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 is a tough film to review, since several factors need to be taken into account. Let's filter the more judgmental..Ok, are you interested in the facts concerning the serial killer of Jeffrey Dahmer? Can you withstand an independent, low-budget film? Are you objective enough to NOT dislike a film solely due to its lack of stars or professional look? Well, if you said yes then you should have a mind open enough to handle this one. This film is an almost 100% accurate dramatization of Dahmer's adult life and subsequent murder spree, and is styled as an autobiography. It isn't a glamorized, unrealistic account that unfortunately the theatrical film \"Dahmer\" (2001) was. The movie begins with Dahmer, played quite convincingly by Carl Crew, sitting in the police car as they raid his apartment. His thoughts of what got him there are presented to us in a past-tense, narrated style that accurately explains much of Dahmer's psychoses and motives which led him to commit murder almost 20 times. We get to know the character, both the devious side as well as the side that came moderately close to living a normal life. It isn't anyone's fault but Dahmer's that 17 people died, but being a criminal psychology student, I was pleased to more than just his animalistic side represented, truthfully, in this film. You see him having a loving relationship with his grandmother as well as trying to find companionship, but of course we witness the side of him that everyone remembers. It should be noted that there is little actual onscreen violence, with much of it suggestive in shots such as spattering of blood or a body being struck through a blurred curtain. You do see two deaths that I remember, one being a pretty bloodless throat slash and the other being a man shoved alive into a barrel of acid. While you don't see anything graphic, this cruelty and the convincing acting of both Crew and his victim make this a disturbing scene. And while the actual onscreen mutilation is kept low, you will see the results. There is a prop hand and head or two, but it seems as if this was to disturb the viewer and doesn't look to be exploitive. Besides, these fake anatomical pieces are where the budget limitations are visible. Although acceptable, they look enough like fakes to not be too disturbing. The film actually concludes before Dahmer's death in 1994, due to the fact that it was released a year or two prior. That's about the only big difference from the real story, and the information that remains is, as I've stated, very true to the facts. The film quality could be better, the dialogue often sounds a little too quiet, and the acting of several characters IS a bit hammy, but it's not overboard. In my opinion, this is a flawed but ultimately honest and serious look into one of America's most remembered serial killers. I think it's safe to say the film is memorable as well, and I respect it for overcoming its limitations to deliver the story in a believable manner, aided by a thoroughly excellent Carl Crew as Dahmer.
\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 is the most traumatising and painful horror film I have ever seen in my life. To know that this film is based on a true story and watching Jeffrey Dahmer(Carl Crew) brutally murder his victims is enough to bring a tear to my eye. I admit this was a low budget film with not the best dialogue, however it explained why Jeffrey Dahmer was a Psycotic maniac. As he was so selfishly/inwardly emotional his emotions and selfishness went so far deep into his brain that it resulted into him becoming a murderer. Every person that he lured back to his apartment, he was attracted to and had feelings for, and the reasons why he murdered them wasn't only for the thrill of killing them but because he couldn't cope with the fact of them leaving him. In the scene when he killed his first victim by bashing an object at the back of the guys head from what I noticed wasn't because he wanted to kill him but because he was devastated with the idea of the guy leaving him. It was from thereafter that he got use to the homicidal behaviour and made killing his hobby - for both evil and emotional reasons.
The scene when he was talking while crying on the phone with his mother and telling her how much he loved her and the love he showed to his grandmother and how he didn't want to move out of her house did show that he did have love in his heart. One scene that I found quite spooky and strange was when a priest overheard Jeffrey in a pub inviting a guy back to his apartment and then phoned Jeffrey up in a phone booth within the pub so that the guy would lose patience and change his mind on going home with Jeffrey. When the guy left the pub, the priest then hung up the phone and was was laughing at Jeffrey. I also found that Carl Crew played a remarkable acting performance as the role of Jeffrey Dahmer. His evil and cold blooded facial expressions before he massacred his victims were so real, I was shivering in my seat. His facial expressions reminded me of the way Vincent D'onofrio (Private Pyle/Leonard) in the film 'Full Metal Jacket' looked just before he gunned-down the General in the toilet barracks.
If your an emotional person I wouldn't recommend you to watch this film but if your not, than go ahead and watch 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\nHey what do you expect form a very low budget movie!?!? Although I haven't seen \"Dahmer\" (2002) I can say that following what the media put out about Jeff this is a pretty accurate depiction. I have studied the Jeffrey Dahmer case and learned all I can about this man. This is a low budget movie but it shows the mentality of a serial killer. If you can get past gore and see what the underlying story of a sick mind. I loved this movie! Just brace yourself for low budget and no blood. Its a story as seen through the eyes of a killer and his actions and thoughts from childhood up through his arrest. My favorite line is : \"If they had bothered to look in the back seat it might have saved a lot of lives\" Enjoy!
\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 just called my brother Paulie on the phone and he said he was watching Hoods and it was funny. So, like I said, never go against the family! The demand for more lines is OK since I like to express my own opinions quite frequently. If something is misspelled it's most likely my eyesight and not my brain. This gives me yet another chance to take my shots at \"The Departed\". When one knows exactly what is going to happen in the last scene with no prior knowledge, that usually means it wasn't all that suspenseful. All you need is a good directer,the same guy I believe who did my favorite mob movie, \"Goodfellows), but in a completely different way.And then just throw in Jack the great and you got yourself an Oscar. Easy as pie. I have to see hoods to make sure it wasn't better than \"The Departed\" Gibbs
\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\"Strike Force\" or \"The Librarians\" is a fun action movie that doesn't it take itself too seriously. William Forsythe stars as Simon, who is looking for a missing daughter of a wealthy client. He meets up with Sandi (Erika Eleniak) who is also looking for someone-her sister. But there are evil bad guys afoot. The most evil of them all is Marcos Canarious (Andrew Divoff). Marcos likes to kill people. So now, Simon and Sandi have to team up to bring down the villains. The whole cast is great, with Divoff stealing the movie. There are also cameos by Ed Lauter and Burt Reynolds. If you are looking for a good action film, watch this and have a good 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\nDespite what its critics ensue, I enjoyed immensely for precisely what it is. Eyecandy for both sides of the gender spectrum. Soderberg has done the artsy hard edge stuff before, won Oscars, is at the top of his game. Ocean's 12 is light, commercial, fluffy, Steve's day at the Midway if you will. I am generally not a fan of Zeta-Jones but even I must admit that Kate is STUNNING in this movie. It's ending screams of an upcoming trequel and I will be one of the millions who flock to see 120 minutes of George and Brad and Matt parlay through Clooney's digs in Lago di Como as they swindle some rich bad guy again and again. If we tolerated 3 installments of the Lord of the Rings, I ask if we can drool over Clooney's salt and pepper lid just one more 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 felt cheated out of knowing the whole story. While there could be a twist, this twist was so significant, that I felt betrayed. I believe it could have used a better writer who could weave all the elements of the story together better. The writer could have revealed more of the 'twists' throughout the movie, rather than all at once at the end. That aside, I believe that the actors did very well with what they had, particularly Matt Damon, who actually had a little character in his character, little quirks that weren't egotistic or like a smooth criminal who always knows what he is doing. The other main characters were their own separate entities who just happened to converse with one another. The cohesiveness of the group in Ocean's Eleven was gone.
\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\nSoderbergh is a fabulous director, but nothing he could conjure could beat the amazing cast he gathered for this zenith of sequels. Clearly, he knew this from the get-go. The term \"star-vehicle\" has traditionally been used to refer to a movie that builds itself around one star. What this film does is net a whole herd of Hollywood hot shots and make them shine even brighter than before. The last scene says it all--all the stars sitting around with NOTHING happening and NOTHING being said. We just get to see them socialize as though it were a scene from a reality show where George Clooney, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, and Don Cheadle are just hanging out, being themselves. So the story's not important at all--at least, that's not where the films' greatest pleasures come from. If you want a clever heist movie, better stick with 11. But if star-gazing turns you on, this will make your day.
\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\nFilm certainly can be a narrative medium, but by no means is it the ideal medium. Literature best carries a plot, because the reader can supply the imagination necessary to complete the structure. Film is appreciated best when viewed for what it is: a series of images grouped together. What Soderbergh does in Ocean's Twelve is combine impeccable film-making technique with the free-flowing form of American movies from the 1970s. From looking at the comments posted recently, most people went in expecting a standard-issue heist movie, a la Entrapment; it seems people actually miss the tiresome clichés of romance disguised as tension between the leads and ridiculous plot twists designed to keep the audience awake. Soderbergh's directing prowess is reason alone to see this movie, but close-ups of Pitt and Zeta-Jones forty feet high on the screen don't hurt either. A true treat for those who love the flickering of lights on the silver screen, and a disappointment for those trying to make film something it's not.
\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\nWith a cast like this, I knew the acting would be amazing. Still, I was cautious, as I always am of sequels. Would it sustain the feeling of the first film? Could they possibly replicate the tension and thrill of the masterful heist of Ocean's 11? We'll never know, because they didn't try. At least, not in the way I expected. Instead, they made a light and truly funny parody of the heist genre. If you want a gripping, logical heist, don't watch this. If you want a good laugh, with witty dialogue, quirky characters, and an absolutely genius scene where Julia Roberts has to impersonate herself, then you'll love Ocean's 12.
\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\nOcean's 12
'If you steal fifty million dollars, they will find you.' (Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber, Die Hard)
This adage certainly rings true in this sequel. Terry Benedict has been informed that Danny Ocean and his compadres were the ones who ripped him off and now he wants it all back. The Ocean gang need a lot of money and fast, but cannot work in the states as Benedict has made it impossible for them. So it's off to Europe to perform acts of death defying thievery, whilst trying to avoid Catherine Zeta Jones' super cop, an old flame from Rusty's (Pitt's) past.
On their first heist in Amsterdam they find out that who ratted on them was the 'Night Fox', a super slick thief with a legend complex. He issues them with a challenge that could write off their debt in full or land them in some kind of Uma Thurman-Kill Bill II-buried-alive-type-sequence. Interesting? Well, yes. Slow? Sort of. Entertaining? Mostly. Unnecessary scenes of character development? Plenty.
Ocean and his band of merry men are charismatic, if nothing else and as this is a sequel and we are all old friends we see plenty more 'pally' situations and conversations. Too many. Damon's Linus is more nervous than before; the cousins are bickering as we knew they would; Bernie Mac talks too much and Don Cheadle's cock-er-ney accent is as bad as ever (I really like Cheadle, but could not abide this). Pitt and Clooney talk like old friends, filling each other's glasses and reading each other's minds. However, what worked so well in the last film was the lack of character development versus how slick the whole damned op was. And as much as these actors work well together, Zeta Jones fits into this film like a big square peg in a tight 11 sided hole. She simply doesn't fit and her chemistry with Pitt is non-existent.
The stars of this film for me, however, were Vincent Cassel as the Night Fox and Soderbergh's choice of locations. Cassel plays pomp and wealth as if he was born into both. His Night Fox is arrogant, 'awfully cavalier with other people's lives' (Danny Ocean) and a total contrast to the Ocean gang. This is where I think the film loses its way. Cassel and the European locations provide an all too realistic contrast with the American actors and the style of the first film. We want slick, brash and quick-witted; not gritty, considered and intellectual. This is where the film doesn't work.
Admittingly, you cannot repeat the same formula twice to the letter, but going to far left or right usually does more damage than good in a mainstream film like this.
\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\nOcean's twelve is probably better than Ocean's eleven. I know most people would disagree, But I actually liked it more. After three years, it was good seeing the gang return. The reason behind the heist is a bit more inspired the second time around. I see why they stole from Benedict(Andy Garcia) in the last film. This film they have a bit more motivation the second time around. Ocean's twelve is more entertaining, and cooler than Ocean's eleven. With a funny cameo by Topher Grace saying \"I just walked in that new Dennis Quaid movie\" and other things. I think Ocean's Twelve is probably the best in the series.
The Plot: A year or so after Ocean's Twelve, Terry Benedict(the guy they robbed in the last film) is back and says that if Ocean's eleven doesn't pay him back the money they stole, he's going to call the cops. So Danny Ocean and the gang go to Europe, where Rusty meets his old cop girlfriend Isabelle. After she meets him again, she begins to follow them around. Also, the gang learns that they have an enemy who is also a thief who is a little better than they are.
With many funny scenes like when Tess(Julia Roberts) goes to Europe and pretends to be Julia Roberts, Ocean's Twelve is a pretty clever film. It's cooler, funnier, and more entertaining than Ocean's eleven.
\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 heard that after the first Oceans movie, the sequels begin to go downhill. I believe that this is not the case(at least not for this film). This movie is even better than the first film! The original crew returns three years after they successfully robbed Terry Benedict's casinos. Now, Benedict is visiting each one of them personally telling them to get the money back within two weeks. To do that, they must do a couple heists in Europe to get the money.
The acting is very good. The all-star cast exceeded expectations. Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, and Catherine Zeta-Jones were probably the best in this film.
There are some confusing moments in this film. But that does not matter because there are only a few confusing moments. Anyway, this movie is only made for harmless fun.
Overall, this is a great heist movie. I rate this movie 9/10.
\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\nI would just like to point out (in addition to pleading for the series to be released on DVD) that a show does not have to be realistic to be entertaining. These days, with all the blood and gore in the news and in crime dramas, reality shows, etc. it's nice to get lost in a good, cheesy show with entertaining characters. PWOG fits the bill. Was it Emmy material? No, but it was awesome just the same.
I also have to put a vote in for the second cast - they were more charismatic than the cast of season one. I would definitely agree that the first season had a more serious vibe than the second two, but I was definitely more sucked in by the latter cast. Even though the series has been off the air for years, I'll never stop hoping that it be released for purchase.
\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 first season told pretty much how all elements of the Marine Corps would operate (i.e. ground, air, helicopters and jets) as a team. That's the season I give the high rating to! (True, there are still a lot of \"liberties\" taken in season 1, but the stories were more believable.)
The subsequent seasons were a gawd-awful attempt of Melrose Place meets Top Gun!
I was a Marine stationed at Miramar at the time and I remember them shooting the show around the San Diego area. I got to talk to Rod Rowland and James Brolin.
Rowland's character was good to go.
Brolin's character was good in the first season only. For some reason he slacked off after the first ep of the second season.
If you want to see a LITTLE of how the Marine Air Ground team operates, then season one is the one to watch.
If you're into Melrose Place and soap opera like plots with an attempt to merge them into Top Gun, then see the last two seasons.
\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\nOne would think that a film based on the life of the Japanese author Yukio Mishima would be a daunting if not impossible task. However Paul Schrader has indeed made a film \"about\" Mishima that is both superb & complex. While it is not a literal biography, Schrader & his co-screenwriter Leonard Scharder (his brother) have taken several incidents from his life, including his sucide and crafted what can best be described as incidental tableaus that are visually sparse and stunning. Mishima's homosexuality is almost not there, due to legal threats from his widow, but in spite of this, the film is still terrific, and one of the best films I saw in 1985. I should also mention the important contribution of Philip Glass who did the score, which adds an additional texture to the film, and is superior to the one he did for Scorsese's Kundun. Also notable is John Bailey's fine crisp beautifully colored cinematography and the great production design & costumes by Eiko Ishioka who went on to do the memorable costumes for Coppola's Dracula for which she received a well deserved Oscar. Hopefully this film will soon be available on DVD.
\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\nMishima is one of the greatest films ever made. Now I think Paul Schrader is the greatest screenwriter of all time, but I don't really like the films he's directed of what I've seen (with the exception of this and Affliction), but this is an amazing, disturbing, and highly 3-dimensional character study. It follows the life of Yukio Mishima, Japan's most celebrated writer, combining the last day of his life with flashbacks and his stories. I don't know how, but Paul Schrader manages to combine all of those in a very artistic way. The acting is great, so is the photography, and a perfect score by Philip Glass. Although confusing the first viewing, this is one of the few films that becomes richer with each viewing. Truly an underrated gem of a film.
\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\nIt has taken several viewings for me to fully appreciate this film. Initially, I was struck by the stylized sets, but found the rest slow going and dull. I thought that such a sensational subject needed the Ken Russell treatment to take it way over the top. I now find the enforced restraint (placed on the production by Mishima's widow) to be an asset. Some of the more lurid aspects of Mishima's life are reiterated and dramatized by corresponding themes from his novels. I think it helps to be familiar with the novels - that's what finally made the difference for me. Still feel the film overall could be a little tighter and warmer, but it's genuinely unique, and deserves serious attention. Love the fact that the Japanese characters speak Japanese - not English. The Philip Glass score is mesmerizing.
\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\nMovies are something you see on Saturday night and forget by Sunday morning. Motion pictures are works of art that stick with you forever. Mishima falls into the latter category. This is the type of thing that should win Academy Awards, a brilliant, visual peice of film that is both depressing and uplifting. Instead of doing a straightforward look at the life of Yukio Mishima, director Paul Schrader interweaves three adaptations of the author's stories into a look at his past and final day on Earth, the day he tried to lead the Japanese military into rebellion in the name of the Emperor. Failing to do that, he commits ritual suicide in an ending that hits you like a ton of bricks. The three short story adaptations allow a look into what led him to this and are presented in an experimental way that makes them appear to be filmed stage plays. Ken Ogata is magnificent as Mishima. Despite his eccentricities, he comes off as very sympathetic, a man who is quite willing to die for his beliefs and does. This makes the ending that much more devastating and the sense of loss more meaningful. Of the three story adaptations, Temple of the Golden Pavilion, Kyoko's House and Runaway Horses, it is the last that is the strongest and most emotional. It also is the story that most closely matches Mishima's mood in his final years and illustrates what truly led him to the events of November 1970. This review cannot be complete without a mention of Philip Glass' striking musical score. Not since 2001 has a film score been such a perfect compliment to it's visuals. Paul Schrader crafted one of the most beautiful movies of the 1980s or any other decade for that matter. Have the hankies at the ready because the ending will leave you in tears. Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters reminds you that sometimes film can still be an art form and as art it is brilliant.
\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\nThere are very few films that are able to tell such a complicated story on so many levels as well as Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters. One of the most difficult aspects of story telling is the ability to flashback and forward without losing the pace of the film. This film not only flashes back and fourth with the greatest of easy, but it also flows through some of Yukio Mishima greatest stories. This film exceeds in every aspect and is a joy to watch. Not to mention the incredible Philip Glass Soundtrack.
\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 favourite film and I think it is perfect. Unlike virtually any other film I can name, I never watch this film and think it would have been better if they'd changed this or that or whatever. Is this the definition of a work of art? I think so. Every brushstroke in Mishima is perfect and it all flows from the Schrader's script. I've always sort of liked Paul Schrader's work (you can't argue with Taxi Driver and Light Sleeper is an amazing film), but while his writing often seems to border on the bombastic, his directing style is usually non-existent. This is deliberate, I think, because his films usually deal with a search for redemption and are set in the real world; ugly and harsh. His style suits his themes as he presents his characters in a simple and realistic way, and lets them show the audience the truth of the situation. Imagine if Schrader had directed Taxi Driver or Bringing Out The Dead, instead of Scorsese. But like the protagonists of those two films, while Mishima the man was ideal Schrader material, right-wing, vain and at odds with society, his works were subtle and beautiful. In fact he had a secondary writing career as a woman's writer, churning out what can reasonably be described as romantic potboilers. So you wouldn't necessarily imagine that Schrader was the ideal man to capture that subtlety and beauty on film. I think the film shows that he was. The script he helped fashion splits Mishima the man into three parts; his life, his death and his mind. His life is represented in black and white, still camera, formal compositions. His death, for which he will always be best remembered, is handheld documentary style. And his mind is represented by the dramatised extracts from his novels, each one revealing the thought processes of this complex man, who hardly ever wrote a character that wasn't a reflection of himself. These dramatisations are beautiful to look at, thanks to Eiko Ishioka's remarkable production design and Schrader's imaginative staging. In all parts, the acting is superb, especially from Ken Ogata as Mishima, who captures the essential charm, arrogance and narcissism of the man. The photography is excellent throughout and contains images that the viewer will retain forever. Finally, the music is simply superb, perfectly matching the images, although written and recorded before shooting, adjusted during the editorial process and then re-recorded. How much the music influenced the shoot I do not know, but it bonds perfectly to the image. I have seen many ideas of what various people think the theme of the film is, what Schrader is trying to say. You know, the big stuff about life, death etc. But I do not think the film is saying anything. Mishima has already said it, the film simply repeats.
\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 only pure life, is one that ends with a signature in blood.
So says Mishima anyway, a young sheltered boy who becomes a celebrity author. The life of one of Japans most celebrated literary voices, is told from three perspectives, his life just before he and four members of his private army take over a Japanese military base and commit ritual suicide(shown in color), flashbacks(shown in black and white), and scenes from his novels(shown in a kind of dreamy Technicolor set design somewhere between traditional Noh Theater and \"the Wizard Of Oz\". These stories are often told at the same time, but are edited to reinforce, the slow fusing of Mishima's life with his fictions, until the end(or the beginning) when like the ancient samurai he so admires, he will be at a balance of pen and sword (when his words and actions are the same, and he is a full and \"pure\" being).
Paul Schrader wrote the screen play for \"Taxi Driver\", and directed \"Cat People\"(a bizarre erotic horror film, which left strange impressions on me as a boy), and in Mishima, he comes closest to making a really excellent film.
Whats interesting is to watch the poet, the homosexual, the shy and awkward man with a low body image who overstates his Tuberculosis to get of of WW2 (of which he seems forever ashamed), become a body building, samurai obsessed, a-sexual, media phenomena, all the while still writing prolific amounts of novels, plays, and short stories.
A short and sweet version is to say Mishima has no father, and becomes obsessed with masculinity, beauty, sex and self destruction, in some tragic attempt to feel connected to something bigger than himself, that he was always missing. Watching him with his fellow suicidal cadets, you see him happy, delivering his big paternal speech, giving orders, and loving the control...until the speech itself, the point where pen and sword meet? Of course, this ignores the subtlety of the story telling craft here which makes this transformation so natural and remarkable.
Though the story, fascinating at times, really isn't this movies greatest success. The cinematography, performances, editing,music(by Philip Glass), and set designs, are really what make this worth seeing, and more than a traditional bio-pic.
One day I will pick, up a Mishima book, he does seem to have an ear for prose, and for staging ideas, but for now I'm satisfied with the film.
Those interested in Japanese Literature, and post-war culture, should check out. Fans of inventive combinations of facts and fictions, should enjoy as well.
\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\nMishima - a life in four chapters is in my opinion the best Paul Schrader film to this day. Mesmorizing cinematography, accompanied with Philip Glass mystical musical score added a completely magical aura to the story of one of the Japan's greatest novelists, whose originality and picturesque narrative are beautifully portrayed in this picture. As any gifted character, Mishima was troubled with severe self conflicts, the main of them being the conflict between the \"pen and a sword\" as the director puts it in his final chapter, or the struggle between the sensitive poet with homosexual feelings, living in a notoriously masculine society with centuries long warrior traditions, thus widening the gap between the sensitive and the militantly traditional side of Mishima himself.
All Schrader's films (and the ones he wrote scripts for) are basically stories of the inside conflict within a man that doesn't belong in an environment he lives in. That also goes for Mishima, who, apart from Japanese military school upbringing is brought up with love for theater and words. His demise consisted of both of these key points in his life, it was about words and theatrical ending in a life long play. Film like this comes along once in a long while, and most will have to wait a lifetime to reach this beauty. 20 out of 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\n\"Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters\" is a visually stunning production that handles complex issues with evocative ease. It is based on the life of controversial Japanese author Yukio Mishima, who committed suicide in the 1970s. It is not really a biopic - at least not one in the traditional sense - but an exploration of Mishima's iconoclastic oeuvre. The film succeeds in presenting abstract concepts in an unembroidered, totally engaging manner. Paul Schrader makes you sympathize with Mishima without having to deconstruct him or his work. It doesn't quite solve the puzzle but it does make you understand it. An added bonus: As we see Mishima's fury over the lack of tradition in a morally vacant modern society, Schrader gives us an excellent demonstration of the dichotomy between thought and execution in cinema. John Bailey's cinematography is spectacularly good. The grandiosity of composer Philip Glass' work is perfectly suited for the project. \"Mishima\" is the best film I've seen this year, so far.
\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 movie that should be viewed and treated as a piece of art. This is an oblivious labour of love by the Schrader brothers about the life of Yukio Mishima that is full truly artistic elements. The movie jumps from color to black and white, past to present, fictional works by Mishima to him. All without being confusing in the least bit. The only thing that gets me is that the entire movie, with the exception of the narrator's spoken parts is in Japanese. Still a masterpiece that deserves an audience but hasn't found won. Criterion, if you are reading this, this is a film that should be released under your imprint with as much extras as possible. This film truley deserves more. 10/10
\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\nPaul Schrader and his brother Leonard wrote Mishima, and in so doing, clearly drew parallels between the life of Yukio Mishima and his work. The film is divided into four sections: beauty, art, action, and the fateful day when Mishima held an army general hostage and spoke to the garrison, only to have it ridicule him and his Bushido ideals of the samurai code. Mishima committed ritual seppuku on November 25, 1970, and he planned it as a meshing of beauty, art, and action. Schrader edits scenes recreating that day with three different scenarios from Mishima's novels: Temple of the Golden Pavilion, Kyoko's House, and Runaway Horses. The moment of seppuku is perfectly realized in relation to its shocking climax via pulling back the camera while simultaneously zooming in.
Black and white sequences are intermingled with the colorful moments depicted in Mishima's novels. The black and white scenes represent memories from Mishima's childhood and youth. Schrader correlates some of these autobiographical moments with scenes from the novels that often parallel Mishima's real life, such as his stammer, development of his bodybuilding obsession, and his fostering of the samurai code. Each of the three themes of beauty, art, and action is exemplified in the chosen depictions from the respective novels. The color sequences are reminiscent of early, stagy Technicolor films, giving the film, perhaps, an intended surreal quality considering the subject matter.
Ken Ogata plays the real Mishima with unfailing determination, headed to the general's office on that fateful day and resembles the real Mishima. Schrader took tremendous risks with this film in focusing on the novels he did and with tying them thematically to both Mishima's personal life and his literary ambitions. The editing of the film between the three main sections of November 25, 1970, the black and white growing up segments, and the colorful novel scenes clearly point to the deliberate intersection of these elements of beauty, art, and action in Mishima's life. At times, it is difficult to follow, and there may be little to recommend for the uninitiated viewer. *** of 4 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\nMishima: A Life in Four Chapters is an art-house biography about Yukio Mishima, celebrated Japanese writer, who bears resemblance to Paul Schrader's earlier character Travis Bickle (Taxi Driver): both of them are lonely people searching for their place in their society and when they realize that world doesn't need them, they try to destroy their surrounding universe.
If you want to learn about life of Mishima, then you won't find a lot of information here, because it shows that he didn't live a very interesting life (except for his final day), but if you want to understand his personality, then it is the best movie of its kind, as most of the movie is adaptation of his novels and also provides a guide to his thoughts. This movie shows that Mishima was a person, who witnessed the fall of Japanese culture, which he was very fond of and with his final act he tried to save traditions and prove to himself that he is a real warrior, but he realized that as a person he was just a man with no power to change the events.
\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 a haunting telling of the life of the author and poet, Mishima. It jumps around through his past, through his last day, and through some of his stories but is expertly constructed as it moves from section to section. It captures the flavor of the man, his work and of his times...the difficult 1960s.
I think the most wonderful parts (literally, full of \"wonder\") are the excerpts from his works. The sets (especially designed to work with the camera) are amazing....stylized, beautiful and effective. They could be used as exemplars for any set designer. I woke up at night dreaming of the Golden Pagoda.
The stories were powerful explorations of the nature of man and of art. After watching this film, I wanted to learn more about the works of this artist.
I highly recommend this movie for anyone interested in art, poetry, theater, politics, or Japanese history.
\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 originally on Channel 4 (UK) and it was a fantastic film that left a great impression on me. However I saw it on Irish TV recently and there was an added narration by Roy Scheider (\"we're going to need a bigger boat!\"). This ruined the film for me. His droning monologue adds absolutely nothing to the film, and if anything takes from the films brilliance. I wonder at the new DVD version that has no Roy (due to legal reasons?) would stop people from buying it. Well believe me, the film is much better for it!
Cheers
Damian
\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 never heard of Mishima before I watched this film and although parts of it are a little tedious, I still find myself drawn to watch it when it is repeated on the box. At the beginning of the film, we are told about a celebrated Japanese writer behaves like a lunatic and commits seppuku in public. As the film progresses you are gently inducted into twisted logic of Mishima's mind. The stages of his life are are presented in four chapters. Each chapter itself is a blend of two contrasting narratives, the first continues the story with scenes from Mishima's life and appear in black and white. The second narrative is an adaptation of scenes from a novel and these are staged like a play and filmed in vivid colours. There is a different novel staged in each chapter. Between each chapter, the narrative returns to the present, as Mishima proceeds towards his eventual ritual suicide. This means that the drama and tension is maintained until the end.
I suspect that many people will find this film to be boring pretentious and art-house. I respect that, this is not a film for people who want action and a strong story line. If on the other hand you are the kind of person who relishes the opportunity to penetrate the mind a bizarre man while watching his life story told in collage of beautiful pictures set to music by Philip Glass, you will love it. I loved 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've just watched this with my three children - 12yrs (boy), 10yrs (boy) and 8yrs (girl) and this film was good old fashioned family action adventure. Although definitely aimed at the kid market (I'd say 5 to 13)it was certainly watchable and as a parent it is a pleasure to find a movie that appeals to a broad range of ages whilst still being suitable for the whole family to watch - particularly younger children.
The story revolves around Ricky, a bit of a nerd with a vivid imagination (this can definitely be seen in his daydream sequences) who foils a kidnapping and major art theft while on on-board a flight to Washington for a school trip. Ricky's dad is an airplane mechanic, so Ricky not only knows the structure of the aircraft inside out but is also a top-gun on his computer flight simulator. This comes in handy when the pilot and co-pilot are out cold through a series of misadventures and there is no-one left to fly the plane. I don't want to give away any more of the plot.
\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 is titled \"Junior Pilot\" here on IMDb but \"Final Approach\" at Netflix. Go figure! The movie is a delight for both the target youth audience and for adults who can suspend their maturity long enough to watch this film through the eyes of their own youth. For the adult, the story is quite predictable, and perhaps trite and melodramatic; whereas the tale may seem new and creative to youngsters who have not yet seen or read many films or books with such a story line.
In any case, credit must be given to the film's creators, particularly the director James Becket and the cinematographer Denis Maloney, for making this most entertaining and visually interesting film. The cut-aways to the young protagonist Ricky's fantasy thoughts are hilarious as well as delightfully filmed.
The young actors give uniformly believable performances, seemingly quite invested in their roles--silly as many scenes are. Jordan Garrett plays the protagonist \"Ricky\" with quite well, having excellent camera presence. Jeffrey Tedmori creates a delightfully soft and sensitive \"Shashi\" who of all ridiculous things thrives on hot sauce. Skyler Samuels and Adam Cagley give solid performances as well.
As is typical of his always fine acting, Larry Miller creates a solid parental figure around which the children's part-real, part-fantasy world revolves. Compared to his father-figure, the other major adult roles appear to be shallow and one-dimensional, intentionally and quite humorously so, to be sure.
This movie is a simplistic youth-targeted story, of course, yet it is quite entertaining, perhaps repeatedly so to the targeted youth crowd, but also for at least one viewing by adults who retain the ability to view such a film from their once-youthful perspective.
\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 was a great movie. It had one \"sot-so-nice\" outburst. Plus there were some very intense (drama) scenes which might make it inappropriate for younger viewers, under 6.
For a under the radar film, the acting was quite enjoyable, and touched down in our family room for a near perfect landing. It held the attention of our whole family and we were kind of sorry to see it end.
This movie had elements of spy kids with young people saving the day, but was given a somewhat more believable scenario. The dream scenes were a distraction at first, but did a great deal to establish the plot. The pranks and hi-jinx were also quite amusing.
We hope you like as much as we did.
\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\nDefinitely worth renting! Good clean family entertainment. My 4 and 5 year-olds (and I) loved it. Kept them on the edge of their seats. I recommend parents sit with their younger children to watch this, as it can be quite suspenseful for them. It's not too often you can find movies that you can watch with your children, and so this is a rare find. Some of the acting / realism isn't quite there at times, or maybe is a little corny, but children don't seem to notice or care, they love it. Parts are predictable, but other parts are not - like trying to figure out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. The movie doesn't have any really scary/creepy stuff, and so I doubt it will give children nightmares. It does inspire children to dream, which is something we need to encourage and foster more in our children. Rent and be blessed!
\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 spotted this film in a branch of the Duane Reed pharmacy in New York on holiday, and it seemed like a bit of silly fun. And sure enough, the whole premise is ridiculous beyond words - but it turned out to be a thoroughly enjoyable action film for kids, and their parents too.
10-year-old Ricky Bernard (Jordan Garrett) has his head in the clouds most of the time, much to his father's (Larry Miller) dismay. As a member of his school orchestra, Ricky and schoolmates fly to a concert performance ... and once again Ricky's mind 'takes off' and suspects some criminal plot is happening.
Reluctantly aided by best friend Sashi, who is a fan of hot sauce (what a strange plot device that was) and others they try to get to solve the mystery. Oh yes, and Ricky's skills 1,000 hours of flight simulator experience prove to be handy when he is called on to save the day in the film's thrilling climax! It was good to see Eric Roberts and Mark Dacoscos play parts in a family film. And watching the DVD interviews everyone seems to have had great fun taking part.
I totally liked Junior Pilot; charming and good-natured performances, funny plot line and a real; sense of enjoyment and sheer silliness.
If you are looking for an entertaining family film, you could do far worse than buy this one.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"