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\nIn an attempt to cash in on the success of Universal's horror films Majestic Pictures hired several popular actors from the current genre and put them in this effort that (realistically speaking) is nowhere near as good. With that, this is still worth everyone's time and it's a heck of a lot of fun to view and in my opinion it's better than most of what is supposed to pass nowadays as horror! Story takes place in the small German town of Klineschloss where the bodies have been piling up completely drained of blood and with suspicious puncture marks. Burgermister Gustave Schoen (Lionel Belmore) shouts \"It's Vampires\" but the local police chief Karl Brettschneider (Melvyn Douglas) thinks it's a madman who's responsible and he vows to catch him.
*****SPOILER ALERT***** The Burgermeister and most of the towns folk think that the local kook Herman Glieb (Dwight Frye) who loves bats and frequently talks to them is the one they are looking for and they chase him until he falls to his death in a cave. The one who is responsible for the killings is Dr. Otto von Niemann (Lionel Atwill) who has created a new form of tissue mass that feeds on blood and he accomplishes this by having some sort of mind control over his servant Emil (Robert Frazer) who goes out at night to collect the blood. Dr. Otto has a pretty assistant named Ruth Bertin (Fay Wray) and an annoying aunt named Gussie (Maude Eburne) but they have no clue what he's up to but Karl eventually become suspicious when one of the murders takes place after Herman's death.
Frank R. Strayer was never confused with being James Whale but he was a pretty competent director who ended up directing most of the \"Blondie\" films in that series and with this film he uses the same sets from \"The Old Dark House\" which was also filmed at Universal. I'm the first to admit that this film is downright clumsy at times but it's practically impossible to resist a film that has a cast like this including Frye who is pretty much doing his Renfield role only this time he befriends bats and strokes them and keeps them in his pocket for safe keeping! One thing that just doesn't make sense is the mind control that Dr. Otto has over Emil as the film never explains this and I had a strong sense that this was some sort of nod to \"The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari\" but on the other hand it's probably just the weakest part of the script. There are a few other tidbits that I noticed including the chase of Frye to the big caves which is obviously an early shot of the infamous Bronson Canyon where numerous other films have been made and also Wray's brown hair which is her true color. True horror film fans will appreciate this more than others but I think this is a fun film to view for everyone and with a cast as attractive as this it's well worth a look.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThough not a horror film in the traditional sense, this creepy little film delivers the goods. It seems a vampire is loose in a small German town draining its victims of their blood. Police Inspector Karl Brettschneider, Melvyn Douglas in one of his early roles, is skeptical believing a crazed killer not a vampire is running amok. The only one who believes him is Ruth Bertin (Faye Wray) the inspector's girlfriend and lab assistant to Dr. Otto von Niemann (Lionel Atwill) who though apparently an eminent scientist goes along with the vampire theory. The townspeople suspect the weirdo Herman Gleib, played with his usual frenzy by Dwight Frye who seems to be having a lot of fun with his role. The film contains quite a bit of humor which helps relieve some of the intensity involved with all the murders being committed. One funny part has Gussie Schnappmann (Maude Eburne), Ruth Bertin's aunt, thinking weird Herman has turned not into a bat but into a dog. Maude Eburne and Dwight Frye make a good comedy team.
This budget movie brings in elements from \"The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari\" with Dr. Niemann using the power of suggestion to make a somnambulist carry out his orders, from \"Frankenstein\" by using the human blood to help create life in the laboratory, and \"Dracula\" since the murders are believed by everyone except the inspector and his girl to be the work of a bloodsucker. Thses elements are mixed well by director Frank R. Strayer with a little comedy thrown in for good measure. The concoction works. The restored version I viewed used tinting to increase the spooky atmosphere. So try to see the this version if possible.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYears ago, I found a \"bargain bin\" copy of this film for a buck or two. In so many ways, this is quite fitting, as when it was made back in 1933, it was truly a cheaply made film by the \"poverty row\" studio, Majestic. However, while the film is rather derivative, it is STILL well worth watching and provides a few surprises.
The story is very, very familiar, as in some Germanic town, the people are upset because of some recent deaths that appear to be the work of vampires! Adding to this familiarity is Dwight Frye. He played Renfield in Dracula, and here he is very, very similar--though he plays a much more harmless weirdo. In this case, he's obsessed with his pet bats and people begin to blame him for the deaths. The film does a good job of providing some \"red herrings\" (i.e., false leads) and while it doesn't take a genius to figure out Frye may not be responsible, the WHO and WHY are intriguing and make it VERY different from the average horror film. In addition, while the production had little money to speak of, it still had some good actors of the day--Lionel Atwill and Melvin Douglas--and it also used Universal Studios sets at night (when they were done filming for the day). As a result, the film looks pretty good overall, though I also thought that, as usual, Fay Wray was terrible--thought it didn't noticeably detract from the film. I have seen her in more movies than most people on IMDb and I have come to notice that her characters have no depth--she always seems to be cast as the \"screaming lady\" and provides little new in each film.
Overall, for fans of old horror films, this is excellent and worth seeing. For people who are NOT fans of the genre, it's probably pretty skip-able.
\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\nUntil today I had never seen this film. Its was filmed on the sets of the Old Dark House and Frankenstein and concerns a small Bavarian village where supposedly giant bats are sucking the blood of the villagers.
Frankly its a damn good movie that has atmosphere to spare and a cast that won't quit, Lionel Atwill, Dwight Frye, Faye Wray and Melvin Douglas playing a character named Brettschnieder which is of interest to me since that was my great grandmother's maiden name.
This is a carefully modulated film that has suspense and witty one liners that slowly builds for its brief running time, only going astray when about ten minutes before the end they realized they had limited time to wrap everything up. From that point to the end its a straight run to the finish with very little of the fun that preceded it.
Leonard Maltin and IMDb list a running time of 71 minutes and warn of shorter prints. The trouble is that IMDb and Maltin can be wrong, and in this case I think they are since a source I trust more says the full running time is 67 minutes (The Overlook Film Encyclopedia) Quibbling about this I know is insane but since most prints that are available tend to run around 60-63 minutes the amount of missing material is considerably less if its only 67 minutes long. Personally I think it won't matter that much since its at most five minutes and I doubt very much it will make or break the film.
What ever the running time , if you like creaky old films, do, by all means do, watch this movie, its a great dark and stormy night film.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film has a lot of strong points. It has one of the best horror casts outside of the Lugosi-Karloff-Chaney circle: Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, and Dwight Frye, plus leading man Melvyn Douglas. It's got all the right ingredients: bats, a castle with lots of stone staircases, a mad scientist, townspeople waving torches and hunting vampires, an \"Igor\"-type character, a beautiful girl, even a goofy-haired Burgomeister. The soft-focus camera work is moody and imaginative. There's even some good comic relief nicely spaced throughout the script.
But it's not really a monster movie because there is nothing supernatural going on in \"Kleinschloss\" (\"little castle\"). The plot revolves around the generic crazy scientist (nicely played by Atwill) who values his work more highly than human lives.
It's not top-tier material, because of a ho-hum resolution of the plot and some embarrassingly bad dialog for Dwight Frye. But it's worth a look if you like early b/w horror pictures.
\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\nSomeone(or, something thing..)is leaving puncture marks on the jugular and draining victims of their blood till dead. Police detective Karl Brettschneider(Melvyn Douglas, before slipping out of the B-movie horror genre for greater heights)is stumped at who..or what..is behind these notorious crimes. The village is overcome by hysteria and Karl depends on his trusted medical genius, Dr. Otto von Niemann(Lionel Atwill, in yet another effective mad scientist role)to provide some feedback as to what might be causing the deaths of innocents. He also fears for the safety of his beloved Ruth(the lovely Fay Wray who stars for the third time with Atwill after \"Doctor X\" & \"The Mystery of the Wax Museum\")who is Niemann's assistant.
Dwight Frye steals the film as a rather loony village idiot who collects bats and carries a demented demeanor wherever he goes..it's easy to see why he becomes a suspect as local paranoia is at a fever pitch. Maude Eburne provides the film's humor as a very naive(..and easily influenced)patient of von Niemann's who believes she has ailments she reads about in books near the laboratory where he works. She's impressionable and often von Niemann just humors her and constant fictional illnesses she feels plagued with. Lionel Belmore returns as yet another frightened, superstitious Bürgermeister.
Creaky, static, but rather entertaining nonetheless thanks to the cast. The film is obviously as low-budget as they come, but this doesn't hurt the film too much since it's put together rather well by director Frank R Strayer and his crew. I'm certain the film's print has seen better days, though. This is the kind of B-horror item you'd find packaged in with 50 other random cheesefests and poverty row programmers. The film's villain..and his motives for feeding a synthetically made biological creature..certainly provides a different take on the Frankenstein formula. Many might be disappointed with the end results as the film strays away from being an actual supernatural tale about a real vampire killer causing the murders.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI really enjoyed this film because I have a tremendous interest in American History... the Antebellum years and the Civil War in particular. I purchased it recently from a rack of previously-viewed videos on sale at the supermarket and I was very glad to add this one to my history video collection. Though not of the caliber of Civil War films such as \"Glory\" or \"Gettysburg,\" provides a lot of history on the pre-Civil War brotherhood among cadets at West Point.
Maybe it's the gray uniforms, the youth, or the military discipline, but I am fascinated by the story of the Corps of Cadets from around 1830 to the brink of the War. I imagine what it must have been like to sit in a classroom with other young men, learning how to make war, then later putting the lessons to use against your own classmates!
Actually, there were two classes graduated in 1861: one class in May, the other in June. the movie makes no real mention of this, except to mention Henry A. DuPont, first graduate of the May Class; and George Custer, last grad of the June Class. the reason for the two classes was not so much about the war, but it was the result of switching back to a four-year course of study, after a few years of experimenting with a five-year course (I think the first class had attended five years, the other for four). As the movie portrays, cadets were like brothers and often had nicknames for each other... George \"Fanny\" or \"Autie\" Custer; Alonzo \"Lon\" Cushing; James \"Beauty\" Stuart (for J.E.B. Stuart, class of 1854), etc.
I say this film is \"Santa Fe Trail\" as it should have been because that 1940 film, while enjoyable, really fudges history. Cadets from several different classes are all graduating together. JEB Stuart and George Custer are portrayed as the best of friends and are side-by-side in stopping John Brown's 1859 insurrection at Harper's Ferry. In fact, Stuart and Custer were never friends, but enemies during the War. They faced each other (for the first time, I think) at Gettysburg in 1863 (Stuart was at the Harper's ferry Raid, but Custer was still a cadet at the Point when it took place).
\"Fanny\" Custer plays a role in \"Class of '61,\" though his classmate chums, Dev O'Neill and Shelby Peyton are fictional. I believe they are respectively based on Partick Henry O'Rorke and John Pelham, two people you can look up.
Anyway, I truly enjoy this film or any film which provides a window into mid-19th Century America.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI for one really like this movie for some reasons I'll go into late but I want to touch on why I think people don't like it. First off, there are people out there who just like to hate Tom Cruise. I don't understand it really. Second, Cameron Crowe I think successfully p***es off two groups of movie-goers with this film. The casual, relaxed, \"not looking to think too hard\" group of movie-goers are left confused when the plot takes a complete 180 at the end of the movie. And the deep, philosophical, mystery-fans are devastated when Crowe has one of his characters completely explain the mystery.
This is a good movie. And Tom Cruise does a very good job in it. I think it's probably his best performance from what I've seen all though I haven't seen all of his movies, or even a majority of them probably. The supporting cast is good as well. Penelope Cruz gives a solid performance and Jason Lee was enjoyable.
I like the story, and I think that's what Vanilla Sky is more than anything. It's a mystery, an adventure, and a romantic comedy, but it's mostly just a good story. And it has a lot of philosophical undertones to it, and many similar ideas and stories like this occur in historical philosophy. David Aames (Cruise) is the man that had everything he wanted, more or less lost it, was given a second chance with a catch to regain it all back, and in the end facing his demons and the full scope of what is happening, chooses reality, simplicity, and normality to see if he can finally find the one thing he could never get a grip on: happiness.
Many people were disappointed that Crowe laid out the complete mystery at the end. I think it's necessary. The audience then knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that David is aware of his circumstances and it makes the choice at the end all the more powerful.
And the music in the movie is great. It's probably what makes the movie as enjoyable as it is. Particularly, \"Njosnavelin\" by Sigur Ros, which is an amazing song.
All in all, I'd give it 3 out 4 stars. It's a movie with some substance for those who like to think things through, and a great story for those looking to relax. That \"moderate\" approach is probably why people dislike it so much because it isn't a full blown mystery, or a full blown love story. It mixes and matches different elements and genres.
\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 had heard some not too good things about this movie and had probably seen the low score here at IMDb and that's why I had avoided it. Today they showed Vanilla Sky on TV and as I had nothing better to do... and as it turned out, I would have had a hard time finding anything better to do. Vanilla Sky is a frightening, sad and touching movie, actually one of the best I've seen in a while. I was surprised by how I was affected watching it. It's hard to explain, but during the movie your feelings towards the characters and your perception of what is going on changes and it's quite an emotional journey. Vanilla Sky really touched me in a way that is very rare for a movie, or any media for that matter.
I really recommend everyone to watch this movie. Regardless of what you have heard about 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\nVanilla Sky is a 2001 remake of the 1997 movie Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes). And in my opinion, a much more human and emotional version. Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a selfish egomaniac who takes other people's emotions for granted, and thinks only of himself. Jason Lee plays Brian Shelby, David's best, and in many ways, only friend. Penelope Cruz plays Sofia Serrano, Brian's girlfriend whom accompanies him to David's birthday party. Cameron Diaz plays Julie Gianni, David's occasional bed buddy. Kurt Russell plays Dr. Curtis McCabe, a psychologist interviewing David. All of their interactions, and the consequences of them, make Vanilla Sky one of the most emotional, and complex thrillers ever made. I won't explain anymore of the plot, because it's far more compelling, the less you know. Ignore all people that call this film too confusing to follow. If you pay attention, you won't be confused. The film is very complex, but not confusing. And in my opinion, one of the best movies ever made.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Vanilla Sky\" was a wonderfully thought out movie. Or rather, \"Abre Los Ojos\" was well thought out. I watched that movie late one night, excited about what was to come. I wasn't disappointed. By the end of the movie, I was awstruck. I couldn't get it off my mind. The whole idea of it just blew me away. The ending, was more of a surprise than Shyamalan could ever do. The plot line was also something that kept me interesting through and through. The cast, superb. It was an all around wonderful movie. The kind of movie you can watch again and again and always find something new. I've seen it four or five times and I'm always finding something new. It's a movie to keep you interested forever.
\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 could not agree more with the quote \"this is one of the best films ever made.\" If you think Vanilla Sky is simply a \"re-make,\" you could not be more wrong. There is tremendous depth in this film: visually, musically, and emotionally.
Visually, because the film is soft and delicate at times (early scenes with Sofia) and at other times powerful and intense (Times Square, post-climactic scenes).
The music and sounds tie into this movie so perfectly. Without the music, the story is only half told. Nancy Wilson created an emotional, yet eclectic, score for the film which could not be more suitable for such a dream-like theme (although never released, I was able to get my hands on the original score for about $60. If you look hard, you may be able to find a copy yourself). Crowe's other musical selections, such as The Beach Boys, Josh Rouse, Spiritualized, Sigur Ros, the Monkees, etcetera etcetera, are also perfect fits for the film (Crowe has an ear for great music).
More importantly, the emotional themes in this film (i.e. love, sadness, regret) are very powerful, and are amplified tenfold by the visual and musical experience, as well as the ingenious dialogue; I admit, the elevator scene brings tears to my eyes time and time again.
The best part of this film however (as if it could get any better) is that it is so intelligently crafted such that each time you see the film, you will catch something new--so watch closely, and be prepared to think! Sure, a theme becomes obvious after the first or second watch, but there is always more to the story than you think.
This is easily Cameron Crowe's best work, and altogether a work of brilliance. Much of my film-making and musical inspiration comes from this work alone. It has honestly touched my life, as true art has a tendency of doing. It continually surprises me that there are many people that cannot appreciate this film for what it is (I guess to understand true art is an art itself).
Bottom line: Vanilla Sky is in a league of its own.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is one of Tom Cruise's finest films. He captures the audiences imaginations with his role of David Aames. His character can relate to us all in some way.The story line is very clever and keeps the audience on edge throughout the whole film. I never really watched Cruise movies that much before but after seeing this it shows me his true talent. My favourite part in the movie is the end where it all comes to a big conclusion and he find out the truth. If you have not seen this yet you definitely should give it a try. It's one of those films that once you've started watching it you just got to see it until the end or it will keep you thinking and you will regret it. My opinion is you should just go buy it and take a risk thats what I did and it became one of my favourite films of all time. It's A* 10/10 I promise once you watch it, it will stick with you and you will like it forever.
\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\n\"The sweet is never as sweet without the sour.\" This quote was essentially the theme for the movie in my opinion. Tom Cruise plays a young man who was handed everything in his life. He takes things for granted and it comes around full swing in this great movie with a superb twist. This film will keep you engaged in the plot and unable to pause it to take a bathroom break.
Its a movie that really makes you step back and look at your life and how you live it. You cannot really appreciate the better things in life (the sweet), like love, until you have experienced the bad (the sour). The theme will really get you to \"open your eyes\".
Only complaint is that the movie gets very twisted at points and is hard to really understand. I think the end is perfect though. I recommend you watch it and see for yourself.
\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 from Romania i'll try to speak in English. All i want to say about this movie is that it is and will be my all time number one. Seen it above 30 times at least and will see it for many years now. It has all the little things i like in a movie , it's very touching makes me cry . Shows a whole lot of twisted love things and questions about love and reality , and the true things that matter for different people. It so happens that for me this matters the most , the love , the soul of a man , he's inner being, and this i see in this movie. Perhaps for me it's much more than a motion picture , it's a proof in my mind that it could really exist and that you most make the best out of every moment you live with your soul mate. It's a long way from reality to sci-fi , but .. what if. What if all the capitalism disappeared and economy would go down , would fall? We would all be concerned about other issues and my thought is that , on your death bed , the bigger thing you remember , is not the wealth , not the adventure , not the countries you visited and the people that remember you. But the true friends and your true love and the hope that after you die , all will be god damn perfect and people would be good and care more. WATCH THIS MOVIE and probably it will guide you through your life like it did to me :) Hail from Romania
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie consists of such great emotion especially with its outstanding soundtrack that coincides with the film. Tom Cruise is one of my favorite actors because of his enthusiasm to make films and to entertain. This movie was not the best the first time I watched it, but after about 3 more times I decided that this is one of the best films that I have ever seen. It takes place in New York, and progresses on through his lifestyle. He discovers a delimma in his life with his girlfriend (Diaz). He goes through a state of depression and then an outgoing blend of imagination. This film was beyond my expectations, and is one of Cruise's best films ever!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI really can say I felt the movie in its right essence where the mind games from dreamy reality enter into the surreal aspect of future faced by Tom Cruise. I didn't cared much about Tom Cruise's acting prowess but I must say that he seems to impress at every point in the movie...not simply due to an engaging storyline but also due to his self being imparted to the lead character....they merge and then speak and its beautiful. However I must say this movie doesn't come under the \"average flick of weekend\" which you pick at random and watch gleefully; It carries strong sentiments and characters so don't wash this one down with your beer and pop-corns. It certainly needs more than that.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter reading some quite negative views for this movie, I was not sure whether I should fork out some money to rent it. However, it was a pleasant surprise. I haven't seen the original movie, but if its better than this, I'd be in heaven.
Tom Cruise gives a strong performance as the seemingly unstable David, convincing me that he is more than a smile on legs (for only the third time in his career- the other examples were Magnolia and Born on the Fourth of July). Penelope Cruz is slightly lightweight but fills the demands for her role, as does Diaz. The only disappointment is the slightly bland Kurt Russell. In the movie, however, it is not the acting that really impresses- its the filmmaking.
Cameron Crowe excels in the director's role, providing himself with a welcome change of pace from his usual schtick. The increasing insanity of the movie is perfectly executed by Crowe (the brief sequence where Cruise walks through an empty Time Square is incredibly effective). The soundtrack (a distinguishing feature of a Crowe movie) is also sublime.
You will be shocked and challenged as a viewer. The plot does seem a little contrived but the issues explored behind it are endlessly discussable. The movie isn't perfect, but its a welcome change of pace for Cruise and Crowe and for those raised on a diet of Hollywood gloss, should be a revelation.
\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 those movies that's difficult to review without giving away the plot. Suffice to say there are weird things and unexpected twists going on, beyond the initial superficial \"Tom Cruise screws around with multiple women\" plot.
The quality cast elevate this movie above the norm, and all the cast are well suited to their parts: Cruise as the irritatingly smug playboy who has it all - and then loses it all, Diaz as the attractive but slightly deranged jilted lover, Cruz as the exotic new girl on the scene and Russell as the fatherly psychologist. The story involves elements of romance, morality, murder-mystery, suspense and sci-fi and is generally an entertaining trip.
I should add that the photography is also uniformly excellent and the insertion of various visual metaphors is beautiful once you realize what's going on.
If you enjoy well-acted movies with twists and suspense, and are prepared to accept a slightly fantastic Philip K Dick style resolution, then this is a must-see.
9/10
\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\nStrangely, this version of OPEN YOUR EYES is more mature and more nuanced. Aided by hindsight, Crowe's screenplay is a lot tighter and more fleshed out than Amenabar's original. The Spanish filmmaker should get credit for thinking of the story first, but there's no doubt that Crowe has improved on it -- if just slightly. Notice that you have no idea what the lead did in OPEN YOUR EYES, but you know almost everything about the lead in VANILLA SKY. That's what i mean by more \"fleshed out.\"
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI really liked this movie. I've read a few of the other comments, and although I pity those who did not understand it, I do agree with some of the criticisms. Which, in a strange way, makes me like this movie all the more. I accept that they have got a pretty cast to remake an intelligent movie for the general public, yet it has so many levels and is still great to watch. I also love the movies, such as this one, which provoke so many debates, theories, possible endings and hidden subtext. Congratulations Mr.Crowe, definitely in my Top Ten.
P.S. Saw this when it first came out whilst I was backpacking in Mexico, it was late at night and I had to get back to my hotel and I had a major paranoia trip! Where does the dream end and the real begin?
\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\nDespite excellent trailers for Vanilla Sky, I was expecting to be disappointed by the film because I'd heard that it did not get great reviews. However, I left the cinema completely in awe of how good Vanilla Sky is.
There was no bad acting at all in the whole film, every single character is believable. The romantic moments between Cruise's character, David Aames and Cruz's character, Sophia are tear-jerkingly realistic and intimate (probably due to the fact that they were a soon-to-be real-life couple).
The plot of Vanilla Sky will confuse you in the last third of the film and there's very little chance of you guessing the ending. However, ends are tied up towards the end, leaving you with a strange mixture of feelings consisting of sadness, shock and empathy for David Aames.
The film is intellectual and you have to pay attention throughout. This isn't that hard because chances are that you'll be completely drawn in to the film and won't take your eyes off the screen for one second.
I usually leave cinemas forgetting all about the film I just watch. But Vanilla Sky is still lingering in my mind days after watching it. I recommend it to anyone who wants a change from simple, shallow films.
\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 went to see Vanilla Sky with a huge, huge, huge!!..Tom Cruise fan, my extremely cynical brother and my girlfriend ... what can I say .. I was totally blown away by the movie and especially TC's performance, I thought it was a very moving film and it was not at all what I was expecting.
I had read the reviews and had decided not to go and see it, I am so pleased that I was 'coerced 'into seeing it. The strange thing is I cannot say why, all I can say is that I found it totally involving and could not stop thinking about it the next day. As to what I felt about the film, all I can say about is, ITS NOT THE STORYLINE (fantasy, psychodrama, whatever) its about the people and the events that shape their life and how small events, like getting into a car can change everything......
As to what the critics wrote, yes maybe the original was a stunning 2nd film for Alejandro Amenábar , but this was a totally different interpretation of the subject, and by no means a narcissistic remake for the benefit of Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz.
I cannot even consider writing a couple of trite, glib sentences to describe the film just go and see it!!!!
Yes I know this isn't a balanced thoughtful review but so what .It's not that kind of film.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film was just absolutly brilliant. It actually made me think. During the whole movie I was confused as hell. I loved everything about it...it was just so confusing and so twisted and weird, it was hard not to love it. All of the actors were phenominal, and no one could have done a better job...This is one of my favorites of the year...it deserves an ocar.
\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 the one-line summary says, two movies have left such a remark on me when I walked out of the theater. The one was \"Stir of Echoes\" with Kevin Bacon, and the second was \"Vanilla Sky\".
Its one of those movies that you sit deep in the theater seat and stop thinking about anyone around you, stop wondering what the end of the movie will be and just leave the movie swift you where it wants... Walking out of the cinema was a bit weird, like that feeling you get when you are sick and cant think of anything. One of those movies that you become one with the guy, and feel that nothing else moves around you than the things in the movie.
One thing is certain. The actors are awesome, the sound track is excellent, and everything in the movie is 9+.
Surely one of the best movies I ever saw, and the movie that made the best and most shocking awaking about my life and my purpose in this world.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDavid Aames is a rich good-looking guy who lives in New York City. When his 'sleeping partner' Julie Gianni gets very jealous after David falls for Spanish beauty Sofia, she gets David into her car and tells him that he's the only guy she loves and wants to be with, but seeing as he's in love with Sofia, she decides to commit suicide with David in the car with her, by driving off a bridge. David survives the crash, but is left with a disfigured face. He is then charged with the murder of Julie. The thing is, David doesn't know what's real and what's not as he keeps having these strange dreams (Most of which are actually nightmares.) and flashbacks, some of which just don't make sense to him. Everything will soon come back to him though as he's begins to find out the truth.
Well, there's an all star cast here, including Tom Cruise, Penélope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Kurt Russell, Jason Lee and Noah Taylor who all give good performances in the movie. In the movie they all put off different things about there characters, like happiness, sadness, angry, etc. really well. There's also a cameo in the movie from the brilliant, Steven Spielberg.
Vanilla Sky is a well made, different, interesting and original movie which will leave you talking about it a lot after it's finished. It's not just a thriller, but it's a real psychological thriller. The trailer for the movie is really good, but the movie is so different from what it might be made out to be. It's been directed very well and there were a couple of really great scenes here too. All in all, an enjoyable movie which should be really be paid attention too. They are sure making a lot of \"Are they dead, if not who is dead\" movies recently.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nthis movie is another on the list that i did not want to see. i was talked into it and dragged into the theater, but boy am i glad for that. i thought it was going to be just another love story, but it turns out to be SOOO much more than that. definatly an intellectual flick, one of those movies you have to pay attention to.
\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\nMade me think about it for days after seeing it. That to me is the mark of a great movie. Eyes Wide Shut had the same effect on me. I am tired of these people requiring these happy Hollywood cookie-cutter endings. I am planning on going to see it again tonight to understand the plot a little better - but regardless, the emotional messages of the movie were totally felt.
\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\nIt does seem like this film is polarizing us. You either love it or hate it. I loved it.
I agree with the comment(s) that said, you just gotta \"feel\" this one.
Also, early in the film, Tom Cruise shows his girlfriend a painting done by Monet--an impressionist painter. Monet's style is to paint in little dabs so up close the painting looks like a mess, but from a distance, you can tell what the subject is. Cruise mentions that the painting has a \"vanilla sky\". I believe this is a hint to the moviegoer. This movie is like that impressionist painting. It's impressionist filmmaking! And it's no coincidence that the title of the movie refers to that painting.
This is not your typical linear plot. It requires more thought. There is symbolism and there are scenes that jump around and no, you're not always going to be sure what's going on. But at the end, all is explained.
You will need to concentrate on this movie but I think people are making the mistake of concentrating way too hard on it. After it ends is when you should think about it. If you try to figure it out as it's unfolding, you will overwhelm yourself. Just let it happen...\"go\" with it...keep an open mind. Remember what you see and save the analysis for later.
I found all the performances top notch and thought it to be tremendously unique, wildly creative, and spellbinding.
But I will not critize the intelligence of those of you who didn't enjoy it. It appeals to a certain taste. If you like existential, psychedelic, philosophical, thought-provoking, challenging, spiritual movies, then see it. If you prefer something a little lighter, then skip it.
But if you DO like what I described, then you will surely enjoy 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\nNote: These comments are for people who have seen the movie.
Vanilla Sky is a brilliant, complex, and thrilling movie that existentially explores exactly what the tag-line says: LoveHateDreamsLifeWorkPlayFriends. Maybe the movie plot can come into focus for confused movie-goers if one looks at it from a different angle.
Considering the following:
Now, I have not painstakingly gone through the film scene by scene, so I will have to further examine my assertions, (and I welcome your thoughts) but give this a try and see if the movie doesn't fall into place: Where exactly does the debatable 'splice' occur?
Now, I'm not talking about the splice as it is explained by the L.E. 'technician', since that sequence itself could be actually interpreted as a rationalization inside of David Aames's mind/dream/coma state, but the true splice between reality and dream.
It seems to me that the reality of the car crash, the way that it is filmed (no explosion, for example) is a likely 'splice' point, and that any particular sequence containing an existential/dream/coma/non-reality feel to it -- whether it's shown onscreen before or after the crash -- is actually a part of Aames' personal journey toward self-realization inside of his own mind.
In that respect, then, we are left with two questions at the very end(if you know of more, let me know): is Aames actually disfigured, and where does he wake up?
If you don't get entirely wrapped up in the exact sequence of details in the plot, or at what particular point his dreams are scattered throughout, this movie becomes a fascinating exploration of a human on a journey to find himself and what that means in today's pop-culture society.

\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\nComparable to Fight Club, The Matrix, A.I., Sixth Sense, among others. This film approaches the psyche in a way never done before. The first 30 minutes builds a interesting love story between Diaz-Cruise-Cruz. The rest of the movie is, well, confusing, you'll pick more every time you watch it (i've gone to the movies to see it 3 times now)
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI think a lot of people just wrote this off as another one of Tom Cruise's weird movies (Magnolia, Eyes Wide Shut) but Vanilla Sky is definitely its own movie. Many people said it was weird; it wasn't. It was different and confusing but not weird. Weird is Stanley Kubrick or Pauly Shore. Different is The Truman Show. Confusing is The Matrix or The Game. And unlike Kubrick, this movie has a conclusion. Everything makes sense -- maybe not immediately, maybe not even today, but it will make sense. Vanilla Sky is confusing because David Aames (Tom Cruise) is confused. THAT'S the point. That's where the so-called \"weirdness\" that turned critics away came in. If they had bothered to \"open [their] eyes\" as the original 1997 Spanish movie, they would have seen that. And if that's not enough reason to see it, go see it for the music. Cameron Crowe offers a wonderful soundtrack; he uses it to set the \"feel\" -- that notorious element that many movies lack. With songs like The Beach Boys' \"Good Vibrations\" playing at the dramatic and emotional climax of the movie, he creates an offbeat, yet astoundingly \"right\" feel. A wonderful film, in its script, music, acting, and images, Vanilla Sky is sadly, a superficial bandwagon movie that critics chide in order to appear intelligent. Excellent: A+
\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 am a huge fan of Say Anything, Jerry Maguire, and Almost Famous (I wasn't that big on Singles), so it's safe to say that I look forward to anything that Cameron Crowe attaches his name to. I went to see Vanilla Sky having been told that it was a very weird movie and that I probably wouldn't like it if I was expecting anything similar to Crowe's other films. Well, having just seen it, let me say that the former was correct, and the latter couldn't have been more wrong. It is a very weird movie, and nothing really comes together until the end. Anyone who tells you that they saw it coming halfway into the movie is either lying to you or is unable to detach their hindsight from their memory. Anyway, the movie was stellar, and I look forward to owning it as soon as the DVD is released. I was moved by the film, and felt emotionally spent by the end. This is an experience that will draw from the viewer the entire spectrum of human emotion, if the viewer allows him/herself into the plot. In the theatre in which I saw the movie, there were more than a few people who clearly lost track of the movie and were bored by it when they found that they were unable to get back into the plot. I'm sure others just lack the ability to properly follow any movie like this. I don't mean that to sound pompous, but some people are more cut out for the Seagal, Chan, Van Damme genre of movies, and these are the types that probably would not enjoy this movie. It is very cerebral, so make sure you are prepared for a two hour mental bender, as well as much thought afterwards.
As far as comparing this film to other Crowe movies, it is very similar in at least one regard, in all Crowe movies, the soundtrack is a character unto itself. This is almost definitely due to Crowe's longstanding ties to music, as anyone who has seen Almost Famous knows, and to his marriage to Heart star Nancy Wilson. It was also worthy to note that there was a definite chemistry between Tom Cruise's acting and Crowe's directing that made the movie seem familiar to anyone who has seen Jerry Maguire. In my mind, that is not a bad thing.
Anyway, if I had to compare this movie to any one other film, I would say this: if you enjoyed David Fincher's The Game, you will almost certainly be a fan of Vanilla Sky.
\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 game is the bomb and this is the 007 game of the year and should be on greatest hits. When I got Agent Under Fire, I thought that was a good game but then Nightfire came around and that was better, but now there is a new type of James Bond game. This time it a 3rd person shooter and there is more than 12 missions, the graphics of the game are out of this house. It even has all of the great actors and actresses in this game like Pierce Bronsan as once again James Bond, William Dafoe as the villain Nikolai Diavolo, and Judi Dench as M (forgive me all if I spell it wrong). This game would be own as the greatest James Bond game around.
I give this a 10/10
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of the best bond games i have ever played because:
The missions are very very fun to play they have lots of action in them they can be really hard sometimes that makes it even more fun the weapons that you use are really good. The cars in this game are really good the driving missions are fun to do. This James bond game has a good story to it. The voice over actors in this game are really good and it is cool that pierce brosnan is in this game and the way the characters look is really good because they look like what they look like in real life which is really cool. Also the graphics in this game pretty good.
Overall score ********* out of **********
\n
assistant\n1
\n"