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
So don't even think about renting this from the shops, because this is one hell of a bad movie. You'd think that JJ Abrahams had written this movie. Basically, a rat is flushed down the toilet and somehow has to get back out. Fans of the completely terrible "Shrek" might enjoy, but "Wallace & Gromit" fans will probably turn away in disgust. Also, why didn't they do it in plasticine or clay? I mean, CGI animation?? For an AARDMAN movie??!! Obviously, Aardman lazed around while they let Dreamworks do the whole thing. Wrong, wrong, WRONG!!! Nearly every single character is awful, apart from that freaky frog guy, who is just right for a movie villain. But everything else about the movie is DULL, DULL, DULL!!! I almost fell asleep with boredom watching this movie. No, wait, actually, I DID fall asleep with boredom watching this movie. It's just terrible. But thankfully, it's not as bad as "Shrek."


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 creators of Shrek.. OK, that grabbed my attention.
Well the creators of Shrek also made Madagascar. Madagascar was half as good as Shrek.
And now Flushed Away is half as good as Madagascar.
That means Flushed Away isn't good. The animation and all that special effects were extremely good but the movie wasn't.
The story of this movie was only meant for kids. It's seriously not possible for adults to actually love this flick.
But there were many jokes meant for adults. I bet kids dint understand the jokes.
Despite that I dint like this flick.
I am completely disappointed. 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
Don't understand how these animated movies keep coming out, and no matter how good (or bad) it is people love it.
I saw this movie with my two kids (5,7). They like pretty much anything animated (like most people who rated this film). The theater was almost full, and I looked forward to seeing the movie with its superb cast. To tell the truth I was bored silly. It was unbelievably predictable and just plain unfunny. There were a couple chuckles throughout the film and that was it. Of course they tried time and time again to get the cheap laugh, but just didn't work. My son almost always says to me that he wants the DVD after we see an animated movie, but not on this one. My daughter fell asleep half way through. Also, the kids thought the character animation looked weird. I haven't heard that from them since seeing The Polar Express, which gave my daughter nightmares.
Trust me, I'm not the type who looks for the negative in everything. But quality is quality, and like so many animated movies they throw out there, it has very little.


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


user
OK maybe a 13 year old like me was a little to old for this movie. Its about this pampered rat, who lives in a palace. Then a sewer rat flushes him down a toilet! He ends up in this rat city and meets this girl rat who has a gem a greedy frog wants. He will do anything for this gem he sends a whole army after these two rats.He plans to take the gem and to flood rat city! THe cool part about this movie is the slugs. They do all the sound effects. They sing, make noises, its awesome, its also pretty funny. OK bottom line, it is aimed at 7 year olds. Other wise, a great movie to take a younger family member to see. I didn't think the animation was real dreamworks art though, more like WAllace and Gromit. i thinkthey slacked a little on that. The movie was just decent, not worth spending $9.50 for though, sorry.


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


user
I wandered into this movie after watching the 82-minute "Borat" tonight, and left quite disappointed. I was a huge fan of Wallace and Gromit, and routinely go to see animated films. That being said, I found myself nodding off and at one point nearly walked out, but stayed waiting for this film to get better. Never happened.
The visuals are stunning and the voice work is top notch, especially in my opinion, that of Kate Winslet and Ian McKellen (I had to remind myself a few times the bulbous headed lizard villain was Gandalf and Magneto). The problem with this movie for me is it's one of those animated features for the ADD-set. It registers after the fact as one zany slapstick routine after another, weighed down by a treacle filled plot that pulls out every stop in an attempt to convey an "Important Message." It looks a lot like busted Oscar bait for the animated category, and considering the way it's scoring with critics, I wouldn't be surprised if the Academy gets it wrong and offers up its hardware. But if you're looking for an enjoyable animated feature about rats, take my advice and wait for Ratatouille.


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


user
A few months ago, I was involved in a debate with another IMDb poster (Hey, Kmadden) about this film. The poster insisted that if I gave 'Flushed Away' a chance, I would like it. Based partially on that argument, I agreed to watch the film.
'Flushed Away' has good intentions (At least on Aardman's part), but lacks the strength to pull it all together. Its best asset is sewer rat/boat captain, Rita (Played by Kate Winselt), who, IMO, should have been the movie's main character instead of Roddy (Hugh Jackman). Rita's cool, tough, and interesting, while Roddy spends much of his screen time sniveling.
One of the things that bothered me most about 'FA' is the repetition of jokes that aren't funny to begin with. When Roddy gets hit in the crouch, the film makes sure he gets hit five more times immediately. "My name's Shocky," says one of Rita's brothers, who then electrocutes Roddy at least three times. My tolerance for cheap gags that involve pain is at an all time low.
I won't waste time griping about Katzenberg's kleptomaniac tendencies toward Pixar (One similar film's a coincidence, five's a rip off.), but I will say I'm disappointed in Aardman. They can do (and have done) so much better. Try harder next time, guys.


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


user
Just got back from a free screening and I'm very glad I didn't pay to see this very sub-par film. The theater was full and the crowd was a mix of kids and adults. It seemed like it was just the kids who were laughing at all the slap-stick and fart jokes though (good god they loved to hit these poor mice in the crotch a lot!). The movie is pretty juvenile, unintelligent, predictable, and mostly annoying. The characters just seem to be thrown together to fill in empty space and the relationships between them all seemed very forced with no charm at all.
Visually, the film is about average with nothing that really stands out. They did a decent job of mimicking the clay look from Wallace and Gromit, but other than that it's very forgettable imagery.
Although I was really bored throughout the whole film, I chuckled a couple times. It's not an absolute failure, but I most definitely would not want to watch it again. If you're a parent with kids (and you don't care that your kids see mindless cheap-jokes) then feel free to take them to see it, but everyone else shouldn't waste their money.


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 something kind of sad about seeing someone who is so good at doing something try to do something very different ... and end up being mediocre. I was thinking about Jordan playing baseball, but the same applies to Steve Martin.
This movie is reasonably well acted and directed, but the script is a stinker. Martin did a great job adapting a classic story into a comedy in "Roxanne", but this effort to bring a Victorian drama to the contemporary scene smacks straight into a wall of implausibility. If you want to see an old story updated with some style, best to rent "Great Expectations".


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 is a flagrant rip-off of one of the best novels of all time, Silas Marner by George Eliot.
The details of the film shown on IMDb do give acknowledgement to the original authoress but I did not see this at the beginning of the film, only a credit at the end of it saying "suggested by the book Silas Marner". Suggested? It was nothing but a complete rip- off of all the essential elements of the story:
A wronged and sad old man, an artisan, poor and lonely, has all his money stolen. One night a child wanders up to his door as her mother lies dying in the snow outside. The man takes her in and brings her up until one day the local squire (or rich politician here) demands to adopt the child. It is he who has fathered the child during an illicit affair years before. The battle then ensues as to who should have legal custody of the child.
In this and every other aspect of the film, the story is exactly the same. In only one can I find a difference. Silas Marner had epilepsy - but perhaps that would have strained the acting abilities of Mr Martin too far. On top of that he has his hair dyed in some carrot juice concoction (presumably to make him look younger, but actually making him look more the clown that he is)! There is also the addition of meaningless jokes, that this offbeat comedian cannot resist bringing into the story which have no part in it and only detract from the profoundness of the story. Like when the child cries in the courthouse declaring she can only be happy with the man who has fathered her all these years. This is conveyed in the film by the girl applying nasal decongestant to the bridge of her nose to make her tearful!
I am surprised that legalities and integrity within the film industry permit such a film to be made. If I was a trustee of George Eliot's I would insist on reparation. If I was Steve Martin I would send the profits to that estate, or to the poor. At the very least it should be entitled Silas Marner - adapted by S Martin. Or better still removed from the archives!
If you are interested in this story - and I hope you are - dismiss this completely and watch Silas Marner. Or read the book! The BBC made an excellent adaptation of it in the 1980's.


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


user
This tear-teaser, written by Steve Martin himself, is so unbelievably bad, it makes you sick to your stomach!
The plot is pathetic, the acting awful, and the dialogue is even more predictable than the ending.
Avoid at all costs!


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


user
TOM BROWN'S SCHOOLDAYS
Aspect ratio: 1.78:1
Sound format: Stereo
In late 19th century England, young Tom Brown (Alex Pettyfer) is sent to the public school at Rugby where he experiences the reforms of a radical new headmaster (Stephen Fry) and stands up to the school's resident bully, Flashman (Joseph Beattie).
Already the subject of numerous screen adaptations - most notably Gordon Parry's superior 1951 version - Thomas Hughes' evergreen novel gets the early 21st century treatment, courtesy of screenwriter Ashley Pharoah (TV's "Where the Heart Is") and director David Moore (THE FORSYTE SAGA). It's pleasant enough, and watchable, but it's also rather staid and dull, distinguished only by Fry's sincere performance as the new principal determined to sweep away some of the school's most dubious 'traditions', and by the introduction of a possible new star in 14 year old Pettyfer, a talented kid with the kind of effortless charm and vivid good looks that should take him all the way to Hollywood and beyond. Otherwise, this is typical UK TV fodder, the kind of stuff favored by executives eager to fill the schedules with 'prestige' product, even one as thoroughly unremarkable as this. The UK publication 'Radio Times' described it as "daintily odd" and raised a querulous eyebrow over "all of that fagging and brutality and a handsome, rakish villain torturing the life out of sweet young boys". Quite.


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


user
I thought Harvey Keitel, a young, fresh from the Sex Pistols John Lydon, then as a bonus, the music by Ennio Morricone. I expected an old-school, edgy, Italian cop thriller that was made in America. Istead, I got a mishmash story that never made sense and a movie that left me saying: WTF!!! Too many unanswered questions, and not enough action. The result: a potential cult classic got flushed down the toilet. Keitel and Lydon work well together, so maybe Quentin Tarantino can reunite these guys with better script. Oh, and the Morricone score: OK, but not memorable.
Overall, not a waste of time, but not a "must see", unless you are a hardcore Keitel fan.


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


user
Encouraged by the positive comments about this film on here I was looking forward to watching this film. Bad mistake. I've seen 950+ films and this is truly one of the worst of them - it's awful in almost every way: editing, pacing, storyline, 'acting,' soundtrack (the film's only song - a lame country tune - is played no less than four times). The film looks cheap and nasty and is boring in the extreme. Rarely have I been so happy to see the end credits of a film.
The only thing that prevents me giving this a 1-score is Harvey Keitel - while this is far from his best performance he at least seems to be making a bit of an effort. One for Keitel obsessives only.


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


user
I saw this on DVD ( It`s known as CORRUPT in this format ) and the blurb on the casing really hyped up how Harvey Keitel`s character Frank is so much like the one he played BAD LIEUTENANT in " This gritty and powerful police thriller " . What the casing didn`t mention was that this is an old Italian movie . How old is it Theo ? Well when a character plays music he doesn`t put on the CD player , he pulls out a big plastic pancake thing , puts it on a sort of revolving hob where a sort of mechanical arm touches the pancake thingy causing music to be heard . You see my point about this being an old film ? The DVD case gave no clue this was a movie made 20 years ago . It`s also a film with poor production values like so many other Italian films masquerading as American ones . With the exception of Keitel the cast are awful though Johnny Rotten`s performance is bizarre rather than terrible , the cinematography is static with the picture and sound quality giving the impression that I was watching a fourth generation pirate copy ( I don`t know if it`s down to a dodgy DVD or if it`s a very bad film print ) and worst of all is Ennio Morricone`s score . It`s impossible to belive the man who did the irritating intrusive incidental music for CORRUPT is the same one who did the music for those Clint Eastwood westerns.
All of this is a pity because CORRUPT does have its moments . It`s by no means the greatest psycho thriller ever devised but it did hold my interest and as always Keitel puts in a good performance as a violent nutcase cop . Just a pity the rest of the movie didn`t match up to his high standards


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


user
Despite unfortunately thinking itself to be (a) intelligent, (b) important and (c) interesting, fortunately this movie is over mercifully quickly. The script makes little sense, the whole idea of the sado-masochistic relationship between the two main characters is strangely trite, and John Lydon shows us all, in the space of one movie, why he should never have let himself out of music. His performance is one-note and irritating.
The only positive thing to be said is that Harvey Keitel manages to deliver a good turn. His later Bad Lieutenant would show just how badly good actors can act, but mercifully his performance here is restrained.


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


user
On a distant planet a psychopath is saved from execution by a space monk. He releases a few fellow inmates and breaks out of the prison in a spaceship. They dock onto a ludicrously enormous spacecraft that is orbiting a supernova star. This massive craft is populated by only three people, presumably because the budget of the film did not extend to hiring many actors. Anyway, to cut a long story short, the three goodies end up in a game of cat and mouse with the baddies.
The psychopath in this movie is curious in that he is annoying. 'Annoying' is generally not a term one would use to describe a lunatic - unhinged, frightening, dangerous maybe but not 'annoying' but he is. The three people manning the giant ship are seriously unconvincing as warranting such important roles - this ship is practically the size of a city! Considering that the film is set approximately 50 years in the future, it is somewhat optimistic that such a huge man-made craft could exist, never mind the fact that it is used for such a relatively mundane task. Despite the vast size of the spaceship, the crew all have appallingly kitted out, tiny rooms and the dining room consists of what appears to be a plastic table and chairs. But there are a lot of corridors.
The film is fairly well acted and it works as an averagey sci-fi thriller. But nothing great.


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


user
A pretty average scifi film. The plot was more or less obvious from the start. Although the acting was reasonably good, the writing seemed very cliched, using ideas taken from numerous films.
The basic plot: Scientists working on a deep space research platform rescue a fighter from crashing into the red dwarf that they have been orbitting. Onboard they find a stasis pod, which coincidently malfunctions at that very moment. After 2 or 3 minutes of the man in the pod waking up, you realise that he is a complete lunatic. Something which totally escapes the 3 person crew of the research ship...
After that it becomes a rip off every other film involving a psychotic madman terrorising innocent victims, overall I think Speed 2 was a better exploration of the subject matter, which I didn't consider to be a good film either.
Not a good film, get Aliens out and watch that again.



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


user
Getting lost in space frozen for 15 years, that's unlikely. Falling into a star... improbable. Falling into it the day it goes supernova and explodes... ludicrous. Getting rescued by a ship just then... priceless.
No, it's not Zaphod Beeblebrox's Heart of Gold to the rescue. It's also not the Parent of the Year awardees. After sentencing her daughter to two years' solitary confinement on an abandoned spaceship, the mother encourages her to get drunk and wander off alone with the strange man they've picked up. This foreshadows their prowess in hand to hand combat, which makes up most of the film's action. Combat highlights include for example the psycho talking close up face to face with one woman while blindly pointing the gun behind him at the other about six inches away, who obligingly simpers in the line of fire.
In the end, the family of three abandons the metropolis-sized ship they were planning to use to observe the supernova until the last instant because it is too slow to escape the blast wave, instead using the psycho's fighter ship which they've refueled in one minute with 1600 pounds of gas propellant from a 0.7-kiloton missile. You have to love those hard sci-fi statistics!
As long as Hollywood treats writing as an irrelevant frill, they'll continue making movies not fit to run at 3 am on the Sci fi channel.


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


user
Back in the day, I remembered seeing dumb Nintendo Power comics that had the same artwork as this show... and then word came up that this show was a coming to a television near me! I was not estatic, but curious... I was curious about how bad this show was gonna suck. My friends all said that this show had no real meanings and was too silly for straight people like me to enjoy (i'm actually gay), so I decided to watch the show with low expectations.
WHAT A HORRIBLE EXPERIENCE!!!!!!!!!!! First off, I hate the new characters. Tiff and Tuff are so dumb and I hate how so many fanboys drool over Tiff, it's sad. I also hate how they made Chef Kalasaki (or whatever his nonstraight name was) a good guy who owned a restaurant. Bad move, 4Kids TV! Escargoon is nothing but a loser adviser to the King Dedede (who sucks big time in this show) and I hate the face of that one company that keeps supplying Dedede with those awful weapons to destroy Kirby. So stupid, I hate this show.
I then began to hate Kirby even more since it was obvious Nintendo was just aching to get Kirby some popularity. Kirby'll never beat Mario in the fight for coolness, and Kirby will always be nothing but a tiny little cream puff of gayness. NUF SAID!!!


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


user
...however I am not one of them. Caro Diario at least was watchable for two thirds of the time, but the boring and self-centred third section of that movie gave us a taste of what was to come in this extraordinarily self-indulgent mess. Moretti says he feels a need to make this movie, but doesn't want to, whereas the viewer feels that he should stick with it, but really doesn't want to either. A film about Italian politics and elections could be fascinating, but this is not that film. At one point, Moretti and his friends are standing outside the Communist Party headquarters, discussing the interviews they are preparing to conduct with Party leaders inside, but it's characteristic of this film that we never get to see anything of them. Interposed with Moretti's political ravings are the events leading up to the birth of his son, and subsequent home movie shots of him with the baby and later the infant Pietro (the film drags us through several years and more than one election period). We keep expecting to see some definitive sequence or cogent argument, but they never come. I for one doubt that I could have the patience to ever sit through a Nanni Moretti movie again. He succeeds in making an hour and twenty minutes seem like an eternity.


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


user
You know when you're on the bus and someone decides to tell you their life-story, and you sit there with a pathetic smile on your face when all you really want to do is slap the fool and walk off? Well I had a similar sensation while watching this film. Okay, I did actually choose to go and see Aprile, and I knew about Nanni Moretti's taste for making himself the one and only star from Caro Diario, but after about half an hour of this latest installment from his memoirs I wanted to give Moretti the madre of all slaps. Caro Diario was funny, unusual, and at least a couple of other characters managed to get a word in edgeways. In Aprile, however, Moretti has exclusive rights to the dialogue, so that all you hear for an hour and a half is a high-pitched whine going on about how his politics are best, or what quirky piece of popular culture is tickling his fancy at the moment. He also finds time to slag off films that he doesn't like, something I thought was reserved for losers like me. Surely being in a position like his you'd think he'd try and make a point about cinema a little more intelligently than this. By making a proper film perhaps, one with some ideas and a decent structure, or maybe one that isn't completely dominated by his annoying voice. And when he started fawning over his newborn baby, I just wanted to go and be in the company of someone normal, preferably not a self-obsessed film director with a strange penchant for tacky music. The next time someone you don't know tries to tell you their life-story, give them a slap from me. Every blow will be a small victory in the fight against Morettiism.


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


user
I noticed with some amusement that in the end credits, the Detroit PD is thanked for their participation. The Chief of Police even has one speaking line playing himself (and boy, can you tell he can't act). The reason for the amusement is that in this movie the police shoot first and ask questions later. Not the kind of PR, I would think a police force would want. Other than that, this is your standard cops and robbers film dressed up for the '70's with a racial angle. Alex Rocco is given a thankless role of a lifer cop that can't get ahead and is saddled with a mentally ill wife. He makes up for this by hanging out at the local whorehouse. Hari Rhodes is his dashing partner that has a groovy wardrobe and likes to chase after suspects while wearing a trenchcoat. The movie moves along until the penultimate shootout that makes absolutely no sense (why do people that are only guilty of a robbery, take on a whole police force?). Not only do we see one shootout but since there are four bad guys, we get to see four. Then there is a twist ending that is supposed to leave one guessing what really would have happened but only left me thinking how stupid it was. Seeing that director Arthur Marks was also behind the braindead "Friday Foster" and "Bucktown", I shouldn't have wondered.


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


user
Bought this movie in the bargain bin at Rogers Video store for $2. I enjoy a good B movie now and then and figured this looked like a good one.
The movie is quite cliche "1970's" and is quite groovy for that. Unfortunately the story line is hard to follow and not a lot happens in the movie. In fact, I turned it off after watching it for 45 minutes and figured a week later that I should watch the whole thing no matter how slow it was.
The movie has good spots in it, but you have to wait and wait and wait.......for them.
If you are into B movies, this might just be for you, just be warned that the movie is slow and not much really happens, and did I mention not much story line either...



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


user
This 1973 remake of the classic 1944 Billy Wilder film, "Double Indemnity," is a textbook example of how to destroy a great script. This grade-B TV fodder also illustrates the folly of remakes in general. While Hollywood has gone after greedy executives that colorize black-and-white films and sought disclaimers on wide-screen movies that are shown in pan-and-scan versions, the industry has ignored the hacks that insist on taking a classic film and diminishing it with a shoddy remake.
The first step in producing a bowdlerized version of a classic is to edit the script. The Billy-Wilder-Raymond-Chandler work was cut by a half hour to fit the finished film into a specified time-slot with room for commercials. Then update the production with bland, color photography, smart, upscale sets, and TV-familiar actors. Thus, the brand-new "Double Indemnity" eliminates the atmospheric black-and-white film-noir cinematography that enhanced the mood and characterizations of the original. Gone are the dusty, shadowy, claustrophobic sets that explained the protagonists' desires to escape their situations at whatever cost. Gone are the close bond between Keyes and Neff and the erotic attraction between Neff and Phyllis.
The look of Jack Smight's take on "Double Indemnity" is more "Dynasty" than film noir. Phyllis Dietrickson has a designer home to die for, and Neff's comfy pad would be hard to afford on an insurance salesman's salary, not to mention the sporty Mercedes convertible that he drives. Neither character has any apparent motive to murder for a paltry $200,000. If not money, then perhaps murder for love or lust? Not in this version. Richard Crenna shows little interest in Samantha Eggar, and their kisses are about as lusty as those between a brother and a sister. Crenna fails to capture the cynicism of Neff, and his attempts at double-entendre and sexual suggestiveness fall horribly flat. Eggar is little better and lacks sensuality and the depth to suggest the inner workings of a supposedly devious and manipulative mind. Only Lee J. Cobb manages a creditable performance as Keyes. Director Jack Smight and his three principals have all done much better work.
There was no conceivable reason to produce this wretched remake except to fill time in a broadcast schedule. There was no conceivable reason to resurrect this dud on DVD and package it with the original film except to fill out a double-disc package. The only lesson that can be learned from this misfire is that even a great script and great dialog can be ruined with poor casting, lackluster direction, and TV grade production values. The 1973 "Double Indemnity" should be titled "10% Indemnity," because viewing it only underscores the 100% perfection of the original movie.


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


user
It was hard to watch this film and be totally fair and objective since I am a big fan the original 1944 movie. That, to me and many others, is one of the greatest film noirs ever made. Realizing this is simply a shortened made-for-TV film and that most people had trashed it, I didn't expect much, but you can't help but compare this with the '44 film. Scene after scene, I found myself comparing what I was looking at it, and remembering how it played out with Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck, Edward G. Robinson and others. Now I was seeing these famous actors playing their famous roles replaced by Richard Crenna, Samantha Eggar and Lee J. Cobb.
When it was all over, I found it wasn't as bad as I had expected but it's no match for the 1944 original. The two main areas in which this made-for-TV film wasn't as good were (1) the electricity between the two leads was missing and (2) being only 90 minutes, they rushed the story with hardly time to develop the plot, characters and chemistry between those leads. Crenna and Eggar were flat, and simply no match for MacMurray and Stanwyck as "Walter Neff" and "Phyllis Dietrichson," respectively.
Where this re-make held its own was in the other characters, such as "Barton Keyes" and "Edward Norton." Cobb was terrific as Keyes and Robert Webber as Norton, head of the insurance company. It also was somewhat interesting to see the time frame changed, so the houses, cars, telephones, dictating machines, etc., were all early '70s instead of mid '40s. Otherwise, the storyline was very similar, just rushed.
However, one viewing was enough and I will happily go back to the original version for the rest of my viewings of this classic story and film.


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


user
Watch the Original with the same title from 1944! This made for TV movie, is just god-awful! Although it does use (as far as I can tell) almost the same dialog, it just doesn't work! Is it the acting, the poor directing? OK so it's made for TV, but why watch a bad copy, when you can get your hands on the superb original? Especially as you'll be spoiled to the plot and won't enjoy the original as much, as if you've watched it first!
There are a few things that are different from the original (it's shorter for once), but all are for the worse! The actors playing the parts here, just don't fit the bill! You just don't believe them and who could top Edward G. Robinsons performance from the original? If you want, only watch it after you've seen the original and even then you'll be very brave, if you watch it through! It's almost sacrilege!


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


user
This 1973 TV remake of the Billy Wilder classic is inferior to the original. Surprise!
First, the good things. Lee J. Cobb makes a terrific Barton Keyes. He's not as good as Edward G. Robinson, of course, but he's the only reason to watch this. This remake's only improvement over the original is that it cuts down the role of Lola Dietrichson, the step-daughter of the femme fatale, Phyllis Dietrichson.
And that's it for the good things.
The bad things are many. The director records everything in an indifferent manner: if you watched the film with the sound muted you'd hardly get the impression that anything especially interesting was happening. Because of modern bad taste, the film must be in color instead of black and white. Because of 1970s bad taste, all the sets are distractingly ugly. Walter Neff's expensive apartment, in particular, is hideous.
The modern setting hurts in a lot of small ways. Train trips were a bit more unusual in the 70s than in the 40s, so Mr. Dietrichson's decision to take a train seems more of a contrivance. Men stopped wearing hats, which prevents Walter from covering up his brown hair while posing as the white-haired Mr. Dietrichson. Women in mourning stopped wearing veils, which robs Samantha Eggar of a prop Barbara Stanwyck made splendid use of in a key scene. (Oddly, Lola still has the line where she reveals that her stepmother was trying on a black hat and veil before she had need of them.)
Stephen Bochco keeps much of the Billy Wilder-Raymond Chandler script the same. But he makes a lot of tiny, inexplicable changes to the dialogue which leave the script slightly flabby where once it was lean and muscular. Outrageously, the famous motorcycle-cop banter is gone, but look closely and you'll see what looks like a post-production cut where those lines should have been. Bochco may not be to blame.
Richard Crenna is passable as Walter Neff. What might have made this version tolerable is a really splendid Phyllis Dietrichson. Instead we get Samantha Eggar, who comes off like a standard-issue villainess from "Barnaby Jones." But who can blame Eggar? With a director who barely seems interested in what's happening in front of the camera, how could Barbara Stanwyck herself have come off well?


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


user
When someone remakes a classic movie, the remake is always unfavorably compared to the original. Also, there's a chance that the remake is so radically different that it is just too unfamiliar to audiences.
Well, the 1973 TV version of "Double Indemnity" has almost identical scenes and dialogue as the 1944 original. The main difference is that the remake just seems to have no energy at all. Fred MacMurray was great as the lecherous, leering insurance agent Walter Neff in the original; Richard Crenna just seems world-weary and tired. Edward G. Robinson brought great manic energy to his role as MacMurray's boss Barton Keys; Lee J. Cobb, a fine actor, appears almost bored with the proceedings. Samantha Eggar is all wrong as the conniving, back-stabbing Phyllis Dietrichson; while Barbara Stanwyck was just superb in this wicked role, Eggar is overly polite and mannered and just seems way out of place.
Robert Webber, in the old Richard Gaines role as Robinson's boss Norton, and John Fiedler taking the Porter Hall role as the crucial witness, bring some life to the movie. In particular, Webber recreates the Norton role well in a 1970s context.
However, after the movie starts, the whole thing just sort of lies there, without any life or electricity. This is one film that never should have been remade.


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


user
Utter dreck. I got to the 16 minute/27 second point, and gave up. I'd have given it a negative number review if that were possible (although 'pissible' is a more fitting word...). Unlike the sizzle you could see and practically feel between MacMurray and Stanwyck in the original, the chemistry between dumb ol' Dicky Crenna and whats-her-face here is just non-existent. The anklet becomes an unattractive chunky bracelet? There's no ciggy-lighting-by-fingertip? And I thought I'd be SICK when they have a mortified-looking (and rightly so, believe you me) Lee J. Cobb as Keyes practically burping/upchucking his way through the explanation of his "Little Man" to Mr. Garloupis. No offence to the non-sighted, but it looks as though a posse of blind men ran amuck with the set design of both the Dietrichson and Neff houses. The same goes for those horrid plaid pants that Phyllis wears. And crikey, how much $$ does Neff make, that he lives overlooking a huge marina? This, folks, again, all takes place in the first 16 and a half minutes. If you can get through more of it, you have a much stronger constitution than me, or you are a masochist. But please, take some Alka-Seltzer first, or you WILL develop a "little man" of your own that may never go away. Proceed with caution, obviously.


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


user
As a big fan of the original film, it's hard to watch this show. The garish set decor and harshly lighted sets rob any style from this remake. The mood is never there. Instead, it has the look and feel of so many television movies of the Seventies. Crenna is not a bad choice as Walter Neff, but his snappy wardrobe and "swank" apartment don't fit the mood of the original, or make him an interesting character.He does his best to make it work but Samantha Egger is a really bad choice. The English accent and California looks can't hold a candle to Barbara Stanwick's velvet voice and sex appeal. Lee J.Cobb tries mightily to fashion Barton Keyes,but even his performance is just gruff, without style.
It feels like the TV movie it was and again reminds me of what a remarkable film the original still is.


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


user
Murder and insurance fraud take an adulterous couple to "the end of the line"...
TV was visually vulgar back in the early 1970s and this truncated, made-for-TV knock-off hurt my eyes. It can't possibly compare to the 1944 Billy Wilder Film Noir classic as anyone in their right mind ought to know -sight unseen- but that doesn't mean this update should be seen as a separate entity, either. Although based on the original Paramount screenplay, there's over half an hour cut out and the director's bland indifference makes what's left imminently forgettable. With rare exception, the younger generation wasn't interested in watching old black and white movies on TV back in 1973 (still true today, alas) so this lurid, compelling tale was new to the overwhelming majority of viewers; then as now, ratings rule and cashing in was its only reel raison d'etre. Gus Van Zandt remade Alfred Hitchcock's PSYCHO for similar reasons and if these redux led to the seeking out of the original films or novels, so much the better. I loved the James M. Cain source novel enough to tune in back then and I enjoyed this time capsule curio the second time around for the longish hair, halter tops, turbans, ugly decor, and lush auburn locks of "guest star" Samantha Eggar, who didn't try too hard. In addition to recognizing a few of the incidental cast from a childhood spent in front of the boob tube, Lee J. Cobb was able to hold my interest as a world-weary, tired-looking Keyes but Richard Crenna's affable and inoffensive Walter Neff only reminded me of Bill Bixby on a bad day. Improvement upon the original was, of course, never intended in a rush to make a buck but, instead of a mindless retread, a new adaptation of the novel would have been a novel idea. Cain's book differs somewhat from its celluloid incarnations and the horrific shark fins in the moonlight ending is killer. The completist in me is thankful this speeded up "Me Decade" update was included as part of the DOUBLE INDEMNITY DVD extras but the experience not only made me long to see the original, it had me nostalgic for any episode of the better-made COLUMBO TV series. I also flashed back to a very good 1973 ABC TV Movie Of The Week that I haven't seen since its initial airing: John D. Macdonald's LINDA starring the beautiful Stella Stevens as a ruthless femme fatale who murders her lover's (sexy John Saxon) wife and then frames her mild-mannered husband for the crime and, if I remember correctly, there's also an open-ended ending. Like DOUBLE INDEMNITY, it was needlessly remade with TV movie queen Virginia Madsen as the titular vixen and Richard Thomas as the milquetoast husband.


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


user
This could have been a good episode but I simply had to turn it off. The British representation was horrible to watch. Have the makers ever set foot in Britain prior to filming? At least set foot in England?? I don't think any British person have had such an accent apart from a comedy skit of The Royal Family! Also with the 2 English boys... well I don't think any English boy has acted, spoke or dressed like any English kid in the history of the British nation since Prince William and Harry's preteen public appearances. To American film makers.. There is more than 1 country in the UK. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.. meaning more than 1 culture! I can handle some stereotyping but this was so bad I could not watch it. Fire looked cool though!


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


user
I watched Phat Beach on cable for a while and I sort of enjoyed it. The fat guy is the best character, as he seems to be a nice guy. The rest of the characters are just various stereotypes of young men and young black men. I like to watch these low budget movies that capture a period of time because they are almost like a documentary of the year's attitudes and fads. Phat Beach is also funny because the low-budget babes in this movie are strictly home-girls. Most low-budget movies have that "local babe" quality, and you can tell the babes in this movie were the local strippers and underwear models for JC Penneys. Some of them had so much cellulite hanging from their bikinis that it was funny to watch how the "youngsters" went wild over what was essentially some really over-used, high-mileage skank. There were some cuties too. That is the charm of these low-budget crappy movies. You will see a lot of doggies, and some real cuties! I checked up on some of them at IMDb and seven years later Phat Beach is their only credit. Too bad. It would be interesting if someone ever managed to do a "Where are they now" book on all of the cuties that have appeared in the history of movies and then were never again to return. What happened?? There are probably one or two young people in almost every movie who seem to have a lot going for them and yet years later when you see the movie again on TV you wonder "what ever happened to X?" Anyhow, this movie mostly blows, but it has some funny moments.


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


user
Watching this movie was the biggest waste of time and 2 bucks for rental in my life. If nothing catastrophic happens before I die, this will be the biggest regret of my life. Who ever even thought about this movie, or financed deserves a kick between the legs, because that's where they were thinking when they made this movie. It's about an overweight guy who is a hopeless romantic, and writes pretentious drivel that tries to pass off as poetry. He joins his amorous friend in a trip to the coast. Where they meet girls and such. Only the fat guy doesn't get a girl. Skin flicks don't annoy me, I take 'em for face value. But this movie tries to be more than a skin flick. It's about Fat guy looking for love in some girl, but then meets another bikini silicone girl that enjoys his poetry. He finds his talent for volleyball which gets money for his family and impresses the ladies, only he has his lady anyways. The dialogue is super-horrible for even a C movie. It supports a ton of black stereotypes, no character development, it's a glorified porno movie, without any porn in it. Never ever watch 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
Is nothing else on TV? Are you really bored? Well, then watch Phat Beach. However, don't rent it and definitely DO NOT buy it. That would be a big mistake.
I watched this on TV and found myself laughing at certain points. I did not laugh long and I did not laugh hard. However, there were subtle jokes and comments I laughed at. If you are looking for an extremely funny "hood" movie then watch Friday. If you are looking for a powerful emotional movie (something that this movie tries at..kind of) watch something like hoop dreams or Jason's Lyric. If you are lookin for some good black "booty" go watch a Dominique Simone porn flick, because the nudity in this movie is nearly non-existent. However, if you have nothing better to do and this is on cable, go ahead and watch it. You will be slightly amused.
***3 out of 10***


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


user
This is the worst movie ever made. The acting, the script, the location, everything! I would have given it a little chance if there were attractive women in the movie, but even they were bad. You would think that a movie with the word "beach" in it's title would have good-looking women in it. Wouldn't you?


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


user
A mediocre Sci-Fi Channel original picture. A little squirmish, but not much. The nuclear powered submarine U.S.S. Jimmy Carter is on a mission deep below thick frigid ice near the North Pole when it is attacked by giant super charged electric eels. A member of the crew (Simmone Jade Mackinnon)thinks she has devised a way to communicate with the monsters, but is not given much chance for vague reasons. Also among the crew are:David Keith, Mark Sheppard and Sean Whalen. This movie could have been somewhat better if the eels/monsters were not so cartoonish.


assistant
0