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\nWhen I first saw this on tape, about 10 years after it had been released, I thought it was one of the better James Bond movies. However, after seeing it again around the turn of the century, I was disappointed.
I think it's a bit overrated only because critics were so happy to see Sean Connery end his 12-year hiatus from playing Bond that they didn't dare criticize the film. I guess what disappointed me was the ending. After investing two hours into the film, you expect a less-hokey, more satisfying ending. And, it may be nitpicking, but I was disappointed in not seeing the regular actors in the supporting roles such as Miss Moneypenny, Q, Felix Leiter, etc.
On the positive side, there was plenty of unique action scenes, particularly early on, and the two villains were interesting. I thought Klaus Maria Brandauer was the more intriguing of the two because he was so low-key and looked the \"nice guy next door.\" He wasn't your normal Bond villain.
This had plenty of \"skin,\" for a PG movie, especially with Kim Basinger starring, never being an actress known for hiding her figure. The language was very tame, but most Bond movies are pretty good in that department.
All in all, it's a \"fair\" Bond and nothing else. Just because Connery is in it, it doesn't mean it's automatically good. Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan have proved they could play the role well, too.
\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've always liked Sean Connery, but as James Bond I've always favored Roger Moore. Still it was Connery who set the Bond standard and while he had by 1983 established himself as something other than James Bond, the money must have been irresistible for him to make one more appearance as 007 and save the world from the evil designs of Spectre.
And what designs they are in Never Say Never Again. SPECTRE with the help of a foolish young Air Force officer who happens to be Kim Bassinger's brother stole two nuclear missiles during a war games exercise and now SPECTRE headed by Blofeld, played here by Max Von Sydow is threatening blackmail of the world.
Von Sydow's operations guy is Klaus Maria Brandauer who is also courting Bassinger and is a bit on the crazy side. And he's got a female assassin working for him in Barbara Carrera who makes Angelina Jolie as Nora Croft look like Mrs. Butterworth.
But before Sean Connery can even get started he's got to deal with a new 'M' running things at British Intelligence. Edward Fox thinks Connery is old fashioned in his methods and costs the British taxpayers too much money with his violent ways. I really did enjoy Fox's performance, he's like the great grandson of Colonel Blimp.
I also enjoyed Carrera, she's something to look at and quite resourceful in her methods. When she's scuba diving with Connery in the Bahamas, note how she puts Mr. Shark on 007's case.
Will Connery do James Bond again? He was widely quoted as saying who would they cast him as at this point, Roger Moore's father? But I think Connery would still be formidable in a wheelchair.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is an excellent James Bond movie. Although it is not part of the original and more famous series, and it is a standalone film, it is very well done. Enticing Sean Connery to return to the role he made famous was a stroke of genius, as was titling the movie in a way that references his past vow to not play Bond again. Connery was as great as he was in his earlier 007 appearances. The script is outstanding, as are the photography and the performances. It's the earliest movie I recall with Kim Basinger, who became much more famous after this film; Barbara Carrera was excellent; and Klaus Maria Brandauer was absolutely perfect as the main villain. The frequent references to the aging of Bond and the changing times and attitudes of the British secret service were most humorous. The 007 gadgets equaled those of the other Bond films. The only thing missing was the famous 007 music theme, which, of course, could not be used by this competing production. It was rather amazing to me to be able to see two excellent James Bond movies released in the same year, this one and Octopussy with Roger Moore. An interesting aspect of the film is an emphasis on video games and computer graphics. The early 80's were the first heyday of such things, and the use of them in this film made it a very contemporary movie. The film is actually a different version of Thunderball, updated with newer technology. Regardless of the repeated theme, there are sufficient differences to make it most entertaining. I will watch this one frequently.
\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 1983 two Bond movies was made, one was the official Bond movie Octopussy starring Roger Moore who starred as James Bond for the first time in Live and Let Die and the other was the unofficial Bond movie Never Say Never Again starring Sean Connery who played the role as James Bond for the first time in Dr. No, that film was also the first 007 James Bond movie to be made. Never Say Never Again is called unofficial because the company that made the other James Bond movies didn't make this one. Never Say Never Again is also a remake of the 1965 007 movie Thunderball, there are several differences in Never Say Never Again that lets you know it wasn't made by EON. One thing is that the opening is different, there's no gun barrel sequence and no pre-credit sequence, another difference is the music score. Some things in this movie does feel like a James Bond movie like the gadgets and cars, plus James Bond always getting it on with the ladies and the film does have an opening credits song. Sean Connery still does a great job playing Bond, the acting from the other stars is also great.
Never Say Never Again is a good film that's just has entertaining as the official James Bond films. Check this out. 10/10
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you can watch a Bond film from 1983 that isn't as good as Octopussy and still enjoy it.
If you can accept production values which aren't that much above the level of a TV movie.
If you can look at Sean Connery with wrinkles on his forehead beneath an obvious toupée and still see James Bond.
If you can get past an inexperienced Basinger, a weaker Largo and a jolly Q.
If you can learn to love an idiosyncratic score, not up there with Barry on his worst day.
If you don't believe the hyperbolic reviews that it was greeted with on release.
If you can meet a poker battle and a video game face off and enjoy them both the same.
Yours is Never Say Never Again and everything that's in it.
And, what is more, you'll probably enjoy it, my son!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere are lot of similarities between Never Say Never Again and Thunderball not only on Sean Connery but also the story and plot. except the actors all other are same like hijacking Atomic bombs, asking for ransom, trafficking nukes in a ship, etc only difference are place of occurrence in thunder ball plot it is in Bahamas in Never Say Never Again it is over North Africa. And in thunder ball the NATO / RAF itself loads the nukes into plane and in Never Say Never Again it is changed by an \"rouge arm of the Axe\" and air dropped over US and stolen in Caribbean. Almost 99% is same.If anybody wants to dispute this they are most welcome.
\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\nBackground info - The movies Octopussy & Never Say Never Again were both made the same year, 1983, and so naturally people compare them. Moore vs. Connery. Bond vs. Bond.
I've heard many people claiming that the \"official movie\" Octopussy is far superior. Well, I just watched Octopussy. Bond is riding an airplane at 100 miles an hour (impossible---the wind would blow him off), using his feet to force the plane to ground, and then jumping off at some 60 miles an hour (again impossible---try jumping out of your car---you'd end up with a shattered body). How is that octopussy scene supposed to be \"good\" in any sense of the word? Suddenly Bond has super-human strength & a titanium body. And he does all these stunts at the ancient age of 56??? Complete crap. Unbelievable. Farse.
---> Now let's contrast the above scene with Connery's \"unofficial\" Never Say Never Again: It doesn't have the same polish due to its independent film status (less money), but at least you can believe that Connery is a real spy in real danger.
The movie starts off with Bond showing his age (he is 50 after all) and being sent off for recuperation. Entirely believable. But of course, there's no such thing as a \"day off\" for a world-famous spy, and Bond quickly finds himself a target, even inside the hospital. From that point the story spins off into another adventure, with Bond trying to locate his attempted killers and ultimately foiling an attempt to steal nuclear weapons.
As usual Sean Connery did a brilliant job, and avoids the over-the-top/unbelievable stunts. This movie feels like a natural successor to Connery's last film, 1971's Diamonds Are Forever... the old style of Bond... before the franchise got silly.
Highyly recommended.
\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\nLike most people out there who have watched James Bond 007 movies. Most people NEVER knew that Thunderball was originally the FIRST 007 Movie to be released, but after Ian Fleming, wrote the story with kevin mcclory and jack whittingham. The 2 other authors took Ian Fleming to court and WON THE CASE providing evidence that ian fleming took the ideas of SPECTRE(Special Executive In CounterIntelligence Terrorism Revenge Extortion). So rather than making Thunderball they(fleming,broccoli,saltzman) went on to make Dr NO.
This movie had the best of the best, From getting sean connery to come back one more time, he was paid over 5,000,000 for NSNA. Irvin Kershner and Sean Connery had problems on the set, that much is true. But overall this movie was up there i think with(Thunderball, Licence To Kill, Dr No) those are my favorite from the bond series. David Dryer was hired for Special Photographic Effects, he was working at the time on Bladerunner beFORE NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN. The 100 million dollar yacht makes the disco volante, look like a canoe. This movie starred the best Villian in a bond movie just behind dr no. Klaus Maria Brandeau held together this neurotic business like calm manner, with a little wit to his authority over bond. Barbara Carrera was excellent as fatima blush.
The Music was better than every score that didnt contain John Barry doing the backround score music in most bond films. Michel Legrand is not big in the usa compared to over in europe, he has played with miles davis and many other GREAT jazz musicians over the years. Its a little bland at times but the 007 theme that happens around 3 or 4 times in the Movie NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN IS so Cool, i like it more than the original.
007 is back One More Time
Timothy Dalton explained it right i thought, YOU CANT RELATE TO A SUPERMAN OR A SUPERHERO, he or she has to be human and have feelings. He was by far the BEST SERIOUS TRUE TO FLEMINGS VERSION OF BOND. But Sean Connery proves he can still do the role that made him and others to follow, i bet at 75 now he could still pull off a villian role in a MCCLORY 007 movie if one ever surfaces.

\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 me depart from many comments I've read here, and say that this film ranks as one of the five best Bonds, along with On Her Majesty's Secret Service, From Russia With Love, Licence To Kill, and For Your Eyes Only (the ONLY time Roger Moore actually played the role of Bond, instead of futzing around). Of course, Sean Connery pulls the whole thing together -- as co-writer, co-producer, and in his best performance since From Russia With Love. He is fit, energetic, and obviously enjoying himself. His acting is mature, confident, and laced with the right amount of humour. This is in contrast to his mechanical performance in Thunderball, his sleepwalking through You Only Live Twice, and his jowly, paunchy romp through that cartoon known as Diamonds Are Forever!
This is an imaginative reworking of Thunderball, without having the sets and machines overwhelming the characters and plot. This cast is far superior, as well. Klaus Maria Brandauer brings his unique style to the role of Largo, without relying on an eyepatch, SPECTRE ring or a boring uniform. Kim Basinger is athletic and lovely, Barbara Carrera is dynamic, and for once, we have a great Felix Leiter in Bernie Casey. The depictions of M and Q are original, and the addition of the bumbling agent Small-Fawcett is fun without lapsing into slapstick.
Director Irvin Kershner makes good use of his locations (the Bahamas and the French Riviera) without losing sight of his actors. Although close inspection reveals some mediocre special effects and lapses in continuity, Kershner keeps the film moving at a good pace, unlike Thunderball (which even its director, Terence Young, did not like). Obviously fans will miss the gun-barrel trademark and the 007 theme music, but they are, after all, owned by Eon Productions.
Michel LeGrand may not have composed the most memorable score, but it captures the atmosphere of the locations without being overly intrusive. Not surprisingly, his best moments are in the south of France, with his French love song (at the health spa) being particularly attractive. And tell me, how many really remember the music for Moonraker? I personally would rather forget Man With the Golden Gun and A View To a Kill!
The Eon folks can sneer at this film if they like. (Yes, Octopussy made more money.) At least Connery's mature 007 didn't swing through the jungle emitting a Tarzan yell. He did not frolic with a Bengal tiger, nor did he fight off \"Indian\" snake charmers with a tennis racket. Despite Eon's desperate efforts to stop this production, Kevin McClory and the late Jack Schwartzman put together a fine film, one that I think Ian Fleming would have appreciated.
If, however, you would rather see James Bond get kicked in the shins by a dwarf, engage in another tiresome struggle with \"Jaws\", jump into bed with Grace Jones, or lead a slapstick firetruck chase through San Francisco, this is NOT the film for you!
\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\nPeople criticize NSNA because it is a low-point in Bond god Sean Connery's career, and because it is unofficial. ***MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* First of all, this movie is better then any other bond film featuring any other actor then Connery, all sub par wannabes in my book. Sean Connery is the only real Bond, no one comes even close to his toughness, good looks and sex appeal. Yes, this movie is a low point in Connery's Bond career, but it is still the definet best bond film of the 80's. Sean Connery is the only Bond actor who is good at an older age. he did not become a baggy mess like Moore, but kept his good looks and toughness, but gaining some gray hair. So what? hes still the only real 007, and he is as cool, and tough as ever. Sean Connery is the one and only 007. And this movie is definitly worth seeing, no matter what anyone says. No gun-barrel opening, but you can't have everything, can you? great theme song, though.
\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 Never Say Never Again (NSNA) has a weak sound track, it is far superior to its competition at the time, \"Octopussy.\" Never Say Never Again is an updated and improved version of Thunderball (Connery's least popular bond flick). NSNA is rich with clever dialogue, wit, smarts, sex appeal, and one of the best and most convincing bad guys in the entire Bond series. In addition, NSNA features a very talented young and beautiful Kim Basinger. British comedy fans will also recognize the actor (Attwood), known as, \"Mr. Bean.\" I wouldn't trade any of the Moore pictures for this one. However the earlier Connery/Bond efforts (with the exception of \"Thunderball,\") are superior.

\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\nMany have disparaged Never Say Never Again because it is not an official Bond movie. Nevertheless, it is manifest that the producers adhered to the fruitful Bond formula. Although the film does not have a pre-credit sequence, it is clear that the training exercise at the commencement of the film is meant to be the introductory scene. It would have been impossible for EON to stop the producers from including a pre-credit and title sequence, albeit without the gun-barrel introduction.
Sean Connery is on fine form as the immortal secret agent and this film is certainly better than Dr No, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever. Although, NSNA is meant to be a remake of Thunderball, it is a vast improvement. 007 spends more time on terra firma and a more diverse range of exotic locations are included in the film.
There is some resplendent acting in this movie. Barbara Carrera is impeccable as the bizarre Fatima Blush. One of the best scenes in the film is the coup de grace between Bond and Fatima in Nice, which is preceded by a dynamic motorcycle chase through the city. Klaus Maria Brandauer plays the psychotic Largo and Max Von Sydow is free of the melodrama that other actors portraying Blofeld have indulged in.
NSNA tends to centre on Connery rather than the character of Bond. At the commencement it is stated that Bond is ageing and has been out of action. This seems to refer to the 12 year hiatus in Connery's portrayal of Bond. Bond promises \"never again\" to work in the Secret Service; an allusion to Connery's portrayal of Bond. It appears that the producers were trying to hurt the official Bond franchise.
Nevertheless, this film is definitely worth watching. This is the last time that Sean Connery played James Bond, but his performance convinced me that perhaps he should have never have said \"never again\".
\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\nYes, let's get this out of the way before we begin: *This is the one that Sean Connery returned to in 1983 after the stint we had of Roger Moore. *It's Connery's last film. *And YES it's a (kind of) remake of Thunderball, but more of a film inspired by it. If all you Bond purists out there think I'm gonna get controversial, you're right. Bond is one of the greatest movie series ever, but that doesn't mean that a series should go on forever. This, I think, is one of two films where they could've done themselves a huge favour and ended the Bond saga. Not offended yet? Then I'll continue... Hey, if you're thinking I'm indifferent about Bond flicks, you're wrong. I grew up with my Mum being OBSESSED with them. Any spare moment, Bond and his antics would be on the TV. Bond rules, and 'Never Say Never Again' (directed by Irvin 'Empire Strikes Back' Kershner) is one of the best. It may not be 'Goldfinger' or 'From Russia...' and may not have been done by the same production house as all the others (which I hear is why they refuse to accept it was ever made!?), but still stands head and shoulders above the recent Brosnan outings... (if you haven't spat at the screen, read on). CHARACTERIZATION!!!!! Something so many blockbuster films forget about these days, but something which is essential to telling a good story. 'Never' played a superb hand by treating 007 like he had been ageing since 'Dr. No'. He's 'getting on a bit' and so has to do things like go to a health farm - a direct order from 'M' (!). Yeah, if you haven't seen this film, I won't give too much away with the plot because A) Loads happens and B) Obviously, I want YOU to see it for yourselves. Don't be put off by my 'old Bond' revelation, Connery still get plenty of superb set pieces to charge, swim, punch, speed, smash, and snog his way through. The man is a legend, and this film is one of his most enjoyable outings as Bond. High tech gadgets galore, some great villains, and an excellent supporting cast (including a fantastic cameo by Rowan Atkinson) lift this movie high above audience expectation.
This could've been the last Bond film ever, and it would've been a party to remember. Playing the secret agent as someone nearing retirement was refreshing stroke of genius - the last scene wraps things up perfectly for the series.... ...but still we had more, and then more, and more still, and one more Moore. Still, if you fancy finding out what \"Fatima Blush\" is all about, get this film. Then you can at least pretend 007 spent his last moments as a wisecracking secret agent, in the arms of Kim Basinger, and smirking at Mr. Bean. (P.S. * That other film that I think could've finished it all off? The gritty 'License to Kill'
\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've seen 'NSNA' just after I've seen all Roger Moore-films and I must say that it felt so good to see Connery again. He proves for all times that he is the one and only Bond.
The film itself isn't really a masterpiece but it is really worth watching. The jokes sit much better here, the effects are funny and interesting, Connery is Connery and Brandauer is really a good villain. But von Sydow is just wasted and the score is not often good and there are a few scenes that seem pretty unnecessary.
7/10 \\ 2.5/4 \\ 3+ (1+ - 6-)
\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 like both this version of DORIAN GRAY and the MGM version. Both add a little girl early in the story who grows up to have an association with Dorian (this is not in the original book), and that is my only complaint. I especially like Angela Lansbury as Sybil Vane and George Sanders as Harry in the MGM version, but Shane Briant as Dorian in the TV-version is much better looking (I think) and far more ruthless than Hurd Hatfield in the MGM version: I think Briant is more true to the novel's Dorian. In the end, this is a very good adaptation of the novel (it even hints at Dorian's liaison's with men, as does Wylde, which could not be done in the MGM version).
\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 one when it was first shown, so I'm not too objective about it. It really managed to scare me, partly because it was so late at night, but partly because of that whole feeling from a videotaped suspense story (the same thing that helped Dark Shadows itself). And the casting was so right. I hardly know Shane Briant from anything else, so it might not be so right to call HIM \"well-cast,\" but to me, he IS Dorian Gray. And as far as the other male actors, the one who fit his part so well was Nigel Davenport (who's so good at \"larger than life\" characters) as Sir Henry. And John Karlen, a sort of Dan Curtis \"repertory player\" at the time, because of Dark Shadows. As one poster points out, this version manages to include the involvements with men, in a fairly subtle way. The scene where Dorian recites a list of men's names to John Karlen's character, as a way of blackmailing him, and the look on Karlen's face, were very well-done. (If that scene were done now, it would probably be done in a TOO OBVIOUS way, and be bad by comparison.) I saw it when \"Dorian Gray\" was barely a name to me, let alone more, so even more than the famous 1945 version (which is rightly famous), this is THE version to me.
\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 famous French detective Henri Cassin takes his first vacation in 11 years in St. Margot where he meets Nanette, the daughter of the vacation spot proprietors. Despite Nanette being promised to childhood sweetheart Leon, Henri and Nanette fall in love and decide to marry, despite Nanette's father objecting due to Henri's age. On the day of their wedding, Leon returns and Nanette runs after him. Nothing is heard of the two until both are found dead, and Henri swears he won't rest until he can find the killer. The only clue Henri has to work with is a footprint found by Leon, but he is also getting written warnings that others will die soon. Soon Nanette's mother is found dead and Henri has no idea as to the identity of the killer. Thinking himself a failure he returns to Paris, then he realizes (and fears) that the killer can be only one person, even though none of his colleagues can believe his explanation. Out of the ordinary murder mystery that doesn't really follow the formula in other of the genre by Columbia or other B studios. Credit to that certainly goes to director Lewis who does manage to turn this into a noirish film despite the setting of the film, also aided by the use of good camera-work and lighting. Geray turns in a very good performance in probably his only lead and the rest of the cast is able to carry their performance. Rating, 8.
\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\nSo Dark The Night poses a tough challenge: It's very hard to write about it in any detail without ruining it for those who haven't yet seen it. Since it remains quite obscure, that includes just about everybody. The movie will strike those familiar with its director Joseph H. Lewis' better known titles in the noir cycle  Gun Crazy, The Big Combo, even My Name Is Julia Ross, which in its brevity it resembles  as an odd choice.
For starters, the bucolic French countryside serves as its setting. Steven Geray, a middle-aged detective with the Surété in Paris, sets out for a vacation in the village of Ste. Margot (or maybe Margaux). Quite unexpectedly, he finds himself falling in love with the inkeepers' daughter (Micheline Cheirel), even though she's betrothed to a rough-hewn local farmer. But the siren song of life in Paris is hard to resist, so she agrees to marry him, despite the disparity in their ages, which inevitably becomes the talk of the town.
But on the night of their engagement party, she fails to return to the inn. Soon, a hunchback finds her body by the river. Her jealous, jilted lover is the logical suspect, but he, too, is found dead. Then anonymous notes threaten more deaths, which come to pass. For the first time in his career, the bereaved Geray finds himself stumped....
A particularly weak script all but does the movie in; it plays like bad Cornell Woolrich crossed with The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. But Lewis does this creaky vehicle proud. He takes his time near the beginning, but then the story  and the storytelling  gain momentum (alas, just about the time the script breaks an axle). Burnett Guffey lighted and photographed the film, with an intriguing leitmotif of peering out of and peeping into windows; there's also an effective score by Hugo Friedhofer, who supplied aural menace to many noirs. A good deal of talent has been lavished on So Dark The Night, but at the end it boils down to not much more than a gimmick  and not a very good gimmick at that. It's a one-trick pony of a 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\nDenis Leary can indeed be funny and clever at times and is always likable, but this takes the cake! This show showed Leary's genius.
The Job is set in New York. Leary plays Mike McNeil, a hard-nosed detective who is married, has a occasional drug problem, and has a girlfriend. McNeil has serious attitude. So much he's dripping in it. The precinct is filled with funny, interesting and likable characters besides McNeil. An excellent cast too. All of the episodes in this show are really funny and are addictive. The one liners in this show are everywhere. You'll be in stitches after hearing them and still laugh about them a few minutes after and then some. The cases the precinct deals with are something else to stripper nuns, a bathroom hostage situation, and more are over the top. This show was too good. Could have grown legs to last many more seasons.
The Last Word: A great, fantastic show. I miss this show dearly. All episodes of this show are great. You get even belly-laughs...a lot. ABC made a huge mistake by giving this the ax. Too bad Leary did not revive the show for cable TV. Still, I give this show one of my highest of recommendations. Truly a one of a kind show.
\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 type of show is not supposed to happen on television. This is the type of edginess usually reserved for independent film. This is what only HBO is supposed to do. Fact is that Denis Leary has managed to come up with one of the best television shows ever, easily joining the ranks of THE SOPRANOS, OZ, ED etc.. Kudos the gang at ABC for showing that NYPD Blue was not a fluke, and to Mr. Leary and his gang for creating a truly unique viewing experience. My only complaint is that the show is not long enough ... an hour would make it better, but I can't wait for the next episode!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy wife wanted to see this movie and I grudgingly went along. I have never been a big fan of the biopic - believing that cinema is more exciting when it isn't structured in non-fiction. Beyond that, although I like Ray Charles' music just fine, I don't consider myself a fan of him or his music.
I expected to either suffer or coast through this movie.
I was wrong.
This is an engaging story told in a classic cinematic style. The realism is in the nuances - the tilt of a character's head after a dramatic moment or the look in their eyes while they sing. I literally discovered myself involved in this movie during the course of viewing it.
Jaime Foxx, of which much has been said, heads a cast of immaculate re-creators of not just a time, but an ERA, a LIFE that never really existed to those of us under forty. This movie sinks the audience into time without the gimmicks and grand sweeping panoramas of Titanic or other period pieces of that ilk. This movie doesn't present you with the 50's and 60's music scene, it takes you there.
This is a movie about Ray Charles, but your appreciate of it should not be limited to the story of his life. This is the kind of movie, like Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List, that does what a movie should do - bring you to another place, another time.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf someone had nudged me about 15 minutes into 'Ray' and asked what I thought of Jamie Foxx in the title role, it would have been time for a blank stare. After all, what is this (fictitious) person talking' about? That wasn't Jamie Foxx up on the big screen. That was Ray Charles. This is one of the best performances by anybody in recent years. Like the soundtrack, Jamie as Ray is flat-out brilliant.
The blind Genius of Soul (who took a revolutionary step of mixing gospel with R&B) died during production. The movie about his troubled life is good, not great. Taylor Hackford's direction and James L. White's script follow the well-worn biopic outline. Super-talented youngster battles adversity, achieves greatness while also self-destructing, then picks himself up out of the gutter for a happy ending. The film shows Charles' flaws (heroin abuse, chronic womanizing, persistent bastard-fathering) even as it sucks you in with his beautiful music.
Kerry Washington and Regina King play the main women in Ray's life, one his long-suffering wife and the other his longtime mistress. Both actresses match Foxx stride for stride. What takes him to a different level, though, is his deep understanding and uncanny impersonation of the great musician. The entire cast is effective, especially Sharon Warren as his headstrong mother and Curtis Armstrong as a music exec. Hackford's stars are likely to be rewarded with trophies and---better yet---more starring roles.
I was not a Ray Charles aficionado before 'Ray'. Apparently, the film has left out a lot (as do all biopics), but this picture functions as both an old-fashioned crowd pleaser AND a dark investigation of a brilliant/troubled man. For those who whine that Foxx doesn't actually sing (as if that somehow diminishes his performance), take a hike. No mere actor can sing like Mr. Charles anyway. You can't have everything. What the talented star does in this picture is about as close to \"everything\" as we'll probably see for a while.
\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\nFirst of all, it is sheer joy to hear the legend perform such wonderful and timeless music. This movie and soundtrack is a tour de force. Ray Charles is unique and amazing. I truly adored the film as it was inspiring and entertaining throughout.
Jamie Foxx has become one of the premiere actors in Hollywood as is clearly shown in Ray and he should get an Oscar for this role, it is unprecedented. In fact, everyone who worked on this film should receive accolades. I really liked Kerry Washington who played the exceptional wife...Ray Charles obviously married well. Regina King is a fine actress as well as the extraordinary Sharon Warren who plays a struggling young mother.
In all honesty, I'd say this whole project was providentially arranged. The entire cast was perfect, great screenplay and awesome settings...major props to the director Taylor Hackford and crew for doing such a splendid job in bringing the life of Ray Charles to the screen so flawlessly. This is my picture of the year, certainly one of the best biographical films ever made.
\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 years. I took me to a new time and place. It was as though I was right there with Ray through his many trials and triumphs. Jamie Foxx transformed himself into Ray. During the movie he was Ray. Also, Kerry Washington, Sharon Robinson and Regina King were superb. The movie was well cast and directed, the music was fantastic.
I've seen the movie four (4) times with different people and the last time was just as enjoyable as the first time. I will buy the DVD as soon as it is released. This is a movie that will viewed over and over for years to come.
Thank you for a great experience.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie has inspired me to be a better person. In life you don't know who you will run across and sometimes our prejudice will cause us to prejudge a person wrongly. I have learned to give a person the benefit of the doubt because of this movie. I also learned that tough love can build a stronger person. Now I want to know where to find the movie soundtrack. There are songs in this soundtrack I have been trying to get for years. May I comment on the acting for a second. Jamie Fox was outstanding. The man has risen to be the actor of actors. Also the performance of Regina King was awesome. If I can get a woman to look at me the way she looked at Ray...I can only dream. I plucked down $18.00 for this movie and I don't have a lot of money but I am willing to see this movie again and again. This movie touched me.
\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\nTaylor Hackford wanted to make this movie for 15 years, and finally found Jamie Foxx to play the title role. Foxx is amazing in his portrayal of Ray Charles. From an interview I saw with Foxx, he met Charles several times and the two of them also played piano together (Foxx had piano lessons as a young child and actually played piano in all his scenes). I didn't see Charles live until his later years, so it was great to get a perspective on how his career developed. I hope Foxx gets nominated for the Best Actor Oscar as he certainly deserves it. The music, also, is incredible - it really showcases the breadth of Charles' music, from country to blues, and everything in between. The movie also gives an unblemished account of Ray Charles' life, from the many women he had relationships with to his drug habit and the consequences of that.
\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 get the flaw out of the way right off the top - the movie should have been much longer. Ray Charles was a brilliant, fascinating man who lead a complex, challenging life. There was simply no way to fit it all - or even touch on it all - in a standard length movie. Given that, the makers of this film did an admirable (and I'm sure quite agonizing) job of putting together a film that could not tell the whole story yet managed to set forth a representative sampling of the man and his music. Ray Charles' strengths were evident throughout the film and his weaknesses were neither amplified nor sugar-coated. We could have wished for another hour chronicling his life after 1980, but I suppose that would have tended to turn the film into an homage and, while it would have also allowed for the resolution of several things that were left hanging at the end, on balance I guess it was better as presented.
Now for the big question: what are the criteria for an Oscar? The wife and I have seen untold numbers of films in our years, but we immediately agreed that we have never seen a performance the equal of Jamie Foxx's. The line between actor and character was not blurred - but rather it disappeared completely. We had heard much of the hype before seeing the movie, but this was uncanny. Foxx WAS Ray Charles. You didn't watch the movie with the feeling that you were watching Foxx do an outstanding job of portraying Ray Charles - you watched it somehow believing or understanding that you were watching Ray Charles himself. I don't know how else to put it. We were completely blown away. I'll admit that we haven't seen all of the other performances up for an Oscar this year, but that really doesn't matter. Foxx took this to a whole nuther level, one which we've never witnessed before and doubt that we may ever see again. I can think of no other movie I've ever seen in which a person playing a part so completely and convincingly became the person portrayed. We salute you, Mr. Foxx. We understand that the awarding of an Oscar has to do with much more than the performance, but whether or not you win, we want you to know that you have done something that is in a class absolutely by itself and you should take enormous pride in your unparalleled achievement.
P.S. The music was naturally great. I remarked to the wife that if there is one moment in the history of music to which I wish I could have been witness, it would have been the genesis (in Kansas City, wasn't it?) of What'd I Say? The film did a wonderful job with it - just wish I could've been there!
\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 year 2004 was the year of the biopic with no less than four pictures tackling real events, real people, with varying degrees of critical praise. Of the four pictures to make it to the race to the Oscars in early 2005 (KINSEY, THE AVIATOR, HOTEL RWANDA, and, RAY), RAY became the big winner of the night as the acting award went to Jamie Foxx for his portrayal of R & B genius Ray Charles.
And it was well-deserved despite that Leonardo diCaprio came close and Liam Neeson wasn't even nominated. What made Foxx the winner was that the other two were playing relatively obscure eccentrics, Ray Charles was still making music right up until his death in 2004 and by then there wasn't a soul who didn't know at least one song that Charles' had penned. It did help that Jamie Foxx rose well above the movie -- itself as a whole somewhat weak and often looking like it wouldn't be out of place as a TV biopic -- and his portrayal is detailed as it's ferocious. He has the delicate assignment which is to embody a person down to nuances, and once the crisis of Ray's addiction to heroin hits a head, Foxx pulls out all the stops and it isn't hard to imagine the real Ray actually going through such a painful ordeal.
The low point of the film is how it spends a little too much time in detailing Ray's relationship with women. Like THE AVIATOR, Taylor Hackford wishes to establish that Ray had this turbulent life, a product of his own demons and his entry into success at a time when being black and successful brought a huge amount of baggage. Of the women, the only one to succeed bringing real life is Sharen Warren as Ray's mother. Hers is a difficult role since she is alone on screen with the child actor playing young Ray but her facial and body language is gut-wrenching, especially at the moment she must relinquish her maternity to have Ray find his way around the house. Such intensity of emotion, to stand there and watch your blind son crawl across a room and having to force him to have this rude awakening into independence. A beautiful performance, and one which should have been acknowledged.
A fantastic counterpoint to RAY is the featured music. Anyone who knows R & B will enjoy the early recordings of Ray's radio hits as much as his later ones which would bring him to the forefront of popular music, and Jamie Foxx virtually steals the show as he performs the songs as Ray. That alone will live on even when the movie in itself is little more than a stiff biopic. I would have, though, loved it if they would have used his last Adult Contemporary hit from 1993, \"Sing my Song for You\" in the closing credits. After all, it is Ray Charles, a performer who had a fierce dedication to his art.
\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\nJamie Foxx does a fine job of impersonating the famous blues/soul/country singer Ray Charles. To the film's credit, it shows both the good and the bad regarding Charles' character and the choices he made, both personally and professionally.
This is a slick-looking film that provides you with a rich feel of the periods in which the story takes place. Not only does it look good, it sounds good. I only wish there was more music in here. When it's inserted, it's fabulous but there isn't enough of it.
Assuming, at least for review purposes, that the story was true, I was impressed and disappointed with Charles, meaning the story left some memorable impressions since I'm writing this 16 months after viewing it. Main impressions include:
GOOD - Re-living Ray's immense talent and his foresight to step out and take chances musically, such as going \"country\" for awhile. The man had supreme confidence in himself but didn't come across as arrogant about it. Also memorable was showing him beating his heroin addiction - with no help! That's just amazing.
BAD - I also remember through this film how easily hooked Ray got in the first place and disappointed he was so unfaithful to his wife. A really sad comment was that his wife was more upset with him for missing his kid's Little League games than she was for all the cheating he was doing on her, even fathering a child with a member of his singing group.
The only negative I had with the filmmakers was the overemphasis of his problems being blamed on one early childhood event, the accidental death of his brother. That tragedy was used as cop-out for all Ray's misdoings as an adult, which is another example of a culture in which people refuse to take responsibility for their actions.
Note: There is an extended version with the DVD but word has it that it is so poorly edited that it's not worth watching, so stick with the \"theatrical version.\"
\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\nJamie Foxx leads a brilliant cast in this powerful voyage through the life of the blind, emotionally troubled, African American genius of pop jazz, Mr. Ray Charles. Though the entire cast performs wonderfully, Mr. Foxx earned more than simply an Oscar. If it were possible to nominate an actor in consecutive years, I would consider doing so for Mr. Foxx. Foxx doesn't just play Charles, he re-creates him. CJ Sanders and Sharon Warren also deserve special mention for their portrayal of Ray's mother (the inspiration of his life) and young Ray. These two provided the strongest support in the film.
The dramas of Charles' struggles with guilt, the death of his younger brother and mother, blindness, discrimination, addiction, and success, are neatly woven into the tapestries of his music. The music is beautiful, the script is, as far as I can tell, perfect, and the acting is nothing short of legendary.
The directorial method of the film warrants discussion. Taylor Hackford - a director I am generally ambivalent about - had to choose what aspects of the larger-than-life and complex life story of Mr. Charles would tell his story most honestly, dramatically, and understandably. Though some disagree (seemingly wanting a documentary instead of a dramatized biopic) I believe he selected his themes admirably. A big part of the success of this film is its consistent focus on a few persistent themes in Charles' life - his profound love and respect for his mother, his need to be loved and accepted, his addiction and guilt complex, his musical genius, and his deep-seated fear of responsibility for others. Charles is depicted as a man struggling valiantly against an army of personal demons. I learned more than I could have imagined about one of the men I used to listen to on my old turntable with my dad in his livingroom on Sunday nights while football games were on the TV. And nothing was sugar-coated in \"Ray.\" The themes are carried forward with power and human dignity. These themes create a unifying drama which span the length of his long and illuminated life. The power of these themes, the strong script and directing, the music, and the acting make this one of the most enjoyable and evocative biographical films I have seen.
Recommended for everyone.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"