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\nIts very tough to portray a Tagore novel along cinematographic lines.And if you forget an obscure production of 1967 then its the first time that chokher bali has been done on a grand scale. Overall the sets looked fantastic with the right touches for making a successful period drama.Prasenjit,so used to doing crass commercial stuff made a good effort.I saw the Bengali version and found that Aishwariya's voice was dubbed,which made her dialog delivery a bit poor. While the director did a good job portraying each of the characters with finesse,yet there was very little in the way of meaningful plot,probably a lack of the story itself.However the development of the characters including those with minor roles seem to be the strongest point.Its tough to make some Tagore stories into films,as only the visual parts seem to get realized.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt seems a lot of Europeans and Americans see Indian movies for the wrong reason; I see some people are complaining that this movie did not have any dance sequence! A class apart from their Hindi counterparts, Bengali movies tend to be more realistic. Rituparno Ghosh is one of the best young directors in India, being widely known for his choice of subjects for the movies and the strength of his scripts. 'Chokher bali' is a perfect example. A faithful adaptation of the Nobel laureate Tagore's novel dealing with the pursuit of sexual pleasure of a Bengali widow, the director gives a new dimension to the much acclaimed and controversial work.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this movie at the Locarno Film Festival in Italian-speaking part of Switzerland.
Aishwarya Rai is good-looking.
I rate this movie 7/10 because of its nice moments.
* spoilers ahead *
It has some really nice cinematic moments in it, specially at the end.
Though my general feeling is this is too long (over 2 hours and 40 minutes) and containing too much dialogs. And nearly no dancing at all.
Clearly a Bollywood movie like Lagaan or Devdas is quite a different kind of movie compared with Chokher Bali.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen i watch this movie i too get excited when seen bed scenes of miss world. She has beautiful and charming body. When cute lady do bed scenes and show her fully nude body... i think male have hard to resist....i think its time for cute girls like hrishita bhatt also do nude scenes. At least no one wants to c nude body of ugly women like Seema biswas to c in bandit queen.I concur with what mallicka.b has said. The movie is portrayed in a way which appears to be a kind of vilification on the original content. Emotions aren't conveyed properly. I guess a couple of not-so-good performances also contributed to its mediocrity. In my view, Tabu would have been a much better choice for such a role instead of Aishwarya Rai. In some of her scenes, she looks a bit lusty, which is not ultimately what the movie should have portrayed. I also noticed a bit of over-acting in some of her scenes. I'm a bitter critic of Aishwarya Rai :) Can't help it; sorry for that. 'Raincoat' was a good movie by Rituparno Ghosh. And I saw Choker Bali after seeing Raincoat; I was not at all impressed
\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 more eloquent reviews than this have described the quite spectacular acting, casting and styling of this film. It appears that the only negative reviews focus on a perceived imbalance in the film's handling of the core moral question (euthanasia).
This film is, bar the final scenes, meticulous in stressing Ramon's belief that he's not making some grand point but merely that, for him, a life devoid of dignity is a life not worth living. We, as viewers, see an enormous amount of dignity in his life - we see family and friends and culture and, but for its physical limitations, a life fully lived. Central to the tragedy of this film is that there is really only one person who thinks that Ramon's life is not worth living - and that is him.
To watch this film and say that the only counter argument comes from the visit of a bumbling priest is a nonsense. The priest's visit is pure farce, a direct assault on the simplicity of the Spanish Catholic Church's response to the issue of euthanasia. However, the sister's parting words to the priest momentarily expose the powerful 'pro-life' sentiments quietly underpinning the entire film. We are constantly encouraged to see the hope and the beauty of a life lived with love. As the film progresses, we may gradually be encouraged to understand Ramon's reasoning but we are never reconciled to his decision.
I do not remember a film which moved me and provoked me as much as this.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nGreetings again from the darkness. Director Alejandro Amenabar creates life against all odds in this based on a true story version of one man's struggle to control his destiny. The great Javier Bardem is fascinating to watch in his role as Ramon. His eyes and head movements leave little doubt what is going on in his mind. The dream and fantasy sequences are not overused so prove very effective in explaining why he wants what he wants. Rather than force us to answer the euthanasia question, the real question posed is , What is Love? At every turn we see people in love, looking for love or dying to be loved. The script is tight and keeps the film moving despite being filmed mostly in one room. The supporting cast is wonderful and we truly feel their pain and how each family member deals with Ramon's decision. This is a gem and deserves to be seen.
\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 small, quiet, harmonious movie grows into a masterpiece on human dignity. It is intelligently structured, filled with meaningful little details and important side-plots. It tells a story of one man with great humanity without positioning itself politically, but fostering life as a precious right (not an obligation) and underlining individual's right to choose. It enjoys the richness of different landscapes (mental and physical) and languages (important detail). Outstanding acting by each of the actors, especially unbelievable Javier Bardem. His screen-presence has such a force that you forget that this is fiction. The movie has a wonderful rhythm, it is beautifully shot and outstandingly directed. It takes real talent to make a movie on such a difficult theme with understanding, humour and heart. Six stars out of five.
\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 story about a man's 28 year struggle for a death that would liberate him from his already dead body becomes a masterpiece to be remembered,thanks to a team of artists in a state of grace. Directed, written,edited and scored by Alejandro Amenabar, it touches you from the very first images, and doesn't leave your eyes and your heart to rest until the last credits, thanks to Alejandro and a group of wonderful actors and actresses at their best. Bardem is an acting animal:One of those few comedians that can make a masterpiece from almost any character, the supporting actresses are great in their roles and the story is told with such a sensibility that one laughs and cries in the same minute, as we used to do with the great old masterpieces. The year's best film in all senses. 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\nIn Spain, the former sailor Ramón Sampedro (Javier Bardem) has been quadriplegic for twenty-eight years and is fighting in court for his right of practicing euthanasia through an association that defends the freedom of choice and leaded by his friend Géne (Clara Segura). Ramón is introduced to the lawyer that is defending his cause, Julia (Belén Rueda), who has a degenerative fatal disease; and meets Rosa (Lola Dueñas), a lonely worker that has been abused by men. Their relationship changes the behavior and viewpoint of life of Rosa and Julia.
The Chilean Alejandro Amenábar is, in my opinion, one of the best contemporary directors. His filmography released in Brazil is composed by excellent and original movies: \"Abre Los Ojos\", \"Tesis\", \"The Others\" and \"Mar Adentro\". Javier Bardem is probably the best actor in Spain in the present days. Their association produced this sensitive drama about a very polemic theme, the right of committing euthanasia. This drama is never corny or depressive, since the screenplay uses humor as a relieve valve in the most dramatic situations. The performances of the cast are perfect, with characters having and defending different positions regarding this unpleasant theme. The dialogs and lines are very solid and intelligent. I noted in IMDb plot outline that this movie is based on the real-life story of Ramón Sampedro. Unfortunately, neither the movie nor the DVD gives this important information. My vote is nine.
Title (Brazil): \"Mar Adentro\" (\"Sea Inside\")
\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 SEA INSIDE a film by Alejandro Amenabar.
Almodovar has always single handed the flag for Spanish cinema for years now, out of nowhere came Amenabar reinventing genres and injecting some new blood to the otherwise malfunctioning Spanish industry, now in a big gamble he switches from psychological terror to social drama, well the big ones would be, are audiences ready to embrace the swing and more important can he hold the flag? This is the story of Ramon Sampedro, a sailor that in his twenties was paralyzed from the neck down in an accident at the sea and his fight with the Spanish government for the right to end his life. The story has the traces of an afternoon made for TV melodrama and the only way this is going to work is through words and honest performances and they both come in spades. Mateo Gil and Amenabar co-write in a way where the audience is not meant to be lead blind to a death end but they are encouraged to make up their own minds in the process and that is a brilliant stroke, this is not a movie pro death but a movie in favour of the ultimate illusions of our time LIBERTY. There is a few laughs spare a long the way, like when the church comes home in a wheel chair to deconstruct Sampedro beliefs but is mostly a valley of tears through out, punches coming from all fronts even when you think you are safe his father that to that point didn't make any sense comes up with the most moving line of the entire movie. It is a heartbreaking experience specially when Sampedro seems more full of life than most the people wandering the streets and everyone around him tries to convince him of the wonders of life even those who are helping him to die but when you strip a man of his dreams The film is almost exclusively built on close ups bringing a claustrophobic feeling that makes the audience more sympathetic with Sampedro. That's for the actors a huge challenge that must construct their whole performances with their eyes and the eyes don't lie. Bardem was not granted his second Oscar nomination, probably in favour of Eastwood, but in my opinion he was the only one who could have shadowed Jammie Fox. This role reminds me of the great Gregory Peck in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD where the acting looked effortless and I reckon Bardem has reached that status where the line of what is acting and what is real has become completely blur. I was never fond of his early work but since Almodovar's LIVE FLESH he is on a roll, LOS LUNES AL SOL, THE DANCER UPSTAIRS and the Oscar nominated BEFORE THE NIGHT FALLS made him an international star and although he and Banderas come from the same Almodovar background is fascinating to see how different paths they took and how Bardem has now become a real reference for Spanish cinema in the whole world. A golden globe, 14 Goyas, jury prize at Venice and probably an Oscar with permission from THE CHORUS BOYS, Amenabar directs, co-write, edits and puts music to a high caliber drama, he has pull it off what about some Science Fiction now? Whose life is it anyway?****.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie tells about the real life story of Ramon Sampedro, who lived for 27 years lying in bed after having broken his neck, and fights a battle to get legal permission for someone that can assists with his death.
Javier Bardem is one of best actors of his generation. Consider this: he has to carry this movie with only his face! Unbelievable that he didn't even got an Oscar-nomination. Now we can all see that the Academy is a joke! The supporting cast was terrific! The optimistic Rosa, his lawyer Julia, the rest of the family...Each and everyone has his/her own opinion about the fact that Ramon wants to die.
Whether your for or against euthanasia, put your opinions aside, because this movie deserves to be seen by people all over the world! Half way through the movie I started crying and it didn't stop until the credits rolled. This movie is so heartbreaking but also wonderful to watch and I can't wait to see it again. I give it a 9/10, and in my opinion it is by far the Best Film of the year so far.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n-Facts (I): \"Mar Adentro\" relates the well-known (at least in Spain) story of Ramón Sampedro, a Galician quadriplegic who killed himself (helped by some friends) after 28 years prostrated by his condition. Judges had denied several times his petitions of active euthanasia.
-Facts (II): \"Mar adentro\" becomes THE MOVIE OF THE YEAR in Spain. Everyone talks about it: politicians, singers, ordinary people... Everyone likes it, even the critics' opinions are unanimous. The film wins a lot of prizes (Golden Globe, Oscar, Goya...) and annoys catholic community and life-lovers quadriplegics. A star is born.
-Facts (III): The intensity and the quality of the actors in \"Mar Adentro\" are just amazing, and this makes mi wonder how come we have to watch the same bad young actors in the most of Spanish latest movies. I don't know if Javier Bardem is a great actor or a great imitator (there's quite a difference between one thing or the other); anyway, his job is just impressive, as well as Lola Dueñas', Belén Rueda's, or the job of all the guest starrings. This is (the actors selection) the strong point in Amenábar's movie.
-Facts (IV): Alejandro Amenábar learned his lesson there at the Cinema School, there's no doubt about it: he's got a privileged brain. He takes good control of each and every one of the technical aspects, he knows what the audiences want, he knows how to touch the right chord, even if that turns him into such a demagogue (just like Spielberg is -one of Amenábar's idols-).
-Facts (and V): If you criticize a movie such as \"Mar Adentro\" it will seem like you have any kind of trouble with the moral issue the story tells about. There's a trap in this kind of pictures: you have to differentiate between the movie itself and the moral concepts. If you don't like \"Schindler's List\" that does not mean that you agree with Hitler's philosophy (or do you?). So, for me, it is a good film and an extraordinary story (since it is a real story that makes it much more extraordinary). Grandiloquent, self-kind, and everything but neutral (no matter what Amenábar or Bardem have said about it: those characters that are not in favor of euthanasia come to no good at all!!). 50 % Hard / 50% way too sentimental.
-Epilogue: \"Mar Adentro\" wouldn't be by no mean in my ranking of the best 50's Spanish movies of all time. Nobody has special merits in the story but Ramon Sampedro himself. He IS the movie. Now, Alejandro Amenábar is gonna become the more international Spanish director ever, maybe he'll go to live to Hollywood; but some of us would like to watch him filming a simple story, without bit final twists, without living dead nor dying alive... \"The Others\" is still his best movie.
*My rate: 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\nI just saw Mar Ardentro and felt that I had to comment on this film. Euthanasia is a difficult topic in any field and unfortunately is can sometimes distort the true value of a movie. Many people have raved about the excellent cast and it's beautiful imagery/camera-work. Certainly Javier Bardem is an actor that brings something extra to each film he makes. To say that he encompasses the real Sampredo is a little silly since I don't think that any of the reviewers have known Sampredo personally. To lie still and use a certain charm is a acting skill that although well performed doesn't constitute a 'perfect' performance. Bardem just does what he does well...and that's it. The camera-work is beautiful and evokes feelings and perspectives that the movie itself lacks to deliver. Sampredo here is shown as a man that is bend on dying so much that he leaves his loving family behind and marries a woman that he only seeks out when the other will not help him in his quest for a dignified death. Now I'm not here to say anything about the right for or against euthanasia. The problem is that when commenting movies like this you can hardly escape it. The movie's subject is so strong that you're almost compelled to discuss the movie in that strong subject matter. I find it a weakness for the movie -unintentionally- portrays Sampredo as a unsymphatetic character. Someone who is much smarter then his family as portrayed in the simple cousin that doesn't \"get\" the double layered poem directed towards him. Someone who will leave a loving and caring family because HE thinks his life is undignified. A scene that is juxtaposed to the female lawyer who according to the movie makes the \"wrong\" choice ending up in a far state of dementia thus indicating that Sampredo's choice was the right one. The woman that constantly seeks him out is almost disregarded for the beautiful lawyer but suddenly is married by Sampredo when she agrees to help him die. These choices make Sampredo into a calculated figure no matter how charming Bardem portrays him. Argumentive I would say it doesn't convince fully and I kinda think that Amenabar didn't intend on adding this unbalanced element in his film. For a young director it's still an impressive film and it certainly has it's strong moments (the discussion between the priest and Sampredo for instance). The camera-work IS impressive and the film is well acted. But 10 out of 10...no the movie doesn't reach that excellence.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's a soap-opera drawing upon an applied ethics idea. A movie about human suffering and death is not necessarily a good movie. I didn't get any emotion from it, the ideas are not at all new, the tension lacks, it becomes tedious towards the second half but towards the end I think it becomes quite interesting in a burlesque way. I mean you have this middle-aged, paralyzed bald guy who gets more women than Don Juan. He doesn't seem to suffer as much as you would expect from someone completely paralyzed for over 28 years, he has no issues with God (and one would probably expect that too), the people around him seem to be the perfect slaves (I can't get out of my mind Bergman's Cries and Whispers, similar to this one in many respects, which simply bursts with emotions, and not all of them humane) etc. This movie is the perfect recipe for housewives who look for some emotional thrill but don't expect to be blown away. The movie is worth seeing among all the cynicism we get today for its sincere intention to present a modern ethical issue without any desire to arouse the viewer. Amenabar doesn't rub your face in it and he doesn't take sides, he doesn't want to make us fanatics for a particular idea. Still I have no clue as to why this movie was so highly regarded.
\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 seen 'The Sea Within' today and I loved it. The actors of the movie are wonderful (specially Javier Bardem, of course), but I thought that Belén Rueda would have a better role. Lola Dueñas, Clara Segura and, specially, Mabel Rivera perform excellent interpretations. And I cannot forget Celso Bugallo and Joan Dalmau (brother and father of the protagonist).
There are two technical aspects I loved very much: Aguirresarobe's photography and the score by Amenábar himself. I liked the song, 'Negra sombra' ('Dark Shadow'), by Luz Casal with music of Carlos Núñez.
In short, I think that the Spanish Academy should choose 'The Sea Within' in order to compete in the Oscar Awards. I liked other Spanish productions, such as Almodóvar's 'Bad Education', but Amenábar's film is much better than them. 'The Sea Within' deserves all the awards.
\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\nSince many other users have already explained and commented the storyline, I won't do it.
However, I'd like to restate that Bardem's interpretation is terrific, as also are those of the other actors and actresses in this film.
Reading the previous comments I've noticed that some people criticize the fact that the film doesn't show points of view opposed to euthanasia and that those little present are ridiculed. In my honest opinion this is far from true.
There are many characters that move in a gray zone between loving Ramón Sampedro and wanting him to stay, and understanding his desire to die. Most obvious of those are the family. For instance, Ramón's sister-in-law never talks for or against euthanasia. Another such character is Gené (the social rights activist) who, in the last moment, tells Ramón to re-think it all. The scene clearly shows that she doesn't want him to die.
Then there are characters who are clearly against euthanasia. Ramón's brother is clearly against it, as is his father (\"There's only one thing worse than the death of son, and it's having a son that wants to die.\") Other users have commented that the discussion between Ramón and the priest is ridiculed and filmed to make us think that Ramón is GOOD and the priest is BAD. Well, no doubt the scene is comic, but that doesn't mean the priest is caricatured or ridiculed. From my point of view, the comedy in this scene comes from the fact that the priest is trying to convince Ramón to keep on living using arguments totally alien to Ramón's thinking. The priest's speech goes on the line of \"God gives and God takes\", \"We aren't the owners of our own lives, they belong to God\"... and so on. The comedy arises from the fact that Ramón is atheist and all the priest is saying to him is therefore nonsense.
This film is the antithesis of manicheism, it leaves the spectator the chance to think on the subject and make up his/her own opinion. And above anything else is a chant of FREEDOM.
\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\nOnce again Almenábar has provided us with a top quality film. This director is amazing, and he's proven that he's equally talented and effective when crossing genres.
The excellent character development of the movie, through dialogue and personality quirks, but with more subtle details as well (Ramon's father's gaze), allows the audience to identify with the protagonists very closely, making the importance and emotional impact of the events which take place all the more profound. The visuals are at times, simple, at times stunning (the dream to the beach), and I think Almenábar's films really benefit from the fact that he also composes the music - it matched the film's varying moods flawlessly.
More than just a film about euthanasia, which in itself is an important issue, this film tackles the duality of a man who at times genuinely seems to enjoy life (albeit in a quite limited way), and yet one who is unswerving in his desire to die. The overwhelming sadness of the film is punctuated by well-timed quips of humor, which seem all the funnier because they provide a welcome respite from the melancholy you will certainly feel.
Although clearly in favor of euthanasia, this film does an excellent job representing the myriad points of view of Ramon's friends and family. Most poignant was Ramon's father, when he said, despondent, \"There's only one thing worse than losing a child. That the child wants to die.\"
Excellent writing, acting, directing, cinematography, music - 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\n\" I have wrestled with death. It is the most unexciting contest you can imagine. It takes place in an impalpable grayness, with nothing underfoot, with nothing around, without spectators, without clamor, without glory, without the great desire of victory, without the great fear of defeat, in a sickly atmosphere of tepid skepticism, without much belief in your own right, and still less in that of your adversary. If such is the form of ultimate wisdom, then life is a greater riddle than some of us think it to be.\" Marlow in Joseph Conrad's \"Heart of Darkness\"
It's difficult to make lyrical the subject of death in any work of art. Yet movies have recently made bold attempts to humanize it to the extent that it is embraced as a part of the cycle of all living things, and it can be chosen rather than legislated. \"Chosen\" is the operative word for Alejandro Amenabar's Sea Inside, based loosely on the true story of the Galician sailor Ramon Sampedro. It is a drama about euthanasia without prejudice clothed in love, poetry, and friendship. If it sounds like Barbarian Invasions (2003), in which a cancerous professor says farewell to lifelong friends and loves before he takes his life, then you are right. In fact, Sea is better because it spends more intimate time with the protagonist before he goes, a remarkable feat with not one of those moments in the least dull or uninteresting.
Javier Bardem as Ramon has expressive eyes and commanding voice for the romantic quadriplegic, a combination of tough realist and poetic sufferer. Belen Rueda plays the disabled lawyer Julia, who becomes an imaginary lover for Ramon, increasing in radiance as her life degenerates with disease. Added to the already almost soap opera circumstance is Lola Duenas as Rosa, a blue collar visitor who initially tries to dissuade Ramon from seeking death but quickly falls in love with him. Talk about romanticizing disabilityThis guy has unbelievable luck attracting substantial women, and he can't move a finger. But talk he can, proving the ultimate argument about what women want: love that speaks, not just makes.
I will refrain from mentioning the major motion picture now up for an Oscar that features euthanasia as its climax in order not to spoil the experience for first timers. Sufficient it is just to say both films are successful in opening up both sides of a contentious subject without forcing a specific point of view. The religious right has a right to complain that the former film and Barbarian Invasions celebrate suicide; it has no right to accuse the beautifully balanced Sea Inside of the same.
\"A life in this condition has no dignity,\" Ramon says. The irony is he conducts himself with supreme dignity that makes anyone question his determination to end his life. \"The Sea Inside\" is a formidable entry in 2004's Oscar nominations for best foreign language film.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen I first saw \"Before Night Falls\", Javier Bardem had just been nominated for an Academy Award. I thought \"he's got it!\". He didn't. I watched \"Mar Adentro\" last night. Please give it to him this time... This is an actor. Convincing, touching, emotional, brilliant. See also \"Los Lunes al Sol\" and you will understand what I am talking about. He is an absolute chameleon and I swear it's not only the result of make-up work. This movie is so beautiful, so well done, the characters are so real. Congratulations to Alejandro Amenábar (how about a Best Director nomination?). I also have to mention the make-up artists. I can't think of another word but magnificent. I really hope this movie gets the recognition it deserves. As far as I am concerned, it already has...
\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 probably the best movie filmed in at least the last five years. I've always believed that making people cry is far more difficult than making them laugh. If you want to see 400 adults crying out loud in the same room, go see this movie. It's breathtaking. Javier Bardem performs the role of his life. You will cry, you will laugh, you will smile... The most deserving fact is that in Spain everybody knows about Ramon Sampedro. Personally I knew the full story and even the end of it. So, the excellence of the movie is in the way that the story is told. And in this field, Amenabar is a THE master.
This movie is a MUST.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Tesis\", \"Open your eyes\" and \"The Others\" were proof of Amenabar's talent and skill as a filmmaker, but (in my humble opinion) were also flawed films in their attempt to outsmart the audience, always offering one turn of the screw too many, favoring cheap thrills, twists and turns over depth and resonance. Lucky for everyone Amenabar chose a subject for his new film that would not allow a surprise ending, focusing on characters and the emotional ties that bind them.
The result is a little miracle of a film, beautifully written, photographed, scored, acted and directed. Everyone involved in this film delivers a carrer-high performance,behind and in front of the cameras, from the wonderful cast (Bardem shines, but Mabel Rivera, Celso Bugallo, Clara Segura and Lola Dueñas give the film an amazing authenticity) to Aguirresarobe's exquisite lensing.
The film taps on many relevant issues and emotions effectively , it addresses heart and mind with equal power and delivers a final punch that stays with you long after the credits roll. This is a brilliantly executed film that not only will stand as a landmark in Spanish cinema, but will surely become a pleasant surprise when it opens in the abroad (Sony Classics has paid a record 6 million dollars to distribute it) Don't be surprised it it manages to get in the Oscar race... There's no stopping Amenabar...
Buen trabajo, Alejandro!
\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\nThey just don't make cartoons like they used to. This one had wit, great characters, and the greatest ensemble of voice over artists ever assembled for a daytime cartoon show. This still remains as one of the highest rated daytime cartoon shows, and one of the most honored, winning several Emmy Awards.
\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, the show was a little uneven, but I still loved it. I found the main two bunnies annoying, but Hamton & Plucky were always amusing.
I really want the Baby Plucky episodes on DVD (or even VHS). Please release those!
Specifically the \"Potty years\" episode aired on 11/22/91; the \"Going up\" episode aired on 9/17/92 and the \"Minister golf\" episode in 11/92.
They are the funniest bits of the whole series and even over a decade later we still reference these bits!
(I have nothing more to say, please reduce the minimum to something like 5 lines and rewards us for brevity!)
\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 the success of \"Muppet Babies\" Warner Brothers chalked up \"Tiny Toons\". But instead of making Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and all the rest of the Looney Toon gang kids, they created new animal characters who were kids with their own distinct personalities but personalities that nonetheless mirrored their predecessors. The leads included Buster & Babs Bunny (no relation, which became their running gag or catch phrase), Plucky Duck, Hampton Pig, Dizzy Devil, Shirley 'the' Loon, Elmira, Montana Max, Furball, Sweety, the rats and assorted animals of Perfecto Prep, and the original Looney Toons cast themselves. The \"Tiny Toons\" lived in Acme Acres and attended Acme Looniversity, where the Looney Toon gang worked as teachers who served as mentors to the younger generation the ins and out of comedy.
During the show's run, various pot shots were taken at the Bush SR. administration, pop culture, and coupled with various other gags and spoofs.
Buster & Babs, arguably the show's main characters, as mentioned above, were similar to Bugs Bunny in some respects, but they also had their own differing personality ticks and comic styles, namely, Babs' tendency to impersonate anyone and everyone, while Buster, capable of being a great goof himself, usually played straight man (or straight rabbit) to Babs' antics. Plucky Duck was a virtual copy of Daffy Duck (not screwball Daffy but egomaniac Daffy), with nearly as big an ego as Daffy and just as much of an obsession with upstaging the Buster & Babs as Daffy had with upstaging Bugs, though he usually fell flat on his face in his attempts, yet he remained strangely endearing through out. Hampton was an even more shy version of Porky Pig, and he had the thankless job of playing Porky to Plucky's Daffy. Shirley, the blond duck gal, was a new age valley girl type whom Plucky would go in and out of phases of mocking or vying for her affections. Dizzy was the purple version of the Tasmanian Devil. Furball was the silent Sylvester and Sweety was the pink Tweetie bird. There was also the purple female skunk who longed for a boyfriend and the pint sized versions of Wile Coyote and the Road Runner. Evil was defined in the form of Montana Max, a rich kid who was always out to make a buck or make people's lives miserable. There was also Elmira, a deranged animal lover whom everyone feared. And then there was Godo Dodo, an odd thing-a-ma-gig creature who had no clearly designated species except that he was from \"Wacky Land\" or something like that.
Pop culture references included Batman (quite frequently actually), Michael Jackson, Vanilla Ice, Dances With Wolves, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, Supergirl, fast food joints, the Ten Commandments, the Twilight Zones, Saturday Night Live and even the Simpsons, among others.
Not only funny, but it also managed to be warm and touching, something it's successor \"Animaniacs\" never quite attained. Also followed by \"Taz-Mania\".
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBeing a 90's child, I truly enjoyed this show and I can proudly say that I enjoyed it big time and even more than the classical WB cartoons.
I don't know why; early 90's cartoons had something special; I don't know if it was the uncertainty atmosphere, a generational change, whatever. But \"Tiny Toons\" kept the 90's vibe and delivered one of the most popular, funny, and underrated cartoons ever created.
The memories are murky but I can only say that I enjoyed every single episode and product related to the show. Easily, none other cartoon made me laugh in a tender way (before getting into dark sitcoms oriented for teenagers).
The characters were all funny and had the peculiarity of not having a true lead character. Every single character was hilarious and deserved to be called a lead.
\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 used to watch this show when I was growing up. When I think about it, I remember it very well. If you ask me, it was a good show. Two things I remember very well are the opening sequence and theme song. In addition to that, everyone was ideally cast. The writing was also very strong. The performances were top-grade, too. I hope some network brings it back so I can see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I haven't seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, if some network ever brings it back, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a cute little French silent comedy about a man who bets another that he can't stay in this castle for one hour due to its being haunted. And, once the guy enters the house, it looks much more like a crazed fun house or maybe like the after-effects of LSD!! While there ARE ghosts and skeletons, there is a weird menagerie of animals, odd special effects and gags as well. It's awfully hard to describe but the visuals alone make the film worth seeing. HOWEVER, understand that the self-indulgent director also had many \"funny gags\" that totally fell flat and hurt the movie. His \"camera tricks\" weren't so much tricky but annoying and stupid. IGNORE THESE AND KEEP WATCHING--it does get better. The film is fast paced, funny and worth seeing. In particular, I really liked watching the acting and mugging of Max Linder--he was so expressive and funny! Too bad he is virtually forgotten today. For an interesting but very sad read, check out the IMDb biography on 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\nDakota Incident is a curiosity for several reasons. It will be obvious from the start that it was made long before anyone ever thought of political correctness. Although, the Ward Bond character softens the edge with \"maybe we can communicate with them, after all they're humans, too\" type of dialogue. His part stands side-by-side with the preacher attemtping to communicate with the Martians in War of the Worlds. In fact, it's uncanny. The title is curious too. Use of the word \"Incident\" contributes an importance and sophistication to the film that probably didn't hurt boxoffice. The contrived assortment of characters and Linda Darnell's fancy dress and hat are wonderful dated touches that make Dakota Incident a cool western artifact from the mid-fifties.
\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 widely unknown strange little western with mindblowing colours (probably the same material as it was used in \"Johnny Guitar\", I guess \"Trucolor\" or something, which makes blood drips look like shining rubies), nearly surrealistic scenes with twisted action and characters. Something different, far from being a masterpiece, but there should be paid more attention to this little gem in western encyclopedias.
\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 haven't seen this film since it came out in the mid 70s, but I do recall it as being a very realistic portrayal of the music business ( right up there with Paul Simons \"One Trick Pony \" ..another vastly underrated film IMO )
Harvey Keitel does an excellent job as a producer caught between the music he believes in , and the commercial \"tripe\" the record company \"suits\" want him to work with.
Since I spent my entire career in the music business as a composer /arranger /producer, I can really vouch for the verisimilitude this film possesses.
If it should ever come out on DVD uncut, I'd buy it!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOkay...it's 2005 and when you finally get to look at this film, you will probably exclaim that it is dated. But here's the thing, the screenplay was bold, the exposure of the music industry at that time was as bold as well...and it took some time for this to get music that was created by African Americans to be promoted on the same level as white acts. In some cases it still is - but back in the 70's this film addressed some of the \"background\" many never knew. Now we've got \"American Idol\" - \"Pop Idol\" and other such things that allow us into the minds of the \"record execs\" and how they think they should market something that sells and not market talent.
When I was a kid, I loved the Earth, Wind and Fire release of \"That's the Way of the World\" which contained some of their biggest hits: \"Shining Star\", \"Reasons\", \"Yeanin', Learnin'\" and the title. Little did I know this was a SOUNDTRACK of a MOVIE...until I moved to Los Angeles and got the wonderful \"Z\" Channel.
The \"Z\" Channel showed this film as part of a \"Harvey Keitel\" retrospective. Gee, I had no idea Harvey Keitel DID so many movies -- and when I saw this one, I was surprised. This movie is not a cinematic masterpiece, but it does deserve more merit than it got. It's a nice little film. More than a \"vanity piece\" for Earth, Wind and Fire, Harvey Keitel does a great job as a torn record executive trying \"to fight the system\". There are a lot of lessons to be drawn from this, and a lot of \"insider\" trade that was exposed.
If you can find this uncut...it's worth a look.
\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\nHarvey Keitel gives a typically top-rate performance in one of his first-ever lead roles as brash, ambitious, uncompromising young staff producer Coleman Buckmaster, a real talented hot shot with a discerning \"golden ear\" and the son of a famous jazz pianist to boot. Coleman's eager to cut some tracks with the smokin' R&B outfit the Group (none other than Earth, Wind & Fire in their awesomely funky prime), but his rigidly commercial greedhead label A-Chord Records run by uptight, mob-connected middle-of-the-road square Jerry (a properly unhip Ed Nelson) wants him to record a hit single for the hideously insipid Carpenters-like pop pap trio the Pages, an allegedly squeaky clean bunch which includes smarmy pedophile step-dad Franklin (a perfectly vile Bert Parks), bitchy, neurotic daughter Velour (a fine, flighty turn by perky, comely brunette Cynthia Bostwick), and hedonistic smack addict son Gary (former 50's juvenile sitcom staple Jimmy Boyd). The extremely naive and idealistic Coleman must learn pronto how the music business truly works and play the lowdown dirty game as best he can or else he'll lose both the Group and his credibility.
Adopting an acrid, incisive, corrosively harsh and unsparingly biased script from syndicated columnist and rock journalist Robert Lipsyte, director Sig Shore (who's most famous for producing \"Superfly\") shows a decidedly cynical and unflattering depiction of the various bribes, pay-offs, broken promises, back-stabbings, duplicities and double-dealings which are an unpleasant, yet intrinsic part of the largely corrupt rock music business, with particularly thoughtful thematic asides concerning Art vs. Commerce, fighting to retain one's artistic integrity, and the then recent push to homogenize rock into bland, useless, creatively stagnant mainstream respectability. Moreover, this gritty, downbeat gem offers a rare fascinating, minutely detailed and wholly believable backstage glimpse at the recording process as recording booth console cowboy Coleman struggles gamely in his own words to \"make chicken salad out of chicken s**t.\" Appearing in nifty bits are disc jockey and legendary \"fifth Beatle\" Murray the K as leering, lecherous DJ Big John Little (Velour bites his hand after Big John paws her thigh during a live on-air interview!), New York soul DJ and host of NBC's \"Friday Night Videos\" Frankie Crocker as his own jazzy'n'jivin' self, R&B singer-songwriter Doris Troy (she penned the lovely \"Just One Look\") as a church pianist, and tubby, bald-pated 70's blaxploitation favorite Charles MacGregor as a priest at a wedding. The rather poor sound and Allan Metzger's sloppy cinematography inadvertently add to the film's overall ragged, rough-around-the-edges documentary-style authenticity. Although technically a bit lacking, this movie overall still rates as one of the great, most bitterly pessimistic unsung behind-the-scenes rocksploitation gems from the 70's.
\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 would like to know if anyone know how I can get a copy of the movie, \"That's the way of the World\". It's been about 30 years since I've seen this movie, and I would like to see it again. Earth Wind & Fire transcend the nation globally with their inspirational music and themes. It was unfortunate that this group didn't take off like their counterparts in the early 70's, but as previously stated, racial tension existed in the United States which prohibited equalized exposure for the African American musical groups. It is good to see that Earth Wind & Fire continuing their success. I would like to add this movie to my collection. Someone please help me if possible. Thank you for your attention. Milton Shaw
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen Melville's \"Pierre; or The Ambiguities\" hit bookstores in 1852, his first publication since \"Moby Dick\" a year earlier, the public response was similar to that found among the IMDB reviews of \"POLA X\". Newspapers even published headlines like: \"Melville Insane!\" which, of course, he wasn't. But, when one compares the writing styles found in \"Moby Dick\" and \"Pierre,\" one finds in the latter a sharp departure from the simple and often declamatory style found in the former. Clearly, he was mimicking the overly florid style of the now-forgotten Victorian Romances that were easily outselling his immortal \"Moby Dick.\" He was not content, however, to turn out the sort of product that his publishers wanted, and that surely would have sold. His version of a Victorian romance was a twisted, cynical one, perhaps, but brilliant in its synthesis. The alternate title: \"The ambiguities\" is quite appropriate. As Pierre searches for, and thinks he finds, truth, we become more and more uncertain what and whom to believe. As he searches for happiness, he becomes more and more miserable.
\"POLA X\" is a fascinating adaptation of this novel, set in modern or nearly modern France. Though, in some ways, it leaves little to the imagination, and shows us graphically the incestuous relations that Melville could only hint at, the ambiguities which make the novel and its message so alluring are perfectly in tact. The questions it raises are ones that few films have thought to ask, yet the answers are left to the viewer.
I recommend a reading of the novel, which is much shorter than \"Moby Dick,\" before seeing this movie. I hope more people discover this tantalizing film.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"