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\nThis film has nothing whatever to do with the Sphinx, and the title is just a come-on. The story concerns an imagined true and concealed tomb in the Valley of the Kings, of King Seti I, second pharaoh of the 19th Dynasty, New Kingdom period. It is not a bad yarn, and a great deal of the film is shot on location. Even the scenes in the Winter Palace Hotel lobby in Luxor were really shot there, and not in a studio. The second unit stuff is endless, and they must have been let loose on Egypt for weeks. Frank Langella is very good indeed as a sophisticated Egyptian. He should take it up as a sideline. The film is essentially ruined by one of the world's most irritating actresses, Lesley Anne Down, who plays the lead. She spends the whole film wondering how she looks, are her blue eyes refracting light at the correct angle, do all the fellas lust after her, etc. Having started life as a model at the age of ten, what hope could there be for her? She epitomises everything that is most revolting about female vanity and dim-witted inanity. And to think that this film was directed by Franklin Shaffner, who won an Oscar for 'Patton'! He allows this terrible actress to whimper and simper through the film, hysterical one moment, flirting the next, in a kind of hurricane of idiocy as she reels from one man to another, either screaming or making bedroom eyes, it matters not. She is supposed to be a young Egyptologist. But she has never been to Egypt before! She takes a taxi to Giza and catching her first glimpse of the pyramids, gushes in ecstasy: 'But they're so BIG!!!!' Barf! OK, so that was the script, but she takes to the banality too readily, giving the impression that it is her natural element, which I don't doubt for a minute. Elements of the story are sound. There is, indeed, a serious problem about a black market in antiquities there. True! Well done! The novel by Robin Cook, which I have not seen, may be OK for all I know. It was fun to see the name of Cyril Swern as sound recordist on the film, as I knew him pretty well long ago. Stanley Kubrick's step-daughter Katharina is described as 'draughtswoman'. I wonder what that means? Maybe she did some set work. Anyway, the antiquities in the film are pretty good, actually. And we get to see lots of the Cairo Museum and numerous scenic locations. They actually go inside King Tutankhamun's Tomb! I don't imagine that would be allowed today for a movie. A lot of inappropriate scenes take place in mosques. That would not go down well today, but in 1981 such things were not on the agenda. The music for the film is absolutely appalling, worse than Lesley Anne Down in fact! But there were sound track elements which were surprisingly authentic, one being the cacophony of traffic noise of Cairo, which is accurately rendered in the background, and would make anyone who knows Cairo chuckle nervously. Also, the loudspeaker calls to prayer are there the whole time, another touch of authenticity. Why didn't they get this right? It could have been good.
\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\nRather foolish attempt at a Hitchcock-type mystery-thriller, improbably exchanging espionage for archaeology and based on the Robin Cook novel; incidentally, I’ve recently acquired another adaptation of his work – COMA (1978) – in honor of the late Richard Widmark. For the record, director Schaffner had just made THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL (1978) – a similarly fanciful but much more engrossing suspenser and, unfortunately, SPHINX was a false step from which his so-far impressive career would not recover.
Despite its scope and reasonably decent cast, however, this one proved a critical and commercial flop – mainly because the narrative just isn’t very thrilling: in fact, it’s quite dreary (feeble attempts at horror – the archaeologist heroine having to put up with entombment, rotting corpses galore, and even an attack by a flurry of bats – notwithstanding). Lesley Anne-Down is the lovely leading lady, stumbling upon a lost treasure – it’s actually been hidden away by a local sect to prevent it from falling into the hands of foreigners, who have appropriated much of the country’s heritage (under the pretext of culture) for far too long. Sir John Gielgud turns up in a thankless bit early on as the antique dealer who puts Down on the way of the loot, and pays for this ‘act of treason’ with his life.
Typically, it transpires that some characters are the opposite of what they claim to be – so that apparent allies (such as Maurice Ronet) are eventually exposed as villains, while an ambiguous figure (Frank Langella, whom I saw at London in early 2007 in a West End performance of “Frost/Nixon”, which has now been turned into a film) goes from Down’s antagonist to her lover and back again, as he determines to keep the wealth belonging to Egyptian high priest Menephta a national treasure.
\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\nSome nice scenery, but the story itself--in which a self-proclaimed Egyptologist (Lesley-Anne Down) visits Egypt and, in the course of doing Egyptologist things in the most un-Egyptologistic of ways (e.g., flash photography in the tombs, the handling of old parchment, etc.), uncovers a black market turf war and somehow (in the span of two days, no less!) becomes that war's jumpsuit-wearing epicenter--is more puzzling than any riddle the Sphinx ever posed. Down is simply awful as the visiting British scholar (that she seems to know absolutely nothing about the culture of Egypt and even less about antiquities is the fault of the writers, certainly; but that she's annoying as all get out is her own fault entirely), and the rest of the cast, including Sir John Gielgud and Frank Langella, seem as downright confused by the proceedings as I was. In short, not what you'd expect from Schaffner (Planet of the Apes, Patton) and co.
Worth watching for a laughably dated scene in which Down rails against all male scholars, blaming them for her failure as an academic, while bathed under the softest light Hollywood could muster. To top it off, she spends the next hour of the film shrieking and harried and running into the arms of any dude she can find. Wow, talk about your performative irony!
*Note to would-be Egyptologists: take a year or two of Arabic in grad school. It'll really help out in the long run...
\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 Robin Cook novel \"Coma\" had already been turned into a pretty successful movie in 1978. A couple of years later it was the turn of another Robin Cook bestseller to get the big screen treatment , but in the case of \"Sphinx\" virtually everything that could go wrong does go wrong. This is a dreadful adventure flick consisting of wooden performances, stupid dialogue, unconvincing characters and leaden pacing. The only reason it escapes a 1-out-of-10 rating is that the Egyptian backdrop provides infinitely more fascination than the story itself. Hard to believe Franklin J. Schaffner (of \"Patton\" and \"Planet Of The Apes\") is the director behind this debacle.
Pretty Egyptologist Erica Baron (Lesley Anne-Down) is on a working vacation in Cairo when she stumbles across the shop of antiques dealer Abdu-Hamdi (John Gielgud). Hamdi befriends Erica and is impressed by her enthusiasm and knowledge. Consequently, he shows her a beautiful and incredibly rare statue of Pharoah Seti I that he is keeping secretly in his shop. The very existence of the statue arouses intense excitement in Erica, for it could provide vital clues in locating Seti I's long-lost tomb, a prize as great as the discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb in 1922. Before Hamdi can tell Erica any more he is brutally murdered in his shop, with Erica watching in silent terror as he meets his grisly end. Afraid yet tantalised by what she has seen, Erica attempts to track down the treasure. She finds herself helped and hindered in her quest by various other parties, none of whom are truly trustworthy. For one there is Yvon (Maurice Ronet), seemingly a friend but perhaps a man with sinister ulterior motives? Then there is Akmed Khazzan (Frank Langella), an Egyptian for whom Erica feels a certain attraction but who may also be hiding dangerous secrets from her.
The biggest problems with \"Sphinx\" generally result from its total disregard for plausibility. Down couldn't be less convincing as a female Egyptologist  one assumes she would be quite well-educated and resourceful, yet she spends the entire film screaming helplessly like some busty bimbo from a teen slasher flick. On those rare occasions that she actually isn't running from a potential villain, she does other brainless things such as taking Polaroid flash photos in a 4,000 year old tomb! The plot twists are heavy-handed to say the least, mainly comprising of revelations and double-crosses that can be predicted well in advance. One can't even try to enjoy the film on the level of dumb but entertaining action fare, because the pacing is awfully sluggish. What little action can be found is separated by long stretches of tedium. A famous review of the movie declared: \"Sphinx stinks!\" Never before has a 2-hour film been so aptly summed up in 2 words.
\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 this movie was released, it spawned one of the all-time great capsule movie reviews: Sphinx Stinks. It does, but in a mesmerizing sort of way. The casting is silly, starting at the top: Frank Langella and Sir John Gielgud as Egyptians? Not enough makeup in Cairo for that, at least not while this film was being made. But it's rather amusing to see them try. The performances run the gamut from mummy-like (sorry, the obvious observation) to over-the-top, with very few stops in between. The Lesley-Anne Down character seems as though she couldn't find Egypt on a map, much less expound upon its archaeological treasures. That's due at least in part to some really bad writing, one of the curses that will be visited upon every viewer of this movie. It's my opinion that movies involving a curse or that draw their basis from a subject that is somewhat esoteric, such as Egyptology, are ripe for silly, overwritten dialogue. It doesn't disappoint, and the convergence proves a double-whammy. The plot has one driving source of dramatic tension: Can this get dumber and less believable? The answer is, usually, YES. The location shots are beautiful, and the set design is generally very good, the only consistent reminders that this wasn't some low-budget production. That and the fact that there are so many well-known faces doing service in such an unintentional laugher. Cheap, no; cheesy, yes.
\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 most misogynistic movie of all time? Not to mention by '68 shouldn't they have moved beyond white people in brown face playing the \"Indians\"? My favorite parts though have to be when the girls giggle and blush as the bikers drag them off to gang rape them. Rape is fun! Who knew? Let's see, then there's the blatant rip-offs of \"The Hustler\" (fat boss character actually plays pool while scheming to destroy the Indians with the lead rebel dude), the horrific acting, the so-on-the-nose-they-might-as-well-have-just-told-you-what-to-think music cues, the lack of ANYONE WHO'S ACTUALLY Indian in this movie. And who are we supposed to be rooting for? I have to say it figures that Quentin Tarantino loves this movie. Even though his movies tend to champion strong women, I've heard from at least one source that in real life he's a misogynistic idiot. Why did I watch it, you ask? Don't ask.
\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 whole Biker Movie genre has to be made up of the worst films ever made. This one delivers a lot of fighting, generous amounts of blood, bikers fighting Indians, and a shanty town that gets blown up and torn down one shack at a time. The acting is beyond terrible. What ever happened to Robert Walker, Jr.? At one point he was in some major studio productions, and then he just faded away. This movie really blows, but if you have not seen a Biker movie in a long time, it is a good one to watch. At the end of the movie, you should feel a bit trashy for having watched it!
\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\nIrwin Allen was great. All of his TV shows had a great pilot, or first episode. the rest were basically rip offs of his other shows. A few episodes of Swiss Family Robinson were rip offs of his older TV shows. One episode of Swiss Family is identical to an episode of Land Of The Giants when a member of the party needs an appendix operation. The show was high budget and too expensive to continue. Irwin lost his touch with TV shows after the 60s. The acting is strong with Martin Milner. Child stars got there starts with this show like Willie Ames and Helen Hunt. one bright spot is when Irwin Allen incorporates his disaster scenes like a typhoon and a volcanic eruption dubbing him the \" Master of Disaster \"
\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\nThree Stooges - Have Rocket, Will Travel - 1959 This was the first feature length film to star the Stooges and it is pretty bad. It makes THE THREE STOOGES GO AROUND THE WORLD IN A DAZE (from 1963) look like a masterpiece.
The Stooges are janitors at a rocket place. They climb into a rocket and it goes to Venus. They meet some stuff there including a talking unicorn they call \"Uni\" which they bring back to Earth with them. \"Uni\" speaks like an average, pleasant person - 'Oh, hello. How are you? Lovely planet here. Hope you like it.' Hilarious.
Very few gags and so many of the scenes just go on and on and on.
The Stooges arrive back from space and the film is over as far as the story goes, but no one told that to the film makers for the picture continues for another 10 minutes or so at a party where nothing much happens. The Stooges leave the party and then the film is almost over.
High point of the film - the end where the Stooges sing a dapper little song about their journey. The Larry and Curly Joe hit Moe in the face with two pies. Brutal.
Another writer mentioned the fine musical score. Huh? The only music I even noticed were two classic tunes - I'LL TAKE ROMANCE and THERE GOES THAT SONG AGAIN, both of which are played at the party. And *that* really is the high point of the picture - music from old Columbia films.
The tall sexy blonde was nice.
Awful - a brand new VHS video from the 99 Cents Only store.
\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\nThere's plenty to appreciate here: spectacular locations and flying sequences; period costumes, props and sets; and competent writing and acting. However, to enjoy a drama, we need at least one principal who exhibits some qualities that we can like or admire. In this bunch of catty snobs, we found only one character who is at all likable  a hapless enlisted man in a fleeting peripheral role as their helpless victim. From the reviews here, it is clear that we are completely out of step, but we did not find their malicious-schoolgirl behavior amusing or entertaining. Even the dog is detestable. We threw in the towel after two of the six episodes, so you should discount these observations accordingly, but what I could find written about this mini-series gave us no cause to expect character transformation or redemption.
\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 bought this DVD set, sight unseen, and wish I hadn't. The script needed some serious rewriting as it seems to be completely devoid of any feeling and pales in comparison to the book. The lighting is horrid, very unpolished, but if it was just that I could overlook it. The script doesn't focus enough on the characters...there is hardly an introduction to various characters making it a tad difficult to distinguish who is who(especially in the planes--no idea who dies when).
I have long felt that the key to a good film is in getting the audience to care about the characters; if you don't have that you don't have anything. There was no focus on the characters at all--you never got to know them--who they were, what they liked..what made them do the things that they do. The series is 5 hours long and split up into 6 parts...I bet you are wondering what they did with all this time if they didn't detail the characters---they put a lot of filler in it....I will say at least an entire hour is spent watching them land and take off in their planes LOL (I mean do we really need to see that over and over again???). I would have given this a much higher rating had they just improved our knowledge of the characters.
\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\"Piece is Cake\" is defeatist, revisionist history of the worst kind, whose only point is to unfairly savage the reputation of the (admittedly fictional) pilots it portrays. It left a remarkably bad taste in my mouth.
In the March 1989 \"Aeroplane Monthly\", Roland Beamont wrote a stinging condemnation of the way that RAF Fighter Command was portrayed in the TV mini-series. A few of his comments are worth repeating:
\"There was no sense of defeatism at any time in any of the squadrons that I saw in action, and a total absence of the loutishness portrayed in 'Piece of Cake'. It would not have been tolerated for a moment... ...The prevailing atmosphere was more akin to that in a good rugby club, though with more discipline. Nor was there any sense of 'death or glory'. RAF training had insisted that we were there to defend this country, and now we were required to do it - no more and no less.
\"There was no discussion of 'bravery' or 'cowardice'. People either had guts or they did not - but mostly they did. But we knew fear, recognised it in ourselves and in each other, did our damnedness to control it, and then got on with the job...
\"...I could feel no 'glory', but there was a sense of greatness, and none of this bore the slightest resemblance to 'Piece of Cake'.\"
Beamont was, in his own words, \"a fighter pilot who, unlike the author and producer of the recent TV series, was there at the time\".
Beamont served with 87 Squadron both in France and the BoB, before going on to become one of the premier exponents of both the Typhoon and Tempest, and a post-war test pilot.
\"Piece of Cake\" is an absolute, total misrepresentation of the way pilots in Fighter Command acted at the time. It is nothing less than a complete and utter disgrace...
\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\nEven though the book wasn't strictly accurate to the real situation it described it still carried a sense of Japan. I find it hard to believe that anyone who was involved in making this film had ever been to japan as it didn't feel Japanese in the slightest. Almost everything about it was terrible. I will admit the actors were generally quite good but couldn't stand a chance of saving it. Before the film started I was surprised that there were only ten people in the cinema on a Friday night shortly after the movie had opened in Japan. 30 minutes in I was amazed they stayed. I stayed so I would have the right to criticize it. The whole movie was punctuated my groans and suppressed laughs of disbelief from my Japanese girlfriend. Everyone I saw walking out of that cinema had looks of confusion and disappointment on their faces.
To the makers of this movie, you owe me two hours.
\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\nHaving lived in Japan for several years this movie does not reflect the Japanese culture and does not even come close to explain what being a Geisha is all about. Unfortunately, a great opportunity has been missed to bring the Japanese culture a bit closer to the broad Western audience and help demystify the country where Zen, Samurai, the Geisha world of Kyoto originate from. Some of the most poignant moments of the movie are when the Americans are shown in Japanese surroundings.The Geisha dances were not authentic. There was far too much use of Chinese music. A minor but essential detail: proper use of the incense sticks was nowhere to be seen. The Sakura scenes were almost obscenely kitschy ! Interestingly, some of the Chinese actors were quite convincing as Japanese persons.
\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\nRather then long dance sequences and close ups of the characters which made the film drag on - the movie would have been better served explaining the story and motivations of the characters.
The marginalisation of Nubo, the minister, auntie, mother - and the dumbing down of the dynamic and IMPORTANT rivalry between hatsumo and mameha and hatsumo and sayuri made the movie lack any real depth. If you hadn't read the book you would not really understand why Sayuri loved the Chairman and why Mameha became her mentor at all.
Visually the film was stunning - and the actors all did the best with the C rate script they were given, but that was all that was good about 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\nI love Memoirs of a Geisha so I read the book twice; it is one of the best book I've read last year. I was looking forward to the movie and was afraid that reading the book would ruin the viewing pleasure of the movie. I wasn't expecting the movie to be that bad. Some of the best part of the book was omitted from the movie and the characters were weak with Hatsumomo (Li Gong)been the worst. If I haven't read the book, this movie would be a little confusing and inexplicable. The Plot Outline of the movie states \"Nitta Sayuri reveals how she transcended her fishing...\" Did anyone see how or when Sayuri became Nitta Sayuri? Forget the movie and read the book.
\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\"Memoirs of a Geisha\" is a visually stunning melodrama that seems more like a camp, drag queen satire than anything to do with real people.
The first half of the film defensively keeps insisting that geishas are neither prostitutes nor concubines, that they are the embodiment of traditional Japanese beauty. But other than one breathtaking dance, the rest of the movie degenerates into \"Pretty Baby\" in Storyville territory, or at least Vashti and Esther in the Purim story, as all the women's efforts at art and artifice are about entertaining much, much older, drunken boorish men. Maybe it is Japanese culture that is being prostituted, and not just to the American louts after World War II.
Perhaps it's the strain of speaking in English, but Ziyi Zhang shows barely little of the great flare she demonstrated in \"House of Flying Daggers (Shi mian mai fu)\" and \"Hero (Ying xiong).\" Michelle Yeoh occasionally gets to project a glimmer of her assured performance in \"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Wo hu cang long).\" Only Li Gong shows any real life. Otherwise, I kept picturing Charles Ludlam in various roles, or even Cillian Murphy, as in kabuki theater, particularly as the plot dragged down in cat fight after cat fight.
The supposed love story has zero chemistry, mostly due to the age differences, and I mostly felt sorry for Ken Watanabe and hoped his Hollywood pay check compensated for his loss of dignity as the mysterious \"Chairman.\" I remember more emotion in \"Portrait of Jennie\" as the young girl is anxious to grow up into Jennifer Jones to please Joseph Cotton.
We see brief glimpses of reality when the geishas pose with regular women as photographic attractions, and as an ageless Ziyi Zhang lives out the war years in a very colorful kimono dying operation. The finale has little sense of normality.
The score includes many chopped up traditional melodies, with cello by Yo Yo Ma and violin by Yitzhack Pearlman instead of traditional instrumentation, that are beautiful to listen to in accompaniment to the lovely cinematography, as long as one completely ignores the plot and stiff acting.
As my mind wandered, I wondered how the great Japanese directors of samurai movies would have dealt with this story, which probably would have been more formal, but a lot more emotional.
\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\nAndrewjlau, I could not agree more. My girlfriend is watching this at this very moment, and I find this movie appalling. Quote from my Chinese girlfriend, laughing: \"They are doing all this for a man!?\"
I find these women have no intensity, no sense of the a fight between tragedy and identity, and that these men are hardly worth fighting for. During the dance scene where Zhang Zi Yi wins them over, the men look stupid more than admiring.
Japanese people have much more intensity than Chinese people, and being geisha is Japanese culture. I am sure the Chinese had something similar, but the faces do not match the main.
Anyway, the dialogue is so unmysterious, so American. Had a European done it with European orientals, they would have done a far better job.
I have to add: it seems most of the people who liked the film are American. Sorry to say, but no wonder. All spelt out for you, not instinctive, not passionate. I think the Chinese actresses are lovely, but I could not say they were good actors in this film. Yes, the cinematography is great, but really, I cannot see how it can be seen that these characters are complex, deep individuals.
I'm going to Japan to see the real thing. I am sure that would be amazing to see.
\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 an overall pleasing plot and expensive production one wonders how a director can make so many clumsy cultural mistakes. Where were the Japanese wardrobe and cultural consultants? Not on the payroll apparently.
A Japanese friend of mine actually laughed out loud at some of the cultural absurdities she watched unfold before her eyes. In a later conversation she said, \"Imagine a Finnish director making a movie in Fnnish about the American Civil War using blond Swedish actors as union Army and Frenchmen as the Confederates. Worse imagine dressing the Scarlet O'Hara female lead in a period hoop skirt missing the hoop and sporting a 1950's hairdo. Maybe some people in Finland might not realize that the hoop skirt was \"missing the hoop\" or recognize the bizarre Jane Mansfield hair, but in Atlanta they would not believe their eyes or ears....and be laughing in the aisles...excellent story and photography be damned.
So...watching Memoirs of a Geisha was painful for anyone familiar with Japanese cultural nuances, actual geisha or Japanese dress, and that was the topic of the movie! Hollywood is amazing in its myopic view of film making. They frequently get the big money things right while letting the details that really polish a films refinement embarrassingly wrong. I thought \"The Last Samurai\" was the crowning achievement of how bad an otherwise good film on Japan could be. Memoirs of a Geisha is embarrassingly better and worse at the same 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\nAmerican film makers decided to make a film they think is Japanese. The characters all badly represented, the actors are not even Japanese and the set is cheap, unreal and definitely doesn't represent Kyoto in Early 20ties and 30ties. Who ever read the book understand that the script writers didn't add any extra value to differentiate the movie from the script. Worse, they even changed the original plot line with a few goofs. Rob Marshall is using for his two main characters two well known Chinese actors who joined before in crouching tiger hidden dragon. Marshall probably saw one Chinese movie and tho they represent Japanese culture. Seeing those two actors together again even makes the movies more ridiculous. Quentine Tarantino's last scene in Kill Bill #1 is ten times more Japanese made than that 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\nMemoirs of a Geisha is a beautifully filmed movie, there is no doubt about that. And the acting is generally excellent, at least in terms of how it portrays the characters as they are scripted.
However, so many details small and large are just _wrong_ that it just bothers me too much to be able to enjoy it fully. A small detail that typifies the kind of lack of sensitivity of sorts is one scene (no this does not spoil anything) where Mameha rings a bell that hangs at the door of the house where Sayuri lives, on a snowy winter day. The bell she's ringing is a fuurin, or wind chime - that is only left hanging outside of houses in Japan in the summer! People in traditional Japanese homes didn't have doorbells - they just opened the door and announced themselves. (You may think this is such a trivial detail, but I would equate this to a movie made about America where a Christmas wreath is hanging on the door in July and no one thinks anything of it.) And don't even get me started on the totally wrong hairstyles given to the maiko and geisha, which is vaguely pan-Asian/Chinese/kung-fu-ish, and nothing like real thing. I think this rather cavalier attitude towards the culture they are trying to portray really comes out in the attitudes and the portrayals of people and situations too.
So, I suppose that the less you know about Japanese culture and the world of the geisha and maiko in Kyoto (which is what \"Miyako\" is), then I suppose the more you will enjoy this. I honestly think this movie could have been so much better...as it is, it's just another Hollywood version of \"exotic Japan\".
\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\nA slow, tedious, and one dimensional movie! Good casting with clichéd dialogue, boring story line, and soulless direction from Mr Marshal! The conventional and predictable story of the most famous form of prostitution from the Asian continent, lacks heart, new insights, and depth. The lead character looks out of place due to her tiny phisique and phony looking contact lenses. The lexicon employed by the geishas sounds forced and a bit too sophisticated for their limited exposure in the ways of education. The story goes on and on for hours trying to convince you this little, boring, flat chested Asian girl is the ultimate Geisha, they actually say in the movie \"She is destined to become a legend\" i say hardy the case! The movie is just plain boring, it is beautiful to look at, it has a very few interesting moments as many as you may find by going out for cigarretes. Basically, if you don't believe the messenger you wont believe the message, and this girl didn't fill the shoe! Borin, boring, skip it!
\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 admired Rob Marshall for Chicago, but Memoirs of Geisha turns out to be yet another failure of combing western and Asian arts. Overall, the scene is beautiful, but after restless emphasis on exoticism-oriented scenes some might just find himself fed up with them. The excessive cherry blossom was, frankly, overdone. It's probably the cultural difference of perception here: the ultimate beauty is not the showy type, as truly beautiful geisha would not be the over westernised pumpkin in the movie.
Some other comments have rightly mentioned the biggest flaws. As a Taiwanese, I have no doubt the actress are great. An actor/actress can play any kind of role when he/she can look like it. Gong Li is great, but the power of emotions that she showed in this movie had not been translated into Japanese style. All I saw was a bittersweet and jealous Chinese WOMAN. Michlle Yeoh, one of my favourtie actress, did not even LOOK LIKE a Japanese. Some comment has mentioned the peculiar delicate, feminine characteristics of Japanese women, with which I can't agree more. These are so delicate that I assume not even all modern Japanese actresses are eligible for the roles in Geisha, let alone the two Chinese and one Malaysian actress who grew up in different cultures and probably did not know Japanese culture that much.
Geisha is a good shot for arousing the curiosity of American audiences. But it would be an insult for the movie itself and for art alike if the movie wins the Oscar for best costume, best director or best picture.
\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\nAnother double noir on one disc from Warner Home Video and by far the better of the two movies is RKO's marvellous 1950 thriller \"Where Danger Loves\". This is a memorable classic with a great cast in Robert Mitchum, Faith Domergue and Claude Rains. Crisply photographed in Black & White by Nicholas Musuraca it was tightly directed by John Farrow. \"Where Danger Lives\" is a prime example of the noir style of picture making and will always be remembered for its stylish craftsmanship that was Hollywood's past - (See my full review).
Unfortunately, none of the above praise can be applied to the second movie on the disc, the abysmal MGM 1949 stinker TENSION! Poorly written (Allen Rivkin) and directed by John Berry this movie is full of ludicrous characterisations and unlikely situations. The inconceivable relationship between a mild mannered and wimpish pharmacist - blandly played by Richard Baseheart - and his overtly floozy wife (a risible Audrey Totter) is totally implausible and unconvincing (how on earth they ever got together in the first place is anybody's guess). Then when she \"unsurprisingly\" ditches him for one of her playmates (Lloyd Gough) our timid pharmacist, instead of being euphoric and over the moon with his new found good fortune, plots revenge and attempts to kill Gough but at the last minute chickens out. The guy gets murdered anyway and our pharmacist is immediately suspected by Homicide detective Barry Sullivan (another bland performance). So who did kill him? Well, at this stage of the movie you really couldn't care less since it is all so badly executed and rendered ridiculous by director Berry. Mr. Berry has no idea of pacing and is unable to inject even a smidgen of style into the thing. There is nothing he can put in front of the camera that will prevent you from nodding off! The only TENSION contained in this movie is in the rubber band that is stretched to its limit and snaps in the fingers of Barry Sullivan as he gives the intro at the film's opening. So much for that! A most unfortunate effort! C'est La Vie!
Best things about this turkey is the smooth Monochrome Cinematography by the great Harry Stradling, an effective score by a young Andre Previn and an early dramatic appearance by the lovely Cyd Charisse before she found her dancing shoes. Hey! - maybe she could have saved the picture had she given us a few steps and a couple of pirouettes! HUH?
In its favour however, are the heaps of extras that are included which boasts trailers, commentaries and featurettes for both films. But the disc is worth it alone for the RKO Mitchum classic!
\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\nTrue, the setting in Paris is great. The actors are fine. The story is a twisted morality play. Is it supposed to say that if you want someone badly enough, it's OK to hurt everyone else along the way? In a real romance, you sort of want less cliché than the man who has become bored with his wife and is willing to dump his family, and the woman who is OK with encouraging him to do this. So what if they are decent looking and if Karen Allen shows off her body? The characters are still self-absorbed and reprehensible. Maybe the moral of the story is \"you get what you deserve\". I give it a 4, only for the fast scan potential through the \"male interest\" bits.
\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 isn't terrible, really. Somebody commented that Mo is the type of American Europeans snicker at. But there are those, and not necessarily Anglo-Saxon yahoos, who do not care for Frenchmen; and the Xavier character isn't going to sway them.
Let's consider his stereotypical Frenchman attributes:
1). Cynical - very cynical. Check.
2). Reedy, underfed appearance, check, despite:
3). A great appreciation of cuisine. Check.
4). Lukewarm work ethic. Check. (Forget the fact he is supposedly a rich stockbroker, from watching him in the film he seems to put in ten hour workweeks.)
5). Beautiful wife, check. Despite that:
6). Loose interpretation of the marriage vows. Check.
7). Big sexual ego, which says an American girl owes you sex if you buy her dinner. Check.
Whether Mo is a hick or not, there's no reason for her to fall for this smug European twit other than the script dictates so.
On the other hand, as other male reviewers have, I did enjoy seeing Karen Allen's cute, petite body. I'll give the movie four stars; two of them are for that.
\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\nAny movie that has nude scenes of Karen Allen and I'm still so bored I walk out, that is a stinker!
Karen gets stuck in Paris, and befriends a sissily-handsome French man with whom she is having sex soon. Of course he's married, (\"But, cheri, why should that be a problem?\") What could be an interesting clash of cultures is (believe it or not) just dull. I walked out.
Maybe the movie got a lot better after I left; but it would have had to have gotten a LOT better to make up for a rotten beginning.
My advice, if you find yourself in this, run, do not walk, for the exit. Save your time and your energy. Most assuredly save your money. It's a shame the production company didn't save its money.
\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\nWatchable little semi-soaper, but hardly captivating. Still, two or three funny moments. What amazes me is how slippery and morally highly questionable McNicol is. She plays an invalid (a leg problem), yet she not only isn't the \"ugly duckling\" whom men shun, but she is even a man-eater - and we are supposed to feel for her! Oh, poor little McNicol, with her leg problem... Poor little McNicol??! She is constantly getting passes from men, and even dumps them without so much as blinking! At one occasion she even has a premeditated one-night affair with a blond stud, and then she tells her newly-found French girlfriend quite non-chalantly that it took him time to get an erection! Makes us viewers wonder why she is so leg-conscious if every guy wants to hump her. Well, almost every guy; the only guy who really shunned her after seeing her leg wrapped up in metal is the guy working on the telephone. But otherwise she seems to be doing just fine with men! No shyness, no lack of success with men, and she throws them away like toys; the way she dumped Carradine was ridiculous. Poor little invalid girl?? I don't think so. And yet we are meant to believe that this woman has a major confidence problem; hence the scene in which she prepares to start playing the flute for a solo concert and somehow manages to throw the notes on the ground out of nervousness. Nervousness?? The rest of the movie shows little or nothing that would suggest that she has confidence problems, so this flute scene is absurd and doesn't fit into the bigger picture. I was also surprised how quickly and eagerly McNicol makes friends with a French woman who is screwing a married guy. On the surface the movie would appear to be a \"sentimental story of one crippled woman's struggle for acceptance\" (or something like that) but it's nothing like that at all; the writer clearly shifts between this type of movie and a \"screw anything that moves - it's the 80s\" kind of movie - very confusing.
As far as her leg: it's not like she has a big, fat purple balloon growing on her calf muscle. She \"only\" has a normal-looking metal prosthetic attached to the lower part of her leg, so I really don't understand why the makers of the film try to make it seem as if she is a female Quasimodo or something, at the beginning of the film. It's not like she has a twin head growing out of her neck! Though McNicol is hardly a major catch. Kind of cutish but nothing special, quite average.
But what the hell is Carradine doing playing some kind of a (relatively) smooth guy flirting with McNicol and her pal?! This guy was in \"Revenge of the Nerds\"! But I guess it's the same thing with the Carradines in the movies as it is with the Kennedys in politics: no matter how ugly, unable, or dumb, all the doors are open for a career in movies and politics, respectively.
Down with nepotism.
If you want to read bogus biographies about the Carradines, and other Hollywood nepotists and morons, contact me by e-mail.
\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- I had planned to write something explaining what I didn't like about this movie, but this is going to be more difficult than I thought. Honestly, I can't remember much about it. I watched it just three days ago and it's made almost no impression on me. That's usually the sign of a real stinker. About the only thing I remember was being incredibly bored by most of it. The novelty of having a Humphrey Bogart look-a-like as the detective wore off real quick. It would be different if he could act, but he's a one-note entertainer. The kill scenes were amateurishly handled and there was no suspense leading up to them. If you can't spot the killer five minutes into the movie, you need to see more Euro horror. The casting is a dead giveaway to the killer's identity.
\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 is a cringe-fest of bad acting and poor set design as well as tacky lines and a lame plot. But it is so much fun to watch. Everything about it is hilarious.The basic plot is a group of scientists from the future travel back in time to capture their evil co-worker who is intent on destroying them all. They catch up with him in the year 1146. The 'futuristic' lab of the scientists from the year 2033 is an eighties-style room with a bunch of 'futuristic' flashing buttons and a time capsule that looks like a lawn shed. The actors deliver their lines with unenthusiastic aplomb, which isn't hard to understand considering that the lines are usually earth-shakers like \" I double-checked everything twice!\" He double checked everything twice? He checked it four times? Not only that, but they feed you the entire premise of the movie in the first five minutes, and continue at a rapid fire pace until they hit the medieval part. When Roger Corman ran out of money. And had to stop travelling through time and consequently different sets. The medieval set is a comic mish-mash of anything from the late 10th century to the 16th century. Any costume they could find, they used. I guess chain mail wasn't on the budget, 'cause the guys all wear sequined shirts masquerading as armor. The fight scenes are laughable, with men casually throwing themselves onto cardboard swords with abandon and dying in death throws with nary a blow cast.It sounds truly awful, but I enjoy it every time I watch it. The lines alone are enough to have you in fits and everything else pulls together to create a fabulous B-movie that, if you are a connoisseur of corny flicks, I would suggest you see. And once you have, read the review on Unknown Movies. I love hearing them point out all the funny, truly awful bits in the 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\nThe first Matrix movie was lush with incredible character development, witty dialog, and action scenes that kept with the flow of the story. These elements -- coupled by incredible special effects of the day -- presented a magical ride that kept you in suspense the entire time. Enter Matrix Reloaded (and its sequel, Revolutions). The problem here isn't the special effects or the fight sequences as some may argue; The brothers have taken well-developed characters from the first film and hollowed them out like rotten tree logs. The connection that was first established between viewers and on-screen characters in the first film is lost when you realize these are not the same characters from the first Matrix movie.
To wit, Morpheus was developed as a charismatic, philosophical character with insight far exceeding anyone else in the movie, but here in Reloaded -- we're presented by a different Morpheus who stands hard and hollow, reduced to corny one-liners that contradict the character we saw develop in the first film. This character just didn't feel the same, and this could also be said about the supporting characters in the movie.
The removal of 'Tank' was also a disappointment. Tank's involvement in the first film was minimal at best, but he played the role extremely well. In Reloaded, we discover that Tank dies after the events in the first film, and he is replaced by a Jar Jar Binks stunt double that couldn't act to save his live (think stale box of Kellogg's Corn Flakes). His performance left me chuckling throughout, and most of his spoken dialog lacked timing. There was an overwhelming sense that he was either trying too hard to convey his emotions on-screen or the delivery in the script was off; in either case, the experience was humorous! At times I felt embarrassed for the actor....
Even Neo's Godly persona was suspect during most of the fighting sequences. The alleyway battle with the 200 Agent Smith clones was certainly exaggerated. One must wonder, for a man so gifted as Neo -- that he would even waste his time engaging in such a fruitless, frivolous battle when more pressing matters attend (especially when you consider his ability to fly or his ungodly ability to bend the Matrix; certainly Neo could have dispatched the clones much quicker, and more efficiently). Again, such acts lend themselves to a script hindered by consistency, and scenes created as filler to keep us from feeling gypped. In jest, our expectations of the characters created in the first film are discarded promptly. Sadly, for those expecting more of the same -- you will certainly walk away feeling gravely disappointed.
However, if you take Reloaded as your standard, run-of-the-mill action movie, and forget the incredible story inconsistencies and the untwining of already-established character development from the first film, you should walk away feeling quite pleased.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"