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\nChris Smith's American Movie is an insightful examination of the American dream. The movie focuses around Mark Borchardt, an independent film maker from Wisconsin. Mark has dreamed of becoming a great writer and director since he was a teenager and had an out of focus hi8 camera. The movie follows Mark through his attempt to make his dream feature film, Northwestern. There are a number of hilarious scenes in the film as Mark goes through pre-production of Northwestern and later his short film Coven (pronounced co-ven, the correct pronunciation, Mark says \"Sounds too much like oven,\") which he plans to use to raise money to complete Northwestern. This film's insight and humor is on par with Roger and Me, Michael Moore's great film. I first viewed it at a chaotic Sundance Film Festival screening that brought out the spirit of the movie- a giant air duct fell from the ceiling at the beginning of the movie, hit seven people and caused a twenty-five minute delay; half way through the film the sound started fluttering and the projector had to be stopped to fix it, and in the last twenty minutes the projector stopped and the film burned up. Despite the delays, the audience stayed through the movie and gave it a standing ovation. American Movie also won the Grand Jury Prize for Documentary at the end of the festival. I highly recommend this fine film, worth sitting through any hellish screening.
\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, lot's of bad movies are made all the time. For those people who work in film, you have probably poured a lot of time and effort into many of these plot less wonders. Sometimes, and this is my opinion, it is the act of merely making the movie that is important to us. To tell a story, (no matter how simple and unrealistic). Also, the collaborative process is one key characteristic that is unique to film and theater. To put on a production of any caliber, requires the talents of a varying amount of people, depending on its scale, to bring its story to life. The most intriguing part of American Movie, however, is not the movie being filmed. It is the movie maker himself, as a character of his own life, which demands our attention. None of them serve as models of the filmmakers we know and have worked with. But, I will argue, they are archetypes of small parts of us which try to be a part of this cult activity of independent film-making. (Alright a very small part of us) These are the people who live under the rocks of their own lives and just so happen to be snared by the romance of cinema. This leads me to my next argument. American Movie captures the raw spirit of independent film-making. Bad stories told on (nowadays) digital film with sloppy effects and horrible performances- because this IS the best they can do with a budget of a couple thousand dollars rather than a studio budget of several million dollars a day. That is the difference between low low LOW end productions and studio productions. The independent filmmaker just wants to create a linear or even a nonlinear story to shoot as well as he can with the money he's investing in himself and the resources around him in order to see a finished product on his rundown TV. Rugged Individualism materializes in every art form. I find this film to be a brilliant document of truth for many filmmakers. And no, I'm not full of myself. Man, these people are hilarious. Their problems seem hilarious, their characteristics are hilarious. Best line of the movie: \"It's alright!. . . It's okay!. . . There's something to live for!. . . Jesus told me so!!!\" Said a million times by a funny old man. Hat's off to Tom Beach. Chicago Rules.
\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\nChris Smith is a superior filmmaker with the seldom-seen talent for spotting a good story, then getting the hell out of its way. Smith's \"American Movie\" is the true-to-life record of filmmaker wannabe Mark Borchardt, a loser intent on milking his elderly uncle for cash to complete his horror short. But never, under any circumstances, to pursue gainful employment or support the children he's conceived.
Such is producer Smith's skill that Mark appears more sympathetic than otherwise. Even as he entices Uncle Bill with sugar-spun dreams and executive producer credits, it is his desperation to be somebody, to have his name coupled with the likes of Scorsese and Spielberg that touches us.
\"American Movie\" also belongs in that rare, often attempted but seldom achieved sub genre that successfully blends hilarity with horror. The humor comes from Borchardt's Ed Wood-style belief in his own genius. From his appalling attempts at acting, from his substituting his less than film-savvy mother for a missing cameraman and from his employing sweet but brain-damaged friend Mike whenever he's short an actor or crew member.
The horror comes from seeing what Borchardt cannot: It is this very American attitude--I Want, Therefore I Am Entitled--that keeps him from seeing just how much he has to learn about his chosen craft. He is so confident he can't fail that failure is guaranteed.
\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\nDavid Lynch shot his first film, 'Erasurehead', over several years, adding new scenes each time he managed to raise a little bit more cash. Kevin Smith made 'Clerks' at work, while working as a clerk, and Robert Rodriguez has boasted that 'From Dusk Till Dawn' cost precisely $30,000. But $30,000 is still a hell of a lot of money to raise if you work as a cleaner in a cemetery. And what if an aspiring film maker not only had such a job but also had all the ambition of such luminaries, and all the dorkishness of Smith, but absolutely none of the talent. Such a figure is Mark Borchardt, the subject of this hilarious documentary which chronicles his attempt to make a pair of movies over many many years. Borchardt combines his lunatic dreams with flights of depression and a fatal inability to call it a day; one senses he almost prefers the endless labours of searching for an impossible perfection to an accommodation with the reality that he's simply (on the evidence presented in 'American Movie') not very good. And like a modern day Ed Wood, he surrounds himself with an epic crowd of fellow losers, his genuine affection for whom is his greatest redeeming feature. The collection includes his warring parents, his best friends (one a criminal, the other a reformed drug addict), his own hapless children and best of all his aged Uncle Bill. Bill may live in a trailer park, and just about have given up on life, but he is the owner of a small fortune ($280,000 to be precise) and the touching but potentially exploitative relationship between the two men lies at the heart of the film. Borchardt manages to enlist a few actors to perform (alongside himself, of course) but in the main he is wholly dependent on friends and family to complete his work (even Bill has a role on camera). On British TV, the BBC brilliantly scheduled a screening of 'American Movie' back-to-back with 'Lost in La Mancha', the story of Terry Gilliam's ill fated attempt to film 'Don Quixote'. In that film, one was impressed by the huge amount of professionalism on display (inadequate as it was to the task in hand), and just how damn difficult it is even for experts with millions to spend to make a film; whereas Borschadt is not only penniless, but also such a clown that he can't even pronounce the name of his own work ('Coven') properly. Ultimately, Borschadt is human enough for you to want him to succeed, but awful enough for the viewer to still be able to laugh at his failures. If this film was fiction, you'd dismiss it as unbelievable; but as it is, it's one of the funniest documentaries you're likely to 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\nThe story itself is routine: A boy runs away from home and ends up in a struggling music school for kids. He convinces a famous violinist to sponsor the school. The film is a splicing of shootings over 11 weeks, and leaves many amusing holes which the observant viewer may find for him/herself.
However long the whiskers of the plot might have been, the movie is justified by its music and acting. There is plenty of music, featuring classical works played by Heifetz and by The Meremblum Orchestra, one of the leading youth symphonies of that day, and said music is excellent. By itself, it would make the picture worth viewing. The conducting and scoring duties were put in the best of hands: those of Alfred Neumann.
The acting is a study in contrasts. The kids in the orchestra, most of whom had little or no acting experience, must have driven director Archie Mayo crazy, looking into the camera, overacting the parts that they had, and overstudiously following directions given to them. But the spontaneity that results from their lack of training adds an interesting charm to the picture. The veteran actors were marvelous with the material they had to work with. Walter Brennan was perfectly cast in his role, one that he emulated in real life. Joel McCrea and Andrea Leeds were ideal fits for their parts. And the supporting acting was a veritable Who's Who of character actors: Marjorie Main, Arthur Hohl, Paul Harvey, , Charles Coleman, Perry Ivins, and Porter Hall in his typical role of the heavy---all ideally cast. And the bit players: Jessie Arnold, John Hamilton, Marjorie Wood, Jimmy Flavin, Dulcie Day, the gravelly voiced Lee Phelps in his usual role as a policeman and many many more. If you're a fan of character actors, this movie will bring back a lot of memories.
Overall, the picture is very enjoyable and is recommended, even if you aren't a fan of classical music.
tvcat
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI think Samuel Goldwyn was trying to accomplish two things in this film. First the film is a homage to Jascha Heifetz, considered to be the best violin virtuoso of the past century. Secondly having brought to the screen the Dead End kids with his film of the same title and seeing them sign with Warner Brothers, he was trying to create a second gang of appealing urchins.
Though the film was good there certainly was no demand that the kids from this film be reteamed for another feature.
Leader of the gang is Gene Reynolds who at one time played the violin, but now leads a street gang of disreputable urchins. His stepfather, Arthur Hohl, breaks the violin his late father gave young Reynolds and threatens to send him to reform school over the feeble protests of his mother Marjorie Main.
Young Reynolds happens to stumble onto a music school run by the old music maestro himself, Walter Brennan and his daughter Andrea Leeds. They take him in, but they have their financial problems with a lot of creditors led by Porter Hall.
This film is mostly to be seen today because it's a chance for classical music lovers to see and hear Jascha Heifetz who as you gather is the solution one way or another to everybody's problems. Joel McCrea is in this film also, but has a rather colorless part as Andrea Leeds boyfriend.
Besides Heifetz, one thing the film does do is touch on, albeit gingerly on the topic of child abuse and battered spouses. Arthur Hohl is one mean man and Marjorie Main is very clearly a much battered wife.
The kids in the cast do well, Reynolds, Tommy Kelly, Terry Kilburn and a young girl under the name of Jacqueline Nash who grew up and performed as Gale Sherwood, nightclub partner to Nelson Eddy. She had a nice soprano even as a child.
But it's Heifetz you see the show for.
\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 bright youngster interested in \"serious\" music (admittedly a vanishing breed--who'll play the fiddle when no one can play the violin??\"--could find this an interesting fiction about street kids and great musical stars. Heifitz was indeed the greatest violinist of his generation and the film gives him a rare on-screen chance to display his technique. The kids, especially Gene Reynolds, are fine and, all in all, the pic is a good example of first-rate studio family fare of the late 30's. It doesn't hit the top of the great '39 list, but it's a nice way for an intelligent family to spend a rainy afternoon with AMC or the Video Store--- good luck at Blockbuster!!!!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAlthough many audio recordings of great musicians like Jascha Heifetz survive, the cinematic or televised record is limited indeed. This is why musical offerings like \"They Shall Have Music\" are such rare gems. While, with modern eyes and ears, one can quibble about the plot, the perceptive viewer should put this film's unique delights in their proper perspective. The plot was designed to appeal to both young and old audiences of the era, but it remains enjoyable to this day. A important aspect of the experience of watching classic films is to see them through the eyes of the moviegoer of that era.
I must take issue with reviewer who complains about a film that is in black and white, or who feel obliged to report that their students express such reservations. These are juvenile complaints which reflect a limited historical perspective. For the teacher, this should offer up an educational opportunity to explain the unique qualities of black and white photography and its place in cinematic history. Color can, in fact, get in the way of a good storyline, or the music. For example, the black and white photography of John Ford's \"Stagecoach,\" is, like the still photographs of Ansel Adams, an artistic masterpiece.
As for Heifetz being wooden, I could not disagree more. If you want blatant emotional posturing, go to a rock concert. The role of a classical musician like Heifetz is to move the audience, not him or herself. Heifetz's emotion is conveyed through his playing, not through his body language. He had a rare ability to extract every emotional nuance out of the music and transfer it to his listeners. It is the listener who should be moved, not the artist.
Incidentally, one reviewer asked about seeing Heifetz on YouTube playing the 1st movement of the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto, with Frank McHugh in the audience. This is from the 1947 film \"Carnegie Hall,\" not \"They Shall Have Music\" \"Carnegie Hall\" is an even greater treasure of many great classical artists in their prime. We are blessed that there were film producers who, at least in these limited instances, chose to showcase these artists. In was still an era not totally overwhelmed by the lowest common denominator tripe we get today.
\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 enjoyed this movie, and I'm not a classical music fan. The story of the tough street kid discovering classical music and changing his ways was great to watch, without being sentimental or too unbelievable, although some details had me scratching my head (Frankie and his dog can live in the basement of the school without any of the students or teachers discovering him? Where did he eat? Bathe? Did he ever get a change of clothes? What did he feed his dog? The owner of the school didn't think it was important to notify the police about finding a missing boy, but let him live in the basement indefinitely? :-) ). But we can let such unrealistic details slide and just enjoy the touching, fun, and slightly suspenseful (for me, anyway) story and wonderfully talented children.
I loved the scene with the mothers standing shoulder to shoulder on the steps barring the policemen from entering the school: I doubt they would get away with that nowadays. And I liked the nice touch about the boy Frankie stole from turning the tables on him (although that never really went anywhere), and Frankie's friends helping him out in the end.
All in all, a great movie for everyone!
\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\nAs you can tell from the few comments posted here - mine may very well be the last you'll see, unless there is a big DVD-release or TCM plays it again ! - this is a kind-of \"Our Gang\" movie with a bunch of different kids. MGM certainly WAS the musical studio - if the musicians, dancers and singers weren't under contract, they were on tap. Heifetz was one of the most expensive.....that does it for a little charity work !!! The fee he received in that era was unheard of. Another musical film with Jose Iturbi (Mexican pianist) featured about 100 kids playing some simple tune on 100 pianos......so, those skeptics who think young children aren't musical are mistaken: I was one.
As all write, \"Frankie Smith\" - good-ole American name - (Gene Reynolds) was the bad-but-good kid who is taken-in from the streets by the owners of a music-school. Can you believe that Walter Brennan (\"Prof. Lawson\") of all those western movies was the man running the school? Joel McCrea (\"Peter McCarthy\") and Andrea Leeds (\"Ann Lawson\") were the bigger stars in \"They Shall Have Music\", with a host of well-known extras (many of whom went-on to become stars in their own rights). As others have commented, almost all of the kids in the orchestra (actually, The Meremblum Symphony from Los Angeles) made big successes of their lives, either as musicians (for the studios) and other businesses.
Sad to say, there aren't that many young-people's orchestras today - a sad mistake. Parents with children in school are usually so busy trying to keep their heads above water, and many don't even know what is happening to the kids in school. Musical instruction can get to be pricey, and almost EVERYONE would rather had a football-team.....
This is the cheapest concert by Jascha Heifetz you'll ever hear is contained in this movie.....in those days, a quarter. His playing is brilliant, even if he looks like he'd rather be someplace else.....emotionless. By contract, any concert by Yo-Yo Ma is so joyful, it makes you want to run right out and buy a cello.....this guy is having a good time....like the kids in the \"street\" concert, when they hoodwink Heifetz to play at their school.
All of the orchestral numbers were played by \"the kids,\" and they make it sound easy. I love this type of movie - their plots are so simple, it doesn't take you two days to figure-out if you enjoyed - or understood - the movie, at all. We need some new movies like this - can't do anything but inspire younger kids to play other instruments than guitars.......Bravo!
\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 thoroughly enjoyed this movie...and I watch it from time to time still. I've used it in my music classes at the school where I teach. The kids seem to enjoy it, although, they wish it were in color.
The best thing about this movie is, for me, who grew up after Heifetz had died, is the chance to actually see the master violinist work his craft! I was surprised at how \"up to date\" the story line is. Although, references to \"reform school\" are outdated. A boy, whose father had died, and is being raised by his mom and stepfather....most of our kids today are being raised by stepparents, although the movie makes it seem like most stepparents are cruel. I get VERY angry when his mother doesn't take his side and defend his actions against the step-father.
Also, the musical selections are difficult to believe. I find it unbelievable that a child, who looks to be about 8, can play the \"Minute Waltz\", or that a 13 year old girl could sing an aria from Rigoletto.
Other than that, it's a really fun, feel good movie and I do recommend it. I wish it would come out on DVD.
\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\nHal Hartley entry into a European film series is one of his two or three best efforts to date, and, lucklily, one of the few available on DVD. At only 63 minutes running time, my only quibble would be with Hartley I always leave wanting more, but never so much as this time. Martin Donovan is astonishing as Jesus. PJ Harvey is beautiful and interesting as Magdelena, but the high point for me was Thomas Jay Ryan (Henry Fool) as Satan. Hartley gives him excellent dialogue and a chance to use his resounding voice to full effect. Look for three scenes in which a microphone awaits him, as if a poetry slam is about to be won by the devil. I have read other comments on this film and had to add mine because there is not enough praise going around. If you like Henry Fool, Martin Donovan in anything (Opposite of Sex), and/or very clever comedies based on biblical ideas, get this as quickly as possible.
\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\nHartley on low-key form: Martin Donovan, born to play Jesus, comes as Messiah to millenial Manhatten; P.J. Harvey is excellent as sidekick Magdelena. A slight film, but drily amusing, short and sweet.
\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 my favorite Hal Hartley movie. All his movies are small gems. I love independent movies and I hope Hal Hartley never goes mainstream or sells out. What if the Lord Jesus did come back and loved his people so much that he could not open the final book and destroy the unbelievers? It was nice to see P. J. Harvey in a movie since I am a fan of her music. Don't watch this if you are a fan of cookie cutter Hollywood movies, you will be disappointed.
\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 1-hour 30-minute inside joke is best understood by Catholics, the number one religion of self-medicating comedians the world over. That isn't to say it can't stand on its own which it does, that the film isn't without its flaws, which its got. Technical issues, mostly: Belief that in 1998 digital was the answer when in fact it was in its infancy - a Beta of a Beta if you will, and re-mastering will never improve it. For the love of God, Hal...please get yourself a Red One. Or three.
If you like Hartley films of course, you'll like it. I liked it, because I liked Grim/Fool, and there were added benefits of retrospect: I couldn't help noticing a disturbing self-prophecy, an airliner soaring overhead, used as a harbinger of Armageddon in this 1998 movie. It was as if Cheney had gotten the whole idea from Hal. It's true - Hartley moves his players round into the camera like it's the House of Commons, just one piece of the gimmickry that needs a rest. After all, we're already paying attention to the actors, and the writing is alive. Not great writing, but...fervent. Can I use the word fervent? Purposeful, intelligent, not condescending.
Absolutely love PJ Harvey in this, course I'd love her anywhere. Oddly, if Helen Mirren needs a younger self, she should look Harvey up and bring a bottle of blond.
\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 my favorite Hartley movies. (As if there could be a \"bad\" one.) Although, this may be a bit more on the religious side of things than we would normally expect. Nonetheless, it still maintains that Hartley slant to which we've all become accustomed.
First picture Jesus and Satan discussing their ideas, opinions, hopes and regrets about the impending end of civilization. Now imagine the entire conversation taking place over a few drinks in your neighborhood bar. And as an added conversational (not to mention visual) distraction, let's toss in PJ Harvey as the sultry companion (aka Magdelena) to Mr. Chist. Then, just for grins, in the background, an ever present Salvation Army Band (played by Yo La Tengo) to serve as an added diversion. The road to moral justification has never been such a pleasure.
Quite possibly more questions than answers, but therein lies the fun. And Mr. Donovan is subdued brilliance, as always.
\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 not Hal Hartley's best work (my personal favorite is \"Surviving Desire\"), there is still much to like about this movie, especially for fans of Hartley's dialogues. Even to audiences new to Hartley, I would definitely recommend this movie over the sophomoric \"Dogma.\" This movie is more intelligent, truer to its source material (the Bible), and more fun than any of the other pre-millennium apocalypse movies.
This movie is actually part of the French \"2000 As Seen By.\" (2000 Par Vu) series; as such, it is perhaps even a lower-budget film than Hartley's other works. While the need for simple scenes shot with digital camera is understandable in this context, the main problem with this movie is the unfortunate overuse of the blurry/jittery effect. I'd be happy to never see this effect used in a movie again; especially at the beginning, it almost makes the movie unwatchable. But overlook this flaw, and you'll be treated to a fine film. Especially notable is Magdalena (played by P.J. Harvey) relating how Jesus saved her from being stoned to death; a short scene I found surprisingly moving. (Despite the fact that it was NOT Mary Magdalene that this happened to; the woman in the Bible was unnamed.)

\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\nHilarious film about divine retribution. Camera work stinks (shot on digital video) and looks like early MTV videos. Turn the other cheek by looking past the visual and concentrate on the story. Laughs galore for those with a well-developed sense of irony.
\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 Book of Life was rather like a short snack, whetting the appetite for Hartley's next full length movie.
This movie doesn't need to be seen on the big screen, watch it with a few friends who are Hal Hartley or Wayne Wang fans, or better still, try to convert some newbies.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhile the camerawork was certainly \"funky\" - perhaps one dutch-roll short of \"stoned\" - the premise of the film was fantastic. It really took a scathingly satirical (in the true traditional of Hal Hartley) look at God, Jesus and Devil. The interaction of Jesus and Satan provides some hilarious scenes... Even the monologues of Jesus were great - this was by far the best Jesus I've even seen. So laidback, Zen-like, Son-of-God-ish but still such a nice guy. On one level this is a very general look on the paradoxes of Christianity, but yet there is still a personal level, where you can relate to Jesus Christ without having a God-Complex (thanx to Martin Donovan and Hal Hartley).
\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\nHal Hartley has been likened to a modern day William Shakespeare, by virtue of the fact that he gets his actors to deliver their lines in an iambic pentameter. He certainly knows how to assemble a cast and once again Martin Donovan is sensational, whilst Thomas Jay Ryan plays his role with an intensity that is unforgettable. Although the film is only 1 hour, the time frame works wonderfully and keeps the audience on a fast tracked race right till the very end. Without a doubt Hal Hartley is one of the best directors to come out of America in the last 20 years, with a vision that is unique, funny and heart warming.
\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 promise of Martin Donovan playing Jesus was, quite honestly, enough to get me to see the film. Definitely worthwhile; clever and funny without overdoing it. The low-quality filming was probably an appropriate effect but ended up being a little too jarring, and the ending sounded more like a PBS program than Hartley. Still, too many memorable lines and great moments for me to judge it harshly.
\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 Book of Life, Martin Donovan plays Jesus, who shows up at JFK airport on December 31 to usher in the new millennium by battling with Thomas Jay Ryan (Satan) and deciding the fate of the world. There is also David Simonds (Kurt the accountant from Amateur) as a compulsive, homeless gambler.
As usual, Hartley creates a surreal world in which the beauty of the ordinary made strange and otherworldly flows through artfully-framed scenes and urban/industrial landscapes filled with dazzling light and shadow. As usual, he introduces seemingly incidental details early, then brings them back later in hilarious and unexpected contexts--the humor is simple, but giddy and irrepressible. Hartley has an amazing ability to build toward small and rapturous moments of the simultaneously mundane and outrageous. As usual, he creates a tone that is jaded and world-weary but at the same time, vulnerable, open, and honest. He moves within minutes from uproarious humor into language that is metaphysical and poetic-the kind of writing that is so dead-on and perfect that it's difficult to hold back tears despite the lack of obvious emotion. Another awesome and highly entertaining film.
The Book of Life is shot (a digital camera?) with a blurry effect: a sense of the celestial hand-in-hand with impending doom and a hyper-awareness of the present as fragile and fleeting in it's last moments. All of Hartley's films have a way of prioritizing the present, but this unique effect compounds it as the images wash across the screen in a way that is at first jarring, but becomes increasingly beautiful as you settle into it. The final shot is spectacular. All this may sound precious, but the film is a comedy and it makes fun of itself even as it makes fun of the concept of Armageddon, Judgment Day, and \"urbanity.\" Although it is actually quite profound, moving, and life-affirming, it is for the most part lighthearted and playful. The acting is flawless in terms of the kind of the subdued tone that Hartley has developed in his films (a tone that some people don't get and that prompts them to judge such acting as hollow--the same people who have a negative response to Peter Greenaway). As always, there are bound to be people who respond to this film with cynicism and scorn--people put off by Hartley's abrupt shifts and what they see to be pretentious or mannerist techniques--but anyone who is a Hartley fan will love this film (if they can get a chance to see it, that is). It's hard to say what it would be like on video.
\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 Book of Life, Martin Donovan plays Jesus, who shows up at JFK airport on December 31 to usher in the new millennium by battling with Thomas Jay Ryan (Satan) and deciding the fate of the world. There is also David Simonds (Kurt the accountant from Amateur) as a compulsive, homeless gambler.
As usual, Hartley creates a surreal world in which the beauty of the ordinary made strange and otherworldly flows through artfully-framed scenes and urban/industrial landscapes filled with dazzling light and shadow. As usual, he introduces seemingly incidental details early, then brings them back later in hilarious and unexpected contexts--the humor is simple, but giddy and irrepressible. Hartley has an amazing ability to build toward small and rapturous moments of the simultaneously mundane and outrageous. As usual, he creates a tone that is jaded and world-weary but at the same time, vulnerable, open, and honest. He moves within minutes from uproarious humor into language that is metaphysical and poetic-the kind of writing that is so dead-on and perfect that it's difficult to hold back tears despite the lack of obvious emotion. Another awesome and highly entertaining film. The Book of Life is shot (a digital camera?) with a blurry effect: a sense of the celestial hand-in-hand with impending doom and a hyper-awareness of the present as fragile and fleeting in it's last moments. All of Hartley's films have a way of prioritizing the present, but this unique effect compounds it as the images wash across the screen in a way that is at first jarring, but becomes increasingly beautiful as you settle into it. The final shot is spectacular. All this may sound precious, but the film is a comedy and it makes fun of itself even as it makes fun of the concept of Armageddon, Judgment Day, and `urbanity.' Although it is actually quite profound, moving, and life-affirming, it is for the most part lighthearted and playful. The acting is flawless in terms of the kind of the subdued tone that Hartley has developed in his films (a tone that some people don't get and that prompts them to judge such acting as hollow--the same people who have a negative response to Peter Greenaway). As always, there are bound to be people who respond to this film with cynicism and scorn-people put off by Hartley's abrupt shifts and what they see to be pretentious or mannerist techniques, but who has time to consider the opinions of such dull and callous fools? Anyone who is a Hartley fan will love this film-if they can get a chance to see it, that is. It's hard to say what it would be like on video.
\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 this peculiar movie, the themes of the end of days and Satan versus Jesus are treated in a new fashion. Jesus doesn't want to open the two last seals, and Satan is thwarted in his attempt to get another soul into hell... Armageddon, Armageddon and Jehosaphat turns out to be a - company!, and the book of life is a little hard to open.
What's memorable about this movie are the slanted image, out-of-focus shots and light effects, which are effective, but sometimes irritating. And of course, Donovan is great as a disillusioned Jesus trying to come to terms with what the world and its people have become! So, do see it if you get the opportunity!
\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 probably Hal Hartley's best one. The subject, of a unusual originality, is treated (that's usual with Hal Hartley) with great humor. This characteristic isn't at all the only quality of this film: the fussy frame composition (everything is parallel, until the smallest details), shooting angles, lighting, giving a more supernatural dimension to these blurred images (Jesus' coming down couldn't be filmed in a conventional way), the falsely \"poser\" acting, are qualities that make this Bible re-reading, carried out in the form of an apocalyptic delirium, essential.
\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\nRace Against Fear has to be one of the most moving TV movies I've seen for a long time. All of the performances from the main actors were superb, especially that of Ariana Richards (Mickey Carlyle), William Bullimer (Coach Kurt Ansom), and Susan Blakely (Margaret Carlyle). Ariana in particular put on an extremely emotional performance, with facial expressions to match. She portrayed the emotions that Mickey was feeling perfectly, and you could easily believe that she really HAD been raped, so realistic was her performance.
RAF is an incredibly realistic movie, due to the moving performances from the cast. Bullimer came across as a rapist incredibly well, and you hated him more and more as the movie progressed. Blakely also put on an emotional performance as the mother of the raped girl (Mickey Carlyle), and you felt increasingly sorry for the Carlyle family because no-one believed them about the rape.
All in all, RAF is a great movie. It is both moving and full of suspense, as you are continually unsure if Ansom would be prosecuted for the rape, due to the lack of witnesses, evidence, and belief in the claim. I thoroughly recommend seeing this movie.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTerrific acting by the 5 stars makes this one a must see.
Based on a stage play, THE SILVER CORD is about \"mother love\" at its worst. The film was very controversial for its implied homosexuality of the younger son and the mother's unnatural \"romantic\" feelings for both sons.
Irene Dunne stars as the new bride (and biologist) who travels with husband (Joel McCrea) to visit the family before heading off to New York City for their new jobs. But something seems wrong.
The mother, Laura Hope Crews, seems rude to the younger son's (Eric Linden) fiancée (Frances Dee). But Dunne puts such thoughts aside and ignores a few of the strange things the mother says. Then she finds out \"her\" room is down the hall from McCrea's, and his room adjoins mother's room.
Later she walks in as \"mummy\" is tucking in McCrea and kissing him (on the lips) good night. Mummy has also been working on Linden and getting him to doubt his feelings for Dee. Everything blows up and with Dee running into the snowy night toward the frozen pond. As the boys run after her, mummy shouts from the window for boys to come back and get their coats! Dee falls through the ice and is rescued.
As the girls leave the house the following morning, Dunne lets mummy know what she thinks of her and her attachment to the boys. But mummy has a tight hold, faking illness and forever boasting of her sacrifices. The girls leave but the boys stay behind.......
Crews is magnificent as the voracious mother (repeating her stage role); it's a part few actresses would dare play. The sexual overtones are incredible for a 1933 film and Crews take advantage of her best film role. Dunne is also excellent as she tries to maneuver the course without losing McCrea. Dee has some excellent scenes after she gets dumped by bewildered Linden. All 5 stars are terrific in this drama that is bizarrely underrated and unknown.
A neglected gem for anyone who likes great acting......
\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 felt the movie was ahead of its time. The one potential daughter-in-law was such a strong, career oriented woman. She knew what she wanted and was diplomatic but firm with the over-bearing mother-in-law to be. The mother's role was played extremely well (you just loved to hate her). Her need to control her son's lives was neurotically evil. If you've ever been in a relationship where you've been judged and found lacking (and everybody involved knew it) this may hit too close to home. It's been years since I saw this movie and I remember thinking that this plot and dialog would work in a 50's or 60's movie. It is difficult to watch because of the mother and sons' dynamic but I would love to watch it again. I keep hoping to find it on one of the old movie channels but so far no luck. Attempts to buy it were also futile (I don't believe it's on tape or DVD).
\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 story of the troubles caused by an over-possessive, overpowering, domineering and unscrupulous mother (Laura Hope Crews) for her two grown sons, and their girls, is a strong vehicle for stellar performances by Irene Dunn (the new daughter-in-law), Joel McCrea (the number-one son), Eric Linden (the number-two son) and Frances Dee (fiance of number-two son). Here's the show of the pure tyranny of mother's jealousy and possessiveness run amok as four good people find their owns lives damaged, their plans changed and their own identities in jeopardy. Irene Dunn is stellar in her role. Joel McCrea's performance is open and clear and Laura Hope Crews is masterful as the mother.
Yet this reviewer finds Frances Dee's performance the best of all. Hers is the first character in the story to show the strength of her inner feelings. Her portrayal in her heartbreak broken-engagement scene is gut-wrenching, and even raw. Dee yanks the viewer around and drives you into her pain without even showing her face !
Frances Dee, like Laura Hope Crews, has been too long overlooked, and is now almost forgotten as the magnificent actress that she was. No actress who started in film after WWII has had anything to speak of on Frances Dee.
If you're lucky enough to see The Silver Cord, which was never released for TV, you'll find this \"old fashioned drawing-room drama\" to be an outstanding film that shows very well 74 years after its 1933 release because it is filled with superb performances.
\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\nWho won the best actress Oscar for 1933? It should have been Laura Hope Crewes for her magnificent portrayal of the most monstrous mother ever. She truly is one of the great character actresses of all time. She played the frivolous Prudence Duvernoy in \"Camille\" (1936) and her best remembered role is Aunt Pittypat in \"Gone With the Wind\".
Irene Dunne was the \"official\" star of the film but her scenes with Laura Hope Crewes were dynamite.
David (Joel McCrea) is in Heidelberg when he is offered a job in New York. His wife, Christine (Irene Dunne) can continue her studies at the Rockafellar Centre. Their first stop in America is a visit to David's mother, Mrs. Phelps. To say that Laura Hope Crewes dominates every scene is an under-statement. From her first entrance - in a frantic burst of effort to greet her \"big boy\" - all attention is on her. Even sitting around the tea table, when she forgets Hester's existence, even forgetting how she takes her tea, you know something is not quite right.(Hester has been living there for a while.)
Frances Dee is completely sweet and so right in her role as the adorable Hester. Her performance in this film, especially the scene where she has hysterics and the aftermath proves how under-rated as an actress she was.
All the young cast are excellent. Eric Linden is superb as Robert, the younger son who comes to the realization that his mother is horrible but can do nothing about escaping from his mother's spell. Joel McCrea, at one point says \"painting roses on bathtubs - that's more your style\". There is a very subtle suggestion in the film of Robert's sexuality.
Irene Dunne is excellent in whatever film or genre she tried.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI think Crewes did her evil part very well she should have won an award. Anything that Dunne is in. is salvageable because Dunne is a great actress and can pull anything off, even a weak script. Therefore I WOULD recommend it for this reason alone. This movie may have been a little ahead of it's time, the plot might be more acceptable these days.
During the golden age of Hollywood movies were meant to entertain or teach, mostly to make us feel good or cope with the times. This plot seem to deviate from that profile. Yet, again I must say what ever Irene Dunne was in, at least, was \"good\" because she made things so believable! The only other actress I can say made me think this way was maybe, Deborah Kerr. Watch Silver Cord if you get the chance for the \"acting\" if nothing else.
\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 may not be regarded as a review on any film, but just a comment on a film I saw when I was a youngster. I remember coming home of an evening all full of wonder at what I had seen. I tried to retell my parents part of the story but they listened without understanding well what was so strange about two kids stranded on an island who fall in love and grow together and have a son. As you must have guessed by now I'm referring to The Blue Lagoon (1949) which has kept me bewitched and bewildered through the years (almost 50) and now wonder full of anxiety and disgust who or what has prevented the film from being available in cassette or DVD or whatever. I've spent a lifetime chasing the opportunity to get hold of it one day and nobody knows anything about it. What a waste indeed! Sorry if my English is not at all technical or scientific, but my mother tongue is Spanish. I'm doing my best to make myself understood. Thank you, My name is Juan and I'm writing from Uruguay in S.America.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFor the record, the 1949 version of \"The Blue Lagoon\" is not the original film, as many have stated.
This story was filmed in Great Britain, in 1923, just after the novel was written. As much as I'd love to see the 1949 version, I'd thoroughly enjoy an opportunity at seeing the true original release of this story on film.
Granted, the 1980 film with Christopher Atkins, Brooke Shields, and the two youngsters was filmed with beautiful cinematography. The acting didn't seem all that great when I first viewed this film, but after having viewed this a few times.... it becomes obvious that two children growing up on an island without adult guidance, would indeed have a simplistic way of approaching life.... whether it be in their language, appearance, or daily activities.
Although some have been fortunate enough to view the 1949 \"Blue Lagoon\", I cannot help but wonder if there is anyone living who can remember the 1923 release of this story to 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 appears to have been overlooked by everyone. Someone should bring it out on VHS and DVD. It is an excellent film and far superior to the one with Brooke Shields, which was terrible.
Jean Simmons deserves more credit than she is getting now days. It would be nice if all her films were offered on VHS or DVD. Jean Simmons was, and still is, a very good actress. She certainly was a beauty. In fact, she is still a beauty. She also has done extremely well on T.V. She is so much better than many of the actors today.
\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 as a kid about 30 years ago, and I haven't forgotten it to this day. I couldn't say whether it's a good picture. But in those days I instantly fell in love with Jean Simmons. The memories concentrate on the very erotic feel of the movie, but I still remember the plot. Simmons was very young then, and there is another film that gave me the same feeling: David Lean's GREAT EXPECTATIONS. And again it was the young Jean Simmons. It's a pity that BLUE LAGOON is not available on video; I'd like to correct my memories...
\n
assistant\n1
\n"