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\nWe really don't know where to begin when talking about this movie. But we'll start with the plot. We sincerely suspect that whomever wrote/produced/directed this movie never read the book. Because they missed the entire point. SATIRICAL, not horror. Just a hint. Second, the bath scene. Enough said. Third, the added characters. The sketchy Gothic french lady and her black page who enjoys holding hands and cartwheeling. We don't understand where this came from either. And then there was the casting. All of them were really unlikeable. We were very upset that Catherine and Mr. Tilney ended up together, because they were so unlikable that no one would ever wish to see them happy. And...the music. We think that the BBC producers ran out of money, so raided their grandmother's attic. And they found some old records. Saxophone, wailing female voices, and an occasional electric guitar. *shudder*
Plus, the best line ever: \"Since you left, the white rose bush has died of grief.\" If anybody has any explanation, we would love to hear it. Because it makes absolutely no sense.
We are still wondering what on earth everyone involved was thinking when they cruelly released this pathetic excuse of a movie out on the public. We think it should be considered a federal offense. Torture is illegal.
This movie is by far the worst we have seen to date. And I've seen a lot of movies.
Our recommendation: Give this movie to whomever you hate. They will watch it, and want to kill themselves. And we agree with a previous post, we would give this 0 stars, if at all possible. DO NOT WATCH!! And we strongly suspect that everyone who commented so far in favor of this movie were involved in its production. Or were mentally insane. These are the only reasons we have been able to come up with that would instigate giving a favorable review.
\n
assistant\n0
\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 some terrible book-to-film adaptations in my day, but this one tops them all! The bizarrely unattractive cast detracts from the story, which is, in itself, untrue to the book. Mr. Tilney is nothing like handsome; as for Catherine Morland, a rat-like appearance makes this heroine a difficult one to sell to a sympathetic audience. Isabella is nothing like the Aphrodite one reads about in the original text, and James Morland appears in the film far too little to leave the viewer with any understanding of his important role in the story. Also, as others have pointed out before, this novel was intended to satirize the Gothic craze prevalent in Austen's time, but it appears that this \"soft horror\" film was designed and meant to be taken seriously. I'm sure Jane Austen turns over in her grave each time one of her fans is disappointed by this awful interpretation of what was supposed to be a joke.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAwful, dreadful, terrible. The actors are bad, the music is ridiculous and the filming pathetic. I rented the DVD and had to force myself to watch it until the end.
My advice: read the book, it is much better and you won't have to put up with all these silly images and ridiculous dreams Catherine has.
I think I have never watched such a bad movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNow and again, a film comes around purely by accident that makes you doubt your sanity. We just finished studying the novel, \"Northanger Abbey\", at school and decided to refresh our memory of this unexciting piece of humourless garbage with the BBC adaptation.
The funny thing about Northanger Abbey is that it actually makes you want to kill yourself. The film is NOTHING like the book, for example, the subtly evil characters seem to have been turned into transparent stereotypes. John Thorpe looks like a leprechaun on acid while Isabella plays the role of slut. Catherine, the main character, is the most depressingly stupid and irritating actress on god's earth (she looks like a coffee addict, her eyes are like basketballs) whilst Mr Tilney looks and acts like a retired porno stunt double. The plot goes completely off the rails at certain points of the film, I don't know what the hell the director was thinking when for no reason at all, a 7 year old black kid who we've never met before takes the main character out of the abbey and starts cartwheeling in front of her. Yes, that's right, cartwheeling. Nonsense of this kind is occasionally interrupted by Catherines \"fantasies\" in which she is being carried around a cathedral by an ogre.
Northanger Abbey is basically visual euthanasia so if you want to murder your boss or something like that, BBC have basically discovered a new way to kill someone. Northanger is a barely laughably bad film. Don't watch it unless you're in a padded cell.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched \"Fuckland\" a long time ago. I lied if I'd tell that I remember it in detail; what I remember most vividly is the irritation it provoked me and the feeling of a total waste of precious money and time, not only my time and money invested in watching the movie but also the director's.
Supposedly, \"Fuckland\" is a critic of Argentinians, presenting us (I'm an Argentinian too) as little people who take credit for and even boast about petty, ridiculous victories, and think we're the best thing that God (who is also an Argentinian) created. I'm not going to argue that. It's probably a true statement about a quite big part of the population (the part I despise, by the way). And even if this weren't true, that's not my point. The worst sin \"Fuckland\" committed was to express such a statement about its own director.
The continuous impression I received was that the director was too busy trying to impress us for sneaking a camera inside the islands to worry about making a good (even a mediocre) movie. Many of the takes made with a hidden camera are pointless. The director chooses to show off with a silly edition of old war takes and his own ones. And there's no plot at all.
Moreover, this movie proudly presents a Dogme certificate before the opening titles, only to disrespect its principles afterwards (for example, by including the director in the credits - another sign of his pride?).
I found the movie offensive, not as an Argentinian, but as a watcher. I felt underestimated. \"Fuckland\" is simply one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI will confess that once I started watching this movie, it had a hold on me that forced me to watch it through to its conclusion. Quite possibly this was some latent voyeuristic tendency in me that wanted to see our hero get it on with his victim, or maybe fascination that they got funding to make, distribute, and show this film that kept me searching it for merit, or possibly some bizarre wish-fulfillment fantasy that there might be a point at the end of all the pain. But no such luck.
So you are warned to not start watching it in the first place, lest the same thing happen to you. There's nothing here worth wasting your hour and a half on.
The first-person mockumentary and the schtick about Fabian's \"quest\" to impregnate women of the Falklands comes out even more like a sophomoric (maybe Freshman - high school Freshman, that is) film student project than you might imagine. The effect ends up being both sneering at the local inhabitants (who, other than the two professional leads, are in fact real people) as well as engaging in rather disgusting sexual politics (no matter whether you take it all literally or symbolically, it's pointless and sexist).
The reason I ended up watching it all the way is the same reason that once one starts to pick at a scab, there's an irresistable fascination of continuing to do so until it's completely off, even when you know it's bad for you. You just want to see what happens.
In the end, this is rather dishonest filmmaking, because it seems ultimately to have no moral center, no elucidation of the local political situation, nor any place in the type of political-sexual-personal film universe a la Goddard. In short it's got nothing to say and spends a long time pretending it does. Smug would be the one-word tagline.
I'd suggest the filmmakers rent 'Waiting for Guffman' a few times, or hell, even 'Blair Witch Project' if they want to pursue the schtick with a little more style and a little more genuine emotion. Or at least entertainment value.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe preposterous premise of this flick has to do with Argentina reclaiming the Falkland Islands, having failed through force in 1982, by impregnating the European women inhabitants with Argentinean sperm thereby diluting the ethnic purity until it favored Argentina. Yeah, right. The reconnaissance is done by our hero/villan and cad, Fabian, who hauls his fish-eye camcorder from pillar to post secretly filming his encounters with the Falklanders including his courting and eventual conquest of one woman, Camilla. An unfortunate indie and fraudulent documentary, this flick favors us with lots of boring tourism shot from the hip....yada, yada, yada. The film has no plot potential and only begins to become interesting as Fabian and Camilla wend their way through the usual moments of awkwardness and uncertainty as they get from the handshake to the bed. \"F*ckland\" is only for those cinema purists who can appreciate the bleak, no frills, jigglecam austerity of Dogme indies.
\n
assistant\n0
\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 absolutely horrid excuse for a show. People say its witty and intelligence? I don't see how? Maybe because the characters use fancy words? Maybe because they are snooty, use dry humor, and have 2 dimensional personalities. I went to an Ivy league school and nobody acted anywhere near as obnoxious as these characters. In fact had I met someone like them I would have likely strangled them! The men act like little emotional pre-teen girls and all the minority characters are based off stereotypes... The characters are no AT ALL AUTHENTIC. Simply put they sound like a trailer park family trying to be rich and sophisticated. This show is just another cookie-cutter hit that brain-dead prime time viewers eat up on a regular basis.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nUsually when I don't see a show on an original run, I find it later on cable and realize it's a gem. The \"Gimore Girls\" is one of those rare exceptions. I'm glad I missed it.
I truly despise shows that fill every minute of the actors space with rambling, stupid, boring banter. This is one hour of just that. The mother, Lorelei, made me wonder if she is Bipolar and off her lithium. She never stopped talking; every minute, every second, talking to every person she interacted with. Worse yet, her speech is childish and soooo, like, Valley Girl. She talked about guys, her hair, her mother, her clothes. Like, what's the sitch?? (for situation). I've watched this show three times and still don't get the point of this series. It's not a comedy, it's not a drama, it has no point except to make three generations of females in one family look like the \"Girls\" from Planet Mars. The males by comparison are smart and make the show somewhat watchable. If Lorelei ever existed and attempted to latch onto me with conversation, I'd have to mace her to get rid of her. She obviously doesn't know how to take a subtle hint to stop talking and start listening to someone else. She also doesn't know how to really notice the existence of others.
In one show Lorelei comes home from a date close to 10 pm. She got the date after pursuing a guy she met at an auction. She goes into her daughter's room where the daughter asks how it went. She dithers on about how boring the guy was. Her date somehow got a few words in edgewise. Lorelei complained about how the man didn't stop talking (choke). Hopefully the date learned how fortunate he was.
One other person here commented on how the mother acts like a teen and the daughter is the adult personality. Lorelei even dresses like her kid. This obviously 40-something mom dresses and looks like she hit the mall with her high school pals in tow.
I thought that this show should have been followed by \"Just Shoot Me,\" because that's exactly how I felt.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI tired on several attempts to sit down and watch this program \"Gilmore Girls\". It baffled me for I just couldn't put my finger on what this was about. Was this about a young woman having a baby young in life and never growing up? Was this about the daughter being more responsible than the mother? Was this about a rebellious rich girl and her non-rebellious daughter? What the heck is this show about? Finally, I just didn't care. The cast makes me want to scream. The writing is neither \"smart\" or \"intelligent\" it's syrupy and tedious.
So why did I watch? Because I heard SO many good things about this and I am not one to voice an opinion until I have watched. Knee-Jerk reactions are usually wrong, so I watched a few times. The first time I watched this, I saw the mother running around like she was 12 and the daughter acting like she was 40. Maybe that is what didn't attract me. I never liked any of the \"Freaky Friday\" films - not to say this is like that, but there are some similarities.
Also I have a friend who watches this show every week. So I asked her, \"What is this show about?\" A very bright young lady, usually articulate she never could give me a straight answer. So I asked others who rave about it - they really don't know either.
Gilmore Girls is turning out to be a TV program that's like an \"art house movie\". Many of us wont get it, but those that go try desperately to find a meaning where there really isn't one, just to be \"hip.\" Yes, I find Lauren Graham's Lorelai annoying - whine, whine, nasally WHINE. A whole hour of that. Wow. And the rest of the cast is about as memorable as yesterday's cheese sandwich. The town is hokey, the men are wimps, the grand parents are boring, and sadly I find nothing redeeming about any of these characters or care about anything they do. It's like watching paint dry on the wall.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
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 watch this series, the impression I got was that the characters were charming and funny, Lorelai and Rory in particular were witty and intelligent conversationalist albeit a bit too talkative. After watching it for some time, however, my opinion changed.
The main characters slowly revealed themselves to be self-centered self-obsessed narcissists, who treated tiny wounds to their pride as the worst insults in their existence. For example, Rory wouldn't speak to her mother for months when Lorelai didn't consult her on her impulsive marriage, while Lorelai dumped Luke for simply wanting a little time to adjust to his new life circumstances. These people are shallow, see themselves as the center of the universe where everyone else should behave exactly according to how their own rigid rules, and if they don't, they will hold grudges against them for an eternity. They don't want to see other people's problems and treat the smallest slight as the gravest offence. Most of the characters appear to lack the ability to behave in a grown-up way. They think they should do whatever that they wanted and everyone else be damned.
The series is character-based, so when the main characters became so unlikeable the show also became impossible to watch. I still have the rest of the series, but I doubt if I will ever finish watching them. I will also hold anyone who think highly of the show and its awful characters with the greatest suspicion - they must just as horrid as Lorelai et al.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI decided to watch this show and give it a go but I found it to be boring, and more importantly dull.....Dull.
There is far too much sarcasm and the characters are all dull, there is far too much talking and the character Lorelai...just keeps talking on and on and on.... During a second glance felt like suffocating the characters, the banter doesn't work and the whole love and romance thing just ruins what is already a crap show....I can't believe this show survived past the pilot.... This seems to be a show which forces the 'Listen to your parents' line....No actual drama exists....
Should have stayed a pilot.....and a pilot alone...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's been mentioned by others the inane dialogue in this series and I agree.
If Mom and daughter were really that sharp-witted they should be Queen and Princess of the Universe, not kicking around in some little town.
I've really tried to watch a few episodes but when the witty staccato mumbling pop culture drivel starts I flip the channel.
I watched a bit of a new episode to see if anything had changed (for the better I'd hoped) but nope, same old \"we're so clever with our references to pop culture\" that I nearly barfed.
Long time fans who aren't happy with the newer seasons might just be wising up and getting sick of the regurgitated pablum that never stops.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nat first i thought 'nasaan ka man' might be one of those progressive new filipino films. as someone noted earlier, the movie does not look poorly made. it's clear that the directors used more expensive cameras to shoot, better angles, better sound equipment, good-looking actors, and nicer locations.
however, the improvements are all purely superficial. if it weren't for all the polish and expensive filters, 'nasaan ka man' would feel just like your typical, second-rate local movie - - hyperactive drama, predictable plot twists, \"yeah right!\" moments, crying, screaming, and characters you could care less about, all shoved down your throat.
a couple of things annoyed me about this movie. first of all, since when is it okay to have sex with adopted family? that not-blood-related argument does not make an ounce of difference. second, would a woman really not tell anyone for 40 years that she was raped, simply because the father told her to keep it secret? and, where the hell were the lights in this movie? i know the director tried to make things look super dramatic, but i was simply forced to turn up the brightness feature on my TV set.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDerek Jarman has shown us time and time again that dialog is not his strong suit. He is a painter, and paint he does. His films are almost always visually splendid, but about as exciting to watch as paint that is already dry. Watch his movies in fast forward, the really fast setting that you can only get on DVD. In The Tempest, Jarman does very little with the script or the characters, using them as simply a lattice to hang a very long and well-constructed cinematographic frame. He even goes so far as to contradict Shakespeare's original script to achieve these excrucriatingly slow and lifeless scenes. There is none of the romance, magic, trickery, or urgency the script calls for, little spontaneity, and the character of Caliban in particular is reduced to a quivering and insane idiot of sorts, similar to Gaveston in Jarman's Edward II. It is too bad that this is just about the only film version of The Tempest available.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was loaned this DVD by the director of a film I am working with, in which I play an actor who is playing Prospero. Knowing his own style, I did not expect anything resembling a \"classical\" interpretation of the text.
What I have found is sometimes striking, sometimes evocative, but often meandering and tedious. Like most experimental music, I find that in films such as this, the building blocks of powerful film-making are crafted, even if they have not found their most useful form in a more coherent format.
Thus we have a Caliban who is more a clown than a threat, and who not even Miranda seems terribly afraid of (which is odd, since we know that he has attempted to rape her at least once). A Stefano and Trinculo who are more annoying than funny. An oddly young Prospero who looks like Amadeus. And a great loss of character development and plot through creative editing and highly stylized posturing.
Interestingly enough, I do not have an issue with the way in which Ferdanand or Miranda are portrayed. His stunned rapture and her slightly freaky innocence are actually quite appropriate.
I do not say that this is a bad film, but an experimental one. One that takes huge risks, but is meant more for students of art and film and not really for anyone with an interest in the Tempest for its own sake.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was an interesting adaption of William Shakespeare's last known solo play but in my humble opinion, a terrible one. Jarman tries to change the personalities of the characters for a start. He makes Miranda seem insane after being stuck on the island for so long, Prospero is no different - a mix of madness and self-pity on his part. I could not imagine Shakespeare thinking his characters to be anything like the way Jarman portraits them.
Caliban's appearance is maybe the only thing he got right, but then again, I was under the impression that Caliban was a tormented, deformed monster but turns out to be an insane rambling, northerner who is constantly cackling, not as I would have imagined him. Ferdinand makes a brief appearance, naked most the time and quiet.
In fact, to the point I stopped watching this awful adaption, their had been so many lines cut from the play. If anything, I think Jarman was trying to re-write Shakespeare and include his own scenes most the time. So much text is cut out in the first part it makes it not a Shakespeare play, but a load of 70's melodramatic, preposterous rubbish.
An attempt to interpret this play more realistically in the end, but this play was never a realistic one and it was made nothing like the text displays it to be.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have read all of Shakespeare's plays, seen productions of a majority of them and even acted in and directed some. I do not necessarily believe that Shakespeare must be done in the \"traditional\" fashion, but I hated this movie.
There is nudity that is gratuitous and unnecessary. There is grotesqueness that is far beyond what I believe Shakespeare intended. Some of the dialogue is incomprehensible, and there are those elements, like the singing and dancing that add no meaning to the movie, but replace Shakespeare with the director's self-indulgences.
I am sorry to say that I wasted perfectly good money to buy the DVD of this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\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 was recommended to me by some academics. From their comments, I had some pretty lofty expectations. But this movie was nothing but disappointing. The aim of the director is obvious--to use an interweaving of speeches/poems as a way to argue against the Bush doctrine. But the director fails miserably at this. Also I seriously question the director's choice of main character. It's a bum who is definitely not worthy of being heard. The rise of corporation power, so what? Most importantly, this movie gets a failing score in its persuasive power; it's clearly intended for those who've already formed their opinions. It's true that the movie's aesthetics are quite pleasing. But pretty much everything else in the movie simply sucks.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDespite the fact that the plot follows the well-known recipe of \"who did it\", which has characterised all the Perry Mason movies so far, the characters of the present film are not so well-developed and the selected cast fails to give them flesh and blood. Of course, in general, the Perry Mason movies are not significant, but, even for their low standards, this one is weak.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOf all of the post-1985 Perry Mason movies I have seen, this one is my least favorite.
I confess I have never liked Diana Muldaur as an actress. She only seems to know how to play one type of character - a hard-bitten career woman with some undefined chip on her shoulder who for that reason is extremely difficult to in any way sympathize with. This one is no exception - it runs true to form.
The only thing that saves this movie, in my opinion, is an earnest performance by Scott Baio as the prosecutor - I actually found myself rooting for him to win, and the movie is worth seeing for him alone.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"People stranded in a country house during a storm discover that the home was the sight of an unsolved murder years before. During a dinner discussion of the incident, the lights go out and, when they come back on, they discover that one of the guests has been killed. Fearing for their lives, the guests attempt to find out the secrets behind the death before others can occur,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.
There are a couple of clever twists in this murder at the \"Old Dark House\" story, with the \"Play within a Play\" being its most interesting feature. However, the direction is rather ordinary, which serves to highlight a certain cheapness of production. Like most movies of this type, there is (or, should be) an ensemble of intriguing characters. Herein, only old-time Broadway producer Richard Carle (as Herman Wood) and his fey secretary Johnny Arthur (as Homer Erskine) maintain interest.
**** The Ghost Walks (12/1/34) Frank R. Strayer ~ Richard Carle, Johnny Arthur, John Miljan
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI find Herzog's documentary work to be very uneven. Fata Morgana, a companion piece of sorts to Lessons of Darkness, lacks not only the harrowing spectacle but mostly the discerning eye of an author. It is by comparison amateur looking, aimless pans left and right across the desert the kind of which you would expect from any German tourist equipped with a handycam, the camera left running from the window of a car picking up all kinds of meaningless images, wire fences, derelict buildings and patches of dirt going through the lens in haphazard order, intercut with shots of sand dunes. At one point Herzog encounters a group of starved cattle rotting away in the sand, yet the image is presented much like you and me would, perhaps worse, the camera peering hand-held from one cattle to the next. For a documentary that attempts to be a visual feast, a hypnotic, surreal excursion in uncharted landscapes, it lacks the visual orchestration and conviction of a disciplined author. It's all over the place, half-hearted and tedious, Mayan creation myths recited in voice-over, then some other text Herzog fancied for literature. It's not until near the end that Fata Morgana jumps alive through a series of bizarre encounters. First with a man and a woman playing music in a room, the man singing in a distorted voice through a mic, both of them apathetic in their task. A man holding up a turtle. A group of old people trying to get out of some holes in the ground. Other than that, this one seems to have very little of substance to offer or visual splendor to offer.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is not a movie. This is a collection of random shots taken in a fascinating part of the world, dubbed over with some random text. The footage is not that great and the text is not that great either. The end product is excruciatingly dull.
On the DVD, turning the commentary on can provide some entertainment value, as the director makes a rather deranged argument that this is a sci-fi movie. It's also fascinating to read about the extraordinary risks and hardship that the crew endured to collect this footage. Too bad it's rubbish. But I think \"The Making of Fata Morgana\" would be a fascinating film, sort-of like 'Ed Wood\" was.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nReleased at a time when Duvivier was going again from strength to strength .\"Black Jack\" which was sandwiched between the overlooked extraordinary \"Au Royaume des Cieux\" and the dazzling stunning \"Sous Le Ciel de Paris\" , is a jumble,which Duvivier himself hated,which is not surprising.There's almost nothing to write about this dud.We can notice that:
1.Orson Welles used to admire Duvivier .That may explain why Wellesian actors were featured in Duvivier's movies :Joseph Cotten in \"Lydia\" (1941) ,and here a totally wasted Agnes Moorehead .It's the first time
I have not enjoyed Moorehead's performance!On the other hand,Welles borrowed his Desdemona (Suzanne Cloutier) from Duvivier's \"Au Royaume des Cieux\" for his \"Othello\".
2.In any Duvivier's movie,there's one or two worthwhile sequences and this one is no exception: the search in the caves where Duvivier's sense of mystery works wonders (for a short while);then the chase when Dalio gets caught up in the fishnets.Duvivier's touch can be felt in the unhappy end too.
As for the rest ,as my dear pen pal writer's reign writes,it's a black joke.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOK so it's not great either, but only because of how great Laurel and Hardy have been in the past. If this film received a total overhaul, with picture quality enhanced, add new dubbing to the badly dubbed voices and added a nice unobtrusive background music then this film would truly start to take shape. As it is, it does have it's problems. People do slate it for how old the boys look. Quel surprise! they were in their 60's and had led a 'life'. However, to me, they still came across as having bucketfulls of charm, and while this doesn't even come close to tickling the feet of their classics( I gave it a 4), it's worth a watch simply because it's them. To think otherwise would be impostorous!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just watched Atoll K-Laurel and Hardy's last movie together and known here in the states as Utopia-on Internet Archive expecting to see some extra footage since the IA version had a running time of 2 hours and 21 minutes. Turns out that it's basically the same version I previously watched on the bargain basement VHS tape from Goodtimes Home Video that ran an hour and 23 minutes (with the exception of no product placement of the Welch's Grape Juice label being inserted when a bottle was shown) with the rest of the running time devoted to dark blank space. While Stan does look like he might be dying anytime soon, he still performs fine physical comedy with Ollie during much of the first 45 minutes or so. Then the plot of taking a yacht with a stowaway and a man with no country aboard-not to mention a charming female French singer also coming to inhabit an uncharted island they all end up on-takes over with eventual complications that pretty much bogs the comedy down and never really recovers despite the familiar ending of Ollie saying for the last time to Stan, \"Here's another nice mess you've gotten me into!\" before Stan cries uncontrollably before the fade out. In other words, if you're a die-hard Laurel and Hardy fan, this movie is recommended for you to see at least once. Anyone else wanting to get familiar with this classic comedy team should seek their earlier work they did for Hal Roach from the '20s up through 1940 when they completed their final Roach film, Saps at Sea. Come to think of it, even some of the L & H Fox flicks (have yet to see the two they made for M-G-M) from the '40s are better than this one...Update-8/29/09: Just watched some missing scenes that appeared in the Italian version on YouTube. Cherie sings in one and has a conversation with the Captain. In another, that Captain's wife pulls a gun on Cherie. In one more, Giovanni explains why he left his country with a flashback scene. Stan is dubbed in high pitch here!
\n
assistant\n0
\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 was difficult for me to watch. Stan looked very old and ill compared to what I remembered, and Ollie was heavier than I ever recall in another film. Most difficult though were gaps in the script/production where I found myself wondering, \"How did they get from here to there???\" It took nearly half the film before I could deal with the dubbing of non-American actors -- that was also a distraction.
Although I miss great actors such as Laurel and Hardy -- will there ever be great actors like those of the old studio era??? -- this film helps me understand why actors sometimes \"bow out\" in their prime.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen the movie begins, it's obvious just how old and sick the boys are. Although Oliver Hardy is enormous, it is Stanley that looks like death warmed over. Apparently, he was deathly ill during production and had obviously lost a lot of weight. Although he would eventually recover and live another decade and a half, here he looks like a dying man. Additionally, as I watched the film I was shocked how many pratfalls Stan took--I half expected his to drop dead from the exertion. I really can't understand WHY they came out of retirement considering their health--especially when the story and production values are as poor as they are with this film.
Stanley inherits an island and a boat. He and Ollie are ready to leave when Antoine, a stateless man, is literally dropped into their boat and they begin their voyage to find the island. Along the way, they discover that Giovanni has stowed away, but despite this the four men become friends and land on a different island. It seems like paradise and they are all very happy. A bit later, a pretty young lady joins them and everything looks grand.
Unfortunately, uranium is discovered on the island and the place becomes flooded with riffraff. Eventually, the mob decides to hang the four men and take over--at which point the island sinks back into the sea and the men are spared.
I will give the film some credit for being original and for being interesting. However, one thing it is not is FUNNY--and that is unforgivable for a Laurel and Hardy flick. While not a bad film, it certainly isn't a good one. A sad end to their brilliant careers.
All the actors, except for the duo, are dubbed into English, as the movie was made in France. While it may not be the very worst film they made (this would be THE BIG NOISE), it sure is close!! Watching this film is painful and like watching people clean up after a severe accident.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Atoll K\" aka \"Utopia\" is one of Hollywood's saddest swan songs. Filmed in France, \"The Land That Loves Lewis (Jerry)\" in 1950 and released the following year after a five-year layoff, the boys are in truly terrible shape physically. However, they aren't in nearly as bad a shape as the script.
This movie is one of the un-funniest \"comedies\" ever filmed.
It's painful to see this legendary team, the funniest duo in the history of motion pictures, the twosome that made \"The Devil's Brother\" (1933), \"The Music Box,\" (1932),\"Pack Up Your Troubles\" (also 1932), \"Babes In Toyland\" (1934), \"Bonnie Scotland\" (1935), \"Flying Deuces\" (1939) and so many more gut-wrenching, laugh-til-you-choke classic comedies, in a film such as this.
But fighters and ballplayers do it all the time. They stay in the game one season or one fight too many. In this case, while is morbidly fascinating to see Laurel & Hardy at this late stage in their legendary careers, they, too, stuck around for one too many.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst, let me start by saying that I am a Laurel and Hardy buff. I have read every book printed about them, and have seen all of their available films more than once. I even took a chance once, and called Stan on the telephone. He was very kind, and spoke with me for over ten minutes. I followed with a letter, and he wrote me a letter back. I still have that letter.
This film has some fine comedy moments, but Stan and Ollie are not up to their usual form. Stan was gravely ill during the production and looked worse than he did ten years later. In my opinion, any Laurel and Hardy film is worth seeing.
But the Ultimate opinion of this film comes from the great Stan Laurel himself. To quote him, \"This film should never have been made.\"
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI never want to see this movie again!
Not only is it dreadfully bad, but I can't stand seeing my hero Stan Laurel looking so old and sick.
Mostly I can't stand watching this terrible movie!
Frankly, there is no reason to watch this awful film. The plot is just plain stupid. The actors that surround Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are really really bad and Laurel and Hardy have been funnier in any of their earlier films!
I warn you don't watch it, the images will haunt you for a long while to come!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI could almost wish this movie had not been made. Stan Laurel was dying, and it shows in his face, even more angular and gaunt than usual. A poor script, and inept supporting cast.
\n
assistant\n0
\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 worst films i've ever seen, don't watch it even if your life depends on it.
This Laurel and Hardy film is when they inherit an island, become shipwrecked and are set to be hung. An incredibly boring film that is no where near funny.
This was the last Laurel and Hardy film and what a very low note to end such a superb career. The 40's films weren't great, this film was made in 1950. If you want to remember Laurel and Hardy, remember them in their prime, the 1930's. The short talking films are better than the feature length films, my favourite is \"Me and My Pal\". Another reason this film is awful is because it's dubbed. The actor opens there mouth and the words come out three days later. Absoulutley crap, but let's end on a high note, Laurel and Hardy have been, in my opinion, the best double act ever.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Riders of Destiny\" was the first of several westerns Wayne made for the Lone Star arm of Monogram Pictures between 1933 and 1935. In this entry, the producers try to make the Duke into a singing cowboy called \"Singin' Sandy Saunders with hilarious results. Any Wayne fan knows that the Duke couldn't have carried a tune if his life had depended on it. His voice was apparently dubbed by Smith Ballew whose deep baritone sounds nothing like Wayne. Wayne looks awkward and uncomfortable in \"performing\" the musical numbers. Thank heavens the singing cowboy experiment soon ended.
As for the movie itself, it contains a standard \"B\" western plot of the fight over water rights between the villain (Forrest Taylor) and the local ranchers. Duke, of course plays the hero. He had not yet developed his on screen character and still looked like a poverty row cowboy.
Also cast in the film were George (pre-Gabby) Hayes as the heroine's father, Cecilia Parker as the heroine and Yakima Canutt as \"one of the boys\" who performs his \"falling from the racing horses under the wagon\" stunt while doubling Wayne. Both Canutt and Hayes would go on to appear with Wayne in most of the other entries in the series. Canutt, in particular would have a profound effect on Wayne's future development teaching him, among other things, how to move, fight and look comfortable on a horse.
As \"B\" westerns go this one isn't too bad, however, I have to give it a failing grade because of the \"singing\".
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNot the best of the Lone Star series, but it moves along quickly with good performances.
Introduced as \"Singin' Sandy\" in the main title, John Wayne as a 'singing cowboy' isn't successful-- you never even see a front close-up of him while he's 'singing.' The actual singer is the director's son, Bill Bradley, who warbles away sounding like many popular singers of the day such as Hutch or Joseph Wagstaff.
The film features: Cecilia Parker (also seen in \"The Lost Jungle\" serial, \"Tombstone Canyon,\" and as older sister Marian in the Andy Hardy movies) doing her best Katherine Hepburn-- \"Really they mustn't; really I'm not\"; Al St. John, before he literally became \"Fuzzy\" filling all his available screen time with his characteristic business of hat flipping, head and chin scratching, grimacing, and gawky physical gestures and movements; George (pre-Gabby) Hayes as a gentle pipe smoking father; and Forrest Taylor, minor vet of 395 movies and TV shows, playing the oily villain with string bow tie and prop cigar.
Fun or odd moments: Yakima Canutt's great 'under the stagecoach' trick; the 'gay' scene when Singin' Sandy ties Bert and Elmer together face to face, drags them roped to his horse, and dumps them at Kincaid's office, where Kincaid says, \"You're a fine pair of lovebirds!\"; Denton's rapturous comment after an atrocious song and guitar playing performance by 'Sandy,' -- \"Ummm. I could listen to that all night!\"; Kincaid's reply, We won't go into that,\" after being told by a rancher \"You've got the soul of a snake!\"; and, of course, he utters the immortal, \"I've made Denton an offer he can't refuse.\"
The plot of the movie is saved by Sandy's tricking Kincaid, and later saying the three magic words in many of these films: \"I'm from Washington.\" FDR has saved us from the Depression! (Is that why the villains are always either bankers or in real estate?)
The shootout sequence is taken from the earlier Bradbury film \"Man from Hell's Edges\" (1932). All of the Lone Star westerns are special because of their unique mixture of interesting characters, the troupe of actors and stunt people, and the spin on the clichés and repetitive back stories and situations. This one ranks a little low, marred by the inappropriate and mis-used \"Singing Cowboy\" gimmick. I'll give it a 4.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm in a film class and i know that i don't know everything about film but truthfully this is one of the worst, stupidest, retarded and waste time, movies that i have ever seen and i saw NAPOLEAN DINAMITE. they are both equally terrible. Conrack is boring and nothing interesting even happens in the film its not really a heart warming story and Pat Conroy overcomes nothing! I'm not saying there should be fighting and crap blowing up but it would liven up this more than bland film. the kids they fond to act in this film may have been the real kids from yammacraux island they sounded stupid and couldn't act as as far as i am concerned this was a stupid idea for a book and an even worse idEa fOr a movie I don't know why this movie was even made, deviantly top five worst movies of all time.
\n
assistant\n0
\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 enjoy this genre but The Cell was one of the worst movies I've ever been unfortunate enough to watch. While about 25 percent of my audience wandered in and out of the theater during the viewing (or left entirely) I was dumb enough to stick it out. The main problems with this story (there were too many to list all) is that with this type of film you have to do two things... one, provide fear of the killer (being that they catch him twenty minutes into the film that's gone) and you must give the victim whose life is at stake (the girl in the tank) enough character development that you actually care whether they get to her in time or not. Not only did I lose track of the girl, I was given such little insight into her that she was only a blurry face and when I did remember she was part of the story I really didn't care what happened to her. While the visuals were interesting in an LSD flashback sort of way, they often times made no sense and this should be a lesson that visuals can't make up for lack of a good story (see Phantom Menace for another example) Finally, does anyone know or care what was up with the women kneeling in that field and staring at the sky? Ridiculous.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs I said the idea itself was great and it had plenty potential. I was truly sad of discovering that this was another typical American mass movie: \"We are in this for the money...\" If only the producers had had more time to actually MAKE the movie. This one was not finished when they let it out...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"