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\nIt is the best movie on acting I have ever seen. All the artists are old Turkish theater actors, they are magnificent in this movie.It is sometimes said that \"They do not act, they live it\", you can really see this in this movie. The director is also competent, you cannot see lots of moving cameras around but the positions of the cameras are also good. But after the acting, the most outstanding part is the content of the movie. It gives happiness, enthusiasm, desire to live, importance of real friends to people. We all started to live individually nowadays, in this film you see that there are someone other then us. And most importantly, you see that the most honorable feeling in the world is love, loving your friends, loving your darling. All people should see this movie...
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe great James Cagney, top-billed in big letters, doesn't show up till the movie's second third, and probably has less screen time than Dudley Digges, who plays the eee-vill reform-school potentate. But when Jimmy arrives, as a deputy commissioner of something-or-other out to reform reform schools, he slashes the air with his hands and jumps on the balls of his feet and spits out punchy Warners-First National dialogue with all the customary, and expected, panache. The psychology in this crisp antique, one of Warners' many efforts to assert its place as the \"socially conscious\" studio, doesn't run deep: Digges is bad just because the script requires him to be, and there's the quaint notion that juvenile delinquents will turn into swell kids if they're just given a dash of autonomy. But it's made in that spare, fast style that the studio specialized in, and it never bores. Frankie Darro, who got into all kinds of onscreen trouble during a brief tenure as Warners' favorite Rotten Street Kid, is an ideal JD -- a handsome, charismatic toughie with a pug nose and a hate-filled stare that could wither steel. No kid actor today can touch 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\nJames Cagney, racketeer and political ward heeler, get to become a Deputy Commissioner of Corrections and visits a boys reform school. The catch is that Cagney is not in it for the graft, he genuinely wants to make a difference in the lives of the kids there because he comes from a background like their's.
The villain of the piece is Dudley Digges who is a grafting chiseler and a sanctimonious hypocrite to boot. One of the subtexts of the plot of The Mayor of Hell is that these kids are mostly immigrants and those that judge them and are in positions of power are those who are here a few generations. Note in the mess hall scene as Digges offers a prayer of thanks for the food they are about to receive, Digges is eating well, but the kids are getting quality you wouldn't feed to your pet.
Cagney has his own troubles back in the city with some of his henchmen and he has to take it on the lam. That puts Digges back in charge and setting up the film for it's climax.
The Mayor of Hell was a typical product from the working class studio. And because it was pre-Code it gets pretty gruesome at times. A later version of this, Crime School, with Humphrey Bogart and the Dead End Kids, was a more sanitized remake.
Although Cagney is fine in the lead role as is Madge Evans the school nurse, the acting honors go to Dudley Digges. Hard to believe that the same man could portray the drunken, but kindly, one legged ship's surgeon in Mutiny on the Bounty. But Digges is a fine player and a joy to watch in every film he's in.
This film is not shown to often because of the racial and ethnic stereotypes it portrays. A whole lot of minorities would be offended today. Still it's a fine film.
Interestingly enough a few years ago the film Sleepers came out and it touched on some of the same issues. I guess films about reform schools don't change in any 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\nJames Cagney (The Yankee Doodle Dandy Boy) was just starting his career and was able to perform as a gangster and also a social worker for a Boys Reform School which is being run by corrupt politicans. The reform school inmates are underpriviledge minors from the streets of New York, like the \"East Side Kids\" who were poor and uncared for during the great Depression. In the final scenes, there is a trial held by the reform school boys with flaming torches and a barn which is set on fire and a big leap by the corrupt warden. I noticed that they did let the horses out of the barn first. This film is not shown very often and I really can understand 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\nThis one of those social dramas that WB knew how to put together and were guaranteed boxoffice hits in the thirties. This early \"dead end kids\" are sent to a reform school where they are mistreated. Cagney, a gangster as part of a deal is appointed as the commissioner of the school. He doesn't take it seriously at first but he changes and makes the necessary changes to improve the lives of the boys. The idea is to let the boys rule and administer their community. Whether this is sound social reform is beyond my belief but it's a movie. It's a lot like Boys Town with a slight darker tone. A useless happy ending deluges what impact the scene prior hard but is still good. WB would later make this same movies with Bogart in the Cagney/fatherly role.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"The Mayor Of Hell\" has the feel of an early Dead End Kids film, but with a much harder edge and very few light spots, preceding the first appearance of the Dead Enders by four years. James Cagney has a full screen opening credit, even though technically, the 'mayor' of the movie's title is actually portrayed by Frankie Darro, one of several boys sent to reform school during the opening scenes. Darro's character is Jimmy Smith, a young tough who's befriended by 'Patsy' Gargan (Cagney), and is elected to the position when Gargan takes a chance at humanizing conditions at a state reformatory.
Warner Brothers made a lot of these types of films, attempting to provide a conscience of sorts in an era that only too well knew about the effects of crime and poverty. This movie is quite gritty, with no apologies for ethnic stereotyping, as in the submissive posture of a black father in court or the way a Jewish kid gets to run a candy shop in the reform school. The rules at the reformatory are simple enough - work hard and keep your mouth shut; step out of line and you answer personally to Warden Thompson (Dudley Digges).
Cagney's role in the story seems somewhat ambiguous, since even though he makes a serious effort to improve conditions inside the reformatory, on the outside he's still nominally in control of a criminal racket. The film's attempt to juggle this dichotomy falls short in my estimation, the finale attempts to wrap things up in a neat package as Gargan awaits the outcome of a near fatal shooting of one of his henchmen. Not exactly the kind of role modeling one would look for in a film like this.
Warner Brothers would sanitize some of the elements of this story in a 1938 remake titled \"Crime School\", featuring Humphrey Bogart in the Cagney role, and Billy Halop in the Frankie Darro part. If you're partial to the Dead End Kids you'll probably like the latter film better, since it also offers familiar faces like Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall, Bobby Jordan and Gabriel Dell. However the ending is somewhat muddied in that one too, with Bogart's warden character involved in a cover up of a prison breakout. Both films offer a romantic interest for the lead characters, in 'Mayor', Madge Evans is a reform minded nurse that falls for Cagney's character.
Curiously, a lot of James Cagney's early films aren't commercially available, so you'll have to keep your eyes peeled for a screening on Turner Classics, or source the film from a private collector. Personally, I can't get enough of this kind of stuff, and find intriguing points of interest in the films of all genres from the Thirties and Forties.
\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 not a 'real' James Cagney vehicle since his screen time is unusually slim. Frankie Darro plays tough kid Jimmy Smith, the leader of a gang of street thugs that is sent to reform school with a few of his hoodlum friends. Cagney plays Patsy Gargan, a gang leader himself, who is given a token position as a deputy commissioner. When he finds out first hand of the brutal treatment dished out at the reform school, he is compelled to make some major changes with the help of the reformatory nurse(Madge Evans).
THE MAYOR of HELL is fast paced and is still entertaining after all these years. The cast is well rounded featuring: Dudley Digges, Arthur Bryon, 'Farina' Hoskins, G. Pat Collins and Allen Jenkins.
\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\nYears ago, I didn't love and respect the films of Jimmy Cagney nearly as much as I do now. I noticed that many of Cagney's films done with Warner Brothers in the 1930s lacked realism and his acting style was far from subtle. However, the more I watched these films, the more I found I was hooked despite these aspects. In fact, I now kind of like and expect them! Fans of old time Hollywood films probably understand what I am saying--teens and other young whippersnappers don't! Well, when it comes to entertainment, THE MAYOR OF HELL never lets up from start to finish. While the idea of a shady character like Cagney played taking over running a reform school is ridiculous, and while all the changes he made also seemed far-fetched, it all somehow worked out and delivered solid entertainment.
The gang of tough thugs were pre-Dead End Kids and instead of the likes of Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall and Billy Hallop, similar roles are played here by Frankie Darrow and Farina. Yes, I did say \"Farina\". This Black actor was already famous for his roles in the Our Gang comedies and was, believe it or not, one of the highest paid child actors in Hollywood. All he needed to give up in return was be named an insipid name and act like a nice stereotypical \"Negro\". Here, he actually was pretty good and the usual Black stereotypes are a bit more subdued than usual. However, some will cringe at the very funny but horribly offensive court scene involving Farina and his dad, Fred 'Snowflake' Toones. With awful names like \"Farina\" and \"Snowflake\", don't say I didn't warn you.
Apart from this small complaint and a plot that is tough to believe, the film is exceptional and fun. The kids do a great job, as does Cagney and Dudley Digges in a truly despicable but exciting role as the evil warden. Also, as an added plus, you get to see perennial Warner stock actor Allen Jenkins in his first role for the studio.
\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 show is a show that is great for adults and children to sit down together and watch. The stories are a little slow for adults but they are still good. There are lots of children in my family, boys and girls, and it is hard to get them all to agree on what to watch, but they always agree with each other when they want to watch the Mystic Knights. It is a wonderful show and I hope that they will continue to keep making it. All of the kids in my family and myself think that Vincent Walsh is the best of them all. We have seen that he has done lots of other work and think that he is doing a great job. We wish all of the actors, actresses, writers, directors, and producers the best of luck and would just like to say keep up the good 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\nAs a fan of history, mythology, and fantasy \"Mystic Knights\" show pulled me in from the get-go. It has semi-decent scripting, the costumes are fantastic (there are exceptions), it has pretty good acting, and the heroes and villains all play well off each other.
SCRIPTS--Half a script is pretty great, the other half falls flat, but its all mixed together, meaning many episodes turn out so-so. Also, some of the key players are repeatedly being given dead lines (King Conchobar and Angus for instance) they need to be given something... more. I'm not sure what but the writers should be able to come up with something. ACTING--Apart from some over acting by villagers (horrid lines they end up putting too much effort into), casting did extremely well in choosing their leads and so on. Everyone, good and bad, works well together! COSTUMES/WEAPONS--The everyday clothes that everyone wears are spectacular! Mystic Knight armor that falls short are Deirdre's and Garrett's. A chainmail bikini would probably have better protection in her case... and wouldn't look as plastic; his looks like bunch of snap-it-together pieces of brown plastic, when it should look bronze. Ivar's trident looks like it was bought at a discount store and while Garretts weapons look cool, they also look plastic.
Recently \"Mystic Knights\" has taken on too many \"Power Rangers\" traits, if you watch the show, you'll know what I mean. As the series progresses, though, it should find its niche and perfect its style. Overall, it is a wonderful show that all ages should enjoy (most of my friends and I watch it and we're all 20+). The plot thickens and twists, though it gets a bit juvenile in places, and everything just keeps getting more interesting. It might be of some interest to fans of the movie \"Willow\" or the T.V. series \"The Adventures of Sinbad\". A lot of adventure, a dab of mystery, a dash of romance, a sprinkling of forces at nature... Check it out! (My Score: 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\nTrue, there are some goofs, for the one who wants to find them. They're not important, though.
The primary feature of this film is watching veteran expert actors do their craft. Kristin Scott Thomas is beautiful and plays well the part of a strong woman, but one who has been hurt. Same for Harrison Ford, who, for the ladies, is just as beau as Kristin is belle for us guys.
Their hurt at the hands of their adulterous spouses brings them together in an awkward manner, but one in which they find support in each other. How they evoke their hurt feelings and their humanity within on th screen is why these are such sought performers. The viewer cannot help but feel what they feel, nor can one help wanting to cheer them when they're together.
Yes, there are several action scenes involving angry corrupt cops, but they only spice it up a little, and are not a significant part of the movie.
For the lover of music, Dave Grusin provides a superb Jazz based background, featuring trumpeter Terrence Blanchard. Like the actors, Grusin shows why he is one of the most sought musical consultants in the movie business. Blanchard shows why he's one the premiere trumpeters on the scene.
Not a movie for the lovers of guts, blood, and gore. But for those who want to see a lot of what makes us feel inside, watch a beautiful English actress with big expressive blue eyes who can act, like Harrison Ford, to the endless soothing accompaniment courtesy of Dave Grusin and Terrence Blanchard, this is a move to watch with someone you love. Preferably in bed.
I thought it deserved at least an 8.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI admit I have been a fan of Harrison Ford for many, many years now so it didn't surprise me that I enjoyed his performance here. But I also enjoyed the way the storyline developed and thought the casting was well done. I don't know whether I \"buy into\" Kristin Scott Thomas as a Congresswoman but she is a fine actress and a beautiful woman. I took notice of her in the first Mission Impossible. Although her part was small she stuck out on the screen.
Here her and Ford play people whose spouses are killed in an airplane crash. They are seated together and this is where the plot takes off. Apparently Ford, a police detective in Wash D.C., discovers that his wife was having an affair. He further discovers that the affair was with the husband of a New England Congresswoman.
The story takes on many subplots as Ford and Thomas find themselves drawn together by revelations of their marriages, the uncovering of deceipt, and the pure grief and anger over the loss of a loved one.
I think the movie is worthwhile either renting or catching on cable.
\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\nRandom Hearts snuck up on me. Criticized for the implausibility of a) the premise and b) the pairing of an IA cop and a Congresswoman, as well as for its slowness, the film felt just fine to me , and even ended up being surprisingly absorbing. I found my interest engaged as the film cut back and forth between Ford's and Thomas's lives as they first found out about, and dealt in very different ways in very different environments with, their spouses' deaths and the subsequent revelation that they were involved with other people. It could happen; two people's philandering spouses could be on the same plane, the plane could go down, the survivors could be brought together by the aftermath. So what if it's improbable? Improbable is not the same as far-fetched. So..what if it did happen? Why not speculate?
Ford's and Thomas's performances are believable and nuanced. Instead of finding their coupling implausible (opposite sides of the tracks--give me a break) I felt it driven by a grief and betrayal neither party knew how to deal with. The script does not bring them together too soon or too easily, and the end of the film does not resolve their relationship conventionally, either. Where I find it unsatisfying is when the dialogue brings up interesting wrinkles in or insights into the ramifications of the situation, personal and professional, but never seems to pursue any of them very far. And if you make the mistake of thinking about it too hard, Harrison Ford does seem about 10 years too old for the part.
For five and a half bucks at Wal-Mart, with full length director commentary and behind-the-scenes featurette, the DVD is well worth owning. I don't think I would pay $20 for it on a bet, but my wife might. OK, ten...
\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 must be getting old because I was riveted to this movie from the first time I saw it. I'm watching it again right now on HBO. It's a very simple film about 2 people that fall in love after they found out that there spouses were having an affair. Plot is very thin, but the actors acted very well in this movie. In the mix of Kristen Scott Thomas running for congress and Harrison Ford being an Internal Affairs cop, these two meet, under unfortunate circumstances and fall in love. I love the soundtrack. Perfect fit. One thing I can't figure out, this movie had a budget of $68 million dollars. Were was it spent? The plane crash or Harrison Ford's salary?
\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\nRandom Hearts is a very well directed, well scripted and perfectly cast actors for the primary roles. I found it to be so intense, that you have to stop and wonder in almost every scene Harrison and Kristin are together, how their characters deal with this horrible situation they find themselves in. Very talented acting from both of them. A lot of people I believe who did not appreciate the movie for what it was, did not get the point of the movie or could not even fathom a situation like theirs.
(please skip this next part if you have not seen the movie yet)
I loved the ending, which was a great surprise which tied the whole movie. It was relieving to see how these two good persons can come out actually happier in the end.

\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFrom the late Sydney Pollack comes a grown up love story about human nature,pain,passion and betrayal. Police Sergeant Dutch Van Den Broeck(Harrison Ford)is devastated when he learns his beloved wife has been killed in a plane crash,he's even more upset to learn of her affair with the husband of a famous congresswoman Kay Chandler(Kristen Scott Thomas).He arranges to meet her and see if she knew or like he had no idea.They start to befriend each other then out of their mutual pain and distress begin an intense affair(which could be seen as healing for them both).However will the memories of the dead and pressures from their respective jobs drive them apart and cause more harm than good or can they escape the past?well you'll have to watch Random Hearts and find out.A moving and well acted film with a great cast.
\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\nOf all the actresses in film today, Kristin Scott Thomas would be my choice if I had to select one for stranding on a desert island.
I could watch her simply, say, sitting in a chair for a couple of hours. So it's difficult for me to be objective completely with respect to one of her films.
However, I did enjoy this movie and its story, per se, more than that indicated by the average ranking among the many persons previously commenting on this site.
Harrison Ford is not one of the actors, though, whose performances I enjoy most. But he's one of a handful who have reached the level of moving from 7 figures to 8 per film, so who am I to argue?
Ford though is often droll in his acting style, and sometimes seems to be in serious need of an antacid and a shot of caffeine - and \"Random Hearts\" is in this grouping.
His obsession in probing the losses, which both he and Thomas have endured with regard to their linked spouses, is understandable, given his profession as a detective - but not to the level presented here. Although not far, it crossed the line into the \"annoying\" category.
However, most of the scenes after he and Thomas became involved were interesting and well-played.
This film could have been a 9*, but I'd lower it a couple of levels, based upon Ford's overall performance, and and another, because it contained a bit more of the extraneous sub-plot elements than seemed required.
\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 really enjoyed \"Random Hearts\". It was shocking to see such a low rating on IMDB, but chacun a son gout and all that. I am a big fan of Harrison Ford, but I do have to admit that he was ill cast in this movie, and the reason I gave it 9 instead of 10. Kristin Scott Thomas, though, was just wonderful. She was believable and beautiful, in spite of being made up for half the movie like she'd been crying for days. Could \"Random Hearts\" have been better? Sure, but it is very much worth seeing as it is.
\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\nWhy do people need to follow the opinion of the herds of masses and critics? RANDOM HEARTS, directed by the brilliant Sydney Pollack (who has a small role in the film too) is another Harrison Ford vehicle. As such, it is quite good and entertaining. Surely, anyone who goes to see it has this in mind, or read the book which is no better. Even Kristin Scott Thomas fans, myself included, knew it would be a variation of her again playing the love interest of her eldest uncle. Even as such, the film is satisfying. What's so bad about this movie that is much better in the other (much higher rated) Harrison Ford vehicles? This film is no masterpiece, but it's not as bad as the masses would have the potential viewer believe.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI read the other comments here about this movie before watching it. If you've read them, you will know that they are almost all negative. I really don't understand that. I admit that it is far too long (it needs about a half hour cut out to speed it up a bit). The music is often inappropriate. But, strong performances by Ford and Thomas are indeed enough to carry this. With all his fame as a movie star, I'd forgotten that Harrison Ford really can act! This role as a man who has defined himself based upon a lie is remarkable. I find it completely believable that he wants all the details he can get so he can see what was real and what was deception. Thomas is always wonderful and this is no exception. Her initial denial which leads to confusion and then to inner calm is tremendous. This movie is never going to be on anybody's list of great flicks, but it isn't that bad. I'm glad that I waited to see it on video, but it is worth the $3 or $4.
\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 others, I had been attracted to the combination of Pollack, Ford and Scott-Thomas. I had enjoyed the work of Pollack and Ford on Sabrina, a well made film and a careful rewrite of the old material. On hearing that this film was in production I ordered and read the book. Immediately it seemed that this would be a more difficult story to film. The characters are not always sympathetic, there is little if any humor and the author makes numerous plot shortcuts to focus on his principal theme: that, since each would see the other as the only one sharing the unique combination of loss and betrayal brought on by the air crash, the adulterers' completely surprised spouses would seek each other out. Moreover, he imagines that resolution could come to both through a bitter exploration of the adulterers' hidden lives and that this experience of \"thick and thin\" could yield a deeper love than each had previously. Although much of the book deals with their bitterness and their building hatred of their former partners, in the end acceptance and forgiveness are found. The film script retains only the air crash and the shared predicament of the spouses. Where the woman is the research aggressor in the book, it is the man in the film and the woman is never a willing co-researcher. The film has a completely new dramatic sub-plot for Harrison Ford which seems even more contrived than the double coincidence of the air crash. The \"congresswoman up for re-election\" sub-plot for the woman is also new, yet it works better. Audience the expectations of pure romance or romantic comedy cannot be met because this story focusses on a very bitter pill. Where resolution and forgiveness is achieved in the book, however, lifting the burden of bitterness from the reader and permitting levity, there is no corresponding moment in the film. Although forgiveness is never hinted at, we are left to surmise that healing following a shooting does double duty. Ford's character need not be such an unentertaining man of few words and Scott-Thomas's accent change is a little disconcerting at first. This film is not the dead loss suggested by others. It is, however, a difficult film to appreciate because the rewrite and adaptation to the screen is below the standard previously achieved by the director cast.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've read approximately 10 reviews of this film, but haven't taken any of them \"to heart\". Harrison Ford is being criticized for everything from his haircut to his earring and I really don't see what any of these things have to do with the film. As I recall, he had bad hair plus bad reviews in Blade Runner but it's still a favorite among us videophiles. It is slower than the majority of his previous films but not worthy of the trashings it has received.
I would gladly pay $7.50 just to watch a bald Harrison Ford mow his lawn.
\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 this unlikely love triangle, set in 19th century Italy, `The Beauty and the Beast' is being turned upside down and inside out and then some: Giorgio, an army officer and the very image of male beauty, is being transferred away form his (married) lover Clara and sent to a small garrison somewhere in Piemont. There - initially much to his horror  Fosca, the grotesquely ugly cousin of his commander, develops an obsessive love for him. He suffers her passionate and demanding displays of affection out of pity and concern for her health (she is gravely ill), but becomes more and more fascinated by her  until the dramatic finale
Do not miss this most unusual love story, as twisted as it may sound. Valeria d'Obici, who deservedly won a price for her portrayal of Fosca, is as alarming as she is touching. Buy the video, read the book, go see the musical!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of the few movies that was recommended to me as absolutely brilliant, that really is. If you give this movie a low note than you really missed the point. You could describe Fosca as manipulative, but what if it is really serious, that she gets ill when the love she is sure of isn't answered. But what would you do when you are sure that the other one loves you, and is 'only' rejected by the fact that you are ugly. Wouldn't you fight for it. At least I think it is better to fight for it that die in bitterness. And it reminds me of the fact how I, as a man, react at first sight completely on the physical ugliness of Fosca and don't look further at the person she is or might be. This movie confronts me with very solemn questions about respect, trust, feeling manipulated and so on. How do I now if someone manipulates me or is just trying everything to make contact? What I think to be the most outstanding feature in this movie is that Ettore Scola made it absolutely believable that Giorgio falls in love with Fosca.
\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\nEttore Scola's masterful rendering of this epic of the heart deserves a much wider audience. It is a worthy successor to the risorgimento classics such as Vischonti's Senso and Il Gattopardo, as well as Rosselini's Vanina,Vanini. The 19th century is indeed a fruitful source for Italian filmmakers. The period settings and trappings are beautifully realized here, but the story is timeless and could occur in any period. What is so intriguing in this story is that the hero becomes trapped in a claustrophobic situation in which he finds himself the vigorously pursued object of desire and he is quite powerless to extricate himself from the alarming circumstances. Handsome and callow Giorgio (Giraudeau) is frustrated by his inability to visit his charming but light-minded married mistress (Antonelli) and falls prey to the dangerous passion of enamored Fosca (D'Obici), the ugly and sickly daughter of his stern commander (Girotti). The resulting anguish and ensuing tragedy this unlikely pair undergoes make them both understandable, pitiful and immensely sympathetic to viewers. Bernard Giraudeau's stellar performance will captivate and leave a lasting impression. Not to be missed.
\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 clever and bizarre angle to \"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder\". At times you think this is campy and over the top, but the underlying poetic soul comes across strong and believable thanks to the performances of the two leads. One worth tracking down.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film, based on the book by Pascal Laime' -La Dentelliere- is an acclaimed film of excellent cinematography and costly Italian language. Set in a \"scholastic\" 19th Century, Balzac-style set, it portraits the story of a mad love story: a man and a woman. There is an infamous line at this shadowy-Mussolinni strike which reads: \"She does not smell like tomatoes.\" Sage perfumery of this Italian masterpiece, Scola is a director of the stature of Mussolinni: his cake will jump in your strawberries and if you let this director he will cream your olives as a Superman. Remember Nietzsche? This one will scare the HELL out of YOU: don't forget to visit Mussolinni's cake next to the Colisseum in Rome, across the Via Appia. This movie will wipe your Pampers inside-out and outside-in, it will make you cry out of Romantic joy! If you liked Ulysses, you will wipe it good with these strawberries until the end of the roll. Enjoy!
\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 bittersweet slice of magic realism had a checkered production history (director/writer replaced) and tanked at the box office, but it's a helluva film.
Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazzello are pre-teen brothers whose flaky mom (Lorraine Bracco) shacks up with a mean-spirited alcoholic (Adam Baldwin). During his drinking bouts, Baldwin physically abuses Mazzello and manipulates him into remaining silent about his situation. But when Wood cottons on to what's happening, the boys put their heads together and hatch a fantastique solution to Mazzello's devastating dilemma.
I love films that mix fantasy and dark reality. They are rarely successful financially (\"Lawn Dogs\" is a similar example), but they are usually original and intriguing.
The drunk Baldwin is shot from a low, child's perspective and his head is deliberately lopped off below the top of frame. This device allows us to judge him purely by his actions and as a totally physicalized beast. Both Wood and Mazzello are excellent, and they pull us effortlessly into their dark, frightening world.
The \"radio flyer\" of the title is a small red wagon kids transport their belongings in. Here it transports a dream.
Seriously interesting stuff.
\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 reply to \"State of Confusion\" The dogs injuries do seem to disappear rather abruptly, but that may have only been an error in continuity. But, as for the kids trying to build a plane out of junk, it's just a simple matter of imagination. These are two very young kids who have extremely active imaginations and they must rely on those imaginations to keep themselves from being exposed to the reality of the level of abuse that goes on in their home from their stepfather. As for the stepfather, it's very interesting that the director chose to no show his face. That makes him seem more monstrous. If you show his face, then that character becomes a person and not just this \"monster\" who is terrorizing the childhood of these two innocent children. By showing only the concequences of his abuse and not focusing scenes on the abuse itself, the children then become the main focus of the movie. This film has no loose ends, but runs just as a father's tale to his children would. It has embelleshments. This is a fine American classic.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEverything about this film is simply incredible. You truly take this journey through the eyes and soul of a child.
I do feel it is important to note this tale is about child abuse. Don't rent it for your kids thinking it is a fun, disney-esque 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\nSimply an amazing bittersweet movie that portrays a side of life often skipped over in feel good movies. I saw this as a child and came back to it very recently and fell in love again.
As a child it sparked my interest purely for the building of a plane, as an adult it captured me in the dark world and a young mans escape from that world.
The portrayal of the King was great, the camera style chosen with low shots and shots focusing on actions and hand movements was I thought well done, I personally can not recall anything quite done in that style and adds to the character and portrays him as a force almost not human (which may not be far from reality) it makes for interesting developments
Worth a watch any day
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm not sure as to call this movie a children's drama or a fantasy film. When I first watched this I couldn't really make out the ending and that's the only part of movie that's seemed to lack depth and left me a bit depressed for awhile. Then I watched it a second time and realised how great the acting was and was clueless as to why it received the meager attention it did at the time.
Unforgettable performances by the young Mazzello and Wood should have made this film a classic.
Although the it was probably intended to be a fantasy/drama by the original writer/director (Evans), once Donner took over he presumably made it with a more dramatical outlook especially the ending, which left a lot to be desired as to what really happened to Bobby - Was he killed?, did he escape & really do all those fantastic journeys?, or was it just an imaginary story woven by Hanks to prove a point to the kids?
But in all it didn't provide the closure of a happy ending that we are so used to in a children's film. Perhaps it's because it's not just that.
To see what may have been a more classical ending check out the Official Elijah Wood Site where you'll find the First rough draft script of the conclusion of the movie(presumably by the original writer)
Also a note of the music by Hans Zimmer which is one the best Soundtracks I've ever heard, a mixture of childish and dark sentiments throughout the movie. A great CD to get hold of if you can.

\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSPOILER NOTHING BUT SPOILER
I have to add my name to the list of folks who feel that the other viewers just don't get it. But no one has even mentioned the \"s\" word so far as I have seen.
While I agree that the kid died I think we can be more specific: he committed suicide. He races down the slope in an old wagon, shoots off the cliff and...\"flies away\". Maybe the whole account of the form of death is allegory or maybe he does commit suicide in a wagon as laid out. In either case, he \"flies away\" (c'mon, not that tough a metaphor).
Maybe I just have a thing for Tom Hanks, but I was ok with the narration. Besides he is raising $ for the WW2 memorial and you gotta love him for that.
Oh yeah, I loved the movie and found it incredibly moving.
\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 started watching this one very tensed because I heard so many different things about it. Somewhere I read it was a drama about child abuse and rated PG-13 for violence. Another critic said it was a fantastic and nostalgic adventure of kids (and I thought it was also for kids to watch). Well, now I've seen it so many times and still don't know in which category to put it. It is extremely funny at times but terribly sad and depressing the next moment. Because of the nice relationship and the adventures I would like to recommend this film to all the youngsters I know but I fear the somber atmosphere is not suitable for children. Because of the perfect performances and the magic of the film I must say this nevertheless: Watch it, especially the kids! The last thing I have to say is that I hate the scriptwriter for letting poor Bobby never see his family again after having fled from The King (who didn't even return to terrorize the remained Mary and Mikey). It is very good for this film not to have a perfect happy ending with everybody being happy - and I didn't expect it to - but this solution left me very, very sad!
\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\nEven people who dislike the film, usually because they find the ending confused, should appreciate the strong acting of Elijah Wood & Joseph Mazello who played the two young leads in this movie.
Spoiler WARNING: At a literal level, the ending makes no sense. People who think the ending makes some sense at other levels are divided between those who 1) think the younger brother was killed by the step-father either the one time Mike (the older boy) was away dealing with the neighborhood gang, or flew off the wishing spot in his wagon to escape the situation through death & those 2) who think the younger brother is imaginary & his flying off in the wagon transformed into a flying machine signals his overcoming the abusive situation.
I favor 2). It makes a lot of sense in terms of the way many children deal with abusive situations. It is not uncommon for an abused child to split his or her psyche & project the abused self into something else; a stuffed animal, even an imaginary friend. This way, it makes a lot more sense that it is always the younger boy who is abused & never Mike. In reality, it is unlikely for one of two brothers to get all the abuse, although that does happen. Also, it is Bobby, the younger brother who is also the encouraging one, the one who insists that they can overcome the situation. Also, the death of a real-life sibling through abuse would have been too shattering for an adult with this in his history to transform into as upbeat a fantasy ending 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\nYou got it right! Bobby was Mike's imaginary friend through the whole movie, even at the beginning when on their way to California. His mother knew of Bobby and didn't discourage Mike leaning on Bobby since imaginary friends are common with young children.
That's why they both got stomach aches at the same time. That's why the boys' were so close.
At the end Mike was letting Bobby go. The \"King\" was arrested. Mike could go on without Bobby. It's also why Mike's mother didn't seem disturbed when Mike received the postcard (Mike had written & mailed) from Bobby the Ol' West tourist stop and the other postcards from all over the world. You noticed Mike's mother turned the first card over and looked at the postmark. What a great mom doing the best she could in the late sixties.
A 9 out of 10 for me. Brought back memories...
\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 believe, that this is a heart tugging film. Richard Donner (Directed the top grossing film \"Superman\"), had done a great job directing this film. Some of the segemets were good, and several were horrible because, Bobby (Mazzello) was beatened by The King (Baldwin, and especially their dog, Shane attacked the King which meant that he paid for what he had done to Bobby.
Elijah Wood, portrayed a good role in this film. The memorable scene in this, he dreamt that he took the buffalo's advice about Bobby being battered. Lorraine Bracco, (Pre-Soprano)had portrayed an impressing role.
I give this film *** out of four!!!
\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 rented the movie and liked it so much that I bought it. Elijah Wood (Mikey) and Joseph Mazello (Bobby) are outstanding as the two boys. Their new stepfather physically abuses Bobby. The abuse is implied, for the most part, not seen, and roused a lot of passion in me to help abused children. There is a magical quality to the movie as the boys' imagination helps them find a way to deal with the abuse. You have to try to understand the story from a child's point of view. I'm still thinking about the ending. I've watched the movie 3 or 4 times and each time I think of possible new meanings. I'm not sure exactly what Richard Donner intended me to think, but this is an excellent film! Joseph Mazello and Elijah Wood will make you go hug your kids.
\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 am surprised that so many viewers didn't find all the symbolism in the movie.....it's what made the movie an incredible work of art! The story deals with some of the saddest content a movie could hold, yet it is one of the best movies I've ever seen because of the need for your own imagination and the brilliance in the storyline.
If you will pay close attention, the message is there. The younger brother is killed by the stepfather. The older brother made up the story about the wagon flying as a way to deal with the pain of his brother's death. There are those that would argue why would he lie to his own children with the story. To me the answer is because he doesn't want to share such ugliness with his own children, or that he has blocked it out and replaced his memory of the horrific event with the thought of his brother flying away to safety. I've read some of the reviews that believe he was an only child and that he created the younger brother as an escape to deal with the abuse he suffered. Although this is an interesting idea - I love the imagination used to come up with that. I don't think he would have lied to his own children about having a little brother. But, I do find it plausible that he would have lied about his little brother's death. However, I like that idea of an ending much better than the notion that the movie had no symbolism at all.
There are many different takes you can have on the movie, but if you take the movie at face value.....two brothers creating a wagon that flies to escape an abusive stepfather - you've missed the brilliance. The fact that I was able to see the subtle messages in the script were what made the movie so incredible to me. It requires your own thought process and your own imagination to make it work......dig deep when you watch it. You'll be amazed at the genius contained in the film. The only other movie I've seen as close to this in symbolism and subtle messages is Pleasantville.....but that's a comment for another movie!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"