and high-caliber performance playing against type as a ruthless, cutthroat villain of sorts. Clive Owen isn't given much to do besides brood and pose, but the depth of his presence and his achieved acting ability more than make up for his underdeveloped role. It's strange that so much talent is wasted on this film of little impact or interest. You have to wonder what director Spike Lee was thinking while he was creating this film. The most perplexing aspect of Inside Man, however, is how much unwarranted praise it has received. For a film that seemed to have all the makings of a pre-summer blockbuster, this one falls horribly flat.


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


user
Movie: There are some very interesting comments on IMDb about this movie. Its truly awful. Not enough money is spent on the movie and the way Spike Lee has made it, it seems like a combination of an indie film and an action flick. Characters/Actors: Denzel has done "EXACTLY" what he does in every movie, so no surprise there. Here is a little mind game for the readers. Quickly think of 10 Denzel movies. Now count how many of them were in which he played a cop/detective/body guard, whatever. Clive Owen, hmmmmmm, this guy needs a better role on his plate soon. His best performance was I think in "Beyond Borders". Other than that he did pretty much the same thing as he does in every movie as well. His tone and way of talking was very similar to what he did in "Sin City". Surely this guy knows acting, what he doesn't know is better way of choosing roles. He is in desperate need of a better agent. Jodie Foster was brilliant in the movie, if you are watching her for the first time in your life. She has done better. She has had better roles. It so happens in Hollywood that even the biggest stars fall down on their knees and pick up low class roles as Jody Foster did in this movie. Plot: Plot was not confusing, in fact, I could think of such a plot, in fact the whole movie, while taking a dump after a nice big Chinese dinner. I mean come on, ****SPOILER ON THE WAY----> I am sick of the un-necessary Haulocast and the Racism token. The movie is about bank robbers, why put the Haulocast and the Racism in there, nice try playing with people's emotions, worked on anyone? NOT ME. Police let the bank robbers go thinking they were hostages? Riiiiiiight, please, we're talking about US police force and security here. Nobody could find out where Clive was, I mean they didn't find anything different with that room. Who're we kidding? Conclusion: Sure, go watch this movie, if nothing, you'll have a nice time talking to you friends how bad the movie was. At least people won't think you're stupid to go watch this movie because they'd think you went to watch it because it has a big star cast "MISTAKE".


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 dumb movie. Maybe my judgment wouldn't be so harsh if the film didn't promise so much, but I just felt like this movie cheated and played me for a fool at every turn.
I didn't have any beef with the acting, but I thought the characters were awful. The movie starts off with Clive Owen's character telling us what a criminal mastermind he is, and how he planned the perfect bank robbery, something he frequently reminds us of later. Oh yeah, he also tells us he's in a prison cell, although that turns out to be a dumb metaphor. Any idiot knows that the best bank robbery is one where a minimum number of things could potentially go wrong, and you're long gone before the police show up. But Clive Owen's scheme requires hanging around the bank for hours - for no reason but to stalk around and look scary as far as I can tell. He also has to control hostages, negotiate with cops, and most fantastically of all, perform a This-Old-House job on the bank's stockroom and hide out there for a week (I hope he brought enough food, and a bucket to pee in) and then sneak out again. Yeah, that sure sounds like the perfect crime to me, Clive! This plan has so many moving parts that the only reason it didn't fall apart was the screenwriter said so.
And then there are the many unexplained details: Why were the cops so convinced that the crooks had accomplices among the hostages? Who the hell is Jodie Foster's character, and why is she so important that she has the mayor at her beck and call and she doesn't have to tell Denzel Washington her agenda because "it's above his pay scale?" How dumb are these cops that they can't figure out one guy speaking in a foreign language for hours is not the sound of a criminal gang planning a robbery? How did the robbers slip away, and why did Clive Owen stick around for a week? How did they find out about the bank chairman's past, and the number and contents of his safe deposit box? Why the hell would Clive Owen let in Jodie Foster or the cops? Since when do they make toy AK-47s that look real up close? How the hell do you bug a pizza box, anyway? How did Clive Owen manage to sneak out of a secure area of the bank during working hours, undetected? Did this dispassionate criminal really feel bonded enough to this cop Denzel to slip him a diamond?
None of these questions are ever answered. There are films that achieve depth by leaving you to wonder about events that happen off-screen, but I never felt that way about Inside Man. It felt like the scenes that explained these things were cut from the movie, or these questions never had any answers in the first place, and that's weak. Particularly annoying is Jodie Foster's character, who won't disclose what she does, but never seems to tire of reminding us how important she is. We're just supposed to take her word for it, I guess.
The only reason I gave this movie two stars is I laughed at Denzel's "taxi cab" and "pina colada" gags, and at the kid's outrageous video game. Other than that, this movie has no redeeming features.


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 makes no sense at all, there are plot holes big enough to drive enormous NYPD vehicles through. The characters do not act in any plausible way whatsoever. I will put my comments in the chat board, but save your time and money, this is stupid. I can't stand when Hollywood spends millions of dollars on flash bang equipment and uses fancy editing and cool music, and does not bother to have a plot that hangs together at even the most basic level. But it is nice to see Denzel W. prevail over the Man, who comes in 3 flavors, Jodi Foster, Mayor Bloomberg and Capt. Von Trapp. There is even a sweet little kid with a video game who is nice.


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


user
Three story lines and not enough tying them together, "Inside Man" was very jumpy and an incomplete attempt to be artistic and realistic. Though having its moments, the movie started off looking like a fast thriller which quickly grounded to a slow crawl, jumped quickly between highs and lows, and only barely picked up steam again near the last 20 minutes. I will give credit to Denzel Washington, he played his part extremely well with a full grasp of his human side and not just the typical "super-detective" with all the answers. Clive Owen also did quite well with his duality part as "evil genius" and "criminal mastermind" (both not the same in retrospect). Overall though, each person individually created a great sub-section. Yet, when the parts finally came together and everything counted, there was no sudden "ah-ha!" or summation of everything. It all ended up with very little of the energy it began with, with a lot of plot-holes, tons of questions, and as I said earlier, no where near Spike Lee's normal level. I have to completely disagree with the so-called "professional critics"... this is not the movie they play it up to be.


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


user
Now isn't it? Considering all the good work done by danzel,Clive and Jodie, the movie never grew into something more than a horrible die-hard/heist movies copycat. Yes a couple of jokes, no absolutely no unpredictable twists, to be honest the only unpredictable moments are there because both director and editor made some stupid mistakes, it is a shame for them and a waste of time for us. IF someone can tell me why on earth were they digging a hole inside that safe, who the hell is the Rebe and how on earth did they know that the diamonds were in the particular cell, it could just make my day, but it seems that Spike asks us to take too much things in this one for granted, and do not raise our eyebrows when something looks stupid...its just another studio contract movie relax and enjoy...


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


user
The trailers for this film were better than the movie. What waste of talent and money. Wish I would've waited for this movie to come on DVD because at least I wouldn't be out $9. The movie totally misses the mark. What could have been a GREAT movie for all actors, turned out to be a B-movie at best. Movie moved VERY slow and just when I thought it was going somewhere, it almost did but then it didn't. In this day and age, we need unpredictable plot twists and closures in film, and this film offered neither. The whole thing about how everyone is a suspect is good, however, not sure if it was the way it was directed, the lighting, the delivery of lines, the writing or what, but nothing came from it. Lot of hype for nothing. I was VERY disappointed in this film, and I'm telling everyone NOT to see it. The cheesy saxophone music throughout made the film worse as well. And the ending had NOTHING to do with the rest of the film. What a disappointment.


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 had so much potential - a strong cast, a reasonably strong idea and clearly a decent budget. I'm not sure where it all went wrong, but each of those elements was wasted. The story went nowhere, the characters were hollow to say the least and the result was a very boring, pointless, waste of a film. I hated it. Judging by the other votes, I'm in the minority here and must be some sort of freak. However, I thought this movie was dreadful. I had high hopes, but was very disappointed. A particular disappointment was Jody Foster's character. A very cocky "fixer" of sorts makes a nice idea. Jody was confident and sexy, but the character did nothing and went nowhere. Denzel Washington played the same character he always plays - enjoyable but nothing new.


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


user
First, this film is not a "thriller." Neither is it "gripping, taut." It might have been so based on the script, but the direction's slow pace makes it difficult to get into.
The plot itself is very interesting and ingenious. Unfortunately, we only get a sense of *how* ingenious after the picture is over. That leaves us with over two hours of long sequences with music playing over them punctuated by some action scenes that don't grab the viewer, and "cunning vixen" scenes that inject a little more overt intelligence.
I wish this had been the fast-paced thriller the box promised. It would've been an outstanding film. Instead, Spike Lee made it plod along through the end.


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


user
For me an unsatisfactory, unconvincing heist movie. With an A-List cast, particularly the three leads and an experienced maverick director like Spike Lee I was expecting far more and in the end felt that what was delivered added little to this movie sub-genre. For a start I didn't like the pacing of the film, starting off with mastermind Clive Owen's raison d'etre piece to camera, unnecessarily repeated at the conclusion, then finding the narrative peppered with confusing, not to say unreal-seeming witness interviews, then finding yourself jumped into scenes you sense had begun earlier. Of course the camera work is fluid throughout, constantly on the move and incorporating hand-camera shots a-plenty, but director Lee fails to deliver thrills or suspense, falling down fundamentally by not making anything of the key protagonists in the film. Denzel Washington is weighed down with the clothes and bad-ass jive talk of a "Shaft" movie thirty - five years earlier (he even has that "no-one understands him but his woman" thing going on, replete with his "hot" girlfriend, baiting her with some downright crude and inappropriate "dirty-talk") and his mild "In The Heat Of The Night" riff with Willem Defoe (in almost a bit-part) raises barely a ripple. Clive Owens plays his character with a resolutely English accent even as we're given to believe the gang is Arab-based, also hindered by having to play 90% of the film with a mask over his face. Jodie Foster delivers another of her patented tight-lipped, ice maiden, sub-Clarice Starling turns as a well connected financial bounty-hunter, if you will, to little effect. Overall it's a real mish-mash of a film, with a light but obvious twist at the end, in fact the title gives it away from the start, spoiler fans. Worst scene (of many) is undoubtedly Washington's witness-interview, unbelievably, with an 8 year old street-kid, although Owen's dialogue with the same child minutes earlier runs it close in the embarrassment stakes. During the film in-joke references are made by characters to classic heist films like "Serpico" and "Dog Day Afternoon" - but there's no honour in self-praise. More like "The Hot Rock" instead...and even that was good for a few laughs.


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


user
This was talked about to death by the critics when it honestly isn't that great. Sure, "CHAOS" and "INSIDE MAN" are literally the same movie, just with variations in suspense. But I found "CHAOS" more enjoyable because it was fast paced kinda like the silly film "Swordfish." The reason this film is more popular is because this got released in the States and "Chaos" was aired all around the world at film festivals and foreign theaters, but has yet to find a distributor in the U.K. and U.S.A.
It's true that this film makes lots of tributes to classic films like DOG DAY AFTERNOON and other Spike Lee films, but that doesn't mean that it is a pleasant film to watch.
Watch it if nothing else is on T.V., but you'll probably get bored with after awhile.


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


user
No movie with Madeleine Carroll in its cast could possibly be unwatchable. That said, I have to add that this British film comes close. The story takes place on board the `SS Atlantic' and it's loosely based on the `Titanic's' unfinished voyage. The word `unsinkable' is spoken, the liner strikes an iceberg, and we hear a heavenly choir sing `Nearer My God to Thee.' The doomed passengers eventually take over the anthem, in a clever bit of sound work. But the year of the film's release (1929) means that a modern viewer has to accept otherwise primitive sound and many of the acting conventions of silent films and the stage. These aren't problems. The film's major flaw is pacing, and pacing had been well developed in silents. However, if the dialog were delivered at a realistic speed, the movie's running time would be cut in half. The intended effect was drama (and clarity in a new medium), but the result unhappily is tiresome now. The film's structure is preposterously illogical and inept. Paradoxically, I found certain details of the editing quite modern in technique: fine, abrupt cuts from one area of the ship to another, sometimes even on sound effects. Although we're on board the `Atlantic' from the first shot, we were well over 4 minutes into the movie before I discovered that fact. There are long, intrusive musical passages by the ship's dance orchestra. (Entertaining, easy sound.) Personal stories are presented in an utterly uninvolving and unconvincing way. Don't even think of spectacle. The berg is a tiny thing and the exterior damage it does to the ship's hull is a minor dent. However, the scenes of passengers swarming into the lifeboats - clearly staged on a real liner, presumably tied up to a dock - generate great excitement. Other than the glorious Miss Carroll, these sequences are the film's only points of excellence. As the movie and the ship near their end, the screen goes totally black several times when the power generators begin to fail. Their last, eternal blackout is the end of the film, with a sunset/sunrise tacked on, a clumsy symbolic effect. `Atlantic' is a cinema curiosity. At best.



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


user
Yes I know "talkies" had just been invented for the cinema 2 years earlier when this was produced in 1929 but this film showed that much had to learnt about the art of producing films.It comes over as a filmed "hammy" stage play with the actors melodramatically enunciating their lines,rolling their eyes, using too many pregnant pauses and using gestures more appropriate to silent cinema, which I suppose was normal during the process of educating them to appear more naturalistic on screen.The gaps between lines spoken should have been tightened up during editing as it considerably slows the film.It is now only of interest for Titanic buffs who want to see an early example of this marine accident on film.In next chronological order they could see "Titanic" (1953) A Night to Remember (1958)"Titanic (1997), to see how the cinema's depiction of this tragedy as evolved over the years.There have been many documentaries and TV films made including the atrocious "SOS Titanic" (1979) On my version which is a DVD, David McCallum gives the introduction.It was he who played Harold Bride Marconi's junior wireless operator in "A Night to Remember"(still the best feature film - please read my "Tribute to Walter" comments on IMDb under Howard Morley.demon.co.uk)and gave the commentary on the series of 4 videos entitled "End of a Dream" so he was well qualified to give the narration.Of more interest I found was a recording accompanied by actual photos of the 1912 US Senate hearing which is also on the DVD.Actors speak the actual words spoken by Lightoller 2nd officer, J Bruce Ismay,Managing director of White Star, Harold Bride and others including Gloria Stewart (The "old Rose" in Titanic 1997) whose voice is used for one of the first class women survivors.


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 a Motion Picture Production major at Wright State University in Ohio, and yesterday I was sadly given the opportunity to watch this god-awful film in class. We were informed by our professor that it would be very funny to us, but the reason we were watching it was because it was one of the first sound films - a complete disaster.
The problem with early sound films was that Hollywood actors only knew how to do silent movies and they weren't good at memorizing lines. So producers and directors would look to the stage to get actors. Sounds like a great idea, right? Well, the kind of acting one does on stage doesn't show up too well on film. Most of the actors in "Atlantic" look and sound like they're acting in a play, which results in lots of hearty laughs at the over-acting. Another limitation of early sound film was the technology of microphones. You couldn't move the mikes like you can today, you had to keep them static or it would pick up the sound of air moving through. There was usually one mike used in any given scene in this movie. In one particular scene, there is a man sitting at a table. Someone walks right up to him and delivers their line, then walks away. Another actor comes up from behind him, delivers their line, then walks away. It goes on like this for a couple more people. The microphone is obviously right by the man at the table, making for a laughable actor carousel.
Those are only technical problems. If you get into the story and direction, then it gets even worse. The story is a fictionalized account of what happened on the Titanic. The characters are unbelievable and pointless. A "story" about a man cheating on his wife and their teenage daughter has no place in the movie. It is barely resolved and leaves you wondering why it was there in the first place. A lousy attempt at high drama, the actors take long, pregnant pauses between lines many times. It is tiresome, and you can't wait for this 90 minute (feels like 180 at least) movie to get over with. I'm not going to talk a whole lot about the issue of racism at this time in our country, but it really offended me that there were only two blacks in the whole movie, and they were portrayed as animals. They both pushed past the women and children to try and get in one of the lifeboats. They were ordered to stop or be shot, and of course they didn't so they were shot. I was appalled.
I give this movie a 2/10. I would have given it a 1/10 (the lowest rating possible), but I gave it an extra point just because it was one of the first sound films, and I tried to put it into context. If you want to see a good early sound film, check out Alfred Hitchcock's "Blackmail" that also came out in the year 1929. You will find that the best directors were able to adapt to new technology immediately.


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


user
1st watched 5/17/2002 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Ewald Andre Dupont): Fairly lame account of the Titanic disaster is the first filmed version of this much-heralded event. The replication of the disaster is not bad, but the drama around it is at some times silly, badly acted and way-too soap opera-like. The story is very much the same as the most recent Oscar-winning one except that we are shown how the crew tried to hide the actual disaster that was occurring until almost too late. Good for nostalgia purposes only and to get a feel for what James Cameron was competing against(barely) in his recreation.


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


user
Three writers made a valiant attempt to adapt Jane Stanton Hitchcock's novel for the tube, yet this television movie has ultimately been injected with too much melodrama and just doesn't know when to quit. Struggling artist Meg Tilly suddenly finds herself employed by wealthy, enigmatic Ellen Burstyn, who desires a mural painted on the walls of her unused ballroom. After learning about the last gathering held there--Ellen's daughter's coming-out party--Tilly decides on her artistic theme, never dreaming the daughter died mysteriously before the function even began, nor that she and the deceased bore a striking resemblance to one another! Two superb actresses lend their services to an incredible yarn which doesn't bear close scrutiny, one that fails to match either lady in emotional intensity. Burstyn's role teeters on camp, while Tilly gets stuck doing the dreamy-eyed-waif routine. Only one sequence late in the film (the morning after the mural is finished) is charged with honest feeling, anger and betrayal. The rest is piffle.


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


user
Need I say--its a stinker! (I gave it a rating of 2)
Only watch it if you suffer from insomnia.
There's plenty of scenery chewing and hamming it up, but not much else happens in this movie. There is no suspense, no deep, shocking secrets revealed, no real threat to the heroine's well being. A few disagreements, slight raising of voices--that's pretty much it. The secrets are nothing that couldn't happen to anybody - the last "secret" revealed in the film is totally predictable by that point.
The plot, such as it is, revolves around a young woman named Faith (Meg Tilly), who is an artist, who is hired to paint a series of mural panels in a huge ballroom in a vast mansion by a very, very wealthy, older widowed woman, and a growing mother/daughter type relationship that the older woman craves with her.
It turns out the older woman's daughter, Cassandra, is dead. You can pretty well fit the rest of the pieces together.
Even the scene with the mysterious man menacing our heroine does not advance to the point where you really fear for her safety beyond maybe a second or two. Why he's still hanging around years after Cassandra's death is a good question.
There's also the question of the fact that in this vast mansion there is only one servant, a faithful butler who seems to do everything--cooking, cleaning, serving the meal, answering the door, etc. Everything except apparently locking the door--since that would be the only explanation for how one of the characters just walks into a room where Faith is.
There's nothing that will have you grasping your chair arms, and leaning forward on the edge of your seat, because there IS no "mounting" tension in this film--just bland, pathetic revelations that get tossed out from time to time.



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


user
I suppose it's nice and trendy to see wonderful things in the absolute emptiness of a film like this. With the sometimes pointless excesses of many Hollywood films, we can relax and enjoy a scene devoid of explosions, foul language, and corny one-liners. Minimalism has its place, and can be very effective when employed properly. However, this film is not one of those cases.
Take the long scenes with no dialogue and dreary, sparse scenery. I'm sure that they must hold some great meaning and insight, because the implied message in shrouded in bafflement. The acting is poor... bland and pedestrian... and features one of the worst crying scenes in history (at the end of the film, if you can sit through it to the end). The scenery is drab, and the ridiculously long ending sequence of the girl walking through the barren park is as pleasurable as having a tooth pulled. I would call this anticlimatic, but as the film didn't build to any sort of climax whatsoever... not even in the "erotic" scenes... it would be untrue. I'm sure that there was a script employed during the filming, but with the amount of dialogue, I think it might have been written on a cocktail napkin. Basically, this film offers nothing to interest or amaze... no great story, no stunning insights, no visual drama, no excitement. Apart from two or three amusing moments, this film is a waste of two hours. A tragically boring and dreary film.


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 pretty landscape shots. Writers putting trite mouthings into actors mouths. With lesser actors this show would be silly. 'Art must uplift humanity or it's BS.' Not so because art of all those mentioned is also to stir humanity and express the dark side. The lead character even says those who don't drink hide the shadow side. Wrong , he lived in darkness and repressed his dark side by drinking and being one dimensional not expanding his horizons with something other than landscapes. There wasn't a breathing organism in his work nor expression of his pain. All the artist did was limit himself to dime a dozen landscapes. The discussions between the characters was grade school, trite stuff always giving the one character the upper hand the writer wanted. I tried to like it after reading all the first wow comments on here. I had to dig deep to see those i agreed with. I figure the great comments were from those connected to the movie. I was moved only once towards the end. The kid was way too passive. The scenery was nice and the music ridiculous. Just my opinion but nowhere show for me.


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 a major disappointment on direction, intellectual niveau, plot and in the way it dealt with its subject, painting. It is a slow moving film set like an episode of Wonder Years, with appalling lack of depth though. It also fails to deliver its message in a convincing manner.
The approach to the subject of painting is very elite, limited to vague and subjective terms as "beauty". According to the makers of this movie, 'beauty' can be only experienced in Bob-Ross-style kitschy landscape paintings. Good art according to this film can be achieved by applying basic (like, primary school level) color theory and lots of sentiment. In parts the movie is offending, e.g. at a point it is stated (rather, celebrated by dancing on tables) that mentally handicapped people are not capable of having emotions or expressing them through painting, their works by definition being worthless 'bullshit' (quote).
I do not understand how the movie could get such high rating, then again, so far not many people rated it, and they chose for only very high or very low grades.


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


user
As gently as I can, I sincerely believe this movie is a waste of time. I did not find it the 'warm, emotionally satisfying' film others did. I found it boring, with music that distracted from the film. The story was thin, the characters overdrawn, and the direction pedestrian.
Fooey.
Now I'm going to write some more about this movie, so I make the 10 line minimum. There really isn't more to be said and brevity is important, but IMDb has its minimums, so here goes.
Young eager kid finds nascent talent, seeks time with aging, embittered mentor in spite of father's cartoonish homophobia. Aging, embittered mentor turns out to drink a lot and teach very little. conflict arises. While I don't think this is a spoiler, I've added the warning in case someone feels this much information is too much.
Mostly, I just found the film boring and pretentious. A waste of my time. I honestly don't understand what little fuss there seems to be, mostly on this web site, about the transcendent quality of this movie. I think it's really worth avoiding. But, as Dennis Miller used to say, "Maybe I'm wrong."


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


user
I enjoyed the movie very much, emotionally, intellectually, and visually. It contains no violence or sex or drugs or special effects, and doesn't need them one bit, holding my attention the entire time with the visuals, story, and interspersed words of wisdom.
However: [1] some of the foreign language accents made the dialog difficult to hear & understand; [2] there is unnecessary overuse of swearing (especially the F-word, which is the only reason this movie was rated R). [3] The movie is balanced with humor and emotion, but most of the emotion that holds you throughout the film, except the final resolution last minutes, is unpleasant due to the exaggerated long-lasting dysfunctional reaction of some of the characters to loss, living in the depths of bitterness and depression for too long. [4] I will not recommend this movie because of 5-seconds of background narration, which did not add one bit to the side-character it applied to, or the film -- it only turned me off to the movie and stuck in my brain through the whole movie and afterward: the main character's mother of German ancestry, when watching old WWII movies, "secretly roots for the Germans." There would be no "local color" or art if the Nazi's won the war. I don't know of any Germans today except radical skinheads who think the world would be a better place if the Nazi's won WWII.


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


user
I wanted so much to enjoy this movie. It moved very slowly and was just boring. If it had been on TV, it would have lasted 15 to 20 minutes, maybe. What happened to the story? A great cast and photographer were working on a faulty foundation. If this is loosely based on the life of the director, why didn't he get someone to see that the writing itself was "loose". Then he directed it at a snail's pace which may have been the source of a few people nodding off during the movie. The music soars, but for a different film, not this one....for soap opera saga possibly. There were times when the dialogue was not understandable when Armin Meuller Stahl was speaking. I was not alone, because I heard a few rumblings about who said what to whom. Why can't Hollywood make better movies? This one had the nugget of a great story, but was just poorly executed.


assistant
0