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\nPity the Monkees. People always accused them of being manufactured (which they were) or being nothing more than a American knock-off of the Beatles (Again, which they were) but to the kids of the time they were real, they were important, they were legitimate. Discussions about who were better The Monkees or The Beatles were common on school yards but the critics, well they never quite bought into it. Despite recording some very catchy, classic pop tunes, the Monkess did not receive much respect for their albums. Sadly a similar fate was met by their one movie vehicle despite the fact that it stands as the best band film ever. Beatle fans may argue that \"Hard Days Night\" was better and I am sure that many of the kids think \"8 Mile\" was superior but none of these films were as daring and inventive as \"Head\" and that is probably why it failed.
If Head had told a direct A to B type story perhaps it would have appealed to the bands young fans but by pushing the envelope and using the movie opportunity to mock their own image they really sabotaged the film with their fans. Could you imagine Eminem turning to the camera and actually talking about how sad it is that he is the best selling guy in a genre in which only 5% (and I am being generous) of the acts are white. If you can picture that than you have an idea how daring it was for the Monkess to sing \"Hey, Hey we are the Monkees. You know we like to please. A manufactured image, with no philosophy\". When you have a film in which Frank Zappa tells Davy that he should focus less on the dancing, and more on the music its clear that there is a lot more going on then you expected.
The story, what there is, concerns the boys trying to flee their manager, who at one point forces them to play dandruff in a commercial, but every time they run away they end up inside a box. I don't think you need to be Fellini to figure out the symbolism of that bit. Some neat little comedy bits follow with Davy as a boxer who has to give up playing the violin to take a dive in the big match and Peter refusing to throw away a ice cream cone he does not want because there are starving children so its wrong to waste food but the real selling point to this film is the music and its some of the best the band ever recorded. Even if you are put off by the story, you can sit back and enjoy some terrific music.
Any film that begins and ends with Mickey attempting suicide by jumping off a bridge (at the end the band follows him) is never going to be a mainstream classic but if you are a fan of either the band or experimental cinema of the era than you will enjoy this film.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just can't understand why people are surprised this movie makes no sense. It was never supposed to make sense. (Duh! The writers were completely wasted on Frodis at the time.) It was just supposed to entertain and mock, and it does both wonderfully.
The Monkees are good actors. They wouldn't have been hired if they weren't good actors. Mike has a thing for deadpan and darkness, Micky is the best at sheer psychotic comedy, Davy is a Broadway veteran, and Peter actually had people believing he was that dumb in real life. Don't tell me they can't act, because they most definitely can.
They can also write. Sure, Jack & Bob get the sole credits, but in reality, they got a big helping hand on that script from the Monkees, who were also in that smoke-filled room.
(it is absolutely impossible to spoil this film) Head is very highly symbolic. Among the more memorable elements is the black box, which was actually based on 2 things: the Monkee image that the boys were bound to, and the real black box on the Screen Gems lot where the band was kept between takes. There's so much more symbolism in the movie that I'll just let you watch it and figure it out.
The music is awesome. \"Circle Sky\" is one of Papa Nez's best tunes ever, and \"Porpoise Song\" & \"As We Go Along\" will have you enthralled. If you'd rather be weirded out, then \"Ditty Diego\", \"Can You Dig It?\", and \"Long Title\" should be satisfactory, great songs that they are. And then there's \"Daddy's Song\", without a doubt a homage to Davy's Broadway days, and the editing/color scheming for that sequence is superb. (At least for '68.)
Oh, For those of you who won't watch a 'PG' film, you're missing out. Especially since Head was originally rated R in 1968. The rating was lowered about TWENTY years later!
Now where was I? Ah, yes: \"We were speaking of beliefs. Beliefs and conditioning....\"
\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, like much of their music, is either underrated or unnoticed by the casual observer. It is terrific and, in many ways, ahead of its time.
The images are funny, disturbing, and at the very least, engaging.
The music is amazing.
This is not the \"candy pop\" sound they are unfortunately associated with. This is the sound of a band in exploration and revolt.
HEAD, alone, should put The Monkees into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Can anyone tell me why these guys are not in there?
\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 I first saw this movie,I also expected \"our boys\" to be cute,and more like an extended version of the TV show. I didn't \"get it\" back then. But,years later,at a party YEARS later,at a 70s' type PAR-TAY,where certain substances had been smoked,inhaled,and with plenty of tequila,\"HEAD\" was on late at night.We watched it,and finally realized what \"HEAD\" was all about. It spoofed their own show,as shown in one song that called themselves,\"a manufactured image\". As Davy Jones wrote in his autobio,\"They Made a Monkey out of me\",he openly admits that everyone in the film,had been up all night smoking weed.They made fun of themselves,society,everything! Great film! Tho,as a 52 yr old granny,I no longer \"induldge\", I STILL watch this film when I want a good LOL!!!
\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 starts as it ends and ends as it starts. What is in the middle is a collection of comedy, philosophy, music, observations, commentaries, mini stories, colour and lots more. It looks at the world and our lives and tells The Monkees story from the view of the group members themselves. It also looks at television and film and makes a visual commentary. It shocks also, with scenes of war and shows how we are just pawns in a big game. It says all this and much more, but if you don't look at it objectively you won't see much more than scenes strung together to join up the music. It's the sort of film that can never get boring because it's so cleverly done.
\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\nTry to look for another movie that is such a trip without having a story or plot and you'll be hard-pressed. HEAD is a masterpiece of non-linear non-structure, surrealism and experimentaion. In less than 90 minutes, it manages to be not only a time-capsule of an era, but also a full-length experimental feature that defies time,space and convention in a way that only underground films of the sixties could.HEAD is a reflection of those films. No matter how one feels about the Monkees, this is a film every filmmaker should see because it cracks wide open the endless possibilities of film as an art medium. Had it not been for the film's unorthodox ad campaign (and the fact that by the time it came out the Monkees so oversaturated the media that the public had become weary of them and every critic was ready to pounce on them) this could have had a much greater impact. Studying how the film was edited is much more important and exciting than what's actually in the film -and yet there are some great things in it (great songs, great cinematography, etc.) . Should be seen after midnight for maximum effect because of it's overall dreamlike feel. 1968 was a time of social unrest and a call for change (thus the film's working title \"Changes\") and HEAD perfectly mirrors that time.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThat this film flopped at the box office, and still struggles for the recognition it deserves today, is a great pity - yet somehow rather appropriate. The commercial suicide the Monkees committed by making this film is mirrored by the metaphorical suicide they commit on-screen. To destroy so brutally their carefully constructed image as a wholesome American alternative to the Beatles is courageous to the point of rashness, as is the admission of being no more than pawns in the entertainment industry, trapped (in the movie, literally) in their own artificiality. The Monkees' television series was not that conventional, but HEAD is utterly plotless...although in the end there is actually some kind of circular logic to it all. Unrestrained by a genuine storyline, the surreal sequence of events is by turns hilarious and rather disturbing. The greatest irony is that the Monkees effectively signed their death warrant as a commercial force at a time when they were reaching their artistic peak. Their exploration into psychedelia reached its zenith with the soundtrack to HEAD (all the songs are memorably woven into the film), which is one of the landmarks albums of the 'sixties. The Monkees began to disintegrate after the box office failure of this movie, but HEAD serves as a noble legacy.
\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 long time, I, a fan of \"The Monkees\" TV series, refused to watch \"Head\" because it was not about the TV show characters, who were warm and wonderful. \"Head\", instead, was said to be a cynical, dark movie. Finally, curiosity caused me to cave in. I didn't, of course, find a new episode to the TV show, but a fascinating movie that appeals to my dark side.
I have always been fascinated by dreams, and \"Head\" was very much like watching someone else's dream, with incomplete hints of stories, and a small detail at the end of one scene causing the film to segue off in a new direction, very much in a dreamlike stream of consciousness manner. The unfinished stories really make my imagination run wild, time and time again!
The film also features very striking, beautiful cinematography, the epitome being the black-on-white, white-on-black look of \"Daddy's Song\". The music is haunting, especially the lush arrangement of \"The Porpoise Song\". (\"The Porpoise Song\" is the favorite song of my dark side, while my bright side prefers \"Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah\".)
In the end, I think the TV series could have used some of \"Head\"'s drama, intrigue, and intensity. But \"Head\" could have used some of the TV show's warmth, humor, and friendship.
\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\"Head\" is a film that has held up well since its original release date in 1968. The movie is a complete contradiction of the Monkees image. It presents the Monkees in a way their fans never perceived them; men with real thoughts. Totally controlled by their producers, the Monkees were given the opportunity to tell their side of the story. The film pokes fun at their image, the entertainment industry, and corporate America. The soundtrack contains some of their best music. It's a movie well worth seeing over and over again.
\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\nWhat can I say about this movie that has not been said by all the other comments here, they pretty much sum up everything, the people who love it cherish it, the people who hate it... well, they loathe it. This is the movie equivalent of Marmite.
I personally have committed every second of it to memory, it is cyclical, claustrophobic, introspective, magical and stands as being one of the most unique films ever made. Despite what many have stated, I believe this truly is a cult movie, it is a diamond in the rough just waiting to be discovered, once unearthed it's fantastical psychedelic visuals and incredible soundtrack will be unforgettable, which is an achievement in itself. One of my friends who watched it likened it more to a musical, and in many respects to those who do not fully appreciate the context in which this film is made, would probably get more out of it to view Head as such.
I was always fond of the Monkees, especially the T.V. show back when it was repeated during the 80's. My mum had recorded Head for me when it was shown on T.V. late night, as she knew I liked them, I watched it a day later and it lodged in my memory until I was able to find a copy on DVD about 2 decades later, what I would love now is a special edition, it would be fascinating to get a greater insight into the making of this masterpiece. We can only hope.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere are two ways to regard 'Head'. Either it is a dazzling, mind-blowing collage of music, old film clips, psychedelia and T.V. sitcom-style comedy, or a plot less, pretentious, rambling mess. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. It is also one of the best movies of all time.
'The Monkees' - Davy Jones, Peter Tork, Mickey Dolenz, and Mike Nesmith - had just finished their hit series, and wanted to do a movie. In collaboration with writer Jack Nicholson and director Bob Rafelson, they made 'Head'.
It begins at a bridge opening ceremony in San Francisco, where the Monkees gate crash the proceedings. Mickey jumps over the safety rail, plunging hundreds of feet into the water. Mermaids rescue him to the accompaniment of a gorgeous Jerry Goffin & Carole King composition called 'The Porpoise Song' and visuals that make the Stargate finale of '2001' look drab by comparison. By now you will either have switched off in puzzled disgust or be completely captivated.
More bizarre happenings unfold; Mickey uses a tank to destroy a Coca-Cola machine in the middle of the desert; the entire Italian Army surrenders to him; the group are hired to play to play the dandruff in Victor Mature's hair for a television commercial; an overweight waitress insults the group, describing them as 'God's gift to the eight year old's'; a surprise birthday party for Mike goes wrong; the group are sucked into a vacuum cleaner, and to cap it all, are driven away inside a giant glass tank.
You will either hate this or love it. I found it a refreshing change from mindless pop musicals of the 'let's do the show right here' variety. The songs are good too; 'Daddy's Song' is superbly choreographed by Toni Basil ( later to appear in Rafelson's 'Easy Rider' ) and boasts wonderful editing, with Davy's clothes changing colour at lightning speed. 'As We Go Along' is a lovely Goffin & King number whose accompanying images carry a strong environmentalist message.
Frank Zappa, Annette Funicello are just two of the guest stars to crop up. Did Victor Mature read the script before agreeing to do this, one wonders? He's hilarious in it though.
So mad there just has to be real genius behind it, 'Head' is a little '60's gem and one worth revisiting time and time again. Shame it did not find an audience at the time. If only 'Spiceworld' had been like this!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSymbolism galore, great tunes, this film crushed their \"soon to be no more\" target audience's expectations. These monkees and the naturally selected members of the group, were witnessing a subtle yet in your face, kiss goodbye to each other. The message rings true today, the cage you escape from and the bridge you want to jump off of, are the next generations own disappointments, there will always be new kids on the block replacing those who break free from the chains. The film can be frustrating at times, because the themes the film attacks are so blatantly apart of the American way of life, a thinking and reasoning person cannot help but stare at their own reflection in the scenes of Head, and question not only their personal motives for continuing the madness of everyday American life, but the motives of those who want it to continue for the sake of madness. The final scene, similar to Don Quixote's chivalric daring of the caged tiger to exit for battle, represents just how delusional and impossible most dreams are.
\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\nWow. We watched this film in the hopes that it would have at least some decent rock climbing scenes. We were disappointed there, but it was still a great movie! It was soooo cheesy it was great! I haven't laughed so hard at a movie in a long time. If you are into rock climbing, and you enjoy cheesy movies, then this one is absolutely 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\nMy friends and went through a period of time when we would rent movies that none of us had ever heard of. The only good that came from it was this movie, \"Take it to Limit\" Right as the movie started, we could tell we were in for a true classic. The music is probably done by rural white boys from Colorado, but it sounds just like early 90's rap. The star of the show, actor Leo Fitzpatrick, plays the bad-boy so well, especially sporting a big zit the entire movie. This movie is based on climbing, and I'm not a climber, yet even I think it's hilarious when they have the climber struggling to climb and there's a guy in the background who is basically walking up the 'cliff'. You don't want to miss this movie, you'll get to see the same clips over and over again. You'll get surprises at every turn. You'll find yourself quoting the unforgettable lines. I highly recommend this movie to anyone. Take it snow. Disclaimer: This movie is poorly done, but that is what makes it great
\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\nWow. this movie is the voice of a climbing generation. Director Sam Keith takes us to the darkest depths of Man's soul where we find love, life, and top-roping. World-weary Telly (Leo Fitzpatrick) follows his heart and his anchors through a cerebral journey to find sanity in a post-apocalyptic Colorado. Instead, Telly meets confrontation in Don (Jason Bortz), the embodiment of machismo and a zeitgeist of humanities foibles. The epic film comes to a climbax at a gut-wrenching top-roping competition that will make even the strongest willed viewers squeamish at the dizzying heights.
This movie has it all: Top-roping outside, Top-roping in the gym, Cut-off shorts and sleeveless flannel shirts, Awesome climbing footage (some so good, you see it 2 or 3 times!), Bear and snake attacks.
I gave the movie 8 out of 10 because I wanted to see the romance develop a bit more. It seemed as if the film was leading up to a spicy, top-roped sex scene between Telly and his new lover, but alas, it wouldn't fit into the already jam-packed hour and a half thrill ride.
Fans of Cliffhanger and Mission Impossible II will find this flick to be a diamond in the rough. Overall, if you are ready to challenge your world view on humanity and climbing, this is the film for you!!!1
\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 title of my summary pretty much covers my review.
This is to me what Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was to someone 5 years older. While I missed out on that little pop-culture wave, I embraced the toy line and t.v. series that was Mighty Max with both arms.
You wanna know how into this I was? I went as Mighty Max for Halloween.
Thank God for the internet. Thanks to Demonoid, last week I was able to watch this great show from my childhood for the first time in over a decade.
I'm watching this right now, having just been blown away by recognizing Rob Paulson of Animaniacs, and am also loving the celebrity humor in \"Tar Wars\". 4 minutes in, and they have already mentioned, By NAME: Clint Eastwood, Governor Arnold, Dustin Hoffman, John Wayne, AND Ace Ventura. Hells yeah.
Damn, it is only upon writing this that I realize there is NO WAY IN HELL I can give this series anything less than a perfect score. Any imperfections have been lost in the fog of time.
This Is My Childhood. This Is Awesomeness. This Is The Mighty One.
\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 surprisingly great cartoon in the same league as Batman:TAS and its ilk, I enjoyed it in my youth and recently had been able to watch them all again, great voice acting from Tim Curry, Richard Moll, Tony Jay, and Maurice LaMarche in various roles. The only qualm I had was Rob Paulsons voice seemed a little too old for the title character, but that wasn't a big deal as the stories were great, and the fact that the whole thing has a great time loop twist ending. Some people say it was a cop-out, but I found it refreshing compared to many series that just leave things hanging. Hopefully one day they put this series out on DVD, unfortunately it came out at a time when DVD's weren't yet prevalent and the cartoon probably only served to sell a particular type of toy, which I never found appealing despite the entertaining cartoon.
\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 the characters in this cartoon were hilarious. Norman the Viking guardian had some memorable phrases and the skull master, the bad guy, would always be vowing to kill Max with some insane cackling. The writing is the best.
I was glued to the set when this would come on when I was younger. If they came out with a DVD of all the episodes they made I would be forced to buy it. This and a Conan the Barbarian cartoon are the ones I miss the most from childhood. I think these cartoons are the most unappreciated out of all the great cartoons. I used to watch these cartoons on channel 13 in the Los Angeles Area.
I remember the owl was always afraid, warning Max that he was in trouble and that he was the chosen one. Max didn't believe that he was the chosen one and always gave the owl trouble. Norman was less talkative but his simplicity was funny. He would say things like \"I eat monsters for breakfast\" when he was battling them. And then when he was battling zombies he would say \"I eat zombies for...nevermind.\" Classic cartoon comedy and action.
I vote that they re-air Mighty Max.
\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'll make this brief. This was a joy to watch. It may or may not have been more effective if the characters had resembled their real life counterparts, but aside from this minor observation I found the fantasy animal characters to be most enjoyable. The visuals were most stunning except for the second-rate CG scenes, which could have been left out. I dislike computer generated animation anyways, it defeats the purpose of a biopic such as this one. Watch it, you will appreciate it too!
\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\nSpirit and Chaos is an artistic biopic of Miyazawa Kenji, a Japanese poet and writer who was active in the early 20th century. The film captures and interprets his artistic method ('sketching' poems), his inspiration (the spirit of nature and its fantastic beauty) and his struggles to accept a harsh reality in the face of his idealist imagination.
The film integrated excerpts of Miyazawa's poems into the plot beautifully. His relationships with his students was powerful, especially in one scene where he offers everything he has to a student who has just been caught stealing materials from the classroom. Miyazawa's selfless compassion for the farmers in his village, his sister and other unfortunate people can serve as a lesson to us all. Furthermore, Miyazawa's devotion to science was also nicely portrayed. In a time when Western ideas were still met with skepticism, especially in provincial towns like the one where Miyazawa grew up, he understands its usefulness in helping his fellow villagers and is inspired by its elegance. The way the film presented moments of artistic passion and disappointment in the writer were truly intense and well interpreted.
I felt that the CGI integrated into the film, while groundbreaking an innovative, clashed with the more organic animation. It could be argued that this was intentional to represent conflict within the main character, but I found it rather unaesthetic. I also wish that the film had discussed Miyazawa's Buddhist influence, but it worked fine without it.
I though this film was very well done. I give it a 9/10, with the one point being deducted for the CGI. Otherwise the animation, plot and dialog were all wonderful and heartfelt. I haven't seen any other films by Kawamori Shoji, but after seeing this one I will be sure to give them a chance.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI never thought I'd say this about a biopic, but there is a near over-abundance of characterization (especially concerning Kenji Miyazawa's emotions) and too little on the literal occurrences in his life--by the end, I'm not sure if he dies (he's supposed to), or if his sister finally dies (she's supposed to), or if the director spent a little too much time on the Galactic Railroad (that's an inside joke, in case you missed it--Miyazawa wrote a children's book called Night on the Galactic Railroad). However, this glimpse inside the mind of a writer who \"sketched poetry and fairy tales from his imagination\" is very intelligent, creative, entertaining, and emotionally powerful.
All this despite the fact that everyone is animated as animals (like in many of Miyazawa's stories).
Some of the visuals are truly astounding, especially considering that it was a made for TV movie. Seriously, some of them (like the sequence with birds trailing blue light) rival parts of Fantasia. However, I still can't stand computer animation when it is mixed with cel animation. The CGI trains are horribly obvious--even more so than the Anastasia train.
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 Christmas time! A nativity in terms of rebirth, or at least this is what can be hoped regarding the Italian cinema. It was something like 30-40 years that the Italian cinema didn't craft an art piece of this size. This is an absolute contemporary film that can be also regarded at the same level of quality as the Italian masterpieces of the past, needless to quote any name. And finally this is also a big production for Italian standards of the time. In this movie there is a rare balance of different elements, all of them understandable and enjoyable at different levels of fruition. Real poetry, real humor, real tenderness, real drama, real beauty. No rhetoric, no easy surreal shortcuts, no typical touristic Tornatore-like picturing, no over acting, no director autoreferentialism. There is also a cool use of two heartbreaking Nina Simone's songs, whose music, I reckon has never been used in a proper way for a score. So if this will not be a real reviveing for the Italian cinema it is an extraordinary evolution for Emanuele Crialese after his 'Respiro' another definitive beautiful film. 'Nuovomondo' is not to be missed, it is that kind of 'medicine film' helpful to enjoy movie-making, movie watching, helpful to enjoy and understand life. Francesco Cabras
\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 had the opportunity to see 'Nuovomondo' (hitherto known in the U.S. as 'The Golden Door'), and was very impressed by both it's dreamy & occasionally surreal tale of a family that immigrates from Sicially to the U.S. in the early days of the 20th century. It also worked as a (proverbial)middle finger jammed into the eyeball of Homeland Security (preferably all the way up to the 3rd knuckle),in it's depiction of the ill treatment of foreigners who just want a better life than they were getting from their original mother land. The (mostly) Italian cast, with a few exceptions works well. This is a quiet,understated film that is lovely to look at (the occasional,but tasteful use of surrealism is always a pleasure),while the screenplay is well written. This is a film for those who are sick & tired of mindless escapism from Hollywood that serves little more than to sell popcorn (not that I have any burning issues with popcorn,mind you!---I actually love the stuff). You would do wise to seek out Nuovomondo/The Golden Door (or whatever it's being titled in your area).
\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\nSome days ago, in Rome, a young Romanian man with criminal precedents assaulted and tortured to death a middle-age lady coming back home after an afternoon of shopping. A Romanian girl, who had seen everything, reported what happened.
Therefore, it started a debate about the too much intense flow of immigrants from Romania, generalizing them as criminals, everyone, indiscriminately.
I'm only 15, but I thought: what idea of affluence does Italy give to these poor people? How ever do they regard us as the Land of Plenty? Yesterday evening I finally saw NUOVOMONDO, and my question had an answer. When you have only a donkey and some goats, those propaganda postcards showing United States as a land with milk rivers and huge vegetables, makes such an impression.
NUOVOMONDO is really a must-see film. It balances an ethereal symbolism (milk rivers, glances' play, hard and rocky mountains, the name and character Lucy/Luce) and a cruel realism (the mass of hopeful people on the ship, the procedures at Ellis Island). There's a mixed cast, going from the angelic Charlotte Gainsbourg to the realistic Vincenzo Amato, till a bitter and smashing Aurora Quattrocchi as the mother. But was it really so hard to enter in the New World?
\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\"Nuovomondo (2006)\" (shown in the U.S. as \"The Golden Door\") was written and directed by Emanuele Crialese. This film is different--and, I think, better--than most movies about impoverished people who leave Europe and come to the United States.
The film begins with scenes in a poor, rural region of Sicily. We always hear that Sicily is a rocky island, but you won't really understand the implications of that phrase until you see the first half-hour of \"The Golden Door.\"
The middle section of the film is devoted to the long voyage to the U.S. Most immigration films show us ten minutes of people in the third-class section becoming seasick, and then show us the Statue of Liberty. Not this movie--we get a sense for life below decks, and it isn't charming. (We never actually see the Statue of Liberty, either.)
Finally, the typical movie will give us another ten minutes of Ellis Island, and then the immigrants are walking through New York's Lower East Side. Not here--the Ellis Island experience occupies about one-third of the footage.
Vincenzo Amato is outstanding as Salvatore Mancuso, who is bringing his two sons and his mother to the new world. Charlotte Gainsbourg is equally good as Lucy Reed, a mysterious Englishwoman who also speaks fluent Italian.
There are some strange touches in the movie, especially the sound track with songs by Nina Simone. There must be some symbolism there, but I couldn't make sense of it.
Another reviewer has already pointed out that this film will do better viewed in a theater rather than on DVD. Still, large screen or small screen, it's worth seeking out.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Nuovomondo\" was a great experience. Many filmmakers tell their stories to a big extent via dialogue. Emanuele Crialese directs his film very visually driven. For everything he wants to tell, he finds powerful images that are able to stand for themselves. Thus, he understands film as a medium that primarily tells its stories over the pictures on screen. Particularly European cinema is often very dialogue-driven (and many of the young US-American directors are strongly influenced by that). Crialese's opposite attitude was really the point, that made this film special for me. It has also a very interesting topic that is wrapped up in a quite unusual story and told with humour. Vincenzo Amato is outstanding as family head Salvatore, as well as the amazing Charlotte Gainsbourg, who I enjoy watching in every single one of her movies. There are many great sequences in this movie. Just to pick one: When the ship leaves Italy and the people just quietly stare. This scene is great, particularly if you consider the pop cultural references that go with it (Titanic!).
\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 film notable for what is not shown as much as for what is. What IS shown is the incredible poverty in Sicily as the 19th century gave way to the 20th, a life style that made people dream of the 'New' World of America. The Mancuso family live in a place that is not even a hamlet, just a stone cottage set amid the harsh, unyielding stones of a country that cannot offer even a single blade of green grass. An opening sequence sees the Mancuso males scrambling barefoot up a craggy hillside, stones in their mouth to offer at a shrine at the top in exchange for a 'sign' that they should set out for the New World or remain where they are. It further shows life aboard the liner, huddled masses indeed, yearning to breathe free, and conditions in Ellis Island where, their journey still not over, they are interrogated and examined to prove their 'fitness' to enter America. What is NOT shown is the ship in Longshot, or indeed ANY shot that would identify it as a large, ocean-going liner; what is also not shown is anything that would identify America, no cliché view of New York Harbour and the Statue of Liberty, so that Ellis Island could be anywhere in any country. Perhaps the most remarkable shot is the one from a Camera Crane looking down on hundreds of people jammed together; slowly, almost imperceptibly two thirds of the people at Screen Left begin to separate from the third at Screen Right and we realize that those on the left are actually aboard the ship and those on the right are on the dock, a powerful statement of society being fragmented. There's a strong documentary feel throughout as though we were following an actual ship full of immigrants even though it has been carefully scripted and is clearly an amalgam of typical families/conditions at the time. With almost nothing happening in dramatic terms it's not for the popcorn brigade at the Multiplex but for the rest of us it's a very fine film indeed.
\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 played in Lexington KY for 7 days. I saw it on the last day of its run & regretted that I could not recommend it to others because this is a film that cries out for the big screen experience. The aerial shot where the crowded ship pulls away from the equally crowded dock is a masterpiece as is the scene where the two lead characters flirt on deck--almost a ballet and sexier in its suggestiveness than so many more explicit films these days. I just cringe to think that more people won't have the opportunity to see this fine film in a theater; the DVD experience will not be the same. Here's an idea: if you live in a college town, see if you can lobby for it to show up in a campus film festival.
\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 promises much but delivers little. The basic problem has to do with the inclusion of Charlotte Gainsbourg's character in this film. Immigrants from Sicily did not need a redheaded Anglo in any way--the movie may have needed her, but new citizens certainly did not. In my opinion,the decision to include her destroys the continuity of the film. This is particularly troubling since it seems to demean not only the characters in the movie, but also the history of immigration itself. Immigrants themselves were heroic figures, fully capable of getting along without having to satisfied what I believer to be a veiled image of \"the white man's burden.\" I wonder if someone will make a movie of Irish immigrants which will include a Sicilian woman as a major character. The Left Elbow Index considers seven aspects of film--acting, production sets, dialogue, artistry, film continuity, plot, and character development--on a scale from high of 10 for excellent, 5 for average, and 1 for needs help. Both film continuity and plot rate a low of 1. The continuity as discussed above is further degraded by the surrealistic ending. Does not a film of such important historical significance deserve more than a conclusion which reminds one of Marc Chagall? The plot is simple enough, until it seems to become entangled with too much time in the old country, too little time on the ship, and too much emphasis on the ending. The acting and character development is average since all the characters are fixed throughout the film, and the inclusion of the Anglo-Saxon speaking perfect English almost turns the movie into a satire. Where's Groucho when you need him? The production sets, the dialogue and the artistry are very good, each rating a 10. The sets in Sicily, on the ship, and on Ellis Island are as good as one can find. The dialogue is marvelous, and the ethic singing is superb. I agree with Scorsese that listening to the Sicilian dialect is a pleasure. Note that the immigrants speak of \"America\", not the \"United States\"--the ideal vs. the political reality. The are many good artistic scenes, with dreams of America, gold coins raining, and giant veggies among the best. The average Left Elbow Index is 5.25, raised to a 7.0 when equated with the IMDb scale. One other notion seems to run through Ellis Island experience: the tribulations of pass immigrants was grueling, later, in 2006, one only had to pay a coyote or boat owner and sneak into the county under the darkness of night, no questions asked! The movie is worth seeing, but it appears that what one sees is problematical.
\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 review is in response to the submission wondering how factually correct the movie was...
Saw this movie last year and found it inspiring that hopeful immigrants, like my Italian grandparents who came through Ellis Island at the turn of the last century, would subject themselves to all manner of invasive inspection just to enter America.
It was certainly eye opening, since my grandparents never spoke of anything terrible while there. My grandmother was 5-years old and my grandfather 18 when they arrived.
I just returned from a trip to New York where I had the pleasure of visiting Ellis Island and the museum actually walks you through the immigration evaluation process - The filmmaker obviously did his research, right down to the medical exams and equipment, questions and puzzles. They are all there at the museum. Even the wedding pictures and the review board room -- Factually correct! Anyone who has immigrant grandparents should see this movie. Inspirational to say the least.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAn interesting look at the immigrant experience, told as a fable with some very weird imagery.
I got drawn to this movie because it tells of immigrants from Sicily who traveled to America. I imagine much the same as my Grandfather did at that time. Travelling in steerage to provide ballast for the ships, I cannot imagine it was very comfortable, as shown in this film.
Laws restricting immigrants existed. I would guess that these laws were more strict on those who came from the Mediterranean and Africa. Immigrants had to be free from contagious diseases or hereditary infirmities. In the film, we see physical and mental exams, the latter because of the view that low intelligence is heritable. Single women could not enter the country, on the presumption that they would become prostitutes, so most married single men already in the country, as arranged beforehand, at Ellis Island before entry.
This is the story of a British immigrant (Charlotte Gainsbourg), who arranges to marry a poor Sicilian (Vincenzo Amato). He is trying to get his family through with a son that is mute and a mother (Aurora Quattrocchi) that is considered feeble-minded. She was fantastic in the role, by the way.
You will also see character actor, Vincent Schiavelli, in his next to the last appearance. I don't know if his last film has been released. He plays a matchmaker, and is also very good.
It was a strange, but enjoyable film. It's not for everyone, as I imagine those who don't have some interest in the immigrant experience would find it rather slow.
\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 good film, no doubt, but with some odd aspects. Without spoiling anything it takes place in 3 places only- a Sicilian farm, the boat,and Ellis Island New York. All shots are close up so we never see a broad sweep of anything. I wonder if this was to save money? No street scenes anywhere, and we don't even see the boat except in close ups. And the music...what on earth was going on with playing Nina Simone songs, decades before they were out? I could have done without the milk river business too......But hey, before you think of me as a pure misanthrope, let me repeat, this is a very good film, with heartbreakng moments, wonderful photography, great characters and more accuracy than the usual (American) efforts at the immigration experience.
\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\nWhere do I start. Do I say how great the cinematography is. Do I praise certain scenes which show the directors creativity. Do I tell how realistic the scenes on Ellis Island are. Should I mention that for a change we do not have the cliché scene of viewing Statue Of Liberty. (By now immigrants viewing the statue from the ships railing is a cliché)
Now whats not likable, two major things, one being a modern song score & not even a good one to boot.
Second & nearly deadly the film is boring it moves so slow, that watching paint dry would be an improvement.
The 118 minute running time is to long & yet the film seems unfinished. We see no scenes of this family in the US. Our hero mentions he wants to find his twin brother, I would have enjoyed scenes of his futile of maybe lucky search, instead of other drawn out scenes.
The film is a near miss.
Ratings *** (out of 4) 81 points (out of 100) IMDb 7 (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\nif filming is about vision and real life this movie is quite perfect: NUOVOMONDO talks about immigration in the USA from Italy the beginning of '900, but it speak also for now, when emigration/immigration is still a focus .
It doesn't to be rich to be a visionary film.
Acting at extra level, Charlotte Gainsbourg a star. A good challenge for the Academy Award 2007
After first Crialese's attempt, \"Respiro\", an emotional but too intellectual movie, this one has learned Fellini's and Taviani's lesson, to name just two Italian masters.
Plot is arguing, directing accurate, maybe just a little less melodrama would be more effective.
If VOLVER ( challenging for Academy Award next year ) by Almodovar is a mature movie by an always brilliant director, NUOVOMONDO deserves it more, because of his good effort to be a European movie for the American scene.
And this is it!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI always liked listening to Buddy Holly and felt a real loss when he was killed at a young age in an airplane crash. He wasn't in the old rock 'n roll class of , let's say, Chuck Berry or Jerry Lee Lewis, but he wasn't far behind. Who knows how big his legacy would have been had he sang for decades. Almost every single he put out was a hit.
So, I was very pleasantly surprised how good a job Gary Busey did at playing him and at imitating his singing voice. He did Buddy proud, as were the actors (Don Stroud and Charles Martin Smith) who played Holly's backup group, \"The Crickets.\"
Music-wise, there are some of Holly's better-known songs in the beginning of the film and its really good with a strong finish at the end as Holly and the boys are shown in Iowa in their last concert ever. Busey not only sings like Holly, he's a dead ringer for him in the looks department. Some thing was the actor''s best performance ever, and you get no argument from me.
I'm also glad they ended the film on an upbeat note with that Iowa concert, instead of dwelling on his tragic accident. The ending could have been a real downer, but they didn't let it be.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"