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\nFrom the beginning of the film I found myself laughing trying to keep quiet so I did not wake anyone in the house, this didn't continue so much throughout the rest of the film, I didn't find everything completely \"laugh out loud\" funny, but still I found certain things quite funny. At the beginning I had to hold in laughter when he drops the very crafty looking Hand Grenade down his sleeve. Then there are scenes where you will just smile, like when the Barber falls through a roof into someones apartment, I can see that being quite funny but in todays days and time that has been done quite a lot it didn't feel original, though at the time, I'm sure it was. I loved Hynkels (Hitlers) bursts of raging German with the nice subtle English translation.
The final scene is wildly discussed because, well it's absolutely true, and so very intelligently constructed. Though the film is sixty eight years old the final scene is still relevant today, if this doesn't show how great a writer Chaplin is, then I don't know what will. The acting in this scene in particular was quite good, the Barber transcended the message perfectly and makes you realise the serious nature of the film, at the same time enjoying the humorous side.
Another element about this film is the fact that this was such a brave film, that almost feels ahead of it's time. Of course, Chaplin did not know what was going to happen after 1940, he was not aware of the Holocaust (obviously), he's also gone on record as to saying if he had of known he would not of made this film. The fact this film is so anti-Hitler is interesting, it's more interesting that it wasn't anti-Germany which would be very easy to have done back in those times, Chaplin could of easily made this a propaganda film, but instead did something more, he made an honest film.
I recommend anyone remotely interested in this film to see it, as well those who has studied or is studying Hitler and WWII to watch this film. It's entertaining to say the least, it doesn't have an annoying out-dated feel that some films of the time did. Unlike most \"comedies\" this film actually has a message it tries to bring to you, watch this film, you will be better off for having seen 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\nOkay, it's too long and it's too satisfied with itself. Still, \"The Great Dictator\" is a fascinating movie. Chaplin does a terrific job satirizing Hitler and trying to portray the oppression of the Jews in Nazi Germany (this was before the concentration camps were common knowledge). Not a Chaplin masterpiece, but still worth seeing.

\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nChaplin stars in a dual role as a jewish barber who, with amnesia, is mistaken for the dictator Adenoid Hynkel, (i.e Hitler) A movie made in 1940 when the war was in its dark days and was in no way won by the allies..it was banned in Germany by Hitler and was a risk in a way for Chaplin because if the war was lost, he surely wouldve been sent away to be \"reeducated\"
A funny satire with the classic scene of Hitler tossing around a giant balloon of the world..good fun but with a message..a little preachy in the end. This was the last movie with Chaplin's trademark little mustache. on a scale of one to ten..9
\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 must have been one of Chaplin's most ambitious projects; he throws in virtually everything, from visual gags and blackout comedy sketches to social relevance, romance, even some violence. The mixture is challenging and intriguing, and the film has many entertaining and clever sequences (like the one where Chaplin and four other guys try to avoid finding a coin that will order their self-sacrifice), but the ingredients don't always click together, and the mix (and tone) seem kind of disharmonious. As for the famous final speech, though undeniably honest, it also seems a bit naive today, with its allusions to \"a better world where man will overcome his hate and brutality, and his soul will fly\". Great perfornmances by Jack Oakie and the beautiful Paulette Goddard. (***)
\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 good, but not great film, \"The Great Dictator\" is Chaplin's first talkie. It's a good effort, and at times a remarkable satire on Hitler, but unfortunately the moments of Chaplin brilliance on offer here are let down by a tendency to use too much unnecessary dialogue. Yes, Chaplin, the silent screen master, just uses too many words in this film, and his tendency towards writing long speeches and extraneous passages of dialogue would carry over into his other talkie films, such as (better) \"Limelight\". Still, Chaplin was extremely daring in even making this film and his performance in dual roles is certainly memorable. Paulette Goddard doesn't have the glow she did in \"Modern Times\" (her off-screen affair with Chaplin was cooling at the time), but she is always worth seeing, and Jack Oakie just about steals the show as a rival dictator to Chaplin's famous creation Hynkel.
\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 I haven't seen it yet, I know that Chaplin is a genius, and only someone of his talent would take on this daring subject matter--a comedy about Hitler. All great satire is based on going out on an edge. Also, all great comedy deals with the other side--pathos. This film seems like it will skirt both sides. Like Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, The Great Dictator deals with history through the distorted lens of satire. The only way to deal with the horrors of this world is by laughing at it. And hopefully, through laughter, we can learn to view the world in a new light. Another film that does this that comes to my mind is Emir Kusturica's Underground, and Fando And Lis. So, let me watch the film first.
\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\nWritten, produced and directed by Charlie Chaplin, this is the great actor's anti-Nazi propaganda piece, skewering Adolf Hitler.
Chaplin plays Adenoid Hynckel, the dictator of Tomania, as well as a Jewish barber who is Hynckel's spitting image. His parody of Hitler is brilliant. Anyone who has ever seen newsreels of Hitler speaking will recognize the eerie resemblance of the caricature.
I thought the movie got off to a slow start with some typical Chaplin slap-stick focussing on the First World War adventures of the Jewish barber. Having never seen it before I must confess that after the first 20 minutes or so I was wondering what all the fuss was about. But the movie picks up steam quickly. There are some very funny moments, and enough emphasis on the anti-Jewish nature of \"Hynckel-ism\" to make the propaganda point. The climax of the film is a brilliant anti-Nazi speech given by Chaplin at the end of the movie.
As good as Chaplin is in this movie, though, I thought the whole thing was stolen by Jack Oakie, playing the dictator of \"Bacteria\" - \"Benzino Napaloni.\" Our first look at Oakie shows how well he had studied his subject - he had Mussolini's arrogant posturing down pat. The scenes in which Hynckel and Napaloni negotiate over the fate of \"Osterlich\" had me in stitches.
This was a very good movie, and well worth watching.
\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\nMost of this film is an alternately hilarious and brutal satire on Nazism and Fascism, made at the height of those movements' success.
Sadly, in the final moments of the film, Chaplin abandons all pretense of making art (not to mention comedy) and switches completely to propaganda. And not anti-Nazi propaganda, either, but some of the most mawkish and idiotic \"progressive\" propaganda ever to ooze out of Hollywood.
Never mind that nothing we have seen so far indicates that the barber is even capable of giving the speech we see him give (delivered, ironically, with a disturbing wild-eyed fanaticism); such trivialities must not be permitted to interfere with The Message.
\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 Chaplin's first all-talking picture, and the results are mixed. The movie is a biting satire of Hitler and Mussolini, their henchmen and their fanatical way of life, especially regarding the persecution of the Jews. It was daring and forward for 1940 and must have made a lot of people squirm.
When compared to Chaplin's earlier works, this is quite pale in comparison. The sweet, funny style of his silents, in my opinion, is far superior to his first talkie. There are lots of meaningless bits that drag on. If this was a silent, it probably would not have happened.
I find one of the funniest moments to be the musical barber moment and the globe dance. One of the most touching moments is, obviously, the speech at the end.
The Great Dictator is an effective and at times moving film that is a very big part of both Chaplin's history and movie history. It is flawed, but Chaplin is in great form.
\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\nGreat comedy from Charlie Chaplin. I've seen Chaplin's 4 major films (Gold Rush, City Lights, Modern Times, and The Great Dictator), and I think it is easily the funniest of the four. This movie had me laughing more than almost any other I've ever seen. From the very opening disclaimer (\"Any similarity between the Great Dictator and the barber shop owner is purely coincidental\") the movie is a laugh-a-minute with a blend of wonderful slapstick and verbal humor. And at the same time, Chaplin manages to portray the evils of totalitarian persecution. Maybe a little short on the ending and the lasting timeliness of the subject matter, but easily a 9 out of 10 for 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\nThis was Charlie Chaplin's first all-talking film. Yes, there had been a little bit of sound and speaking inserted into his previous film, MODERN TIMES, but it was still essentially a silent film. So, it wasn't until 1940 that the public got to hear Chaplin speak on film.
The movie is incredibly famous and has a stellar reputation. While I enjoyed the film, I was not nearly as impressed by this as Chaplin's other full-length films of the mid-20s and 30s. That's because I really felt annoyed by some of Chaplin's dopey over-acting when he played Adenoid Hynkel--especially when he was giving his speeches. The silly pseudo-dialog just seemed akin to something a lesser comedian would have used (such as the Three Stooges). Plus, playing a funny Hitler is hard for me to take.
However, when Chaplin played the Jewish barber, he wasn't especially funny (he really wasn't intended to be a funny character) but he was a tremendous voice for reason and decency. This film should not be remembered as a comedy (especially since it doesn't really excel there), but for its excellent acting and humanity. The final speech by the barber (impersonating Hynkel) is brilliant and almost brought tears to my eyes. Watch the film for this reason alone.
\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 satire is just really, really dead-on, and nobody is spared. But even though this movie has plenty of laughs within the silly story and the grotesque imitation of Hitler (here cleverly renamed as \"Hynkel\", and speaking in a hilarious kind of pseudo-German), the general tone is pretty sad, maybe because of the movie's place in history. And the actors aren't even exaggerating that much I suppose. One of the greatest movie moments of all time must be the Jewish barber's ending speech, if only things could have ended in that way. It's not even really the character talking anymore, it's Chaplin saying something he really wanted to say. If you ignore the technical aspects, the movie doesn't feel dated or old, it actually moves at a pretty nice pace. And the sharp humor we find everywhere in this work will never die, the only thing I don't care for is the slapstick, but that just comes with the era I suppose. This is an incredibly daring, harsh take on fascism, it's so hard-hitting still after all these years.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is the absolutely perfect way to explain what a good movie is. It is a movie both for children and parents, and it is \"timeless\". I saw this movie before Ocean's Eleven and must admit that the actors in OE has class in advance, but the play of Klatretøsen is much more down-to-earth and moving. Why i say Ocean's Eleven, is the fact that these 2 movies has many things in common and Klatretøsen is THAT good ! that it can bear comparison with OE. The 3 youngsters play their part in a perfect way not to believe, compared to what we are used to in Denmark. The different cases of impossible acts, is handled in a way that you wouldn't belive from many young actors (and sometimes not even from the \"old boys\"). The story ? again it has things in common with Ocean's Eleven except for the reason of stealing the money and in Klatretøsen they need to climb up to the strongroom. The part in which the young people has to take care of Ida's younger brother, gives a fine element in the movie. Try to imagine how to rob a bank with a 2 year child with a nappy, on your arm :-).
This movie can bear comparison with most \"grown up\" movie like MI2 and Ocean's Eleven. Yes i do believe it is THAT good. It is best to see it in a theater, as all the children in the room comments the movie and these comments will stay in your hearts forever :-).
Regards Klavs.
\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 saw this movie at the Berlin Film Festival's Children's Program and it just killed me (and pretty much everyone else in the audience)! And make no mistake about it, this film belongs into the all-time-250! Let me tell you that I'm in no way associated with the creators of this film if that's what you come to believe reading this. No, but this actually is IT! Nevermind the \"kid's-film\" label on it, \"Klatretösen\" (\"Climber Girl\") is on almost every account a classic (as in \"biblical\")! The story concerns 12-year old Ida (magnetic: Julie Zangenberg), who is devastated to learn of her daddy's terminal illness. Special surgery in the US would cost 1.5 million and of course, nobody could afford that. So Ida and her friends Jonas and Sebastian do what every good kid would - and burglarize a bank! Sounds corny? Don't forget: This is not America and \"Klatretösen\" is by no means the tear-jerking Robin-Williams-multiplex-plat-du-jour nobody takes seriously anyway. Director Fabian Wullenweber set out to make a big-budget-action-comedy for kids and, boy, did he succeed! Let me put it this way: This film rocks like no kid-film and few others did before. And there's a whole lot more to it than just the \"action\". After about 20 minutes of by-the-numbers-exposition (well, granted) it accelerates into a monster that:
- effortlessly puts \"mission impossible\" to shame (the numerous action sequences are masterfully staged and look real expensive - take that, mummy!)
- dwarves almost every other movie suspense-wise ( no easy-they're-only-kids-antics here )
- easily laces a dense story with enough laughs to make jim carrey look for career alternatives
- nods to both damon runyon and karate kid within the same seconds
- comes up with so much wicked humor that side of p.c. that I can hear the American ratings board wet their pants from over here
- manages to actually be tender and serious and sexy at the same time (ohmygod, what am I saying?? they're kids! they're kids! - nevermind, watch that last scene!)
- stars Stafan Pagels Anderson, who since last years \"Mirakel\" is everybody's favourite kid actor
What a ride!
\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\nKlatret©ªsen(Catch That Girl) is really great movie! It's a 'happy' movie. I watched this movie in 'Puchon International Fantastic Film Festival(PiFan)' on July 12nd, 2003. There is Action + Adventure + Comedy + Thrill + Happy + Romance(cute kids' love Triangle!). You must see this movie. :)
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYes, I am sentimental, and yes, I love movies where kids are the better humans. True, Klatretøsen does have some logical or even plot shortcomings. These are more than compensated by the kids' great acting (Julias first movie role at all!) and the charm of a Dogma film (I liked this kind of cinematografic art long before the Dogma; ever since Herzog's 'Herz aus Glas'). Well, I cried through the last fifteen minutes which is a higher tear factor than bambi or Fly away home had for 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\nThis is a plot driven movie and extremely entertaining. Nothing startling or original within the plot, but crucially, it moves along at a great pace and therefore keeps your attention. I didn't really notice the acting which I guess is a good thing. John Mills was fine but did seem to take everything in his stride somewhat considering how his life was falling apart around him. He would be clumped on the head, stand up 20 seconds later, dust himself down and carry on as if nothing had happened. A minor quibble in a film with a strong story, authentic locations and a plot that continually keeps you guessing right up to its conclusion.
\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\"The Vicious Circle\" is a very unknown British mystery story. Like many Hitchcock movies, it's about a man who is being accused of a crime he didn't commit, and does everything he can to prove it. This time it's a Dr. Latimer (John Mills), who finds a murdered German actress from his floor. As an honest man, the doctor calls Scotland Yard, which turns out to be a big mistake...
There's really nothing special in this little movie. Still, watching the film is an entertaining way to pass time. I enjoyed following the plot development. Fine actors are a plus.
\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 film is a remake of a 1956 BBC serial called'My Friend Charles',& as such gallops thru the material in a relatively short time.I found it fast moving,enjoyable & unpretentious.Did anyone else notice the scenes,towards the end,where John Mills was being gassed?-the producers obviously decided to omit the scenes-maybe censorship?,but notice when he's sat by the window of the flat,deep breathing closely followed by similar scenes with the car window open. The Francis Durbridge serials all seemed to inhabit the same universe,that of unexplained happenings,people being not what they seem & the villain being someone close to the hero/victim.A predictable universe in some ways,but one with its own rules & regulations.
\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 like the phrase \"British post war suburban paranoia\" that one of the reviewers used. It describes so well the kind of films John Mills excelled in (\"The October Man\" (1947), \"The Long Memory\" (1952)) in between \"big\" pictures (\"Scott of the Antartic\" (1948) and \"War and Peace\" (1956)).
This distinctly \"Eric Ambler\" style plot had John Mills playing Dr. Howard Latimer, who promises his friend, Charles, (unseen) to meet a visiting German actress, Frieda Veldon (Lisa Daniely) at the airport. A creepy \"reporter\" Jeffrey Windsor (Lionel Jeffries) is in his consulting rooms at the time and offers to give him a lift but while he is tracking the actress down Windsor informs him she is already in the car waiting!!! (something fishy is going on!!!). Howard is dropped off for his date and thinks no more about it.
The next night he finds her body when he arrives home from work, further more, he finds his friend Charles could not have rung him as he is still in New York and Windsor doesn't seem to exist. Earlier on a patient, Mrs Ambler(Rene Ray) who has been referred to him by Doctor George Kimber (Mervyn Johns) tells of her recurring dream about finding a dead body and a brass candlestick with a square base. It is a nightmare that is coming true for Howard but of course when Detective Inspector Dane (Roland Culver) interviews her, she denies all knowledge of the conversation - the candlestick is later found in the boot of Howard's Daimler.
When Howard is lying low, Robert Brady (Wilfred Hyde-White) visits him. He calls himself a \"friend\" - he has a photo of Windsor that he wants to trade for a box of matches Frieda gave Howard at the airport. Howard returns to the flat, Charles rings and while Howard is on the phone an unknown assailant knocks him out and steals the matches!!! Who can he trust - who hasn't something to hide!!!
This is a top thriller - not quite in the same class as \"The October Man\", but with John Mills doing what he does best - playing ordinary men caught up in impossible mysteries!!!
Highly Recommended.
\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\nFor a made for TV movie I thought that it was a great popcorn movie - don't expect anything to be very accurate and don't expect any award winners in this bunch but I do recommend this for a TV type version somewhat like \"The Replacements\". Look for cameos from real NFL players & officials.
\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\nIn the year 2000 (keep in mind, this is two years ago, not four), two men had the motivation to create the most miraculous piece of art on this side of the Mississippi.
Thanks to Jere Cunningham and Tom Flynn, the world can now enjoy Second String, a delicious TV movie depicting a tale of a rag-tag gang of second stringers (thus the title) who are thrust into the position of starters due to an order of bad oysters.
Because of the motivational direction of both the director Robert Lieberman and the Buffalo Bills' last minute QB, Dan \"Give 'em hell\" Heller (portrayed by Canadian actor, Gil Bellows) the oft Super Bowl snake-bitten Bills find themselves in the ultimate position.
With an intriguing mix of internal and external conflict, a love story, comraderie that only the fine sport of football can bring, and an overall theory that the underdog can compete, Second String is an excellent movie worthy of viewing every possible moment that it appears on TNT.
The only thing potentially bad about this production is the spelling of the Costume Designer's first name, Jenifur Jarvis.

\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\nBeing a Bills fan, I originally found it annoying that they made a movie about the Bills and the losing of four superbowls. But once I began to watch, I felt really connected. It was actually nice to see the \"Bills\" win the superbowl, and I must say, that for a TV movie it was actually very well done. Gil Bellows as the QB, and Jon Voight as the old-school Coach did a very fine job. 8 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\nSo forgive the *really* lame game-play scene, cardboard background and studio like stadium. For this part I should have give the movie 5 instead of 7, but read on...
From the premise to plot there is a lot similarities with \"The Replacements\". Some say this movie rip off \"The Replacements\", while some say this script wrote before it.
Both movies require some sort of \"suspension of disbelief on the basic premise, and this is especially difficult for \"Second String\" since it has NFL license team and all the history behind it. Food poison excuse may sound too lame for some people, and not to mention in \"Second String\" Bills has to overcome big scores again and again, with the limit budget in shooting the game play scene, this make it look even bad.
In \"Replacements\", the premise and the league is fictional yet you know it happen in real life. I believe it is easier to accept fictional story and setting with real event (\"OH yeah, this happen before!\", rather than real setting/background with fictional scenario (\"There is no way Bill can win a Superbowl!\"; Some of the scene were actually shoot in pre season game of Raven games, real stadium, real audience and some NFL match alike shooting angle.
But let say both movies came out on the same day, and we erase the budget factor (thus forgive the game play action scene): Overall, I like \"Second String\" over \"Replacements\", not by much, but I like this more.
It has \"relatively better\" character development. In \"Replacements\", Keanu character is too \"out sync with the world\", and all he care is maybe, get a girl? In Second String you see the struggle of the QB from getting the job back, and deal with his past with coach. Or the fumble guy problem. This \"hold the ball all day long\" solution of course is not new, but we see progression in fixing it.
How about those trick play? I think it is \"relatively realistic\" than \"Replacements\". The \"Dan Marino\" like fake knee pass, flea-flicker, wild cat full back rush, all real, except sometimes this look a bit too easy. But for me it is better than \"Replacement\"'s center catch and rushing for 50 yards call, or how a 60 yards field goal look too easy. OH BTW, I am glad they didn't force the TE kicker made his shot....
Of course ---if you objectively review this movie over other football movies all there, this could easily be a 5 out of 10 movie. But some say this is the worse football movie? Try \"The Comebacks\".
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAll y'all hatin' on the fact you'd probably neva make the cut for \"Second String\" need to save it. If more guys out there took their sorry behinds to the gym for once...maybe y'all have a chance....well,...maybe. Take Shawn Woods' \"HOOK\" physique for a \"perfect\" example...and I stress the word \"perfect\" Put that in your pipe and smoke it...!!! You couldn't look better Sha-Shawn
\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\nLA ANTENA (Esteban Sapir - Argentina 2005).
A completely unique take on silent cinema in this fairy-tale like story by Esteban Sapir, beautifully shot in black-and-white and practically without dialog, \"La Antena\" is a feast for the eye and a must for lovers of German expressionist cinema, with most of the nods to the works of Fritz Lang and Friedrich Murnau.
'The City without a Voice', 'La Ciudad sin Voz', is ruled by Mr. TV. He has taken the inhabitants voices and is in total control of all spoken words and images, forcing everyone to eat his own brand of TV-food. Mr TV is not just a monopolist, he is the personification of evil and totalitarianism, even the swastika appears as a symbol a number of times. He secretly works on a hypnotizing device to control all the citizens minds through his television broadcasts. For this purpose, he kidnaps the only one left with The Voice, a beautiful singer, but a TV repairman witnesses the kidnapping and flees to an old TV antenna in the mountains in order to halt Mr. TV's evil plans.
The production design is stunning with beautiful sets and imagery. Although shot primarily with the basic language of silent cinema, Esteban Sapir also adds a number of fresh techniques of his own, like a combination of typographic and animation techniques. Everyone talks with each other through text balloons (usually floating near their mouths), the louder they talk, the larger the characters. The texts themselves can be pushed away or crushed. In the opening sequence, we see a book, titled \"La Antena\", that opens and a city of paper rises from the pages. There are hardly any references to Argentina. It's constantly snowing, which gives the film a very un-Argeninian feel, while the surreal setting suggests any large city in the Northen hemisphere, with only some of the songs revealing the film's Argentinian background.
The pace is swift and there is so much happening on screen, it's hard to keep track of the film's surreal narrative. Not only breathtakingly beautiful to look at, we're also given a few messages about media monopolies, corruption and totalitarianism, but they are breezily packaged. One of the most original films I've seen in years. A delight.
The film was shown as the opening film at the IFF Rotterdam 2007.
Camera Obscura --- 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've seen this movie twice on Transilvania International Film Festival(TIFF), the movie is in competition and I really hope that Esteban Sapir will get one of the awards (at least the best image award).
As a silent cinema fan I'm interested in contemporary movies that quote or recreate the language of the yester-year cinema. The previous reviewer emphasized the quotes from Fritz Lang and Fr. W. Murnau. As I see it, the movie references directly Lang's Metropolis, and the allegorical-parabolic character of his plots. But I didn't see Murnau in it. There's a more obvious Melies-homage though: the Moon with a (here cigar-smoking) human face, and the paper-made, painted mountains and city-landscapes. I enjoyed the film mostly for its visuals, and in the meantime I found very interesting the story on muteness, and the creative means of communication used by the inhabitants of the voiceless city. From this perspective this movie is an unique reflexion on the muteness of the silent cinema, because in the films of the silent period one can hardly find stories with mute characters. In this case can be questioned whether the story on the stolen voices was the motivation for the silent film form, or there's an intention to play upon the muteness of the silent films. Another example of this kind of reflexion I found in Guy Maddin's Careful,where the inhabitants of a mountain-village have restrictions in using their voices. I intend to write a paper on it, if you know movies related to this topic, please let me know!!!
I highly recommend Esteban Sapir's film to every moviegoer (one of the critics called it: the jewel of the festival).
PS: Winners were announced, and the film won the award for best cinematography!
\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\nFor those who appreciate the intersection of silent cinema and social commentary, this is a unique film. Part homage to German expressionism, part allegory, the film is replete with visual symbolism and an artistic style that rivals anything seen since the 1920's. Moreover, the attention to period detail and the visual composition of the scenes as an instrument for advancing the story is stunning. Aside from this, the plot offers an interesting commentary on the role of the media in society and its effect on social voice, perception, and opinion. In truth, it's not so much the silence that permeates the film as it is the loss of voice and the loss of words to communicate and express thought that inevitably follows. In sum, this film is something not often seen and, as the producer of the film said in the Q&A that followed, will leave you thinking about its meaning well into the next 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\nI didn't see such a movie where the creators put so much heart's blood into their work and paid attention to the finest details for a very long time.
Everything was well thought and perfectly put into reality. Camera-work, editing and compositing worked so good together it was just amazing. The titles were so fun and so perfectly choreographed.
This movie just blew me away.
The \"Showdown\" could have been cut down by 10 or 15 minutes though.
It's a near to perfect homage to early silent noir Films story, acting, scenery and costumes were perfectly fitting and believable to have com from the times of silent film-making.
\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 summary line is some men's wet dream for the ideal woman ... ;o) Seriously though, back to the movie, which has classic cinema written all over it (pun intended and quite literally shown in the picture, too as you'll see)!
How could someone make a silent movie in this year and age? It's not completely silent for once (take the music for instance). With great cinematography is the answer. And it's no wonder that it did win prizes (as another user stated) in this area! But it's also sometimes it's downfall. Although the pictures are great, it sometimes delves too much in them instead of moving forward (plot and time wise). If you can cope with that, than you'll enjoy it even more than me. I haven't told you anything about the story, but I'll never do that, because I don't want to spoiler anything for you ...
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLa Antena, an audacious film by Argentine director Esteban Sapir, succeeds both as a reinvention of the silent movie genre and a gripping cautionary tale. The setting is a city in thrall to mindless television, its people deprived of the power of speech except for a solitary and mysterious screen presence known simply as The Voice. In a bid to cement their grip on power the marvellously villainous duo of television mogul Mr. TV and mad scientist Dr. Y set out to kidnap The Voice and turn her unique talent towards their own dastardly ends. It is up to a young family and The Voice's nameless, eyeless son to stop this evil scheme. The result is a roller coaster of a story that is bewildering on occasion but never less than engrossing.
This is a silent movie that wears many of its influences on its sleeve; the overt references to silent movie greats such as George Melies and Fritz Lang will be readily apparent to anyone with a passing familiarity of their work. But more subtle references and symbolism lie behind such tributes. I particularly like the fact that Mr. TV and his henchman drive around in typical 1930s gangster cars, drawn from the decade when the silent movie era died away and a very different industry began to emerge.
La Antena mines the clichéd plot devices and theatrical over-acting common to so many silent films, albeit in a very knowing and humorous way. It is the astonishing visual style of La Antena that really sets it apart from the movies that it pays homage to. From the hypnotic TV logo to the menacing hilltop transmission station, this film abounds with dazzling visual inventiveness that is the rival of a Studio Ghibli animation  and all this using real actors and handmade sets.
Moreover, though the style is often intentionally corny and theatrical, this is still an unsettling, provocative and emotional picture. The use of religious symbolism throughout La Antena lends added resonance to the struggle between the TV Empire and the waning power of words. At the same time, many of the most powerful images are original ones, including the hypnotic swirl of the television sets and the nightmarish TV food factory.
I hate to end this review on a sour note, but I feel that the English-language release of La Antena is let down by the subtitles. The original Spanish subtitles are used to great effect, with much playing around with words on screen. However, the English-language subtitles that accompany the original dialogue are frustratingly incomplete, with omissions and mistakes at times leaving the viewer to piece things together for themselves. La Antena is nevertheless a striking piece of cinema; a visually breathtaking experience that displays great energy and humour whilst narrating a powerful cautionary tale.
\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 it might seem a bit bizarre to see a 32-year-old woman play the part of a 12-year-old, Mary Pickford soon makes you forget the incongruities and simply enjoy the fun.
Mary is a street kid in New York City, with her own lovable gang of mischief makers, whose attentions are engaged by the older William Haines (he was 25 at the time & just on the cusp of his own screen stardom.)
To give away too much of the plot would not be fair. Suffice it that Mary is great fun to watch & amply displays why she was Hollywood's first and most beloved super star. Production values are very good, with lots of extras making the NYC street scenes quite believable.
\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\nAnnie Rooney lives with her officer father and brother Tim in the slums of New York, where she is constantly getting involved in many fights with the other neighborhood kids. Annie secretly has a crush on Joe Kelly (whose little brother Mickey is head of the gang that Annie constantly battles), who is in a gang that is headed for trouble, says Officer Rooney. Kelly sponsors a dance, where Tony plans to shoot Kelly in order to get even with him for making him look like a fool in front of his girl, but Officer Kelly gets fatally wounded instead. Tim (part of Kelly's gang) is told by Tony, and friend Spider, that Kelly shot his father, so he goes after him in vengeance. Annie learns of this and goes to stop her brother, if she is in time. Very good mix of humor and heart in this film, even though the plot doesn't start until the 40 minute mark of the film. Pickford is enjoyable (even though she was 33 playing a girl no more than 12-13) and really gets into her character. Haines doesn't play Kelly as tough as he should, but is able make the audience feel for him on an emotional level. The scenes where the officer tells Annie of her father's death and the ending really put a lump in your throat. The mix of all sorts of kids throughout the film are fun to watch. Rating, 8.
\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\nMary Pickford plays Annie Rooney--the daughter of a cop that lives in the tough part of town. She is a rough and tumble young lady of indeterminate age (somewhere between 12 and 16) who loves to scrap but down deep has a heart of gold.
This is a very typical style of film for Mary Pickford. Like so many of her films, she plays a young girl--even though she was nearly 40 when she made LITTLE ANNIE ROONEY. And, like so many other stories, she was both plucky and courageous. As a result, I had a strong feeling of déjà vu. Now if you haven't seen her other films, this isn't an issue. However, she is essentially playing a character much like the one in SPARROWS or DADDY LONG LEGS--though these two other films are a lot better. Now this isn't to say this is a bad film--just that it's certainly not among her best work--mostly due to a rather \"schmaltzy\" story that is very heavy on sentiment but not especially convincing. Entertaining but not essential viewing unless you are a huge fan of the silents.
\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 concept of a 32 year old woman portraying a 12 year old girl might be a stretch for today's
sophisticated audiences,in the 1920's this was what the fans of Mary Pickford desired and expected from their favorite star. The opening scene displays Annie's tomboyish character as the apparent leader of a multi-ethnic street gang in comic \"battle\" with a rival group. The sight of a young girl being socked in the jaw and kicked may be a bit crude, but the scene is played in such an \"Our Gang\" fashion that it would be hard to take any of this seriously. Anyway, Annie can dish it out as well as take it. Once Annie returns to her tenement home and replaces her street duds with more girlish attire, it becomes more difficult (especially in close-ups) to imagine this beautiful young woman as a street urchin. However, for those who can muster the required suspension of disbelief, the rest of the movie has it's rewards. Vacillating between comedy (Annie's gang puts on a show) to sentiment (Annie plans a birthday surprise for her Irish policeman father) to tragedy (her father is killed on his birthday), the film gives Mary ample opportunity to display a range of emotions that would please her fans of any era.
Of course the requisite \"happy ending\" is eventually achieved; the evildoers are apprehended with the help of Annie's friends and rivals and she is last seen in the company of her pals riding down a busy thoroughfare on a sunny day. Which is a good a way as any for a Mary Pickford movie to end.

\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 Diary of Anne Frank is the second best-selling nonfiction book in the world, and for good reason. Nonetheless, sitting through this documentary about her life, which fills in some of the details where the diary left off, I thought, \"Just another documentary about Anne Frank.\" I found it to be competent but not extraordinary. That was my complacent attitude because I was already well aware of the story of Anne Frank; most of what the documentary had to tell me wasn't news to me.
Everything changed, though, when I got to the end of the documentary---when I saw the motion picture footage of Anne Frank. The emotional impact of seeing this footage, only a second or so long, made everything that came before it a thousand times more real---but not just everything that was in the documentary; everything I had previously known about Anne Frank suddenly became more real to me, more personal. I'd always been moved by her story, but when I saw that footage, what I felt was stronger and deeper and more profound than any other film experience of my life. (I knew beforehand that this documentary contained live footage of Anne Frank, and I'd even seen the footage in a movie review on television, but seeing it in the context of the documentary was a completely different experience. It's not likely that my mentioning it here will spoil it for anyone.)
I realize now that many people still don't know the story of Anne Frank; it's discouraging at times to be witness to this kind of ignorance. I think to myself, \"How could someone NOT know the story of Anne Frank?\" This being the case, though, ANNE FRANK: REMEMBERED, along with reading her diary, is the best place to start. It's a story that everyone should know.
\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 series when the Dinosaurus lived for 65 million years ago. The Dinosaurus looks very real and are very realistic when they moves. It is also very interesting how the climate changes.
I am very interesting in how the dinosaurs lived and died. I am also interesting in how the dinosaurs behaved.
The color of the dinosaurs is also interesting to see and discovered. They think which color they had.
The most interesting is why the dinosaurs died and what happened after that.
BBC have made a brilliant series how the dinosaurs lived and died!
\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\nWalking With Dinosaurs is an amazing Documentary, educational for both the Ignorant of Dinosaurs and Dinosaur-Lovers (like myself) alike. I admit, I was very young when I saw this on Discovery, but I was obsessed with it immediately. (Spoliers!!!!!) The series contains 6 episodes, going from the Late Triassic when dinosaurs were just first evolving to the Late Cretaceous, at the end of Reign of the dinosaurs. When I first saw this film, it was like I really had traveled back in time. The majesty of the Diplodocus, the adventures of Opthalmosaurus, and the caring mother version of T-Rex all astounded my family and me. It is an amazing film, and I believe that BBC managed to do just what they set out to do. Awesome job!
\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(r#88) Brilliant, very entertaining show with spectacular effects. Any fan of these prehistoric reptiles has to see this. The CGI blends in extremely well with the environment and it's just plain fun to watch these giants walk about their daily business as casually as on Discovery Channel. This show was a stroke of genius and it blows its followers \"Walking with beasts\" and \"The future is wild\" out of the water.
The greatest episode was definitely the last, where we got to watch the final days of the Tyrannosaurus Rex and the meteor strike that became their doom. This stuff is almost too awesome for television. How about a theatrical release? I would pay anything to see these dinos in the cinema.
If you're in the mood for a show that manages to be spectacular, engaging and educational at the same time, this is for you. Dinosaurs have never been cooler.
\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\nSPOILER WARNING
I got this dino-documentarie on DVD at Christmas 2004. I had longed to see it and was by no means disappointed. The score is memorable ( my
favourites were the \"Sauropod\" theme song and the \"Winters Coming\" song ). The effects were dazzling, you could almost believe they were there. You actually learn something too ; Stegosaurs MAY have been able to pump their plates with blood. Female T-Rexes MIGHT have gone on a killing spree before laying their eggs. I know there's a lot of people who thought this was based too much on speculation, but there will always be questions that we can only guess at. And there is a lot of hard-core, undeniable FACT as well. We KNOW that some dinosaurs travelled in herds, we KNOW that Diplodocus swallowed stones to grind up vegetation in their stomaches. Despite this \"speculation\" the series did extremely well. So well in fact, that it spawned a followup, a prequel and several specials. If you're a dino-fan, then this IS for you. It makes Jurassic Park look small and weedy.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"