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\nSwift's writing really has more in common with Kafka and Orwell than with fantasy-adventure writers, so it's curious that Gulliver's Travels has been deemed a children's novel. Lucky kiddies!
The same applies to this movie. There have been some really awful versions of this story, which must be why people are reluctant to look at this version. I mean, it's a TV-movie and it comes from muppetteer Jim Henson, so how should we expect anything but cuteness?
Look again - beauty turns up in the oddest places. Children love this movie enough to sit through all three hours of it, but it also takes the time to get Swift's dark vision right. I hate special effects, but here they are used to carry the story forward instead of just dazzling us. Please note that the producers took the trouble to recruit classical actors like John Gielgud and Peter O'Toole who perform their eccentric roles with perfection.
Dramatically, the romance between Gulliver and Glumdalclitch is rendered touching and poignant, as well as funny (she's a little girl, but twenty times his size). The frame-story has a theme about absent fathers that many children will relate to. And the part about Gulliver in the asylum introduces an element of horror dealing with the abuse of authority (apparently deriving from Val Lewton's \"Bedlam\" [1946], another forgotten masterpiece).
The VHS is always turning up in the bargain-bin for a few cents, which is an insult to the many great artists who put this thing together. I encourage audiences to recognize a good thing by getting this movie and inspiring others to watch it. Although it has a lot to offer children, grown-ups will find that it stands up nicely to such classics as Aguirre, Brazil, 1984 and other serious fantastic works.
\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 wonderful example of the quality dramas that Channel 4 and the BBC have produced over the years. Ted Danson delivers a powerful performance of a man tormented by memories noone will accept, and a society that believes he is insane. It is a remarkable performance by a man most known for his role in Cheers, a TV comedy sitcom. The supporting cast are all very well chosen, not least Mary Steenbergen, Danson's wife, who acts the part of Gulliver's wife in the film. But above all it is the seamless and very delicate shifts between our world and Gulliver's world that make this film. The difference in perspective between giants and midgets, all acted by real actors is beautifully captured. A rare treat of cinematography and direction.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWe all know bits and pieces of Gulliver's travels. Tiny people, yeah, sure. Liliputians. Giants too, some of us may recall. Some might remember the word yahoo comes from here. That's were it stops for most people.
Swift's book is omnipresent in school libraries. That's were i first read it, and there's were a lot of people read it for the last time. It is treacherously lightly written, like many of the old adventure books. Children can read it. Still, it's dripping with satire, black and uncompromising. That's something I think most screen writers forget when they adapt this movie.
This movie remembers, however. Our hero, Ted Danson, gives a credible and serious performance as the world-adjusted man who's thrown to mysterious countries so like our own. Gulliver's travels criticizes everything. Theists, scientists, government, commonfolk, ethnicity, humanity itself. Few are spared, and most of the satire is just as fresh today.
While very faithful to the story, the movie also dares adding new angles, all which work very well. The screen writer deserves all credit for managing to balance so well between time and activity(it's not boring, that is).
Production values are way beyond a TV movie. With some marketing this movie would have done well at the box office. All of the fantastic worlds Gulliver visits are well-made, explained in detail and often very funny, much like Swift's book.
Actors are all pros, since this is a British production. Mary Steenburgen stands out, along with James Fox's Dr. Bates, the chillingly cruel doctor who, much like nurse Ratched, only wants the patient's best.
So, a modest proposal, if you ever get the chance to get this movie, do so. It's a real treat.
\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\nTed Danson was a great choice to play Gulliver. Even though his background was mostly comedy, he shows here that he can do drama just as well or perhaps even better (though there is a lot of humour in this). Hard to turn a blind eye to his American accent especially since his character is supposed to be English but that's just a minor thing.
All the villains are equally well cast: James Fox, Edward Fox, Peter O'Toole, Warwick Davis, John Standing, etc. Despite the fact that most of them are either tiny people or giants, they are 100% believable in everything they do and their motivations are very clear e.g. the Lilliputians' unremitting suspicion of Gulliver, Grildrig the (giant) dwarf's hatred of him for usurping his position as court jester, Dr. Bates' attempt to have Gulliver proved insane so he can marry Mary.
Mary Steenburgen is great as Mary Gulliver (another 17th Century English character with an American accent but never mind). She is a deeply tormented character because she has been waiting nine years for her husband to return home and when he finally does, he is talking about tiny people, giants, a flying island and talking horses! Mary, despite the strong fantasy element in the story, is a very believable character.
The special effects are breathtaking especially when you consider that it was filmed on a television scale at a time when CGI was in its infancy. It looks very realistic when we see a 6 foot tall man walking through a city filled with people who are 6 inches tall.
The cameos are great as well: Omar Sharif, Richard Wilson, Sir John Gielgud, Kristin Scott Thomas, Ned Beatty. All great actors who create a strong supporting cast that complement Danson's superb acting ability.
The Houynhnhms and the Yahoos are probably the most effective element of the story on the satire side of things: a society of talking horses who do not possess any of the vices that humans have while the Yahoos are primitive, disgusting humans who mate forcefully and appoint their leader depending on how disgusting he is. Gulliver and Mistress' study of them is also very well done and displays the differences and similarities between humans and Yahoos.
The best version of \"Gulliver's Travels\" by far and one of the best mini-series ever.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nExcellent story-telling and cinematography. Poignant, biting social commentary.
Superb effects. Well-filmed and acted.
However, the parallel action between the present and the travel adventures (though very well done) at times drags on a little too much (about 3 hrs), and over-interrupts the flow of the story.
I first read the book as a child, and enjoyed the parts about the giants and the tiny people -- but the book lost me when it got to the floating island and the land of the \"yahoos\"! Well, although the adventure plot may sound like a children's story, it's in fact a very adult story, full of symbolism about the moral decay in England at the time of Jonathan Swift, the author of the novel that the film is based upon.
\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 first saw this when I was a teen in my last year of Junior High. I was riveted to it! I loved the special effects, the fantastic places and the trial-aspect and flashback method of telling the story.
Several years later I read the book and while it was interesting and I could definitely see what Swift was trying to say, I think that while it's not as perfect as the book for social commentary, as a story the movie is better. It makes more sense to have it be one long adventure than having Gulliver return after each voyage and making a profit by selling the tiny Lilliput sheep or whatever.
It's much more arresting when everyone thinks he's crazy and the sheep DO make a cameo anyway. As a side note, when I saw Laputa I was stunned. It looks very much like the Kingdom of Zeal from the Chrono Trigger video game (1995) that also made me like this mini-series even more.
I saw it again about 4 years ago, and realized that I still enjoyed it just as much. Really high quality stuff and began an excellent run of Sweeps mini-series for NBC who followed it up with the solid Merlin and interesting Alice in Wonderland.
\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 production was quite well done for a television original, providing a very appropriate original slant on Swift's work. To make the frame story work well the film begins with Gulliver arriving home. Everyone who has read the book knows that will happen anyway. The frame story of the book has Gulliver's crazed confusion in sections. For example, he is horrified that he will trample little people in England because he has just returned from a land of giants. But the film has all the book sections within one long voyage. When Gulliver narrates his travels the editing cuts from England to the travel are very effective. I confess I found them intrusive and irritating at first, then they became natural. By the end, moreover, they have become a welcome addition to the story. As he tells his adventures to a larger and larger audience, more and more people listen to his compelling fantasy even though they doubt its truth. For example, his hatred of filthy Yahoos and admiration of pure logic from the fourth section comes across well when he is defending his own sanity. The intercuts between events in England and similar events or scenes in the tale is very effective. For example, ripping the cloth from the table to suggest the motion of towing a group of ships is inspired filming. The addition of Gulliver's family threatened by the lecherous doctor works well. Swift only hints at this by having the long-suffering wife protest against further voyages. It becomes a natural part of this story. The casting and acting were competent throughout. Some roles were exemplary. Omar Sharif's mad magician is superb. O'Toole's little emperor is doddering delightfully toward senility. Many specific complaints made by other writers here strike me as simple personal preference, which, after all, is what we are about here. I read the abridged version several times a year from fourth grade on. I may have escaped the complete version until a college class but have read it a few times since. And I had to start it again as I began reading about this film. While the Danson version is superior to any previous film, it does not replace the book. However, I think it will bring many readers to the book. If you have not read the book, enjoy this movie then go to the source. If you appreciate the satire in it, find Swift's \"A Modest Proposal\" and his \"Drapier's Letters.\" Both are satires attacking the wretched treatment of Ireland and the Irish during Swift's time. The drapier protests cheap, inflated copper coins being dumped on Ireland. These were Wood's light weight coinage, not good for face value in paying taxes and official debts. The outcry from Swift's satire caused the coins to be sent to another mistreated British territory, the American colonies. The universal satire in Swift's book and this movie just poke fun; they cannot change human nature. Give Danson's torturous experiences a chance. I think you will find them thought provoking and entertaining.
\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 remember when this NBC mini-series aired when I was in high school. After reading the novel, I thought I'd check out some adaptations. Didn't expect much out of a TV mini-series, but now I might have to check out some more. This is actually excellent, and the best possible film version that could be made. Writer Simon Moore, who wrote the teleplay for the original Traffic mini-series, upon which the Soderberg film was based, came up with a brilliant narrative conceit which helps the story flow very smoothly: he frames Gulliver's adventures as flashbacks, with the actual story beginning as Gulliver first returns home (everything having happened on one journey). Gulliver, played by Cheers' Ted Danson, is sort of crazy-seeming when his wife, Mary Steenburgen, welcomes him back into his home. Unfortunately, the house is now owned by the local doctor, James Fox, who has designs on Steenburgen. Gulliver seems merely disturbed at first, but when he starts telling stories of tiny people, that's all the evidence Fox needs to throw him into an insane asylum. All four of Gulliver's travels are related in this version, in the same order as the novel (the only time this has been done on film). I love the way his present situation reflects his flashbacks. Gulliver's small son, whom he has never met before, reminds him of the Lilliputians. The doctors who observe him in his cell from a mezzanine loom above him and remind him of the Brogdingnagians, and the doctors' scientific inquiries remind him of the insane scientific experiments and theories of the Laputans and the professors at the Academy. Finally, when he is put on trial he is reminded of the Houyhnhnms and the Yahoos. The cast of this thing is amazing, and includes Peter O'Toole, Ned Beatty, Alfre Woodard, John Gielgud, Kristin Scott Thomas, Omar Sharif and Warwick Davis. The biggest flaw of the mini-series is that the acting is really uneven. You have all these fine actors, but the lesser characters are often played by actors who were probably fine in episodes of L.A. Law, but don't do well in a costume drama. Ted Danson isn't especially great, although he has a few sequences where he excels. It's probably better that he didn't attempt one, but all the other characters of the film speak in an English accent. Steenburgen is actually pretty good at it, and is quite good overall. Another flaw the series has is that the adventures happen a tad too quickly. It's not believable that Gulliver spent eight years away from home, as is claimed. But, in general, it captures Swift's tone and purpose very well, while, with its structure, adding a new emotional level.
\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 truly epic production that had all the elements that one would want in a fantasy film. The costuming, the music, the cinematography - all artistic elements of this film were absolutely beautiful and provided a rich experience.
Ted Danson, best know for his TV roles in \"Cheers\" and \"becker,\" was excellent in the role of Gulliver. Mary Steenburgen (Time After Time, Cross Creek) performed equally well in her limited role as his wife.
Other performances I really enjoyed were James Fox as Dr. Bates, Alfre Woodard as the Queen of Brobdingnag, and Peter O'Toole as the Emperor of Lilliput.
This would make an enjoyable children's film, but it also would definitely appeal to adults for it's deep social commentary.
\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\nGulliver's Travels is, at the beginning, a satiric novel written by a great misanthropist called Jonathan Swift. So it is not recommended to judge of this movie, just by itself. We must go deeper into Man's conscience to get to the point where Swift would have lead us. Gulliver has lived a voyage of truthfulness, of solitude, of apprehension of what may be his true life. We cannot just sit and watch that movie, saying it is so cutie or so boring. The matter is far beyond that and I would like everyone to expect that. This is the greatest movie ever, as far as you can feel the truths that emerge from Ted Danson's character: the unforgettable Lemuel Gulliver.
\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\nSwift's socialism and pacifism come through against all odds in this well done remake. (Did you know there is no hyphen after \"well\"? Fact.) He meets warlike miniatures, socialist giants, head-in-the-clouds (literally) philosophers, and pacifist horses who rule over Yahoos -- nearly neanderthal humanoids. (Is that where \"yahoo\" came from?) We also meet the dastardly Dr. Bates, the devoted Mary Gulliver, the sweet and devoted son Thomas, and the full cast of a truly horrific 19th century lunatic asylum. Suspension of disbelief comes easily, and our 7- and 12-year-old girls enjoyed it as much as my husband and I did. (Sorry for the length, IMDb requires 10 lines.)
\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\nAt first i didn't like they way the director was constantly switching from the past (gulliver's travels) to the present (gulliver in the insane asylum). But it really is the best way to film the story even though it took some getting used to. Danson is outstanding as the title character and edward fox makes a wonderful villain. Worst part is mary steenburgen as gulliver's wife. She never has been Hollywood gorgeous and in this film they make her look downright dowdy for some reason. I'll never understand why directors make a woman ugly when it adds nothing to the story! Plus you want to strangle her for being so damn stupid in believing the lies bad guy Bates keeps telling her. Even her son can see thru the bastard. Still a good show and i rate it B+.
\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 version of the Gulliver stories is definitely bizarre. The production adds a frame story (that's what it's becoming famous for) of Gulliver returning to his wife and son. In one vieweing, incredibly overlong and sometimes fails to hold attention throughout, but the odd images and diverse cast will keep you looking. Mary Steenburgen does the best job of the cast. Danson seems a bit out of place with his American accent. The whole asylum thing is awfully disturbing often, but is nonetheless interesting and holds the journeys of Gulliver together well. Danson's character really does seem insane, however... he should have worked on being a little more believeable to everyone, in my opinion. Also confusing is going from present to past. Anyone else think the Yahoos are the ugliest things ever to grace a television screen (or in line for it)? Confusing, sometimes boring, but still highlighted by some good acting, overall wonderful visual effects, and a few enjoyable parts. NBC's first of many event films from Robert Halmi, Sr. See it for yourself to decide how it goes for you, however I give it * * * 1/2 (out of 5 stars).
\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 guess I have to write something here, although I think my one summary says it all. I'm not a huge Ted Danson fan... nothing against the man, just hasn't \"done it\" for me. This covers the sides of Swift's novel that were never covered before. You can tell the cast was having a wonderful time filming this.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n
This film has some really impressive action scenes. The humor and action are blended well, though the intensity of the film does not sustain itself till the end. The last scene is a slight anti-climax in terms of action quality and astonishing explosiveness of the scenes preceding it. The humor doesn't seem to be so ridiculously clumsy as in many other Hongkong movies, and this film is of totally other class than most American action-comedies of recent years. Lau Ching-Wan acts as a typical, intuitive police-hero who scoffs at invalid orders from incompetent police superiors. The dialectic of the film is built on the superhuman coolness and ruthlessness of the drug gang, humiliating the police force while providing a serious dose of lead poisoning with a variety of machine guns. Leaving plenty of corpses in it's wake. Yu Rong-Guang is especially impressive as an ultra cool, merciless gangster in this Woo-like piece of action where tough guys are truly die-hard.
\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 slowly ploughing through as many Hong Kong action films as I can get my hands on and came across this gem - mainly due to Ching Wan Lau who is one of my favourite actors.
Its a great action film although not as OTT as the title might suggest. It moves along at a great pace and is truly enjoyable.
The biggest surprise of this film was the soundtrack. It would appear that Rob Dougan - the guy who did the 'Clubbed To Death' song which was popular in 'The Matrix' has lifted the soundtrack from Big Bullet and compiled it into one of the tracks on his 'Furious Angels' album; the tune in question is called 'Im not driving anymore' and is also the opening tune for the TV series 'Law and Order' AND the opening track on the 'Matrix Reloaded' DVD menu teaser! That really surprised me, due to the sheer conincidence!
\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 two Best Films of the year. A well filmed, well written, well put together film with an outstanding cast. Lau Ching Wan and his friends (Dayo Wong Chi Wa, Anthony Wong Chau Sun, Francis Ng Chun Yu, Jordan Chan Siu Chun, Cheung Man Tat) had great chemistry before the film and their friendship shows in their performances. Theresa Lee plays her comedic role well (Though much like a female version of Michael Wong, her gag seems to be the foreign born Chinese surrounded by native HKers.), and I found myself cheering for innovative explosive scenes, something I haven't done since 1. the fan boys took over alt.asian-movies and 2. John woo's Hardboiled. Sure the ending was expected, but I feel better cheering for cops than a bunch of young gang members. Highly enjoyable.
\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\nRomuald et Juliette is one of those French romantic comedies where they seem to break all the rules, rather like Trop Belle Pour Toi. The gorgeous Daniel Auteuil learns about true loyalty and love when his life threatens to crash around his ears. The film isn't a preachy morality tale, but a wonderful story that will keep you hooked until the last. Firmine Richard (as Juliette) is a heroine that women will cheer - her laughter is my abiding memory of this warm and witty film. The down-to-earth way she has of including all her children by their different fathers - particularly the birthdays - gives the film an edge that lifts it above your average romantic comedy. But its always the French that seem to show us how effortless this all is!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is a hard-to-find gem! It is the story of Juliette, a perfectly ordinary cleaning woman who works in the large corporate office of a yogurt company, and Romuald, the president of same. He takes no notice of her, he takes no notice of anyone until several plots to wrest his company away from him all hit at the same time. He is lost, no one to turn to and no one to trust when he discovers Juliette. As the cleaning woman, no one pays any attention to her, so they say and do incriminating things in front of her that she is smart enough to catch on to and use to help her helpless and hapless boss. The complications are wild, she is not so ordinary as she seems with five children from five different ex-husbands who are all still madly in love with her, and he is not so shrewd as he thinks he is. This movie doesn't follow a predictable path and that's what keeps you watching. The acting is superb and there are some very moving moments along the way as well. The working class displays more savvy than those above them, almost in the same way \"Gosford Park\" showed the upper crust is not all it's cracked up to be mentally. I recommend this movie very much. See it! 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\nThis movie came out about the same time as Pretty Woman. While the general theme is the same: wealthy man meets and learns to love a poor working class woman, the characters of Romuald and Juliette are much more lovable and worthy of our time with them. I have never forgotten them and consider the movie superior to Pretty woman in so many ways. Juliette is a remarkable woman and the clever ways she helps her boss overcome his problems will make you cheer. The final scenes contain some of the most memorable lines in romantic comedy. The efforts Romuald makes to win the love of Juliette surpass the puny climbing scene of Pretty Woman a hundred times over. See this movie, it will warm your heart.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI love foreign films and this is among the best. I tend to not see this as a comedy as it is listed and find it a commentary on how we see others around us. Firmine the lead in the film is not regarded must as she is a domestic in a large firm and people say and do things around her all the time that they otherwise would not say in front of others.
This leaves her with a bevy of information that can make or break the mere mortal. :) This actress is wonderful as this character and it is a poignant tale. There is an underlying tale and almost many stories within the story in this film. I just hope that if someone does decide to make an American/English version of this film it is not the vein of Three Men and a Baby that would definitely do a disservice to this FILM, A must see.....
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time! The director did a wonderful job showing the contrasts between social classes, a situation that is very pertinent in France today. All the characters are lovable, especially Juliette and her family. The development of the romance is, while not entirely realistic, at least plausible, and does a wonderful job showing how much people will change for love. I found this to be a heart-warming Cinderella story - but one in which Cinderella is a powerful woman in and of herself. I laughed through this entire film, and absolutely loved it. I recommend Romuald et Juliette to anyone who enjoys unique characters, comedy, and nontraditional romance.
\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 glad that this movie did without all the supposed depth of all too many pseudo-serious interracial movies. race was one issue, yes, but so was class...and loyalty...and honesty, etc.
i also loved the idea that the love affair wasn't couched solely in the 'decorative' aspects of either character's appearance. aren't our divorce courts (on both sides of the Atlantic, i daresay!) filled now with enough couples who thought 'looking good. together.' is all it takes to make a solid marriage? in any case, the tenderness and sensuality of both characters was thick enough to cut in love scenes that would have brought a rainbow to any dreary day! in other words, a light-hearted movie that's by no means a light-weight!
\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 would not compare it to Le Placard, which IMHO had more comic moments, but Romuald & Juliette while being a slow starter certainly kept your attention going throughout the film, nicely paced and reaching a heart warming conclusion :) There were many marvellous comedic moments, some brilliant pathos and realistic situation acting by all actors.
It was a typically French film, in which while confronting prejudices and phobias, which in turn the made the viewer confront his own shortcomings! I am certainly pleased to have this in my library, and will no doubt watch it time and time again, which to me is a mark of a 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\nThis movie is a gem! It is the story of Juliette, a perfectly ordinary cleaning woman who works in the large corporate office of a yogurt company, and Romuald, the president of same. He takes no notice of her, he takes no notice of anyone until several plots to wrest his company away from him all hit at the same time. He is lost, no one to turn to and no one to trust when he discovers Juliette. As the cleaning woman, no one pays any attention to her, so they say and do incriminating things in front of her that she is smart enough to catch on to and use to help her helpless and hapless boss.
I have been keeping an eye out for years for the DVD of this and to see a previous comment about it being released in Sep 2007 raised my hopes. Alas, I cannot find a DVD, does anyone know if there is/was 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\nThis is one of my favourite films; a delightful comedy; so I was thrilled to learn it is about to be released on DVD in the UK, September 2007.
Romuald, played by Daniel Auteuil is a rich company president of a dairy firm. Juliette, played by the excellent Firmine Richard, is a cleaner of the company's Paris offices.Juliette, a black mother of several children, discovers a plot against Romuald who initially ignores her attempts to warn him. Slowly he grasps what this charming lady from the Parisian underclass has been trying to tell him. 'he seeks shelter in her crowded apartment as his marriage and career fall apart. An unlikely love blossoms. Cultures clash in what is a truly delightful light-hearted comedy.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn the Belarus of 1942, two Soviet soldiers are captured by Nazi-friendly Belarusians. In captivity, the attitude of the two men toward their fate differs greatly. One of the soldiers manages to find an inner strength and spirituality, incomprehensible to the other man. Larisa Shepitko's last film is one of the most beautiful war films in cinema history. The cinematography, by Vladimir Chuchnov, is incredible - particularly in the opening sequence, where long, slow, tracking shots depicting the solitude and almost desperate nature of winter landscape in rural Belarus set the mood perfectly. It is easy to draw comparison to Tarkovsky's films, even more so since Tarkovsky's alter ego Anatoli Solonitsyn has a small but important part in The Ascent. The acting is overall brilliant, especially by Boris Plotnikov, in the part of Sotnikov. The film reveals an old-fashioned belief in the strength of religious passion, which feels related to characters such as Dostoyevsky's Prince Myshkin, or Tarkovsky's Stalker. However, this is not a weakness of the film, but rather one of its greatest strengths. The religious content seems so honest, and human, that it is impossible not to be moved. The emotional richness of the film cannot be overstated; the answer is not as simplified as a short summary of the plot would make you think. The slow development of the characters, and the emphasis on their complicated relationships to each other, are somewhat reminiscent of The Commissar, another great Soviet film. The Ascent deserves a second watching, as well as a third, and a tenth. It continues to provide interesting ideas, beautiful images, and emotional complexity.
\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 stunningly harrowing account of two soldiers plight in WWII. Set against a freezing backdrop of, not only the fight against the Nazis and traitors in Belorussia, but the harsh natural elements, this film tells a tale of two soldiers of polarized morals, one who survives, but finds it somewhat impossible to deal with his own circumstances, and one who dies, having done all that can be done in the face of intimidation and everything possible to break one's spirit, in fact, the \"ascendant\" of the title. A film that should be seen by all, particularly for the phenomenal performances of the main characters, and shuddering set pieces (the incarceration and hanging scenes, in particular. An absolute must see.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of the very, very few films that are so overwhelming that you are very unlikely to watch it more than once or twice in your lifetime (other examples are Claude Lanzmann's documentary Shoah and Come and See by the director's husband Elem Klimov - which covers much the same unbearable territory but in a very different way).
I suppose this is just as well given the difficulty of ever seeing a print.
Apparently it's extraordinarily overt Christian symbolism and admission that there were active Russian collaborators, ensured that it was hardly ever seen in the USSR - and of course post-soviet Russia has very little interest in films of that era.
The one time I saw it in London was in a festival of Russian movies shown during the Glasnost era (i.e. probably c.1988) - however it apparently has been shown several times in the UK more recently so at least one subtitled print must exist here.
As far as I know it has never been released in the west on DVD or video so if you haven't seen it, your best chance is probably to join a film society and endlessly nag them to find a print and screen 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\nLarisa Shepitko's THE ASCENT (1976) is an extraordinary, gruelling account of the partisans' fight against the Nazis in German-occupied Belorussia, The Ascent reflects the Russian obsession with the horrors of the Great Patriotic War, but unusually is both steeped in religious symbolism and ready to acknowledge the existence of the less than great Russian collaborator. The true battle is not with the Nazis, who hover in the background as mere extras, but between the Russian Nazi investigator and Sotnikov, the captured partisan who finds the spiritual strength to go to his death unbeaten. With its many references to the Crucifixion, the story takes on heroic proportions glorifying the sufferings of the martyr and his influence on future generations. A remarkable piece of work.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHaving just seen this, I find it hard to believe that it is not better known. This and the slightly-better-known, but almost-as-shamefully-neglected COME AND SEE (Klimov, 1986) must be two of the greatest war films. They are meaningful, powerful, incisive. THE ASCENT is also gifted with a sparingly-used, but brilliantly trenchant score by Schnittke.
\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 film many years ago (along with another of Shepitko's films, Wings) as part of a Soviet film series at a local film archive. But none of Shepitko's films, as far as I can tell, have ever made it to video or DVD in the United States. Ascent is a great film by any standard, with stunning black and white photography, hypnotic direction, and actors so deep into their roles that you have no sense of them merely giving a performance. Although the period details of Russian resistance to (and collaboration with) German occupation are very telling, the story is timeless. Two Russian partisans are captured by the Germans, and the interrogation tests their integrity as well as their courage. I suspect the reason why it has not been released on DVD by the Russians (here comes the spoiler) is that the Jewish intellectual (and not the tough Russian peasant) is the partisan who resists both threats and temptation, goes serenely to his death, and sets an heroic example for the villagers.
\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 greatest movie gives us clue to the depth of our souls in most deadly moments of our lives. My heart is shrinking every time I saw the scene of hanging. I have no words any... You must see this brilliant picture.
\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 agree with another reviewer, this is such a shattering film, that will be tough to watch again soon, though for quality alone, it deserves repeated viewing. The complexity of the characters, the incredible cinematography and superb direction make this movie worth the emotional price of watching.
There is one scene, of the two partisans dragging themselves through the snow to escape a patrol, that's perhaps, for sheer physicality, the most amazing performance I've ever seen. In fact, though not episodic -- the story flows -- this is a movie of memorable scenes. There's the passing of rations amongst the partisans, the snow scenes, the ruined farm scene, the encounters in the houses, the interrogation, the \"basement\" scene, the \"ascent\". All stand out like jewels in a necklace.
For me, the religiosity isn't overt. Frankly, I don't think it would have been permitted in a Soviet film. I do see this as an existential parable about the value of life. Here is a tale where the hero -- and he is a true hero -- becomes the villain, and the weaker one becomes the stronger one. Is this a mystical process or one dictated by circumstances? There is a transfiguration, but does it come from within or without? You must see the movie to understand the issues, for they can't be discussed without giving away too much of the story. I can't say enough about the acting. It's hard for me to choose which of the leads is more affecting. I'm not familiar with Soviet film of the 70s and am not familiar with any of the actors, but they are all superb. I also note how director Larisa Shepitko uses children. They remind me of Giotto's child angels.
There is a little muddling in the end. There is apparently a prior relationship between the soldier Sotnikov and the interrogator Portnov, but this is left dangling. And the final scene is a bit ambiguous. But compared to the total experience these are quibbles. This is a movie that will mark you for life.
\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\nFantastic Russian WWII movie. Like most Russian WWII movies, The Ascent is incredibly harrowing. It's also dense in its symbolism. The story follows two partisans, Sotnikov and Rybak (Boris Plotnikov and Vladimir Gostyukhin), who go on a mission to search for food. On their trip, they are spotted by German soldiers, who wound Sotnikov. Sotnikov, in turn, kills one of the Germans, which leads to trouble for the two partisans and everyone else they later run into. The greatest success of the film is its vivid sense of place. Russia is frozen and snowy, and it's hard not to feel that cold go straight to your own bones. Shepitko keeps her shot close to the characters, examining every crag of their faces. It was probably not the choice, but the film is framed 1.33:1, which gives the film a sense of claustrophobia. While the entire film is quite an achievement, I did feel that the first half was stronger than the second. My main complaint about the movie is that it develops into a very unsubtle Christian allegory by its climax. I just don't think the symbolism adds much to the proceedings, especially when I was already intrigued by the debate between the two partisans. It's not quite fair. I was weighing the pros and cons of their argument. I began to lean toward the point of view of a certain character, and then the director pops up and tells me that he's Judas! Despite some heavy-handedness, this is still a must-see.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you have a chance, see this Russian(how should I call them: gems, masterpieces,hidden treasures?), war movies like this one, or The dawns here are quiet, or Proverka na dorogah... And , right after that, watch again the American war movies, or the international productions, those one with the allies and the Germans,etc. Or, even worse, watch the Italian war movies. Everything from the west will seem shallow, contrived, ridiculous, in comparison with the Russian movies. I am sooooo stunned by the quality of the aforementioned Russian war movies that I cannot find the words to praise enough their shattering superiority over Anglo-Saxon war movies.
\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 comes as no surprise that Larisa Shepitko was married to Elem Klimov, who would later direct the most harrowing war film ever made, 'Come and See (1985).' 'The Ascent (1977)'  Shepikto's final completed film before a premature death  is built in very much the same mould. Set during WWII, the film follows a pair of Soviet partisans who try to secure food for their starving army while evading the occupying German forces. The first forty minutes are agonisingly tense, as the two men drag themselves though the harsh, snow-covered landscape, the world around them completely sapped of life, warmth and colour (indeed, so monotonously drab is the scenery that it literally took me this long to realise that the film was shot in black-and-white).
Following the partisans' capture by German soldiers, the film becomes a cold meditation on loyalty and morality. Whereas Sotnikov (Boris Plotnikov) refuses to betray his army, even under extreme duress, the less resolute Ryback (Vladimir Gostyukhin) attempts to save himself. Is he wrong to do so? Ryback's betrayal is disheartening, but the film doesn't immediately condemn his actions are treacherous; instead, the viewer is forced to consider what their own response might be in such a situation. Shepitko pities Ryback as the Bible pities Judas. Both men betrayed their allies to the enemy, and were forced to watch them executed. However, whereas Judas committed suicide by hanging (at least according to Gospel of Matthew), Ryback finds even that option closed to him  in an excruciatingly taut climax, the belt around his neck becomes unfastened.
'The Ascent' draws its emotional power from Shepitko's astonishing pursuit of realism. I have no doubt that the two principal actors spent days on end clambering across the snow-covered earth on their hands and knees, and, indeed, so convincing is their misery that I actually developed a cold while watching the film (seriously, I did). Interestingly, the film interjects on this reality on several occasions, as Ryback imagines himself making a bid for freedom, and then being gunned down by his German captors. This device, though unusual, works well with its Biblical allegory; Ryback is facing a trial of his worthiness, and, faced with a new dilemma at every turn, he consistently chooses the selfish alternative, his own life the only deciding criteria. At film's end, he is still alive, but the nightmare of war and guilt persists.
\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\nReading the comments I am struck by the obvious effect this wonderful film has on viewers. But, how can you watch this movie and not reflect that the artful dialog was a subtle and oh so daring rebuke to the authorities \"in control\" in what was then the USSR at that moment in history? It wasn't the souls only in the time and place of the action being revealed. The questions, superficially asked, are nakedly provocative when directed to the here and now. Who are the real \"collaborators\"? I marvel that the writer stayed out of prison. I read somewhere that great stress can be a catalyst for producing great art. This film is a masterpiece of misdirection, apparently pointing one way, while asking the audience to \"look over my shoulder, at what I'm really talking about.\" What courage.
\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\nDuring World War II, two Byelorussian (Soviet Russian) soldiers try to avoid being captured by occupying Nazis, as they trudge through snowy terrain, searching for food and safety. If you happen not to like black-and-white \"foreign\" films, you may still enjoy \"Voskhozhdeniye\" (retiled in English \"The Ascent\"). Director Larisa Shepitko paces the film extraordinarily well, despite its being a largely introspective piece of work. Her untimely death, in a car accident, made this Ms. Shepitko's final film, unfortunately.
After the opening mission is declared, there doesn't seem to be much that could happen in the snowy woods, but Shepitko and a changing setting make it unexpectedly exciting. Leading players Vladimir Gostyukhin (as the spiritually wounded \"Rybak\") and Boris Plotnikov (as the physically wounded 'Sotnikov\") successfully avoid being crushed by the ever increasing symbolism. Their allegorical performances, under Shepitko's sharp direction, provide a memorable and thought-provoking take on a familiar story.
******** Voskhozhdeniye (4/2/77) Larisa Shepitko ~ Vladimir Gostyukhin, Boris Plotnikov, Lyudmila Polyakova, Anatoli Solonitsyn
\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 missed the beginning of the film. I came in when the partisan's were in the farm house. I can truthfully say that it was horrifying. The moral ramifications are staggering.
My fear of pain and torture leave me unable to see myself other than cowardly. I see the Christ like ability that was depicted by the brave patriot, and I can only pray that I could or would have the moral turpitude to follow his example.
I see that a main theme of the film is to show the weakness/strength of the tortured, but what a dismal decision to have to be confronted with. All because the soul of man can be distorted in such a way that, pain and suffering being brought to bear on a fellow human being is in some way satisfying. Be it mental or physical.
I found the film very thought provoking.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"