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
I saw this movie when it was released, and my distaste for it has stuck with me all these years.
Here's why:
Greenaway's goal seems to be to take every literary image in the Tempest and make it literal. If a character were to say, "my heart takes flight," we'd be shown an actual human heart, with pigeon wings attached, flapping across the screen.
This process makes for some lush tableaux, but ultimately it's a facile exercise. And it becomes deadly boring.
I don't begrudge the pleasure other viewers found in this movie, but it's worth knowing that not everyone in the audience was enraptured.


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


user
This film was just painful to watch... not in the good dramatic way that makes you cringe with emotions for well developed characters in dramatic situations (yeah, I pretty much made that last sentence up as I went along), but in just an absolute dull way for OVER two hours. Now, you all may think I'm just some ignorant reviewer who has no respect for Shakespeare or "artistic film-making"... well, you'd be wrong on both counts. I love the works of Shakespeare, especially the tragedies of Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, and Hamlet, and I've watched plenty of "arthouse" films such as the surreal and well-made Eraserhead and Fellini's 8 1/2... but this was just over two hours of lost-in-translation Shakespeare, WAY too much nudity (I can understand artistic nudity in SOME scenes... but not in every other shot of a movie!!! IT WAS POINTLESS AND SERVED NOTHING FOR THE STORY!!!), and basically just overzealous film-making. I had high expectations for this film in that it was said to be "very artistic" and was an adaptation of Shakespeare's The Tempest... but this was just an extreme letdown. I gave this film a three ONLY because of Sir John Gielgud's acting presence (which far surpassed all of the no-names in this film) and the cinematography/set design combination as it made a lot of scenes look like paintings in motion... however, a lot of this film would've been better off as JUST a painting with a scroll of text below it. A true disappointment... maybe if Zeffirelli had been given the director's chair, this would've been much better. But this is one audience member's opinion, many others may enjoy this far more than me. That being said, if you can't find this at any nearby video stores (it's currently not on DVD), don't try to go too far out of your way to find it... it's not really worth it.


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 not the worst film I have seen of Peter Greenaway but it is close. That dishonor goes to the even worse Pillow Book. This director's films of 3 I have seen I find them all to be miserable. Like The Cook...,whatever positive cinematic flourishes he displays, are totally unredeemed by the repugnancy of his material and overall presentation.


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


user
This seems like one of those movies that we think we should like, but I didn't. It seemed to be trying way too hard to be 'artsy'. All flash, with no content. It has some beautiful scenes, and any one of them are nice to watch, but tack them all together and it becomes an arduous task just to sit through it. I rented this because of the glowing reviews on the video carton, and the fact that I'm a big Shakespeare fan, but I was very disappointed. I just found it a bit pretentious and, at times, boring.


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


user
I bought a DVD of this film for my girlfriend who shares the same name as the ghost girl in this film, and enjoys movies about the paranormal. The movie was shot entirely on video, so it has the look of a PBS special about it. The special effects are phoney looking, but there are actually some scary moments in the movie that got us to jump in our seat. There is a particularly effective scare involving a Virgin Mary statue.
HOWEVER, the acting is bad, the "plot" scenes are long and very boring, and I will tell you I have no clue what happened at the end. If you get the movie, rent it, if you buy it, please make sure you pay less than $5.


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


user
JESSICA: A GHOST STORY is as the name implies a ghost story. The theme is meant to be horror but comes across closer to comedy!
A woman comes who was brutally murdered comes back from the dead. This constitutes what this movie attempts to pass off as a plot. There is really nothing more to it. The movie comprises of a series of loosely connected scenes involving a guy who had an affair with this woman prior to her death.
Immediately from the opening scenes, this movie has the appearance of a "straight-to-DVD" effort. Unlike gems such as VACANCY 2, the movie has no sense of direction or creativity and certainly gives "straight-to-DVD" movies a bad name! The direction is as poor as can be with a complete lack of suspense, scares or tension. Even the drama elements are hopelessly handled and represent something more boring than even the worst soap opera you may have had the misfortune of enduring.
The acting across the board is absolutely abysmal with no one actor involved managing to show even the slightest potential of a successful acting career.
Many of the individual scenes are incredibly long, with very long pauses between dialogue exchanges. I'm not exaggerating!
The only reason I give this movie a rating of 2 rather than 1 is because some of the poor acting combined with even worse dialogue made for a few unintentional laughs. I stress the word "few" in that sentence. This is not overall one of the "so-bad-it's-good" movies like CAMP BLOOD or THE NAIL GUN MASSACRE. If you want to laugh hysterically, watch those movies. If you want to see a proper horror movie about ghosts watch THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, THE CHANGELING, RINGU, THE EYE (original Korean version), THE GRUDGE, ONE MISSED CALL or PHONE.
I advise anyone who has had the good fortune of avoiding seeing JESSICA: A GHOST STORY to keep up the good work! Just forget this movie exists. Don't spare a thought for it!


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


user
What do you get when you have bad acting, bad directing, scenes that are excruciatingly long, terrible lighting, painful editing, and awful effects? You get Jessica: A Ghost Story Seems its shot on betacam, which is fine, but the lighting has to compliment this medium. In this case it does not. There are a few CU's where the person's face is entirely in shadow. One scene in particular is the scene at the psychiatrists. It's a joke if you ask me. Some of the scenes were so long that they could have easily been cut in half... but I guess then they wouldn't have a film at feature length. The main character is incredibly flat. He's the LEAD male, so he should have some "hero" elements to his character, but he does not. He whines and is scared the entire film. I could go on, but I don't want to waste my time. Although the lighting was terrible, I must say that they did have nice camera movement. Too bad the lighting didn't compliment it. The cover of the DVD is nice, and that's where it ends. Just terrible.


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


user
This subject matter deserves a much better script, and final result, than this movie serves up. The script is full of holes because it was never conceived as a story, but rather a string of nightmare scenarios loosely knitted together. The gaps and loose ends in the story line are numerous. The scene where the kidnap victim is told that her parents are not dead, and have been looking for her since she was taken, is just bizarre. It is written as a cathartic therapy moment with the head of the shelter for runaways handing her a "missing poster" from when she was eight. In the real world, if the head of a shelter for runaways found out that he had, under his roof, a solved kidnapping, what would have followed would have been an immediate call to the police. It's a law enforcement issue not a 12 minute segment for Oprah. Everything that follows from there to the end is so short shrift that I can only conclude that the first 90 minutes was for pure gratuitous exploitation. Funny, that's what this movie is supposed to be condemning. In the end it seems to have joined in.


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


user
I'm a horror/gore movie freak and this flick was so bad, I felt embarrassed for not only the "actors", but also the director and the poor sap of a producer who actually put his money up for this schlock.
From the title, you'd expect some great carnage, somewhat of a storyline and at LEAST some direction or dialog. Instead, you get what looks like a slightly more violent and sexual Three Stooges episode. At least I laugh at the Three Stooges. While watching this crap, I turned another TV on and started watching Howard Stern until something interesting happened.
Needless to say, I kept watching Stern.
Watching this "film" I realize that I could produce a film with three monkeys, 2 DV cameras, $50 dollars in loose change and a broken PC. This film is my inspiration to get into no-budget film making. Watch this movie if you dare, but be warned...there is a lot of nothing in here but a whole lot of talking and very little action. This makes "KaZaam" look like a Meryl Streep film.
I'm sure Germany didn't ban it due to sex or violence. Other countries need to take heed.


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


user
I expect the same excitement as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE but I was let down by just junk how can you even call this a movie ( its kinda of a mini porno) . It made my sick when the guy was made to eat his own business. There is no story line to it at all it jumps to quickly from each murder. If you like seeing a women naked or even mens parts then there's spots in the movie for and there's even a masturbation spot in the movie which makes it a porno and not a movie at all. I have seen some dumb movies in my time but this is number 1 . I want be watching it again at all. The actors even look bored during the movie to me so they probably were in need of money badly to make 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
NO SPOILERS.
I love horror movies, but this has got to be the poorest attempt to make one ever. Calling it "a movie" is also a stretch. This "random-clips-of-obviously-fake-and-tacky-violence-and-an-ugly- woman-trying-to-act-sexy-edited-poorly-together" is not worth watching.
Watching this is about as interesting watching as some random family's holiday pictures, and it has about the same quality you would expect when you send your ten year old son into the woods with your new vid-cam, and tell him to make a movie.
Terrible.


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


user
I watch bad movies.
This movie is not good enough to be a bad movie. Not an ounce of humor, not an ounce of talent throughout.
I am LAZY.
Usually, I see a bad movie and curse. This was so bad, I actually made a review to try and save others from the completely boring mess I fell victim to.
I am smashing my copy of this movie.
It's too lame even to use clear a room. So boring. Watch 'Bloodsucking Freaks' or 'Shock, shock, shock' for absolute crap that has some merit as entertainment. This sludge looks awful, is awful, and whoever made it should feel awful.


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


user
Picture the fugly annoying goth kids from college in a scat film, throw in a pinch of story and a whole lot of awful acting, and you are still not even close to how bad this movie is.
Shot badly, bad effects, worse acting. Contrived attempt at shocking horror. Everyone I've showed this to gets kinda depressed watching it. The sex scenes are disturbing, not necessarily for their content, but more because they're just something you want to end as soon as possible. The last sex scene is just foul, even before she gets to the guy.
I'm one of those people that loves to watch movies that people hate, which is why I picked this one up. But for your own sake, save yourself the time and avoid this abhorrence. It's that bad. I literally threw it in the garbage.


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


user
good lord! (and that coming from an atheist), this "movie" is bad !
much has already been said by the reviewers before (the ones who rated this piece 3 and below) to which I fully agree, I just like to add a few things:
among the three guys who had to eat their own digestive end products, got chopped up by an Axe, raped by a broomstick, had their balls blown away - the ex-boyfriend suffers the worst torture while having to listen to the girl's endless and pointless babble at the kitchen table (as do we, but at least we have the mercy of the mute button).
had the director cut out the point- and endless graveyard and inverted scenes, our suffering would have been over after 30 minutes.
the only things that made this flick at least somewhat bearable are Emily Haack's tits (one point).
forget it. don't buy it. don't waste your time. and your sanity. my brain is so fried after watching this I feel the urgent need to watch (and suffer?) "Scrapbook" right now.


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


user
With a title like that, it's above and beyond my comprehension how this movie just did NOT appeal to me. Granted, there's a few decently sleazy moments and a little gore, but the way in which the movie was shot and the overall storyline just struck me as an idiotic and lazy attempt at profuse "shock" tactics... The inconsistent plot starts with a guy raping and murdering a woman stranded at the side of the road. He and his abetting brother are imprisoned up until the brother breaks out and arranges to meet his girlfriend out in the woods. He ends up forcing her into a house where they screw and he later shows her a collection of kidnapped guys in the basement. The heavily drugged captives consist of her old boyfriend who raped her, a "grabby" neighbor, and her sexually abrasive boss. He explains to her that he is going to kill them all. She winds up killing HIM and then turning her focus towards the men (or pigs) whom she tortures and kills, herself... Most of the violence and humiliation has to do with sh!t eating and genitalia destroying - all of which are far from disturbing and essentially mild. The best scene is a graphic broom handle masturbation followed by some painful man-rape... Surely, "I Spit on Your Corpse, I P!ss on Your Grave" was intended as an unofficial sequel to "I Spit on Your Grave" - based on, mainly the title, and a reference the main character gives - suggesting her mother was Camille Keaton. I personally consider that to be a wildly blasphemous assertion! This movie is a boring, amateurish mess that strives for shocks but failed miserably...


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


user
Am I wrong,or is the 2007 version just a rip-off of the original? I have to ask because the DVD I just bought is one of the worst films I have ever seen.....bad acting,bad editing etc....the only "exploitation " aspect here is how we were ripped off for our money buying this piece of crap. It is nothing more than a light-weight porn flick...no real gore, no scary images, just a cheaply done bit of garbage. If anyone wants to see an excellent film with no name actors,some slimy gore and a decent storyline...get Baby Blood...also done on a cheap budget but well made...and an actual story too!I Spit was a waste of money but I'll keep it just for a laugh....it is pathetic! New comment....Sept 3.....I'll keep this film forever just because it it SOOOOO bad it's almost good....in a really bad way....the worst acting ever...a real crap-movie classic!


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


user
In director Eric Stanze's 'ISOYC, IPOYG', three men are subjected to torture at the the hands of a woman that they have all sexually abused. The first victim is forced to eat his own crap, before being axed to death. The next bloke ends up with a bullet in the crotch after refusing to have anal sex with the first guy's corpse. But it's the third man who gets it the worst: he has to watch the heavily tattooed 'star' Emily Haack get naked and masturbate with a broom handle (oh, he also gets the handle shoved up his butt too!).
And, unfortunately, so do we (get to see her masturbate, that isnot get a broom handle up our butts!).
Yes, 'ISOYC, IPOYG' is one harsh viewing experience, not because of its relentless violence, but because Haack, who is obviously under the misguided notion that she has the body of a goddess (as opposed to that of a roadie for Metallica) constantly gets buck naked for the camera. It ain't a pretty sight.
In addition to the non-stop nudity from an inked-up Haack, viewers also get to see dreadful direction from Stanze (who thinks that endless shots of tombstones and trees is entertaining stuff), some really bad acting, and a fat guy's penis.
Strangely enough, I give 'ISOYC, IPOYG' a rating of 3/10, which is actually slightly higher than its current 2.9 average. That's one point for the messy axe attack (which, being a gore-hound, I actually enjoyed); one point for the bit where the fat guy gets his face pushed in chocolate mousse masquerading as feces (hilarious); and one point for the sheer nerve to suggest that this film might somehow be a sequel to Meir Zarchi's superior exploitation classic I Spit On Your Grave.


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


user
...through the similarly minded antics of Eric Stanze. A not-particularly talented director has helmed a not-particularly good movie, yet I still found myself sitting through it to the closing credits, if for nothing more than to see what happens next.
A rapist escapes from prison and calls up his old flame. After capturing her (even though she came willingly) and threatening her into having sex (another event she was also willing to do) he reveals that he has kidnapped three guys who wronged her in the past. He then decides to kill her (huh?) but is foiled and dies instead. The girl's mind snaps (or something like that) and she takes out her rage on the unlucky chaps in the basement.
Alright, the writing sucks: it's long winded, loaded with ten-cent words and there is WAY too much of it.
The acting sucks: what a minute, what acting?
The filming sucks: home video is bad enough, but 20 minutes of graveyard footage is just a damn insult.
And the budget is a joke: get it...'budget', that was the punchline.
And yet there was a charm to the thing. Back in the 70's these kind of movies came out in theatres with actual budgets and talent attached to them, not in this day and age though. If you want to watch this kind of violent, sexually exploitive trash (don't lie, some of us do) then this is all your gonna get nowadays.
Some brief hardcore shots in a sex scene, torture with fecal material, fun with axes, anal rape by broom stick and a lengthy shot of the crazy chick masturbating with the same broom stick are some of the better items on the menu.
It's not good and it won't be remembered, but not since the heyday of Joe D'amato have people made movies like this.
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
This movie is extremely boring, it tells a story of a female gas station owner and her life. Nothing exciting ever happens. The director has really "kept it real" and it feels just like a camera following a woman around as she lives her life. I had to watch other films by this director for a class, the others were not as boring. This film was also watched for an assignment...it better be worth the boringness with a good grade!! Overall, unless it's required, don't watch the film. But don't discount other films by this director, because they're not as bad...and don't discount other films about Africa, they're usually good, especially when done by a western director.


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


user
There is one really good scene in Faat Kine. The title character gets in an argument with another woman and after being threatened, Faat Kine sprays her in the face. The scene works because the act is so unexpected, bizarre, and rather funny at the same time. In that one instance, writer/director Ousmane Sembene gives the audience a character that is easy to root for, an interesting film character that could be worth watching for two hours. In the scene, he presents a brave woman who is bold in her actions. For the rest of the movie, the only other thing he seems to present is conflicting tones.
The tone is all over the place. It's true not all movies have to clearly fit within a specific genre, but I don't think Faat Kine fits into any genre. Supposedly, it's a drama, though there are moments of such broad comedy (the aforementioned spraying in the face) that it cannot be taken seriously. On the other hand, the film is certainly not a comedy with the abundant amount of serious topics Sembene has crammed into the picture. There is a way to successfully mix comedy and drama together. Unfortunately, Semebene doesn't find that balance. Instead, one scene after another just drift into each other without much rhyme or reason, leaving two different tones hanging in the wind.
Faat Kine also has the problem of running two hours long with an extremely drawn out finale. The film ends with a big party where all the characters' conflicts are resolved, only they aren't resolved quickly. The scene lasts longer than any other scene, going on for probably twenty minutes. Because the rest of the scenes up until this point have been meandering, the finale is particularly hard to endure with repetition beginning early on in the scene, making for a frustrating viewing experience.
Perhaps I am being too hard on Faat Kine. I am not the right audience for it. I felt nothing towards the characters and had no connection to any part of the story. There are people who will probably find something meaningful in the story and see strong characters. However, I was unable to do so and thus cannot recommend it.


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


user
Few films have left me with such a feeling of unease, and this is not a compliment. Since I saw it in a theater (How it ended there I can only wonder) I was subjected to 90 mn of hateful, derivative garbage, the main impression being a bit like this other sick-o movie "Don't answer the phone" - but worse. The nastiness of it all, rape and all, is shown without any distance (unlike strong stuff like "Last house on the left") and utter contempt for the (perfect ?) victims and everybody involved, leaving the viewer to be treated as a sadistic voyeur. At the end I felt like taking a shower. No credits to the director


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


user
While not quite as monstrously preposterous as later works, this slow-moving, repetitive giallo offers some nice touches in the first half, but grows more and more lethargic and silly as it stumbles to its lame denouement.
To be sure, the actors are above average - considering this is an Argento movie - and some moments show the director's visual skills, but whole sequences should've been cut and, basically, it's just the same exploitative trash as ever, wallowing in fake science and abnormal sexual depravity.
3 out of 10 genetic disorders


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


user
THE CAT O'NINE TAILS (Il Gatto a Nove Code)
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1 (Cromoscope)
Sound format: Mono
(35mm and 70mm release prints)
A blind ex-journalist (Karl Malden) overhears a blackmail plot outside a genetics research laboratory and later teams up with a fellow reporter (James Franciscus) to investigate a series of murders at the lab, unwittingly placing their own loved ones at the mercy of a psychopathic killer.
Rushed into production following the unexpected worldwide success of his directorial debut THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE (1969), Dario Argento conceived THE CAT O'NINE TAILS as a giallo-thriller in much the same vein as its forerunner, toplining celebrated Hollywood actor Karl Malden - fresh from his appearance in PATTON (1969) - and rising star Franciscus (THE VALLEY OF GWANGI). Sadly, the resulting film - which the ads claimed was 'nine times more suspenseful' than "Bird" - is a disappointing follow-up, impeccably photographed and stylishly executed, but too plodding and aimless for general consumption.
Malden and Franciscus are eminently watchable in sympathetic roles, and cinematographer Enrico Menczer (THE DEAD ARE ALIVE) uses the wide Cromoscope frame to convey the hi-tech world in which Argento's dark-hearted scenario unfolds, but the subplot involving Euro starlet Catherine Spaak (THE LIBERTINE) as Franciscus' romantic interest amounts to little more than unnecessary padding. Highlights include an unforgettable encounter with the black-gloved assassin in a crowded railway station (edited with sleek assurance by cult movie stalwart Franco Fraticelli), and a nocturnal episode in which Malden and Franciscus seek an important clue inside a mouldering tomb and fall prey to the killer's devious machinations. But despite these flashes of brilliance, the film rambles aimlessly from one scene to the next, simmering gently without ever really coming to the boil. It's no surprise that "Cat" failed to emulate the runaway success of "Bird" when released in 1971.
(English version)


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


user
Rarely has such an amazing cast been wasted so badly. Griffin Dunne, Rosanna Arquette, Illeana Douglas, Ethan Hawke, Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken, and John Turturro, all jumped on board, only to be torpedoed by a script that seems like nothing more than a Hollywood in joke. Attaching Martin Scorsese's name to this was probably the draw, but the end result is way less than the sum of it's parts. Resembling a nightmare gone horribly wrong, each scene seems more contrived than the next. "Search and Destroy" is nothing more than abstract, stylish, self indulgent nonsense, and the entire film is decidedly dull.......... MERK


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


user
From the start, you know how this movie will end. It's so full of clichés your typical NRA member will not even like this movie. I give it 2 out of 10, only because of the acting of William Benton. I can't believe people voted 6+ for this movie. It's so biased towards a 'certain point of view' (once a thief...). People aren't born bad. Neither are they born good. They are born with a clean slate. It's society, parents and education what makes them who they are. And if they take the wrong turn, somewhere down the line, it certainly isn't going to be the American penal system that gets them back on track! Anyway, avoid this movie like the plague. I bet you have better things to do with your time than waste it on this piece of crap.



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


user
This is an extremely boring film. If you grew up during the Vietnam Was, as I did, then you've seen and heard all of the film footage and arguments here a hundred times by now. But what really makes this film boring is the narration by director Carlton Sherwood. The majority of the film is shot with Sherwood talking directly into the camera about his opinion of this conflicting time in the history of our nation.
If you're old enough to remember Vietnam, then you won't find anything new here. There is no new evidence to condemn John Kerry or new evidence worthy of another documentary on Vietnam. Younger viewers who are interested in the subject should see George Butler's excellent film Going Upriver! Stolen Honor was clearly meant to be a hatchet job on John Kerry, but it fails miserably at accomplishing that goal.


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


user
The British Public School system did not evolve solely with the idea of educating the upper classes despite that popular and widespread misconception.It was designed to produce administrators and governors,civil servants and military men to run the British Colonies.These people were almost entirely recruited from the middle classes.When the Public Schools had begun to show their worth the scions of the aristocracy were sent to them rather than be educated at home by tutors and governesses as had previously been the case.They tended to favour the schools nearer "Town" so Eton and Harrow became particularly popular with that class of parent. The vast majority of Public Schools took their pupils from lower down the social scale.Tom Brown,perhaps the most famous Public School pupil ever,was the son of a country parson,not a belted earl. Thus in late 1960s England,a country in the throes of post-colonial guilt and shedding the last of its commitments to its former dependants as quickly as Harold Wilson could slip off his "Gannex" mac,Lindsay Anderson's "If" was greeted with cathartic joy by the chattering classes and mild bemusement by everyone else. It must be remembered that the so-called "summer of love" was followed by the "October Revolution" a non-event that left a few policemen in London with bruised heads and the U.S. Embassy with one or two broken windows,but achieved absolutely nothing. So when Mr Anderson's film reached the cinemas the disgruntled former revolutionaries revelled vicariously in what they saw as Mr Malcolm McDowell's glorious victory over an amorphous "Them" despite the fact that he was ruthlessly gunned down at the end,a fate that would have undoubtedly overtaken them had they succeeded in their attempts to get into the U.S.Embassy. The film told us nothing new about Public Schools,homosexuality,bullying cold showers,patrician sarcastic teachers,silly traditions.an all-too familiar list .It was declared to be an allegory comparing Britain to the corrupt,crumbling society represented by the school.Well,nearly forty years on the same schools are still flourishing,the British social system has not changed,the "October Revolution" has been long forgotten except by those involved on one side or the other and Mr Anderson has completed his "State of the Country" trilogy to no effect whatsoever. If by any chance you should wish to read a book about schoolboys who did buck the system rather more successfully than Mr McDowell and his friends and furthermore lived to tell the tale,find a copy of "Stalky & Co."written by the man whose much-maligned poem "If" lent it's name to Mr Anderson's film,a man born in colonial India,a man whose work is quietly being airbrushed out of our literary history.And do it before the chattering classes succeed in declaring him a non-person.Perhaps somebody should start a revolution about that.


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


user
I've read reviews that apparently you have to have been a student in a very strict, British school in the 1960's to understand this. Maybe that's true, if so, then this movie is outdated.
*************SPOILER ALERT**************************************** The ending makes about as much sense as all the kids who're anti-government and anti-corporation without having any better solution that doesn't torch society to a Mad Max type cinder.
Yeah, the main characters could leave, but they don't. The reasons they go about this don't make sense. There isn't enough character development to explain why. What shooting up a bunch of innocent people is supposed to mean is never explained or even hinted at. It is mentioned that war is the final creative expression, quite possibly the only revelation that any characters of this movie have, and it makes no sense.
The characters who go on a murder spree aren't fighting the institution, they're just killing people. I thought they might've used all the explosives to blow up the place or at least the sanctuary at the end, that would've made greater symbolic sense, but they didn't.
tl;dr - This movie is an adolescent's daydream of fighting against authority that plagues them, though in reality they need. It has no moral, symbolic truth, or meaning to it; this movie simply plays out the fantasy of killing teachers and people in "power" that annoy you.
If you think a murder rampage/ school shooting similar to columbine or virginia tech is a rational and sensible way to deal with teachers and institutions you don't like, then I guess you'll love this movie. If you're like me and you're working towards making a life for yourself instead of just blindly (very blindly in this movie) rebelling against "the man", this movie is juvenile and boring.
You can also tell in parts that funding was lacking, and the story seemed to have a touch of attention deficit disorder.
All in all, this seems like a very rough draft of what could've been an okay movie, but no effort is put into the dialogue, character development, or moral so it's just... poorly done.
If... only I could get my two hours back.


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


user
Ah, the spirit of '68. The streets of Paris were running wild with rebellion, the hippies were high on the spirit of love. How was Britain marking this age of radicalism and revolution? Erm, by the looks of it, dear Old Blighty was focusing on making films about boys in boarding schools. If... contains the evil establishment. It contains the uprising of the oppressed. What it lacks in contrast to the Parisien passion and the hippy headtripping is any sense of excitement, except in its all-out ammo-and-artillery fire ending.
Lindsay Anderson's If... stars the ever-marvellous Malcolm McDowell as one of three private school pupils who decorate their dorm with photos of Lenin and other left-wing radicals. It's clearly an anti-establishment movie in its depiction of the evil upper-class oiks who rule the roost and the antiquated autocratic practices of the pish-posh public school standard. What makes If... unusual though is that for all its radical sympathies, it doesn't explicitly give us any sense of great tension between human decency and the despotic school system, instead it just kind of floats: lacking in plot and lacking in personality.
Surrealist bits fade in and out occasionally and the film slips from black-and-white to colour again (is it due to the low budget or is it an arty expression?), but there is little of interest to speak of. All we get is the poignant denouement where the young rebels reach for their rifles and shoot down the shady overlords of the establishment. Hooray! A revolution! At last something that demands a second thought unlike the rest of this dull exercise in boarding school daydreaming.
If... could have been a powerful political statement, but as it is it drifts and only gathers any sense of direct interest at the end. Instead of being a testament to the dissident zeitgeist of the late-Sixties, it only succeeds in being a dazed document of upper-class British education. Anarchy? Apathy more like, the only man many viewers will want to stick it to after watching If... will be Lindsay Anderson.


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


user
if.... is the cinematic equivalent of Sgt. Pepper's: Revered by baby boomers as the pinnacle of creation, and viewed as rather a silly bit of business by preceding and subsequent generations. Now that the children of the middle classes the world over are seemingly super human due to the internet, and view the prospect of boarding school as a wonderful opportunity thanks to the Harry Potter books/films, the relevance of if.... couldn't be further from modern concern. In fact, many scenes appear so alien and exaggerated as to hint at an inspiration for Pink Floyd's The Wall.
One should never hold personal bias against a film while reviewing, and the cemented date of this film aside, there are a few flaws which others have overlooked. Lindsay Anderson was known to be a fan of Luis Buñuel, on top of generally being too smart for his own good. And despite a straightforward narrative through the first and second acts, the latter portion of the piece it taken hostage by cod Buñuel surrealism and strained attempts at symbolism. Anderson wasn't capable of this feat due to his over-intelligent cynicism, failing to see that Buñuel was jovial in his work. I have not found a critic whom champions the 'Chaplain in a drawer', and am almost certain it still gets sideways looks from those who adore this film. The ending is not so much a concise punch to the established class/values system, as a wet slap on a moving target.
The British public school system was firmly for the middle classes (the upper crust being educated at home by private tutors). And the modus operandi of if.... was to check the boxes of public school life which Lindsay believed had been unexplored in film, thereby savaging middle class pretense. Homosexuality, generational cutlery, cold showers et al. In reality, such issues HAD been covered in many other great British films, if.... merely brought them to the fore. The Browning Version was a more oblique damning of such pomp, to name but one.
if.... is oddly quaint, and simply can not be viewed with modern (especially American) eyes. Kudos to Anderson for avoiding Mick and Kieth in favour of African chant, and a few brownie points for the latent homoerotic overtones. Points deducted for pretension, establishing characters who disappear, and inciting a glib revolution which came to naught.


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


user
I just saw "If" I can remember the advertisements for the movie from 1968, so I was interested in finally seeing it. It may be the perspective of an American who never went to a British public school and misses some of the social references, but I thought the movie was awful. For one thing, as others have pointed out, it takes almost the entire movie for the much ballyhooed-at-the-time revolt to break out. For another, whether the last scene is real or imagined, what occurs isn't a revolt, but a shooting rampage. There's quite a difference.
I know it may be bad form to judge a movie on subsequent events, but one cannot avoid doing it here. One person wrote a message board posting asking us not to compare the end of movie to the incidents at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech. But if there's a scintilla of difference between Klebold, Harris and Cho on the one hand and Travis (Malcom McDowell) on the other, I simply can't see it. All four of them were under the delusion that their gunfire is going to purify a f___-ed up world that they arrogantly take no responsibility for.
Which brings me to: why the hell are Travis and his chums even in a school they so despise? They are adults, or close to it. They're not in a military prison, like the inmates in "The Hill," a much better British film from about the same time. No one is forcing them to go to College and take beatings from the the whips, except maybe ambitious parents in need of a wake-up about the nature of their sons. I had the opportunity in college to join a frat, except I couldn't stand to be given silly, cruel orders by delinquents claiming to be my prospective "brothers." I took the consequences of not having the "in" with the Establishment that frats provide, and I can't say I regretted it.
If Travis fancies himself the second coming of Lenin (whose unbearded picture hangs prominently in his room) he's free to go out and organize a fitter's union or work for Michael Foot in the next election. If he wants to be Jack Kerouac, then get on the road and start writing. What possible benefit is he giving the world in joyriding a motorcycle and getting drunk in his room?
Sometimes reviewers have to be like the person who responded to the scene in "Last Tango In Paris" where Brando mopes about having had to go on a date with cow manure on his shoes. In the real world, the person said, a listener would say "Why didn't you scrape it off? Change your shoes?" --Don't allow fictional characters to lay a self-pity trip on you because you don't dare point out an common-sense alternative course of action for them. So it is here.


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


user
Lindsay Anderson was very much a European film maker , whereas the likes of David Lean , Ridley Scott and Alan Parker make spectacular movies involving visuel scope Anderson`s movie are more about social commentary and subtext , so much so that the message often ends up taking over the entire film whose primary function should be to entertain the audience
What you think of IF comes down to what you think of British film makers . I`m very much of the view that cinema should be a universial medium ( The best Brit movie makes are those who try to emulate Hollywood in my opinion ) , if you want to send a message try pony express , and I find the movie dated , pretentious and too set in the 1960s . 1968 was the summer of love and the year of student rebellion in France . You can just imagine every single French leftist worshipping this movie especially the climax . French new wave film makers will also admire the abstract surrealism of some scenes but a mainstream international will dislike it , and many will dislike it intensely


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


user
That is quite an outdated movie which aims to showcase the youth's yearning for freedom in some dehumanizing British school. Oh yes it's like in the army, you learn to obey and do what you're asked to. Yes the young dream of something else but it breaks their dreams and sweeps away their optimism on the threshold of life. Great.
Basically that's how you could sum up the nice intentions in If... Nice intentions that arouses no cinematographic challenges: the result is a declamatory movie. Do you see how boring I mean?
At least that oldie helped Kubrick cast McDowell in A Clockwork Orange, a movie with a truly powerful social satire and no self-indulgent sentimentalism.


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


user
I didn't like this Bill Murray vehicle when it was originally released in the 80s, so I tried watching it again to see if my distaste for this film was down to my movie-going tastes in the 80s or was it that "Stripes" is simply a bad movie. Well, the verdict is in and "Stripes" is a bad movie.
Now, "Stripes" may have been innovative comedy in the early 80s, and it may appeal to people who have gone through basic training or who are Bill Murray fans, but its still a bad movie.
Why is it bad? Mostly because "Stripes" is supposed to be a comedy but it's just not that funny. There are some laughs, but they are few and far between. Most of the movie is consumed by the dramatic plot which is incredibly convoluted and not very interesting. This lack of comedy is especially noticeable if you're used to more contemporary comedies such as "Anchorman" which strive for laughs in every part of the movie.
"Stripes" further suffers from Bill Murray and Harold Ramis's lack of acting ability. Bill Murray is a great comedian but he was not a very compelling dramatic actor at this point in his career, and Harold Ramis is playing Harold Ramis. These two are just not good enough as actors to carry the dramatic arch of the movie.
Lastly, most of the comedy that there is in "Stripes" revolves around Bill Murray's self-centered, smart-alec man-child character so if you don't find that character funny (like I didn't) you're not going to find most of what little comedy there is in "Stripes" funny either.
"Stripes" is very much a movie of its era, it hasn't aged well and is not worth watching. If you want to watch an early 80's "buddy" comedy I would recommend "Stir Crazy." Like "Stripes" the humor in "Stir Crazy" is not as fast-paced as in contemporary comedies, but unlike "Stripes" it has aged much better and as a result is still watchable.


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


user
Possibly not, but it is awful. Even the fantastic cast cant save it. OK, I admit it started off quite funny but it seemed to plummet downhill as soon as they jumped those girls in the Generals house. Bill Murray turned from being a quick witted, humorous guy into an arsehole who was shouting things at people in the street that just weren't funny, its like he was trying too hard to be funny. His character stole a weapon (an RV? come on...) and ends up being a national hero after invading another country and killing god knows how many soldiers, for a laugh. One good point is that this film shows the inadequacy and incompetence of the US Army and shows how arrogant and imbecilic they really are, albeit unintentionally. I actually felt disgusted that this kind of propaganda crap could really be released.


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


user
What an insult to the SA film industry! I have seen better SA films. The comments I read about Hijack Stories,by saying it is worthy of a ten out of ten is quite scary. A movie's rating should not depend on.., "OH, A MOVIE FROM A DEVELOPING COUNTRY. LETS BOOST THEIR INDUSTRY BY SAYING NICE THINGS ABOUT THEIR WORK, EVEN THOUGH IT IS BAD." We have the expertise to make good movies. Don't judge the film industry on what people say how great they think Hijack Stories is. We can tell great stories such as Cry the beloved Country and Shaka Zulu. Cry the beloved Country I'll give 9 out of 10. Great directing by Darryl, great acting by two great elderly actors, irrespective from where they are. Hijack Stories.., I'll give 1 out of 10. It could only be people involved in the project who would give it high scores. I would've done the same if it was my movie.


assistant
0