empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film, released in 1951, has the usual elements typical of the westerns released during the 50's; the cavalry needing to protect the territory from a murderous band of Indians, an officer determined to see that task through, and the men with him with various character flaws that he has to merge together into a cohesive unit. This small band must hold on to a fort located close to the Indian village until reinforcements arrive. The Indians know, all to well, that the small band is undermanned, and could be wiped out before the help comes. One major difference for this film, \"Only the Valiant\", is that it attempts to play out the usual storyline, but at the same time, deliver the message that duty is a paramount concern to be shared by all, even if they don't accept that charge.
Gregory Peck embodies the tight-lipped captain of the troop that has to prevent the Indians from breaking out into the territory. The troopers that he takes with him to the small outpost are the dregs of the troop at the fort; they, in turn, have gripes or weaknesses that cause them to wonder if the captain hasn't taken them out because of their general lack of devotion to a cause. Eventually, the captain and the small band confront the hostiles, and at the same time, each confronts his own flaw. The cast includes western stalwarts such as Ward Bond, Gig Young, Neville Brand, Lon Chaney, Jr., and Warner Anderson.
A sleeper of a film, and a good solid western for fans of this genre.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a luminously photographed and unusually well-written western by veteran creator of \"Rawhide\" Charles Marquis Warren. Direcxtor Gordon Douglas is its chief help in this regard. Its strong plot line can be told in a few sentences. A hard-nosed by-the- book, Cavalry officer, Captain Richard Lance, captures a leader of the Indian enemy after a massacre at a fort. He insists on bringing the man back for trial, to be sent toTucson; his commander sends another man to try to take the prisoner for trial and the patrol is wiped out. This means the leader has escaped, and Lance must now lead a second patrol--and he picks the men the fort can most spare, a company of problems-- to defend the advance fort that had been wiped out and save the command from another attack by stopping up the bottleneck pass in that sector. As Lance, young Gregory Peck is quite strong. Other in the large cast of this film which really shows life at a cavalry outpost looking like an army establishment of heterogeneous and quarreling types includes War Bond powerful as a hard-drinking sergeant, Neville Brand and Steve Brodie as troublemakers, Warner Anderson and Lon Chaney Jr. as psychological troublemakers and Gig Young, Art Baker, Herbert Heyes as fellow officers with Nana Bryant as the Colonel's wife. Even Barbara Payton as the love interest gets by in a difficult role; Michael Ansara is the captured war chief, and Jeff Corey plays the Fort's scout. There are really two great scenes in this very-well-made western--the long section at the fort before the last patrol is sent out, and that long patrol to the doomed Ft. Defiant itself. Once at that fort, Peck gets to deliver a grand speech in which at the demand of the men he has lined up for orders, he tells them each why he took them along. reading them their shortcomings one by one; they then tell them why they think he sent his best friend to die in his place take the Indian in instead of going himself-- and he proves them wrong for the remainder of the film by winning his lonely battle through intelligence and courage. The music by Franz Waxman is good, the production qualities admirable; the argument about what would happen if Lance takes the war chief in happens to be true; other than this unsolvable mistake by the central character, this is is great western. it has been a favorite of mine for fifty years.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nGregory Peck and Gig Young are competing for the same girl and after Peck sends Young on a very dangerous mission, they blame him for his reasons. Feeling guilty, Peck goes on an almost impossible task of defending a fort, where they are outnumbered by the Indians. Peck chooses for this mission soldiers which he considers to be the scum of the earth and the actors that play these soldiers, Ward Bond, Lon Chaney Jr., Neville Brand among others, are excellent. The script is derived from a novel by Charles Marquis Warren who was a specialist in westerns, as a writer, director and producer. The idea of using this type of men as heroes inspired many films that came out later including \"The Dirty Dozen\" made in 1967.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n...I saw this movie when it first came out in France, in my hometown, 54 years ago, I was nine, and today I still remember each black and white frame, especially the black ones, because it was so tense, scary, those sneaking attacks through that dark pass in the mountain, the two soldiers, prisoners forced to fight each other by their captors, the last battle with the uncovering of the wagon with the Gatling in it firing away, the last fight between Peck and the chief, and the Happy End which let me take back my breath. I haven't seen it since then, and I don't know if it would be a good idea to see it again today, it was such a fabulous moment for the kid I was.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOn the whole one wishes this was a better film, but it has enough flashes of intense power to make it worth while. Peck made this film during the same period that he made The Gunfighter, before he apparently decided he was a monument rather than an actor. A pity! He was a fine actor, perfectly willing to tackle characters that were not very likable, and to do them extremely well. The character he plays here is driven and, when necessary, ruthless. Given the mission the character has been assigned, and the \"men\" with which to do it, those characteristics are essential.
Without being a spoiler, think of this film as an early, grittier example of The Dirty Dozen genre.
The dialog in this film is a bit ham handed but it is atmospheric and intense and definitely tells a story worth telling. It contains good work by all the character actors and even Barbara Payton turns in a credible performance.
This one isn't often shown on television so your local video store may be the only place to find a copy. Go ahead! Devote an evening to it. It is worth your time!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI would suggest that Only the Valiant is one of the most original and intriguing and in some ways weird movies that Peck ever did; daring , surprising and one of his few best westerns (--no, no, of course, not a western really, but a military chronicle, which sometimes is better--). It's quite lowbudget, but, oh, very original and striking. It's one of those treats a true buff sometimes gets; movies that no one yet told you they exist. You say'that sounds intriguing, or interesting'and it surpasses your expectations.
All in all, the script shows a level of maturity unusual for the westernsand it somehow reminded me, obliquely, of ULZANA; it's also straight nononsense suspense.
Peck looked dashing as a young and tough, somewhat gloomy and stoic officer; and there are many unexpected toucheslike the blonde babe kissing and flirting with the one she's decided not to marry, perhaps a feeling of hers for justice and retribution .
Even genrewise, ONLY  is so much more than a military taleit is as well an action drama, a suspense movie, a commando/ action thrillerthe weirdest combo imaginable; a bunch of soldiers in a special mission to counteract and stop a possible Native's attack --the insane decision not to take all the available troops to the place where those Natives could be stoppedbut only a handful of people --and this plot never takes a crap routeas most would and did . The interest for humans, for people and their reasons and actions never falters.
A due word about Peck himself; he performs with brio, and though I usually find his famous movies to be rather insipid and boring, in such small outings I find intact all Peck's somber and even chilling glamor. He was an unusual star.
I gladly recommend this extraordinary movie.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAnd that's saying a lot. Rent this if you want to be staggered by oddness, blown away by one of the most bizarre scripts, direction, and casting in the history of films. I'm staggered. I can't believe I watched it. I'm a big Bernadette Peters fan, normally- but this tested my resolve. Don't read any more reviews here, it's best if you know nothing about the plot. Just rent it. You won't believe what you're seeing.......
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBest Robot Romantic Comedy Ever, using the robots as the romantic characters, which leaves Short Circuit out of this category. This was Andy Kaufman's best effort. Bernadette Peters shows her versatility here with an amazing performance. While not a great movie in many areas, I'll award it a 9 on guts and quirkiness.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOkay, where to begin. Did you know that the part of the lead robots were offered to famous mime team Shields and Arnez? Bet ya didn't. But they turned it down complaining about robot make-up. Then they faded off into obscurity. Now, this movie has everything. A crazed killer robot who thinks he's dirty Harry. Lots of cool robots. It's funny, it's touching, it's the perfect date movie for people who love sci-fi and romantic comedies. It's the first robot romantic comedy. Now of course very few movies are perfect and there are some character issues. But there are very minor and can be overlooked. I think couples will enjoy this movie and will want to watch it over and over again. 9 STARS.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA beautiful reflection of life's desperation and misdirection of finding love. Tragic, while at the same time, absurdly entertaining. Most people do not give this film a chance- ignorance- just a mere reflection in itself. Until next time...
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOK, first, to all the haters: Get a life! I don't see why you even bother to post on these boards, when obviously you know nothing about cinema, robots, or people.
This movie has an important lessons for all of us to learn about gender, stereotypes, relationships, and DESTINY. Really, we are all robots, programmed to respond certain ways to certain stimuli without thinking. How many times have we seen a sunset and made some trite comment without even thinking about it? I say, THANK YOU Aqua (brilliantly played by Bernadette Peters) for making me stop and think about the awesome power of mother nature.
It's only when Val and Aqua begin to reject their programming that they begin to understand their true desire--to find love, and to flee the factory in search of a creative life. This movie should be mandatory viewing in prisons--just think of the dreams and hopes it could inspire in the inmates. maybe even they could overcome their \"bad\" programming and join the rest of us in a crime-free world.
We can all learn a lot from these robots. I am a better person for Heartbeeps.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie makes you think. It shows how a woman's weaknesses can result in nightmares for others. Her physically aggressive behavior is more often seen in men than women, so it made me feel even more uncomfortable to see the way the lead actress behaved. I think that women might think about this behavior, but I don't think they act on it. The dark scenes added to the sense of evil that needed to be hidden. I was relieved when the prisoners escaped. I was hopeful that the end would bring a satisfying solution, but it did not. Maybe that is more realistic. Life seems to run in the same direction instead of creating a new river bed running up hill.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm surprised by some of the comments on this site because I really liked this film. If you're looking for something different then this movie is a good choice. Definitely not your typical mindless story that seems to be everywhere starring Ben Idiot Affleck or some other Hollywood loser. It's an intellectual film, you actually need to pay attention so some people might be turned off by that. However, if you are looking for something that keeps you on your toes then this is a good choice. Warning to parents - it has some fairly graphic sex scenes so watch it once the kiddies are in bed. People who like Euro flicks will like this one. Adam Sandler fans should skip it because it will be over their heads and definitely NOT their style.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI shot this movie. I am very proud of the film. It was a great experience which shows up on the screen. Halfdan Hussey is an excellent collaborator who had a vision and was able to capture the movie in the exact way we envisioned while prepping the film. The sets are amazing and well crafted for each character. John York and his team built sets that not only fit the characters, they worked well in shooting the film, allowing us to move seamlessly through walls and from one set to another. Each character has an amazing arc, which makes for a great story. I feel like all of the actors gave excellent performances. I disagree with some of the other comments that say the acting was not good. Watch it and decide for yourself.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm not usually into dark/psychological thriller type things. However, SEIZING ME is really an amazing piece of work. The story, acting, filming, psychological themes, erotic quality and spiritual understanding are all really quite complex and compelling. Rose plays the complexities and shifts of a psychologically disturbed woman really quite accurately. My partner was particularly impressed with the sophisticated way the power exchange issues were handled. It was so intense for us to watch that we found ourselves leaving it three quarters through to \"get tea\" and I felt compelled to have a shower. The story was gripping but we were clearly unable to handle all the energy in one straight shot. (It delves into the gritty and grimy side of people, but doesn't leave you there). I thought about the characters and deeper meanings for a long time. I would highly recommend this one. Still be prepared for an experience you might not be expecting.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n------ Spoilers----- Spoilers----- Spoilers--------just a few small ones
Saw this on Satilite channel, missed the first 30 min of movie, will keep this comment short and informative.
The movie is basically about 5 characters,The acting is very bad for afew characters. 1 girl with the help of another girl kidnaps 3 different people but it backfires and the 3 kidnap the 2. This is one of those types of movies where the script writers try to be thought provoking or philosophical, mysterious and ... you get the point; but do to their own, personal, lack in thinking they fall terribly short. Like one of the captives who is supposed to be some type of psychology nerd - looks the part but his tongue can't speak it. THe writers think that if the nerd uses a lot of 8 letter words amateurishly - unknowingly i believe - that the viewers will be ignorant enough to believe it. I wish i could give an example but i cant recall any - exactly as it was said. The ending was bad as well. But the one female captive acted her role as an old and relatively wise lady, although she, as well as the rest, had a lot of cliché s.
So Why would i give this movie a 7 stars if I thought all the above? Simple, I give the entire seven stars to LISA KELLER - one sexy a$$ momma. SHE is FINE lol. I am an appreciator of beauty, and she is exactly that. But don't get me confused because I'm not a pervert and this movie is NOT a porno in any way. their is somethin about her I cant explain, but i like it. I remember the scene where a captive has broke free and as he looks for a way out, bumps into Keller. She tries to get way but she doesn't have a chance. He throws her down, kneeling on the stairs and he pulls her pants down, no panties ;). Now, although she has an AMAZING ass - and the this shot leaves little to the imagination for a long 30 seconds i think - it was her facial expression that got me. she wanted it, and that look had me thinking i was behind that. I would have torn that booty up! After that expression, i jus couldn't look at her objectively anymore, I WAS IN LOVE. lol. I am glad to have seen this movie but if Lisa Keller wasn't playing the lead role, I would have changed the channel.. well... after i had seen the scene i mentioned above. I am a LISA KELLER fan know, but is seems that she isn't a consistent actor, seeing this 2003 movie is her latest. But i am lookin forward to another movie with her in it.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI love to see a female protagonist, in this movie her name was Rose. Rose brought out a lot of interesting questions in her journey of fulfillment.Is is possible to attain peace and internal fulfillment through external means? Does our society teach this? Can one be a victim of memory which may lead to victimizing others? Is one responsible for being a product of one's environment? To what extent can one control or take control of one's environment? How is a \"typical\" human alike or different than Rose? Lastly, would the outcome or story change if it were from another country like France or Italy? I loved that this movie provoked all of these questions in me, while it entertained, stimulated, and kept me guessing to the end! Every time I've watched it, I have learned more about the film and myself.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe best bit in the film was when Alan pulled down her knickers and ran the cut throat razor over her bum cheeks and around her bum hole. It was also brilliant to see Alan's bum going up and down like a fiddler's elbow later on in the film.
Alan was tough as hell in it like when he got annoyed and pushed the four eyed wimp onto the sofa.
I've been laughing for days about the cut throat razor bit. A brilliant idea by the script writers. Alan must be brought back into Eastenders so he can do the same to Peggy.
Alan is back, and this time he's armed with a razor. Watch out if you're a girl and he finds you and pulls your knickers down.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI first saw Robin Hood: Men in Tights back in 1994 in the cinema. I went to see it because I always liked Robin Hood and I saw the trailer of this movie and thought it was hilarious. After I saw the movie I must say it was even better than I thought. Not only is it very funny, it's also a very well made movie with beautiful sets and costumes and a very beautiful score by Hummie Mann. The acting in the movie is also good, Cary Elwes is funny as Robin Hood and also Tracey Ullman, Richard Lewis, Mark Blankfield, David Chapelle, Amy Yasbeck, Megan Cavanagh, Eric Allan Kramer, Matthew Porretta and Mel Brooks himself are funny. But the best part in the movie is played by Roger Rees as the evil Sheriff of Rottingham. He has the best scenes in the movie and also the best dialogue (\"King illegal forest to pig wild kill in it a is\", which stands for \"It is illegal to kill a wild pig in the king's forest\").He somehow mixes up all the words and speaks out a sentence that nobody understands. Robin Hood: Men in Tights is in my book one of the best Mel Brooks films to date and I can't say that I have laughed as much about a film as this one. It's just non-stop laughing.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSPOILERS AHEAD------------------------- Mel has got it going on. From the opening credits to the ending credits this movie has straight laughs. Dave Chappel shows why he is a comedic force. Cary Eewes carries the movie most of the time, but the supporting cast fills in strong when the plot is drawn away from Robin Hood. Right from the beginning this movie proclaims it's self not to be taken seriously. If you took a time machine and gave the characters thoughts of modern day antics you would get this movie. What makes this movie special you say? Throughout the movie you see blinken and acuhu walk beside each other becoming great friends as Robin Hood's sidekicks. But, it Blinken is never told or fails to grasp that he is black, until the crowd says \" a black sheriff\", Blinken replays \"He's black\". That is a timeless scene. Simple one of the most enteraining movies of our time.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis probably ranks in my Top-5 list of the funniest movies I've ever seen! I was not a big fan of Robin Hood, or Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, but this movie was a lot different! It made fun of Robin Hood, and was HILARIOUS! I was extremely pleased with how well it was put together, and how well acted it was! Besides Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire, and Houseguest, this was the funniest move I've ever seen! I especially love the song; \"We're Men in tights!\" If you have a good sense of humor, you'll LOVE this movie!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is my favorite Mel Brooks movie because it was the first one I ever saw. I was in the fourth grade when it came out and I watched it all the time. I saw The Producers second and then Blazing Saddles. This is a sentimental favorite because it was my first Mel Brooks movie.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMel Brooks is a great writer,director and actor, but once in a while even he can have a klinker. The beginning of this starts out almost basically just meeting one character after another.You have Cary Elwes who's charming and talented, but he can't do comedy. His expressions into the camera show that even he can't believe the inanities in the script. Richard Lewis looks bored and distracted throughout without much to do and Amy Yasbeck is stuck in high-school acting mode. Dave Chapelle shows great comedy range mugging and hamming for the camera and Mark Blankfield is mostly stifled in the role of the blind man, but then he does still manage to show great comedy range. Eric Allen Kramer doesn't have much to do, but the few scenes he does have are binding. The best roles are those of Roger Rees, Tracy Ullman, Megan Cavanaugh and Brooks for when he does appear. Dom DeLuise has a funny turn as a Mafia Don employing a Clint Eastwood lookalike, but on the minus side, some of the jokes aren't very funny while some of the really funny ones seem stolen from Mel's other movies.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMel Brooks has really outdone himself on this movie. No one can deny that Blazing Saddles was a classic, and a breakthrough in this style of comedy film, but Men In Tights has become the apex of his creative genius. This movie is a definite must-see. If you enjoy this movie, I would also recommend Space Balls and History Of The World. The same goes in reverse. If you have seen any of these movies, then Men In Tights should be next on your list.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJust like all of Mel Brooks' other comedies, Men in Tights is hilarious. But in seeing this as an outrageous comedy, I think many fail to realize that the reason the movie is so funny is that the characters themselves are acted so well. Elwes is the well-spoken former British noble, Lewis is an eternally annoyed king (I hope it's worth all the NOOOOOOIIIISE!), DeLuise is a FANTASTIC godfather, Roger Rees is a worried and cynical sheriff.... The actors and actresses are so loyal to their parts that the jokes flow forth with ease. Yes, we've seen this kind of comedy before, but the only comedy to achieve better character development, in my opinion, is The Big Lebowski. Very very funny.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMel Brooks really outdid himself with this hilarious stand-up of the Robin Hood story. The cast is perfect, and Cary Elwes does a fine job at his role. In my personal opinion (besides the fact that I'm a Cary Elwes fan) this movie is the best, and funniest, I've ever seen! It will have you laughing every time you see it!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is one of my all time favorites. I have watched it probably 100 times (literally) and it is still funny to me. It seems that every time I watch it, I see something different. Mel Brooks is definitely the all time King of side splitting comedy.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI cant believe there are people out there that did not like this movie! I thought it was the funniest movie i had ever seen. It my have been b/c i am Mel Brooks biggest fan... I know almost all the words and get very discouraged when they censor them, when it is played on a Family Channel. :) this is one of my favorite movies, so i dont know why any one would disagree! thanks Kristina
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie needs to come out on DVD cause that's the only way I will buy it. I thought it was soo funny because there was no real plot to it. It was not suppose to be an oscar winning film. I appreciate those films. Cary Elwes was a very cute Robin Hood. I can't even think of my favorite part of the movie because they are all pretty good. Anyways peace out.!!!!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHow can anyone DARE say anything BAD about this film? Pardon Mel Brooks for being a brilliant comedian and making a movie that gets funnier each time you watch it.
The first time I saw this, I cried from laughing so hard. Everything about it is funny.
While \"Robin Hood: Men In Tights\" is not my favorite comedy (that spot is taken by \"Real Genius\"), it ranks way up there in my book. So go see it! If you don't spend the whole time laughing, then at least you'll spend the whole time drooling over Cary Elwes.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was really surprised, that my mom watched whole movie without leaving to iron, clean or some other things like these. And I was almost shocked, when she said, it was very funny and very interesting. And I think so.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this film when it was released to the minor cinemas in the UK some 50 years ago; and the memory remains of a great musical score, and the tragedy of the storyline. I saw it again on video recently. The sound track was poor and the picture grainy; but it is one of two films that I saw again the next day, the other being Gladiator. The music theme is intensely tragic, and from the outset one knows that it heralds failure or death. Certainly one of George Sanders best performances; as a man working the black market to get pay back for what he lost in the war, but nemesis waits; Patricia Roc plays a refugee from Eastern Europe eaten with despair. He is attracted to her, selflessly wants to help her, and then falls in love with her, but she is too proud and hurt to accept help. Their love destroys him, and inevetably the girl and the doctor (Herbert Marshall), who brought the nemesis. The storyline is of complex intertwining destinies, where subsidiary characters are not who they appear to be. This is as a film, which diappointed the critics and struggled at the box office; but for the adolescent who saw it, and the retired gentleman who saw it again it is one of the greatest films (taking into account its age)whose story is more akin to an opera.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nUnfortunately, I've never seen the full version of this movie. I did see the 87-minute version twice, back in the 1950s. Even more floridly directed than is the norm with Julien Duvivier, this is a wonderfully out-of-the-ordinary piece, replete with sweeping tracking shots through, over and into Andrejew's magnificently atmospheric sets. Beautifully lit too by photographer André Thomas, Black Jack is nothing if not a connoisseur's delight. Reinforcing this imaginative visual style, is a script that allows a roster of our favorite actors, including Agnes Moorehead and Marcel Dalio, some brilliantly bizarre, full-blooded characterizations. George Sanders gives a polished performance, whilst an eccentric millionairess (who turns out to be a rival racketeer) is admirably played by Agnes Moorehead. Also realizing the most from her role, Patricia Roc. The film was made, on locations in Spain, in 1949.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nUtopia, made in 1950 in France, was the last film Laurel and Hardy produced. With the bad reputation the duo have for their post 1930's productions I was expecting this film to be awful. Although admittedly it isn't up to the standard of their \"vintage\" comedies I was pleasantly surprised. It's watchable, and in parts genuinely funny! And certainly the plot is of the same standard as you'd expect. Some gags are derivative from their earlier work, but when you consider this film was their first for five years after their last Hollywood produced film, \"The Bullfighters\", the routines are executed confidently as you'd expect from these professionals. Some scenes are not up to much, but the value of this film is that some scenes are funny, and as such, absolutely priceless. I particularly enjoyed the bedtime scene.
I felt sad at the end of the film. Our heros are left on their own desert island. It's such a metaphor for the real life truth. Hollywood and audiences of the time had consigned the stars to a desert island of memories, and that was to become last image they portrayed in film. Ollie died seven years later and Stan died fifteen years later. Stan turned down an offer to appear in \"It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World\" in 1963. What a shame that was - a colour film, only two years before he passed. However, his health probably wasn't up to much.
These boys are probably the greatest comedy performers of all time, and although the movie is far from their true potential, it's still an honour to watch them appear in film for the last time, and touching on the echos of their towering talent.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe movie is not halve as bad as people want to make you believe it is.
What is the reason why so many people hate this movie? Is it because it's Laurel & Hardy's last one together and it's not their best? Or is it because of the lack of Laurel & Hardy regulars? Or because it's not made by the Hal Roach studios or 20th Century Fox?
Definitely true that this movie is not a successful attempt to revive Laurel & Hardy and bring them to the '50's. It's also definitely true that the movie is far from their best but honestly, the movie still entertains well, making this movie also far from their worst. Not the most worthy 'goodbye' movie imaginable but an entertaining and suiting goodbye nevertheless. Both of them retired from movies after completing this one.
The movie still features some great slapstick moments and the chemistry between Laurel & Hardy is obviously still very much present. It also makes this movie better than most of their movies together from the '40's. Quite a surprise that the slapstick humor still works out as great as it does, considering that the days of slapstick comedy had been over, ever since the '30's.
The story is perhaps not as entertaining as it could had been and it features too many sidekicks and characters, with as a result that the movie looses its focus on the boys at times. A shame, because they are still the ones that really carry and make the movie.
Sad to see in what poor form Stan Laurel was at the time of making this movie. He really looked ill and old, which he also of course was. He was well over 60 years old already. But after a surgery he fully recovered and still lived for another 15 years, before dying in 1965, 8 years after his good friend Oliver Hardy.
An entertaining, though not perfect goodbye to the boys, Laurel & Hardy and the end of 3 decades of fun, humorous, quality slapstick entertainment of movies that are still being watched and loved by people all over the world.
7/10
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNot since Bette Davis's 1933 vehicle \"Ex-Lady\" have I seen a film that was so much better than its star said it was! Most of the bum rap \"Atoll K,\" a.k.a. \"Utopia,\" a.k.a. \"Robinson Crusoeland,\" a.k.a. \"Escapade\" has got over the years has come from the horror stories Stan Laurel told of its production. Given that he suffered a stroke during filming, looked like death warmed over through much of it (from the opening two-shot of them together you'd never guess that Laurel survived Hardy by eight years) and was subsequently diagnosed with diabetes (once he adjusted his diet accordingly he restored himself to health), one can understand why Laurel didn't think this film was the most pleasant experience of his life. Yes, it's flawed: the cheapness of the production shows through, the dubbing is awful and Laurel and Hardy were too old to do the energetic slapstick of their greatest films. But it's still genuinely funny, and Léo Joannon's story introduces elements of political satire (sometimes libertarian, sometimes communalist) one would expect to see from more socially conscious comedians like Chaplin or the Marx Brothers but never from Laurel and Hardy. The film deserves credit for being different (though its debt to the Ealing Studios' classic \"Passport to Pimlico,\" made just a year earlier, is pretty obvious) and for integrating the Laurel and Hardy comedy into a rather edgy context completely different from anything they'd used before. This isn't a great movie, but it's certainly better than the eight dreary ones for Fox and MGM they'd made in the early 1940's. I suspect only the film's technical crudity kept it from earning the cult following among anti-establishment baby-boomer youth the Marx Brothers' \"Duck Soup\" acquired in the late 1960's/early 1970's.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPlease be aware that this film has nothing to do with the Radio City Music Hall! As an archivist re: the Music Hall..I know what is and what is not associated with the New York venue. The film's Theodore is just the \"Music Hall.\" No Rockettes are in the film. Only wonderful ice skaters plus superb actors and fun. Just thought you would like to know. Truly a wonderful film. You will never guess who the 'murderer' is while watching this film....till the very end. What a superb plot and beautiful ice skating. One never sees that kind of performances any more. The Roxy Theater and the Center Theatres, in New York city, had ice skating performances on stage!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAlong with virtually every Republic Picture ever made, \"Murder in the Music Hall\" seems to have undeservably faded into oblivion. A shame, because this lusciously produced, expertly directed and written, and crafty mystery-suspense item spins an enticing whodunnit thriller against the setting of Radio City Music Hall. A murder in one of the building's posh penthouse apartments casts suspicion on the luscious Rockettes--among them, Vera Ralston (who besides giving an appealing performance of subtlety and vulnerablity, provides a few dazzling ice-skating production numbers), Helen Walker, Ann Rutherford, Julie Bishop, and several other delectable B-movie starlets of the '40s. Tall, blond and handsome William Marshall (usually cast in musicals) hunts down the killer as the complex and increasingly creepy plot unfolds, against the swankiest settings you'll ever see in a film noir. The ending is as much of a surprise as is this sadly forgotten, classy murder mystery. Well-worth restoring and reviving on cable-TV, VHS or DVD. Republic sank a hefty budget in this Grade-A production, and \"Murder in the Music Hall\" is as slick, unnerving, and immensely enjoyable as any of the major studios' films of its era. POSSIBLE SPOILER: Pay attention to the rhapsodic song composed by the victim just before his death. Then, amidst the showgirls' incessant chattering in their dressing rooms, try to pinpoint the one humming that fatal melody. You'll discover who the killer is just as William Marshall does. Grand fun, the kind of movie they truly don't make anymore, and what a loss--both to movie-goers and actors alike.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you are a fan of early Duke movies, this Lone Star oldie is a good one. What more could you ask for than Duke, Yak, and Gabby. Lots of good ridin' and shootin'!!! I found it amazing that Duke's singing voice was Bill Bradbury, who is none other than Bob Steele's twin brother. It has been reported that Bob Steele was a high school classmate and friend of Duke, so twin brother Bill may have been too. Anyway, if you like good, clean, early western movies don't miss this one. We don't have to wonder about hidden meanings or try to figure out underlying themes. Just sit back, relax and enjoy a western movie from a simpler day and time. It's called entertainment folks!!!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAn evil land baron is holding up water to a group of ranchers in order to try and take their properties for pennies on the dollar. Along comes Singin' Sandy Saunders (John Wayne), who saves the day for Gabby Hayes and his daughter by going undercover as the villain's newest gunman.
The first of sixteen films Wayne made for Lone Star/ Monogram Pictures, this tries to cast him as a singing cowboy, only with an obviously lip-synced voice. The title card prominently features his character as \"Singin' Sandy\" leading one to believe that this was meant to be the first in a proposed series!
Yes it's ridiculous, but also a lot of fun to see Wayne singing songs and shooting guns, especially when he does a little ditty before shooting it out with gunman Earl Dwire.
Riders Of Destiny features a rare villainous role for for Al \"Fuzzy\" St. John, who clowns around as much with the bad guys as he did playing a heroic sidekick, riding alongside Buster Crabbe and Lash LaRue.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film had me spellbound this evening. Thanks to Fox Movie Classics for showing it uninterrupted. John Voight, this cast of little known black actresses and most of all, the children, made this a worthy way to spend a Sunday evening. How wonderful to see the early work of this seasoned actor, as well as Paul Winfield's excellent portrayal of Mad Billy. I can't see why anyone would say that Hume Cronyn is miscast in the role as superintendent. Who would they have chosen? The shrill character actor, Charles Lane? Although his career is laudable, an actor such as Lane would have cheapened the role. Cronyn was an excellent choice for the part. I will count this film as a true treasure to hold in memory.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nall i can say is that each time i see CONRACK, dir. Martin Ritt, DP. John Alonzo, i feel an utmost sense of inspiration and enlightment in what the power of cinema is possible in such a simple film.
the motion picture Conrack is set in 1969. It is based on a true story. It is a story about a white man (Jon Voight) who teaches a group of young black children how incredible the world is outside of their little South Carolina island.
The story places the job of a teacher as noble cause in changing children's lives.
I highly recommend it.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film launched my theory about films based on books: Instead of following the cliche \"You've read the book; now see the film,\" if you are looking for a good book to read, try one upon which a movie you like was based, because it'll be 10 times better.
I saw this film on its initial release at the National Theater in downtown Eugene and liked it so much that I stayed to see it again. It's a perfect merger of the inspiring talents of one of my favorite actors, Jon Voight, with what became my favorite book, \"The Water Is Wide,\" by Pat Conroy.
I can think of no better movie about the nobility of teaching and the ironic challenges of life. Two tiny caveats:
(1) The video suffers severely from pan-and-scan and deserves a letterbox version. (2) The title should be restored to the name of the book, a reference to one of the most touching, enigmatic songs ever written
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMartin Ritt seems to be a director who was always interested in social issues (as the son of immigrants, he had every incentive to be so, especially since he was blacklisted in the '50s). \"Conrack\" is based on Pat Conroy's novel \"The Water is Wide\", about his own experience in 1969 teaching a school of impoverished black children about the outside world, much to the chagrin of the right-wing superintendent (Hume Cronyn). What added to the movie's strength was the cultural and historical context: Conroy (Jon Voight) frustratedly tells another teacher how many of the children don't know about Paul Newman, Sidney Poitier, the Vietnam War, or even where Vietnam is. He proceeds to enlighten them about all these factors.
Somewhere, I read a complaint that when Conroy played music for the children, he only played white music. The truth is, you can't blame the movie for that; it was based on Conroy's real experience. Either way, the movie's a real gem.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI first saw this film when I was in the 8th grade and I remember that it had a profound affect on me then. I saw in again about a year ago (I am now 29) and it still moved me in similar ways. This is a great movie that personifies the struggle of \"principle vs. pragmistism\". Voight's character is the idealist teacher that won't give in to any psuedo-racist leanings of the Superintendent, Mr. Skeffington. That story also personifies the struggle of how older people often resist change, and more specifically, cultural change. Often at the expense of children. When these battles finally come to a boil, Pat Conroy loses and pragmatism reigns triumphant. Or does it? The children that he has to leave are better off for knowing him, more exposed to the \"real\" world and to classical music. The other teacher at the school gained respect for him and he learned much about himself. A great film with a heart-breaking ending. I recomend that anyone who enjoyed the film to read the book, \"The Water is Wide\", by Pat Conroy. It will stay with you!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPat Conroy's autobiographical book \"The Water Is Wide\" proves to be something of a Southern \"Up The Down Staircase\", yet despite the teacher-going-against-the-odds formula, \"Conrack\" really does move the audience with each little breakthrough and creative flash. These students (uneducated black kids on an island off South Carolina) are actually shown learning, and their collective wide-eyed innocence is remarkably sweet. The one actual actress in the bunch (Tina Andrews, an amazing performer) plays the \"tough nut\" Conrack has to crack, and once she falls under his charms, it all seems a breeze. But the story is not ready-made for a happy ending, and I wasn't prepared for the quiet simplicity of the finale. It's beautifully done. The script veers off course every now and then, but director Martin Ritt is very smart to always fall back on Jon Voight's solid presence. Scenes such as the one where he drives around in his van venting his frustrations over a loudspeaker don't add up to much, but the whole film is filled with episodes which spark emotion, and the actual ending is their payoff. **1/2 out of ****
\n
assistant\n1
\n"