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 was a really nice surprise. I was up late last night and couldn't fall asleep. Not really thinking twice, I turned on my TV and HBO was on, and this film was just beginning. Luckily I saw the whole thing, and I am very happy I did. Because this film was very good. The actors were well-cast, and they did a surprisingly good job. Kris Kristofferson delivered a solid performance, there was a lot of substance behind his lines. This film made me realize he's a good actor. Brian Keith was great as his father, as was Trey Wilson playing the Colonel (this was Trey Wilson's final role before his untimely death. Too bad, he was a quality actor and seemed like a nice guy). Jobeth Williams also did a nice job as Kristofferson's American wife. As far as the direction, I had no idea Franklin J. Schaffner was the director until I read the review in Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide(this was the last film he ever made). Now I understand why this movie was so good. Schaffner also directed Patton, a truly great movie(I haven't seen his other great film, Papillon). While I was watching \"Welcome Home\", I said to myself, \"this director really knows what he's doing,\" not knowing that Schaffner had directed it. There's one really beautiful scene in a Thai orphan refuge, enough to bring tears to my eyes. Not only was this sensitively directed, but it was also directed in a very economical and taut way. There is nothing wasted in Schaffner's effort. The script was one reason this film is so good. The writer doesn't weigh the actors down with too many lines. It was written very simply but very effectively. It just shows you that a lot can be said with few words. This film also made me proud to be an American, at the same time that it showed you how beautiful ALL people are.
\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\nFor me this wonderful rollercoaster of a film bears repeated pleasurable viewings. Its about the tangled lives of three very different people. Holly Hunter is the obsessive workaholic producer. Albert Brookes plays the unprepossessing but brilliant journalist. William Hurt is the affable but dumb new kid on the block, news anchor.
The classical love triangle emerges with the stunningly witty and self deprecating Brookes in love with Hunter but she of course is attracted to Hurt.
This film works on many levels. At the very least it is a brilliant comedy with the one liners flying so thick and fast that each viewing bears a new harvest of ones that you may have missed last time. Its also a film about attraction and unfulfilled romance.
But perhaps most importantly the film examines the modern obsession with physical appearance and its ultimate triumph over intellect as a valued human attribute. This is personified by the meteoric career success of the Hurt character in contrast to Brookes relative decline.
Despite being fifteen years old the film has some startingly relevant messages about modern news values and the continuing decline in journalistic standards.
This film is a classic in every sense and it is difficult to understand why it has been so neglected
\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 is one of my favorite comedies of all time. The dialog is crisp, the pace is fast. Not only is this a clever comedy, this is an interesting look at what goes on behind the scenes in the television news business.
There are so many funny lines...a couple of my favorites:
Ernie Merriman: (sarcastically) It must be nice to always believe you know better, to always think you're the smartest person in the room. Jane: (seriously) NO, it's not, it's awful!!
Aaron: He must be good looking Jane: How do you know that? Aaron: No one invites a bad looking idiot to their room!
The performances of Holly Hunter, Albert Brooks, and William Hurt were absolutely brilliant! Even years later, I remember this movie well. Often forgotten is the wonderfully funny Joan Cusack! I love the scene where the newsroom personnel are racing to beat a deadline. There are so many funny scenes that it's hard to pick a favorite. I highly recommend this 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\nExcellent movie about a big media firm and the goings on both on and off camera. Covering several years, the film centers on 3 upwardly mobile, young hopefuls, all striving for their place within the corporation. Well written dialogue, flawless acting, and a riveting story made for 2 hours of solid entertainment.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEssential viewing for anyone who watches TV news as it may help to become a little more sceptical, or even cynical. On a personal note I recall taking a course some years ago about being interviewed for TV - what to do, what not to do. The course instructors impressed on us that TV news was a \"branch of show-biz\". That depressing view, which is probably even more valid today than when it was made, is reinforced by this film. Never mind journalistic integrity, what counts is the ability to look good and smile nicely. And make sure you don't sweat on camera.
The interactions between the three main characters form the centre-piece, each with his or her own ambitions, capabilities and beliefs. Brooks takes these differences and sets them into the volatile setting of a TV news studio, and adds more than a pinch of love interest to the mixture. The result is a complex, if somewhat overlong, portrayal of how we compromise every day in order to meet our ambitions and take others with us. It is always entertaining, although the final scene was, perhaps, unnecessary given everything that had gone before.
\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 sitting around going through movie listings and not really seeing anything I want to see. My appetite keeps saying, \"Something like BROADCAST NEWS.\" That's what I want. Something smart and funny, with adult ideas and great acting and writing, and a directorial style that doesn't call attention to itself. This may well be Hurt's best performance (is this or THE BIG CHILL, to my mind): however eccentric, Hurt is smart, and to play an unintelligent person without making sure -- wink wink -- the audience knows -- wink wink -- hey, I'M not stupid... well, that's fine acting right there. Hunter is note-perfect, and Albert Brooks is a revelation. (And he can read and sing at the same time!) Great, great 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\nJames L. Brook is one of those directors who always seems to take a quirky look at life. He isn't only the producer for \"The Simpsons,\" he has some classic comedies under his belt -- \"Broadcast News\" is one of them.
Although it doesn't match his later effort \"As Good As It Gets,\" \"Broadcast News\" is still a very clever, funny and witty movie about a television broadcasting station and all the problems they suffer. There's a great comedic sequence of physical humor where Joan Cusack is running around the building trying to rush a news tape to the editing room in a matter of mere minutes before it is to be broadcast live on TV.
This isn't only very truthful in terms of how hectic broadcasting stations are operated, but also a skillful and honest portrayal of human beings.
A low-key, subtle movie with good acting (especially from Hurt, who I don't always like so much) and apt direction.
\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 say sadly because if you see this movie now, you realize how low our media has sunk- all the warning signs are in this movie.
It's a great film, I think the last great James Brooks film, but others may disagree. It has rich characters (who are believable as well), great acting, great writing, and although the music got a little cheesy, I even liked that.
William Hurt has never been better. Holly Hunter is stunning. And Albert Brooks walks away with every scene he's in- this triangle of people is beautifully drawn and compelling and made the whole movie soar above it's vital and important topic of the News, and how it's slowly being compromised in our nation.
Watch this with NETWORK for a truly fun and frightening evening.
\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\"Broadcast News\" is directed by James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment, As Good As It Gets) and has a great cast, including William Hurt, Albert Brooks, and Holly Hunter. Everyone gives a good performance, but they're all too unlikable to really care about them.
Some parts of the film are really brilliant, such as the prologue, and the short scenes with Jack Nicholson. The main reason it doesn't entirely work, is it's a film that relies on the characters being amusing rather than amusing things happening to them.
You could consider it nothing more than a drama, but it's often too silly to be successful there as well. Still, the script makes it worth a watch. Certainly not for everyone.
7.0 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\nFrom producer/writer/Golden Globe nominated director James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment, As Good as It Gets) this is a really good satirical comedy film showing behind the scenes in the life of a news reporter/anchor/journalist or producer might be like. Basically Jane Craig (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Holly Hunter) falls for new reporter Tom Grunick (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated William Hurt), but correspondent Aaron Altman (Oscar nominated Albert Brooks) also has strong feelings for her. The network prepares for big changes, and sparks will fly with all members of the studio. Also starring Jack Nicholson as anchor Bill Rorich, Moonraker's Lois Chiles as Jennifer Mack, Mrs. Doubtfire's Robert Prosky as Ernie Merriman, School of Rock's Joan Cusack as Blair Litton, Peter Hackes as Paul Moore, Christian Clemenson as Bobby, Robert Katims as Martin Klein, Ed Wheeler as George Wein and Stephen Mendillo as Gerald Grunick. The comedy is subtle but strong, the romance has it's moments, and it is certainly a believable situation film. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen and Best Picture, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical and Best Screenplay - Motion Picture. It was number 64 on 100 Years, 100 Laughs. Very good!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBROADCAST NEWS opens with a series of brief vignettes that are a clever way of starting a story about TV anchors who have no clue as to what they're reporting about.
At a speech before a group of would-be reporters, all of whom are bored by her presentation, most of them leave. When the last one exits, the co-host of the event says quietly to HOLLY HUNTER: \"I don't think there will be any Q&A.\" Subtle line in a brilliantly written low-key comedy, a farce about the show biz aspect of TV anchoring.
WILLIAM HURT is the inept news anchor who finds himself working with HOLLY HUNTER as the network anchorman. Hurt badly needs help in remedial reporting and Holly refuses to take the bait--at first. He knows he's only capable of looking good, but is not a reporter. He proves to be a quick study as long as his earpiece is working and he's getting all the straight info from executive producer Hunter.
Holly's other anchor friend (ALBERT BROOKS) helps by feeding her information she passes on to Hurt. Of course she becomes conflicted about her feelings for ace reporter Brooks and equally strong attraction to the pretty-boy anchorman Hurt, who's having his own dalliance with a pretty staff member.
You have to wait until twenty minutes before the film ends to find out which man she'll end up with. Brooks tells her that Hurt is the wrong one because he represents everything she's against. In this unpredictable comedy, there's no telling who Hunter (the neurotic heroine) will end up with.
Fittingly, HOLLY HUNTER, WILLIAM HURT and ALBERT BROOKS were all nominated for Oscars (Brooks in supporting role), as was the film itself and director/writer James L. Brooks. All in all, seven well deserved Oscar nominations.
The script doesn't opt for a conventional happy ending--and, in this case, that's the only flaw for the brilliant screenplay. I felt cheated and somewhat let down by the wistful conclusion.
\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\nBroadcast News {dir. James L. Brooks, 1987}
****/****
Although it lacks the emotional punch of Brooks's debut feature, (Terms of Endearment) Broadcast News is a superlative film, with exceptional performances from each of the three leads and a script that feels as genuine and well-researched as a hard-hitting news report. Let it be known, this is a character film first and foremost and a satire second. In my mind it succeeds on both levels on its own terms. The film's characters are given surprising depth and dimension , while the satire remains sly and never bitter. Comparisons to Network are unnecessary because the films have two completely separate goals and attitudes. While also a great film, Network is a cynical and weary work; in other words, its mad as hell and fed up with the state of television. Network's style of satire feels more extreme and guerrilla. In contrast, the characters populating the news rooms of Broadcast News love and live for their jobs (sometimes to the detriment of their love lives.) They derive pleasure from the stresses and satisfactions of news reporting, just as the audience derives pleasure from watching this sweet and romantically realistic masterpiece.
\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\nGood drama/comedy, with two good performances from Hunter & Hurt, but Albert Brooks steals every scene he is in. With a great script, this movie soars and gives everyone a chance to show their acting talent. And although Joan Cusack is not in this much, but she has one if not the funniest scene in the movie. The highlight of the movie for me, was Albert Brooks speech on the devil. Only one draw back is the fact it goes little slow in places. And I only got totally interested in Brooks role, not so much in Hunter's or Hurt's. I give this a 7 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\n...there was \"Broadcast News,\" and what a good thing it was. This one just plain stands up and sounds its barbaric yawp in a manner that resonates two decades later.
There are moments -- especially with respect to the cutesy score -- when this film becomes a bit too eighties, or a bit too \"Sleepless in Seattle.\" Fortunately, they're few and far between.
One-third social satire, one-third romantic comedy, one-third drama, with three flawed but endearing people at its core, it's smart and moving and almost impossibly funny. Holly Hunter in particular may never have been more fun to watch in a comedic role. (And yes, I'm including \"Raising Arizona,\" her other star turn from that era, in this assessment.)
A legitimate 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\nIf you have not seen this late 80s film about the the Washington Bureau of a Network News station than I highly recommend it. It is a sad commentary on the direction of news reporting in this country but tells the story with wit. The characters are well developed and Albert Brooks performance is fabulous. He delivers all his lines with entertaining understated comedy. I am not an Albert Brooks fan at all so this was a welcome surprise. I have a friend who works as a producer for a local news station and he advised that this is close to reality so kudos to the films writer and director for doing their research.
Fun movie with a lot of insight into the World of Network News. It is not nearly as dark as another movie I also recommend in the same genre 'Network'.
\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 really know when it was that TV stations began preferring to have handsome men as their reporters - regardless of the mens' IQs - but it was clearly a problem by the time that \"Broadcast News\" came out, and the movie does a really good job looking at it. Portraying a love triangle between pretty boy air-head reporter Tom Grunick (William Hurt), intelligent but nervous reporter Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks) and producer Jane Craig (Holly Hunter), the movie pulls no punches. Probably the best line in the movie is when Tom says something like: \"I don't really understand any of what I'm reporting.\" And in the era of FOX News and such things, a movie like this becomes even more important.
All in all, definitely a movie that I recommend. Also starring Robert Prosky, Lois Chiles, Joan Cusack, and Jack Nicholson in a supporting role as the anchorman.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ni thought it was terrific! very realistic and funny dialogue, and realistic action in a newsroom. i didn't like how the jennifer storyline is not really concluded or how the ending doesn't give us closure. holly hunter fit the part perfectly...she's one crazy actress. this movie is well worth seeing.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a love story set against the back drop of television news. The three main stars, William Hurt,Holly Hunter and Albert Brooks create a love triangle whilst working at the Washington bureau of a TV network.
Tom Grunick(Hurt)is the handsome reporter who is being groomed to be a star.Jane (Hunter)is the producer who recognises that Tom lacks the intellectual gravitas to be a real journalist, but falls for him anyway.Aaron Altman(Brooks)is the man who shares her beliefs in journalistic standards is also the man who truly loves her.
Holly Hunter was nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award ,but lost out to Cher(Moonstruck!).She was robbed! This is Hunter's film.Her character Jane is smart,ruthless and totally driven. She is also hilariously neurotic. Her performance is perfect.Just watch her face when she watches the tape of Tom's interview of a rape victim. The scales literally fall from her eyes.
Wiliam Hurt's performance is less showy.He plays a man who is well aware that he is a himbo and a fraud,but is smart enough to know that his rise will be facilitated by people like Jane.He gives little hints of a man who is extremely calculating.
The film comments on celebrity, journalism,integrity and the commercial pressures on news in a medium that is focused on the bottom line. It predicted that news would be dumbed down, that standards would slowly be lowered due to commercial pressures.
Think about this:this film was released before the end of the Cold War and before rise of reality TV.Yet, it predicted the dumbing down of the news.Paris Hilton's release from jail was treated like a major news story! To see how prophetic this film is,just watch your evening news and note the set, the graphics and the presenters.Tom Grunick and his clones are well and truly alive!
\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\nNot only do I think this was the best film of 1987, it's probably in my own amorphous list as one of the 10-20 best films I've ever seen. For whatever reason, I really connected with this movie, and it is one of the most personal films I had seen at that point in my life (I was 26). For better or worse, I strongly identified with the Holly Hunter character (and I'm a guy!). She plays an extremely bright, loyal and intense woman who couldn't figure out romantic relationships. There were so many things that she said in this movie that were things that I would say or have said to others in similar circumstances. And the ending of the movie I find to be so very, very sad.
Obviously, this role was the big break for Holly Hunter. Clearly, I was not the only one to think so highly of 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\nI haven't actually seen a lot of movies with Holly Hunter, but seeing her in Broadcast News was a pleasant surprise. She is a hard-nosed journalist, Jane Craig, who has devoted all of her time to TV news show. Her colleague Aaron Altman has carried her torch for a long time without saying anything. The love triangle is completed by Tom Grunnick. He is the slightly aloof ex-sportscaster who is the new reporter. To Jane, he symbolizes everything she doesn't like about news reporting - turning it into edutainment, not serious business. Much to her surprise, Jane finds herself attracted to Tom.
Holly Hunter is doing a great performance as the perky journalist. But I don't quite see what she finds so charming about her new colleague, Tom. It's something with them that prevents us from getting up close and personal with him. Almost as impressive is Albert Brooks, who gives his all in the role of a professional who gives more than 100 percent for his job but doesn't get quite as much in return. Actually, for a while I thought he was Steve Guttenberg from Police Academy (1984). He has a few funny lines and if this was a Meg Ryan-picture, they'd call it a romantic comedy.
Running over two hours, a few scenes could have been edited or left out completely, eg. Jane's and Aaron's trip to Central America. Also, I'm a sucker for happy endings and had preferred a different ending than just a reunion between the three of them seven years later.
\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 didn't like \"As Good as it Gets\" very much, but I am a big fan of William Hurt and Holly Hunter's work, so I decided to watch this movie. And the most surprising thing for me was the superb work of Albert Brooks. Here, in Spain, he's little-known, and only as a 2nd division version of Woody Allen in the West Coast. He played a great part, but Hunter and Hurt were good too, specially Hurt, in an relatively unusual role for him. Hunter played the role that reminds me a bit of her part in \"Once Around\" (Lasse Hallstrom, 1991).
Finally, the rest of the cast is great, too. Robert Prosky, one of these familiar faces of the american cinema, the ex-bond girl Lois Chiles, pretty good placed on that role, I think, the always perfect Joan Cusack in her early years; and specially the brief appereance of Jack Nicholson. Maybe he doesn't have any good scene, but it's Jack Nicholson, anyway... The Best movie by James L.Brooks, great story (well resolved), and superb cast for one of the, surely, best movies of the 80's
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTypically, I'm a comedy guy. I rented this at the video store under comedy, and thought \"Albert Brooks! Awesome!\" and rented it. It seemed like the romantic comedy, and I remembered I hated those, and had the full mindset of hating this movie.
Boy, was I wrong.
While this is a romantic comedy, it's acted by an amazing lead & supporting cast (Brooks, Hunter, Cusack, and Nicholson), and everything works well within itself. The script sounds real and not forced, like this could be happening in the news station you're watching at night. It takes your emotions and makes you enjoy Hunter and Brooks and loathe Hurt, which makes the ending a bit unenjoyable and fruitless, but it shows how you don't need a happy ending to end a movie, you just need a truthful ending, which is what everyone got. Not everybody's life ends well, and it shows in Broadcast News. Maybe people don't like the ending because it's not your typical happy ending associated with romantic comedies... but it works, it's real, and it's genius. Broadcast News is a classic in it's time, and a fine romance movie up there with \"Casablanca\". Well, maybe not that high, but it's the only other romance I can think of that I like.
Broadcast News: 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\nMovie watchers often say great movies must have 3 memorable
scenes to be considered truly great. Broadcast news doesn't have
three, it has twice that. This movie is extremely well written by
James Brooks. Holly Hunter and Albert Brooks have never been
better. I love this movie for many reasons. It is great because it
makes you laugh and it makes you cry. Albert Brooks has several
great lines and many unforgettable scenes: # 1(laughed) \"I can
sing and read, I am singing while I read,\" with Midnight Train to
Georgia playing in the background. # 2(laughed) Telling the
William Hurt character that \"You really blew the lid off of nookie,\"
after watching Hurt's report on date-rape. #3 (Cried) When Aaron
(A. Brooks) finally tells Jayne (Hunter) that he loves her and she
can't end up with Hurt's character because he represents
everything about journalism Jayne finds dispicable. Finally, #4 (laughed) who can forget the scene where Aaron
anchors the weekend news....hilarious. This movie should have won an Oscar! It has everything I love in
movies, great acting, intelligent script, and even a Jack Nicholson
cameo!
\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 truly terrific, touching film. Female melodrama at its finest, with a lot of comedy: great dialogue, characters and writing. Any woman can relate to the story because it's a classic: you're in love with \"Mr. Right\" but he has no interest in you until some guy who seems completely wrong comes along and you fall head-over-heels in love. But of course, it's not that simplistic. The characters are real and all of the performances are perfect. The movie is hilarious as well, every scene skewers society. I'd recommend this film to anyone who loves a well-written screenplay of humor and melodrama. You can relate to every character and the plot moves in unexpected directions. A great, underrated 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\nI loved this movie the first time I saw it. It gives such detail of what executives involved in the news industry will do just to get a story on the air: notably Jane Craig rushing Kenny to finish editing the piece to get it off, and then Joan Cusack struggling to get it in, and William Hurt, who according to Jane commits an incredible breach of ethics, fakes his tears during his date rape interview, a flaw that is pointed out by Aaron. Another high point is when Tom uses Jane for his own benefits, and then turns around and sleeps with Jennifer. The script is brilliant, and the directing is almost as good. All three main actors were great in the portrayals of their characters, Especially Holly Hunter, and Albert Brooks, whom is the funniest in the film. William Hurt is also very good. This deserved at least three Oscars, best actress(holly hunter), best supporting actor (Albert Brooks), and best picture. I liked the last parts of the film where it shows them reuniting 7 years later.
8/10
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie has everything going for it: Fully developed characters, a realistic portrayal of working Washington, bathed in warmth and humor that is uniquely Albert Brooks. The dumbing down of network news is even more of an issue now than it was in 1987. Remember, this was pre-cable! So satisfying to care about complex people attempting to achieve complex goals -- and it all moves along with lightning speed. Such a true to life depiction of friendships that teeter toward romance. See if you can spot John Cusack as the angry messenger! And do you recognize Peter Hackes from real life Broadcast News? Finally, if you're from DC, see if you agree with Holly Hunter's directions to cab drivers!
\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 completely drawn into the story, but I wonder if perhaps I shouldn't have been so sympathetic to the Hurt character's plight for respect. Because when it boils down, I really think that glam reporters such as Barbara Walters is the devil. ...or maybe the filmmakers were telling us that we're all unknowing supporters of fluff news stories.
\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\nEarly 80's creature feature concerns a long abandoned gold mine that some intrepid miners are determined to check out. Naturally, they find no gold down there but one very hungry monster that slithers along in search of prey.
While I have to be honest and admit I found it dull at first (I personally prefer the thematically similar \"The Boogens\"), it actually grew on me as it went along. Now, the characters aren't too interesting nor the actors either. The closest to an interesting character is Morgan, played by Keith Hurt. In any event, female lead Terri Berland is quite good looking and Rolf Theison makes his domineering jerk an easy person to hate. The writer played by effects man Mark Sawicki wears thin quickly.
It begins in a comfortably predictable enough way, with a nighttime set piece in which two victims are claimed to get things off to an acceptable start. The monster itself is intriguing for its design (as you can imagine, it gets revealed a bit at a time until late in the game) and for being the product of stop motion animation when this process was no longer used very much. Director Melanie Anne Phillips (directing under the pseudonym of David Michael Hillman) and crew deserve some credit for their creation of atmosphere. They manage to make the film look quite claustrophobic and gloomy, and their use of lighting works well. The film does build in intensity towards a pretty good ending. Suffice it to say, they do the best they can on their low budget.
An obscure little item worth looking into for die-hard horror buffs.
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\nBasically an endearingly chintzy and moronic $1.50 version of the nifty early 80's subterranean creature feature favorite \"The Boogens,\" this entertainingly schlocky cheapie centers on a nasty, squirmy, wriggling monster who makes an instant meal out of any unfortunate souls foolhardy enough to go poking around the notoriously off limits Gold Spike Mine. Your standard-issue motley assortment of intrepid boneheads -- hectoring hard-nosed mine boss, cute, but insipid blonde babe, feisty lady geologist, boozy, inexplicably Aussie-accented (!) seasoned old mine hand, charmless doofus, hunky, jolly guy, and, arguably the most annoying character of the uniformly irritating bunch, a nerdy bespectacled aspiring writer dweeb who's prone to speaking in flowery, melodramatic utterances -- trek into the dark, uninviting cave in search of gold. Naturally, these intensely insufferable imbeciles discover that the allegedly abandoned mine is the home of a deadly, ugly, multi-tentacled beast who in time honored hoary B-flick fashion proceeds to gruesomely bag the group one at a time. Directed, co-written, co-produced and co-edited with dumbfounding maladroitness by Melanie Anne Phillips, acted with dismaying flatness by a rank no-name cast, further marred by lethargic pacing, a drably meandering narrative, murky, under-lit, eye-straining cinematography, a shivery, redundantly thudding pseudo-John Carpenter synthesizer score, and a cruddy, herky-jerky stop motion animation wormoid thingie that's only quickly glimpsed at the very end of the movie, this extremely clunky, amateurish and hence quite delectably dreadful would-be scarefest commits all the necessary bad film missteps to qualify as a real four-star stinkeroonie.
\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 think that this is a fabulous movie... I watched it constantly from the time I was 4 to about the time I was 8... However, watching it resulted in many nightmares. I particularly got them because of the guy that was always like \"the otherworld\" and his friends. I am 12, and I still get nightmares about it to this day. I can't fall asleep right now because I am thinking about it. I love this movie, but it is so scary! I definitely love this movie though, I have very good memories from it. Kate is very good at acting in this movie. Amazingly, I never realized that it was her! I also think that the graphics were very high quality, contrary to what some other people think
\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 the changing world of CG and what-not of cartoon animations etc. etc., Faeries was a warm welcome at least by me. I think it's important to show these sort of films once in a while, to preserve them and help remind us of where the originality and fun of cartoons actually came from. People were talking about how it is boring because of the graphics and stuff but hey! think about the films that will be considered boring if every film looked like the new state of the art ones everybody and their mother is making these days. Call me old-fashioned but I liked it. It's a wonderful story about supernatural beings and human beings and all it really needs from its audience is their imagination.
\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 cannot argue with other comments that the story line focuses more on the romance between the Mary Martin and Allan Jones characters, much in the manner of \"Showboat\", than on the life of Victor Herbert. But in the 1930's, would that have been a box office draw? Instead of the Life of VH, perhaps it should have been the Music of VH. There is an abundance of this.
For me, the thrill of the movie came near the end of the movie when Susanna Foster sings \"Land of Romance\". It has been over a decade since I caught this movie for a second time at a local 'old movies' theater. At first the audience was stunned; then it burst into spontaneous applause. I remember the shivers running up and down my spine. My trivia memory recalled the information provided to an inquiring public by a local journalist when the movie first came out back in the late 1930's. 'That note hit by Miss Foster was a far F above high C.'
She may not have had four octaves a la Yma Sumac but the then teen-ager certainly had a range!
\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\nNow I like Victor Herbert. And I like Mary Martin and Allan Jones. But it would have been nice to see a real biography of Victor Herbert. Walter Connolly as Herbert does have a decent resemblance to him in his latter years
Jones and Martin sing beautifully though. The Herbert music is just there to adorn the plot line concerning these two musical performers. Jones's John Ramsay is a frail character, very similar to Gaylord Ravenal in Showboat who Jones also played.
As for Mary Martin, it's a mystery why she never had a good Hollywood career. She did films with Bing Crosby and Dick Powell as well as this one. She performed well, but movie audiences didn't take to her. The best musical moment in the film is Jones and Martin in a duet of Thine Alone. The recordings I have of the song are individual and it was written as a duet. There's also a pleasant scene with Jones and Martin riding bicycles swapping Herbert songs as they ride.
The real Victor Herbert with his womanizing and his Irish patriot background and his musical training in Germany where he developed a love for all things German would have been a fascinating study. He was also a cello virtuoso before he turned full time to composing. I have to take strong exception to the reviewer who said Cuddles Sakall would have been a good Victor Herbert. Sakall as Irish, HELLO.
Nice movie, but the real Vic would have been so much better.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nChallen Cates does a wonderful job depicting a conflicted bride, torn between the challenges that await her professionally, the memories of the freedom she thought she would have when in college (inspired by a famous author) and the safety of her pending marriage to a man she really doesn't love. This movie is definitely worth seeing--- as predictable as it may be, the acting is inspiring and real chemistry exists between Challen Cates and Malcolm Jamaal Warner.
\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 was a suprise for me while I was surfing from channel to channel... I don't know why but it filled in me with warmth and happiness. This is what a high budget movie can not do mostly. I liked it, this is \"a must see\" one...

\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMost Christmas movies have a \"redemption\" theme but most are a variation on a very similar plot. This movie is wacky and has an unusual plot. You may need to hang in there for the first half where events may seem hard to believe for a movie (but not as unbelievable as real life - Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, says he's never made up anything in any of his cartoons - they're all based on real life stories told to him by his fans). The second half starts to fit the plot together. I enjoyed it.
BTW, one reviewer noted that the idea of someone not having cash available is not credible in these days of ATMs, but it's perfectly credible if you've lost your wallet - who carries ATM cards anywhere else while on a business trip?
\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\"A Fare to Remember\" is a totally derivative, almost ridiculous movie, but has a warmth about it that makes it a very effective and upbeat holiday movie. It stars a pretty newcomer, Challen Kates, as a high-powered ad executive who, right before her wedding, has to rush from L.A. to Seattle to keep a client who has rejected every other presentation. She has transportation difficulties from the beginning and seemingly no money. This is the first dumb thing - were there no ATMs anywhere? She must make a fortune. At any rate, she meets a cab driver (Warner) who looks like a homeless man, and he drives her to her presentation and when she emerges with a huge box of beef jerky (the client's product), he's there to take her to the airport. All flights are canceled, so in order to get to L.A. for her wedding, she hires him to take her there.
Along the way, they bond and learn from each other. It's a very sweet movie though there is absolutely nothing new in it - it combines \"Six Days and Seven Nights\" and a few other films. But the chemistry between the stars is good, they're likable, and the acting is good. Look for Jerry Springer as the head of the beef jerky company and a cameo by Karl Malden.
This is a nice film to take in over the holiday season. It's on Lifetime.
\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 tender movie that represents how our daily life is a catalyst that causes us to change our thoughts, behaviors and emotions into people we're not. This story is a love story where true emotions arise. I credit Malcolm Jamal Warner (Win) and Challen Cates for outstanding performances . A movie definitely worth seeing, a holiday roadtrip that turns into an emotional turn-a-round. I suggest seeing 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\nI came across this movie while channel surfing one day; and decided to give it a chance. To my surprise I enjoyed this darkhorse movie. I felt some genuine chemistry between Challen Cates and Malcolm-Jamal Warner. It was such a lighthearted and warm movie that when it was over I felt upbeat. Sure, this movie was predictable from the very beginning, but I give it high marks for the way that it made me feel when it was over. I must admit that I have never seen Challen Cates before, but I feel that she can definitely act. When you combine her good acting with her cute face and attractive figure. She has the makings of at least becoming a well-known star.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere is no denying it. Sci-fi on TV is difficult. There are so many problems that the genre brings with it. Like the need for a good budget, solid writing, decent acting. Perhaps the budget and the script writing is the departments where i feel most attempts have failed. So does \"Surface\" succeed? Not completely, but more so than most.
The way i see it, a good sci-fi show doesn't really need a lot of CGI to work, nor does it need a ton of money. What it needs is the capacity to create a larger-than-life feeling. The feeling that there is more than meets the eye, something to make me curious and willing to try and figure out how it's going to end. Adding the pieces of the puzzle and sometimes saying \"Aha!\" is what makes or breaks a show like this one.
\"Surface\" had a couple of flaws. First of all it's basic premise is not as exciting as it could have been, nor is the revealed story as exciting (or daring) as i hoped in the beginning. Also the TV-feeling is very present much of the time. All the way from the crappy CGI (that ranges from decent to awful) to the rather shifting quality in the acting department. Also it feels sometimes a bit too family-oriented in that it takes the edge of sometimes and becomes almost cutesy. But aside from these flaws it's an enjoyable show. Maybe not as spectacular as some of the other sci-fi shows out there. But it manages to keep me interested the whole season and it offers a couple of nice cliffhangers between shows as well. The ending for me is not that appealing. I don't like shows that end without ending so to speak, leaving the story unresolved. It's especially unfortunate in this case since the show seems to be canceled after the first season (it is as of yet undecided).
HBO is to me the benchmark for quality television. Their series have the best actors, the best production values and above all the most solid writing. This is not HBO-quality, but it's good for what it is. Good enough to want another season without a doubt.
\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 better sci-fi series. It involves character development, a few really tensionate moments and reasonable episode scripts. As one other commentator said here, it looked as if it were a mini series, not a full blown series with filler episodes and low budgets.
The problem with the show, which in short is a Godzilla series, is that it started too big, with incredible monsters, fantastic science, then it all boiled down to local Americans doing stuff. Then, the show ended too soon, since the Olympics were coming and hey! a sci-fi show is a sci-fi show, but half naked athletic people running around aimlessly is much more important. So they only did 15 episodes instead of the expected 22. The audience was small, too, as people didn't really caught it on at 20:00. In the end the suits did it. Trust a marketing plan to destroy anything that looks remotely original and promising.
Conclusion: you have a show with good special effects, stuff like huge monsters killing people or destroying boats, then going into genetic engineering, transforming people, human clones, end of the world, tsunamis. Also, the only fillers are scenes with aggressive rednecks or other annoying people being killed for their stupidity. The down-side is that after 15 episodes that prepare something huge, the show ends. No real ending, no closure, just a bitter taste of cloth in one's mouth, as if you just swallowed a piece of suit.
\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 love this show. It's truly unique. I was under the impression it was going to have more seasons. In anticipation of series 2, recently I purchased series 1 to re-watch it in order to be refreshed when part 2 started. Now after watching it I was excited and craving more, so I came to the site to see the schedule for the continuation. I am really disappointed to see there no longer are plans for a second series as I was eagerly looking forward to watching more of this story. I think they really dropped the ball on this one. There was plenty of story line left to build on and lots of unanswered questions. I'm now a very unhappy view and I hope that they would reconsider their decision and pick up the story where it left off.
\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 continuously amazed at the US networks. What is the matter with them? Yet another very very promising series axed after just 15 episodes and we are left not knowing what the hell happens to everyone. I really thoroughly enjoyed this show and am so annoyed that we will never find out what happens to the characters and the 'monsters' from the deep. This show had everything. Humour, suspense, action. What more could you want. Why oh why did the pull the plug on this? It just doesn't make sense. Buffy went on for 7 series as did Charmed and enjoyable as they were, Surface, Invasion and Dead Like Me were even better. Just because a show does not get terribly high ratings doesn't mean it's rubbish and if they gave it a bit longer probably more people would catch on to it and they would end up with a big hit on their hands. One season just does not give it enough time to catch on and the networks are far to eager to pull the plug. They should learn that like fine wines and cheeses, they take time to mature.
Bring Surface and Invasion back - P L E A S E !!!!!!!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"