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 film was the first British teen movie to actually address the reality of the violent rock and roll society, rather than being a lucid parody of 1950s teenage life. In an attempt to celebrate the work of Liverpool's Junior Liaison Officers the opening title points out that 92% of potential delinquents, who have been dealt with under this scheme, have not committed a second crime. However, this becomes merely a pretext to the following teen-drama until the film's epilogue where we are instructed that we shouldn't feel responsible or sorry for such delinquents however mixed-up they might seem.
Stanley Baker plays a tough detective who reluctantly takes on the post of Juvenile Liaison Officer. This hard-boiled character is a role typical of Baker. Having been currently on the trail of a notorious arsonist known as the firefly and does not relish the distraction of the transfer. However, as in all good police dramas he is led back full circle by a remarkable turn of events, back to his original investigation.
His first case leads him to the home of two young children, Mary and Patrick Murphy (played by real-life brother and sister duo), who have committed a petty theft. Here he meets Cathie (satisfyingly portrayed by Anne Heywood) their older sister whom he eventually becomes romantically involved with. It quickly becomes obvious that the squalid environment of such inner-city estates is a breeding ground for juvenile delinquency.
The elder brother of the Murphy family, Johnny, is the leader of a gang of rock and roll hoodlums. McCallum does an eye-catching turn as the Americanized mixed-up kid, who owes more to the likes of Marlon Brando, than any previous British star. One is reminded of Brando's character Johnny from 'The Wild One' who led a leather-clad gang of rebellious bikers in much the same way as this film's 'Johnny' leads his gang.
Thankfully the preachiness of earlier Dearden crime dramas such as 'The Blue Lamp' is not so apparent. Instead we are presented with several well drawn-out characters on both sides of the law as the drama of the delinquents and the romantic interest between Heywood and Baker takes the forefront.
The plot, whilst at times predictable, does deliver some memorable scenes. The disruptive influence that rock and roll music was thought to have had is played out in a scene where Johnny abandons himself to the music, leading a menacing advance on the police sergeant. The most grippingly memorable piece of film however is the climatic classroom scene where a bunch of terrified school children, including Mary and Patrick, are held hostage at gunpoint by Johnny. Obviously in the light of the real-life Dumblaine Massacre this scene seems all the horrifying. Understandably because of this the film is seldom aired or available to modern audiences.


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


user
This film was shot on location in Gerard Gardens in Liverpool, and was the UK's answer to films such as 'Blackboard Jungle'. The film stands the test of time quite well, with all the moral stories still (or even more) relevant today. The film feature some fine performance from some notable British actors such as David McCallum, Stanley Baker, Peter Cushing and Anne Heywood. Baker plays a Liverpool cop assigned to juvenile liaison duties, with the premise that if you catch the kids at an early age, they will end up being responsible adults.
Notable cameos in the film include Freddie Starr (Fred Fowell) and Melvyn Hayes (Gloria). Tsai Chin and Michael Chow play brother and sister (they are real life brother and sister) who are caught up in an arsonists web. Tsai Chin is still acting and can be seen in the latest Nicole Kidman film 'The Interpretor'.
Violent Playground features a gun siege in a school, so is unlikely to be shown on TV following similar events in Scotland / Russia.
I lived in Gerard Gardens where the film was shot (though was not born at the time), and have fond memories of the area. I have recently completed a documentary on Gerard Gardens which includes extracts from 'Violent Playground', and a small UK film 'Coast to Coast' which stars Lenny Henry and Pete Postlewaite. The tenements were demolished in 1987 and the films go some way in keeping the memory alive.
There were some complaints from the residents when the film was released, as the film portrayed the area in a bad light. Time has helped heal those wounds.
A little gem of a film, I would recommend you seek this out


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


user
I've long wanted to see this film, being a fan of both Peter Cushing and David McCallum. I agree that the romantic sub-plot was a waste of time, but the talent of McCallum shines through this juvie role. Thank heavens for Turner Classic which aired the show last week. I can imagine that there were lots of problems with children after the war, especially with the way things were throughout the 1950s. Some of the boys are a bit scary. I certainly wouldn't want to met them on a well-lit street, much less a dark one. There were some good insights regarding the feelings of a firebug as well, or as they call him, a firefly.


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


user
I don't agree with one of the reviewers who compared this film to the American International Pictures. Basil Deardon has directed a brutally realistic film with an honest attempt to portray the rise of juvenile delinquency in post war England (but without the sentimentality of "Blackboard Jungle"). The cinematography was excellent as it really captured the scariness and isolation of the huge housing estate. The estate looked like an old prison. Stanley Baker was excellent as the hardened detective, reassigned to the juvenile division - "Urgent, urgent - Larceny - five iced lollies"!!!! He finds he is the butt of many jokes. David McCallum showed that he was one of Britain's top young talents of the fifties. (He had a very different role in another Stanley Baker film "Hell Drivers"). His portrayal of Johnny and the fanatical following he inspired was very frightening. Ann Heywood was also very good as the cynical Cathie. I wouldn't say there was a romantic subplot in it.
Detective Jack Truman is investigating a string of arson attacks by someone labeled the "Firefly". Just as he finds evidence which could lead to a breakthrough, he is assigned to the Juvenile Division - he is pretty disgusted at what he feels is not proper police work. Amid all the heckling he gets his first call out - the 6 year old Murphy twins are working a scam at the local lolly shops!!!
Taking the twins home he meets their brother, the charismatic Johnny, and their embittered sister Cathie. He starts to appreciate how life on the ghastly housing estates can turn young kids into criminals. As he gets more involved with the family, he realises there is a strong link between the fires, Johnny and a frightened Chinese youth who works for a laundry. The local priest (Peter Cushing in an unusual role, away from the Hammer horrors) explains that when Johnny was younger he had rescued some people from a burning building and had been hailed a hero. He wanted to recapture the feeling of importance and being useful and felt he could by lighting fires. The school siege was filmed in a very real way and the viewer felt the children's fear - the teacher (thinking only of her own safety) runs off and locks them in the room with the frightened gunman!!!!
I thought it was a really excellent film that tried to show some of the social problems Britain experienced after the war.
Highly Recommended.


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


user
hi for all the people who have seen this wonderful movie im sure thet you would have liked it as much as i. i love the songs once you have seen the show you can sing along as though you are part of the show singing and dancing . dancing and singing. the song ONE is an all time fave musical song too and the strutters at the end with the mirror its so oh you have to watch this one


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


user
Anyone who has seen this movie and reviewed it poorly, I would refer them to Roger Ebert's review of this movie. He is one of the most respected Critics in the industry, and he gave it 3 1/2 Stars.
This is a great movie. It may not be perfect, or spectacular, but I enjoyed it. A Chorus Line is not so much a story, as it is a group of stories about the lives of Broadway hopefuls. I read reviews where people said that too much time was wasted on the romance between Zach and Cassie. That is an incorrect view. It is another story along with all the other stories that are told about each of the Broadway hopefuls. What people fail to realize is that those who are dancers for Broadway shows go through the same things that the common man goes through. And that I think is really the point of the whole show. It is to showcase not only the talent of these special dancers, but to give us some poignant things to think about in regard to life in general. This is a study of life as a Broadway star. Anyone who has dreamed of becoming a Broadway star watches this movie with a great feeling of relationship because they have gone through exactly what the characters are going through.
This is a great musical. It has its slow points, and at times gets a little confused with the pacing of certain story lines, but all in all, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Take a closer look at the movie, and then maybe you will understand what I am talking about.


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


user
I love this movie. I mean the story may not be the best, but the dancing most certainly makes up for it. You get to know a little bit about each character the way THEY want you to learn about them. I just think that you won't like this movie unless you're into Broadway...


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


user
This is a great film!! The first time I saw it I thought it was absorbing from start to finish and I still do now. I may not have seen the play, but even if I had it wouldn't stop me thinking that the film is just as good.


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


user
This movie will always be a Broadway and Movie classic, as long as there are still people who sing, dance, and act.


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


user
As many reviewers here have noted, the film version differs quite a bit from the stage version of the story. I have never seen the stage version of the story, and therefore I have a more favorable review of the film than many other reviewers. Perhaps Richard Attenborough was not the best choice for director of the film, but the film is still an entertaining account of several dancers trying to make the big time in choreographer Michael Douglas' show. The film does right by not selecting any famous actors or performers to wind up in the final try-out group. This way our attention is focused on the dancers' movements and individual stories and struggles as they unfold during a marathon day of try-outs. Douglas is also probably not the best choice for the part. Apparently some songs were cut out in favor of a new one, and the backstage cliché-ridden story of a romantic liaison between a dancer and the choreographer was added. I have to say in all fairness this was the weakest part of the film. The repeated intrusions Cassie made during try-outs appear to mirror the almost desperate pleas one often has to make when engaging in the artistic professions in the absence of talent and/or luck. However, this aspect of the film has been done to death in the past, and it's curious to see this tired old shoe kicking its heel up once again. The revelations of the dancers themselves began promisingly enough with the "I can do that" number, but then it plodded a little at various points while the dancers were telling their stories. Frankly, their stories differed little from real life folks who never get a chance like this. *** of 4 stars.


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


user
I watched this movie after seeing it on Broadway. I love the Broadway musical and I love the movie. I watched the movie like it was not related to the Broadway show. I am an avid reader and have seen what happens to most books when they are turned into movies, so I developed a philosophy really early. Assume that the movie is going to be based on the book ( or musical in this case) but that while the story line may be similar it will not be the same, it will be different so watch it for what it is.
I danced for 12 years before I had to make a choice. I was a good dancer( picking up chorus work in local productions as a child etc) but I wasn't super talented.I was however super talented as a show rider. I was told by my dance instructor and my trainer ( who i spent several months a year at his farm out of state) that I had to make a choice when I turned 14. That I needed to move up from dancing two hours four-five days a week and riding 3 hours a day 7 days a week.. and dedicate to one or the other. So I dearly love dancing and I love this movie and a lot of the other ballet and dance movies. I just chose to watch this movie for what it is, it is a great movie about raw emotion and human interaction. It is about the power of anticipation and heartbreak when you work really hard to get something you want and you just do not get it. I love the movie. I love the Broadway musical.


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


user
As a disclaimer, I've seen the movie 5-6 times in the last 15 years, and I only just saw the musical this week. This allowed me to judge the movie without being tainted by what was or wasn't in the musical (however, it tainted me when I watched the musical :) )
I actually believe Michael Douglas worked quite well in that role, along with Kasey. I think her 'Let me dance for you scene' is one of the best parts of the movie, a worthwhile addition compared to the musical. The dancers and singing in the movie are much superior to the musical, as well as the cast which is at least 10 times bigger (easier to do in the movie of course). The decors, lighting, dancing, and singing are also much superior in the movie, which should be expected, and was indeed delivered.
The songs that were in common with the musical are better done in the movie, the new ones are quite good ones, and the whole movie just delivers more than the musical in my opinion, especially compared to a musical which has few decors. The one bad point on the movie is the obvious cuts between the actors talking, and dubbed singers during the singing portions for some of the characters, but their dancing is impeccable, and the end product was more enjoyable than the musical


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


user
Does anyone else cry tears of joy when they watch this film? I LOVE it! One of my Top 10 films of all time. It just makes me feel good. I watch the closing production number with all the cast members over and over and over!!! Bebe Benson (Michelle Johnston) is THE babe of the film, IMHO! I never saw the play but I get angry when I read reviews that say the play was better than the film. The two are like apples and oranges. The film making process will seldom deliver a finished product that is faithful to the original work. I believe it's only due to the fear of public alienation that many well known works adapted to the screen aren't changed more than they are. This is a very good film, it is very satisfying. That's all you need to know!


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


user
Here's an excellent Barbara Stanwyck double bill on one disc. The first movie - and believe me the lesser of the two - is MGM's "To Please A Lady" (1950) in which she is paired with Clark Gable. It is essentially a star vehicle with Gable as usual dominating the film with his screen presence. Here he plays a macho racing driver who gets some bad press from feminist reporter Stanwyck and the battle of the sexes begins. Of course after much ado they eventually end up in each others arms and it all comes to a predictable and pleasing close. A bit of a fluff of a move really but Gable and Stanwyck - two icons of the Golden Age - make it watchable!
But the real meat on this DVD is the second feature - a marvellous and quite unknown little thriller called JEOPARDY. Produced by MGM in 1953 this is a wonderful little gem of a movie that hasn't dated one iota! Here Stanwyck plays the wife of Barry Sullivan and mother to their young son Lee Aaker on vacation on a deserted and remote Mexican beach when suddenly tragedy strikes. A dilapidated wooden pier collapses trapping Sullivan under a heavy pylon and guess what? Yes,the tide is coming in. With not a soul in sight and unable to free him herself Stanwyck sets off by car for assistance. After driving some distance the only aid she can muster comes from an unscrupulous escaped convict (Ralph Meeker) who - in return for his help - wants more from her than money or a change of clothes ("I'll do anything to save my husband"). Does she or doesn't she??.
Meeker runs away with the picture! He turns in quite a brilliant performance! Once he comes into the film you simply cannot take your eyes off him! An actor in the smouldering Brando style he surprisingly never made much of his career in films. Although he gave splendid performances as the unsavoury, disgraced cavalry officer in the outstanding Mann/Stewart western "Naked Spur" (1953) and as one of the doomed sacrificial french troopers in Stanley Kubrick's powerful WW1 drama "Paths Of Glory" (1957) his only real claim to fame was as Mike Hammer in Mickey Spillane's "Kiss Me Deadly" in 1955. His performance in "Jeopardy" should have done wonders for him but he had only a so-so career in films. He died in 1988.
Because of this release "Jeopardy" can now proudly take its rightful place as a classic noir. A memorable, taut and exciting thriller thanks to fine performances, tight direction by John Sturges, the crisp Monochrome Cinematography of Victor Milner and an atmospheric score by Dimitri Tiomkin. Extras, however are no great shakes except for a radio version of "Jeopardy" and trailers for both movies.
This disc is also part of a Barbara Stanwyck box set celebrating her centenary. Hard to believe that the lady would be over 100 years old if she was still around!
JEOPARDY - an MGM winner!


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


user
Leonard Maltin must've been watching some other movie. (Though I find his Guide to be quite a valuable resource, please disregard his comments on this one.) He states "starts off well then fizzles" when it's really the reverse - "starts off tepid then catches fire". The plot is about as simple as it gets. Happy Mom, Happy Dad and Happy Son take a vacation at an isolated beach, Dad incapacitated in accident, Mom runs off to get help, meets up with dangerous escaped convict. Mom tries to trick convict into helping while Dad waits and hangs on for dear life.
Good white-knuckler given an electric jolt by Ralph Meeker, appearing suddenly (the director, John Sturges, films it in a clever way that will make you gasp) around halfway through as the cunning, desperate criminal. Meeker is an unusually flippant, reckless actor (at least here and in the classic "Kiss Me Deadly") and he happily snatches the keys to the film's narrative and speeds off with the top down. His character has a habit of grinning childishly and saying "Pretty neat, huh?" when he's especially pleased with his misdeeds. There is a funny break in the action when they get a flat tire and he tersely instructs his hostage, Barbara Stanwyck, "Don't go away". She fires back "Where would I go?" (they're in the middle of nowhere) and he realizes sitcom-ishly "Yeah, that's right". The friction between them is a hoot.
There are flaws, somewhat ridiculous ones. There's one scene where the police, who have been chasing after Meeker for some time, stop Stanwyck's car and to evade detection Meeker rests his head on her shoulder like a loving husband supposedly would, and pretends to be asleep as she's being questioned. A. He looks conspicuously un-masculine in this pose and B. I think it's safe to say that any adult who appears to be asleep during an encounter with law enforcement would certainly arouse suspicion.
Still a sturdy thriller which builds to an exciting and edifying conclusion.



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


user
Jeopardy is a tense, satisying thriller, a cut above a B but not really a major production. It qualifies as almost an experimental film, as the studio that produced it, Metro, was desperately looking for new kinds of films, stars and directors to compete with the then new medium of television. The director, John Sturges, was an up-and-comer whose best years lay ahead. He had just recently begun directing A level films, and had already proved himself a most capable craftsman. Stars Barbara Stanwyck, Barry Sullivan and Ralph Meeker, were at very different phases of their careers. Stanwyck's glory years were behind her, and yet she could still carry a film, as she proves here. Barry Sullivan, as her husband, was one of a dozen or so leading men who got started in films in the forties who never quite achieved the success many had hoped for him. He was a fine, low-key actor, poised, but in an upper middle rather than upper class way, which made him excellent in professional roles. As the escaped convict who is the only person around who can save Sullivan's life (he is trapped under a pier, and the tide is rising), Ralph Meeker is more energetic than usual. This excellent actor had the misfortune of having come to films after Brando and Clift. He was in his way as good an actor as either of them, but he lacked charisma. His bargaining with Stanwyck, which comes down to his demanding sex in exchange for saving her husband (by implication only, as this is 1953), makes for an intriguing premise which, had this been a different kind of film, could all raised all sorts of interesting questions about Stanwyck's character. Meeker is indeed a more exciting character than Sullivan; and in her scenes with him Stanwyck is livelier than she is with her husband and son. But as this is a formula picture, not a Strindberg play, the possibility that Stanwyck might want want to have a fling,--leaving aside the question of her husband's predicament,--remains unexplored. In this sense the incoming tide doesn't quite have the effect one might have wished, though the movie remains tense and highly entertaining thanks to excellent acting, fine location photography, nearly all of it outdoors, and excellent direction by the woefully underrated Mr. Sturges.


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


user
I found this movie to be suspenseful almost from the get-go. When Miss Stanwyck starts her narration it's only a few minutes until you realize that trouble is coming. The deserted area, the lock on the deserted gas station door, everything sets you up to wait for it...here it comes. At first you think it will be about the little boy, but all too soon you start holding your breath watching the tide coming in. I found this movie to be really stressful, even though I had watched it before and was prepared for the denouement. Now a movie that can keep you in suspense even when you have seen it before deserves some sort of special rating, maybe a white knuckles award?


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


user
"I like cheap perfume better; it doesn't last as long..." - Ralph Meeker's convict character (Lawson) tells this to Barbara Stanwyck's Helen character, after he gets a whiff of the perfume that she picked out w/her husband in Tijuana...! This line cracked me up, and also seemed like a metaphor for this film - that cheap is better than expensive, because a cheap perfume-loving man who has a way with a 2 x 4 is a better man to have around in the long run! I agree with some of the other comments posted about Helen's attraction to Lawson. Even though her narration states that she wants Lawson to be put away, she did seem attracted to his fiery nature, and that passion he stirred up in her wouldn't likely wash away with the tide!


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


user
The only time I have seen this movie was when I was 10 years old. I have remembered it all of these years as I couldn't sleep for a week or more after seeing it. It just absolutely rattled me. I was on vacation with my aunts in Ft. Worth, Texas and I will never forget it. Now, 48 years later, my daughter is trying to get a copy of this for me to view as an adult. It has taken a lot of research to find out what movie it was but I always remembered that Barbara Stanwyck was in it and finally was able to get the name and reviews on it. I very much enjoyed it, but it gave me quite a scare! Jaqui


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


user
Jeopardy has the feel of being a stock movie of sorts - one of the movies that the studios pumped out inbetween big budget/box office ones. It's a mere 70 minutes and doesn't feature many sets, and the only star is Barbara Stanwyck. But what a star, of course.
Stanwyck is a tough lady once again as she runs into an escaped convict while seeking help for her trapped husband in the Mexican desert. The majority of the movie is focused on how she deals with her captor, who wants her to submit to him in exchange for his help. Some psychological battling there.
It's a surprisingly effective little movie - its short length makes it taut, and that Stanwyck is great should go without mention (but I'll still praise her every time).


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


user
What a great Barbara Stanwyck film that I happened to see the other night. "Jeopardy" was fantastic. It was made in 1953 and probably for double bills but it kept me on the edge of my seat.
Barbara Stanwyck plays Helen, who with husband Doug (Barry Sullivan) and son (Lee Aaker) drive to an isolated fishing spot in Mexico for a vacation. Husband has a fall from the jetty and the only way he is to be saved is if Barbara drives back to a garage for some rope.
While there she runs into a psychotic killer (Ralph Meeker - one of my favourites) and what follows is a game of cat and mouse as Barbara tries everything in her power to get Meeker to come back with her to free her husband.
The film was so suspenseful and such a surprise - I was not expecting such a great film. But I suppose I should have realized - is there anything Barbara Stanwyck does that is anything less than wonderful?


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


user
It seems to be a perfect day for swimming. A normal family wants to gain advantage from it and takes a trip to the beach. Unfortunately it happens that the father is trapped under a pier and neither his wife nor the small son is able to help him out of this - whereas the tide is rising. The woman (Barbara Stanwyck) takes the car and searches for help.
John Sturges' short movie (69 minutes) is powerful because of unanswered questions. Stanwyck finds a guy who could help, but there is a price she has to pay for this. There is a double question the movie poses. How far would you go to help the man that you love, and on the other hand - observing Stanwyck's behaviors towards the stranger - does she really love her husband? Like a good short story this movie leaves the viewer to himself with questions he can only answer himself.


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


user
The Haunting is a film that boasts a really creepy house, good effects work and sound work, a cast that seems to believe that everything around them is real and that house. There are scenes that make you jump, and the sinister aspects of what went on at Hill House in the past, I found interesting. There are genuinely creepy moments in the film and I liked the way the ghosts manifested themselves in sheets, curtains and the house itself. Jerry Goldsmith's score gave it the right atmosphere and the sound design had voices popping up around you. What I wish could've happened is for something a little more intense. Jan De Bont had a PG-13 rating to contend with and I think that he held back a little too much. Poltergeist scared me silly when I saw it many years ago, and it still holds up. The Haunting could've used a few more scenes of pure terror. The ending was for me, a little anticlimactic. Overall, I enjoyed it. The acting is good and there are moments that make you jump. I just wish it scared me more.


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


user
I know it is fashionable now to hate this movie. I have seen hundreds of spook films including he original 1963 Haunting as well as most of the Hammer films. This film is not restrained and does not hold back at all which is probably why so many modern viewers seemed not to like it. Yet many viewers can accept out of control films like Scream because knife killers are more easy to believe for most people than demons or ghosts. Actually this film had many great scenes and the acting and special effects were great. I have seen it 15 times now and it gets better every time. The director of this film has made a number of interesting and stylish films and was not trying for the type of realism of the 6th sense. The Haunting lets go and is certainly not boring. Perhaps this film might appeal more to John Carpenter fans but more of an traditional plot structure. The old Haunting was also a fine film from 1963. It was even more scary. See both and also The Innocents and The Legend of Hell House with Pamela Franklin.


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


user
I don't know why the critics trashed this movie. I hardly ever agree with them anyway.
The movie could have been a little scarier - I don't usually go to Horror movies! I even had to psych myself up to see it in the daytime. I needn't have bothered! ;) (The Cinema was full of kids too, heh! ;) ... Liam was great as always. I also liked Catharine Zeta Jones (Theo) and Lili Taylor (Eleanor-Nell)
The house was very Gothic and beautiful in a spooky way. The special and sound effects were awesome. I also loved the music score, particularly the gentle tunes for Eleanor and her journey to save the children, how she grew out of her stagnant routine and life and finally gain her power, peace and freedom.


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


user
Some films just simply should not be remade. This is one of them. In and of itself it is not a bad film. But it fails to capture the flavor and the terror of the 1963 film of the same title. Liam Neeson was excellent as he always is, and most of the cast holds up, with the exception of Owen Wilson, who just did not bring the right feel to the character of Luke. But the major fault with this version is that it strayed too far from the Shirley Jackson story in it's attempts to be grandiose and lost some of the thrill of the earlier film in a trade off for snazzier special effects. Again I will say that in and of itself it is not a bad film. But you will enjoy the friction of terror in the older version much more.


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


user
I rented this movie this past weekend, cranked up the surround sound system, and got some great sound from special affects. This movie is a great movie rental, the special affects where enough to scare my fiance, but I noticed some looked suprisingly computer generated. I didn't go to the movies and see this, but its a scary late night don't feel like going out movie. I would recommend it!


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


user
What can I say about it?It's another Hollywood's horror flick with very high budget(80 million dollars).Not scary at all,it offers us only a few thrills and one really creepy sequence with skeleton in the fireplace.A lot of computer generated special effects and nothing more.Catherine Zeta-Jones is beautiful as always,Lili Taylor is also a good actress.The architecture of the Hill House is amazing,all these monuments,statues,furniture...Delicious!However I don't like the ending because it was so luscious.Check this one out and form your own opinion on it.I give this picture 7 out of 10.


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


user
What can I say that hasn't been said about "The Haunting"? It has everything that would make a great picture. Wonderful sets, moody music, and sound design to die for were all in place. The screenplay, though, sometimes boggles the mind in such a weird, surrealistic way. The entire team must have forgotten to read it through, maybe because they were too busy creating cg effects and building gothic sets to notice how weak the plot was. Each member of the cast gives a worthy performance, although with little conviction to the material at hand. Lili Taylor has the most to do while the others mostly react to her. But that's about it. All I can say is that it was a slightly enjoyable two hours, but you will definitely want more. A lot more.


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


user
I can't understand what it is that fans of the genre didn't like about this film. It was truly a lot of fun. The special effects were wonderful. I generally agree with reviews and with IMDB voters, but not this time. I waited until it came to home video which I felt was another reason that I wouldn't enjoy the film. I believe special effects films need to be seen on the big screen, but again this was not the case. To me the film begs comparison to two films that were released around the same time. Blair Witch and The Mummy. Both films that I thought were terrible. Blair was probably the most overrated horror film of all time. The Mummy made gobs of money and it was pure dreck. People liked it for it's special effects. Films like the Mummy and The Haunting are not rich in character development, they are more like funhouse rides. Well with that analogy the Mummy was a B ticket to the Haunting's E-ticket.


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


user
This great film is composed mostly of documentary footage is currently contained on a DVD along with Prelude to War. The great American filmmaker and story teller Frank Capra made these films which simply and clearly call attention to the main points that caused World War II and Hitler's rise.
Every school child, nay, every American should watch these films today because they are so apropos. History has been repeating itself over and over again! The Lord Chamberlains are still alive and kicking; the tactics used by the Nazis of infiltrating countries through sympathizers and then the Communists and now by Muslim terrorist groups, are still working to these evil group's advantage.
By sitting back and letting Hitler as early as 1935 be aggressive - France, America and England caused over 50 million people's deaths. Americans, French and British today would happily let Hitler do exactly the same thing despite the fact that we should have learned from history what happens when you let dictators break treaties.
These great films may be too simplistic for World War II history buffs. They don't tell the horrors that the Soviet Union caused simply because at the time America was teamed up with them, fighting Hitler. This film does tell the plain facts and motives that led to the terrible war.


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


user
Adolf Hitler's maniacal desire to impose his will on the rest of the world is the subject of this second in a seven part series of films produced by the U.S. War Department as an instructional tool for new soldiers entering the Armed Forces during World War II. Hitler's plan was methodical and well conceived, starting with the conquest of Eastern Europe, expanding to the European heartland, then moving on to the 'World Island' consisting of Europe, Asia and Africa. His final move would be to reach across the oceans for the ultimate conquest of the Americas and the World.
In 1935, Hitler ordered national conscription, as the rest of the country fell under his evil spell. Grade school children sang his praises, and young German boys received training and indoctrination in military camps. Marching unopposed into Austria in 1938, Hitler followed by annexing a strip of land bordering Germany and Czechoslovakia called Sudetenland. In 1939, Hitler took all of Czechoslovakia. Later in the year, the world was stunned to learn that Germany signed a non-aggression pact with it's mortal enemy Russia, a ploy to delay Hitler's military involvement on too many fronts. Immediately after, Germany invaded Poland, bringing Hitler's conquest right to Russia's doorstep. He would deal with her later.
It was during this period that Britain still declined to oppose Hitler's thrust across Europe. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain felt he procured a great victory for his country by accepting a treaty with Germany, his infamous declaration stating 'Peace in Our Time'. It didn't turn out that way.
The most fascinating information to be learned in this installment, at least to me, was provided by a small snippet of footage from a German pro Hitler rally in the mid '30's. It was led by a German American taking his cue directly from the homeland. The venue - Madison Square Garden!


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


user
The second of the Why We Fight Series concentrates on Hitler's grab of the Sudetanland and beyond as he makes a chump out of Neville Chamberlain and embarks on his conquest of Europe.
Clearly meant as propaganda in its day this series over the test of time has become an informative documentary as well with most of the "Allied bias" turning out to be historical fact. The Fuhrer hoists himself on his own petard with smug pronouncements before his people and the world as he says one thing and does another as his army moves East. The Czechs and Austrians quickly capitulate but the Poles put up an heroic struggle against overwhelming odds.
The disparity between Hitler's military might and Chamberlain waving the Munich treaty like a white flag, declaring "Peace in our time" to this day has durable propaganda qualities. Here in its original context it resonates even more powerfully as the darkness of World War ll sets in on Europe leaving the American viewer with two options, freedom or slavery. In 1943 there was no evading this simple truth and The Nazis Strike makes its point effectively.


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


user
I just viewed Detention last night and i liked what i saw. It was a cool fun movie.Dolph looked superbly cool on the Bike.He also looked good in this movie as compared to his other recent movies.He is now in a pretty good shape.The story was ok and the other actors were also passable.I wouldn't call this movie his best but its still a good movie.
But it also had its share of Problems. The first one was the way bullets were flying everywhere and even when they were being fired at point blank range they missed the target.They should've had shown the ppl escaping the bullets in a better way. Another problem which i had was the way the students were swearing. I dont know in which school the students can swear in front of their teacher and even in the classroom. The third problem was that the bad guys were very few in numbers. There should've been more bad guys. Last problem was definately the fact that the set looked cheesy , but that was due to the small budget. Overall the movie was a good Movie.I enjoyed it.I would recommend others to watch it. P.S. Now u r a DEAD beat cop. (Some One-liners were also cool)



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


user
this dolph lundgren vehicle is a fun die hard throwback action flick, it isn't going to win any awards and its not very original but it delivers the goods you would want to see from a dolph lundgren movie. our man dolph is an ex soldier who is now a teacher at a tough inner city high school and when it gets taken over by terrorists its up to him to save the day. sure the script isn't going to win any Oscars its good fun and it has its fair share eplosive action. dolph lundgren gives a good enough performance but he comes alive more in the action scenes, and the rest of the cast are not the best actors but they hold it well. all in all detention is an enjoyable action flick, but youv'e seen it a million times before.


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


user
This is a great entertaining action film in my opinion, with cool characters, lots of action, and an amazing performance from Dolph Lundgren, however Alex Karzis is awful as the villain!. The story is very good, and i found the kids to be likable for the most part, plus Dolph Lundgren is simply amazing in this!. The action scenes are excellent, and it's almost like Die Hard except it's set in a school!, plus Kata Dobó is very menacing and sexy as the sidekick!. The finale is very exciting, and it has a couple of cool emotional moments as well!, however i just wished it had another villain, because Alex Karzis just didn't cut it as the villain way too OTT, and laughable for my tastes. This should be higher then 4.1 in my opinion, as i thought it was a great action film, and while the kids, were very stupid at times, they got quite resourceful as the movie went along!, plus the shootouts were pretty cool as well!. The ending is very amusing,and Corey Sevier's character was my favorite student!, plus Dolph has still got it!. This is a great entertaining action film in my opinion, with cool characters, lots of action, and an amazing performance from Lundgren!, but Alex Karzis is awful as the villain, still i highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Sidney J. Furie does a very good job here with great camera work, good angles, and keeping the film at a very fast pace!. There is a bit of blood and violence. We get lots of extremely bloody gunshot wounds,knife in the side of the head, bloody arrow hits, an impaling, and other minor stuff. The Acting is fantastic!. Dolph Lundgren is amazing as always, and is amazing here, he is extremely likable, kicks that ass as usual, had great chemistry with the kids, had an awesome character, is very charismatic, and he may not have shown a great emotional rage, he still was a hell of a lot of fun to watch!, he is one of my favorite actors! (Lundgren Rules!!!!!). Alex Karzis is god awful as the villain, he is laughably OTT, was boring, and not menacing at all, he also annoyed the crap out of me. Kata Dobó is very sexy as the side kick and did fine with what she had to do, she was the real villain in my opinion!. Corey Sevier is funny as Mick, he was my favorite student, and i really started to warm up to him in the 2nd half, i liked him a lot!, he had good chemistry with Dolph too. Dov Tiefenbach(Willy),Chris Collins(Hogie),Mpho Koaho(Jay Tee),Danielle Hampton(Alicia),Nicole Dicker(Charlee) all do great as the students. Jennifer Baxter is very cute and is good as The fiancée. rest of the cast do fine. Overall i highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5


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


user
When I think about this movie, all the adjectives that come to mind somehow relate to the physical appreciation of the world. Texture, smell, color, that's how I think this movie should be judged in terms of. See the rich golden tones surrounding the young concubine asleep by the fireplace, or the sweltering turkish bath, and let it flood your senses with impressions of spice, coarse cloth, smooth skin, scented oils, flickering flames, satin rustle. Don't just watch and listen, be absorbed, let the droning voice of the storyteller mesmerize you.


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


user
Harem Suare is the best film I saw in the year 2000. Bravo Ferzan Ozpetek. Sensually shot and stunningly portrayed, Harem Suare is a bold film that tackles interracial romance, which is such a taboo in Hollywood. Women of all shapes, sizes, and color, populate the film. Cut off from the outside world, the women entertain each other by telling stories about intrigue, rivalry and jealousies within their ranks.


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


user
This story is a complex and wonderful tale of the last Harem of the Ottoman empire, well told and provoking we see the inner workings of a world now gone, and learn about the people who lived there.
I enjoyed the story, characters, acting and scenes. A few scenes suffered from quick editing and the sub titles sometimes disappeared too quickly, otherwise a wonderful piece.
The main character Safiya is played wonderfully by Marie Gillain who I am pleased to say did a fantastic job without over doing it. The scenes with her and Alex Descas (Nadir) are charming and lovely.
I recommend this film for anybody looking to watch something less Hollywood and more authentic to the world they are emulating.


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


user
I appreciated the photography, the textures, the colours and often, unlike one comment, the lighting. What was lacking for me was a coherent storyline.I found it often disjointed, badly edited and at times difficult to follow. My version was 110 minutes, IMDb shows one at 125m. Possibly the cuts and subtitles didn't help. I applaud any films that escape from the Hollywood mould but this left me disappointed. Miss Gillain was luminous and the performances were all fine, I just wanted a little more dialogue. If anyone would like to see another film that has some affinity with this one, try 'Hideous Kinky'with Kate Winslet.


assistant
1