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\nRiver's Edge is an excellent film and it's a shame that it hasn't made more of a mark for itself in cinematic history. There were a number of gritty films based around school kids made in the eighties, but of all the ones I've seen; this is certainly the most nihilistic and disturbing. The film takes a storyline that is disturbing in its own right and adds the theme of teenage slackers and their uncaring attitude about things, which takes the story onto another level. The film works because the central story is interesting and it's played out by complex characters. The film begins with a murder. We then follow the murderer, nicknamed John, as he goes back to school and tells all his friends about what he has done. Rather than give the expected reaction, most of them hardly react at all and the strongest reaction that the murderer gets comes from Layne; who makes it his number one priority to help John clear up the mess he's in and get him out of it. The other friends mull over the crime, and before long one of them goes to the police...
River's Edge features a host of great performances from its young cast. Keanu Reeves has a reputation for wooden acting, and for good reason; but he fits in very well to this early role and this performance is easily one of his best. Crispin Glover is the biggest standout as the slightly insane Layne. Glover always stands out in every film he's in, and while he does go over the top a little bit; he convinces well as the lead in this movie. Reeves and Glover receive good support from a talented young cast that includes Daniel Roebuck and Joshua john Miller, as well as the great Dennis Hopper in another wild role. The film features a very gritty picture which bodes well with its nihilistic tone. The central characters are all of the 'slacker/stoner' generation and the way that they genuinely don't seem to care about the murder of their friend is more shocking than the murder itself; and the point that the film tries to make about modern society is both strong and well defined. The film is also rather funny, owing to some of the characters' lines; but the humour is pitch black and clearly this film was never meant to be a comedy. Overall, this is an excellent and memorable film that is definitely 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\nI have seen this movie a number of times and find it very compelling and sad. The lack of real emotion from most of the characters is very disturbing. They seem empty, hopeless. The story is based on a real event.
A teenage girl is murdered by her boyfriend for no obvious reason - apparently he just felt like it. Then he boasts about it to his friends and as they don't believe him he takes them to view the body - a number of times. No one reports the murder. There are two strong leads - Keanu Reeves and Crispen Glover - Crispen Glovers character is seriously annoying.
Keanu's character Matt appears to be the only one who has a sense of right and wrong. This is Keanu at his best - a flawless performance and very believable - anyone who thinks this man can't act should watch this movie. Matt's little brother is almost the most disturbing character in the movie. Only twelve and no compassion or love factor in his life. It is very sad to think there are kids out there like this. It really makes you grateful for what you have. 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\nI can remember a college professor commenting as to how disturbing this film was, reflecting the apathy of adolescents (this was before Generation \"X\").
In a way, most of us are products of the same consumer culture; these high school kids spend their time drinking, getting high and wondering what to do about the body left on a riverbank.
What would they do today? Would things be different?. Some very important questions. There are some excellent scenes with Keanu Reeves, and the dysfunctional family he lives with; his 11 year old brother going out to get wasted; the mother has no idea what to do- spends her time drinking with her boyfriend.
This film was a bit before its time in that it addresses the problems in lower class American society; these kids had no outlet; what is available for them in this dirt-water town? . All in all a few interesting social commentaries are presented, and there are no solutions. 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\nI hope the writer, director, editor, and composer (and let's not forget producer) read this... because their work was truly incredible on this movie. Let me start by saying that I am in no way affiliated with this movie. I am only a regular guy who has been a fan of this movie for about 12 years and have seen it about 8 times.
Every second of this movie is touching. Every scene is classic. The acting is real. The movie is honest. You can relate to these characters as people, not actors.
This tale follows three distinct killers at different stages in their lives. The story is carefully thought out and every sub-plot is intertwined and woven together, culminating in a message that leaves us pondering the values of right and wrong that each of us carries inside.
Crispen Glover, Daniel Roebuck, Dennis Hopper, and Joshua John Miller (as a 12 year old boy) give absolutely amazing, real performances. I've seen this movie about 8 or more times and I still get so absorbed in their performances that I forget I am watching a movie. It's that good. Great job everyone who worked on this. Great job.
The music is also wonderfully matched and haunting. With the chosen cast, the carefully timed editing and pacing, the mood and tone, and even the subject matter, the director made some of the best decisions for a movie I've ever seen.
This movie is real. It's honest. It's a true movie experience which I will never forget. You may not be into the subject matter but it is something you cannot ignore. Ultimately, it's about people being people... and everyone can relate to that. I recommend this movie to fans of drama, suspense, and horror above almost every other 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\nAfter reading some of these reviews, it is apparent that some have missed the point. What is great about this film (here comes the point), what is incredible about this film, what is astonishing about this film is that there is no proselytizing. There is no preaching. There is no preaching. There is no preaching. Life goes on. It is a masterpiece in letting an audience think for its collective self. These are just kids doing what kids do - without consciousness. We all went to school with kids like these. We are being numbed by fiction-/movie-/tv-/news-based reality/invention.
Feck's (Dennis Hopper the great) girlfriend alone and his relationship with her is worth the price of renting this movie.
There have been few movies before or since that measure up to the intelligence of this film. AMEN.

\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI really don't have any complaints about this movie, except for the disturbing scenes with the body. I fell upon it while switching around the tv one night. The acting was actually amazing, I didn't expect it to be better than it appeared! I thought Keanu's(who looks the SAME since 1986, which is a very good thing hehe) acting was really *great*, and Crispin played his character perfectly! This movie is a hidden gem! Its a fresh awaking of reality to the '80s, compared to the other teen movies done by the brat pack(even though I do like those moives alot too). All in all, I give it thumbs up!
\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\nIMDb forces reviewers to type a certain amount of lines, but all I really want to say is -- \"This is an incredible film, and you can't consider yourself a film fan without having seen it.\" You ought to just trust me on this one and stop reading this review and get the movie and push play. But I have to type something. So, let me point out the following:
(1) River's Edge contains what still may well rank as Crispin Glover's all-time funniest and best performance in a film, and if you have been following Crispin Glover at all, you know that that alone justifies giving it a 10. Funny lines galore.
(2) River's Edge contains the second-most memorable performance of Dennis Hopper's career (other than the one in Blue Velvet), and it is really excellent. Dennis Hopper is really funny.
(3) River's Edge contains the best performance of Keanu Reeves' career, and it is excellent. It was the role he was born to play. He has plenty of good lines, but one in particular is really really funny. Listen close when his character and the step-dad are talking to one another.
Still the best stoner film, it is much more than just that. It tends to show up in the drama sections of film-rental stores, but if this is a drama, it's the funniest drama of all time.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm not sure whether i like this film or not. I think it is creepy and completely weird.Crispin Glover as always gave a great performance as Layne. I think his performance was really good and one of his best, but i don't like the character at all. Keanu Reeves performance was really good, and i truly felt for his character. Over all i think the whole cast gave great performances as felt like the characters were real. I disliked some, but genuinely felt sorry for others (Keanu Reeves). I would like to know if that was the original ending that the film was supposed to have as it didn't end how i expected it to. I was disappointed in the ending and i don't feel that it did the rest of the film justice. If you are into creepy, weird and really well different movies, go for this one. If you like things that are normal, please stay away.
\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\nApparently this movie was based on a true story. I'm not sure how accurate it is, though. But it really reminded me of how when I see that someone has been murdered on the news, it's amazing how much it doesn't affect me. Sure, I think it's terrible, but I honestly don't care. I move on. It seems that murder is trivial now. This is what River's Edge shows. Nobody really seems to care about this girl and her death, not even the killer. Then what's the point?
The killer in this story is John, and for the large amount of the movie he hides out with another killer named Feck, played by Dennis Hopper. Feck is older, and you can see the generational gap. He says he loved the girl that he killed. When he asks John if he loved the girl he killed, he simply replies, \"She was okay.\" The movie only seems to offer one solution: life is more important than death. A character's life is spared, people get second chances, and one hopeless case is killed.
The acting is really good. After watching this movie I could only come to the conclusion that Crispin Glover is either a brilliant actor, or a terrible actor. I still have no idea. He was my main reason to see this movie, though. But the best performance is clearly given by Dennis Hopper.
Even though the fashion is really 80's and characters sometimes mention then-current issues, I still think River's Edge is as relevant today as ever.
My rating: 10/10
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPot-seeking pre-teen Joshua Miller (as Tim) throws his sister's doll into the river while Daniel Roebuck (as Samson) howls and smokes a cigarette, after killing Danyi Deats (as Jamie). The doll washes away, but the naked young woman stays by the \"River's Edge\", for any passerby to see. Viewing the dead body are a group of twenty-something teenagers, mostly classmates of the naked corpse. Stoners Keanu Reeves (as Matt) and Crispin Glover (as Layne) are found most camera-worthy. The friends wonder what to do about their guilty, beer-guzzling killer friend.
Veteran-in-the-cast Dennis Hopper (as Feck) keeps the youngsters' heads fed. Mr. Hopper once killed a woman. He lives with one of those life-sized sex dolls, with a mouth apparently ready for action. Ione Skye Leitch (as Clarissa) is a more living doll, and she is waiting for Reeves to kiss her. Their copulation is notably cross-cut with a flashback to the opening strangulation. An actual teenager, in her first feature role, Ms. Leitch is the daughter of sixties-singer Donovan. Make other quirky connections on your own.
You can read a lot into the movie, or not, depending on your mood. Some of the characters' backgrounds may be a little too subtle. Most obviously, the killer teen was teased; note his weight, attitude, and \"toilet\"-connected nickname. Some of the characters' relationships and motivations are too vaguely defined, but the cast certainly keeps the material interesting; and, director Tim Hunter, photographer Frederick Elmes, and writer Neal Jimenez are obviously skilled.
******* River's Edge (8/27/86) Tim Hunter ~ Keanu Reeves, Crispin Glover, Dennis Hopper, Joshua Miller
\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 teenage film about angst, friendship, loyalty and growing-up but this isn't a happy outing on its part due to the circumstances and life-changing dilemmas surrounding the premise. What eventuates is quite numbing, haunting and downright cold. However I was expecting something a little more powerful and effective and while engrossing and unforgettable it didn't entirely stir up much in the way of emotions. The performances are reasonably a mixed bag, but there's a brutal honesty to them all. Dennis Hopper and especially Daniel Roebuck are amazing Crispin Glover eccentrically over does it and Keanu Reeves' dead as wood turn seems to pay off in his custom slacker role. Joshua John Millar is quite good and so is Ione Skye. Jim Metzler chimes in with a short, but highly engaging performance. The story is dramatically confronting, character-laced and harrowing in its eventual breakdown where it infuses a gritty and painful punch. Jürgen Knieper's swirling music score is simmering with anxiety, tension and wonder as the morals and commitments are tested and learnt.
\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 expect much from this movie, it was just one of those movies I thought I'd just watch because it was on television. i certainly underestimated this movie.
It's about a guy who kills his girlfriend and brags to his friends. I was very happy with the acting, they had the characters played well. It was a particularly great scene when Feck(Dennis Hopper) and John(Daniel Roebuck) are talking to each other about why John killed Jamie. It's upsetting to hear how he explains that he wanted to feel control and thats why. But Feck had loved the girl he had killed. Feck felt remorse while John felt nothing, hell he was proud of what he'd done. It really makes you think about people. Keanu Reeves did a great job as Matt, and Ione Skye was good. It's weird to see her as a valedictorian in 'Say Anything' and her as Clarissa. Every actor did great at .....acting. It was real nice for a change. It was a great movie and I would definitely say I recommend 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\nThis film is so 1980's and that is what I like so much about it. It does an excellent job of conveying the feel of that odd decade. The reality that Russian nukes could wipe you out at any time. Reagan in the White House telling everybody that things were great, while more and more social programs were slashed. Young people dropped out, but not as far as their parents of the 1960's did. Young people still went to school, they just smoked so much dope that their sensetivities were all but dead. Nothing effected them, not even the death of one of their classmates at the hands of one of their friends. How weird is it to realize that the murder was wrong, but you are not sure why. Watching the characters deal with the crime is fascinating and telling of a very sick society. Glover is great, Keanu is great, Hopper is incredible. One of the most memorable movies I have ever seen.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI finally saw this on video, after years of hearing about it. It is by no means a perfect movie, but it is oddly hypnotic - one of those rare, special films that creates its own world.
***SPOILERS*** First, the bad stuff. The scenes in Burkewaite's class are excruciating. Even if the subject is Social Studies, this guy is WAY over the top. His speeches are so overwrought they are laughable. And no teachers I ever had would grill their students like that, and tell the ones who protest to \"Shut up!\". These scenes are brief, but they break the mood and pull the viewer out of the story. Next, how the heck does Layne just walk out of the police station near the end? Also, what happened to Samson's car after the first scene of him riding into town? He spends the rest of the film being chaffeured around by Layne or Feck. ***END SPOILERS***
Ahhh, Feck...this guy is great. Dennis Hopper effortlessly steals the movie. \"Check's in the mail\", \"I love company\", \"you're my friend\" - every line is a classic. He gives Feck an internal logic that makes the story work. Incredibly, he actually makes the audience feel empathy for this guy, especially when Samson talks about his (Samson's) future.
By contrast, Crispin Glover is hard to take sometimes. Yet the scenes of him driving around in the Beetle are perfect - kids with cars in high school always have something to do, and buds to do it with. Matt's low-key attitude makes a good foil for Layne - their friendship is believable. Glover's mannerisms are a little much, but he is consistent throughout. He drives the plot and exudes a sense of urgency that no one else does - just try to imagine this flick if Layne were as much of a zombie as Matt or Samson - snoozefest!
***SPOILERS*** What makes \"River's Edge\" unsettling is the fact that Samson is not really evil, in the usual sense. He is kind of a boring guy who got sick of being taken for granted - in other words, he is like thousands of other boring guys. After he kills Jamie, he starts to unravel, which creates some suspense as we wait to see when he will snap again. ***END SPOILERS***
Part of this movie's appeal is the way the action stays centered around the teens and their point of view. The parents are comic relief - Clarissa's mom, Tony's dad - or overwhelmed - Matt's mom. This underlines how the kids hang together for the attention no one else gives them. It keeps the story focused on the relationships within the clique, and emphasizes that the only adult they can relate to is Feck. \"River's Edge\" is a textbook on alienation. It conveys how awkward, mysterious, and disconcerting adolescence is like no other 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\nAlthough I was hoping that I'd like it a little more, this was still certainly an impressive film. There were great performances by all the leads, and the story, while not what I'd call chilling, was still effective and it kept me interested. For me, the best part of this film was the look of the picture, for it always looked cold and damp and it just really seemed to suit the film well. I also thought that the low budget suited this movie, for I don't think that a crisp picture and clear sound would have worked as well in a film this grim. All things considered, it fell a little short of my expectations, but I'm still very glad that I finally sat down to watch this movie.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nRiver's Edge is an extremely disturbing film written by acclaimed American screen writer Neal Jimenez.It is based on an actual event which happened at a time when most of American youngsters were trying to make sense of their lives.This is one of the most outstanding films made by American director Tim Hunter.Much of film's attention is focused on a reckless murder committed by a feckless teenager.This unfortunate event sets in motion a whole range of questions about real motivations of youngsters in American society.Those who saw this film during its initial release must have had vivid memories of great actor Dennis Hopper in a confused role as a sympathetic social outcast. Matrix star Keanu Reeves also looks good as one of the teenagers before he reached star status.At a time when teen flicks are made without any kind of serious preparation,it is hoped that \"River's Edge\" cannot simply be ignored as just another silly teen flick.It had massive impact on people who lived during turbulent times of the past when being an inhabitant of a sleepy town was akin to not having being born.For today's generation with their heady overdoses of Internet props such as Facebook,Twitter and Orkut,River's Edge might appear to be outdated but its importance cannot be denied by any serious film admirer.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have seen this movie three times. Going back to VCR's, in the 1980's, and again on The Encor channel last night (Feb.11, 2010). Based on a true story which I remember being in the news, during the early 1980's, I've decided that I find it too disturbing to watch ever again. Yet it's hard to look away from a car accident. The creepiest character is Joshua John Miller, who plays Keeanu Reeves little brother.
(The story this movie was based on can be found anywhere on the Internet -- just Google it. It's about Anthony Jacques Broussard who murdered Marcy Conrad in Milpitas, California, in 1981.) The characters portray Generation X pre-grunge, borderline sociopaths, with the exception of Keeanu Reeves, who grows a conscience.
Old hippies did a great job raising that generation.
For such a young kid, I thought Joshua Miller was excellent, as the serial killer in the making character. In actuality, he went to Yale, and has written screenplays as well as directed. His acting capabilities in this film were amazing. Just the way he treats his little sister by drowning her doll, and tearing up her dolls grave, gave me the shivers. It gave me nightmares. Even with whats happening in our world today, in 2010, it still is the most degenerate film I've seen to date.
The apathy, and dysfunction, of these families, is enough to make one puke. This thrill kill almost makes the Manson murders pale in comparison.
Crispon Glover got a little too much into character. He wound up on David Lettermen to discuss his role, and almost kicked the host in the head. Apparrently Glover had to seek psychiatric help after portraying his character.
Also, fight the good fight to the great Dennis Hopper. You're one of the best!
\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 flipping through the channels and had to stop and laugh when i came across this movie. It was so clearly about teens in the early 80s, and i called my mom \"hahaha, turn to channel such and such, the kid totally looks like if dad were a kid\".
Um. Yeah. Turns out this movie is about my dad & his friends.
Even without it being about loosely based on my dad's childhood, i'd say watch this movie!
It is just.....bizarre to say the least, the apathy instilled in teens even back then. This is a good \"human interest\" and showcases some strange sides of the psyche.
\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\nCrispin Glovers' way of acting (and not only his) is tremendous. You really want to believe him because his body language and performing fits the person perfect. He gives Layne this extraordinary bit of personality that makes this movie a cult. As well as Feck, which role is done very well by Dennis Hopper. It's about choosing the right or wrong side, without logical thinking about the scene. Friendship is more imported, and that's exactly what I think is what makes choices this difficult. Rivers Edge lets you experience this with serious tones and family mathers. I really enjoyed it watching. I saw it a month ago for the first time, but if you like a nice 80s feel, this is the one that you have to see. I'ts a same that I didn't know of it earlier.
\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 this is a pretty good movie, but one thing makes it VERY interesting to me. It is blatantly obvious once you look out for it: the main characters in this movie are the inspiration for the bullies on The Simpsons. Layne is Jimbo, John is Kearney, and Tony is Dolph. There is even an episode of The Simpsons where Jimbo uses the line \"I poked her with a stick.\"
The Jimbo-Layne connection is the most obvious with the knit hat and long hair and the voice. Kearney has the shaved head, unlike John, but is the big, dumb one. The Tony-Dolph connection is pretty obvious with the long, parted haircut and even the second-tier status.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ni just glanced over another comment posted here in which the writer discusses the disturbing ways the teenagers in this film use the body of their dead friend. one overlooked in this statement is perhaps the most unsettling of them all, no surprise it's what crispin glover's character (layne) does. he is thrilled over one of his friends murdering another friend of his, the killer's girlfriend. not because layne did not like this individual, rather he is excited about her death because it gives him something to do. this poor boy is bored in life, and dead inside, that a murdered friend is something to get excited about because it provides him with something to focus on.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nRiver's Edge is more than just the story of a murder. It's an indictment of the wave of apathy that has plagued pockets of youth for decades now. Our main characters are a group of what my high school would have referred to as \"stoners\". One of them just decided to strangle his girlfriend because she apparently had the nerve to \"talk sh*t\" to him. This dangerous young man played by Daniel Roebuck has an intensity that will startle you. He takes the other kids in the group out to show them his girlfriend's body, and strangely enough, nobody seems really freaked out about it. The balance of the film punctuates the desperate circumstances in which these people live, and how guilt is eventually able to worm its way inside even these apathetic kids.
River's Edge is certainly not condoning or championing the behavior of its characters. We clearly see the dangers presented by such unchecked apathy and having only the desire to get drunk or high. We are shown the dysfunctional home lives these kids have, and perhaps this is meant to explain their awful behavior. But could it only be unstable homes that lead to this type of destructive living? Crispin Glover is his usual whacked-out self. He drives around town in a state of complete paranoia after the murder. He tries to sympathize with why his friend had to commit the crime, but clearly he does not understand what could have made the young man do it. Dennis Hopper plays an older man these kids get their dope from. Though he is certainly a rebellious figure, he cannot relate to the apathy and rage of the younger generation. Witness his confused reaction as Roebuck describes how killing his girlfriend made him feel. As wild as Hopper's character is, even he knows this young man should not be walking the face of the earth.
What will you think of these kids? Well, there is really no way to like their characters. Some are less despicable than others, but you cannot help either hating or feeling sorry for them. Twenty years later, there is still an apathy alive and well in a great many young people out there. When do these kids get lost? What makes so many of them want to act anti-social? This film, and the questions it poses about teenagers will stick with you for a while. That's a fact.
8 of 10 stars.
The Hound.
\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\"River's Edge\" was one of the most disturbing films of 1986, and for a year that also saw \"Blue Velvet\", you know thats saying something. Viewed today its lost little of its power and remains much better than the overrated \"Kids\". The previews for \"Kids\" played it up to be an expose of the deterioration of the nation's youth. In reality, it was little more than an exploitation film based mostly around shock value. \"River's Edge\" was promoted as a teen exploitation flick but was in actuality much better. The only times it goes from being disturbing to distasteful is the constant image of the dead nude body. Outside of that, the film is thought-provoking and, for all its minor flaws, quite realistic.
Keanu Reeves, known for being a particularly wooden performer, gives his best performance as a burned-out teenager. Ione Skye is equally sympathetic and likable. Dennis Hopper (on the comeback trail with this, \"Blue Velvet\", and \"Hoosiers\") gives a great performance as the creepy yet pathetic hippie generation leftover. Crispin Glover, while always entertaining to watch, seems a bit out of place as the manic stoner and leader of the group. The best performance however is definitely Daniel Roebuck. As the murderer John, Roebuck is frighteningly emotionless. Its a shame he didn't become a bigger star as hes a much better actor than Reeves.
The film is overall fantastic and daring. Don't mistake this for another lame John Hughes clichéd high school flick such as \"The Breakfast Club\". This is a shocking piece of nihilism that resonates with the viewer. Fans of this movie are advised to check out a Canadian film from 1981 called \"Out of the Blue\", directed by Dennis Hopper. Its another shockingly bleak examination of the generation gap and, despite its obscurity, may have been an influence on \"River's Edge\". (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\nThis is a forgotten classic of a film, and Harmony Karin borrowed a ton from it for \"Gummo\". Gummo is good, River's Edge is way, way better. Its no secret that Keanu Reeves isn't the best actor whoever walked the earth. No, in fact, he's a horrendous actor. But, he was born for some roles: Ted Preston, Esquire from Bill and Ted, and his role in this film. He is perfect as a sort of good natured but very apathetic and confused teenager. Then there's Crispin Glover. I think his performance in this film is the best of his career. He is phenomenal as the drugged out wackjob character. Then there's Dennis Hopper, who is perfect as well. This movie is simply amazing, and if you haven't seen it, run out and watch it today. Its brilliant. One of the best portrayals of modern America I've seen.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis relic from before the days of the Production Code and the Hays Office is good fun, not great but entertaining.
Based on a song by Rogers & Hart that was an enormous hit at the time, the story revolves around dance hall girl Barbara Stanwyck who is romanced by wealthy businessman Ricardo Cortez (who was indecently handsome), but whose heart belongs to her bookish neighbor Monroe Owsley. She and Owsley marry, but keep it a secret, while she dismisses Cortez, who still holds out hope. She helps hubby get a job in Cortez's company, but married bliss quickly turns sour as Owsley develops a taste for the high life and steps out with a college sweetheart and gambles in high-stakes bridge (Yup! I know, it's pretty funny....). Finally he embezzles $5,000 from Cortez, and is about to go on the lam, when his devoted wife goes to Cortez....and I won't reveal anything else, although the ending was certainly a surprise.
Stanwyck is the best thing about this movie; in one of her earliest roles she's quite accomplished. Owsley is the weak point; he's unattractive and sniveling, while Cortez is amazingly suave and sexy, while his performance is earnest but unremarkable.
While ostensibly a drama, it's filled with laughs, many inadvertant as some elements of this movie have aged very poorly. But there are a lot of good witty lines; at one point Stanwyck says to Cortez, \"My brains are in my feet, while yours are in....\" That's pretty darn suggestive for 1931! There's a lot of bawdy and suggestive stuff in this flick, in the last days before the Code clamped down and whitewashed everything. An amusing antique, a good reminder of how far we haven't come in 70 years....this story could very easily be changed to fit 2003 but could keep the basic plot, with the original ending, in place.
\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 Barbara Stanwyck's earlier films and it sure does have an unconventional theme. She's making money by dancing with men at a dance hall. She really doesn't like the work, but it's a living. Her boyfriend seems like a pretty nice guy, but she's also pursued by rich guy Ricardo Cortez. Well, after marrying, it turns out her \"nice guy\" is a thieving, womanizing weasel and rich Cortez turns out to be a heck of a guy. By the end of the film, Barbara simply has had enough, as any SANE woman would walk from this horrid marriage.
In the 1920s and early 30s, Hollywood did pretty much anything it wanted and some of their films had themes or scenes that would surprise many today--such as nudity, adultery and bad language. While TEN CENTS A DANCE isn't a blatant example of this morality, it does have a theme that never would have been allowed after the toughened Production Code was created and enforced starting in 1934. In some ways the Code was great--after all, parents didn't need to worry about what their kids saw in films (such as nudity in BEN HUR, 1925). However, it also tended to sanitize some of the movies far too much--and there is no way this particular film could have been made and approved because it tends to glorify divorce--a serious no-no 1934 and thereafter. This is really a shame, as I don't think TEN CENTS A DANCE was bad at all to discuss this--especially since the star (Barbara Stanwyck) was married to a philandering thief. Even so, allowing the film to end with her divorcing him and marrying a man who himself was twice divorced just couldn't have been.
Overall, the film is interesting and thought-provoking. Plus, it was well-paced and suited its relatively short run time. Give this one a look.
FYI--Sadly, Ricardo Cortez was actually NOT Hispanic but changed his name because of possible prejudice because he was Jewish. He was an excellent leading man of his time, but today is all but forgotten.
\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 last films DIRECTED by Lionel Barrymore, \"Ten Cents a Dance\" stars Barbara Stanwyck as the dance-hall girl \"Barbara\" in her sixth role. Stanwyck looks quite \"plain-jane\" in this one, and opens with her getting chewed out by the dance hall manager. Then along comes rich guy Bradley Carlton (Ricardo Cortez) who wants to sweep her off her feet. (Cortez and Stanwyck had made three films together in the 1930s.) Then she meets Eddie, who's very different from the dashing Carlton. The writer, Jo Swerling, had worked on some biggies (Its a Wonderful Life, Guys and Dolls, and Gone with the Wind) so I was surprised that the characters and script in this were so ordinary. The story starts getting more interesting about halfway thru, and is VERY similar to \"The Bride Walks Out\" from 1936, ALSO starring Stanwyck.... T.B.W.O. is much more clever, but also more tame, due to on-slaught of the Hays code...
\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\n1931 also presented \"an American tragedy\", the original tale of \"who will he take up with, poor girl or rich girl\". this was a truly entertaining film. Babs stanwyck was a pretty as she could be, ditto sally blane. Monroe owsley, unmemorably played Babs's husband. i had never heard of him, but i thought he bore a good physical resemblance to bing Crosby of \"the big broadcast\" ('32), even a receding hairline and wingy ears. Ricardo cortez, the rich playboy with a heart of gold. a true movie pioneer going wayyy back. the dilemma is resolved at the end, to the strains of the title and i believe Annette hanshaw had the hit recording, although the off-screen voice did very well. i also enjoyed the dance hall scenes. i'm sure they were authentic; the band, a leading one of the time was superb. good job, Lionel Barrymore!!!!
\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 an account of events that have been covered in print several times, and I had read two books - 'A Voyage for Madmen' and 'The Strange Last Voyage of Donald Crowhurst' before seeing the film in Sheffield just before Christmas. I must say, it exceeded all expectations in its telling of the 1968 Sunday Times Golden Globe yacht race. These men set out to do something that had never been done before with no support vessels, wooden boats, no satellite phones, no GPS, and just their wits and skill to get them round the globe in one piece. Not to mention the months of solitude, the thundering southern ocean, little sleep, and boats that were often literally falling apart around them.
This documentary is excellently put together in my opinion, tightly edited, well paced with superb narration. The archive footage and the interviews are fascinating and bring the story to life. Clare Crowhurst's interview footage is especially revealing and moving as she relates the events that led up to her husband, Donald Crowhurst's departure from Teignmouth, the doubts and fears in his mind and her reaction as subsequent events unfolded.
I was moved and had even shed a tear or two by the time the credits started rolling, and overheard other people expressing similar feelings.
The two books I mentioned above are useful for more detail and back-story which couldn't have been fitted into the 90 minutes and I would recommend those too.
This is ultimately a true story of human courage and human frailty. A must see for anyone interested in sailing, adventure, human endeavour and real-life heroes.
\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\nDeep Water examines the pressures and ambitions on an ordinary man in a compelling documentary. The testimony and archive footage are a fascinating insight to the late 1960's and a ground-breaking round the world yacht race. The personal conflicts of duty to family, self and reputation are played out in one of the most memorable and affecting films I have seen. I was not familiar with the history of this story and the drama was successfully and clearly directed. The story is mostly respectful to the participants with heroes and villains implied rather than ruthlessly exposed. Most of the interpretation is left open to the viewer allowing room to personally relate to the situations and characters. This movie is a bitter sweet experience with an entertaining mix of thoughtful suspense, joy and drama.
\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 gem. As a Film Four production - the anticipated quality was indeed delivered. Shot with great style that reminded me some Errol Morris films, well arranged and simply gripping. It's long yet horrifying to the point it's excruciating. We know something bad happened (one can guess by the lack of participation of a person in the interviews) but we are compelled to see it, a bit like a car accident in slow motion. The story spans most conceivable aspects and unlike some documentaries did not try and refrain from showing the grimmer sides of the stories, as also dealing with the guilt of the people Don left behind him, wondering why they didn't stop him in time. It took me a few hours to get out of the melancholy that gripped me after seeing this very-well made documentary.
\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 happened upon this by chance. I was at my friends house and he had just started watching it, so I sat down thinking we would shoot the breeze whilst this was playing in the background. However, within seconds I was immersed in this docu-drama, and we both spent the rest of the time completely focused on this and not saying a word to each other.
I never knew the tale of the the first solo around the world yacht race, let alone the tragic events of one man's attempt against the odds, which set out to be his redemption for all of his misfortunes in life, but ultimately ends up becoming an example of them. Having not known of the story, I did watch this with the same fervor as I imagine those who were reading about the race at the time it actually was happening, engulfed in what was taking place and eager for more information, hoping the lone amateur was going to pull it off against the odds and beat the pro's, which makes the shocking twists of the story all the more tragic, I felt like I was living the story.
The story is told with great care, and the interviewees have clearly had time to reflect on the tragedy, which gives great insights, but is also contrasted nicely by the archive footage of interviews at the time of the tragedy, the recordings and photographs of the lone sailors is also excellently used, and the insights into the minds of the sailors and how solitude was affecting them was superb.
I'm shocked that this story isn't more widely known or has been turned into a movie, but also thankful. Thankful that we have this drama-documentary to tell the tale from those who knew the man, instead of some wishy-washy movie adaptation, and thankful that I caught this gem of a film by pure chance.
It's a must see, whether you like documentaries or not.
\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\nNote: This should probably be read only after watching the film.
It is very rare to find a documentary or movie that focuses on the loser. Deep Water does just this, making it one of the most thought provoking films in a very long time. It does not provide us with a hero to look up to, but rather an anti-hero who forces us to look into ourselves.
The film is about a group of men who attempt to sail around the globe, singlehandedly, and without stopping. Only one makes it, several die, one decides not to return home, each of them on a psychological journey intriguing enough to merit entire films for themselves. Yet the most interesting is Donald Crowhurst, or rather the way that he is portrayed by the filmmakers and our reactions to him as viewers.
By any standards this man should be considered a despicable character, yet why is he depicted so heroically? Why are we so sympathetic to him? From the beginning he made all of the wrong choices. He risked his family financially to get the boat, he left at a more dangerous time to get more publicity, he ignored all of the warnings despite his lack of experience, he chose to lie instead of admitting defeat, these choices snowball until the inevitable and final one: suicide. All for what? A place in history? A feeling of accomplishment? Perhaps. What is important to consider is whether this mans situation was inevitable.
Each individual must ask himself if his natural human drive for fame and accomplishment would bring him to such recklessness, and I believe that examining your own reaction to Crowhurst's story will offer at least some answer to that question.
\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 story about a journey made by a man who once had a dream and guts. Donald Crowhurst was an English businessman and amateur sailor who competed in the Sunday Times Golden Globe Race, a single-handed, round-the-world yacht race.
I was very intrigued by the story after listening to a radio interview from the producer John Smithson, who is also the producer of \"Touching the Void\", one of the first documentaries that made a commercial success in 2003. I had gone to the cinema with great hope and not much previous knowledge on the historic event, and I'm relieved that it didn't let me down. For 92 minutes I was led through a haunting story and came out with much to think about.
Without any reenactment, this film made great use of the limited audio and video archive footage they found and turned it into a compelling story which allowed the audience to understand Crowhurst from a personal level. The story unveiled itself as people who had direct links to the events including his wife and his son, and the eventual winner, also the only one who made it back out of the 9 competitors, Robin Knox-Johnston gave their own accounts of what happened almost 40 years ago.
Crowhurst's logs(journals) that he kept during the 243 days at sea are so haunting that it made it much easier for me to come to understand what being in total isolation can do to a man. While Crowhurst's body was never found, the other competitor Nigel Tetley whose yacht sank just weeks before claiming the prize for fastest passage committed suicide three years later after unsuccessful attempts at properly completing a circumnavigation.
Everything could take its toll, especially the sea.
The director Louise Osmond was also at the Q&A session after the showing together with producer John Smithson. I had no idea that it's a female director and that just came as a very nice surprise. The film is getting a limited release in the UK (a couple of days in certain cinemas). Catch it in cinema while you can, unless you have a state of the art sound system that can recreate the sound of the bashing Southern Ocean.. then I'm sure they'll soon have it on DVDs too.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"