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
Yes, as unbelievable as it may be, in 1968 a musical won the Academy Award for best picture - and it was the third musical to win that award in a five-year period, the first being My Fair Lady in 1964 and then The Sound of Music in 1965. The difference between My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music and Oliver! however is that Oliver! is immeasurably better! No comparison. The first two movies are insipid wet noodles compared to the remarkably robust Oliver!. The acting is great; the songs are great; the story is great and the dancing is great. This movie is dynamic, topical, relevant to the human experience and unlike the overblown Gangs of New York, Oliver! offers a portrayal of poverty in 19th century London, England that evokes sympathy without being condescending. Oliver Reed was a great actor and he proves it in Oliver! The other actors and actresses, especially Ron Moody and Shani Wallis, are equally wonderful and offer powerful portrayals of characters who evoke sympathy and warmth without being caricatures.


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


user
The great cinematic musicals were made between 1950 and 1970. This twenty year spell can be rightly labelled the “Golden Era” of the genre. There were musicals prior to that, and there have been musicals since… but the true classics seem invariably to have been made during that period. Singin’ In The Rain, An American In Paris, The Band Wagon, Seven Brides For Seven Brothers, Oklahoma, South Pacific, The King And I, and many more, stand tall as much cherished products of the age. Perhaps the last great musical of the “Golden Era” is Carol Reed’s 1968 “Oliver”. Freely adapted from Dickens’ novel, this vibrant musical is a film version of a successful stage production. It is a magnificent film, winner of six Oscars, including the Best Picture award.
Orphan Oliver Twist (Mark Lester) lives a miserable existence in a workhouse, his mother having died moments after giving birth to him. Following an incident one meal-time, he is booted out of the workhouse and ends up employed at a funeral parlour. But Oliver doesn’t settle particularly well into his new job, and escapes after a few troubled days. He makes the long journey to London where he hopes to seek his fortune. Oliver is taken under the wing of a child pickpocket called the Artful Dodger (Jack Wild) who in turn works for Fagin (Ron Moody), an elderly crook in charge of a gang of child-thieves. Despite the unlawful nature of the job, Oliver finds good friends among his new “family”. He also makes the acquaintance of Nancy (Shani Wallis), girlfriend of the cruellest and most feared thief of them all, the menacing Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed). After many adventures, Oliver discovers his true ancestry and finds that he is actually from a rich and well-to-do background. But his chances of being reunited with his real family are jeopardised when Bill Sikes forcibly exploits Oliver, making him an accomplice in some particularly risky and ambitious robberies.
“Oliver” is a brilliantly assembled film, consistently pleasing to the eye and excellently acted by its talented cast. Moody recreates his stage role with considerable verve, stealing the film from the youngsters with his energetic performance as Fagin. Lester and Wild do well too as the young pickpockets, while Wallis enthusiastically fleshes out the Nancy role and Reed generates genuine despicableness as Sikes. The musical numbers are staged with incredible precision and sense of spectacle – Onna White’s Oscar-winning choreography helps make the song-and-dance set pieces so memorable, but the lively performers and the skillful direction of Carol Reed also play their part. The unforgettable tunes include “Food Glorious Food”, “Consider Yourself”, “You’ve Got To Pick A Pocket Or Two”, “I’d Do Anything” and “Oom-Pah-Pah” – all immensely catchy songs, conveyed via very well put together sequences. The film is a thoroughly entertaining experience and never really loses momentum over its entire 153 minute duration. Sit back and enjoy!


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


user
I admit not being that fond of Oliver! as a young child--it's long, and the story is a little slow-moving because of all the musical numbers. As a teenager I discovered that the fun of this movie is the experience itself. Rather than thinking of it as an adaptation of Oliver Twist, think of it as a celebration of the classic story. The adaptation is loose at best, but really, if you're watching a musical, you ain't there for the story.
The music is the core of this movie, and an overwhelming majority of it is stellar and very catchy. Most or all of the cast was involved in the stage version of the musical, and it shows in their performances--and I consider this a plus. The performances are all in a more "stagey" style of acting typical of much older films, and they are very entertaining. The exception is the kid playing Oliver, whose job seemed to be to look cute and stay out of the real performers' way.
Fagin and the Dodger are the real stars of this movie. Oliver Reed also does a fantastic job maintaining an intimidating screen presence as the menacing Bill Sykes. Even Sykes' dog Bullseye puts on a good performance.
This movie isn't for everyone. People who hate musicals will despise it, as will those who take musicals too seriously. Nitpicking over faulty historical details or mistaking exaggerated stage-type acting for bad acting will ruin anyone's enjoyment. Just sit back and enjoy the entertainment--it's much better if you remember that, as a musical, it's a fantasy loosely organized around the book, not a strict adaptation.


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


user
First off, I'd like to make a correction on another review of this film which said that the last musical to win the Best Picture Academy Award was 'Gigi' in 1958. That is misinformation as 'West Side Story' won in 1962, 'My Fair Lady' won in 1965 and 'Sound of Music' won the year after that. That said, this film is absolutely fantastic! The story from the novel has been somewhat altered, but that's more because of the limitations that they had on a stage that they just didn't change back for a filmed version. However, I don't mind. In fact, I rather think the whole production flows better than the novel does. I like Nancy bringing Oliver to the bridge with her and being killed there instead of later in the apartment. The subtle things in this film are the ones that make me laugh. I love the moment Mr. Bumble and Mrs. Bumble start coming out at the beginning from the governors office. The underscore for that moment is brilliant. My three favorite actors for this film were Jack Wild, who plays the best Dodger in any film version of the story, Ron Moody, a playful and humorous Fagin (this character is worked out much better than he is in the book), and Shani Wallis, who is the strongest, most distressed version of Nancy. The only reason I'm giving this film a 9 instead of a 10 is because of the two big production numbers which are 'Concider Yourself' and 'Who Will Buy.' I always hate when the choreography in musicals in meant to look like people doing everyday chores and jobs. It looks awful and cheesy, especially when they're dancing at the London Meat Co. They should've just done regular choreography for these scenes. However, this film is a rare treasure that will stay with us, hopefully, forever.


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


user
That movie was awesome! I can't get over it's songs. I think I'm a little too old for musicals, but that movie deserves some credit here, guys! My especial favorite was Jack Wild. Me, being a British actor lover, you can't restrain me from all those nice-looking fresh faced, young men. I never knew that when Jack was doing that movie he was sixteen! He looks like an eleven- year old. He's short, that's what helps. Try posting up your replies, fellow posters, so I can relate to your experiences. Oh, and about Oliver Reed, that guy, Bill Sikes, I think that drone look is really familiar. Any idea where he's starred in before? If so, post it up, I'd really like to know.


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


user
A tour deforce! OK the kid that plays Oliver is a bit toooooo sweet! Starting with the great cinematography, color, costumes and most impressive performances this is a must see movie. I have seen several adaptations of this great novel, but this one stands above them all and its a musical to boot! It is a masterful Fagan, never leaving his character to do a song. You never really know if you like him or not, the same feeling I got in the book. In other versions you hate him from start to finish. Bill Sykes.... when you read the book hes a mean one, and so he is in this movie. Oliver Reed was masterful. His wife directed this masterpiece. I went and saw his last movie, Gladiator based on his many fine performances, not to see the headliners. The music fits the times and the mood. Who will buy this beautiful movie? You Should!


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


user
Im not usually a lover of musicals,but if i had to choose what would be my favourite it would definitely be Oliver.This film is so well made,the characters are well depicted,the costumes are spot on the acting is good and the songs are great,my favourite being 'Reviewing The Situation'sung by Ron Moody who gives a brilliant portrayal of Fagin.I wasn't old enough to see Oliver when it was released in the late 60s but my sisters were,so for weeks on end i had to put up with them singing the bloody songs,usually it was 'Who will buy my wonderful roses'so i already knew all of the songs before i saw the film.Its a timeless musical you definitely couldn't remake it,it stands on its own.Its not accurate to the book and i don't think it would have worked so well if it had been.I don't think Charles Dickens would be disappointed,as he wrote Oliver to depict the poverty in London,the orphanages,the work houses and about what the poor had to resort to in order to survive,and the film portrays this very well.Also another great reason to watch this film is Bullseye the Old type English Bull terrier,notice his long thin legs,this was bred out of the breed many years ago,they must have hunted high and low to find a specimen like him,and he is exactly how an English Bull Terrier would have looked in Victorian times.Notice he has scars {which is probably makeup}on his face,Bill Sykes had probably used him for dog fighting or for the rat pit.A Victorian Bull Terrier had a record amount of kills in a rat pit.His a beautiful dog any way,and notice he disobeys Bill Sykes after he has killed Nancy,he obviously has his standards his not the chunk head Bill Sykes thought he was.This is a great musical to watch if you like musicals,and if you don't like musicals give it a try any way,there's something for everyone in this film.


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


user
One of the finest musicals made, one that is timeless and is worth seeing time and again. Delicious! The acting, especially by Ron Moody as Fagin, is superb. Costumes are exquisite....even the shabby ones.
The two young lads who play Oliver and The Artful Dodger are wonderfully talented. Oliver Reed does a great job portraying Bill Sykes to where you can't help but hope he comes to a terrible end....which he does.
The dancing is cleverly choreographed and is mesmerizing. Oliver can hold its own with the likes of My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music, Oklahoma, etc. A film for the entire family.


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


user
I saw this recently on a cable channel. The movie is great; it's one of the few musicals I have seen that doesn't shy away from the light and dark. It portrays some of the splendour of the age along with a lot of the squalor. Some of the set piece dance sequences so much is going on, I didn't know where to look next. One day I shall go and see this on the big screen, just so that I see what's happening. But what really lifts this to another level is Oliver Reed's performance as Bill Sykes. Not only is a thoroughly mean and menacing man but there is something else, some inner demons. He gave me the impression that if you pushed him into a corner, he was capable of anything. It was almost as if the Sykes character was on the edge of madness, just awaiting the trigger. I have seen the Robert Newton's Bill Sykes from the 1948 movie, and I thought he was 'just' a bad egg, but Oliver Reed's performance intimidated me in my own living room.


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


user
This was my favourite film as a child, and I have been in the stage production a few times so it will always remain my favourite muscical and I doubt anybody could ever re-make the story of Oliver Twist on screen, any better than this one did.
My all-time favourite ''bad guy'' has to be Oliver Reed as Bill Sikes. Not only did he scare the life out of my when I watched it as a 6 year old, but now as a woman I can empathize more with Nancys character, the bar maid/prostitute who helps Oliver get the life he deserves.
Jack Wilde as the artful dodger, was fantastic, and I don't think anybody could ever out-do him, as the street-pocket picker, and best friend of Fagin. The music is fantastic, especially Fagin's numbers, I'm also quite thankful they didn't give Bill Sikes a musical number, it wouldn't of worked with him being such a sinister character.
I think Carol Reed did an excellent job of Nancy's sticky ending, keeping it a G rated movie by disguising her beating, but giving enough away to show the violence of Bill towards her.
This movie is both charming, and charismatic as a musical sing-along, as well as being a moving drama that follows a young boy as he tries to find where he belongs in life.


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


user
One of the last great musicals of the 60s. I was 7 years old the first time I saw this movie, and it's always been a favorite since then. The musical numbers are all memorable. In the 60s the people who were cast in musicals actually had musical talent (unlike a CERTAIN Academy Award nominated current musical based in a large midwestern city). All of the main roles were beautifully cast...Ron Moody shines as Fagin, as does Shani Wallis as Nancy. Oliver Reed was a menacing Bill Sikes (who thankfully has no musical numbers, lol), and Mark Lester as Oliver and Jack Wild as the Dodger were great too. Mark Lester comes across as an innocent waif, which was what Dickens intended when he wrote the book! Then, of course there are the dozens of dancers who perform in "consider yourself," "I'd Do Anything" "Who Will Buy" and "be Back Soon," many who were children! This is a great show for the whole family.


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


user
This production of Oliver is masterful in showing layers of evil in the human soul. What makes the story remarkable is a brilliantly bright Unseen Character, who pierces this darkness as he leads an innocent boy through the gravest dangers safely into the hands of his own relative. Yea, though Oliver walks through the valley of the shadow of death, he fears no evil. A rod and staff are there to comfort him. In the end, he is saved from the dregs of humanity. At the bottom is Fagin, the most wicked of the lot. Fagin contemplates repenting of his ways not once, but twice, yet declines because he is unwilling to pay the price. Fagin is worse than Bill Sikes, because he raises little pickpockets who become murderers. In the middle is Oliver. His innocence is unsullied, but untried as well. The best is Nancy. Lacking in judgment, she ignores Bill Sikes' violent nature out of her deep need for love. Yet unlike Fagin, at the probable cost of her own life, she does repent of her sins by saving Oliver from Bill. Things are not as they seem. In my opinion, this quality is what makes art worthwhile - unpredictability. I would give this film a "10," but its '70's made-for-TV soundtrack and ambiance were distracting. Overall, a fine parable and a thoroughly appropriate story for all audiences.


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


user
I really love this movie. I remember one time when I was in 2nd >grade, my teacher showed it to us on a 16mm film reel. This movie, however, can be a little frightening for 2nd graders such as the scene where Bill murders Nancy and seeing Fagin's face for the first time on the screen. One of my relatives is sick of seeing this movie because she studied over it in music class. If I were a teacher and could grade the people who produced this wonderful film, I would give them an A+.


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


user
The man who directed 'The Third Man' also directed the 'Who Will Buy' sequence in "Oliver!" Now that is talent.
I raise my hat to Carol Reed.
I know there are 'second units' involved, but still ...
And he had to deal with Orson Welles and Oliver Reed ...
I suppose quality will out.
(It does show in the final scene with Nancy [ avoiding spoiler - everyone has to see Oliver! for the first time sometime ].) How many lines do I need to type.
Encouraging people to type too much is not to be encouraged.
I hope this counts as the "10th line".


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


user
It seems that it is becoming fashionable to rip "Basic Instinct 2," to the point that a significant part of the audience (including critics) found it terrible even before it was released. It seems even more fashionable to trash Sharon Stone wholike all of usis now fourteen years older, andunlike most of usstill looks wonderful. First comments on this movie were so vicious that I had to see for myself. In my opinion, this sequel is not nearly as good as the original film, but is not as bad as most comments pretend. Michael Caton-Jones is not Paul Verhoeven, neither Henry Bean and Leora Barish are Joe Eszterhas. "Basic Instinct 2" is just an entertaining, average thriller, and besides the addition of Jerry Goldsmith original score, keeps little resemblance to its predecessor. Even Stone gives her character a different dimension, creating a lustful, devilish Catherine Trimell, who can perfectly well rank among other monsters like Hannibal Lecter. She is an intelligent actress who is not afraid of taking risks and can play with camp at her leisure. Unfortunately, she seems to be the main target for those who enjoy trashing this flick. She became too successful, too much of a main icon, and like all those actors who have reached that level, her time has arrived and she is now bound to be destroyed by Hollywood audiences.
The rest of the cast is outstanding, giving performances that are far better than the material deserves. David Morrissey is a much better actor and by far more interesting than Michael Douglas: his acting is flawless, giving a dense, complex dimension to an otherwise one dimensional character. Since he has more screen time and is the axis of the movie, he can keep your attention from beginning to end.
I am not recommending "Basic Instinct 2" as a great movie; I am just expressing my disagreement with most of the comments on this site and my conviction that agendas other than the movie itself are shaping the opinion of most spectators.


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


user
I think the reason for all the opinionated diarrhea on this movie is that most people have it out for Sharon Stone being around 50 and getting naked while playing sexy. No one cared when the Golden Girls sat around eating cheesecake and discussing their first orgasm, but to see someone post menopausal getting digitally pleased while driving I guess is just too much for some to handle. Let's face it, she looks good, she's light years hotter than my mother who's the same age! It's not an Oscar or a cult classic like the first, but ever since the turn of the century that's all movie goers seem to expect: a cinematic experience that will touch your soul. As such, it never claims to be either. It's an erotic thriller that is both erotic and thrilling, and is a continuation of a brilliant character that we all love to hate. It's the character of Catherine Trammell that helped give way for this sequel. Fans of the first movie want to see more of that frosty ice queen.
The cinematography and art direction were lush and extravagant and made me want to move to Britian for sure. The score is amazing as well.
Sure there's some overacting from some characters but there's some brilliant work from David Morrissey who's virtually unknown.
There's a setback in that the script is virtually the same as the first movie only plugging in a psychiatrist in place of the cop. As well as the criminal decision of the MPAA to force the movie to be cut down even more which takes away from the guilty-pleasure raunchiness that the story is known for.
At the very least it's entertaining and fun to look at it, and that's the movie's only intentions. So if you've got beef with Mizz Stone, maybe you should actually SEE the movie and draw your own conclusions before you spew forth your projectile vomit?


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


user
I never trust the opinions of anyone regarding a film. That goes for critics as well. Sure, if it gets positive reviews that's OK and a plus, but most films that get critical rave I hate. I enjoyed this film for what it was, an entertaining film. It takes you out of your life for a couple hours and into a fictional character...that being Catherine Trammell. Sharon Stone is awesome in this role, just like she was in the first one. Anyone who says she is horrible in this film must have felt the same in the first one b/c she is back acting the same way she did in Basic Instinct 1. Catherine is hers and she plays her to perfection. Her one liners are great, much like in the first one. Who can forget in the first film when she tells the cops, "If you're gonna arrest me do it...otherwise get the f**k out of here!" Great scene, and believe me, she does it again in this one. I was captivated by her. Her outfits, the way she smoked her cigarettes, believe me, its worth the price just to see Stone's performance. I cannot wait for this film to be released on DVD, uncut, because I can only imagine how much better it is going to be. And yes, there are lots of twists, as in the first one, including the ending!


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


user
I don't understand your objections to this movie. It is a taut, thrilling extension of the character created in "Basic Instinct". The only part of the story that is the least bit unrealistic, is the fact that Sharon Stone's character is still alive and not in jail at this late date.
SPOILER ALERT: As the movie progresses, we are presented with three theories of what is going on: 1) Sharon Stone's character is killing all these people because she's crazy (Risk Addicted); 2) David Thewlis' crooked cop is killing these people in order to frame Sharon Stone's character; 3) David Morrissey's analyst is killing these people for revenge. What upsets most people about the movie seems to be that none of these theories are ever explicated as the "real" story. (Although the analyst is in a psychiatric care facility for killing the cop; the only killing that occurs on screen.)
I think this is a brilliant plot device in the spirit of "2001, A Space Odyssey." WHO CARES what is real? The blonde really is crazy, the cop really is crooked and the analyst really wants revenge. What's important is the interactions between these and other characters in the story. Like real life, everyone is more complicated than anyone thinks and reality is more complicated than a movie. Get over it!


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


user
I have no idea what people are complaining about. I saw this movie yesterday and I really liked it. Stone once again delivered a great character. She was just as good as she was in the first Basic Instinct. She still has those smart but tricky answers. Although Sharon may be 48 years old... she looks amazing! I don't care if she's as fake as a Barbie. She looks good and that's that. Basic Instinct 2 gives you everything you want from the first. Sex, violence, and a great ending that will leave you thinking and talking about it for hours! Half the people commenting on this movie haven't even saw it. So don't listen to them.


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


user
Frankly I don't understand why this movie has been such a big "flop" in publicity. Sharon Stone certainly has not lost any of her charisma and "touch" since "Basic instinct". I voted this film 10 and I tell you why: Game opens in London this time. London is the city where Catherine Tramell has moved since the events in BI1. Again she proves to be a mastermind manipulator of her own class -unchallenged. She is "screwing your brain" as Catherine with such a skill that in the end you don't be quite sure who is the real villain.
As for the technical part of the film: Only real setback is the B-rate crew of actors. Sharon Stone is the only really big name in the cast compared to her and Michael Douglas etc in the first part. I also think BI2 would have been better had Sharon Stone been a bit younger but she is still quite stunning in her looks and has only improved concerning her charisma. Her B-rate "assistants" are not so bad either although I would have wanted some bigger names to the cast.
I think there are quite good improvements in the basic plot. I think this is a far better thriller than many of the run-off-the-mill crap Hollywood so readily distributes these days. The plot is great, it's easy to see technically, you don't snore in the half way through the film and most important -the heath is on.


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


user
So, every year there is at least one movie, that hasn't got any chance of being a box office success, because from the moment of production, even before one simple shot is filmed, everybody's picking on this movie... There is a long list of these kind of movies, and in the end, some are really bad (Battlefield Earth (2000)), some may have their flaws but are quite enjoyable (Catwoman (2004), Elektra (2005)) and then there are a few, which actually are really great for what they are, but no one admits! I mean, my gosh, just because the wide crowd does have to have a victim each year they can pick on, not everybody has to join them. So yeaaah, maybe those movies aren't perfect, but c'mon, how many movies are? Not every movie is supposed to be a new The Lord of the Rings! Not everybody will enjoy these movies, but I bet there are more than who admit they do. Hudson Hawk (1991), who is just hysterical funny, Color of Night (1994), which may not be Oscar-worthy, but is definitely a not dumb at all thriller with some nice twists, Swept Away (2002), which I thought is a great mix of sick humor and a beautiful romance, Gigli (2003), which was great entertainment with some really memorable lines and not badly acted at all from the former "Bennifer"-Couple, and this year it's "Basic Instinct 2"! Well, when I heard the rumors of a sequel to one of my favorite movies I was very sceptically, and although I really love Sharon Stone I stayed sceptically until I've finally seen this movie. And really, I was very positively surprised! I can't understand why it gets such a bad press and such a bad voting here. It never simply copies the original, it has a quite clever story, has tension, action, humor and the absolutely stunning Sharon Stone reprising the role of her life! With 47 years when shooting the movie she looks hotter than many stars in their 20s, but it's more than her being beautiful, it's brilliantly acted, with all her looks, her famous smile, the way she speaks and moves... from the very first frame she's in you can't take your eyes off of her. It's simply a pleasure to watch her as Catherine Tramell, and all of the other actors deliver solid performances, too! So I really can't see what's wrong with this movie... it has a dark, thrilling, sexy and gritty look, strong performances, and you never felt bored! Maybe the story isn't Oscar-caliber, but it never even tries to be! It's an entertainment-movie, and by this standard it absolutely delivers in my opinion! So give it a try!


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


user
I don't understand why the reviews of this film are so universally bad, unless I'm just off my rocker. I found it sick, brilliant, twisted, and psychologically sophisticated. You won't get deeper into the mind of a criminal psychopath in a Hollywood film than this one. It has layers within layers, nuanced acting by Stone,and a plot that will keep you guessing even after it's over. People need to get over the fact that Sharon Stone is 48,and that Michael Douglas isn't in this one. I predict that this film will be a huge hit on DVD once people see it for themselves and stop paying attention to the drivel professional reviewers put out. Give it a shot, you might be glad you did!


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


user
I am not a usual commenter on this website but seeing how underrated this movie is, I endeavour myself to write some comments and remarks about it. I had fun watching this movie, perhaps because Cat is everything I wish I could be, I am not going to post spoilers or reveal plots but there's are things that i really found amazing, the way she manipulates people it's just so divine. this is a very underrated movie, I lack of arguments here, I usually go enjoy and then speak little about it, when you go to the movies is to have fun, and i really enjoyed the 1h53 i stayed in the dark room. a must seen over and over again until the delight fades away. let's try not be so critical about it. thank you for reading.


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


user
I found this movie to be very good in all areas. The acting was brilliant from all characters, especially Ms.Stone and Morissey. Tramell's Character just gets smarter and more psychologically twisted by the minute. The plot is interesting even though, this movie is more for the mind playing between the main characters and how Catherine continues her writing with new ways and twists for her novels. The setting was also fabulous and the whole atmosphere of the movie was that mysterious,thriller like masterpiece. Go see this film now , it deserves better than what it got from the audience ,which was misled by some faulty terrible reviews about the movie(Before it even started).....You won't regret it,if you go see it...


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


user
I cannot accept the negative comments of other reviewers. They are too critical, perhaps because they are stuck in the past. I would like to see a comment from someone who had never seen Basic Instinct 1, perhaps someone very young ? I left the cinema feeling glad that I had not been swayed by the IMDb reviewers. 14 hours later I am still trying to find flaws in the plot but I cannot think of anything serious. My advice to everyone is see it for yourself and make up your own mind.
It follows a similar pattern to Basic Instinct 1 but the plot is less confused. It still left me wondering at the end but in a more satisfactory way. Sharon Stone is as sexy and evil as before and wears her 48 years extremely well; this remains her defining role. David Morrisey was satisfactory even though he is no Michael Douglas. Of the supporting cast I particularly liked David Thewlis as the police detective.


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


user
We start all of our reviews with the following information. My wife and I have seen nearly 100 movies per year for the past 15 years. Recently, we were honored by receiving lifetime movie passes to any movie any time at no cost! So we can see whatever we want whenever we want. The point of this is that CRITICS count for ZERO. Your local critics or the national critics like Ebert are really no different than you or me. The only difference is that they get to write about the movie and are forced to see hundreds of movies whether they want to or not.Therefore, it is our belief that if you get your monies worth for two hours of enjoyment that is good enough for us! We NEVER EVER listen or read the critics. We only care about our friends and those who we know like the same things as us. Well enough about that.
This movie is very good. not just good but very good. The critics are a bunch of morons. Just because there is nudity and language they hated it. It was worth the price of ticket and that is all you can ask for. Is that not right? Every movie cannot be an academy award nominee. Sharon stone is gorgeous and does a great job in the movie and it mystifies me as to what in the hell the critics want


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


user
What a thrill ride! Twisted and thought provoking. Once again, Sharon Stone pulls off her drop dead gorgeous, spellbinding character of author Catherine Tramell impeccably. The original Basic Instinct takes place in San Francisco. The sequel takes place in London, where Catherine has now relocated. Both bustling cities known for excitement, haute couture ~ and a perfect place for someone like Catherine Trammel to take residency. David Morrisey, ("Derailed"), plays the smooth role of psychiatrist Dr. Michael Glass. The character David Thewlis plays as Roy Washburn with Scotland Yard, is a refreshing departure from his role as Lupin in the Harry Potter series. Flashy cars, designer clothes, sex, drama, humor,tension, - all of the "basic instincts." Mind bending throughout. Great screenplay. From the climactic opening scene to the surprise ending, this film is anything but boring! Everyone in the theater was glued to the screen.


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


user
Just came back from the first showing of Basic Instinct 2. I was going into it thinking it would be crappy based on preview critics and I was pleasantly surprised! If you liked the original Basic Instinct I think you will enjoy #2 just as much if not more. Great story that always keeps you wondering and thinking. The music is superb, reprising the original's theme. Don't go expecting Academy Award material, go to see it for enjoyment and fun. That's what movies are designed for -- escapism. I can't think of a better way to escape than to escape with Sharon Stone who is as sexy as she ever was. Am thinking about going to see it again this weekend. Go see it!


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


user
This picks up about a year after the events in "Basic Instinct". Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is now in London. While having sex with a soccer player while speeding about in a car going at 110 miles/hour (don't ask) she goes off the road and ends up in the Thames. She survives--he doesn't. The police hire psychiatrist Michael Glass (David Morrissey) to see if she's mentally competent to stand trial. Naturally she starts playing with his mind instead and plenty of murders and sex follow.
This movie was doomed before it even opened. It took forever to get a cast and director, script problems were constant and the cast was not happy (Morrissey complained about the movie often). Still it's not too bad. It's a lot like the first--there's a lush music score, beautiful locations, plenty of sex and nudity (this had to be edited for an R), a nicely convoluted plot and good acting--but there's no impact. It feels like a retread of the first. People are being killed here with a choker leash (I believe)...just like people were being killed by an ice pick in the first. In one cute moment Stone picks up an ice pick and looks at it longingly. She's also playing mind games with a man and might be getting him implicated in murders. The similarities are too apparent.
This is also VERY R rated--there's plenty of explicit sex talk, male nudity (Morrissey looks a lot better nude than Michael Douglas), female nudity (Stone still looks great) and some bloody murders. The acting is good across the board. Stone is just fantastic here; Morrissey looks miserable but is OK; Charlotte Rampling and David Thewlis are good in supporting roles.
So--this isn't at all bad but feels like a remake of the first. Still I recommend it. People just attacked this because Stone is not well liked and they thought it was stupid to do a sequel to "Basic..." 14 years after it was made.


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


user
I heard tell that Madonna was briefly considered for the Catherine Tremell role. Compared to Sharon Stone, Madonna is too coarse and BAUERISCH. She's not even close.
EVIL INCARNATE: Sharon Stone is a bit long in the tooth, the ameliorative effects of modern chemistry and surgery notwithstanding. However, she artfully treats us to a frightening personification of evil beyond redemption. In the obligatory sex scene, she projects pure, crystalline lust. Especially her hooded, luminous eyes and a face flat with pleasure. Thanks to brilliant use of lighting and other stage techniques, the harsh lines of age are only occasionally manifest. Rather, she seems to have a slight golden glow (YES, YEATS).
The locations gave us a view of London that is a welcome departure from the usual Londonscapes .The Catherine character is so powerful and menacing that I thank my lucky stars that our paths never crossed. I wouldn't have had a chance.
THE ORIGINAL BASIC INSTINCT; ATTEMPTS AT CENSORSHIP: I must briefly comment on the original 1992 film, set in San Francisco, a beautiful city worthy of this film. It is outstanding, from the music to the locations to the sets, and so on. Paul Verhoven pulled striking performances out of the cast and crew.
That the main Baddie was a woman did not escape the scrutiny of Bay Area Gay and Lesbian activist groups. Attempts at censorship were vehemently denied. SWELL. These philosophical pygmies demanded editorial control over the script, insisting on re-writes that would promote their political and psychiatrically driven agendas. Example: Sanctimoniously alleging sexism and misogyny, they demanded that the lead role be switched from BAD GIRL to BAD GUY.
On locations in San Francisco, the gentle, tolerant activists did their best to sabotage filming of the scenes with noise, flashing lights and other tactics. The Executive Producers, Mario Kassar and Andrew Vajna, vowed to fight any efforts to restrict the artistic freedom guaranteed in our democracy and obtained restraining orders against the disruptive tactics.
BLOWBACK: Thanks to the fulminating activists, the film got huge national press coverage - millions of dollars worth of free advertising. Their calls for viewers to boycott the film resulted in a backlash that had customers waiting in long lines wherever the film was launched. It also received widespread critical acclaim. It was, in the words of the reptilian Hackett in NETWORK, "A BIG- TITTED HIT!" Sorry, Gentle Reader; I just couldn't resist that one. Yes, it's a gibe.
In conclusion, I believe that both BASIC INSTINCT 1 AND 2, with their brilliant musical scores, aesthetics and acting, are works of art
that deserve protection under our Constitution.


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


user
Yes i'll say before i start commenting, this movie is incredibly underrated.
Sharon Stone is great in her role of Catherine Trammell as is Morrissey as Dr glass. He is an analyst sent in to evaluate her after the death of a sports star. Glass is drawn into a seductive game that Trammel uses to manipulate his mind.
The acting was good (apart from Thewlis)
Stone really has a talent with this role. She's slick, naughty and seductive and doesn't look a day older than she did in the first.She really impressed me(like in Casino). Morrisey was also good. He showed much vunerablitity in a role that needed it. Thewlis however was lame. He ruined his character and was over-the-top the whole way. He really sucked.
Overall, this movie not as good the first but Stone is a hoot to watch. Just ignore Thewlis.


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


user
Really, I think this movie is more an example of an easy target than a truly bad film. In fact, the movie is done very well in many respects and is very entertaining.
Yes, the script is a little convoluted, but that's the genre. The film has a noirish atmosphere centered around a femme fatale. Just like all the old noir classics, this, too, has a screenplay that twists you around so that you don't always know how to make sense of it at first, and it can be a stretch if you think too deeply and try to put all of the pieces together. That's the genre. In general, the script has enough surprises and turns to keep the viewer guessing and, in turn, surprised, without abandoning the viewer.
Sharon Stone is also an easy target. The truth is she looks great and she speaks her double-entendre laden dialog in such a way as to zhuzh it up into something mysterious, sexy and fun.
The direction is more than passable, because let's face it--you have to keep an audience interested in the "did she or didn't she?" question for two hours. In addition to a twisty script and a fun performance by Stone, this is done effectively through the direction by the creation of a noirish atmosphere that is both dark and very stark and modern at the same time, with straight industrial lines to go along with Stone's sexy curves. The frame is always beautiful--press pause anywhere and there is something interesting to the eye.
The film also effectively builds on things that were gimmicks in the first film and turns them into something a little more real, particularly the sex. "Katherine Tramell is bisexual...how shocking!" becomes treated more matter-of-factly here, and typically, the sexuality of the film is used to better effect. It is still titillating, but not done so readily for shock value and buzz as done in the first. I won't say that it isn't still somewhat of a gimmick because, let's face it, this film is supposed to be fun.
And a fun film it is. It may be an easy target, but if you watch it for what it is: a noirish, femme-fatale driven, twisty, sexy, did-she-or-didn't-she who-dunnit, you're bound to enjoy it (no pun intended).


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


user
Just the kind of movie I love. Some very good British actors as well as the one and only Sharon Stone. Catherine Tramell (Stone) masterfully manipulates a well educated group of people's lives, playing on their frailties to collect experiences to write a murder mystery book. She plays the female psychopath quite well while using her ample sex appeal to convincingly portray what could be considered one of the ultimate Black Widows. Tramell is use to dark places within society and freely partakes in sadomasochistic flings in the 'never visit after dark' side of town. From the beginning, there is nothing short of an R rating here from the dialog alone. Stone could also be described as a sort of female Hannibal Lecter, an emotionless femme fatal without the meal plan.


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


user
I thought this movie did a down right good job. It wasn't as creative or original as the first, but who was expecting it to be. It was a whole lotta fun. the more i think about it the more i like it, and when it comes out on DVD I'm going to pay the money for it very proudly, every last cent. Sharon Stone is great, she always is, even if her movie is horrible(Catwoman), but this movie isn't, this is one of those movies that will be underrated for its lifetime, and it will probably become a classic in like 20 yrs. Don't wait for it to be a classic, watch it now and enjoy it. Don't expect a masterpiece, or something thats gripping and soul touching, just allow yourself to get out of your life and get yourself involved in theirs.
All in all, this movie is entertaining and i recommend people who haven't seen it see it, because what the critics and box office say doesn't always count, see it for yourself, you never know, you might just enjoy it. I tip my hat to this movie
8/10


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


user
Since this movie was based on a true story of a woman who had two children and was not very well-off, it was just scary as to how real it really was! The acting is what gave the movie that push to greatness.
Diane Keaton portrayed the main character, Patsy McCartle who had two sons whom she adored. Her performance is what made the real life story come to life on a television screen. It was very hard to watch some of the scenes since they were so real as to what happens when one becomes addicted to drugs.
Just watching this very loving mother go from sweet to not caring at all was hard, but so true. I have known people who have gone through withdrawl and it was very much like what happened in this movie, from what I remember.
I also thought that it was very risky for the director to want to make a movie out of what happened to this woman. Yet it was done so well. I applaud the director for making this movie.
I highly recommend this to anyone who has known someone who has ever been addicted to drugs or to just learn what can happen to you if you do become addicted to them.


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


user
I got to see the movie " On Thin Ice" on the television in India.. I must say the movie was really well done, and really sent a chill down my spine.. the basic story makes me ponder what makes certain addicts decide to move on where as others still remain addicted...
however, I felt that Diane Keaton was at her best... the scene where she has cravings, and begins rummaging her home for cocaine... was the best... the two boys are good, and Lynda Boyd also showed what a good actress she is....The script is well done as is the cinematography and direction.. and casting
A must must watch movie..... for everyone


assistant
1