empathielabs/imbd_dataset_v0 huggingface dataset:
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This early role for Barbara Shelley(in fact,her first in Britain after working in Italy),was made when she was 24 years old,and it's certainly safe to say that she made a stunning debut in 1957's "Cat Girl." While blondes and brunettes get most of the attention(I'll always cherish Yutte Stensgaard),the lovely auburn-haired actress with the deep voice always exuded intelligence as well as vulnerability(one such example being 1960's "Village of the Damned," in which her screen time was much less than her character's husband,George Sanders).She is the sole reason for seeing this drab update of "Cat People," and is seen to great advantage throughout(it's difficult to say if her beauty found an even better showcase).Her character apparently sleeps in the nude,and we are exposed to her luscious bare back when she is awakened(also exposed 8 years later in 1965's "Rasputin-The Mad Monk").The ravishing gown she wears during most of the film is a stunning strapless wonder(I don't see what held that dress up,but I'd sure like to).All in all,proof positive that Barbara Shelley,in a poorly written role that would defeat most actresses,rises above her material and makes the film consistently watchable,a real test of star power,which she would find soon enough at Hammer's studios in Bray,for the duration of the 1960's.


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


user
The film is a bit tedious. It's mostly a silent film, with the bulk o the story provided through a series of voice-overs. While making a silent film like this is not such a bad idea, this is one of those films where the lack of dialog and the repetitive early scenes make it simply tedious. You don't understand the reason for the tedium until well into the picture, and by then it's too late. The first 40 minutes of film is something of a slow piece of Mexican soft porn, and unimaginative soft porn at that. Later in the film the style of the first 40 minutes starts to makes sense, but it's too late, because by then the audience is lost. There is some nice location shooting at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. I've often wondered why more films aren't shot there. The campus is built on the edge of lava fields that lend the campus a very otherworldly feel. My biggest problem with the film is that the director/writer has made the film the way he wanted to see it without regard for how a viewer who doesn't know the story will view it. You can't ignore the audience when you tell a story.


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 the gay counterpart to Gone With The Wind given its epic lenght, but instead it satisfied itself by being a huge chain of empty episodes in which absolutely nothing occurs. The characters are uni-dimensional and have no other development in the story (there's actually no story either) than looking for each other and kissing. It's a shame that an interesting aesthetic proposition like having almost no dialog is completely wasted in a film than makes no effort in examining the psychology of its characters with some dignity, and achieving true emotional resonance. On top of that, it pretends to be an "art" film by using the worst naive clichés of the cinematic snobbery. But anyway, if someone can identify with its heavy banality, I guess that's fine.


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


user
I gave this loooooooooooong film a "2" because of the attractive actors and semi-sexy love scenes. Otherwise, if you can't read like a speed-reader you will NEVER get through the subtitles that try to keep up with the Spanish speed talking! And, what the hell is going on in the plot if you can't read the subtitles. Endless stares and goof-eyes and constant rejection. Just boring after an hour or so. Some good cinematography but also some so DARK you think your screen has burned out. How this won anything I will never understand. Difficult to talk about "ACTING" since the lead actors seem to just stare and look lovingly at each other when they are not pushing each other away. The character Geraldo is so attractive that it is difficult to believe that ANYONE would push him away. And what is with his mother? I just plain didn't GET IT most of the time except that there were three guys that all seem to have had a history with each other....but never figured out who was whose "EX."


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


user
how many minutes does it take to paint a poem? in this film much too long.
it tells the story about the impact of a first love between two schoolboys.
the boys can't withhold touching each other and making love. after a while one gets distracted by a brief encounter with a sensual guy in the disco and that raises doubt: exploration, fantasy, longing, lust and feelings of loosing grip on your love are themes that are all extensively painted with music, close-ups and silent scenes like telling a poem. but it really takes too long, annoying long, shame, the effort was promising


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


user
Boring, long, pretentious, repetitive, self-involved  this move felt like a bad date. Worse, the tedious art-school direction -- with a heavy-handed use of the whirling shot that gets so overdone it almost made me throw up - is constantly screaming to be noticed. Add the thinnest of plots and virtually no dialogue, and the film begins to feel like a four hour epic about 30 minutes in. It gets worse: instead of dialogue there are poorly written voice-overs AND quotes and songs that comment all too obviously on the characters. Really loud opera music too. Blame it all on the director.
The actors are all quite good. The lead actor Miguel Angel Hoppe is particularly suited for film stardom. He and the other actors have some tender erotic moments. Even these start to get boring after 5 minutes however, and one wonders if the director is auditioning for a Bel Ami porn job. The stunning college campus architecture as a location in Mexico City is inspiring. How come universities in the US are so bland (SFSU, UC, etc.)? But wait for the DVD on this film. You'll want to use the fast scan button  a lot.


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


user
This movie is simply far too long, far too repetitive, with the male nudity and sexuality being (as this is said as a gay with my own collection of adult titles) far too gratuitous and unnecessary. Much of the first third of the movie could have been cut down to ten minutes and been equally as effective without trying the patience (and stamina) of an audience.
I saw this movie on an early Saturday afternoon, with a film festival audience; the type of crowd that tends to be more adventuresome, interested in more experimental or atypical films, such as one without much dialog, shorts, foreign films. The near sell out crowd in an approximate 275 seat theater started to dribble out within the first half of the movie and while the great majority did stay for the "pay off" (which never actually arrived), I have never, in about 14 years of attending any number of film festivals, experimental, gay and otherwise, seen such a large number of people walk away from a film.
This movie could easily have been cut down by more than half and been as effective as it was. It also could have gone in different directions, still with a shorter running time, and been far more effective.
As it currently exists, this is not something that one can readily recommend or one I would have any desire to watch again.


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


user
... and yet, we were told, there was another hour and 20 minutes left to go.
Why, oh, why wasn't there an editor to tell the writer/director to snip, snip, snip? Apparently that writer/director has previously done shorts; as a short, this would have been okay. But the lack of dialogue starts to grate after twenty minutes. The lack of much music glares. The background noises (talking, traffic, and especially a ubiquitous helicopter) get old really fast. But the worst failure is in story. There is precious little beyond a short.
After an hour we saw variations of the same scene over and over again. I nearly screamed at the screen, "We get it, we get it!!!!!" It's amazing that after that left the theatre, we could drive home, watch the Daily Show and parts of the Colbert Report, get ready for bed,and know that the audience was STILL trapped in the theatre.
It's not enough to indulge your vision. You have to give the audience enough to share your vision.


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


user
Just saw this at the Chicago Film Festival - avoid it at all costs unless you have sleep problems. It is a film filled with pretensions - it opens with a minor quote from "Hiroshima mon amour" and it's all downhill from there. Camera work - imagine a child trying to imitate Wong Kar Wai. Story line - Smokey Robinson and the Miracles' "The Love I saw in You Was Just a Mirage" expanded from 3 minutes to over 2 hours but filled with repetition. For butt numbing pain this film ranks with the benches at the Methodist church my parent dragged me to when I was a kid. I want 2+ hours of my life refunded. Julian Hernandez's promoter prefaced the viewing with comment that the film was "controversial" - that is true only for the film's narcotic effect.


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


user
Just another film that exploits gratuitous frontal male nudity; awful acting, plus, the lovemaking scenes are the most un-sexy I've ever seen (and this is not about me not linking the idea of two young men making love, since I'm gay).
Again, as in Mil nubes de paz, Julian Hernandez directed an incredibly pretentious film with a story that makes enough argument for a short film of about five minutes but manages to make a 2 hour film with it... And this time, there isn't even the issue of racism and commodification in the Mexican gay community to talk about! God gracious have mercy on us!


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


user
This star-studded British/Spanish co-production looks great, what you can see of it. I have three versions, two VHS, one DVD, and all are terribly cropped, so badly that it looks as if buildings are having conversations with each other. Few films suffer as badly from pan and scan as this one, as director Robert Parrish seems to have been so enamored with the widescreen process that he tended to use both sides of the screen at once, neglecting the middle. Another user comments that we see the entire inhabitants of a church massacred at the beginning; not in any of the copies I have. There are some abrupt cuts of peasants firing their rifles, one Mexican officer is shot, Shaw and Landau celebrating, and that's it. We never find out why Shaw has become a priest (if he really is), we never find out what happens to Don Carlos (Savalas) although I suspect he was called home to star in Kojak, as his departure seems arbitrary. And there is a strange flashback sequence where Michael Craig (Mysterious Island) is dancing around in a bowler hat and bad suit in the great old English music hall tradition to the 1960 hit BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS, not sung by Johnny Horton here but with some lyrics I've never heard before. On the plus side, the location is great, a huge old ruined fortress with Escher-style stairs leading nowhere, some nice scenery-chewing by Robert Shaw, and good performances by Stevens, Landau, Lettieri, and Telly Savalas as Telly Savalas. I didn't really like this film, but I haven't exactly seen it. I will seek the widescreen version and make my decision then.


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


user
There are some really terrific ideas in this violent movie that, if executed clearly, could have elevated it from Spaghetti-western blandness into something special. Unfortunately, A TOWN CALLED HELL is one of the worst edited movies imaginable! Scenes start and end abruptly, characters leave for long stretches, the performances (and accents) of the actors are pretty inconsistent, etc.
Robert Shaw is a Mexican(!) revolutionary who, after taking part in wiping out a village, stays on to become a priest(!)...ten years later the village is being run by "mayor" Telly Salavas. Stella Stevens arrives looking for revenge on the man who killed her husband. Colonel Martin Landau arrives looking for Shaw. They all yell at each other A LOT and they all shoot each other A LOT. Fernando Rey is in it too (as a blind man). The performances aren't bad, but they are mightily uneven. Savalas has an accent sometimes as does Landau (who is really grating here). Shaw and Rey prove that they are incapable of really embarrassing themselves and Stevens looks pretty foxy (if a bit out of place amongst the sweaty filth).


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


user
This British-Spanish co-production is one of the countless films shot in Spain in the wake of the unexpected phenomenal success enjoyed by the Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns and, as is typical of such genre efforts, features an eclectic assortment of established and emerging international stars: Robert Shaw, Telly Savalas, Stella Stevens, Martin Landau, Fernando Rey, Michael Craig, Al Lettieri, Dudley Sutton, Antonio Mayans, etc. Ironically, however, this incoherent mess of a movie serves as a shining example as to why that most American of film genres became a dying breed in the 1970s and is nowadays practically (or is that officially?) extinct.
I really wanted to like this film, not only because the Western is one of my favorite types of movies but also because it had all the qualities, including an intriguing premise, to be a good one - not to mention the fact that my father had purchased a paperback edition of A TOWN CALLED BASTARD's novelization following its original release! As it is, the film's sole virtue (if, indeed, it can even be called that) is its sheer eccentricity: for instance, Stevens, playing a widow out for revenge on the man who betrayed her revolutionary husband, sleeps inside a coffin(!) driven around in a carriage by her dumb manservant(?) Sutton; Savalas, as a blood-thirsty renegade, who at first appears to be the film's main villain, is unceremoniously dispatched by his own henchman Lettieri very early on in the picture; the villain of the piece, then, turns out to be Landau who, in the film's very first scene, is seen pillaging side-by-side our legendary hero-turned-priest Shaw!; Fernando Rey, playing a blind peasant, is the only one who can identify rebel Shaw who, in the end turns out to have been merely a front for...well, nevermind! As you can see, the plot is very confusing and it gets stranger from there! The production team responsible for this film were also behind other Western fare around the same period of time, like CUSTER OF THE WEST (1967), BAD MAN'S RIVER (1971), CAPTAIN APACHE (1971) and PANCHO VILLA (1972).


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


user
"A Town Called Hell" (aka "A Town Called Bastard"), a British/Spanish co-production, was made on the heels of Clint Eastwood's success in the Italian made "Man With No Name" trilogy. The template used in most of these films was to hire recognizable American actors, whose careers were largely in decline and dub their voices. This film is no exception except for the fact that they used some British actors as well.
It's difficult to summarize the plot, but here goes. The story opens with rebels or whatever, led by Robert Shaw and Marin Landau raiding a church and killing everyone inside, including the priest. Fast forward to the subject town a few years later where the Shaw character is masquerading as a priest. The mayor of the town (Telly Savalas) is a brutal leader who thinks nothing of meting out justice with his gun.
Throw into the mix a grieving widow Alvira (Stella Stevens) who is searching for her husband's killer. Add to this the fact that she rides around in a hearse lying dead like in a coffin for God knows why. After the mayor is murdered by his henchman La Bomba (Al Lettieri) the town is invaded by a federale Colonel (Landau) in search of a rebel leader (I'm sorry but the name escapes me). The Colonel takes over the town and begins summarily executing the townsfolk to force them to reveal the identity of the leader.
Even though they opened the film side by side, its difficult to tell from the dialog that the Landau and Shaw characters know each other. A blind man (Fernando Rey) claims he can identify the rebel leader by touching his face. He does so and..............................................
I'm sure the principals regretted making this film. It's just plain awful and well deserving of my dreaded "1" rating. Shaw spends most of the film fixating his trademark stare at whomever is handy. Even Landau can't salvage this film. The beautiful Ms. Stevens is totally wasted here too. Having just made Peckinpah's "The Ballad of Cable Hogue" the previous year, I found it odd that she would appear in this mess of a movie. Savalas made several of these pictures, ("Pancho Villa" and "Horror Express" come to mind) during he pre-Kojak period.Michael Craig is also in it somewhere as a character called "Paco".
Fernando Rey appeared in many of these "westerns" although he would emerge to play the villain in the two "French Connection" films. Al Lettieri would also emerge with a role in "The Godfather" (1972) and go on to other memorable roles before his untimely death in 1975.
In all fairness, the version I watched ran only 88 minutes rather than the longer running times of 95 or 97 minutes listed on IMDb, however I can't see where an extra 7 or 8 minutes would make much difference.
Avoid this one.


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 definitely one of the weirder 70's movies out there, and it's most notable for kicking off a decade of Bigfoot hysteria. It is also notable for the little touches of insanity throughout the movie, especially when the dark, moody first half is replaced by a MUSICAL INTERLUDE of all things (as another user pointed out, one of the songs is dedicated to a character, Travis Crabtree, who paddles around in a canoe for a while, then... leaves, never to be seen again). Although it's painfully dated now, i's still a fun scary movie to show to kids, and anyone who enjoys either Bigfoot lore or 70's hillbilly culture is bound to get a kick out of this. My favorite part: a guy gets so scared that he jumps headfirst through a door (!?) and the narrator explains he went unconscious from "shock." Uh, I'd say breaking a door with his head is more likely why he went unconscious, but whatever.
4/10 stars, or 7/10 if you like bad Americana.


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


user
This grainy film has a cult following and one of those word-of-mouth features you just had to see. Maybe hard to believe, but there is a rural community in southwest Arkansas, Fouke, that knows the legend is true. This tale is told in documentary-style narrated by Vern Stierman and filmed in actual locations talking to actual folks involved. The legend changes with the telling, but during the late 60s and most of the 70s the surrounding area of Fouke was visited by a Bigfoot-like creature that traveled along Boggy Creek. Long limbed with three toes and standing over 7 foot tall, this hirsute creature periodically caused damage and frightened the 'bejeebers' out of most of the community. I personally crossed over the small Boggy Creek bridge in 1974, and yes the hair on the back of my neck did rise. Of course it was about 1 a.m. in the rain. By the time I arrived in Shreveport, I was laughing.


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


user
I was expecting a B-Movie French musical. After all, Dhéry, Blanche, DeFunès were superstars of low budget French films of that time. And it is in color! But I have hallucination in this unbelievable one hour 30 of pure mediocrity. Musical numbers are awful, and comedy is absolutely boring and stupid. And the songs? What songs? This is just a succession of bad numbers, one after another. The only one very rare thing about that thing is the nudity of women. It was not familiar at that time. In fact, some numbers are just there to show us topless women. It adds to the mediocrity! And try to find young Michel Serrault, the future great actor of French cinema, in a bit part as a musician, in his very first movie. Good luck!


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


user
I purchased this movie on blu-ray because it promised great visuals and music. I was also a great fan of a similar movie... Baraka. The movie is very much styled after Baraka, wide angles, very similar shots with cameras set to capture long time passage in each shot. Even some of the scenes were identical (the street with traffic). Whereas Baraka told a great story, juxtaposing nature, man-made environments, spirituality, and horrors of the world in an engrossing fashion and great music, this movie just jumped from shot to shot with no encompassing story, mediocre musical score, and then.... POOF, it's finished! I thought there must be some sort of mistake! History of the world? Half the movie is Egypt and landscape (looks like Arizona, but I didn't bother to check). Seriously folks, this is horrible, rent it if you must, but do not buy it. The filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves for putting this out.


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


user
I wasn't particularly impressed by this movie that has lackluster music and only lasts 40 minutes. Thank God, because I was falling asleep. I makes excellent use of time lapse photography to display the passage of time in the movement of light and shadow, people, water, clouds, etc. Unfortunately, that's all it is.
My preference is for its predecessor, the excellent Koyaanisqatsi made in 1983 at 87 minutes and to prove that a sequel can be better than the original, Powaqqatsi made in 1988 running 90 minutes.
Try them both.


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


user
Who ever wrote the two or three glowing reviews were either involved in the making of this film, term used loosely, or bank rolling it, and should the latter be the case, I would want my seven dollars back! The actors, again term used loosely, are awful, in fact almost none of them did anything ever again which is a relief. The scenery and everything about this screams, we had 7 dollars to work with and a day to do it in. Was this filmed in someones back yard? Everything about this project says, low budget. The actors at best were D list. Do not waste your time, unless of course you want to take it back and try to get the rental back. The lead bad guy looks like that punk from the 70s show that ended up marrying his grandmother dummee moore. My local blockbuster video store lists this as the movie most returned with sad commentary attached. Even as a 99 cent rental this flick gathers dust. Someone really must have owed some favors. This is a super stinker and I give it 10 turds.


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


user
We rented the DVD hoping for a good western. The film was pretty and the scenes reasonable, but the ideas were very bad. Here are my problems with the film.
In the first part, why exactly did the bad guy kill the mine owner? Not really connected to the movie except to establish how bad he was and to have a hideout.
The bank employee gone bad just acts too poorly to convincingly decide to hire killers to off his employers. At least keep us guessing. No character developed at all for the bank owners or the bank employee.
Very long delay in much of anything happening.
Absurd premise that Martin still needed to see the judge after the gang confessed to killing the in-laws. Even more absurd that he confesses to judge and judge will not listen to the sheriff guy. even more ridiculous that Martin his hung and rope breaks then the sheriff takes him at gunpoint to finally head back to his town and save his wife from the bad bank employee. Wouldn't he just return after the quick dispatch of the gang to save wife and arrest bad bank guy? Just send the judge a note that gang confessed before being killed on trail????!!! Overall, very sad acting and no point to movie.


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


user
THE DECOY is one of those independent productions, made by obvious newcomers, but it doesn't have all the usual flaws that sink most such films. It has a definite story, it has adequate acting, the photography is very good, the hero and the bad guy are both formidable men, and the background music isn't overdone. This is a DVD New Release, so people will be looking here to see if it's worthwhile. I don't know where all the 10's come from, as there's no way this film is that good --- even if you're the filmmaker's mother.
The last film we saw at a theater was Warner's trashing of J K Rawlings much-loved and excellent book, Order of the Phoenix. In comparing THE DECOY with PHOENIX, consider that PHOENIX (as made by Warners) had no story, certainly no acting was allowed by the director, the photography was dreadful, and the wall-of-sound overbearing musical score was just a mess. I rated Phoenix a "1" because the scale doesn't go any lower. THE DECOY is 4 times better -- in all regards.
If you have the opportunity, give THE DECOY a chance. Remember, this isn't "Decoy 3 -- the Shootout" or any such nonsense. It's original. If your expectations aren't overblown by the foolish "10" scores here, you might just enjoy the film on its own terms.


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


user
Great western I hear you all say! Brilliant first effort! Well I'm not sure what film you all watched but it must have been a different one to the one I saw. Great westerns or indeed good films of any genre have characters you can believe in and this film had none! The acting was poor to say the least and I couldn't care less about any of the characters, making the whole film pointless. the story was too big for the makers and perhaps they should try their hand at making straight to TV low budget rubbish like you see on those "FACT OR FICTION" programmes on sci-fi.
Please, if you are looking for a good film, a great western or even just an enjoyable hour and a half, please look elsewhere.


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


user
After reading the other reviews for this film I am of the opinion that the high markers are probably paid studio lackeys as the film I saw was absolutely dire, with wooden acting, lacklustre scripting and plodding predictable directing, one of the few plus points has to be the stunning scenery as this film features some stunning backdrops with great sweeping vistas and dramatic skies and wide open prairies, sadly when the most memorable thing in a film is the part featured behind the actors this has to be a warning sign as to the quality of the movie, all in all a thoroughly uninspiring addition to the western genre which even at the very reasonable price it can be obtained on DVD is best to avoid.


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


user
This movie rivals "Plan 9" as one of the dumbest movie ever made. Always be concerned when the same person is the:
1. Star 2. Director 3. Producer 4. Writer 5. Stuntman, and 6. Editor. Unfortunately, Justin Kreinbrink did all 6 jobs! IMDb shows that he and his father were western 'stunt men'. So maybe that was the problem.
Here's just ONE example from the film: in the film the sheriff has to take a witness to another town for protection. Of course, the bad guys find out and are waiting for them. But, what happens? The good guys are riding along and a shot rings out and hits a tree near them. When the camera shows us the bad guys they're all just sitting on a log, chatting. What's wrong with this picture!
I could go on. Perhaps this film was meant as a comedy. If so, it didn't do that well either.


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


user
When his in-laws are viciously murdered by a gang of thugs, a young deputy is ordered to escort his mute friend, forced to take the rap by the gang, to Tucson for trial and ending up having to face the real killers along the way.
The Decoy is a real-life decoy sent to video stores to lure you away from better films! It's talky, illogical, slow, and ultimately very boring.
There's some good costumes, sets, and photography but nothing else is good about this vanity project from writer/director/producer/star Justin Kreinbrink, who apparently had too much money on his hands.
They used to make westerns like this, that were under an hour long. Trim this of about half it's length and you might have something watchable.


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


user
In a nutshell: this is a cookie cutter romantic comedy that really WANTS and TRIES to be something more. It wants to be Harold and Maude, Annie Hall, The Graduate. It wants to be deep and human. It has interesting camera shots, lighting, music, editing, all of which give it the feel of an important movie. The dialog is smart -- at times. There are some "laugh out loud" moments.
But here's what keeps it from ultimately being anything more than a formulaic late-night-cable, in-flight, time-killer:
1. David Schwimmer -- how many times can Joe sad-sack puppy dog stare blankly into space with his jaw hanging open before it starts to get annoying? Maybe some drool would have helped.
2. Gwenneth Paltrow -- she's really flat here and not just in the chest. Her role is supposed to be this lively, nice, caring girl who just keeps getting herself into wrong situations, is very confused as a result, and that is why a sad-sack loser like Schwimmer has any chance with her. But Gwenneth plays her very dull. Combine this with puppy-dog drool-face (above) and you have very little chemistry to care about.
(I kept picturing someone else in this role -- Kate Hudson for example.)
3. The script and the plot -- the stuff that happens just basically doesn't ring true; all the problems get wrapped up in the end with such a neat and tidy bow on top that it seems like a whistle blew and the script writers just said "oops, time to wrap it up, got a train to catch!" So they pulled out the Hollywood formula book, checked off all the boxes, and went home.


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


user
Gwyneth Paltrow is absolutely great in this movie, but the story is, unfortunately, half-baked, and David Schwimmer's energy is sort of like cold mush. When he closes his mouth and gets serious for a moment or two there is a rush of what-might-have-been. Who thought 25-year-old kiddies would be entertaining?


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


user
I'm not to keen on The Pallbearer, it's not too bad, but just very slow at the times. As the movie goes on, it gets a little more interesting, but nothing brilliant. I really like David Schwimmer and I think he's good here. I'm not a massive Gwyneth Paltrow fan, but I don't mind her sometimes and she's okay here. The Pallbearer is not a highly recommended movie, but if you like the leads then you might enjoy it.


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


user
I wish I had my rental money back from this piece of trash so I could donate it to the Home for Aged Actors. Total rubbish!! Five people watched this movie at the same time and there wasn't one single laugh to be heard, lots of yawning though. Paltrow's a beautiful woman and she was the best thing to look at in the entire so-called comedic movie..


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


user
no comment - stupid movie, acting average or worse... screenplay - no sense at all... SKIP IT!


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


user
The Pallbearer is a disappointment and at times extremely boring with a love story that just doesn't work partly with the casting of Gwyneth Paltrow (Julie). Gwyneth Paltrow walks through the entire film with a confused look on her face and its hard to tell what David Schwimmer even sees in her.
However The Pallbearer at times is funny particularly the church scene and the group scenes with his friends are a laugh but that's basically it. Watch The Pallbearer for those scenes only and fast forward the rest. Trust me you aren't missing much.


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


user
... You can't exactly shove her out of the way, because she's old; and if you were being charitable you might say that the ponderous gait she ambles along with isn't really her fault. Nevertheless, in these circumstances it's often difficult not to become irritated when you find yourself dragging your heels in her wake. So it is with "The Pallbearer", an attempt to do something 'different' with a romantic comedy that in this way is chiefly hamstrung because the venue is all wrong; sort of like showing off your 'breakdancing' skills at a grandparent's funeral.
To further extend the metaphor (perhaps unwisely!); like the old lady, one starts to feel with the set-up of the film that its demise cannot be far away. Sure enough, this particular 'death' is agonizingly protracted, slowly chipping away at our reserves of empathy in tiny little increments, as depressingly we come to the realisation that the proceedings are only headed in one direction: Downhill. Its laboured attempts at 'humour' can be seen coming a mile off - again, not unlike the grim inevitability of death!
Returning once again to the image of 'dragging heels', the main character, Tom, is shown to ceaselessly repeat this action throughout his life. If there are indeed degrees of 'pathetic', then this sap is possibly a good few notches ahead of Schwimmer's other - more famous - role. To find oneself in the awkward position of having to align audience sympathies with a character even MORE 'clueless' than Ross is certainly a tough ask even for as 'able' a comic performer as Schwimmer, but I guess he can find fault with himself for signing on to some seriously 'echoing' situations in the first place.
How will he ever escape his most famous portrayal if he's picking scripts where the characters could almost be 'interchangeable', even if the situations aren't? A man with a longstanding high-school crush on someone he hasn't seen for years. Sound familiar... ? Paltrow is nothing else if not bland in her 'Rachel' role, but all of this going over old ground would perhaps be forgivable if the noticeable DIFFERENCES present weren't so incongruous as well. Unfortunately, the romantic element is so well-worn it's threadbare, and the 'backdrop' is so inappropriate that it seems the best way to describe the resultant film is as something of a 'stiff'... ! 2/10.


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


user
Some 25 year olds behave like teenagers, coping with the death of a high-school mate, trying to find their purpose in live and love. The script is so lame that I had to force myself to even finish this movie. Stay away from it. 1/10


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


user
This film is advertised as a clever romantic comedy. It is neither clever nor romantic and it is definitely not an effective comedy. The fortunes of the well meaning yet pathetic character, "Tom", oscillate from one extremely embarrassing disaster to another. The only saving graces are the competent performance by Toni Collete and the frequency with which we glimpse Paltrow's pleasant face. Overall, to be avoided!


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


user
The interplay between the characters is a moral disaster. You end up disliking most of the characters and you don't particularly like any of them.
Even the two main characters played by David and Gwen are so badly written that you really don't care one bit about them. The movie has no plot, no direction and no purpose. The single redeeming quality of the movie was to treat it as a glimpse into the messed up lives of a few losers - and that's hardly stimulating even as an afternoon waste.


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


user
Life is really too short for movies like this. I knew it couldn't be good when I realized what I'd already suspected - that David Schwimmer would be playing the exact same type of person he plays in 'Friends'.
Let's face it, either the guy can't play anything but a nerd or he is never offered any other parts. I have a feeling that it's a mixture of both.
And I have to say that it is extremely difficult to like a movie that utterly wastes the considerable talents of Gwyneth Paltrow, Barbara Hershey, Toni Collette and Carol Kane!!!


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


user
Let's see...I'm trying to practice finding the positive in everything, so what kind thing can I say about the Pallbearer?
I know! The performances were -- no, that won't work as they succeeded in draining all personality from Gwyneth Paltrow, usually so vibrant, and ended up creating caricatures out of Carol Kane and Barbara Hershey...
Oh - how 'bout the story -- nope. That isn't gonna fly either, as it was doze-inducing. What was the genre anyway? It wasn't funny, that rules out comedy. It wasn't interesting enough to be dramatic. Was that a romance between Schwimmer and Paltrow? I have to ask, as I can't be sure - let's just call it "losers in like." I'm sure those behind this film started with a vision, I mean, they must have had one to pitch to the studio suits, but I need help finding it.
Even if I were a patient person who could forgive the pure stupidity of the story, I couldn't in good conscience recommend a film that allows a guy to go into a professional job interview in a windbreaker and messy, fluffy, stupid hair. Speaking of hair -- are we supposed to be amused by the deliberate black roots and platinum locks worn by Hershey?
What am I doing? I already lost 97 irretrievable minutes in the actual watching of the movie -- I cannot devote any more time to this loser.


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


user
Not even Bob Hope, escorted by a raft of fine character actors, can save this poorly written attempt at wartime comedy, as his patented timing has little which which to work. The plot involves a Hollywood film star named Don Bolton (Hope), and his attempt to evade military service at the beginning of World War II, followed by his enlistment by mistake in a confused attempt to court a colonel's daughter (Dorothy Lamour). Bolton's agent, played by Lynne Overman, and his assistant, portrayed by Eddie Bracken, enlist with him and the three are involved in various escapades regarding training exercises, filmed in the Malibu, California, hills. Paramount budgeted handsomely for this effort, employing some of its top specialists, but direction by the usually reliable David Butler was flaccid, and this must be attributed to a missing comedic element in the scenario. A shift toward the end of the film to create an opportunity for heroism by Bolton is still-born with poor stunt work and camera action in evidence. Oddly, Lynne Overman is given the best lines and this veteran master of the sneer does very well by them. Dorothy Lamour looks lovely and acts nicely, as well, and it is ever a delight to see and hear Clarence Kolb, as her father, whose voice is unique on screen or radio, but there is little they can do to save this film, cursed as it is with an error in script assignment.


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


user
In one word: excruciating. I was advised to read some articles about this film's philosophical meanings afterward, but, having sat through the movie's interminable 115 minutes and being slowly crushed beneath its bloated symbolism and lava-flowing oppressiveness, it seemed better to just report my reactions to the movie. After all, who goes to see a movie with a syllabus in hand? And this flick was dismal. Lead actor Claude Laydu, from the film's opening to its end, wears the same wearying and annoying mask of agony as to be practically indistinguishable from the film's eternal, dreary voice-over. Filming one over the other might have worked better than subjecting an audience to both, as they basically say the same thing: The priest of Ambricourt is a wretched human being. The story, about a persecuted priest who tries to help out a troubled rich family, does nothing toward making its characters remotely interesting or sympathetic, as the family are a bunch of unpleasant weirdos, and the priest, himself, comes across as a nosy pest. The last 30 minutes suggests some breath-taking message about grace and one man's suffering equaling that of others, but due to all the indulgent close-ups of a suffering Laydu and the vague subtext in Robert Bresson's script, all I felt was, Finally, it's over, let's have some ice-cream. Interesting for fans of Bresson fanatic Paul Schrader, just to see how many elements of character and setting Schrader carried into in his own scripts and movies, especially "Taxidriver", "Raging Bull" and "Light Sleeper".


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


user
I kind of feel like a genius; I feel like I'm the only one who saw through this fake film. I watched it three times, once with commentary, and I found myself getting annoyed at all the close-ups, all the times the screen just blacks out, and worst of all, I feel the film never really resolves anything. Yes, the priest dies, but he didn't really seem at peace with the town that gave him so much grief, or with himself. That and he was an idiot. If it weren't for the commentary by Peter Cowie which explained not only the movie but the book it came from, I wouldn't have been able to stomach it at all. I enjoy French movies, but this is one that was completely absurd.
Diary of a Country Priest is filmed in beautiful black and white photography but, that alone cannot save this deadly dull tripe. Scene after scene of extreme close-ups where characters don't say anything until the camera cuts away and goes to a black out do NOT make an interesting or relevant story. How this film ever became a classic is mind boggling: it reminds me more of The Emperor's New Clothes.
Yes, Claude Laydu's performance is heartfelt and thought provoking, if you are a sadist, but this film left me feeling empty because overall it is a weak impression of the Catholic priesthood, which is an ignoble and inglorious institution of corruption. The young priest's triumph over the countess's pride is a weak scene but 90% of the film will drag you down with its dreary introspection and window into the young priest's melancholy thoughts. This priest doesn't come across so much as being humble as he does just plain pitiful.
Being that I don't speak or understand French I was looking forward to doing the English SUBTITLE thing to help understand the film. Well, the English SUBTITLE is at times impossible to view/read and the text rolls by so quickly that there was much I could not read (and I am not a particularly slow reader - I just finished Dostoyevsky in 3 days).
I really wanted to like this film . I try out everything "chosen" by the Criterion Collection, and yet can not see why in many ways this one merits some sort of critical nod. However, I sat through this entire two hour film yearning to feel some sort of empathy for the main character, and it never materialized. He just seemed like a victim rather than a fighter. And for that, I say it stunk.


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


user
I thoroughly enjoyed Bilal's graphic novel when it came out, and was amazed when I saw the trailer for this film, and even more so when I found that Bilal had directed it himself. The film, however, was a major letdown. The visuals are nowhere near the rich and gritty texture of the original artworks, and the story is poorly told. Bilal seems to have chosen to focus on the more esoteric aspects of the graphic novel, and he doesn't do a very good job at it, either.
The most enjoyable part of the original graphic novel was the friendship-hate relationship between Nikopol and Horus. They were both out of their right time and place, forced together by circumstance. Most of all, they were funny and likable. Not so here. Nikopol has no discernible personality whatsoever, and Horus is a pompous twit who just wants to get laid. Even though the film is French, Horus doesn't have to be!
We have all seen films we enjoyed, but wouldn't recommend to everyone, for some reason or other. I wouldn't recommend Immortel to anyone, except maybe as a warning not to overreach your talent and resources. Bilal's a master storyteller, but obviously not a master of every visual medium.


assistant
0