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\nA couple of days ago I saw the awesome \"House of Sand and Fog\" and I was impressed with the amazing performance of Ben Kingsley in the lead role. I decided to see \"Ray\", trying to understand how and why Ben Kingsley did not win the Oscar of Best Lead Actor. After watching Jamie Foxx in the role of Ray Charles, I agree with the Academy: he really deserved to be awarded. I like Ray Charles, I was not his fan, but it is amazing the resemblance of Jamie Foxx with him. The film is completely supported by Jamie Foxx, who participates of most of the shootings, and his movements on stage looks like as if he was a reincarnation of Ray Charles. With regard to the story, I saw the extended version on DVD, too long but also very pleasant, with many beautiful songs and scenes showing mainly a junkie Ray Charles. My greatest surprise was to find that Ray Charles was heroine addicted, and how he treated his own family. The presentation of his childhood through fragmented flashbacks was the boring part of the movie. My vote is nine.
Title (Brazil): \"Ray\"
\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\nJamie Foxx was the epitome of Ray Charles. After a few moments you stop seeing a film and see a biography played by the great man himself. Ray Charles was truly a genius of music and the movie excellently depicted that. No one has ever or will ever write, play, or record music like this musical giant. When he passed the flesh, the world lost one of it's greatest American heroes. As far as the movie, the fact that Jamie Foxx received a classical music scholarship to college and could play like Ray was an asset to the director. What could be better than that? You don't have to have a \"double\" play piano and then try to split the screen from someone else's hands to Jamie's face. It worked beautifully. I loved the fact that it also picked up how difficult Ray was. He wasn't always a nice man. You didn't also root for him. He was a drug addict, a womanizer, and sometimes just plain hard-headed. But I guess that's what made him genius so I can't fault him for that. I pick Jamie for Best Actor!
\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 Ray when it first came out. Why? Partly, because of the advertising hype, secondly because I just loved the heck outa Ray Charles's music. But not being around when his biggest things in music and his life happened, I wanted to learn more about the man's life. And in this film, I did. His addiction to drugs was something I didn't know, and the film let us know.
But here's the thing, while this was a decent autobiographical film...I cannot say it was a \"great\" film. I've seen \"Malcolm X\" and was blown away. Same with \"What's Love Got To Do With It\" and \"Bird\". The performances of each of those films was outstanding. I wasn't just drawn into the main characters in those films - who did incredible jobs - but to those around them as well. That helps make a picture to me.
I felt that at some parts of this film was shallow and heavy handed for emotional appeal. And yes, I'll admit at certain parts of the film I almost fell asleep. And the film was too long. And the film left out several \"other\" important details of Ray Charles life that would have made the film flow better. The film got \"choppy\" to me in certain parts. And the film seemed to end with a whimper, not a bang - certain parts, including the ending played like a tacked on \"Lifetime\" cable network movie to me. I expect more outa cinema.
So -- where does my ambivalence come in? With Jamie Foxx's performance. Overall, he did -- okay. Not Denzel Washington's Malcolm X or Angela Bassett's Tina Turner's spectacular, but...okay.
Sorry folks, but to me, there were several points in the film where I saw Jamie Foxx's interpretation of Ray Charles, and in others - thanks to the wonderful camera angles and lighting - he \"looked\" like Ray Charles. But I paid attention to the ... acting. An actor has to make you believe he IS the character he is playing. Not make a caricature of the character. Did I believe Jamie Foxx was Ray on the screen? Sometimes yes -- sometimes no.
Did Jamie Foxx deserve a Golden Globe? You betcha. Does he deserve an Oscar...? Depends on who's he's up against. He's got a few major competitors there, and he might just edge them out. But then again...maybe not. If Jamie Foxx doesn't win, I will not stand up and say \"he was robbed\". I wont particularly feel that he had been.
This was a decent film with decent performances and a decent story. A \"great\" autobiographical film of the late Ray Charles? No. Somewhere out there, I feel there IS a great film about Ray Charles just waiting to be made, and an actor that will blow you completely away in doing 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\nLet's not beat about the bush here, Taylor Hackford's undoubtedly slick movie has little to make it stand out from the biopic genre other than Jamie Foxx's exceptional, career-making performance. Remember the year they handed the special effects Oscar to the Terminator 2 boffins, uncontested? They should do the same with this year's Best Actor gong.
That Ray Charles' story is worthy of filming is not in dispute. Indeed, the many flashbacks to his traumatic childhood are well-handled and judiciously used. But for a life so unique, the film seems incredibly formulaic and familiar. It follows the 'history of a flawed genius' template almost to the letter: hardship and exploitation, women and drugs, recording wrangles, band squabbles, rehab, yeah yeah yeah. And surely there was more humour in his life than we're treated to here?
I appreciate Charles' music yet where neatly-cut medleys would have kept the story rolling, Hackford indulges himself with near-full-length renditions of too many songs - in gin joints, in the recording studio, in concert halls, infinitum. Narratively, and for non-devotees, they begin to act like a cinematic brake. This may seem like harsh judgement on a music biopic but with a catalogue as extensive as Ray's, we need a taste not the whole dish. Otherwise, we'd buy the albums.
Intrigued as I was, I glanced at my watch more than once. So for all Foxx's brilliance, maybe Ray would have been better served as an HBO two-parter?
\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\nRay is interesting in parts, and technically it's very well made, but Ray is often sluggish, and forgets some important details about Ray's life. All the movie shows us is parts where he's in his prime, and most successful, which is good, it's just I wanted to see some bits about his older life too. Jamie Fox mimics Ray Charles to a t, at times it's absolutely uncanny. I have to say, Jamie is the reason I got through this movie. The 1st half is a lot better then the 2nd. It's more interesting, it has more Oomph, and it's nowhere near as sluggish as the 2nd. I wasn't a big fan of Ray Charles to begin with to be honest, so I really didn't have any expectations for the film, what so ever. Ray's biggest problem had to be the over length. This could've been cut very easily, with more relevant scenes, other then the ones they used. I found the early part of Ray's life when he was just starting to get successful, the most interesting. He was humble back then, and somewhat a gentleman. And while the film may have over exaggerated his actions, he got a bit too full of himself for me to care.
Performance. Jamie Fox gives a performance for the ages as Ray. He looks like Ray, talks like Ray, acts like Ray. He even sings like Ray!. This is much more then an impression, I truly believed he WAS, Ray Charles. He was the heart of the film, and without his presence, this film would've been a complete and utter bore.
Bottom Line. Ray is interesting at times, dreadfully dull at others. When all was said and done, I was disappointed by how routine it seemed at times. Just because it's a bibliographical film, Doesen't mean it's automatically Oscar worthy. Jamie Fox deserved his Oscar, but the movie is above average at best. Worth a watch, but if I were you, I'd keep my expectations at a rather comfortable level.
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\nJamie Foxx did an incredible job playing Ray Charles. I loved this movie because every so often there would be a flashback scene and then to the current movie. When Ray Charles was little, he went blind and his mother didn't baby him. She was a strong woman who didn't treat him any different because he was blind. She made him do things on his own and that really pushed him to become a great musician later on in life. His mother also sent him to school as well. Then when Ray Charles became a man, he could stand up for himself and take care of himself but there was a downfall into narcotics, sex and betrayal. When I am discouraged about something I can just think of this movie and it will inspire me.
\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\nLike almost everyone, I am familiar with the music of Ray Charles. Who hasn't heard \"Georgia ON My Mind\" and \"The Mess-Around\" and some of the other marvelous songs featured in this movie. But about the life of Ray Charles I was sadly ignorant until watching this. I have to say that Jamie Foxx brought Ray Charles to life brilliantly. His performance was powerful, right down to the mannerisms and voice inflections. The movie also offered a no-holds-barred account of some of the trials and tribulations Charles dealt with over the course of his life, and with some demons from the past that haunted him well into adulthood. Perhaps the most powerful scene in the movie was the heroin withdrawal scene, which was painfully realistic. The movie portrays Charles' growing awareness of and involvement with the civil rights movement, culminating in his refusal to play before a segregated audience in Georgia, which led to a ban on him performing in the state. His drug addiction and extra marital affairs are also well documented. The movie revolves around a plea from his mother when he was a child: don't let anyone or anything turn you into a cripple.\" The point is that drugs did just that, and to honour his mother's memory, he had to beat them. There's not much here about his later life and career after breaking his heroin habit but up to that point, this is really powerful stuff. 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\nJamie Foxx absolutely IS Ray Charles. His performance is simply genius. He owns the film, just as Spacek owned \"Coal Miner's Daughter\" and Quaid owned \"Great Balls of Fire.\" In fact, it's hard to remember that the part of Ray Charles is being acted, and not played by the man himself. Ray Charles is legendary. He is well-established as a musician and the music is deep, complex, and innovative ~ even more innovative than I realized before watching this movie. The film should make new fans of a young audience who might come into it knowing little about his music. Ray Charles' life provided excellent biographical material for the film, which goes well beyond being just another movie about a musician. I confess that I knew very little about the man's life until I saw this film. I came out of it being impressed with Ray Charles' courage, strength, and innovation as man and musician.
\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 am so glad when i watch in every time the movie of (Ray) for the Sidney pottier of the 21st century (Jamie Foxx) who played this role as an evidence of his brilliant ability as an actor to take his position beside great actors in Hollywood by his golden supporting for the strong abilities of afro American actors all over the times and periods by his eternal work as an evidence for the eternity of Ray Charles as a grand prove for their legend appearance in every time by their success for winning Oscar prize as (best actor for leading role) an (best mixing sound) between fact and cinematic scenes upon Ray and Jamie as a mixing between two copies of Ray (ray of the past) and (ray of 2004 acted in the person of Jamie Foxx).It was nice from the director to choose those songs to be adapted with dramatical scenes in the accidents of film to enter for the atmosphere of success in legend corn with legend movies in Hollywood since 1893 till now and his cleverness of choosing Sharon Warrne in the role of Ray ,s mother that she succeeded in this role by brilliant analysis for the core of her character that Ray,s mother was the turning point for him upon her grew up to be independent on himself to take his place in this world and to be icon in his talent as (Nat king Cole , Louis Armstrong , Duke Ellington) and at the end of this film by receiving his honorable report from Gerogia and their decision to take his song (Georgia on my mind) the national anthem for this state he made his promise for his mother to be alive until now by his legend songs and brilliant life.
\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 lecture over the life of the tormented magician named Ray Charles. His pulses on the piano made fire music and his nostalgic voice created exciting, cool tunes. Each barrier that Ray was facing never kept him down, and he found his way all over conflicts. A real lesson. A great team of producers help recreate the era and armed with great costumes, hairs and settings one will follow Ray's story believing its true, direct filming! An icy music freezes and goosebumps the audience with clever sound editing. But, the most important part of the movie is Jamie Foxx. His acting is really superb, the most diamond polished acting ever seen. He lives his role. He is the Ray of Light.
\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\nRay Charles Robinson (Jamie Foxx) is a extremely talented pianist and singer as well. Ray is an smart man as well. Ray started his career in the late 1940's before he finds his distinctive style. Ray is certainly popular at the night clubs with his music. Things changes, when he meets an ambitious music producer (Curtis Armstrong). Who knows Ray got what it takes to be an strong performer and he also meets an woman (Kerry Washington), he loves as well & marries along the way. Ray's album becomes an hit, when he mixes soul music and gospel together. Which makes Ray an Controversial man during in the 1950's to the 1960's. Ray has love for all kind of music, including Country. But Ray isn't always the perfect man as he seems to be. Since he had plenty of failed relationship with other woman, while he's married. But he also had to battle with racism, people who double-crossed him, his music ideals and of course, his drug addiction. Which it made Ray's life extremely difficult for him and as well for battling the tragedy of his childhood. Which Ray always blamed himself for.
Directed by Oscar-Winner:Taylor Hackford (Against All Odds, Devil's Advocate, Dolores Claiborne) made an fascinating true-life story of the always interesting of the late \"Ray Charles\". Foxx won an Oscar for his touching performance of the late entertainer. Foxx brings heart and soul in the film and humour as well. But this film has plenty of rich performances by an top cast including:Regina King, Clifton Powell, Bokeem Woodbine, Aunjaune Ellis, Warwick Davis, Terrence Howard and Sharon Warren as Ray's mother. This is probably THE best film of Hackford's career to date. The film has plenty of song of Charles's best music as well.
DVD has an sharp Pan & Scan (1.33:1) transfer and an excellent Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. Disc 1 has an informative commentary by the director and the DVD also has the original theatrical cut and extended version as well. But u are better watching the theatrical version instead, because the bonus footage is in bad shape at times and u have to click on a logo if you want to see these Deleted Scenes. Disc 2 has deleted scenes with optional commentary by the director (Which is seen in the Extended Version), featurettes and more. But the featurettes are disappointingly short for this DVD. Since the movie is extraordinary good. This film was nominated four Oscars including Best Costume Designs, Best Director, Best Editing and Best Picture. This is an amazing true-life story well told but of course, Charles' life was even more controversial and outrageous than the final film. Still, it's pretty damn close. Screenplay by James L. White. From an Story by White and director:Hackford. Oscar-Winner for Best Sound. Don't miss it. (**** ½/*****).
\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\nBrilliant Biographic FILM..
Well this certainly is one of my very fav. Biographic movie. This movie came as a Total Surprise to me. I had been avoiding this movie for a very very Long time. Now that was because I am not a fan of Jamie Foxx. I still am not a Big Fan of him But I sure am a FAN now.
Well He deserved every BIT of that Oscar. His performance is one of the BEST performances I have seen in a Long Long time. He is truly Sensational!
Well the narration, or the Flow of the story is Brilliant for a Biographical movie. I am a DRAMA fan so I wasn't bored at all.
I was way too much surprised to have being liking the movie so much that I did not see any flaws in the movie. I think there isn't any flaw in the movie. Maybe some Events errors But hey who Cares?
The performance by the woman who plays ray's Mother was also really GOOD. And well Kerry Washington  she has so much Potential.. if given the right role She might just be the Next Oscar winner.
Well the Story of them movie was so EMOTIONAL so TOUCHING.. I Cried I Cried very Badly
I don't give a damn if the things were mad- up or not cuz this movie mad me cry And that's a lot for me!
All in all a SUPERB FILM. One of the very best of this century!
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\nThis is the true story of the great pianist and jazz singer/legend Ray Charles (Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe winning Jamie Foxx). He was born in a poor African American-town, and he went blind at 7 years old, but with his skills of touch and hearing, this is what would later in life would lead him to stardom. By the 1960's he had accomplished his dream, and selling records in millions, and leading the charts with songs and albums. But the story also showed his downfalls, including the separation from his wife and child, because of his affair with a band member , his drug and alcohol use, and going to prison because of this. Also starring Regina King as Margie Hendricks, Kerry Washington as Della Bea Robinson, Clifton Powell as Jeff Brown, Harry J. Lennix as Joe Adams, Bokeem Woodbine as Fathead Newman, Aunjanue Ellis as Mary Ann Fisher, Sharon Warren as Aretha Robinson, C.J. Sanders as Young Ray Robinson, Curtis Armstrong as Ahmet Ertegun and Richard Schiff as Jerry Wexler. It is a great story with a great singer impression, the songs, including Hit the Road Jack, are the highlights. It won the Oscar for Best Sound Mixing, and it was nominated for Best Costume Design, Best Director for Taylor Hackford, Best Editing and Best Motion Picture of the Year, it won the BAFTA for Best Sound, and it was nominated for the Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music for Craig Armstrong and Best Original Screenplay, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy. It was number 99 on 100 Years, 100 Cheers. Very good!
\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 agree that this film was spectacular. The way in which Jamie Foxx captured, not only the impression of Ray Charles, but the essence of Ray Charles really made the film. His life made a great story and it is good that it is finally being told. I also found a great interview with Jamie Foxx about this role by Ernie Manouse from InnerVIEWS on KUHT, Houston Channel 8. The link is http: //video.google.com/ videoplay?docid=-3001837218936089620&q =innerviews+ jamie+foxx&hl=en . I encourage everyone to check it out, as it gives in depth looks into what went into his role and his personal feelings about Ray Charles. The only problem I might cite with the film is that the shotting style was rather bland at times, but in the end I think it helped make the story more realistic and keep the focus on the person, Ray Charles, rather than the film Ray.
\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\nRay is one of those movies that makes you pause. You actually think about what you heard or think about what you read about this man and it doesn't even come close. During my first viewing of Ray I forgot I was watching a movie I felt like a peeping tom watching this man's life thru a window. This movie is so compelling it drags you in and it involves your every emotion you go thru a emotional roller-coaster ride and when it's over you don't want to do it again so soon because it has that kind of emotional punch that other movies are lacking. Jamie Foxx deserved his Oscar and quite rightfully so his performance is spectacular and it should be held up as the standard for anybody wanting to do a bio pic anytime soon. This movie is as good as it's subject both deserved the titles classic and legend.
\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 saying anything new when I say that \"Ray\" was magnificent. As I proceed to laud this movie I have to mention something that sets it apart from other films. Very rarely is a film made entirely by the actor(s). \"Ray\" quite simply was made by Jamie Foxx. Without the wonderful performance of Jamie Foxx, \"Ray\" would just be another interesting and informative biopic. I always thought Foxx was funny, stemming from his days with \"In Livin' Color\" and \"The Jamie Foxx Show\", and I also knew that he was talented, as he used his own show (\"The Jamie Foxx Show\") to show off his musical talents. But never did I imagine that he could pull off a role like this. I don't know much about acting and what they go through to get into character or other things like that, but what I saw from Jamie Foxx was extremely impressive. He wrapped himself into that role and made us see Ray Charles rather than an actor portraying Ray Charles. The story of \"Ray\" was great yes, but it was given life by Jamie Foxx.
\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 very first talking picture has returned from oblivion, and now you can hear it and see it! In autumn of 1894, at the Edison lab complex in West Orange, New Jersey, Thomas Edison's associate William Dickson tried to combine two existing technologies (the phonograph and the kinetoscope) to record sound and image together. In the event, Dickson was unable to synchronise the playback of sound and image, so this experimental film was never released to paying audiences ... and consequently (unlike many silent films which Dickson made for Edison at this time) it has no official title. The silent image (recorded at 40 fps) has been in the Library of Congress for years, known to film historians as a mute curiosity. It was also known that the 'soundtrack' had been recorded on one of the crude wax cylinders languishing at the Edison National Historic Site ... although nobody knew which one.
But now that's changed. Recently, curators located the wax cylinder, which had broken into several pieces. These were reassembled: a playback was obtained, and the sound was digitised. Hollywood's veteran soundtrack editor Walter Murch cleaned up the background noise and tweaked the digitisation to make it synch with the film image, which Murch had digitally compressed to 30 fps. Sound and image are synchronised at last!
The film begins with an offscreen man's voice calling: 'The rest of you fellows ready? Go ahead!' (The unseen speaker remains unidentified, but was probably Dickson's assistant Fred Ott.) On screen, Dickson plays a violin into an immense funnel mounted on a tripod (one of Edison's sound-recording devices) while alongside him, in full view of the camera, two male lab assistants embrace each other for some quick ballroom dancing to the tempo of Dickson's music.
The film lasts barely 17 seconds: just long enough for us to marvel at this crude technology before being provoked to laughter at the sight of two men waltzing in each other's arms. Speaking of which, here's a WARNING: a well-known but extremely inaccurate reference book ('The Celluloid Closet', by the late Vito Russo) includes a frame enlargement from this movie and identifies it as 'The Gay Brothers'. That's incorrect. 'The Gay Brothers' is an entirely different movie, made by Dickson at the Edison lab during this same period. 'The Gay Brothers' never had a soundtrack: it's a brief fiction film about two brothers who are NOT 'gay' in the sense Russo meant it. The deceased Mr Russo, for his own reasons, wanted us to perceive Dickson's experimental sound film (arguably the first movie musical!) as an artefact of 19th-century homoeroticism. (Hmm, what is it about gay men and musicals?) Sorry, but there's just no such content here.
This vitally important film deserves a rating of 10 out of 10. I've often maintained that no 'lost' movie should ever be considered irretrievable unless it was deliberately destroyed: I'm delighted to report that this film is finally available to audiences as its producer intended it, more than a century after it was filmed!
\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 was on a day in 1891 when Scottish inventor William K.L. Dickson surprised his boss, Thomas Alva Edison with his remarkable work in the development of motion pictures. After many experiments, Dickson was now able to capture scenes of real life with his camera, and reproduce them through his invention, the Kinetoscope, as if a fragment of time were preserved in celluloid. Soon, Dickson's Kinetoscope would become an enormous success as a new way of entertainment, with many people eager to pay the nickel that was charged to be able to watch people dancing, or acrobats performing stunts through the \"peepshow\" of the Kinetoscope. However, the invention wasn't complete, in order for it to capture on film the real life as we know it, sound was needed on the movies. So Dickson kept experimenting and this short experiment, Kinetophone's first film, was the result.
In this experiment, codenamed simply as \"Dickson Experimental Sound Film\", director William K.L. Dickson stands in front of a recording cone for a wax cylinder (earliest method of recording sound), with his violin on hands, playing a song named \"Song of the Cabin Boy\". The idea was to record the song into the cylinder at the same time that the camera was recording his movements. In order to show that this was a motion picture, two of Edison's \"Black Maria\" laboratory decided to do a little dance in front of the camera. Unlike what author Vito Russo claimed in his book, \"The Celluloid Closet\", this little dance had nothing to do with homosexuality as it obviously is a reference to the environment of loneliness of the lab, akin to the lonely sailors to whom the \"Song of the Cabin Boy\" was dedicated to (the title Russo suggests, \"The Gay Brothers\", is actually anachronistic as \"gay\" had no homosexual connotation in the late 1890s).
Sadly, Dickson was unable to achieve the desired effect, and the Kinetophone never could really produce the synchronized audio with images. While he had the cylinder with the sound and the celluloid with the images, the synchronization of the two elements was not exactly effective, and the sudden appearance of Auguste and Louis Lumière's Cinématographe prompted Edison's team to focus on projecting systems and eventually Dickson left the company. Fortunately, in 1998 Dickson's cylinder with the movie's sound was rebuilt and film editor Walter Murch made a restoration of the experiment as it was intended. Finally, \"Dickson Experimental Sound Film\" could be heard with synchronized sound, just as its creative inventor had intended. While it was not a successful attempt, this outstanding film is a testament of the enormous genius of the father of Kinetoscope. 8/10
\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\nThis is a pretty interesting experiment to watch. It's the first ever, still existing attempt, to unite sight with sound. It features two men dancing to a violin player (possibly William K.L. Dickson himself), who is standing next to an Edison recording cylinder, that is capturing the sound.
The sound and images were not linked together as one yet. And it wasn't until recently that the sound and image have been added technically together. It's probably the reason why people hesitate to call this movie the first ever sound picture.
The movie is made by William K.L. Dickson, a assistant to Thomas Edison himself who ordered him to come up with a way to unite pictures and sound. The answer he provided was the Kinetophone, a Kinetoscope (basicly a large wooden box with a peephole in it, so people could watch the moving images) with a cylinder phonograph inside of it, for the sound. This is the first, that we know off, surviving movie-experiments that feature this technique. All of the later movies using this same technique were shot as silent movies and sound effects were recorded later and separately. So the Kinephone was not an attempt to synchronize sound and images but more an attempt to have images accompanied by sound. In some cases, people could even choose from three sound cylinders, featuring 3 different orchestral performances to accompany the images. Only 45 Kinetophones were ever made so you could hardly call the Kinephone a success. Also after this experiment, focus went off to other cinema techniques, mainly regarding movie-projectors.
So the experiment itself obviously did not become a success, also since it took over 30 more years before the first movies with sound were made and commercially released. They just couldn't yet technically synchronize and put the sound and the images together yet at the time and even if they could and techniques would had been available, it would had been a very expensive job to do so. It therefor really isn't the most influential or historically important movies out of cinematic history but it's very interesting to watch, how people constantly tried to improve the quality and techniques of early cinema and movie-making.
8/10
\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\nThis film is an eery, but interesting film. I will tell you why it is eery later in this review.
The film is interesting because it was the first film to ever contain sound. No, it may not be a one hour and forty two minute film, no it may not contain great action scenes, but it is still a wonderful film to me. It sparked a whole knew revolution if you will, of sound movies. This can be a little eery to watch, knowing that everyone in that film are now dead, I can hear the voice of a man in the beginning who no longer walks the Earth visible, and that the sound is cracky and broken.
I recommend this video for everyone to watch. This created movies as we know it today!
\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 have been several books that have cited this as the earliest gay cinema. I don't really see this as all that gay in the homosexual sense but then seeing two men dancing in what has to be the worlds first movie musical does have its attraction.
There have been several earlier comments about this film dismissing any homosexual overtones. As to those that are quick to dismiss this film as just being silly and an experiment done late at night after too many drinks... Well I've heard that story before.
This film is of interest as an oddity and if folks want to consider it the first gay film so be it. Better this than the depressing 1919 Anders als die Andern.
\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 fact that this film was shown at London's Barbican suggests to me that the print must have been acceptable enough for such a showing. Now the question is, Why isn't this long lost and important film available in DVD (or even VHS)? A large number of persons in Europe and the USA have for many years hoped to see this film, if for no other reason than the wonderful music written for it by Sergei Prokofiev. What does one have to do to get such a wonderful production as this available for a wider public, not just patrons to the Barbican at London? Having been a devoted listener to Prokofiev's music for many years and aware of this film, PLEASE, someone 'out there' do the right thing and bring it out as a 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\nI went to see this film out of curiosity, and to settle an argument. The film is now best known from the suite of music Sergei Prokofiev extracted from his incidental music to the film, the Troika movement even turning up in pop arrangements. The general outline of the plot is well known from the sleeve notes on various recordings. A clerk accidentally generates a non-existent Lieutenant Kizhe in a list to be presented to the tsar. The tsar is interested in this person, and rather than tell him he doesn't exist, the courtiers and officers maintain the pretence that he is real. Kizhe is exiled to Siberia, recalled, promoted, married, promoted again, dies, is given a state funeral, revealed as an embezzler and posthumously demoted to the ranks.
I had heard conflicting stories about how the clerk invented Kizhe, involving ink blots and sneezes, but I'd heard the film was lost, so there was no way to find out what happens. Then the film turned up at the Barbican in London as part of their Prokofiev festival. For the record, it turned out that all that happens is that the clerk confuses two words whilst writing an order and turns Kuzhe into Kizhe. As the tsar is in a hurry to see the order, there's no time to correct the mistake.
Having gone expecting an historical curiosity, I was pleasantly surprised. The film is very funny, and the audience, myself included, laughed continuously. Although most of it is filmed straight, set mostly in the palace, there are a few \"trick\" shots where multiple images appear on the screen. For instance, the tsar's army is represented by a small group, repeated across the screen. Four identical guards perform perfect drill in perfect unison. Two identical servants scrub the floor.
One slight drawback was it was very difficult to work out who everyone was. There were two women who might have been the tsar's daughters, or a daughter and a servant or something else. And very few people were named. But all in all, an enjoyable film and I'm surprised it's not seen more often.
\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\nEver wonder where that episode, \"Tuttle,\" came from in the middle of the first season of M*A*S*H? Well now the cat's out of the bag: they got it from this Soviet film, a satire on how dumb the Tsar is, due to the slip of a pen (rendering the phrase \"the Lieutenants, though ...\" into \"Lieutenant Kizhe\" which has no meaning) and nobody being honest or gutsy enough to contradict him and just tell him the truth -- Kizhe doesn't exist and never did. So they make up an imaginary life for him and eventually kill him off. And 40 years later, David Ketchum and Bruce Shelly borrowed this zany plot and gave us essentially the same story, only on the other side of what had become the Cold War, proving that people in high positions can be equally dumb no matter what their loyalties may be!
\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\nSaw this movie when it came out and then a couple more times years later. I'm watching it now 20 years later and it's still a very good story. Does it wreak of \"lifetime movie network\"? Yes, but alas lifetime was not even in existence back then so it needed somehwere to air.
The cast was excellent. The story was a little schmaltzy; two women become close friends and unbeknownst to either one friend is having an affair with he other friends husband. She's invited over to the house for a dinner party which is how she discovers that her lover is the husband of her best friend. She is horrified and tries to break off the affair. Shortly afterwards he is tragically killed in a car accident which is devatating for both women. Of course the wife finds out by accident about this affair and wants Holly out of her life now, but their friendship is able to prevail because they need each other.
I thought it was a very good story a great cast and perfomrances. I really enjoyed 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\nChristine Lahti (Sandy Dunlap) and Mary Tyler Moore (Holly Davis) worked well with soapish material, Ted Danson did his best with a thankless role of Chip Davis The premise of this that the two ladies' friendship, one a seemingly happily married woman and the other a career woman who is aware of her biological clock ticking. I found the relationship that Ted Danson's character had with the single woman played by Christine Lahti's rather sordid. He behaved in a caddish way, yet he left two \"widows\" pining over him, bawling. I found it revolting when when Sandy told him she wanted to break it off after meeting his wife, he calls her saying he misses her (did he call his wife? There was no sign of that). He behaved like a heel. It perhaps would have made a more interesting film had he not been killed off. Perhaps both ladies would have wised up and dumped him. I liked the friendship between the two ladies but it was spoiled by what they had in common: The Cad of a husband.
\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\nAlthough the premise of the movie involves a major \"coincidence,\" the actors all do a creditable job and look great bringing the story to life. I found myself rooting for the characters played by Mary Tyler Moore and Christine Lahti, empathizing with both, and wanting them to reconcile. Sam Waterston and Ted Danson are fine in their roles as well, doing a decent job with the stereotypical buddy relationship. While the story tends to leap through time, occasionally leaving the audience perhaps a little hungry for missing detail, it still flows and avoids any real confusion. This interesting storyline has all the elements for a good \"chick flick.\"
\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 normally don't comment on movies on IMDB, but in this case I feel like I should. I love movies, and I want to make them, and this movie is a perfect example of fine filmmaking.
This is one of the few movies that I have seen on the small screen (originally seeing it air on AMC, I believe, and then on the DVD I just watched) that made me get that feeling in the pit of my stomach. That little gnawing sensation that the director would hope you feel while watching his thriller.
Jack Lemmon's performance is a fine one, and Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas follow. I felt so much empathy of Lemmon, who's character Jack Godell, only wanted people to listen to his warning.
But what impresses me most about this film is the lack of a score, and this is also what makes it beautiful to me. Apart from the opening titles there are no background music to increase the tension, because none is needed. And while the credits run, white on black, in silence it drives the point home.
I use the movie as an example to anyone who says music makes the movie. I think the movie should make the movie and the music should only amplify that. But for The China Syndrome music is not necessary to get across the realism and the urgency depicted here. The characters portray all of this far better than the music ever could.
I highly recommend this movie, it is one of my favorites. If you like movies, you won't be disappointed. If you like movie soundtracks more, you might not want to give this one a go.
\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\nIntelligent, nail-biting drama came out of nowhere in 1979 and soon was on the cover of every newspaper in America (when life imitated the film). A nuclear power plant employee in Southern California is threatened by superiors when he decides to go public with the real story behind an accident at the plant. Ostensibly a stuck valve problem, a TV news-crew's film shows that it was an accident verging on disastrous proportions--and worse, that safety conditions are being scrubbed to save millions of dollars, a cover-up that endangers everyone's lives. The movie occasionally gets too technical (especially in the second-half) and could use more human interplay, however the performances by Jack Lemmon, Jane Fonda (as a puff-piece news-woman in the right place at the right time), and Michael Douglas (as a freelance cameraman) are superb. The throwaway bits involving nuclear protesters is both entirely accurate and bitterly satirical, and the news-biz (with its corporate structure and vapid yes-men) is vividly captured. ***1/2 from ****
\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 thing you see in this film is a static angle(one which will be repeated later in the film), depicting the chaos going on(unseen to the audience) in a studio that airs news. Soon after, Fonda's character's typical story is shown, in that same angle. Don't let this mislead you; the film is not about a female reporter, a woman struggling to succeed in a male-dominated profession. That is merely a lead-in, a way of starting the film(though it's used later). The actual point to this production is revealed gradually, and the first we see of it is in a deliberately long scene early on. The entire film has that pace; not slow or drawn-out, but deliberate. It's never really fast, even in the few sequences that one would normally expect to be so. This pacing(especially because it seems to slow down further as the plot is revealed, as the disturbing, unsettling nature of the film is unraveled) is strong, almost painful to the viewer. It inspires you to, if it had been possible, jump into the screen, grab the people responsible by the collar and yell at them to *do* something about it, to remedy the situation. Never once did I feel like getting up or even taking my eyes off the screen for a moment. The subject is extremely important to be aware of, and it's handled perfectly here. No over-dramatization(well... very little, anyway), just an accurate presentation of the issue. The direction is astounding. The empathy felt for Lemmon's character is profound. The editing is masterful... one scene near the very end illustrates that perfectly. The editor, judging from his filmography, is vastly underrated. The writing was excellent. The acting was great, in particular by Lemmon, Fonda and Douglas(who also produced it). The lack of a score is perfect; no music is needed to enhance. The ending is sublime and effective. The movie does have a few negative points... among them, some of the dialog is obviously and undeniably mainly exposition, one particular part of the film, whilst dramatic, doesn't seem to mesh with something that follows it. Not everyone will watch the film because of two features of it which are commonly (and rightfully so) attributed to bad movies; the pacing(which can be mistaken as being slow) and the (lack of) score. One could argue that to be a negative thing, as everyone ought to consider the points it presents, but maybe it's better this way; handling the heavy subject with the intelligence and respect(for the topic as well as the viewer)... something like this, maybe it shouldn't be spoon-fed. I was mesmerized with the film, and left very taken aback. I recommend this to anyone who believe themselves strong enough to handle it. 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\nWhen THE CHINA SYNDROME was released, plenty of right-wing critics and pro-nuke supporters blasted this film, particularly since its three leading stars were all known for their liberal politics and their overt distrust of nuclear power. But it only took two weeks and a near-catastrophic accident at Three Mile Island to shut those critics up.
Fonda and Douglas are the L.A. news crew that witness a potentially nasty accident at the Ventana nuclear power plant. Douglas films the event through the plant's soundproof glass; but the TV station will not air the footage, fearing a massive lawsuit. It is thus up to Fonda and Douglas to get at the truth, despite a massive attempt by the plant's owners to cover up the accident.
But a conscientious shift supervisor (Jack Lemmon) has uncovered certain defects in the plant's pump support structure. He believes that these defects were the cause of the accident and that, though it would be extremely costly and lengthy, if repairs aren't made, the next accident could be apocalyptic. But he can't get anyone who works with him to believe his story. The result is a nightmarish climax that pulls various political, technological, and human interest stories together in one disturbing package.
While obviously quite politically liberal in nature, THE CHINA SYNDROME, well directed and co-written by James Bridges (THE PAPER CHASE), is also fundamentally a message movie about the inherent dangers of putting technology and nuclear power together. Fundamentally, nuclear power can NEVER be made safe because people can NEVER be perfect. That is what the film is saying; and in a highly entertaining and suspenseful way, it says it brilliantly.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"