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\nThis is one of Stan Laurel's best solo comedy's, before the 1927 teaming with Oliver Hardy. Laurel is a very good actor in the film, and provides good comedy. The best scene in the film is when Stan dances with Mae Laurel (his real-life common law wife), at the Cafe Espanol. Stan does silly dances that are funny, without you hearing the music. I will recommend this to any Stan Laurel fan.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you want to see a film starring Stan laurel from the Laurel & Hardy comedies, this is not the film for you. Stan would not begin to find the character and rhythms of those films for another two years. If, however, you want a good travesty of the Rudolph Valentino BLOOD AND SAND, which had been made the previous year, this is the movie for you. All the stops are pulled out, both in physical comedy and on the title cards and if the movie is not held together by character, the plot of Valentino's movie is used -- well sort of.
\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\nMud and Sand is one of Stan Laurel's spoofs of the popular movies at the time, this one being of Rudolph Valentino's Blood and Sand (hence Stan being Rhubarb Vaselino). While partly inconsistent on characterization (how did he defeat those bulls in the beginning is not explained), this was mostly funny from beginning to end with one of the best sequences being a dance he does with his then common-law wife, Mae Laurel. Another funny sequence concerns his reluctance with romancing a femme fatale, Filet de Sole, while his wife, Caramel, is waiting for him that shows some glimpses of his later innocent character with Oliver Hardy. Well worth seeing for anyone interested in seeing Mr. Laurel's early work before his fateful teaming that made him popular around the world.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSeeing Laurel without Hardy in a film seems strange, yet it's entertaining all the same. It's a well done parody of what became a classic silent film and it showcases Stan's talents very well. While his pictures with Oliver Hardy were great, these early solo efforts give you an idea of how skilled he was at his craft and how great he might have been had he continued in the tradition of Keaton and Chaplin as an individual star on his own. The dance sequence with his real-life wife in the café scene is the best part of the picture, and has some pretty funny bits to go with Laurel's excellent dance steps. And the bullfight climax is a gem, as even the bull takes a pratfall. And I like the irony in the scene where he's buried in hats and comes up wearing his familiar Laurel and Hardy bowler hat. As much as I love the Laurel and Hardy team and feel that there was never a funnier comedy duo on screen during their prime, it's nice to see them on their own once in a while (check out THE FIGHTING KENTUCKIAN that Hardy made with the Duke as another fine example.) Dale Roloff
\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 saw this movie for the first time I didn't believe my own eyes. In front of me there was a great -and well done- parody of Valentino... see Stan Laurel bullfight that way is like to see an excellent fencer in action! It's a very good parody, rich of ideas, with a clever and charming Stan... old and good like whiskey. (or the booze-up after that)
\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\nStan Laurel, it's been noted, first made a real name for himself by appearing in short parodies of popular feature films in the 1920s. He certainly demonstrates himself to be an excellent comic actor and performer here in \"Mud and Sand\" (a parody of Rudolph Valntino's \"Blood and Sand\"), but I think a film like this really works not because Laurel was a great satirist but because it allows the audience to jump into the comedy already familiar with the situation and scenes. Laurel can then let loose with his inspired gags without either having to create context or to do without it. I watched this the day after watching \"Blood and Sand\" itself; it certainly enhanced the experience to know what was being parodied and where.
The scene where Laurel's character (Rhubarb Vaseline if you believe the title cards, or Rhubarb Vaselino if you believe how his name gets written on the chalk board) bilks his mother out of money with a two-for-you, two-for-me trick is funny on its own because it's a great gag, but it's extra funny if the viewer is aware how it is taking the air out of Valentino's extravagant and melodramatic promises to give his mother any luxuries she desires.
This is the best Stan Laurel solo work I've seen. It's just plain funny -- even more so if you have had a chance to see the source material.
\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\nStan as a bullfighter, and a good one, is quite a surprise. Usually overshadowed by Oliver Hardy, this silent short allows him to take the lead, and the limelight.
One can only draw the conclusion that his character \"Rhubarb Vaselino\" was a parody of the many Rudolph Valentino movies of this era.
Be prepared to laugh yourself silly at some of the dialog, and keep an eye on the special effects.
I viewed this on DVD in a Vol.1 & 2 collection.
\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 Stan Laurel comedy short is a cute little parody of the Valentino film BLOOD AND SAND. If you've seen BLOOD AND SAND, then you'll probably appreciate this film and laugh at a few of the scenes that mock the Valentino film. However, if you have not see that movie and just watch this film, you'll probably not be very impressed--though I really liked the title cards, us the word \"bull\" was used repeatedly in very funny ways.
Stanly plays \"Vaselino\" a bullfighter who seems pretty dim-witted and wins only because the bulls seem to lazy and non-aggressive. Even the bull at the end of the film who has supposedly killed ten men is obviously just a domesticated bull.
Not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, but still a cute and harmless 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\nThis movie has all the qualities to be good, Stan -singing (?), dancing, falling- is very funny, I think he handled his character in the best way possible. it's a parody and very well done, maybe times can change, there's another audience, but if you want to laugh, come on, see 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\nCritics and audiences both pretty much panned this movie, but I actually didn't think it was too bad! Even the critics I normally agree with thought it was crap, and I normally despise PG-13 \"horror films.\" So this means one of two things: either (1) I'm too easily pleased, and my taste in movies has dwindled over the years, or (2) 'When a Stranger Calls' isn't nearly as horrible as it's made out to be. Now, to be fair, some of the criticisms of the movie are true--there's not much character development, and not much happens in the story. But man alive folks, how much were you expecting from a movie about a babysitter being stalked? Cut them some slack! As a former babysitter who was watching this flick late at night with the lights out, I can safely say the stalker dude was one creepy mofo! Who knows? I guess stuff like this just gives me the willies.
Yes, I admit I had fun watching this, and I don't care how big of a minority that puts me in. ;)
\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\nWith all the shoot em up, blood horror movies that have come our way in the last little while \"Saw, Hostal, Saw 2, The Hills have eyes\" Yes, they have their place, don't get me wrong! I went to see \"When a stranger calls\" with my buddy the other night! Why? Because it's a remake of the 1979 classic, which at the time was excellent and scared the you know what out of everyone! I didn't know what to expect. However I was pleasantly surprised! It was a film made of mood, atmosphere, suspense! Because remember people, what you can't see, what you think you see, what you can't hear, or what you think you hear, is far more scarier then what you do! If you love films with mood, creepiness, suspense and atmosphere!! You'll love it! It brought it back to the roots of the original Halloween. Thumbs up, a solid 8.5 out of 10 Remember folks, it's well done! not perfect! It's spooky, not bloody, It's creepy, not gory! It was nice to see a film come a long like this. Our minds have been conditioned and warped by the glitz and shock value of modern day horror movies, we forget, what's really scary.
\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\nHaving seen the original when I was 13 (and, yes, I was stupid enough to watch it while babysitting!), I was excited to see this remake.
Camilla Bell did a great job as Jill Johnson. And the fact that a teen horror flick could be made in the year 2006 without tremendous vulgarity and gore, made it even that much stronger of a film. I had a great time trying not to chew my fingernails off!
This film won't win anyone an Oscar, but it is entertaining and worth the matinée price ticket I bought to see it. I think girls around the world should watch the original and the remake...and then determine to never babysit again.
All I can say is, I'm glad I'm too old to babysit! There's just something about being in a dark creepy house with sleeping kids that makes this movie classic. No blood, no gore...just good psychological fun! WINNER!
\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 liked this movie. I'm not a big horror movie buff so i couldn't comment on similarities between this and other movies of this genre, but i found this movie quite captivating. the story line, albeit a little obvious, had some genuinely scary/tense moments and the acting (particually of the lead female role) wasn't bad in anyway
Overall i'm a little surprised at the low rating this movie has gotten. I watch a lot of movies (working in a video store tends to help) and this really isn't as bad as people seem to think. I do have some criticism though. The final call from the cop was terrible, almost overacted, the dead girl in the bathroom looked liked she was having a little sleep (probably from the amount of tequila she mentioned she drank) and the children's reaction to what was happening instilled in me the hope that they were ultimately killed
hope this helps some people
\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\nIm a big horror fan and I quite enjoyed this remake. With all these horror remakes floating about I think this is one of the better attempts.
I watched it with my two little sisters and I think it made it even better as they were quite scared. Also with the shouting at the screen \"Dont do that!\", \"Not that way!\", etc. I thought there were some good little jumpy moments and it built the tension well.
Camilla Belle is absolutely stunning in the lead role and a very good actress - So she holds your attention well.
Overall a decent 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\nWhile i read all of the complaints about this movie before i saw it, i still had interest from the preview. I don't know if it was because i was expecting a bomb or what, but i really enjoyed the movie. The I was not very frightened at all until the second half of the movie, but even then it wasn't very bad at all. I think that most of the scenes and false alarms were realistic, if a little too coincidental, but it was necessary to move the story along. I think that the house and surrounding area is the perfect setting for this type of movie, it is beautiful and huge, but then the same qualities that are attractive become scary. I also think that the light arrangement worked extremely well because not only did they turn on upon entry, but there was no way to keep them on, so the house stayed dark outside of the small section Jill was in.
Speaking of Jill, i thought her part was acted pretty well, at first it wasn't as believable, but after a few phone calls it was fine. In fact the scenes where she is frightened are acted perfectly. And, finally, someone got the fire poker right. I can't tell you how many times when i hear a noise at my house i grab the fire poker, and it was a nice touch for her to do the same, even though she idiotically forgets it when she needs it most.
In regards to the plot holes, the movie is not perfect but almost every hole can be explained, and part of the mystery is how he got in..exactly, how long was he watching her? how did he get out to kill her friend? and when exactly did the gardener die? overall, i enjoyed it and i was surprised how quickly it went. It kept my attention, and i wanted to see how it ended, although the ending was very brief and left a bad taste in my mouth. My only complaint, other than the ending, was the lack of character development. They could have added ten minutes with her and her friends or something to make us feel bad for her situation more, to give us a taste of her personality and to give us foreshadowing to how she will handle the situation(for example, the scene where she debates whether to go back for the kids, it looks like some scene is missing at the beginning that talked about her only caring about herself or something).
\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 don't watch very many 'horror' movies, but one night I sat down and watched this with my cousins. Now, we're teenagers, so we tend to make fun of a lot of things, but honestly, the acting here really wasn't very good, especially at the beginning. One line that stood out was when Scarlett says to Jill and Tiffany, \"This is so... high school!\" while the next scene shows Jill walking past a sign with their High School name on it... Many parts at the beginning reminded me of a corny, badly-written, badly-acted Lizzie McGuire episode. However, as the story progressed, and the cast moved on to just about only Jill most of the time, I was able to appreciate the movie more. Camilla Belle did really well in this movie, and I think that the other actors and actresses ruined the movie for her. And I must admit, this was one of the scariest movies I've ever seen. Well, no, there weren't big monsters and white faces appearing in dark corners and possessed dolls, but the thing that made this movie scarier than ones containing those things is that it really could happen. And this movie really reminded me of what really IS scary... We all know we're not likely to stumble upon the living dead any time in our lives, but the idea of having a murderer inside the house you're babysitting at could really happen. The only flaw with this movie is that it's one of the most cliché movies I've ever seen. It has everything in it that any horror movie has ever had- turning the keys and the car starts, shadows in the corner, turning the corners of the stairs with suspense, turning around and seeing a dead body, ending a fatal scene quickly with waking up from a dream, etc. At the suspenseful scenes, it was very predictable, but overall, I would give it a 7/10. It's definitely worth seeing.
By the way, This is my first review, so I don't know if any of those things were spoilers.. But just to be safe...
\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\nDon't listen to most of these people. ill give you a better review of this movie which me and my friend love! Its about Jill Johnson, played by Camilla Belle, who babysits at the Mendrakis' house and someone breaks in. if you're wondering how he got in the house, he went through the garage most likely. so anyway, don't listen to, \"the worst acting\". it has amazing acting. with a great story. I think that there are 2 benefits that Jill has. 1. shes a fast runner and is on the track team. 2.she got out alive! lol.
it is a cool movie and quite scary. check it out, you will be happy with this masterpiece. don't listen to the other people on the site. its very good. trust me, i am good at reviewing movies. I'm a future movie critic. i totally want to buy this movie. and you will too when you see it. it is amazingly awesome.
\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 A Stranger Calls is actually a pretty good movie. I had never saw the original and so when I watched this I thought it was unique. When When A Stranger Calls was advertised on the television the trailer gave away the ending. Well, I never saw the trailer so when I saw this film I was surprised at how good it turned out to be. I walked by it one day and decided I'd buy it and now I'm lucky I did, because I thought it was a very pleasing movie that is a nice little film to own. It is getting a lot of unfair treatment, and if you're interested in this movie at all, don't listen to all the negativity. Camille Belle is not as bad of an actress as everyone makes her out to be, and she did a great job in this movie, so all you haters get over yourselves, lighten up, and actually try to enjoy this movie for what it is; A fun, teeny bopper, popcorn flick. If you haven't seen it please do for it is a lot more enjoyable than a lot of the other slashers being made recently...
\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 movie is about a girl who's not going to a bonfire only because she's baby-sitting that night. Nothing weird about that, right? Until ... The phone rings. Until ... The phone rings again. And again ... And again. Those are not some stupid prank calls. This is for real. If you wanna see how the girl reacts, just watch the movie.
Great atmosphere filled with scary sounds. Very well performed by young Camilla Belle who got the lead role. I see in her some great potential to become a good actress. This is more than only a decent thriller, I have no idea why it's so underrated. Anyway, on my opinion this movie deserves more than only 4/10. 24% of all voters rated the movie with 1. Get serious, people. You couldn't get a better thriller for a title like this.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSimon Wests pg-13 thriller about a babysitter who gets disturbing prank calls while sitting at a mansion is neither original nor exciting enough to be called a good film. Although there are some elements of suspense, good eye candy and decent characters, the film is just another I know what you did last summer, as it falls short of being taken seriously. The performances were alright, but nothing special with this flick, i say skip it, unless you are looking for a mediocre movie, you can find better films than this on lifetime sometimes, okay maybe not lifetime but at least USA or somethin, haha....
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 was recently at a sleepover birthday party with five other girls all my age (eleven.) All of us, thinking it would be some harmless little movie such as Jaws decided to rent it along with Rat Race. (We watched Rat Race after When a Stranger Calls as to ease our fear.) We put the movie on at 11:00 at night and lay together in our sleeping bags hiding behind covers for most of it. I screamed five times which is unusual for me as I get scared in movies but never scared enough to actually scream.
All of us were terrified to even leave the bedroom as we were all positive the Stalker (Jenkins as we called him for some reason)would get us. I played a mean trick; one everyone was all dozing off once Rat Race was over I hid under my sleeping bag and said quietly and lowly \"HAVE YOU CHECKED THE CHILDEN?\" They all SCREAMED like nuts and were so scared. All in all I would rate this movie a 9. The only thing I didn't like was that 1. There were too many false alarms when Jill thinks the Stalker is there and 2. The kids never woke up during the whole thing until Jenkins kidnapped them and hid them in the cupboard at which time all they did was cry like babies. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes thriller. But one thing: I AM SO NOT BABYSITTING PAST 9:00 PM EVER AGAIN1!
\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 hundred miles away from the scene of a grizzly murder in small town American, Jill Johnson (Belle) settles in for a night of babysitting. With the children asleep and a beautiful home to relax in, she locks the door and sets the alarm. But when a series of eerie phone calls from a stranger says that she \"check the children,\" Jill panics. Fear to terror when she has the calls traced. And what the police find turns the perfect babysitting job into a 16-year-old's worst nightmare. There aren't any other lead actors in this movie. Camilla Belle is the main star with a cute face. The day she arrives to babysit, she really has no idea what in the hell really awaits her.
If I were in a house like the one Jill was in. I would explore everything that is around. The fridge would be the first person I would looks at, but I'm a male and I don't babysit. But what I found funny was the size of the house. I was thinking, would the movie be the same if the house weren't so big? Anyone could get lost in that huge house, but this movie needed a house with a massive size.
Camilla Belle has a cute face, a perfect smile but it's like for a movie like this, the lead actress needs someone with experience. I found Camilla not that good. I don't know maybe she thought that this could be her breakthrough role. I do like her, she is a cute girl but someone to have a role in this movie has to be someone how is different to take it.
This movie wasn't scary. I also found this movie more like a \"chick flick\". I think the only reason this was released during the SuperBowl Weekend was that the guys stay home and watch the game and the girls go out to go see this. It also seems like a type of a movie when girls will enjoy more than guys. But I did like this movie but for how it is. Girls just like tog et scared or scream. This was just a pretty decent movie.
Maybe anyone could like this movie. There are many PG-13 horror films that never succeed. This was on its own level. So I kinda liked this movie. I give it a 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\nIf you have ever babysat in a house you didn't know, or if you saw the original and enjoyed it then this will be a good choice. Ignoring the reviews and what was posted here, I went ahead and rented this movie because of the memories of how the original scared me as a teen. This movie has (of course)changed some of the original story to relate to todays teens, such as the babysitter is in trouble for going over on her cell phone minutes and has to take on a babysitting job to pay her bill. However, it sticks to the original story line pretty well. If you can relate to the babysitter, not knowing the house and it's usual pops and cracks it is quite suspenseful. When the killer is shown he is very creepy and you find yourself yelling at the girl to \"GET OUT OF THE HOUSE\". If you have never babysat or been in a situation like this then you probably will not be able to relate and will not like it. It's all about understanding her fear.
\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\nPeople say that this film is a 'typical teen horror movie'... well it's a horror movie with a teenage girl in it.. what do you expect! It's a good film, I counted 3 actual screams in the audience whilst the film was on and it was a very jumpy scary film. I wasn't bored in the film at any point and I was even on the edge of my seat at one point. The only thing that was slightly bad was that it was a tiny bit slow in getting into the actual storyline but this all led up to why she was where she was and why what happened, happened. The acting was good, the scenery was good and the storyline was good too, I hope to see a 'When A Stranger Calls 2' in a few months! Good 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\nAll you need is great house, a babysitter and a phone. Simon West directs this thrilling and chilling remake of the 1979 original. This version is more of a thriller than a horror flick. Emotionally tense with an escalating fear factor. Jill Johnson(Camilla Belle)needs to work off an excessive cell phone bill; she takes on the task of babysitting the two children of Dr. and Mrs. Mandrakis(Derek de Lint and Kate Jennings Grant). The house is a beautiful 1970ish wood and glass masterpiece. Secluded and peaceful. The kids are already in bed, the wind builds and is joined by down-pouring rain. The phone begins ringing, ringing, ringing. The babysitter is soon in a frantic mode of survival in fear of the creepy stranger on the other end of the phone.
Belle is great as the innocent, smart and strong teen babysitter. The voice of the stranger on the phone is that of Lance Henriksen, while the physical stranger is played by Tommy Flanagan. Also featured are: Katie Cassidy and Brian Geraghty. Kudos to James Dooley for the atmospheric original music.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was skeptical before going to this because of the horribly assembled trailer which made it look like an equally horrible movie. I was nicely surprised by how much i did not waste my money. I believe the films success comes from how creepy it really is and how the environment of the house is. Little things like the sensor lights create a true uneasy feeling. The shadows and ominously cold feeling of the house make it easy to tell that no matter how much you know horror films, anything could happen in the film. The acting is by no means perfect, nor were they bad. The main character is convincing even given the annoying teen dramas that surround her. In the end, I was thoroughly impressed with the film in most aspects.
It is definitely a film i would recommend.
\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 seen both movies and I saw without a doubt the re-make is the best, I know a lot of people would disagree those who have become fans of the original will most probably not like this re-make, but i thought it was well thought out and definitely scary, It was so good I'm going to see it again tonight, the original creeped me out because they kill the children, i mean who does that in movies anyway....but in this one the children have at least half a chance...The only bad part about this movie is when the babysitter (Jill) Walks towards the sounds she hears and runs outside into the bushes to check for someone, clearly no one in their right mind would do that whilst babysitting, so that is the only thing i found wrong with the movie, and even so they probably had to put that in there to build suspense, i don't want to give too much away for all those who have not seen it, i recommend you do instead of listening to all these people saying its crap and worse than the original, it would be a better movie for teenagers, as it displays things that most of us are scared of, but when i was in the movies there were at least 10 adults over the age of 70 in there watching it, and they enjoyed it, if they enjoyed it i think you will to! I give it a 9 out of 10!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is not so much of a review as it is a testament that it has been proven, yet again, that the Academy rewards money, not artistic accomplishment. And I must say I am saddened that this usually artistic and intelligent band of imbd members have left this off the top 250. Boogie Nights is powerful, raw, and gutsy through script, direction and acting. Very few movies can claim this triple crown.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOne of the things that I like about PT Anderson, is that he has the guts to take talent that most people push to the side or have pushed to the side and makes them stars. Case in point, a washed-up... Burt Reynolds delivers a great performance in this film. And if proving Adam Sander can be a great actor (Punch Drunk Love) wasn't enough... here comes Mark Whalburg... like you've never seen before.
I think many people pass up \"Boogie Nights\" cause they are anti-porn, or just flat out hate the adult industry and can't overlook that aspect of this film. But underneath that is a great story about characters losing everything and battle to regain themselves. There is a beautiful film... and it's too bad that enough people see that.
\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\nBoogie Nights is full of surprises, nothing quite prepares one for it its soul. Yes, it does have soul, whilst tackling the tackiest of subject matter, with both a wry smile and respect. Brillantly cast and wonderful character development, the performances somehow combine the best of stage acting with improvisation within a cinema verite style.
The plot proved richer than I expected and the underlying themes are teased out quite profoundly as each \"B grade\" human being is brought, through crisis, into perspective.
A sociologist's dream case study, the film resonates the raw truth of what we all know about self-esteem, parental love and lack of it, attention/love deficit and its manifestation in adulthood, the desperate need to belong. Something for everyone here.. almost camouflaged as issues of untouchables and their separate milieu but of course they are universal.
The film works on a number of levels. The ironic loop is that the milieu portrayed exists only because of the voyeur, who happens to be watching the film...
Boogie Nights is non judgmental of its subject matter and characters, a rarity. It deserves every accolade it has achieved and more.
\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\nBoogie Nights is one of the best films to come out of the 90's and I'd go so far as to say it should be in the IMDb top 250. I can actually understand why many would dislike it, due to the subject matter. I personally feel however as many do, judging from the aclaim this film's received by viewers and critics that it's topnotch film making.
The direction and acting in this film surpass good and reach the level of brilliance.There is not one scene in this movie that isn't amazing. The individual characters reach out and touch you. Given that this is a movie about the porn industry, one wouldn't imagine the sex scenes could be handled with such sensitivity but they are. The direction is among the best I've ever seen-and I've seen a lot of films.
The film isn't about one particular personal individual's story, it's about many.It's a character study about people who have many layers to them and who maybe in an industry most would find alien but who still dream the same dreams and have both bad and good to them. Boogie Nights draws you into their story from the beginning, and though the film is long(I believe almost 3 hours) you honestly don't even notice. And when it ends you kind of don't want it to....
I'm not easy to impress, meaning there aren't many movies I'd give a 10 of 10 rating to but this is one. Beyond the multiple character study, is the use of music in the film. I have never, in all my years of seeing movies seen music tell a story as well as in this movie.There was such flawlessness to it, you know it's not something your gonna see everyday.
Burt reynold's performance was perhaps the best I've ever seen him do, and Mark Wahlberg is incredible(I'm astounded there are still people saying he doesn't act well. I don't know how anyone viewing this could possibly think that)but the person who really surprised me was Heather Grahem(Rollergirl) who is absolutely fantastic in her role, in particular the one memorable scene with Burt Reynolds in the Limo, towards the end.
Again, I'll echo other IMDb reviewers in saying this movie is not for everybody. But I still think this was topnotch.10 of 10.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe brilliance of this story delivers at least one skillfully crafted message to each viewer in the audience. This story is about success, it's about failure. It's about the choices you make in life and the choices others make for you. The story deals with self realization and determination on a scale so large, no camera angle could cover it. Within the grasp of each scene is resides an element marked for depiction within your imagination. Keep this in mind as you watch the movie; it's more than eye candy. The sexually suggestive, rarely explicit scenes serve only to distract and entertain you during the tedious process of character development.
\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 Boogie Nights last week and I could tell you, when I watched the film I had a blast. If you think that when you watch the film you will get sicked by the porn. I mean yes, if your not a porn person who can't bother being by it, than this isn't the film to see. But the thing is, the whole film isn't really about porn. Well halfway through the film is about the porn industry but the other half is about the character development and the bad situations these characters go through. The actors played there roles perfect, especially Mark Wahlberg, John C. Reilly, and William H. Macy. The sex scenes, of course are terrific but mainly focus on the character's hype in porn films until there struggles. Excellent film, one of the best!
Hedeen's Outlook: 10/10 **** A+
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat has to change in today's attitude towards films like Boogie Nights is the approach. The approach is awful! Comparing it to Pulp Fiction, seeing only the pornography, and all its aspects.. come on people, there is more than that in this beautiful motion picture. And to all the sceptics, hasn't Paul Thomas Anderson proved himself worthy time and time again? Magnolia is one of the main reasons I watch American films at all and still have faith in this \"Industry\" that film-making is today.. And what about There Will Be Blood? That is a film that will stay in film history whether u like it or not! Yeah, you! The so-called consumer.. you know something: F#*k you! you don't deserve this, you don't deserve anything. So many artists today struggle to get recognition and it has become increasingly difficult to make serious films, even mainstream, because people just wanna see celebrities doing stupid stuff.. like that sell-out Britney spears.
Anyway, this was very painful for me to say because I don't want to see this, i don't wanna believe that today all it matters is the adding up of numbers.. sales revenue and sales return.. I want to see magic, the magic that Fellini, Bergman and Kurosawa brought and created through the language of cinema.. Because thats what PTA is doing.. he is creating magic!!
\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 that you need to know about the pornography of the late 70s and early 80s is all wrapped up in Paul Thomas Anderson's BOOGIE NIGHTS. Although the film is completely fictional, it is actually supposedly based on the story of porno kingpin John Holmes.
In Southern California in 1977, Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg) is working as a busboy in a nightclub. One of the regular customers is pornographer Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) and two of his starlets, Amber Waves (Julianne Moore) and Rollergirl (Heather Graham). Jack and Eddie meet and Jack realizes that Eddie is well...a little...gifted.
So Eddie stars in Jack's films under the pseudonym of \"Dirk Diggler.\" He becomes a \"big\" porno star (no pun intended) and seems to be on top of everything. Then comes the 80s when video replaces film and Jack's porno empire begins to collapse, along with Dirk Diggler and everybody else working in the field.
BOOGIE NIGHTS is a really well-filmed drama. There is a little bit of violence, but P.T. Anderson makes it more stylized. And it kind of is a scathing approach to the degradations of pornography, especially when VHS became the standard medium for making pornos.
A lot of bizarre and unique characters are introduced. William H. Macy has an interesting role as someone working on the films, whose wife keeps having sex with everybody. I especially liked Don Cheadle's role as Buck the stereo salesman. The best performance is BOOGIE NIGHTS was definitely Burt Reynolds. A 90s 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\nDead Man Walking, absolutely brilliant, in tears by the end! You can not watch this film and not think about the issues it raises; how can you justify killing (whether it be murder or the death penalty) and to what point is forgiveness possible (not just in a spiritual way). Don't watch this film when your down! But WATCH 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\nJust to clarify, Matthew Poncelet wasn't a real person, but a character combination of 2 killers who were BOTH convicted and sentenced to die for a murder of two teenagers.
I read the User Comments and they react as if Matthew was real. The character is based on a mixture of two killers, Elmo Patrick Sonnier and Robert Lee Willie (who murdered separate people) and the murder itself was based on the one Willie committed. The conflict of both Willie having someone else present and both parties swearing the other did the killing is worked into the story as well.
Prejean's approach is unique in that she not only is ministering to the convicts as they wait for their death and aiding them in taking responsibility for their actions, she also reaches out to the victims' families, to help them know that the convict did, indeed feel remorse for what they did-effectively aiding both parties.
Everyone posting here seems to have strong beliefs on the Death Sentence. It's not my place to say it's right or wrong-in theory punishing death with death makes some sort of Karmic sense, however denying a person their freedom for the rest of their days, although costly, makes more sense to me-being stuck in a small room 23/7 (with one hour of exercise)for the rest of their days to be reminded of the cruel thing they did seem a more apt punishment-they are technically alive, but denied living. Say someone killed someone so they could get out of the responsibility the person they killed required (like Susan Smith killing her poor kids by shoving her car into a lake). I find it fittingly ironic that they would not get that \"freedom\" they craved and would now have to spend the rest of their days imprisoned.
Prejean's point comes through the story very well. She has my respect-she manages to find that balance-she isn't supporting a killer, she is guiding them to accepting what they did. If they didn't feel some kind of remorse, they wouldn't be asking for spiritual guidance.
Ona final note, when Poncelet apologizes to Delacroix parent for killing his son, the parents of the girl who was also murdered mutters something about why he didn't apologize for her death. I think the point was that throughout the movie, Poncelet denies killing both kids. There is doubt in Prejean's mind he did both killings-there is a friend who was sentenced but not to death-my thought is that Poncelet killed the Delacroix boy and the other man murdered the girl-hence Poncelet was taking responsibility for what he did. Had he been responsible for the girl's death, he probably would have apologized for that as well.
\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\nBefore seeing this film, I suggest the viewer puts away any expectations that the victims of the crimes depicted will get equal treatment and consideration as the perpetrator. There have been many films about crime victims. This one is about the murderer.
\"Dead Man Walking\" finds realism in simplicity of the story: there are no crack lawyers coming to save William Poncelet and no dramatic story twists. The film does not attempt to put him in a good light; he is guilty, he is repugnant, is a racist, and was responsible for heinous murders. Given all this, we are asked to do something very difficult: look at him as a human being despite his crimes. In this way, the film challenges the notion that the death penalty provides \"justice\". Whether you are for or against the death penalty, the film raises questions about whether the guilty can find redemption, inequity in the justice system, and the appropriateness of the death penalty.
Great performances by both Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn. In particular the last moments of the film show the true depth of Penn's ability.
\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 many years ago and it has never left my list of all-time best films ever made. When I first watched it, I was just beginning what has become a life-long passion for justice. It gave an interesting perspective of the death penalty and also gave me a few things to think about.
When you have a cast like this one, you are right to assume it is going to be nothing short of fabulous. This is, by far, the best role I have ever seen Sean Penn play (along with I am Sam). He nails the role, doesn't glamourize his actions while doing so. He manages to maintain a level of debauchery throughout the movie that I think was very important. Up until the very end, he does not try to be seen as anything more than what he is. He is a sick man who regrets his past, but still makes excuses for it. He ends up able to redeem his sense of self-worth as much as a convicted (and guilty) murderer can through the aid of Susan Sarandon's character, Sister Helen Prejean. Her character taught me about good will towards others without making me forget how horrible a person's actions can be and without making excuses for them.
The supporting cast was also top-notch. I was surprised to see a small cameo of Jack Black in this film given the funny-man he has become today! I loved this movie for both personal reasons and just because it was a work of cinematic art. And, in my opinion, this is one of the rare exceptions when the movie far out-did the book.
\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 has two new features in relation to the message conveyed by other equally good movies about death penalty and executions. Those are the stress also given to the drama endured by victims' parents -- without for that reason disguising the hatred and desire of revenge they feel or lessening the horror that execution represents -- and the Christian vision of all the questions implied. We must also point out that in this movie the sentenced man is not the usual nice innocent person we see in other movies dealing with executions which doesn't lead us to abandon the idea that a penal execution is no more than a legal murder anyway. Last but not least we must mention the extraordinary emotional weight put on the last moments of the execution course with all the catharsis shown by the convicted's last words and the detail with which the act of the execution itself is viewed in a parallel cut with images of the murder scenes in the forest to stress that we are being confronted with another murder so pitiless as the latter but performed in a cold and supposed \"legal\" way.
\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 just seen this broadcast on Channel 4. Having seen some of the earlier comments here I think I would like to state firstly that I am not in favour of the death penalty. With that out of the way, I was expecting great things of this film, but it just didn't quite deliver. Dead Man Walking is very cleanly done, with good performances all round, and a good script. In fact it's hard to fault it artistically. However, I felt that although it attempted to confront the issues surrounding capital punishment, it seemed to become sidetracked by the religious/moral stance (hardly surprising given that the main character is a nun). Although I'm not a heartless individual, I didn't really empathise with any of the characters in the story. If you don't take religion seriously then you probably won't see much in this film. I think that Peter Medak's Let Him Have It was a much more powerful and moving film, and I would strongly recommend anyone considering watching this to go and see that.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOne of the more lucid statements against the death penalty ever filmed, quite a frontal attack against the most disgusting way of doing justice. The final sequence, with that parallel between the crimes that the convicted Poncelet committed and his own execution are just superb.
No, what about the work of Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon? It leaves you breathless, they're two giants and their performances achieve the highest levels of emotion.
Tim Robbins put clear that he's not only a good actor, he's a nice director as well.
*My rate: 9/10
\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\n1st watched 8/31/1996 - (Dir-Tim Robbins): Very thought provoking and very well done movie on the subject of the death penalty. Deserved more recognition and publicity than it received.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"