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\nSuch a masterpiece as the first of these two Snowy River films was, the sequel to The Man From Snowy River is everything that a follow-up should be. It does not tread on the toes of its predecessor, preferring to leave the legend that was the first film live on in some unique immortality.
The Man From Snowy River II is based upon the return of Jim Craig to the Snowy River country after a three year absence. The film subtly tells a tale of change in the nineteenth century, of Australian history, legend and horses. The storyline demonstrates a touch of Hollywood in lighter shades, an aspect that was absolutely absent in the first film, yet this blends uniquely with the a distinct sense of Australian patriotism. The plot is far more vibrant than the first film, and much more showy, with particular aspects of the previous incorporated into the film, yet The Man From Snowy River II possesses every essential characteristic of the first film; sensationally beautiful cinematography, a stunning focus of the Australian high country, the second most impressive footage of horses ever filmed, and a fantastic and deeply moving soundtrack by Bruce Rowland which equals the first in every way. Geoff Burrowes has done a superb job with this film, and it is highly worthy of recognition, especially with regard to the quality of the Australian Film Industry. The lead cast, from Tom Burlinson to Sigrid Thornton, and a well-replaced Brian Dennehy, carry off their parts with as much passion and distinction as the first film. As far as sequels can go, The Man From Snowy River II is a masterpiece; a deeply moving and inspirational experience yet 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\nThe Man from Snowy River II doesn't reinvent the wheel but is a crowd-pleasing beautiful film that hits some great notes.
For those fans wanting the elements that made the original Man From Snowy River film a hit, (breathtaking scenery, sweeping score, sweet romanticism and cracking action) this film really delivers. This story picks up a few years from the end of the first, Jim (Tom Burlinson) has been away gathering his fortune in a brood of stock horses. He returns to pick up where he left off with his pluckish well-bred sweetheart Jessica (played by Aussie divine lady Sigrid Thornton) who is still attempting to break out of her corseted upbringing on her feather's cattle station (Harrison is now played by American Brian Dennehy). The foil to Jim and character that shakes the plot is the well-to-do upper class snob Alistair Patton (Nicholas Eadie) who has his sights on Jessica. Add to the mix some social tension surrounding landholdings and the stallion with a bad attitude from the first film and that's the plot.
The best thing about this film is the acting. Tom Burlinson fits snugly into Jim's wide brim hat and laconic humour. Sigrid Thornton is a lovely heroine and the two manage some real chemistry on screen. Filling the solid shoes of Kirk Douglas was never going to be easy and Brian Dennehy stomps and shouts but never feels very authentic in this part.
The music is sweeping and lush and the cinematography could be a roll from a Victoria tourism reel. There are moment however that feel very self-indulgent, like the director wants just one more helicopter shot of the riders to show how gorgeous the landscape is without some personal human drama. A little more grit would have sufficed here, we are Aussie's, we can take it!! There are some very JAWSish moments with the stallion that defy belief. However the funny thing about this film is that in amongst some glaring clichés, there are some really inventive and touching scenes. Jim putting the saddle on the stallion (VERY Horse Whisperish before its time) Jim and Jessica setting up home, the fabulous scene where Jim shows up Alistair's riding with his trusty whip. I can see why this character is such an icon.
Altogether a very pleasing sequel. Here's hoping everyone involved wants to make another. the Man From Snowy River III: The CRAIGS. I'm sure we'd all love to see how Jim and Jessica are doing on their farm.
The Aussie DVD has a couple of extra scenes in it. Worthwhile if you are already a fan.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs a horse lover one can only appreciate this movie. There are few movies that show horsemanship as this one does. I would love to know if Brian does his own riding in the film. Would also like to know if he enjoys horses. Brian has been in a lot of movies where he has ridden. Where did he learn to ride? The only part that is hard for me to take is that the riding scenes are always full tilt, like a horse can run forever at full steam. The camera-work is first rate and captures the horses in a way that shows how dangerous things can be on top of a horse. It would be very interesting to know how they went about casting this movie to find all of the very good horseback riders.
\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\nBurlinson and Thornton give an outstanding performance in this movie, along with Dennehy. Although it is at first thought to be only about love, it really goes down deeper than that. The beauty of nature captures this movie, placing among one of the best I have ever seen. The horse scenes are absolutely fantastic!! Any horse-lovers out there will love this movie!

\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat can be said of the compelling performance of Tara Fitzgerald? She is utterly believable as the injured Mrs Graham, hardened by experience, sharp and strong-willed, yet not immune to the passionate attentions of Mr Markham. Through every mischievous glance and every flare of temper, every flicker of discernment in his eyes and telling facial expression, Toby Stephens is a master of his character. He is the force of passion and hope that will restore Helen's injured spirit. Graves' Huntingdon is a perfect performance of the unreformable rogue. Yet despite all he has done, there is an undeniable human dignity in his refusal to play the hypocrite at the end; he is at least aware of his own failings and how they have brought his ruin. Helen's attempt to save his soul-- after leaving him and taking their child at a time when this was unheard of--is a triumph of hope, hope and faith in the worth of every human life and soul, however misguided, however sinful that person may be. Markham's constancy may then be seen as her reward for her faith and unyielding moral character. Though the opinionated ideas of morality so strongly presented in Tenant seem outdated by today's standards, the story is imbued with integrity, passion, and conviction which still make an impact. Tenant is far more believable than Wuthering Heights or even Jane Eyre; here is an adaptation that does the novel justice. I highly recommend viewing it!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI first saw this mini-series a number of years ago on British television and was immediately captivated by the story. This rather surprised me as I am not a great fan of either 'Jane Eyre' or 'Wuthering Heights'; I consider the heroine of the former to be a self-righteous bore, and the latter piece of work as overblown claptrap.
'The Tenant of Wildfell Hall', like the aforementioned works, is also somewhat depressing in parts. However, the darker parts of the film were offset by the excitement of Helen's escape, the breathtakingly wild and beautiful landscape of Yorkshire, and the sexual magnetism of Toby Stephens.
This film successfully portrays the frustratingly restrictive lifestyle of all women of the time. At best they suffered from a form of minor domestic tyranny as portrayed by the treatment of the womenfolk in the Markham household. At the other end of the scale, there is the unfortunate Helen who is married to a wealthy man of high estate, but is exposed to brutality and humiliation alternating with long periods of neglect. She runs away and experiences a brief moment of freedom but, as a women of mystery living alone in a rural community, she inevitably becomes the subject of spiteful gossip and speculation.
Tara Fitzgerald is excellent as the long-suffering Helen Markham. Not only incredibly beautiful (in spite of that terribly unflattering hairstyle) with the most amazing cheekbones, she is also more than capable of playing the central role in the film. Tara is dignified and aloof while, at the same time, allowing us to see that Helen is still dangerously vulnerable. Rupert Graves IS the depraved, yet curiously attractive Arthur Huntingdon - after seeing him, I could never imagine another actor playing that part. Pam Ferris deserves special mention for her role as Gilbert's indulgent mother, as does the actress who played his sister Rose, and Simon Carter who is the uncharitable vicar with a taste for the Good Things in Life. Finally, I could watch this film for Toby Stephens alone; he is so good-looking,rugged, sexy, sensitive (but not in a nauseatingly sentimental way). I am not even sure if he is a good actor as my hormones prevent me from judging him objectively!
If there is a fault with the film it is the use of flashbacks which I felt both interfered with the flow of the story and made it slightly confusing. Other people, who have watched this film with me, also had problems with this, and I found I had to explain to them that certain scenes were in fact retrospective.
I am extremely grateful for the people responsible for making this film. Not only did I puchase the video (a rare occurrence), but it led me to buy Anne Bronte's superb novel. Naturally, this was better than the film, but only by a narrow margin. I recommend that anyone interested should watch the film and then read the book in that order.

\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\nAnne Brontes epic novel THE TENANT OF WILDFELL HALL should be studied and read throughout schools and libraries and peoples living rooms. Its a fantastic story and tells the \"real\" truth on alcoholism and ruined marriages and a mothers fight to keep her son away from her brutal husband. Its so alike todays stories that we see and hear and I believe people can learn a lot from reading this book. Based on possible true experiences that the author had back in the 1840s.
Do watch this film, its a great version of the book and very moving indeed. I'm sure Anne herself would have been happy with the way it was produced.
Excellent acting and great locations.
\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 loved this mini series. Tara Fitzgerald did an incredible job portraying Helen Graham, a beautiful young woman hiding, along with her young son, from a mysterious past. As an anglophile who loves romances... this movie was just my cup of tea and I would recommend it to anyone looking to escape for a few hours into the England of the 1800's. I also must mention that Toby Stephens who portrays the very magnetic Gilbert Markham is reason enough to watch this wonderful production.
\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\nSpoilers.....
I saw the original on TV sometime ago and remembered this production as less gripping than most Beeb costume drama. I rewatched on DVD this week and still have the same impression of it. It's a good story at first, but weakens when the heroine becomes oh so terribly brave and noble and returns to her utterly vile husband when he's ill and I got so totally irritated with her saintliness. I suppose this was the \"right thing to do\" when the story was written as well as contributing plenty of angst, and it was difficult for a woman to be independent of her husband as marriage made her no more than his possession, let alone to carry on scandalously with a lover as I expect a lot of the modern audience would have liked to see. But it's hard to take the santimoniousness nowadays and especially when this heroine had a strong, brave admirer ready to defend her against anyone and everyone. So re the story as in the film I'm equivocal. It's well done as per the novel, but somewhat irritating as per today's kind of life.
Steadfast hero Gilbert was certainly a saint to put up with his ladylove's variable and often cryptic behaviour and persistent self-denial and to be so consistently supportive. So I felt it a great shame that when Helen was at long last free to be with him, the script didn't allow him a bit more than about one minute to fall on each other for a quick hug before the titles came up. This was completely ridiculous when we'd been waiting all this time through all that dripping sentiment over the undeserving husband for a decent bit of dialogue and a good embrace between hero and heroine. Instead, the ending was as though the film makers had run out of time or finance or just couldn't be bothered. \"Here you are - one minute, do what you can in that, then cut as the director wants to go home now.....\" I was left feeling totally dissasatisfied.
However, very high commendations to the acting of Toby Stephens a perfect and very handsome hero, and Rupert Graves a superbly nasty and self-pitying villain. Tara Fitzgerald was satisfactory within the confines of the script that forced her to be a depressing and rather sanctimonious victim so much of the time.
That said, I love these classic dramas and virtually all of them are a sight better than much of the \"modern\" drama on TV these days. So 7 stars because in spite of the irritations it's still a good watch.
\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 only complaint I have about this adaptation is that it is sexed-up. Things that were only hinted at in the novel are shown on-screen for some weird reason. Did they think the audience would be too stupid to understand if they were not shown everything out-right? Other than that, this is very good-quality. All the actors do marvelous jobs bringing their characters to life. For the shallow women out there, it's worth watching at least because Toby Stephens as Gilbert is the sexiest thing ever. If I were Helen I would have conveniently forgotten I was still married the minute I laid eyes on him...
Sort of a spoiler- The ending scene is a funny reversal of what happened in the book.
\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 imagine Victorian literature slowly sinking into the mire of the increasingly distant past, pulled down by the weight of its under-skirts. Along comes television: at its best, it has a redemptive power, and with dramatisations like those the BBC produce so finely, Victorian literature gets a new stab at life. The religious themes, the moral overtones, may be increasingly ill at ease in a world no longer easily shocked, and acquainted with cohabitation, affairs and domestic violence. But those old, well-told stories have enduring power, and this is one's a hidden gem.
It's hard to gauge today just how forceful, feminist and extraordinary Ann Bronte's masterpiece, \"The Tenant of Wildfell Hall\", actually was. Emerging from the primeval slime of restrictive corsets  bodily, mental, societal  her heroine, Helen Huntingdon, escapes a miserable marriage, flees brutality and alcoholism, braves not only her abusive husband's fury, but society's pinched intolerance and malicious gossip, to wreak change in her life. She pays a price; but retains her self-respect; she falls in love along the way; she emerges battered but victorious, and strong. I just love watching women like these on screen.
The actors are superb  the best Brits have to offer. The love story is beautifully handled, with real passion and feeling by well-matched actors. Tara Fitzgerald inhabits every aspect of the complicated heroine, and as has been said here by other reviewers, no less sharply defined and beautiful a face could survive that petrifying hairstyle. Toby Stephens, striking sparks off her, contributes just the right combination of headstrong, handsome youth and passionate, yearning vulnerability. Rupert Graves (one of my favourite British actors ever) enjoys himself as the charismatic villain (so much so that you're almost with him at the end. No one's perfect). The supporting cast ably create a world into which you sink without feeling that coarse compromises have been made to modern tastes, and without having felt preached to. Another BBC classic, highly recommended: this is how romantic literature should be dramatised.
\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\nCONTAINS SPOILERS!
I saw an advert for this on a video.Then my sister discovered that we had the book so I read it.I rented the video on the same day I finished the book.I thought it was very memorable as was the book. The cast was brilliant.Tara Fitzgerald was excellent as Helen and Rupert Graves was hateful as Arthur.The costumes,music and settings are stunningly beautiful.
WARNING!DON`T READ ANY MORE IF YOU HAVEN`T WATCHED THIS
On the downside there are some sex scenes that have been added in and some violence.This is why the video is rated 15. There are some other things that have been thrown in.After the first part,I felt that the accuracy went downhill. While the book is better than this,I am glad I have seen it and would reccomend it to people who have read the book,are fans of Bronte or like costume dramas(I am all 3!)as long as you fastforward through the sex scenes. The book is rather underated.Anne Brontes books don`t seem to be that widely read or well known as Jane Erye or Wuthering Heights which have made it into television and film several times. Another thing.When I read the book ,I was surprised at how much religion ther was in it,but here they had axed that all out!
7\\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\nThe way the story is developed, keeps the audience wondering what is the tenant's dark past. We get some clues during the series, but enough to keep us interested in the mini-series. The characters are all believable and I personally felt immersed and surrounded by the story.
\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 loved it so much that I bought the DVD and the novel at the same time. The chemistry between the actors (including little Arthur) is amazing and thrilling.
It could have used a bit more screen time for the yummy Frederick Lawrence (played by James Purefoy). And Gilbert Markham was amazingly \"on it\" from the very start of the movie.
The one who most thrilled me via surprising shock and awe and wonder was Rupert Graves as Arthur Huntingdon. I adore him in Forsyte Saga, and all else I've seen him in. But he outdoes himself here as Arthur. In my wildest dreams I could not have pictured him playing a demented psycho such as Arthur Huntingdon. But he does. And I love it. And I love him.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter reading only two of the comments herein, as a lifelong Bronte fan, beginning with Olivier's Heathcliff and enduring with the many versions of Charlotte's \"Rochester,\" it is more than eye-opening to see that it is the UNsung Bronte sister who gave the lie to the male-chauvinist period the trio inhabited. Of course, the \"miracle\" in all three versions of 19th-Century British domesticity is that the \"girls\" were all \"spinsters\" and their only realistic brushes with \"men\" were their vicar father and their wastrel? brother. That said, finally, it is ANNE Bronte who has, in her single assay?, proved the \"feminist\" point, way way ahead of contemporary types, and including the \"voting franchise\" ranks. However, history evinces more than a few who preceded, including the Greek heterai and Sappho and the likes of an ancient emperor's Yang Kuei-fei. And how about \"Eve\" and her apple?
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis may not be one of the best movies ever made but overall it's a very enjoyable, light-hearted piece of froth in which everyone involved seems to be having a good time. Highly recommended for it's feel-good factor alone. OK, so Frank Sinatra's \"acting\" leaves a lot to be desired but his singing is a great redeeming feature and the songs fit in perfectly with the romantic atmosphere of the film. Sinatra went on to make many more films where his undoubted acting ability shone through but in this, his first venture into Hollywood, his voice, not his acting, is his main contribution to this movie. I've just watched it again on TV and it still lifts my mood as much as it did the first time I saw it many many years ago.
\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\nMel Torme and Victor Borge, in their younger years, serve to make this film interesting - and especially viewing a young Sinatra, on the sunny side of 30, and definitely conveying that this was his \"yes, I'm a popular singer, but hardly an actor yet\" stage. Michele Morgan is an annoying, inane presence, and Jack Haley is an actor whose appeal has always been totally lost on me. Leon Erroll is silly, as always, but overall pretty funny. 7 stars of a potential 10 is about the right \"grade,\" because with the combination of its positive aspects, along with the lack of much of a story, and a silly one at that, and the fore-mentioned annoyances - it is overall average at best. Most of the fascination is from the viewing of the three entertainment icons in their early years.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of my all-time favorites. Great music and some funny bits. I laugh every time at Millie, the maid pretending to be a débutante, holding her dainty hankie while chatting, and mindlessly polishing furniture with it as she chats. I just never can get past her French accent never being a problem as they try to pass her off as the boss's daughter.
Seeing a teenage Mel Torme and the very young Frank Sinatra singing is such a treat. My mom saw Frank Sinatra at a theater about the same time this movie came out. She said they couldn't clear the \"bobby-soxers\" out between movies (in those days you didn't have to leave between showings). This movie shows you how attractive and appealing the young Frank was and allows you to appreciate his early talent as well. And Victor Borge gets in a bit of his routine in, which is a bonus.
This is a fun movie with a sweet, simple storyline. Very enjoyable.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you have never viewed this film and like old time veteran actors, this is the film for you. Seeing Frank Sinatra when he was very young and extremely thin with sunken in cheeks and a wonderful voice which sang some great old songs. Michele Morgan, (Millie Pico) gave an outstanding performance with plenty of dance and musical numbers. Leon Errol, (Cyrus Drake) gave a great supporting role along with Victor Borge, (Sir Victor Fitzroy Victor) who performed classical piano and no slap stick comedy like he did in his career. This is not a great musical, but Frank Sinatra was a great joy to see at the beginning of his career in the 1940's.
\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 thought this movie was pretty good. Some parts were corny but that's understandable since it was made more than 55 years ago. I thought the best performance in the movie was given by Michele Morgan who played Millie convincingly. Jack Haley is also really good as Mike O'Brien. Even though I'm not a big Frank Sinatra fan, I think he was very good in this movie. If your have a craving for a silly, over the top musical comedy, Higher and Higher is the movie 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\nPaul & Grace Hartman are my husbands grandparents. They were both deceased when we met so watching old movies is a good way to see them and their work. I have always enjoyed old movies and was very happy to discover that this was also a very good one.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe original Vampires (1998) is one of my favorites. I was curious to see how a sequel would work considering they used none of the original characters. I was quite surprised at how this played out. As a rule, sequels are never as good as the original, with a few exceptions. Though this one was not a great movie, the writer did well in keeping the main themes & vampire lore from the first one in tact. Jon Bon Jovi was a drawback initially, but he proved to be a half-way decent Slayer. I doubt anyone could top James Wood's performance in the first one, though... unless you bring in Buffy!
All in all, this was a decent watch & I would watch it again.
I was left with two questions, though... what happened to Jack Crow & how did Derek Bliss come to be a slayer? Guess we'll just have to leave that to imagination.
\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 personal opinion is that this movie had no real story line to the first john carpenter's vampires but i don't care I LOVED IT. Jon Bon Jovi (Derek) was great in this movie. He really mad me believe that he was the person you would never think he was a famous ROCKSTAR. There were some bad things about this movie. Like the story line,there should have been more to the movie.there should have been a sequel to the movie that followed the movies story line and they should have kept the same main characters in all three vampires movies. i really liked the clothes that the people wore and the setting they pick in Mexico. i liked how it was old Mexico and not new Mexico. with the clay houses and the old fashion churches. i was a little confused with the vampires and how they were able to walk in churches but it was cool how they didn't follow Dracula vampire rules.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAt this point it seems almost unnecessary to state that Jon Bon Jovi delivers a firm, strong, seamless performance as Derek Bliss. His capability as an actor has been previously established by his critical acclaim garnered in other films (The Leading Man, No Looking Back). But, in case anyone is still wondering, yes, Jon Bon Jovi can act. He can act well and that's come to be expected of him. It's easy to separate Derek from the guy who belts out hits on VH-1.
I generally would not watch a horror movie. I've come to expect them to focus on sensationalistic gore rather than dialogue and plot. What pleased me most about this film was that there really was a viable plot being moved along. The gore is not so much as to become the focus of the film and does not have a disturbingly realistic quality of films with higher technical effects budgets. So, gore fans might be disappointed, but story fans will not.
Unlike an action film like U-571 where the dialogue takes a back seat to the bombast, we get a chance to know \"the good guys\" and actually care what happens to them. A few scenes are left unexplained (like Derek's hallucinations) but you get the feeling certain aspects were as they were to lay the foundation for a sequel. Unfortunately, with the lack of interest shown by Hollywood in this film, that sequel will never happen. These few instances are forgiveable knowing that Vampires could have been a continuing series.
Is this the best film I've ever seen in my life? No. Is it a good way to spend about two hours being entertained? Yes. It won't leave the person who fears horror movies with insomnia and it won't leave the horror movie lover completely disappointed either. If you're somewhere in between the horror genre loather and the horror genre lover, this film is for you. It reaches a happy medium with the effects and story balancing each other.

\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI admit that I am a vampire addict: I have seen so many vampire movies I have lost count and this one is definitely in the top ten. I was very impressed by the original John Carpenter's Vampires and when I descovered there was a sequel I went straight out and bought it. This movie does not obey quite the same rules as the first, and it is not quite so dark, but it is close enough and I felt that it built nicely on the original.
Jon Bon Jovi was very good as Derek Bliss: his performance was likeable and yet hard enough for the viewer to believe that he might actually be able to survive in the world in which he lives. One of my favourite parts was just after he meets Zoey and wanders into the bathroom of the diner to check to see if she is more than she seems. His comments are beautifully irreverant and yet emminently practical which contrast well with the rest of the scene as it unfolds.
The other cast members were also well chosen and they knitted nicely to produce an entertaining and original film. It is not simply a rehash of the first movie and it has grown in a similar way to the way Fright Night II grew out of Fright Night. There are different elements which make it a fresh movie with a similar theme.
If you like vampire movies I would recommend this one. If you prefer your films less bloody then choose something else.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe main problem of the first \"Vampires\" movie is that none of the characters were sympathetic. Carpenter learned from his mistake and this time used a likable vampire hunter and a charismatic vampire. The female vampire Una certainly is the coolest vampire since Blade's Deacon Frost. Unfortunately while there are some good concepts like a cool slow motion restaurant scene (why didn't Carpenter use more of this??) this movie is nowhere near as good as it could have been. I expected to see strong vampires in action and at least one longer lasting nicely choreographed fight sequence (for example inside a city) and was left somewhat disappointed. While \"Los Muertos\" proceeds at a faster pace than its predecessor, it still drags a little in some parts (though nowhere near as bad as \"Vampires\" did). Much like \"Vampires\" however this movie's climax near the end is not very intense.
Most of the above may sound like \"Los Muertos\" is a bad movie but it definitely isn't. It is generally enjoyable and ranks among the better entries to the genre. It is neither an unoriginal Dracula remake (like almost every other vampire movie out there) nor is it an unintelligent action spectacle like Blade II. It simply could have used a bit more excitement.
I'd really like to see a third installment made by Carpenter but it's probably not going to happen.
SPOILER WARNING The ending was way too predictable. Una should have gotten away- that would have made the movie quite unusual.
\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\nTo a certain extent, I actually liked this film better than the original VAMPIRES. I found that movie to be quite misogynistic. As a woman and a horror fan, I'm used to the fact that women in peril are a staple of the genre. But they just slap Sheryl Lee around way too much. In this movie, Natasha Wagner is a more fully-realized character, and the main bad guy is a gal! Arly Jover (who played a sidekick vamp in BLADE) is very otherworldly and deadly. Jon Bon Jovi... okay, yeah, no great actor, but he does OK. At least he doesn't start to sing. Catch it on cable if you can. It's on Encore Action this month.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was lucky to see \"Oliver!\" in 1968 on a big cinema screen in Boston when I was a young teenager. Later, during the summer of 1969, I was pleased to see this film was still playing at a prominent cinema in Leicester Square, London, after it had won the Academy Award for Best Picture of the previous year.
Th success of \"Oliver!\" on both the stage and screen reminded me that not all talent begins on Broadway and ends in Hollywood. This legendary story by Charles Dickens, which is part of the literary heritage of all English-speaking people, was admirably brought to the London stage by Lionel Bart of Great Britain. His charming musical then became a hit in New York and throughout the world. The film adaptation was made in England during the summer of 1967 and then released in 1968. The sets and musical numbers are mind boggling. The song \"Who Will Buy?\" required hundreds of actors and the British film director truly deserved his Oscar for putting it all together in a seamless manner. Some Canadian and American talent is also part of this wonderful production, but mostly it is a tribute to the fine craftsmanship of the British film studios, such as Shepperton. Good show! Other film studios at Elstree, Boreham Wood, Bray, Denham, and Ealing have also given the world many films to treasure over the years.
\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 took part in a little mini production of this when I was a bout 8 at school and my mum bought the video for me. I've loved it ever since!! When I was younger, it was the songs and spectacular dance sequences that I enjoyed but since I've watched it when I got older, I appreciate more the fantastic acting and character portrayal. Oliver Reed and Ron Moody were brilliant. I can't imagine anyone else playing Bill Sykes or Fagin. Shani Wallis' Nancy if the best character for me. She put up with so much for those boys, I think she's such a strong character and her final scene when... Well, you know... Always makes me cry! Best musical in my opinion of all time. It's lasted all this time, it will live on for many more years to come! 11/10!!
\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\nOliver! the musical is a favorite of mine. The music, the characters, the story. It all just seems perfect. In this rendition of the timeless classic novel turned stage musical, director Carol Reed brings the Broadway hit to life on the movie screen.
The transition from musical to movie musical is not an easy one. You have to have the right voices, the right set, the right script, and the right play. All signs point to yes for this play. It almost appears that it was written for the screen!
Our story takes place in jolly old England where a boy named Oliver manages to work his way out of the orphanage. He winds his way through the country to London where he meets up with a group of juvenile delinquents, headed by Dodger, the smart talking, quick handed pick-pocket. The leader of this gang is named Fagin, an older fellow who sells all the stolen goods.
But all is not well in London town when Bill Sykes played by Oliver Reed and his loving girlfriend Nancy get tangled up with Oliver, Fagin and his young troops, and the law. What ensues is a marvelous tale of love, affection, and great musical numbers.
Whether or not you like musicals or not, one listen to these tunes and you will be humming them all day long. Oliver! is a triumph on and off the stage and is a timeless work of 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\nIn Cinema Retro magazine #2,it is revealed that Mark Lester's voice was actually dubbed by a 20 year old female, Kathe Green. Although Leste was considered perfect for the title role, director Carol Reed was not at all pleased with his singing abilities. The secret was revealed by on a 2004 UK documentary titled \"Oliver! After They Were Famous\". Greene was paid 400 pounds for her work and she had to agree to keep her participation secret, as did Mark Lester. They kept their word and only revealed this fact as part of the TV show decades after release of the film. For the record, Mark Lester retired from acting and is a practicing osteopath in England.
\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\nSimply put, Oliver! is one of the greatest musicals of all time. It is filled with memorable songs - \"Food Glorious Food\", \"Oliver!\", \"Consider Yourself\" and \"Oom-Pah-Pah\" to name just a few - and equally memorable characters.
The film is a musical adaptation of Charles Dickens' classic novel and much like the story of Oliver Twist itself, it is a perfect family film. There are some frightening moments - the villain Bill Sykes played by Oliver Reed is scary enough on his own - but overall, the film will appeal to children of all ages as well as adults.
The story - which almost everyone is surely familiar with by now - revolves around a little orphan boy named Oliver and his life growing up in London. At first he lives in the workhouse with the rest of his fellow orphans but after daring to question Mr. Bumble, the overseer, he is sold to a family as a servant.
After a series of mishaps and close shaves, he meets the Artful Dodger - superbly played by a young Jack Wild, who gives his all in the role - and through him, the greedy Fagin (Ron Moody), who trains young boys to pick pocket treasures which he keeps for himself.
The film was shot solely in studios and on soundstages at Shepperton Film Studios but this does not translate at all to film. The sets perfectly replicate Victorian London, as do the costumes worn by the characters. A multi-Oscar winner and a massive success on its release, Oliver! is a worthy contender for the best musical all of time and will delight anyone who loves film.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just saw this recently, after an interval of nearly forty years. It holds up well, especially Lionel Bart's outstanding songs. (\"Who Will Buy\" with it's magical counterpoint, just one of many standouts.)
I disagree with the other post that decried its G rating. The ratings system, brand new at the time, never intended the G (General) rating to mean \"completely devoid of conflict\".
Characterizing it as unsuitable for kids reminds me of the description I once saw of The Wizard of Oz: A girl arrives in a strange land and kills the first person she encounters. She then goes on a road trip with three male companions and kills 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\nThis is a musical adaptation of Dicken's \"Oliver Twist\". For the most part, the original story has been maintained, though for the flow of the film certain subplots (such as the summer he spent recuperating and the half-brother) are omitted. The biggest difference in the film and the story is that by the end of the book, Fagin is hanged--an ending very different from this musical film.
This is a one of a kind musical--one whose style and scope really hasn't been matched before or since. Not only are the songs often quite singable and memorable, but the choreography of the film is a sight to behold. Whereas in most musicals a few people or perhaps even a small group are choreographed dancing, here the numbers often run into the hundreds or perhaps more. It's truly a sight to see and I was fortunate enough to have seen it in the theater when it debuted and is one of my earliest childhood memories. Having just seen it again a few moments ago, I would have to say that the film only got better over time. Great sets, wonderful acting and singing--this is a special treat that is hard not to love.
By the way, when I saw the film again tonight, I was surprised by just how high and feminine Mark Lester's singing was for the film. Well, according to IMDb, his singing was dubbed by a girl and this would definitely account for his voice.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ni'm really getting old,,am in the midst of watching this 40 year old flick,and wonder what my grandchildren will be watching 40 years from now,,its an old saying,,but they don't make em like that anymore..it's not only the story,its the music,the acting both by young and old..the cast ,it would seem,were born to play their roles,,young oliver,,old Fagin..too many to mention them all,the role played by the judge oliver stands before,i've seen in other roles over the years..the artful dodger,,Ron moody as Fagin,,Mr and Mrs bumble,,the movie not only won 5 Oscars,,but took a few golden globe awards too..if you decide to see this film..do yourself a favor,,take a few if not all the children,to see this masterpiece
\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, as unbelievable as it may be, in 1968 a musical won the Academy Award for best picture - and it was the third musical to win that award in a five-year period, the first being My Fair Lady in 1964 and then The Sound of Music in 1965. The difference between My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music and Oliver! however is that Oliver! is immeasurably better! No comparison. The first two movies are insipid wet noodles compared to the remarkably robust Oliver!. The acting is great; the songs are great; the story is great and the dancing is great. This movie is dynamic, topical, relevant to the human experience and unlike the overblown Gangs of New York, Oliver! offers a portrayal of poverty in 19th century London, England that evokes sympathy without being condescending. Oliver Reed was a great actor and he proves it in Oliver! The other actors and actresses, especially Ron Moody and Shani Wallis, are equally wonderful and offer powerful portrayals of characters who evoke sympathy and warmth without being caricatures.
\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 great cinematic musicals were made between 1950 and 1970. This twenty year spell can be rightly labelled the “Golden Era” of the genre. There were musicals prior to that, and there have been musicals since… but the true classics seem invariably to have been made during that period. Singin’ In The Rain, An American In Paris, The Band Wagon, Seven Brides For Seven Brothers, Oklahoma, South Pacific, The King And I, and many more, stand tall as much cherished products of the age. Perhaps the last great musical of the “Golden Era” is Carol Reed’s 1968 “Oliver”. Freely adapted from Dickens’ novel, this vibrant musical is a film version of a successful stage production. It is a magnificent film, winner of six Oscars, including the Best Picture award.
Orphan Oliver Twist (Mark Lester) lives a miserable existence in a workhouse, his mother having died moments after giving birth to him. Following an incident one meal-time, he is booted out of the workhouse and ends up employed at a funeral parlour. But Oliver doesn’t settle particularly well into his new job, and escapes after a few troubled days. He makes the long journey to London where he hopes to seek his fortune. Oliver is taken under the wing of a child pickpocket called the Artful Dodger (Jack Wild) who in turn works for Fagin (Ron Moody), an elderly crook in charge of a gang of child-thieves. Despite the unlawful nature of the job, Oliver finds good friends among his new “family”. He also makes the acquaintance of Nancy (Shani Wallis), girlfriend of the cruellest and most feared thief of them all, the menacing Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed). After many adventures, Oliver discovers his true ancestry and finds that he is actually from a rich and well-to-do background. But his chances of being reunited with his real family are jeopardised when Bill Sikes forcibly exploits Oliver, making him an accomplice in some particularly risky and ambitious robberies.
“Oliver” is a brilliantly assembled film, consistently pleasing to the eye and excellently acted by its talented cast. Moody recreates his stage role with considerable verve, stealing the film from the youngsters with his energetic performance as Fagin. Lester and Wild do well too as the young pickpockets, while Wallis enthusiastically fleshes out the Nancy role and Reed generates genuine despicableness as Sikes. The musical numbers are staged with incredible precision and sense of spectacle – Onna White’s Oscar-winning choreography helps make the song-and-dance set pieces so memorable, but the lively performers and the skillful direction of Carol Reed also play their part. The unforgettable tunes include “Food Glorious Food”, “Consider Yourself”, “You’ve Got To Pick A Pocket Or Two”, “I’d Do Anything” and “Oom-Pah-Pah” – all immensely catchy songs, conveyed via very well put together sequences. The film is a thoroughly entertaining experience and never really loses momentum over its entire 153 minute duration. Sit back and enjoy!
\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 admit not being that fond of Oliver! as a young child--it's long, and the story is a little slow-moving because of all the musical numbers. As a teenager I discovered that the fun of this movie is the experience itself. Rather than thinking of it as an adaptation of Oliver Twist, think of it as a celebration of the classic story. The adaptation is loose at best, but really, if you're watching a musical, you ain't there for the story.
The music is the core of this movie, and an overwhelming majority of it is stellar and very catchy. Most or all of the cast was involved in the stage version of the musical, and it shows in their performances--and I consider this a plus. The performances are all in a more \"stagey\" style of acting typical of much older films, and they are very entertaining. The exception is the kid playing Oliver, whose job seemed to be to look cute and stay out of the real performers' way.
Fagin and the Dodger are the real stars of this movie. Oliver Reed also does a fantastic job maintaining an intimidating screen presence as the menacing Bill Sykes. Even Sykes' dog Bullseye puts on a good performance.
This movie isn't for everyone. People who hate musicals will despise it, as will those who take musicals too seriously. Nitpicking over faulty historical details or mistaking exaggerated stage-type acting for bad acting will ruin anyone's enjoyment. Just sit back and enjoy the entertainment--it's much better if you remember that, as a musical, it's a fantasy loosely organized around the book, not a strict adaptation.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"