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 1955 Producers' Showcase version of the musical Peter Pan with Mary Martin has the benefit of showcasing most of the original Broadway cast, including Kathleen Nolan as Wendy, who was more natural an actress than the girl they hired for the 1960 color televised play. It's a shame that most people won't sit through anything black and white anymore because in many respects this earlier production - which doesn't even show up in the IMDb listings when you put \"Peter Pan\" into the search engine! - is superior to the cutesier color version most people have watched. I obtained the original on disc and then did work on it to make it look and sound better digitally. Now when I put the 1960 color version on it looks garish in comparison. I suspect Mary Martin herself no doubt preferred this original 1955 b/w Producers' Showcase televised version.
As an added plus the disc I got also showed the original commercials and opening promo. How far away the 1950's seem now - such an innocent time compared to today. I miss 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\nA tough life gets tougher when the three children of a single mom are scheduled to be sent to separate foster homes after her untimely passing.
To stay together, the older boy plans a daring, high risk escape to find a distant lost uncle- their only remaining next of kin.
Their trek takes the three fearful runaways on a chase through the desert in a classic beetle, penniless, hungry, desperate, terrorized by delinquents and too young to drive, hunted by the ever threatening civil authorities.
What the movie lacks in acting and plot realism, it makes up for in the honest human need to be a part of a fulfilled and complete family- even if that family is cobbled together with spare parts of broken lives.
Sure, the ending is forced and too over-dramatic for the critical movie goer, but every heart beats the same cry for family togetherness and belonging.
With all its weaknesses, I still give this movie a strong recommendation.
\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\nMy cousins and I have watched this movie ever since we were little. I don't know exactly what it is about this movie, but we latched on to this endearing movie and it has become a special part of our family's memories.
I totally and absolutely recommend this movie to anyone who likes good wholesome family movies because that is exactly what this is. The things that the four kids get themselves into is absolutely hilarious to watch. It is an old movie but don't let that fool you. This is one of the best movies out there that shows such strong sibling bond for each other.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's really too bad that nobody knows about this movie. I think if it were just spruced up a little and if it weren't so low-budget, I think one of the major film companies might have wanted to take it. I first saw this movie when I was 11, and I thought it was so powerful with the many great, yet illegal lengths that Mitchell goes to just to keep his family together. It inspired me then and it amazes me now. If you're lucky enough to find a copy of this movie, don't miss 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\nThe Commenter before me stated this movie is the worst that was ever forced upon him/her as a child. I have to say though that I loved this movie when was little and I still love it today. The movie has the best running theme of all-family togetherness. Considering the time period the movie was released I thought the movie was acted out well. I only wish I could still find a copy of it somewhere!! Of all the 1980's films I watched as a kid this was on of my favorites. I know I probably watched it at least once a week with my brother and my mom. I would definitely recommend it to anyone I know-or don't know. So if you do find a copy of it I suggest watching it! It's wonderful and heartwarming.
\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\"on our own\" is a touching story of four kids who run away from foster home after their mother dies, with only one suitcase, their dog Ralph and $9 they set off in their mums old car in search of their uncle Jack. On the way their car breaks down and they meet Peggy Williams, a schoolteacher on holidays and she offers to help them out. Together she and the children search for uncle Jack but are forced to hide from the authorities that plan to take them back into foster care as they do so. This film tells a story of love, friendship and how important it is to stick with your family as the children venture out on their amazing journey.
\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\nVanaja (2006), written and directed by Rajnesh Domalpalli, is an extraordinary film from South India. Mamatha Bhukya plays 15-year-old Vanaja, who lives in a rural area with her loving but alcoholic father. If she is going to succeed in life, she will have to overcome the liabilities of low caste and poverty.
I went to the film expecting the depiction of an wretched girl who is crushed by society. This isn't what \"Vanaja\" shows us. The young woman is attractive, intelligent, and ambitious. She won't accept her fate with tears or simple resignation. She wants to succeed, and it's never clear that she won't succeed, despite the odds.
The acting that Mr. Domalpalli draws forth from his cast of amateurs is miraculous. Mamatha Bhukya is outstanding in the title role, and Urmila Dammannagari does an exceptional job as Mrs. Rama Devi, the wealthy landowner who is a formerly famous classical dancer.
In the film Vanaja learns South Indian classical dance, as she did in real life. I couldn't tell how good Vanaja's dancing was by Indian standards, but the many dance scenes were spellbinding. (Don't think Bollywood--this is classical dance. It's also very different from ballet, because in ballet the dancer lifts her heels away from the floor. In Sound Indian dance, the heel is the primary contact point.)
This is a movie that is not to be missed. It will work on DVD, but will be better on a theater screen because the dancing will be shown to better advantage. However, if DVD is your only option, then see it that way. Just be sure to see it.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is not your typical Indian film. There is some great sense of humanity, and the characters are pretty realistic. There is great dynamism in the interpersonal relationships, and there is a sense of guilt, grief, passion, passivity among the many characters. While seeing this, one gets a feel for the heavy burden of the 5000 years of layers and layers of history of social existence of one of the oldest civilizations. The final scene of an elephant walking away in the rural area was a great footnote to such a ancient civilization, and yet, human relations are still preserved and nurtured. Saw it on DVD, the two interviews with the director and the main actress are very interesting. Was surprised to learn that the movie has not done well (or not being shown) in India (... but maybe not too surprised). The artistic patrimony of rural societies is being slowly lost and its inheritance not picked up by younger generations, as some of the older musicians in the movie are no longer living today. Great 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\nWinning 26 out of the 28 awards it was nominated for, there is no doubt that this film will stand as one of the best of 2007. The fact that it was made with non professionals who were trained to act and dance makes it that much more special.
It is not a Bollywood production, but it is about art. A lower caste girl wants to sing and dance. She wants to move up in society, but there is a limit. Everyone cannot be President in India, there is a caste system, and the narrow minds will not allow it to be breached.
Vanaja (Mamatha Bhukya) quits school at 15 and goes to work for the Landlady (Urmila Dammannagari), who was once an accomplished dancer. After some time working the animals, she is taught to sing and dance. The film is strikingly beautiful with rich color. It is amazing what can be done with $20,000, as this film was a Master's project for the writer director.
The Landlady's son (Karan Singh) returns from America to run for office and is struck by the girl. But, she is lower caste and can only be a vessel for his lust. Things are no better at home as her father drinks and eats and steals her money. She ends up pregnant and has to sell the baby to the Landlady.
In the end, she never rises above her caste, but the story was fascinating and the acting was really 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\nVanaja is a film of superlatives. It has an exceptionally well thought-out cast with Mamatha being the crowning jewel, a superb production and possibly pre-production with Rajnesh at the helm, a fantastic journey of rural Southern India through the eyes of a 15 year old, a remarkable mixture of song and dance, traditional and modern, blended perfectly, and a beautiful backdrop of lush color of the flora and fauna that make up the magnificent experience. What a towering achievement for a debut director!! The casting was absolutely dead-on. I wish India would come out with more of such films. This film will remain as one of my top favorites for my entire life. 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\nlet's face it, you know what to expect when you tune into a post 1990 Corey Feldman film, there are probably boobs, guns and cars. saying that, there is more to this movie than just naked ladies (i'm sorry to say), cos it's mainly people getting themselves killed in a variety of unusual, and as the name suggests, often 'mystical' ways. I love crappy horror, and i love this film. If you don't, you probably wont. but i think it's worth most people giving it a go, it's not so crappy that it'll ruin your weekend or anything. All in all, if its mindless good fun, a bit of corpse loving, and an 80's childhood superstar your in the mood for, then you've come to the right place. its a cracker!!!!
\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 care if some people voted this movie to be bad. If you want the Truth this is a Very Good Movie! It has every thing a movie should have. You really should Get this 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\nWealthy businessman Bill Compton (played by Dennis Patrick) accidentally kills his daughter's hippie boyfriend after an argument. Panic-stricken, he retreats to a bar, and meets Joe Curran (played by Peter Boyle): a loud-mouth, angry, bigot who is bitter over how his beloved country has become. Unintentionally, Bill allows Joe to find out that he just killed a hippie. And this is only the beginning. \"Joe\" is a classic film of an unlikely friendship. A bond between two men, one of a white-collar background, the other of a blue-collar background. Bill & Joe have one thing in common, they are disgraced over how crazy the world has become. Dennis Patrick & Peter Boyle have both given very realistic portrayals of their characters. Director John G. Avidsen with this \"pre-Rocky\" effort, directs this low-budget gem with the same finesse as a movie with a $100 million budget. The script is loaded with excellent character development and very snappy, realistic dialog. In spite of its strengths this film does have its weaknesses. The script falls asleep roughly 3/4 of the way through, but it wakes up just in time for the jarring climax. This film also features a very early and uninspiring performance by a 24-year old Susan Sarandon as Bill's daughter Melissa, along with her hippie boyfriend Frank, portrayed very blandly by Patrick Mc Dermott. One could only be thankful that he was killed off early in the film. In spite of its few flaws this is one of those forgotten films of the 70's that should not be. Even though \"Joe\" is very dated to today's standards, the chemistry between Dennis Patrick & Peter Boyle is completely relevant today, and it is the glue that holds the whole film together.
\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\"Joe\" is one of those movies where, although you think that it might go along smoothly, ends up hitting you like...I can't come up with an analogy. It showed not only that America's long-standing idea of unity was moot, but also the various aspects within our society. Melissa Compton (Susan Sarandon) is the ultimate flower child, while her father Bill (Dennis Patrick) is a clean-cut executive. One day, Bill accidentally kills Melissa's boyfriend. In the immediate aftermath, Bill gets acquainted with Joe Curran (Peter Boyle), an ultra-right-wing, rabidly racist working stiff. As a result, the two of them end up associating more and more with the hippies, whom Bill finds unpleasant and Joe outright hates. But in the end, everything has dead serious consequences.
True, some parts of the movie are a little bit dated, but it's a good juxtaposition of America's two sides during the Vietnam War. And rest assured, the residual effects of all that will probably never go 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\nI was surprised by how emotionally invested I became in this film. Peter Boyle is a tour de force as the working class socially conservative bigot, Joe. I actually sympathized with some of his complaints. Of course he doesn't mention the underlying historical socio-economic reasons for many of his prejudices. The film also provides interesting insight into the rapid change American society was undergoing at this time. Recreational drugs, casual sex, and the challenging of parental authority became in vogue and replaced the more time honored traditions of respect for God, country and seniority. Susan Sarandon fans will be delighted. Joe is her film debut. She also provides viewers with a visual treat near the beginning of the film. Recommended, 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\nIf Archie Bunker was armed, he may well have been \"Joe\". However, \"All in the Family\" would have had a rather short run because the censors would never have allowed it to run along the lines of THIS movie. Joe is a working class guy who is a racist and a bigot, and has a big mouth, especially when he's drunk. One night he meets a man in a bar, Bill, who is having a drink to soothe his frazzled nerves after accidentally killing his daughter's junkie boyfriend and he lets that slip to Joe. What happens is that Bill's daughter was living with the junkie, and she's hauled off to the hospital after an overdose, and he goes by the apartment to collect her things but doesn't expect that he'll actually run into the boyfriend, who comes in fresh from a big drug deal. In the struggle that ensues, the boyfriend is killed accidentally and Bill doesn't want anyone really to know, of course. But he lets it slip to Joe, and then when the newspapers and TV reports come out, Joe sees them, puts 2 and 2 together, and suddenly this man is a hero in his eyes. He hooks up with him later and Bill is of course concerned that Joe is going to blackmail him, but not for money, he wants to hang out with him. Which is, in a way, almost worse. Now, Bill's daughter escapes from the clinic she's in, and slips back home, and accidentally overhears what happened and then is on the run, and most of the rest of the movie consists of Joe & Bill infiltrating \"the underground\" to try to find her. This builds up to a rather shocking ending, which to me was totally unexpected and ends on just the right note, or wrong note, depending on your point of view. A sort of decent but dim view of life in the early 70's, mostly from a working class bigot's point of view, which makes it not for everyone, but it's not a bad film at all and it's a decent watch. 8 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\n22. JOE (drama, 1970) Joe (Peter Boyle) is a racist factory worker who's known to hate \"hippies and ni**ers\". He meets Bill, a businessman who has just murdered the lover of his drug addict young daughter Jill (Susan Sarandon). Jill runs away and joins a hippie commune at the outskirts of town. Bill turns to Joe for help. Their search leads them through the seediest parts of town where both men's inner hatred and loath is furthered tested.
Critique: This was director John G. Avildsen's first sleeper-turned smash hit (an amazing run which included: 'Rocky', 'The Karate Kid', 'Split-Image', 'Weekend at Bernie's'). Film is interesting enough in that it served to encapsulate the themes and ideas of the turbulent 60s (Vietnam War, black power, women's lib etc.). It also has a good performance from Peter Boyle as Joe, one of the cinema's first antiheroes. He's always been good at playing creepy, bossy heavies whose abstract ideas are enforced by his intimidating presence (he would play the Frankenstein monster in Mel Brook's spoof Young Frankenstein). He reminds me of a little kid trapped in a big, dumb, awkward body. Film has a weak script (the meeting of Joe and Bill, for instance, is a bit coincidental), but it has a particularly gruesome, post-Taxi Driver ending.
QUOTE: Title Song: \"I saw a fella selling junk to children. He gets nervous every time I pass Cause he knows that if I catch him I'm gonna kick his head and kick his fat a$$.\"
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI finally have seen the real reason why Peter Boyle became famous. It wasn't being the monster in \"Young Frankenstein\" or being cranky Frank Barone on \"Everybody Loves Raymond\". For younger people who only know him from TV,give this film a try,it makes Frank look like a saint.
\"Joe\" is Boyle in his finest acting role and as someone mentioned,most likely gave the inspiration for \"Archie Bunker\" on \"All In The Family\". I think Boyle even went back to \"Joe\" a little to play Frank. (I say this because I noticed the basement of both \"Joe\" & Frank Barone look similar.)
I knew nothing of this movie when I checked it out of the library,I just knew Boyle and Susan Sarandon were featured. Yes,Susan does look great here and for a young actress a very good early role. A young hippie wanna be,who escapes her parents home and lives with,the ultimate lost in a drug induced haze hippie,who also sells as much as he buys.
After a near-fatal over-dose on too many pills,she is hospitalized while her parents go to collect her things,her mother wont go into the smelly,run down apartment but her father does. While Dad gathers up her things,her boyfriend comes home and the two exchange words and then the father does what we will later hear Joe say he'd like to do to a hippie.
Joe is shooting his mouth off about how he hates different cultures/races,hippies and a laundry list of others. When he says,\"I'd really like to kill one of them\",the father (trying to look like he's kidding)says,\"I just did\". Joe almost buys it but then takes it as funny.
Later,when the police are at the scene and the story is in the paper,Joe realizes,he wasn't kidding. Instead of nailing the rich guy for money through blackmail,he actually,kind of,does blackmail him. By just wanting him and his wife to \"get to know\" him and his wife. Long story short their association is awkward but after Sarandon gets wind of what her father has done,the bottom is at risk of falling out.
How this all plays out in the end you'll have to watch for yourself. Although it's over 35 years ago,the ending is something you wont expect. Unless you've seen the film before of course. Again,I recommend it mostly for those who haven't seen it.
10 stars for Boyle not just playing someone completely opposite his nature but for what will show others that he was more than just a TV and movie comedy actor. (END)
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI only voted excellent because this film took two snapshots of Americana: one in 1970, and one for every year afterward.
Nothing's really changed.
Joe is actually a jerk, a big stupid slob who's mad at everybody else in the world for his own idiocy. This ain't really a spoiler, but the key to the film is the big, corporate \"never does wrong\" guy making friends with this semi-troglodyte Joe, and he gets some kind of...validation from his bigotry and stupidity and sense of being wronged.
Yet, few would argue, that the dealer boyfriend did deserve to die. And those kids shouldn't have ripped Joe and Compton off. And Joe and Compton were actually getting into the hash and the young skin until they got ripped off. A simple film in many ways, except that in 1970 New York City was par to a battle zone thanks to Nixon's care, and all of the money going to the war in Vietnam. As I write this (2/25/2007) there is a \"very long wait\" on Netflix for this film - which makes me happy because I think there are people out there who want to learn. This was a pretty good snapshot - not exact, a bit caricaturist - but actually pretty close to how it was back then. And the scary thing is - things haven't changed that much. Sure, there's no more welfare, but that just means the wage-slavery has won out.
Amazing how millionaires will complain about not making enough money, then complain that $5.15 an hour is too much to pay their people.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWARNING: Reading this entry after watching the movie! Like 'Easy Rider' released a year before, 'Joe' tries to illustrate what happens when the counterculture and mainstream (albeit right-wing) America meet: a violent end ensues. Although this film is for the most part a slow-moving display of traditional \"old-fashion\" American morals versus the 60's \"do-what-feels-good\" lifestyle, it is also a commentary on upper-class vs. lower-middle class and their inability to meet in the middle as illustrated when the Comptons meet the Currans. Boyle's Joe represents a generation stuck in the 1940s and 50s where 'Kill a commie for Mommy (or jap or hippie for that matter) is okay so long as it helps and saves America. Joe and wife Mary Jo are clearly the archetypes for Archie Bunker and Dingbat wife, Edith. This movie - which will forever be known for it's violent (but not bloody - no blood is seen at all) ending is uneven however. Joe blasts (verbally) the hippie generation then (literally) lays down with them to infiltrate their numbers to locate Compton's daughter - when clearly he should have been repulsed by the idea but forgoes the separatist idea for the sake of sex. When he is betrayed through thievery (read: trust of the older generation to the newer generation), he lashes out through an unrelenting chain of murder. Perhaps it is due to the Tarantinos of Hollywood that the watcher expects blood-streaming death in the end scene, but the bloodless shootings long for any sort of impact or realism. 'Joe' is not a great movie, but it is an interesting display of class and culture alienation and the animalistic underlying extremes to the generation gap.
\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 recently seeing, Cry Uncle, by the same director, I decided to seek this out and am I glad I did!? This is an extraordinarily good film. Far, far better than it would seem likely given the ingredients. How many times have we had to suffer the embarrassment of someone playing a middle class Dad mixing it with the flower children aagh! And yet here thanks to a perfect script it is made believable. Not ideal, not good or bad but believable. Peter Boyle, as the working class, hippie and ni**er hater and Dennis Patrick as the uptight suit, play their respective parts immaculately and I can't remember ever seeing the two classes getting together like this without things getting sentimental. Susan Sarandon is effective as a hippie chick but doesn't have all that much to do in her first film. This is a truly, must see film capturing as it does that very short period in western and in particular US times when the counter culture was about to bust itself wide open.
\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\nUnusual film about a man who befriends his social opposite out of fear of blackmail. Peter Boyle makes this film with his foul mouthed boorish portrayal of a working class stiff \"Joe\" in love with the past and fearful of the future and worried about the present. The first half hour of the show features the film debut of a young Susan Sarrandon as Melissa Compton, a weak willed rich girl who slums with her loser boyfriend, replete with a full nude scene. Her boyfriend is the film's weak spot, a poorly portrayed drug addict and dealer who meets his demise following Sarrandon's overdose. We meet Boyle's Joe in a bar as he spouts off and rants about minorities, crime, hippies and drugs, and it is easy to see that the later Norman Lear television character of Archie Bunker is based on a cleaned up version of Joe. The comparison even carries over into Joe's wife and personal life and pastimes. Joe insinuates himself into the life of Bill Compton, Melissa's father, and the two make an unlikely pair as they search for Melissa who has run away from drug treatment and back to the drug addicts she calls friends. Their search leads them to an \"oar-gee\" as Joe calls it, a free love fest fueled by drugs a lot of nudity and surprisingly, uptight Bill Compton and Ultra Conservative Joe both join in. They get robbed and this leads to a violent and murderous ending that foreshadows the stark and chilling ending to Taxi Driver six years later. Joe is a funny film that on the surface at least, is anti violence and anti racist. Yet the film's main character, Joe, becomes the very instrument of the upheaval he fears when he enters and joins in the illegal and unbridled sexual excesses he rants against. So in that respect, the film falls short of being a powerful message and leaves you wondering what the final outcome really was all about.
\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 recall so many things about seeing this movie back during it's original theatrical release - the post Woodstock afterglow of peace and love, along with the pre-Watergate tension of fear and paranoia. It's hard to believe that it's thirty seven years later, and I can still remember the thoughts going through my head while watching the film with my best friend. Like marveling at Peter Boyle's characterization of the ultimate redneck, sure to typecast him the rest of his career (Oh, how wrong!), and how the counter culture jarred the sensibilities of most of the country. To this day, my buddy and I still use Joe Curran's line from my summary above when faced with a dilemma; curious how a simple line like that can stay with you for decades.
It's curious to read comments about the film from others on this board, particularly the ones stating that the film has a dated quality and how over the top the characters were. Still, if you were around during that time, the picture gives a pretty accurate portrayal of the polar opposites that existed back then, pretty much side by side as the events in the story reveal. If you really want dated, when was the last time you heard the words Macy's and Gimbel's in the same sentence, or a line like Joe's - \"Come on, get with the Pepsi generation\". For historical perspective, you have that great Nixon poster lingering in one of the background scenes - \"Would you buy a used car from this man?\" With minor intricacies like those, director John Avildsen captures many of the subtle but ever present hints of how life was four decades ago.
Today's viewing was only the second time I've seen the movie, and I have to admit I don't remember Susan Sarandon in one of the lead roles, but then again, this was her very first picture. The scenes of nudity and free love were something actually quite new and bold at the time, shocking in fact, as film makers began to experiment with their ability to push the envelope of propriety and convention. \"Joe\" took a major leap in that regard, particularly since it was a 'mainstream' picture.
With the passage of time, the thing that impresses me the most about Peter Boyle was how he overcame the stereotype of Joe Curran to appear in or star in some of my very favorite pieces of work. I mean, how do you go from \"Joe\" to that hilarious rendition of 'Puttin' on the Ritz' in \"Young Frankenstein\"? And my absolute favorite episode of 'X-Files' has Boyle as Clyde Bruckman, in both a tender and tragic, funny and serious portrayal that turns the tables on Scully and Mulder more than once. And as a career capper, Frank Barone has to be one of the funniest characters in the history of television. Even repeat episodes in syndication are funny as he-- whenever the elder Barone lets loose with one of his observations. He is one actor that this viewer sorely misses already.
\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\nNew Yorkers contemporaneous with this film will recall how reflective of its time it is and how well cast and crew captured America, New York City of that era.
Norman Wexler's script delineates the different worlds the various sub groupings live in and Avildsen's direction brings out phenomenal performances all around. Peter Boyle's prodigious talent is on display as never before nor since. Clearly it is the best character portrayal the always likable Dennis Patrick ever accomplished.
What I will always remember about JOE is the feeling of having been in a virtual state of shock coming out of the theater. Knowing that what the screen portrayed was seething under the surface in neighborhoods throughout the five boroughs of the City of New York.
This film needs to be remembered.
\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\nThough I saw this movie about 4 years ago long before I started commenting on IMDb, I decided to review it now which is unusual for me since before now I often reviewed something just after seeing it. What can I say? Well, the best performance is that of the late Peter Boyle as the title character who, after finding out about a man's killing the drug-dealing boyfriend of his daughter, wants to bond with him even though he's a Madison Avenue executive who has nothing in common with the very lower-class conservative Joe. In fact, there are plenty of funny scenes of Joe at this guy's party making smart alecky remarks there. Oh, and it should be noted that the actress that plays the daughter who they're looking for after she disappeared from the hospital after overdosing on some drugs is none other than Susan Sarandon making her film debut! This was a pretty hard-hitting movie for the time it was made (late '60s-early '70s) and was compelling work from scripter Norman Wexler (later of Saturday Night Fever) and director John G. Avildsen (later to do Save the Tiger, Rocky, and The Karate Kid). Certainly the ending packs a wallop even today after all these years! Highly recommended for anyone curious about the counterculture of that time. P.S. Among the cultural artifacts seen here are a Raggedy Ann doll, a box of Ritz crackers, a bottle of Heinz ketchup, and, unique for the era, a Nixon poster asking, \"Would you buy a used car from this man?\"
\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 classic movie that dramatizes the plight of a man who cannot adjust to changes taking place in society and feels more and more alienated, which leads to violence. Joe is a worker, and he is dissatisfied and angry, and all he is needs is a pretext to lash out, which is what the story is about. Alone, Joe is quiet; together with someone else, he becomes lethal. And what makes the character of Joe even more chilling is that he fully rationalizes his violence so that to him it's not only not bad, it's necessary. For Joe projects his own violent tendencies onto those who he considers \"the enemy\" and therefore considers himself to be in a war, and in this movie, the \"generation gap\" is portrayed as a war. But it is a war in Joe's mind only, because \"the enemy\" in this case is in his imagination. Nobody wants to fight Joe, but Joe feels he must defend himself. Although this movie was released in 1970, it's message is as relevant now as it was then as society continues to undergo major changes which lead to the kind of intense alienation that the movie effectively dramatizes.
\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\nDennis Patrick plays a man who accidentally kills his daughter's boyfriend and then reveals his secret at a local bar. Joe (Peter Boyle), a bigot who is getting drunk there, at first takes it as a joke, but then the story is confirmed on the evening news. Instead of calling the cops or the like, Joe decides that, since the guy killed a hippie, they must be kindred spirits! He blackmails the man into becoming his pal. At first, the film seemed harsh and judgemental, but, as it revealed itself, it actually became quite a complex portrait of the current society. Yes, I think it does exaggerate a bit, but in amusing ways that don't really detract from the power of its messages. Susan Sarandon debuted in this film, and it's a shock to see how pretty she was around 23. 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\nJoe is the movie about the dark side of the force of the 1960's in America, and Susan Sarandon had nice boobs. This movie scared me so much when I saw it in the theatre that I never liked Peter Boyle until Young Frankenstein and was still quite leery of him even after that comedy. Looking back now from today's experience, this film seems current again in being direct and to the point of half the electorate's approval of John McCain's \"Joe The Plumber\" typecast and their fear of electing a black man as President of the USA in the coming weeks. A black Prez would be seen as sweet revenge of the \"niggers\" but bound to again bring fire to many minds if not the streets, this time by Joe enthusiasts. So, the spirit of Joe in the film is resurrected in the campaign of Joe The Plumber! Still, I love to be American and be terrified at both and by the knowledge that they illustrate what ironically Gregory Peck said our civilized law also is: \"a living, breathing reality!\" God help us.
\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 liked the Movie \"JOE.\" It has really become a cult classic among certain age groups.
The Producer of this movie is a personal friend of mine. He is my Stepsons Father-In-Law. He lives in Manhattan's West side, and has a Bungalow. in Southampton, Long Island. His son-in-law live next door to his Bungalow.
Presently, he does not do any Producing, But dabbles in a business with HBO movies.
As a person, Mr. Gil is a real gentleman and I wish he would have continued in the production business of move making.
\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\nPeter Boyle was always a great actor and he proved it by his performance as a gun-ho Bigot, making me hate him everytime he used the \"N\" word, I watched him and his big mouth and wanted to punch his lights out. ( Just think, Peter Boyle was a Monk once) (Now a supporting actor in \"Everybody Loves Raymond\") Susan Sarandon making her first debut need a bath right away and enjoyed sharing it with someone else in his own dirty water. I noticed a large Raggerty Ann Doll(creator, John Gruelle) was the only thing that Susan could actually trust and love and the doll appeared in quite a few scenes. If you really want to know about the way out 70's with drugs, free love and pipe dreams, then, enjoy the excellent direction of John G. Avildsen (\"Rocky and \"The Karate Kid\") I always thought that Peter Boyle should have been blown away in the end!! This is definitely a cult classic well worth viewing and sharing with others.
\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 fascinating relic of the turbulent cultural/political aura of the late 60s (taking in the class struggle as well) which, ironically, in view of its outdated and occasionally embarrassing conservative views, makes full use of the permissiveness that prevailed for a while in mainstream cinema and which came about as a direct result of the liberal attitude it purports to criticize! Norman Wexler's incisive Oscar-nominated script is superbly enacted by Peter Boyle (in a powerhouse performance) who manages to make his garrulous, down-to-earth yet hypocritical and opportunistic character (with a barely-disguised fascist streak which comes to the fore in the remarkable violent conclusion) likable, even admirable; indeed, he comes across uncannily like a flabbier version of the young Marlon Brando! Similar to other generation gap movies of its era like TAKING OFF (1971) and HARDCORE (1978) but also nihilistic vigilante films like DEATH WISH (1974) and TAXI DRIVER (1976) - interestingly enough, two of these also feature Boyle - JOE ultimately emerges as an engrossing and powerful drama which could have been a masterpiece if it had had a more experienced director at the helm...
\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\nOh man , this movie is amazing, It's very good it's a story about a man who isn't so accepting of Black people, he sits at a bar drinks on his night out and he rants about hippies who are anti-war , and how blacks and hippies don't deserve to get any welfare checks. This movie is very realistic ,because it portrays a guy \"Joe\" who represented a lot of guys back then, and now too. The story goes like this.... Joe is in a bar and he rubs shoulders with a rich guy who just accidentally killed his daughter's hippie boyfriend. And this rich goes to the bar to rethink what he just did, and while he's doing that, \"Joe\" is in the bar ranting about hippies and people who are against the war. The rich guy accidentally tells Joe that he killed a hippie ; and obviously joe applauds the rich guy, Cause Joe hates hippies, Amazing movie watch it to see what happens next. I liked this movie , because it was reminiscent of those days in the early 70's, I liked the way movies were shot back then in those days, very good stuff , it's not like today's movies. Basically the movie gives you an inner look into the mind of the lead character \"Joe\" . I like the theme of the movie ....... about the working man , who's busting his ass trying to make a living
\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\nMy 2nd favorite film of 1970 (after Five Easy Pieces) was totally dismissed by a lot of idiots, calling in an audience-baiting piece of trash. Peter Boyle, a well-known liberal, is incredible as the hard-assed working stiff who has a few problems with the younger generation. He's a frightening dude, but has a great imagination and is very funny. I was a teenage liberal when this was released, but as horrifying as Joe seemed to me, he also cracked me up! Susan Sarandon, in her first role, is perfect and a mixed-up stone rich fox. The dinner scene in Queens is hilarious and insightful for everybody involved.
This WAS NOT an exploitation film and the script (which was Oscar-nominated) should have won that year. The director just didn't WASTE enough money making it to give it enough credibility in Hollywood. No matter your political pursuasion, then and now, you'll like somebody in this film. A definite 9 out of 10. It's on DVD and video. Check it out!
\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\nImagine that \"Dragnet\" episode where Friday and Gannon go into a typical 1970 den of hippie inequity, but instead of giving everyone a lecture, they \"get some.\" That's \"Joe\" in a nutshell.
This film of a working-class bigot and a rich guy who's just killed his girlfriend's drug-dealer boyfriend has dated terribly and most of the supporting acting is stilted, but it's still interesting to watch. Peter Boyle, then about 35, plays Joe (the bigot), and he looks like James Gandolfini. In her film debut, Susan Sarandon plays the doe-eyed daughter, and while she doesn't necessarily hint at her future greatness, you can't take your eyes off her.
\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 was a rather unnerving look at an ostensibly functional family confronted by their daughter's druggie boyfriend. Father tangles with and ultimately kills druggie boyfriend. Wallowing in guilt he reveals to a drunk redneck what he has done. Things spiral rapidly out of hand before degenerating completely. The ending you dread stalks the viewer throughout, but is still able to startle when it finally arrives.
\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 see hundreds of student films- this is tops. james cox is a fantastic director- he moves the camera, tells the story and uses music in a way that is far advanced for his years. no wonder he got a feature from 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\nSaw this at Sundance one of the first years I attended the festival - blew me away...
It went by much too fast, and I've never been able to find it again. I figured it would show up on a compilation somewhere, but still no joy. My memory's foggy on the details - I just remember being surprised over and over again, and on the edge of my seat.
Anyone reading this have any leads? Online, DVD, beat-up VHS copy - I'd try to make it worth your while...
Over the years, I've probably seen over 200 short films (used to live near Aspen where they have an incredible Shorts Fest in April). This definitely ranks among my favorites, and I hope to see it again!
Many thanks to anyone with leads on how to see it :)
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this short film on HBO the other day and absolutely loved it. Eight different characters, eight different perspectives. At first I was confused by the way the story was moving along, but then I realized that it was just one scene being shown over and over again, just to show us the different perspectives of the characters.
At first, you think the clerks are yelling at the teenager for stealing. They speak in their own language, which I (and Chris the teenager, played convincingly by Eleonore Hendricks) cannot understand. The perspective of the clerks dispels that view. I didn't realize how wonderful the short really is until the last two scenes.
Excellent short film. Hopefully, the director James Cox can turn the short into a feature length film with the same cast, or win us over with a whole new film.

\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is the most energetic and entertaining ten minutes of film >I've seen in a long time. As a film student at NYU, where this >short has been screened several times, I salute Jim Cox for his >astute sense of style and pace for our generation. I'm sure >I'll see his name later on the big screen. Hopefully this short >will find a market on TV or somewhere, so this inspiring work >can get the wide distribution it des
\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.....and it's a good one, too. In fact, this may be one of the best studies of sexual repression ever made. It's extremely well-acted and has some downright chilling moments. An often overlooked film in Clint Eastwood's filmography, and atypical of him, to be sure, but if you're willing to accept him in such an ambiguous role, it's certainly very gripping. (***)
\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\nClever psychosexual drama about a wounded Union soldier (Clint Eastwood) who seeks refuge in an isolated Confederate school for young women during the Civil War. Slowly, Eastwood begins to seduce every girl in sight, until the tables are turned and he becomes the pursued in an unsettling, gothic-toned finale. Never has a film been so deliciously erotic yet disturbingly macabre at the same time.
This is undoubtedly Eastwood's finest hour (those who tune in for \"Dirty Harry\" will indeed be surprised), while the rest of the cast gives uniformly superb performances. Try to see the film on video, as television prints usually delete crucial flashback scenes between Geraldine Page and Patrick Culliton.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"