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\nWith the war not going well for the Soviet Union, Stalin accepted volunteers from the prisons and used the prisoners as shock troops. This is the story of one such battalion. There are petty crooks, political prisoners, soldiers kicked out of other units, gray-haired veterans of the White Army plus some dangerous criminals.
They are thrown into battle ill-equipped, untrained and face the threat of the NKVD if they show signs of cowardice or failure.
The special effects are rudimentary and many of the minor characters are one-dimensional, but the overall story is very human and riveting.
I have not seen a version with subtitles or dubbing. Viewing the show required liberal use of the pause button and explanations from a native speaker of Russian.
\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\nMany experienced and excellent actors mixed together in an ongoing plot of an untold part of world war II on the eastern front. Characters well portrayed and unforgettable. One episode leaves you wishing for the next. Pay attention to the closing credits were the thousands of Shtrafbat battalions are listed. An untold story involving hundreds of thousands of individuals. Sometimes brutal, sometimes romantic, always filled with real people and dialog. Produced with excellent sets and camera work. Heroes and villains, criminals and priests, patriots and traitors. Portrait of people struggling to survive and overcome a most terrible time. I wish to buy a copy for my own collection so to be able to enjoy the series repeatedly.
\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\nShtrafbat is the story only Russians could tell about the Second World War. The largest front of the whole conflict has been, ironically, the least appearing subject on the silver screen after the war. While the Western Allies war-effort has been pictured in almost every possible detail and manner, the East has been left out or the job has been left to only some old propaganda movies of little else than historical footage value.
There is no chance that Shtrafbat could compete with Band of Brothers in every detail but neither you want to look at the screen with examining petty visual effects in mind. That the soldiers are Russians is enough big reason to forgive the less eye-captivating battle scenes and you can concentrate on the story that is the most interesting. So much different was the war in the Eastern front, and the nature of the Russian army, that you might wish people to produce more dramatizations from the other fronts, and of armies.
Shtrafbat is no way perfect, but it has some rare specialties that augment the overall rating. It tends to crush myths people have about the Second World War, the true heroes were Russian people and not their leaders who sent them to missions where they could only perish. Another great myth bust is that it presents the enemy, who does not pick up his gun, as an equal human being - an advancement that has been difficult to try in many acclaimed films as well. Shtrafbat shows how the war in the eastern front was a war of survival and how the clash of the -isms grinds people into dust.
\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 isn't a bad TV movie. Shtrafbat is short for Shtrafnoy Batallion, which means Penal Batallion. Such battallions were formed due to the increasing demand for soldiers as the Soviet Union was taking heavy casualties all through out the war. These battalions consisted of convicts and dishonored soldiers who were given the chance to clear their names by proving themselves in combat. They were looked down upon as scum and were expended easily during combat without much regret, or much honor, on the part of military. They were often sent on suicide missions and suffered extreme casualties. The ones who refused to fight were executed on sight. Needless to say, their lives sucked.
There were some very nice performances by the cast, especially by Yuri Stepanov who played Antip, Aleksandr Bashirov who played Stirah, and Roman Madyanov who played Major Kharchenko. However the series isn't really that addictive, in part because it's too long, it could've a lot shorter and as effective.
Although it's about war, Shtrafbat has very mild violence and pretty much no gore. It relies solely on the actors to make it work, and after all, it's a TV series, so the producers didn't want to scare off the viewers and the sponsors.
Shtrafbat explores the cruelty of the Soviet regime, and explaines why so many men chose to fight the Nazis instead of joining them. Personally I'd rather be a Fascist then a Communist given the circumstances presented in the film. One character explains that the Soviets stripped his farm clean and his family died of starvation. Out of anger he burned it down which got him arrested for destroying Kolhoz property and he ended up in the penal battalion as a criminal. Antip reminisced on how his mother killed her youngest son to feed the rest of the family. Both men explained that they fought for their motherland, rather than the for the Soviets.
The penal battalion had one Marine(Naval Infantry) who raped a girl, killing his comrade in the prosess, threatened his other comrade to keep his mouth shut about both ordeals, and then feigned injury when it came to fighting. On top of all that the girl committed suicide due to shame. I imagine if enough Marines watched this movie they'd pick up banners and riot on the streets calling for a boycott or an official apology from the producers.
To say the least, I'd recommend it to anyone with the slightest interest in the former Soviet Union or World War II. I don't think I wasted 500+ minutes of my life.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA team varied between Scully and Mulder, two other scientists, a pilot, and the guy who plays Bana on Seinfeld, go up to an Arctic research post where all members have died off by either killing each other or killing themselves. They discover there's a worm- a virus- that is parasitic to the point of madness and death. The problem is, after a certain dog lashes out, anyone could be infected, but who? This is not just my favorite episode of season 1, but also one of my favorites from the show. The Arctic environment encloses the characters and, of course like Carpenter's the Thing, it's a lot of fun watching these even-tempered characters suddenly start to flip out in dramatic scenes. And the visual effects of the worm and its effects under the skin are cheesy, I didn't mind them at all. The drama between the characters ends up working more than it would usually because of the tension and because all of the actors (including the Bana guy) understand what's going on in the story. And, as usual, I loved the ambiguity of the ending. 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\nA true stand out episode from season 1 is what Ice is.An artic location,claustrophobic conditions and a general feel of paranoia looming in the freezing air makes this is a must see episode from season one.The previous occupants of the artic station Mulder,Scully and four others go to have either killed each other or killed themselves.A virus is bringing out murderous aggression and is responsible for bringing out deadly paranoia and fear.Mulder and Scully actually begin to question each others sanity.Tension is that high.The writers have to receive great credit for creating that sort of scenario where the atmosphere is so tense Mulder and Scully come into conflict in such a direct manner
\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! It's hard to put into words my feelings for this episode. Ice is one of the best episodes of season one for sure. It's my favorite of the season. Six people and a dog in a claustrophobic structure isolated in the middle of the arctic with an unknown organism that causes murderous aggression, the drama can't get any better than that. Paranoia reigns supreme as even Mulder and Scully have doubts about each other's sanity. I've heard people complain about this episode's similarities to the movie 'The Thing'. I haven't seen it, so I wouldn't know. Ice is more than worth watching just to see Mulder and Scully truly testing their still developing trust of one another. This episode is intense and suspenseful to the end. You won't be disappointed!
\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 truly a tense and dark episode. Excellently executed, wonderful acting and atmospheric directing, 'Ice' is one of my favorite episodes. Along with 'Pusher' 'Grotesque' 'Wetwired' and 'Home' (these are quite good in dark atmosphere in my case) It seem quite realistic to me, their paranoia, their suspicion and their ever growing rage was perfectly executed by the great actors. However, 'Ice' had a problem that I got over after a few watches: IT WAS TOO SHORT! I WANTED MORE!
Overall, 'ice' had what 98% of all X Files episodes have: Excellent acting, Intense story-writing, gritty directing. All the works.
10 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\nFBI Agents Mulder and Scully get assigned to probe the mystery of what happened to an Arctic drilling team, in this early 'X-Files' episode that David Duchovny himself considers one of their first \"rockin'\" episodes. It pays loving homage to the much lauded John Carpenter 1982 theatrical feature \"The Thing\", and one can see the similarities. Visually, color and lighting schemes combine to give the story a hellish quality. Production design / art direction are especially impressive; the shots of the exterior of the Arctic camp are so reminiscent of the earlier film as to automatically create feelings of deja vu for some viewers. Naturally, our heroes are threatened by the weather, so the sound design, involving wind, evokes memories of \"The Thing\".
The culprit is an ancient worm that had been exposed to the team; once inside a host, it stimulates aggressive behavior. This allows the paranoia aspect to take full hold, and the way the script is set up we can't be too sure of who's infected and who's not. This gives rise to the inevitable scene of testing. This episode certainly works at portraying the way that tensions can cause breakdowns in groups. It even allows Mulder and Scully to have moments where they're not sure if they can trust each other.
Guest starring are a good small group of actors: Xander Berkeley, Felicity Huffman, and Steve Hytner as the scientists obliged to accompany Mulder and Scully on the mission, and Jeff Kober as the pilot who takes them to the camp. You can also see one time Jason Voorhees portrayer Ken Kirzinger as one of the ill-fated original team members.
Incidentally, there's one direct link between 'Ice' and \"The Thing\": art director Graeme Murray, who worked on both projects.
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\nOkay, that was just brilliant. I wish that the rest of Season 1 had been this strong. It really needed more episodes like this.
The cast worked perfectly, even though they were all nobodies back in the day. Writing was fantastic and so was the editing. Great job in all accounts.
The episode was thrilling, suspenseful and just kept you guessing until the very end. Which is what most MOTW episodes had tried, but failed until now.
The first FIVE star episode for me. Really good, almost like a movie. I didn't even remember it being this good. I think it's even better than the great horror movie called 'The Thing'.
\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 one of the best episodes from the entire X-Files series, creepy beyond words. The tension and suspense in this episode is very well executed, in its entire 45 minutes it managed to be almost as scary as an entire movie. This episode joins the ranks of best episodes with such greats as \"Home\", \"Humbug\" \"Bad Blood\" and \"Milagro\" for being the best in their respective season.
Mulder and Scully's growing relationship is put to the test in this episode: Can they really trust each other? This episode also contains a tiny scene that will leave romantic viewers smiling.
Mulder: \"Bring your mittens\"
\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 definitely the most tension filled X-Files episode of the first season. this episode is what I think of when I hear \"X-Files\". the plot is simple but exiting. Our main cast plus a few scientist go to investigate an Alskan outpost in which it's research team appears to have killed each other. It turns out a small parasite that got dug up from the ice, had infected the research team. The parasite attaches itself to the brain and causes paranoia and insanity. Soon none can tell who they can trust, or who's infected or not.
This episode was a direct tribute to John Carpenters great horror film \"the THING\". the Thing is set in Antarctica and a team of scientist find a destroyed outpost in which it's occupant have been killed or killed themselves. An alien that had been buried in the ice for a 10000 years had been thawed out. It has the abilities to imitate any life form. therefore the main characters can no longer distinct friends from foes.
Believe me The THING is one of the most exiting, and tension filled horror movies you'll ever see. if you liked the episode ICE I advice you to see it. Or if you have only seen the THING I advice you to see ICE.
ICE is the best direct tribute/homage to John Carpenter's The THING I have ever seen, and it lives up to it's inspiration as one of the best X-Files episodes. I give it a 10/10.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYeah, I know my title sucks. I couldn't think of any other title. x] Ice is a brilliant first season episode. Very interesting idea and good acting as well. The whole worm-looking-thing was really creepy in my opinion. I've never been a fan of insects, so all the insect episodes are creepy to me. x] Anyway, lets go on to the good and bad things about this episode,
The Good: The parasite thing. Awesome!
Scully finally trusting Mulder. Awww... <33
It was a good idea to put another parasite in the ear. Though if someone told me they had to put that thing in my ear... I think the whole cabin would be dead.
The Bad: How did the dog stay alive for so long?
How didn't Huffman get those black spots? Or maybe she did, but no-one saw it...
Conclusion: Very good episode, especially for Season 1. 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\nWhere Da Vinci code introduced us to Dr. Robert Langdon and his knack for solving puzzles, Angels and Demons ups the ante by providing a huge puzzle with an 8 hour limit.
With a cast of award winning actors, Ron Howard does a good job of directing a story that was easy to follow and even easier to accept. The Da Vinci code threw so many angles at you in such a short time that a quick bathroom break would leave you a bit confused on return. I didn't feel this was with Angels and Demons, the plot was straight-forward and the action kept the interest level peaked throughout.
Cardinal Strauss (Armin Mueller-Stahl) was easily my favorite character in the movie. His portrayal of the elitist, yet misunderstood rank of the Catholic Church was very good and combined with the victim of his treatment Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), you will find yourself choosing sides immediately upon introduction. There isn't a great amount of Tom Hanks time as the film focuses more on story than character development and this did well with me being that I had more than enough introduction from the first movie.
Unfortunately I found Ayelet Zurer's character Vittoria Vetra to be an unnecessary femme assistant in the quest since her lines were a bit limited and seemed much like an afterthought. She does play a key role in the beginning of things but she soon fades into the background of being Langdon's \"familiar\" more-so than a necessary partner.
The plot is as such, one of the organizations that the Catholic Church wronged in the past (there have been quite a few) has sought revenge in a most artistic manner. Some men of the church are kidnapped and are set to be executed at specific times until an ultimate end to the church itself will happen. Dr. Robert Landon is brought in to help decipher the clues and teams up with the beautiful Vittoria Vetra, a scientist who witnessed a colleague die at the hands of the church's enemy.
Music staying relevant and the cinematography beautiful, I could chime on about this menial things but what makes Angels and Demons absolutely work is it's conclusion. It was by far one of the most amazingly surprising endings I have seen in a movie and I was impressed at how off-guard I was when it hit me. Like anyone else I appreciate a great wrap-up and this movie wraps it up quite tight and drops a pretty bow on it. Needless to say I left the theater pleased at the movie in it's entirety.
If you are religious and unsure if this movie will offend your Catholic principles. I can say that where The DaVinci code painted Catholicism as a shady cover-up group of sadists, Angels and Demons paints them with a much lighter brush. The church is shown as being a collective of good men who are made to suffer for the sins of evil and misguided men who wore their colors and even a few who have infiltrated their modern ranks.
\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 read Angels and Demons about 3 years ago, and I can honestly say to is one of the few books that I couldn't put down while reading.
The movie however was pretty much what i expected, a lot of action, with somewhat of a mystery storyline. Tom Hanks plays, in my opinion, a much better role, of Professor Langdon than in The Da Vinci Code.
You won't have to worry about this being as bad as The Da Vinci Code, this is everything that it wasn't. Much more interesting, more action, more suspense, and less of the unneeded controversy. If you haven't read the book, no worries you will still find it very interesting. And if you have read the book, well lets say you might be a little let down because I found many scenes missing that I was looking forward to.
Overall, Pretty impressive film for any everyday movie goer. But, maybe not something too special for Dan Brown fans.
\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 go to the movies to be entertained. I was very entertained by the first film in this series: The DaVinci Code. It had plenty of twists and turns throughout to keep me very interested. Angels and Demons is no different. If you enjoyed the DaVinci Code, then you will undoubtedly enjoy this movie as well. Angels and Demons is made pretty much with the exact same style as the previous film, but faster paced, which I liked. Ron Howard kept me glued to my seat for the full two hours without boring me one bit.
What I really liked about this movie was that even though it is obviously fictitious, they leave enough real history to make it seem very believable. If there is one thing that I didn't like about this movie, it is that the plot itself is very unbelievable (don't want to give any spoilers). But hey, it's a movie. I was entertained throughout the whole thing and was very satisfied with what I saw.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was at the premier of the movie last night in Rome. I am not an expert in the book, however there are a great deal of changes from the book to the movie. The pacing of this movie is much faster than the Davinci code. Many things were trimmed otherwise this would be a 4 hour movie. Many things were also changed to give the movie a fast pace. I think what matters is the feel of the movie and that works well for Hanks, Brown and company.
There are some things in the book that would appear very implausible in the movie form. I am not giving any spoilers, except to say the ending of the movie is handled in a slightly different way. How Leonardo Vetra was found is also different. Those who see the movie might be interested in reading the book to get the full details of the story. Some minor details are are also cut from the movie.
Although they did film in Rome, they had to recreate interior shots. Since I went on a walking tour of Rome the day before the movie I can say that the interior sites are authentic in look and feel. Kohler is not in the movie and not much is shown about CERN. Hanks does a good job and there are some interesting scenes involving the Vatican archives. Of course they had no access to that area and I am not sure if anyone actually knows what the Vatican archives look like. Eyelet Zurer has her break in this movie as Victoria Vetra and does a good job as eye candy for Hanks.
This movie should be received better by the critics and public, but you never know. Ron Howard mentioned several times in interviews and as we saw him and the cast before the movie, that this is just a 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\nSymbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) is called to Rome to help decipher the mystery behind the Illuminati before a new science experiment blows up the city.
The Da Vinci Code broke records in 2006 but for the vast majority of Dan Brown followers it did not do his award winning book justice and though running at a good 2 and a half hours, seemed to bore many.
Having read the book, I was perhaps one of the few who enjoyed Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou attempt to solve the mystery of the murder in the Louvre but for Angels and Demons the scales were raised once more as lead star and director return.
Having asked around, most people seem to prefer Angels and Demons to The Da Vinci code for an entertaining read and it seems as critiques and fans, whilst still not fully justified, prefer this latest adaptation to the 2006 release.
This Howard picture certainly has a more clinical energy and exercise to it as unlike Da Vinci, Tom Hanks' Robert Langdon has only one night to solve the mysterious activities of the forgotten Illuminati in the Vatican and because of the time limitations, the action and desperation up the ante and deliver an excitement that certainly beats The Da Vinci code but also generates plenty of twists and stunning murder sequences.
The interesting factor of this 2009 release is the constant elements being justified for the murders. Earth, wind, water and fire are all included in drastic and powerful sequences to pronounce a feeling of overall power to the situation.
This really does justify the tag of thriller with a constant tension and sharp drama with the issues and beliefs once more given a full working over.
Just like 3 years ago, there are many debates and discoveries of symbols once believed to be lost forever and Langdon is again the key character to show everyone the light in and amongst the controversy of other pressing circumstances.
It is fair to say Dan Brown is a complex writer; he certainly likes to cram issues and dramas in amongst his action and thrilling sequences. As well as trying to discover the Illuminati, there is also the scenario of the election of a new pope, the dealings with a new scientific experiment and the power of Religion is again present. All interesting to discover and listen to, if occasionally the debates and dialogue tend to send your mind drifting but as there is so much in the novel, this was always likely.
Ron Howard, who kept a frankly ordinary type of direction rolling in Da Vinci, returns in perhaps the worst way possible. His jerky ever moving camera styling does nothing to keep the pressure up, and we can never fully accept what is happening on screen thanks to this frankly awfully portrayed style. He is certainly no Paul Greengrass and this is by no means Bourne.
Slick and stylized this is faster and more interesting than Da Vinci
\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 an OK adaptation of the breath taking book of Dan Brown. I can't say it is novel or very good but they made a movie that you can enjoy. Given the excellent story, the result could have been better though. The movie is pretty long but at the end I was feeling like some things were missing. Sound effects and sound tracks were very good. Acting was well done but the character development phase was very weak. For people who didn't read the book, things may look happening too quickly. From my point of view, instead of trying to put as much as stuff from the book, they could have tried to do the important scenes more proper. What makes the book very good was all the puzzle like story combined with the excellent portrait of Vatican. You see neither of it in the movie. Too much rush and using the time not in a good way, these are main problems of the movie. So, it is worth watching but could have been done better.
\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\nWas excited at the opening to hear part of \"Chevaliers De Sangreal\" but wanted more so I bought said Hans Zimmer piece. Possibly the most inspiring and beautiful 4 minutes of music ever written! This movie is an exciting thriller masterpiece even w/o the religious considerations. You get to tour the Vatican and parts of Rome with excellent cinematography. The opening at CERN where the \"God Particle\" or largest quantity of Antimatter is created with STUNNING visuals is an immediate clue which foretells the excellence of this movie. Who doesn't love Hanks? The storyline and twists in this film are just superb and well drawn out until the amazingly twisted climax. This film suggests a satisfying compromise between Science and Religion though plenty of closed heads will persist on both sides. \"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.\" A.Einstein
\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\nStill haven't read a single Dan Brown book, but I watched all his movies adaptations. I won't fall into the game to rate this one with the previous because the scope isn't really the same: actually, this one is a thriller, a race against time filled with puzzles.
The plot is very twisted, imaginative and the cast is excellent: I never been a great fan of Hanks but he delivers well. I noticed his jeans shirt (the one spilled with blood) because I search for one like this in vain! The Italian searcher is a brilliant newcomer for me but I really applauded Ewan MacGregor portrayal: his inner faith and calm is really impressive.
I really like the debate between science and religion. The action taking place in the Vatican, it felt like vacation. At last, I am not sure it helps to add new converts into Christianism. With all the gold and man presence displayed, any one would ask what charity means and why women are so dismissed of the church life whereas they stand for half or more the believers.
\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\nAs a fan of the book, this work is fantastically adapted; remaining true to the source materials, and demonstrating an honest respect for the literary work. The intrigues translate well to film by virtue of Ron Howard's good eye for detail and sound devotion to authenticity.
I like Hanks as Robert Langdon. His portrayal is genuine and earthy, with only the barest glint of the Kip we all knew and loved, back in \"the day.\" He is a good dramatic actor and, while I miss his comedic efforts, I do enjoy his more serious performances.
The subject matter is no less controversial than the DaVinci Code, and the Vatican seems to never learn their lesson. As with the aforementioned film, the Holy See issued a scathing rebuke and called for a global Catholic boycott of the film, which of course, generated millions in ticket sales.
Although the story of the \"God Particle\" was played down dramatically, and the science was written out of this piece of science fiction, the fiction that was left, was entertaining and extremely well done. And, the truth be known, people who have not read the book, will not notice any missing or lesser element to the story, as the screen version carries the main story well on its own.
In fact, it is not necessary to have seen the first installment of this franchise, in order to enjoy this second, which should have been a prequel in all honesty, although that does not lessen the effectiveness, nor does it meddle with the continuity or flow of this second work.
All in all, this is good for a Friday/Saturday night's viewing, although the execution may be a bit rough for the small ones.
It rates an 8.8/10 from...
the Fiend :.
\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\nAs I sat in the theater almost crying to myself in dismay over the atrocity Ron Howard and Tom Hanks call the Da Vinci Code, I could not see the light at the end of the tunnel that is Angels and Demons.
Hanks and Company are back for the Sequel-Prequel Angels and Demons, and they have learned their lesson.
Acting wise everyone is much better. Aylet Zurer is very good as Vittoria Vetra, and better than the girl who played Sophie Neveau. Tom Hanks is very good as always, he is better in this though, because he works harder at giving the movie the feeling that it is a thriller. I think Ewan McGregor does the best job of any of the actors. He might even deserve a nomination come March, but doubtful. He had me convinced right until the very end. He's Dynamic and faithful, but rational, and realizes that the Church needs to put their past behind them. The minor actors also do very good jobs.
Technically and Visually the movie is much improved. The Cinematography is much...much better, and the Visual Effects are superb. The final explosion sequence at the end is excellent. Howard does a masterful job, taking you through a tour of Rome.
Pacing wise, Ron Howard does an amazing job this time around at keeping the story moving, and not boring us with a history lesson deemed at denouncing Christianity. The movie also makes you feel like more is at stake. In our feeble minds discovering whether or not Jesus had children, is not as high up on the list compared to a cataclysmic explosion killing thousands including the Roman Catholic Church. Part of the reason I think the story is so fast paced is due to the excellent score. I cannot say enough about the score. It was epic at times, like something from Lord of the Rings, but then sometimes it felt like a Bourne Movie, which is a nice mix.
My only complaint about this movie is that it is ridiculously far fetched. The chances of the Carmelengo being someone of Ewan McGregors age are highly improbable, and the chances of a Cardinal with an adopted son getting elected Pope are even more ridiculous. Not to mention the whole Antimatter thing, which has yet to be created, and Dan Brown wrote the book in 2003...
Overall Angels and Demons is much tighter knitt, faster paced, more exciting, and more important movie than the Da Vinci Code. This is must see thriller for anyone who loves history and mystery combined into 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\nSo first things first..
Angels and Demons is a much better and very different film than the Da- Vinci code.
Following the recent slew of comic book movies, remakes and questionable resurrections of aged franchises. it is refreshing to watch a very solid and entertaining film that is devoid of shaky cam filming techniques, lens flare, excessive GCI and over the top action sequences.
In this respect Angels and Demons almost feels old fashioned.It offers a good and considered debate on the age old subject of religion Vs science, offers an insight in to the parallels between the grand houses of God in Rome (beautifully shot by the way) and the temple of modern science that is CERN's large hadron collider facility.
Hanks is Hanks pretending to be the smart guy and he fits the role much better second time around than his wooden performance in Da-Vinci. good support is offered by a rock solid cast, with a particular highlight being Armin Mueller-Stahl's stoic Cardinal. but the films main saving grace is it's pace. for the entire running time I was totally engrossed in the story and the film never really gave me time to sit and pick apart its faults in logic.
My only serious criticism is that some of the science depicted is at best debatable regards real world authenticity. But that is not the fault of the film makers, rather an observation of the old adage that you should never let the truth get in the way of a good story..
Speaking of which the story is a cracker, mixing adventure and a race against time with a good sprinkling of intelligence and a nice twist or two along the way.
overall I would highly recommend this to fans of either of the national treasure movies (which this clearly mimics but with a much more serious vibe) and fans of ripping adventure tales in general.
\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\nFirst i gotta say that this film is way less pretentious than The Da Vinci Code. sure, you have the religion vs science problem but it doesn't try to make a big statement about it. its basically an action thriller that moves from one scene to another very well. one scene particularly (that involves fire) i found extremely well done.
Second, the changes from book to film. although when i was following the development of the film i complained about the change of some characters and the complete removal of others, i gotta admit i was wrong. it was refreshing that the film didn't follow the book in exactly the same way like it was done in Da Vinci. if you are a purist of the book some of them may upset you though. However the BIG TWIST is still there so don't worry about that. finally i'm glad they removed some silly sub-plots and didn't even try to hint at the possibility of Langdon and Vittoria getting together.
The performances are really good, but nothing out of the ordinary. that's okay for a film like this.
i'd give it a 9/10, mainly because it delivers what it promises, entertainment, pure entertainment
\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 recently got the movie and all I can say it is a good movie. There's a lot of famous Rome monuments and historical locations.It is from the same writer and director from The Da Vinci Code. Tom Hanks stars along with Ewan McGregor and Ayelet Zurer. The movie starts out with the space and time experiment in Sweden until one of the canisters is stolen by the church's most hated enemy the Illuminati. The plot is hard to discuss about without spoiling anything. Its a race all of Rome following the Illuminati trail to get to the Illuminati secret meeting place. While racing against time to find the path of the Illuminati. Over all its a movie worth seeing hell I watched it 3 times and I still like it so in the end go buy it. It is a lot better than the movie 2010. And the ending has one awesome plot twist.
\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\nAs is the case with many films of this ilk, my non Catholicism got in the way of my understanding it. The church has this mass of rules which have been put together over centuries. We have a short time to learn them and have to accept them at face value. Then, throw in some bad guys getting revenge for a long distant act against them, working under these rules and attempting to circumvent them, and you have this book and movie. I found myself thinking, \"That's pretty cool. Why did they do that?\" There's this casual thing in the Robert Langdon character where no matter what the issue, he seems to always make the right first move. I suppose it's like watching CSI where they solve incredibly complex cases in a matter of days. They know the lay of the land. In this film, there is so much land and so little time to really understand everything that is going on. But if you create Robert Langdon, you need to set him to work. That's OK because heroic nerds like him have been saving the day forever. I thought the film was fun. I thought the Da Vinci Code was fun too. Interesting and not as bad as people seemed to think. This is a marvel to look at and never stops for a second.
\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 low budget stop motion monster movie from Brett (A Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell) Piper... and it delivers just what I'd expect from such a production: light-hearted (though cheesy) dialogue, some cute actresses and lots of stop motion critters. That's why I've given the film 10 out of 10 - because it delivers what I expected it to deliver... and a bit more: Brett doesn't penny-pinch when it comes to putting his critters on screen. He hurls lots of bugs at his cast for the finale. And, anyway, I LOVE stop motion monsters which, compared to CGI critters in bigger budgeted movies, just seem to be that much fun to watch.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOK, I am a sucker. I loved it. I had no expectations and had them all fulfilled. It was a terrible movie. I loved it. I have managed to wear out a DVD from over use. No one can understand my obsession. I can't either, to tell the truth. For those who have seen the movie this will come as no surprise, but I asked the clerk at the video store if I could buy a copy and I could because there were two in stock and only one had been check out and over half of the time it had been to me.
Now, the movie is terrible. The special effects are terrible. The acting is terrible, but I loved it. The actors are silly, the plot silly, the goofs numerous--like being able to see through the monsters, The \"arachnids\" looked like they were made out of plastic garbage bags (maybe they were), There was light underground, TNT wasn't deafening, etc...
You must really love B-Movies to get any enjoyment out of this...alcohol helps enormously for others.
\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 defense of this movie I must repeat what I had stated previously. The movie is called Arachina, it has a no name cast and I do not mean no name as in actors who play in little seen art house films. I mean no name as in your local high school decided to make a film no name and it might have a 2 dollar budget. So what does one expect? Hitchcock?
I felt the movie never took itself seriously which automatically takes it out of the worst movie list. That list is only for big budget all star cast movies that takes itself way too seriously. THe movie The Oscar comes to mind, most of Sylvester Stallone's movies. THe two leads were not Hepburn and Tracy but they did their jobs well enough for this movie. The woman kicked butt and the guy was not a blithering idiot. The actor who played the old man was actually very good. The man who played anal retentive professor was no Clifton Webb but he did a god job. And the Bimbo's for lack of a better were played by two competent actors. I laughed at the 50 cent special effects. But that was part of the charm of the movie. It played like a hybrid Tremors meets Night of the Living Dead. The premise of the movie is just like all Giant Bug movies of the 50's. A Meteor or radiation stir up the ecosystem and before you know it we have Giant Ants, Lobsters, rocks or Lizards terrorizing the locals. A meteor was the cause of the problems this time. I was was very entertained. I didn't expect much and I go a lot more then I bargained for.
\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 bought this DVD from Walmart for cheap, thinking it would be a typical, crap straight-to-video monster junk, but it turned out much better than expected. There isn't really any criticism to say about it... it's obviously low budget, but that just adds to the cheesy old fashioned fun. It's very cool and entertaining.
There's everything: horror, sex, a great plane crash and good characters. And I'd say it's pretty original, cuz it really doesn't come off as any other movie I've seen. It has it's own unique look, which I liked very much, that's why this film deserves credit. I look forward to seeing more of these awesome movies from \"The Scare Master\", Brett Piper, whom I've never heard before this one.
The DVD menu is really creative with groovy music playing over it, so it's perfect just to keep it on when you're not yet ready to sit down and watch it. It also includes some special features, which are really interesting. But we never get to see the director or hear him in the commentary, must be shy. This comes out of Edgewood Studios in Vermont, USA. I highly recommend it to all horror buffs, you'll love 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\nBrett Piper again makes a very good film that is trashed by the so called film \"experts.\" it is low budget, but fun, and the leading lady is very sexy. I wish i could see more of Irene Joseph. Good viewing fun. I bought the DVD and enjoyed it. The special effects are stop motion animation, and much better than the computer generated crap they call effects today. I always enjoy Brett Piper movies, and if you liked this I recommend Bite Me, Screaming Dead and anything else he has done. I look forward to seeing more of his work and well as more of Ms. Joseph. I simply cannot see why this woman hasn't been in more movies, as her acting is excellent.
\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\nThomas Mann's controversial novel is the basis for the film \"A Death in Venice. \" Although in the book, the hero is an author, in the film the director Luchino Visconti who also wrote the screenplay, transforms him into a Composer. As such, the Author/Composer, Gustav Von Aschebach (Dirk Bogarde) on the verge of mental exhaustion is a burned-out artisan. After a long and successful career now seeks the peace and tranquility of a less hectic life. He decides to go on vacation to Venice where he hopes to rejuvenate his dwindling ambition. However, while staying at the picturesque seaside resort, he captures the attention of a beautiful young teenage boy, Tadzio (Björn Andrésen) who eyes him with curious interest and is immediately smitten by him. Although Gustav is captivated by the wondrous youth, he nevertheless must find some private time away from the boy's governess (Nora Ricci), while having to cope with a invading plague which seems to have infested the city. The movie dialog, like the novel remains subtle as are the few brief encounters between the boy and the artist. In the end. the audience unlike the book is hampered with innuendos and imaginative flights of fancy. Their affair is never given wing, substance or opportunity and were it not for the brief resolution in the book, the film allows only the possibility of 'what if.' Nevertheless, one can sympathize with the hero and wish him a moment's peace to obtain that which is forbidden, elusive but definitely criticized by prying eyes. Great story and a Bogarde Classic. ****
\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\nAre sea side resorts the sad, dreary places they're always depicted as in movies and novels? Certainly this movie, along with the near-contemporary \"Don't Look Now\" depicts Venice as a particularly squalid and decadent tourist trap (for a more light-hearted approach, see \"Just Married\" with Ashton Kutcher and Brittany Murphy). Having never been to Venice I can't say for sure, but it does make a perfect setting for this somber but sumptuous spectacle from Luchino Visconti, one of the great stylists of world cinema. Having seen the movie I now wish I had gotten around to reading the Thomas Mann novella it's based on (which also inspired an opera by Sir Benjamin Britten). Since I don't know the back story and the movie has little in the way of plot or exposition, I'm left wondering about Aschenbach (Dirk Bogarde)'s obsession with young Tadzio. Is he a homosexual? A pedophile? Or is his longing for the beautiful youth something more innocent? Perhaps Tadzio reminds him of what he could have been and now knows he never will be. Those who complain of the slow pace of this movie should stick to car crashes and kung-fu: at 2 hours and 15 minutes it's not particularly long, and it moves at a leisurely but hardly sluggish pace. The film benefits from the ravishing music of Gustave Mahler, on whom Aschenbach's character is clearly based. Dirk Bogarde gives a moving performance, and the movie is graced by the presence of Silvana Mangano, one of Italy's great beauties, as Tadzio's mother.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"