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\nWhat can you say about a short little film filled with secondary actors and no \"stars\", with absolutely no bad performances, not one poorly delivered line of dialog, and with the cold violence on one hand being balanced by the warm \"heart\" of the protagonists in the story?
It's a jewel, a diamond, a little valuable gem of a western that evokes the spirit and legend of the American West. A West not settled by grand heroes like Hickock or Cody or Masterson or Earp, but by the spread of the everyday man and woman, farmers and ranch hands, merchants and miners and lumbermen, whores and barkeeps, and entertainers of the day, some looking for riches, some for peace and quiet, some for religious freedom.
It is, perhaps, a very spiritual story, though not promoting any particular religion, for even the non-Mormon cowboys portrayed by Ben Johnson and Harry Carey Jr. act in kind and noble ways toward everybody in the story, regardless of religious affiliation and beliefs, and go out of their way to promote tolerance and charity when the wagon train comes upon the stranded medicine show people. And in true biblical fashion, like David and Goliath or Samson and the Philistines, they are the guardian angels sent to the wagon train who eventually have to go head to head with the evil incarnate Clegg clan, likening them to the serpent in the Garden of Eden, and regretting what it is they have to do afterward. It's a sweet folkloric tale of the West that hits every target John Ford takes aim at.
Nowadays I have a western Santa Claus whose red outfit is covered with a denim drover coat, whose red stocking cap is replaced by a brown Stetson, who carries a burlap bag of presents and a coil of rope. To my Santa I added a Winchester rifle with a sling to put on one of his shoulders and a Colt revolver to tuck into his waistband. When people at the office ask why my Santa has to carry guns, I simply reply, \"Snakes!\" After all, isn't the spirit of the Christmas season one where everybody should get what they deserve?
Fifty five years later, especially post-911, the philosophies and attributes demonstrated by the characters and story of this movie are still as relevant today as they were back then.
\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 performances by the male leads make this long-hard-journey west interesting throughout. The soundtrack by the Sons of The Pioneers is one of the most beautiful I have every heard. The journey itself is somewhat episodic, and Joanne Dru is badly miscast. Overall, this is a very heartwarming and heartfelt western.
\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 year 1950 saw two very different and interesting westerns: 'The Gunfighter' by Henry King, and 'Wagon Master' by John Ford. 'The Gunfighter' was historically notable as it clearly influenced Zimmerman's 'High Noon' (1951) and later revisionist westerns.
However, I personally find 'Wagon Master' superior to it's contemporary counterpart. Ford's minor masterpiece isn't much about storytelling; it should be conceived more as a poem describing conceptions of old west. Although optimistic and warm at heart, we are deserved from naivety because it's completely free from pretentious underscoring. Frontier scenery is well used as it supports the poetic narrative perfectly. Add naturalistic camera work and we are transported among the mormon travellers to witness western folklore told in cinematic means.
\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\nGeorge Cukor is and always will be one of my favorites. The unsung hero of his generation. Nobody mentions Cukor in the same breath as John Ford, Howard Hawks, William Wyler or Billy Wilder and yet, look at his filmography. From sparkling comedies \"The Philadelphia Story\" \"Adam's Rib\" \"Holiday\" Psycho melodramas \"Gaslight\" \"A Double Life\" a great semi western \"Heller in Pink Tights\" not to mention \"My Fair Lady\" or \"Travels with my Aunt\" He was at the service of his actors, he never put himself in front of the camera. I feel a certain tenderness watching \"Rich and Famous\" flashes of the old master still very much in evidence. Candice Bergen gives us for the first time in her career glimpses of the wonderful comedian she was about to become. Jacqueline Bisset is a throwback to the days of Greer Garson and Loretta Young and Hart Bochner steps in, teasing us, promising something spectacular that will eventually materialize in 1989 with \"Apartment Zero\", Meg Ryan, as Bergen's daughter is already Meg Ryan. As tired as the formula is, it remains a Cukor film and for what I gather one of Almodovar's favorite movies.
\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\nGeorge Cuckor, known as a director of women, couldn't have hoped for two more talented and beautiful women for his last film. Itself a remake of Bette Davis' campy \"Old Acquaintance\" written by John Van Druten, this film is definitely dated, but still delightful.
Bergen and Bisset sparkle as best friends who compete at everything, but manage to remain friends. Liz Hamilton (Bisset) is a \"serious\" writer, intellectual, and elegant. She meets her lifelong best friend Merry Noel at an exclusive girls school and they begin a lifetime of not always friendly competition. Later in their lives, when Liz is a \"promising\" but blocked writer of serious fiction, Merry decides to try her hand at writing, which infuriates her pal because of Merry's casual approach to the craft she herself takes perhaps a little too seriously.
Much to Liz's chagrin, Merry's trashy novels hit pay dirt, and ultimately, her old friend Liz is judging her novel for the National Book Award. Bergen steals the show as the haughty writer of steamy bestsellers who schemes to bring together the broken pieces of her life in conjunction with her final literary triumph, but alas, things are never that simple.
The supporting cast includes David Selby, whom you might remember as the tragic Quentin Collins from Dark Shadows, Hart Bochner and, of course, a deliciously young and mercurial Meg Ryan in her first film role since leaving the soaps.
Rich and Famous is catty, campy, witty and wise. It culminates in a New Years fiasco that stresses the enduring nature of true friendship, and I never let a year go by without watching it on New Years Eve. Watch it and you'll see why.
\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 finally received my DVD today, viewed it and I'm pleased to announce this is the original theatrical version of the film. As you may have read in previous reviews of \"Rich and Famous\" that the edited for TV version of the film that somehow made it onto VHS sometime in the late 90's but, now WB has corrected the error and released it on DVD complete with the airplane restroom scene, Matt Lattanzi's bare butt, and the scene in the Hotel room where Liz (Jacqueline Bisset) calls Merry (Candice Bergen) a C**t! It's all there and looks better than ever! A crisp clear digital transfer, widescreen, and special features that include original theatrical trailer and a vintage 1981 featurette called \"On Location with Rich and Famous\" with cast and director interviews. If you love this film as I do you won't be disappointed with purchasing this DVD. Glad to finally have this on DVD Well worth the wait! Thank you Warner Bros!
\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 loved this film because of the dialog and superb acting by Candace and Jacqueline. However, I never knew until now, watching a Bette David marathon on TNT that this film is a remake of a 1943 Bette Davis classic called Old Acquaintance. Bette co-stars with Miriam Hopkins who she was in a terrible feud with during the making of the movie because Bette had had an affair with Miriam's husband who directed her in a film before they made Old Acquaintance.
Anyway, both are worth every minute spent watching. I highly recommend this film if you like a lot of dialog and drama. It's a study in the psychology of women and their relationships with each other, in my opinion.
\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\nRecently I saw this movie again (after 25 years). In the original there is a scene in the bathroom of an airplane during the landing between Jacqueline Bisset's character and Michael Brandon's character. The rented version did not have this scene in it. Did I imagine this?
Or, is this part of the \"clean up\" of movies where some are altered to exclude portions some people think are not \"appropriate\"?
I love this movie -- it is exactly like the friendship between a friend and I and we've been friends for 25 years and saw it together. Her husband thought it was us as well.
Thank you, Joan
\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\nGosh, I am learning pretty fast that sometimes when you see a film as a youngster and then again 20 years later you gain a different view -- primarily because in 20 years you learn more. For example, I had no idea who George Cukor was - how great of a director he was and how much of that made this film fly. All I can say is..I really liked this film for it touched on an area that paralleled my life: lifelong friendship between two women. Can that EVER exist? Well, in certain doses, yes...and this film let out in a bit on ... \"how\".
Being a youngster with not a lot of life experience at the first time I saw this so I focused more on the \"rich\" and \"famous\" part between the two. At the time, I had no idea there was a difference and what would happen to two women who discovered there was...and how that would effect their friendship. Through their men, their career, the decades that defined them. And coming to realize one thing remained stronger than anything else...their friendship and knowing each other more than anyone else could have.
Then I got older, studied film a bit... and watched this film again with my best friend from High School. We do understand the 'rich' and 'famous' angle ... and we are still the best of friends...but this film is not a cinematic masterpiece...it can be seen as a bit campy at times...a little over the top at points (kinda on a 'Dynasty' and 'Dallas' level to me..) and honestly I can identify with the \"teddy bear\" scene for we do share a bear that means a lot more than a stuffed fun toy through our trials and tribulations with men/careers, et al..so its not as over the top as it seems....! As many already said, seeing Meg Ryan and Matt Latanzzi and Dack Rambo and David Selby are great in this 1981 piece. this is a nice \"chick\" flick!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBoth Jackie and Candice are terrific in this movie. They are well-suited to their roles and have several chances to shine. In particular, the way Candice pronounces the words \"Puerto Rican\" is very funny, as she is being kind as she can be but condescending at the same time. I had seen the original of this movie, called \"Old Acquaintance\", starring Bette Davis and Miriam Hopkins. They allegedly did not get along, so because the movie is about female friendship, that might have been a problem. Here, the actresses clearly admire and respect each other. Hart Bochner and Meg Ryan have supporting parts and are both excellent, in particular Bochner, who never got many decent parts in movies, as far as I am concerned. George Cukor did not make another movie after this, so this was a good one to go out on.
\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 Ghost Walks is a nifty little mystery with a great twist, snappy dialog, and best of all a pansy played to the twittery hilt by character actor Johnny Arthur which never demeans or denigrates his character. Mr. Arthur is great in his role of Homer Erskine bringing great comic relief as the secretary of the Broadway producer Herman Wood, played by another great character actor Richard Carle.
They play off of each other superbly.
Although the acceptable words of the time sissy and cream puff are used to describe the character of Homer, it is never mean spirited or meant as denigration, and are not spoken by the manly males of the film but by his employer, who fires and rehires him every other scene and who displays an almost exasperated affection for his devoted employee.
There is a great scene where Homer tells his boss that he has devoted the best years of his life to him and has been everything but a mother to him.
The mystery angle of the film is very entertaining, and the twist at the end might just leave you in stitches.
For a low budget poverty row picture, this film has superb set decoration and great costuming.
Director Frank Strayer ably handles his cast and this film holds together much better than some of his other low budget mystery attempts, but he had a great script to work with and some wonderful actors to carry it through.
This film is a must see for devotees of poverty row films, old dark house mysteries (they actually managed to work in the lines \"It was a dark and stormy night)and it has the added bonus of being an early representation of a gay character in film where nothing bad happens to them in the end.
This movie is available for download in the public domain film section of the Internet Archive at archive.org.
\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\nOn their way to a country house to hear a new play being read a theatrical producer, his secretary, and the playwright end up stuck in the mud. They make their way to a nearby house, only to end up at the home of the playwright's fiance. If you can't guess that murder and mayhem are about to take place then you haven't been paying attention.
This is a a good entry in the old dark house genre. Not only does it have a good mystery, you also have some very funny one liners wandering through it. The cast is across the board excellent and they're more than willing to have a good time with what is good material.
I would love to say that this is one of the best of the genre, it should have been, but for me something happened on the way that made me down grade the rating to only seven out of ten. I can't tell you what it is, not for certain anyway. Perhaps its the sense that I knew where it was going almost from the outset, or perhaps its something else, I'm not sure what, but there was something that I couldn't shake that made me like this film despite wanting to love it. It just missed being great and somehow fell short.
That said I DO SUGGEST YOU SEE IT. It is after all a very witty film, that entertains fully, despite just missing being 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\nI have this movie on a collection of inexpensive B-movies. It's not restored, in fact, the audio was difficult to discern for the first few minutes.
At first, it seemed like a typical haunted house film, and feels very much like the forerunner of Clue, Murder by Death, House on Haunted Hill, etc.
About a half hour into the film, the storyline takes a really interesting twist--and it goes from being a cliché melodrama to something entirely different, and far more entertaining than I had initially thought.
Check it out, it's a great deal of fun, even if the long clips and wider shots (and near lack of music score) make it feel a bit creaky by today's standards.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe film begins with a cranky old Broadway producer (exceptionally well-played by veteran character actor Richard Carle) being driven by a man hoping to sell him a story for an upcoming play. However, there is a bad storm and their car becomes stuck in the mud and so they are forced to look for some place to spend the night. Fortunately, there's a mansion nearby though it seems pretty odd that the people inside know the writer and he says he didn't realize this was the home of a man he knew (and despised). However, while this seems like bad and contrived writing, it is not....as this is all part of an elaborate ruse by the writer to have a group of actors in the home act out his plot. However, part-way through the ruse, the producer and his browbeaten assistant figure out that the murder mystery taking place in the home is fake and think the whole affair is pretty funny. What no one realizes, though, is that an escaped maniac is loose and he is about to enter this contrived little plot--making for some wonderful twists and turns. So when it seems that there is a real murder, the actors are truly terrified while Carle and his sidekick are convinced it's all a hoax. While I have explained some of the plot, there are many more aspects of the film you'll just have to figure out yourself--and it's surely to keep you entertained and guessing.
Considering that this is a B-movie in the public domain, I certainly did NOT have very high hopes for this little film. However, I was thrilled when the film turned out to be a much better than average flick--with a very interesting and novel twist on the old clichéd plot about a dark and stormy night spent in a mansion. Plus, while the plotting of the film was very good, the dialog was even better--with lots of sparkling wit and a nice light-hearted pace. Full of pleasant surprises and well worth your 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\nThere is a need for this kind of entertainment in our modern world. You can watch \"Ma and Pa\" with adults, with your family (kids any age or just by yourself like me. They are gentle, but gentle is so refreshing in a society of kids killing kids, a horrible war, inappropriate prime time television and poverty. We don't even get a hint of where all of those children came from! Give me modern plumbing and I'll gladly become a Kettle. Humor does NOT require offensive language. It is hard to follow conversations in shows where every other word is bleeped. Relax, take your shoes off, and climb in your recliner with a good old-fashioned glass of lemonade, and just breathe easy watching Ma sweeping the chickens off the table at lunch time! Pj
\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 Further Adventures of Ma and Pa Kettle almost seamlessly picks up where The Egg and I left off. For the first solo adventure of the Kettles a new writing team and director is introduced. Leonard Goldstein, associate producer of The Egg and I, was producer of The Further Adventures of Ma and Pa Kettle. With many of the characters played by the same actors and actresses the focus from the MacDonalds to the Kettles works very well. There is a reference to Ma beating Birdie Hicks for first prize at the fair for her quilt, an import scene in The Egg and I. The prize money from the quilt contest was to be used to send Tom Kettle to college. In this movie Tom is returning home as a college graduate.
There are two plots intertwined in this movie. One is the comedy of the simple mountain family moving into a state of the art modern house. The other is a light morality play on how environment affects children as they grow up.
Pa Kettle (Percy Kilbride) wanted a free tobacco pouch for entering a contest, and ended up winning a house. His disappointment at not getting the free tobacco pouch is played for laughs quite a bit. When Pa plays with dynamite he is totally oblivious to the explosion. Kilbride never flinched in the scene as the debris from the explosion fell around him. He played the part to perfection. In his autobiography, Jack Benny mentioned how impressed he was with Percy Kilbride's deadpan delivery. Kilbride took that comedic device to a high level of perfection.
Ma (Marjorie Main) and Pa move into the new house with modern conveniences that confuse Ma and Pa almost as much as they help them. Ma adapts far more quickly than Pa. Included with the modern conveniences is a television, a very new household item in 1949. Moving walls, hidden beds, and plumbing fixtures are used as comic props, but the attention is on Ma and Pa, never the props themselves.
Tom Kettle (Richard Long) meets Kim Parker (Meg Randall), a magazine writer who feels that hygiene and environment are essential for children to realize success as adults. Tom is a bright, self-made man who contradicts the theory that success can only come from a pristine environment. This subject is briefly discussed in a couple of scenes, but left to subside. It was also the only serious discussion in this otherwise whimsical movie.
Seeing the Kettles moving out of their run-down old house to move to a new house would almost be a disaster if it were not for the characters staying true to themselves. Ma was the practical one, just as she had been in the The Egg and I. Pa was the fish out of water that provided the best comedy. He never felt at home in the new house, but the actual location of a comfortable bed would never be of concern to him.
\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 Ma & Pa Kettle characters were highly popular AND controversial. The films that featured their brood paved the way for television sitcoms that came after it and sought to emulate its winning formula. One obvious reference is 'The Beverly Hillbillies,' where the new home was bought with oil money, not having been won in a contest. You could even say the 1980s sitcom 'Newhart' borrows its idea of backwards rural characters from this series. Still, I wonder if Betty Macdonald, the Washington-based author who created these characters, didn't do more harm than good. Her portrayal of hillbilly characters makes them the butt of many jokes in terms of their alleged sloppiness and laziness. (The real life family that Macdonald based the Kettles upon, successfully sued...claiming they had been ridiculed and humiliated with these less-than-flattering references). Sure, it's comedy and the situations bring us a great many laughs and fun moments...and political correctness as we know it today did not exist in the 1940s and 1950s. But I think Macdonald could've still written these characters more sensibly and Universal International could've had its scriptwriters show them on screen with more dignity (there's such a thing as good taste). The more realistic moments are when the oldest son Tom is ashamed of his rural heritage but learns to accept his parents and siblings for who they are. For their part, the Kettles have to realize that they don't exactly fit into a modern world. That's not a joke...that's a sober truth.
\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 as the first of the Ma and Pa Kettle flicks. Marjorie Main (Ma) steals the show in anything she does. Funny to see Ida Moore as Emily, the daffy old lady on the train.. god she was ALWAYS old; she was in \"Desk Set\" and \"Alfred Hitchcock Presents\". Their new house is also a co-star here -- its the house of the future with some really cool inventions that Pa doesn't care for. LOVE the painting gag. Keep an eye out for TOM... he starred in \"Nanny & the Professor\". Unfortunately he died real young... oddly enough, his last role was on the series \"Death Cruise\". weird. Directed by Charles Lamont, who not only directed several of the Kettle films, he also did a bunch of the Abbott and Costello flicks, so he must have known a thing or two about comedy. Fun story, plain, simple humor. Even the release date was April Fool's day, 1949. The story starts out by showing us what backward and country-folk they are (the neighbors are even Native Americans), but as the story progresses, we have sympathy and respect for them.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOne of the most entertaining of all silent comedies is Pudovkin's short 'Chess Fever', a mad tale of how a rigorously intellectual board game could disrupt even the most carefully planned central economies. Such an unpromising comedic subject as chess found an earlier outlet in this delightful short. Two young men play the game earnestly against an artificial background, a painted set. This is in contrast to earlier Lumiere shorts such as 'L'Arrosseur Arrosse' or 'Repas du bebe', wherein the human activity was deliberately framed by a natural setting. The difference in activities (natural=feeding baby, watering garden; artificial=chess) is possibly significant.
The main contrast in this film is between this immoveable background and the placid, serene game of chess, and the fierce passions this latter causes, as accusations of cheating lead to a most undignified melee. The intellectual game becomes a gross physical scrap, just as the pretensions of arty filmmakers are forever deflated by the 'cruder' demands of audiences.
What is most amusing about the film is not neccessarily this descent into slapstick, but the way it is filmed, its prolonging long after the initial joke has been made; the way the camera refuses to dignify the fight with anything like attention, focusing instead on the set, while we catch glimpses of hurling feet and dislodged clothing. The film's refusal to edit is audacious, so that the humour seems to arise from something else other than the fight, reflecting our need for physical contact over intellectual stimulation, our unwillngness to let go.
What is especially brilliant is the denouement, as these upper-class fops are caught by the valet, who picks them up like two errant schoolboys, as if he is about to box their ears. If masters can't be expected to keep their place with decorum, than somebody's going to have to do it for them.
\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\nFamed filmmaker Werner Herzog's \"Fata Morgana\" is breathtakingly unorthodox. Although characters appear in the film from time to time, there is no actual story. The film is also not an educational or historical documentary. It's a film without an accompanying screenplay.
The film consists of curious background music and a somewhat illogical narrative VO, the combination of which overlays a long string of images from mostly, though not exclusively, the Sahara Desert. Some of the images are wonderfully odd, and out of the ordinary. The camera captures ghostly images, or mirages, optical illusions that tantalize and mesmerize.
This general cinematic trend is punctuated by occasional observational asides on serendipitous topics. For example, in one sequence a man wearing goggles gives us a mini-tutorial on lizards. And in what for me was the most captivating and bizarre sequence, a small inset room contains a man with dark goggles who sings in a voice that is totally distorted by the microphone he's using, accompanied by an old lady who plays a punchy tune on an old piano. Neither the man nor the old lady seems to enjoy what they're doing. How baroque.
\"Fata Morgana\" does have an underlying concept, one that unites the wide assortment of strange images and eclectic sounds. But that concept is so subtle, so opaque that you'll never figure it out without help. From this subtle theme the film does indeed make sense. Without that point of reference, however, the film can seem tedious and unending, a pointless parade of random earthy images and esoteric narrative gibberish.
Unapologetically redundant, thematically baffling, and cinematically heretical, \"Fata Morgana\" will likely either make you swoon with delight, or cause you to throw up. You'll either latch on to the film's Zen-like qualities or be tempted to smash the DVD into a thousand pieces. One thing that most viewers will agree on: \"Fata Morgana\" is ... different.
\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\nSuccessful films on metaphysical subjects are rare, but Fata Morgana is a good case. You can chalk up the large subject to the ambitions of youth, but Herzog does an amazingly good job. The movie's point is to show human beings, and even the world, from a non-human point of view.
The movie is in three parts: Creation, Paradise, and The Golden Age. The imagery of each is in counterpoint to the voice-over. Although the text of `The Creation' (from the Popol Vuh, a Mayan myth) refers to the primordial wasteland, the scene goes no further in illustrating the myth. It dwells on the waste, and on various specimens of destruction (fire, smoke, wrecked vehicles). The images from `Paradise' are anything but that, and `The Golden Age' is darkly comic  the highest culture is the strange roadside musical act.
The Popol Vuh suggests that mankind is the central object of creation, but the movie does everything it can to undo this notion. Its mythological framework has no referent in human historical time. There are no human characters to speak of. When a boy stands with a dog in an extended shot, the initial suggestion is of the boy's point of view; by the end it is much more the dog's. Likewise the lizard is a stronger character than the human who introduces it, and the turtle's partner barely looks human with his big flippers.
Animal stories and nature documentaries always anthropomorphize, but Fata Morgana has none of that. Certainly the dunes look like a female body, but the simile cuts both ways. Presumably only humans can distinguish easily between their creation and nature, and here airplanes and factories are presented alongside mountains, lakes, and waterfalls. People and civilization are all part of a broader natural landscape.
In 1979 Herzog put a new twist on the idea when he remade Nosferatu from the vampire's point of view.
\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\nYou will be able to tell within the first 30 seconds of this film whether you want to finish watching it. The film opens with images of planes landing at an airport, one plane after another diving into a mirage-filled runway. You will be able to accurately guess that this movie is not about a \"story.\" At first viewing, it's even easy to think the opening images are repetitive shots of the same plane. The initial drama is in the acuteness of your perception, which is built on your willingness to experience the film simply as a series of images. If after this opening, you want to see the movie, you will not be bored. You may even be mesmerized. The movie may be an emotional experience; it may be an intellectual experience; it may be both. Judging from the DVD commentary, which is essential, it was primarily an emotional experience for Herzog, and, at one point, he talks explicitly about how the film is a collaboration between filmmaker and viewer. There's plenty of room for the viewer to make of this film exactly what he or she wants to make of it. Take a gamble?
\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\nFata Morgana is an absolute masterpiece. It's Werner Herzog's most unconventional film. It doesn't have a plot or story. Instead of a story, we're given a collection of images, words and music that work so wonderfully together. It's not a documentary either. Some of the people in this film are directed and given lines to read. It has some of the most beautiful and haunting images. Herzog shoots real mirages and we see cars and people floating around in the middle of the desert who aren't actually there but hundreds of miles away reflected like in a mirror. The use of music in this movie is so brilliant - from Leonard Cohen, Mozart, and the Third Ear Band. Imagine Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey in the desert; that's what this movie is like. This film is so hypnotic that it has the ability to make you feel as though your spirit has left your body. A must see. It will change the way you view films. Rating: 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\nFata Morgana is, by far, one of the weirdest and most perplexing art films I have ever seen. I hesitate to call it a documentary because, while is does have elements of documentation of it's images, the images themselves are so unusual, so hallucinogenic, so unclear, that I wonder whether it was really worth telling this story just so that these images can exist. The film basically is the tale of the earth and the creation of the earth shot from the perspective of an outsider, be it alien or something otherwise indescribable, all taking place in the Sahara desert. The title of the picture relates to the illusion or reflection of images, both real and hallucinated, that people in the desert often witness. These are also known as mirages.
The film opens with a plane landing followed by the plane landing again and then again and again and again and again and again and again. With each plane landing shot, the actual architecture of both the location it is landing at and the plane itself begin to slowly dissolve into one another and grow less and less real and more and more reflective imagery. The imagery in this film only grows more intense and more unusual as the picture continues. The narration of the film tells of the creation of the universe as alarming sexual images of sand and landscape move past the camera. The shots go further and further into the desert and Herzog films whatever he sees and finds. The strangest reflections of the world are on display in the distance while Herzog meets some of the most pure and photogenic collections of outsiders that you are ever likely to see. When the Leonard Cohen soundtrack kicks in, you can be sure that you are in the world of a mad man who is in love with the universe.
I cannot say too much more about this film without ruining anything, but I will say that it is a sobering experience and there's really nothing like it. I love seeing films that are just in classes of their own. This film certainly is a good example of how Herzog loves to intermingle narrative storytelling and documentary film-making into an interchangeable form. Fata Morgana unfortunately does overstay it's welcome just a bit, but by the time it nears it's end the images will most likely be burned into your mind forever. Definitely a must-see for those who are obsessed with the nature and the origin of the universe.
\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 one other IMDb reviewer puts it, \"...imagine 2001: A Space Odyssey in the desert\" and you wouldn't be far off from a brief summarisation of what to expect from this piece of cinema (I deeply hesitate to use the word \"film\"). A lecture on philosophical views on creationism, the mythos surrounding humanities existence, the before and after, that was has been, the what is and the what will be. This for some maybe a \"2001\" on sand, but they tackle different philosophical viewpoints, one about evolution and the future, the hope and potential for mankind, while Fata Morgana itself is a somewhat more metaphysical trek. I only hope I can convey it effectively enough.
Herzogs style will not to be everyones liking, and those who are not of a perceived hardcore branch of cinematic viewing may, and most likely will, find this extremely hard going, and may not even see it through to its finale after 72 minutes. Fusing together a montage of footage from the Sahara, including villages, villagers and various other places for a somewhat surrealist ending, music of various genres and an almost mythical narration, Fata Morgana is severely slow paced but ultimately hugely rewarding.
Opening with a montage of various filmed shots of planes landing for nigh on five minutes, you already arrival at the introduction of the film immensely confused, and the sense that this will not be like anything you have seen before echoes clear in your mind. Divided into three sections, creation, paradise and the golden age, Fata Morgana attempts, and succeeds, in being able to juxtapose images of the natural beauty of the desert with the man made instruments that taint it. Its three segments are narrated by different persons each pertaining specifically to the particular section they are voicing and provide extra emphasis on the long soliloquy's and desert montages.
Fata Morgana is a film dealing with the existence of man on our Earth. It looks at the natural beauty the Earth was designed for, and concurrently looking at the potential beauty we have within us, more notably shows us our negative contributions to the world in which we live. Each shot has been purposefully constructed, using what can only be described within the context of this film as 'The Holy Trinity Of Filming' in pictures, words and music. Each part of these three pieces provides something notably to each shot, but when brought together they create something greater than the whole of their parts, they create unbridled beauty and deep thought within our minds. I will not be able to do this film the justice it deserves with mere words alone, perhaps if I had pictures and a score, and I do know this will not be appreciated by the masses, but this a profound and I will not use the term \"art film\" because this is simply just art. This is moving art which moves the mind and stirs the soul. Whether or not creationism is your want is irrelevant, because this film is about intelligent design.
\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\nAfter I've seen this movie I find it hard to understand why so many people seem to hate this movie. I'm not saying it belongs in the top 250 of all times, but in it's genre it is a great movie. I know, not many people find it amusing to see how a legendary story like 'Robin Hood' is turned into a comedy. Many people still seem to believe that some things shouldn't be laughed with ... they are wrong.
Mel Brooks has done an excellent job with Robin Hood: Men in Tights. I have seen the original Robin Hood movies as well, but I never had such a good time when watching them as I had with this one. It's just one continuation of hilarious moments and parodies on famous people and movies (Winston Churchil, The Godfather...).
I recommend everyone who wants to have a good laugh to watch this movie. To those who think Robin Hood shouldn't be messed with, you're wrong, but you better don't watch it because you'll probably be offended by it. I give this movie an 8/10.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a funny film and I like it a lot. Cary Elwes plays Robin Hood to a tee. This is, of course, the usual good vs evil with Robin against the evil Sheriff of Nottingham. The humor is sort of in your face stuff for the most part, but still works well. A comedy for a night when you don't want to have to think much, it's well worth a rent!
\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 definitely one of the better Mel Brooks movies, along with Spaceballs(although I will openly admit to not having watched many others, at least yet). It's very silly and thoroughly funny, there are hardly more than a few minutes throughout the entire two hour run-time, where you aren't entertained. Almost all of the gags have a great comical effect, few of them fall flat. I saw this movie right after seeing and reviewing Spy Hard, and comparing these two spoof movies, I realize exactly of how high quality this movie really is. It's funny from start to finish, none of the comedy is overdone or boring. The music is marvelous, as is the choreography of both dancing and fighting. The acting is pretty much what you would normally expect from this type of movie... Elwes is a great comedian, and makes a good Robin. The plot is typical Robin Hood, more or less everything from the legend is fit into this movie(and spoofed majorly). If you like Mel Brooks, or you're just a fan of silly humor, or you're just dying to watch a good parody of the legend of Robin Hood, this is definitely the film for you. The HBO First Look special on the film is also worth watching, and in that, you may want to keep watching throughout the credits, too. I'd recommend it to any fan of Mel Brooks movies, and to people who enjoy silly humor. 7/10
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nCary Elwes have to say puts on a better performance then Costner did in RHPOT but anyhow.
Have to say this film it just makes me laugh so much mainly because the actors seem really into what their doing and you just sit there and thinking 'what the hell are they on' but in a very very very very good way.The random outbursts of songs were brilliant and well and the musical score used I really really liked.Great casting and as said before everyone seemed so into their roles
10/10 from me defiantly
'Because unlike some other Robin Hoods.I can speak with an English accent'
\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\nRobin Hood: Men in Tights (1993) was a much needed parody from Mel Brooks. He has the assignment of spoofing the Robin Hood legacy and the couple of movie dealing with the mythical honorable thief of English folklore. Cary Elwes stars as Robin Hood. He's looking for a few good men who'll join him in his quest to topple the evil sheriff of Nottingham (Roger Rees) and win the fair hand of Maid Marian. Robin also has to deal with Prince John (Richard Lewis).as well. Tracey Ullman co-stars as Prince John's personal witch Latrine who has her eyes on the Sheriff.
Will Robin find his merry men? How far will the Prince go to throw his weight around in the absence of his father? Why does the Sheriff hate Robin so much? To find out you'll have to watch ROBIN HOOD: MEN IN TIGHTS!! Check out the hilarious cameo by Dom De Luise who plays the Duke of Jersey.
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\nLike many a child born in the 1980's, I grew up on the Mel Brooks films that weren't necessarily the 'racier' ones like Blazing Saddles and History of the World part 1 (I saw those, of course, though not as frequently as now), but the ones meant for the \"whole family\", Spaceballs, and this film. I knew at the time I wasn't seeing great art, but just a campy, goofy, though always laugh-worthy take on Robin Hood and/or adventure movies. But calling it a family movie in quotes means that a) adults really can enjoy it as much as kids, if not more because of the little in-jokes and silly vulgarities, and b) once a kid sees it, when he revisits it, as I have a few times, it's still as fresh but with some things not quite understood the first time around. It's a comedy that is not only filled with jokes at Robin Hood movies and other movies (Godfather of course, as well as little mentions for other movies of modern times), but one that references Brooks's own movies as well; this is a filmmaker who isn't above poking fun at even his own style.
Basic story- Robin Hood (Cary Elwes in one of his best turns) returns home from the crusades to see things are in peril with King Richard gone, and so goes forth to reclaim his land and to, naturally, rob the rich to feed the poor. Along the way he meets Achoo (Dave Chappelle), butts heads with Prince John (Richard Lewis) and the Sheriff, and of course still pines for the love of Maid Marian. This, of course, is the usual clothesline for Brooks to let the comedy run off into the scenes, and while sometimes a joke may not work or might become stale on a repeat viewing, so much of it sticks that it's hard not to chuckle. It also helps that a couple of bits are some of the best in any Brooksfilm, such as the Godfather bit (Dom DeLouise at his very best), Brooks's own cameo as the Rabbbi, Lewis and Chappelle's acting turns, and an endless slew of quotable lines and a couple of tongue-in-cheek songs. Some of it is obvious, yes, some of it just takes right from the pages of Blazing Saddles, sure, but is it a good time for the right crowd? Definitely- and for parents who grew up on the 70's Brooks work, it is a fantastic way to introduce the young ones to his work through this (even the suggestive sex jokes and such are not R-rated, all in good fun).
\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\nRobin Hood; Men in Tights is worth watching, I recently watched it because I've just become a Cary Elwes fan, and this is one of of his lead-roles. Some moments really made me crack up so hard! I didn't expect them you know, it was so funny, Even the 2nd time around you'd still fall off your chair The cast is great, of course especially Robin of Locksley himself,Cary, but Blinkin and the Sheriff and Little John (Don't let the name fool you, it's veryy big! lol) and everyone else!
There were some moments of course, the film tried to make a comedic scene out of but you don't necessarily laugh at it,.... but OK.
This is the second time Cary Elwes and Patrick Stewart appeared in a film together by the way, they both worked on \"Lady Jane\" in 1986, and it was fun to see them, 7 years later, older, awwww.
It's definitely worth watching, quite hilarious 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\nI thought this film was amazing and I laughed so much that I had to see it twice to catch the bits I missed whilst bending over holding my stomach! The critic who reviewed this film for this site challenged anyone with an IQ over their shoe size to find this film funny, well my IQ is approx:135...I challenge this person to question me and then eat his own words! This film is brilliant and if the critic above wasn't such a boring idiot, he might smile for once in his life and take things as lightly as they're meant!!!
The musical numbers were so imaginative! EVERYONE when watching any film about that period of time will notice men in tights and realise how different it is to today's attire and how funny we would find today's male population if they wore tights day in day out! The idea of dedicating a song to butch men dancing in tights was so fresh how can anyone NOT laugh!!! (Plus also, seeing hip-hop rappers doing ballet is always hysterical-as a dancer also, I've done ballet and hip hop and danced with men who've had to do both....it still cracks me up each time!!!)
I love this film, if anyone hasn't seen it yet, don't listen to the critic above...watch it and then decide for yourself!!!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"