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\nIt utterly defeats me why Godard is taken so seriously - and One Plus One is a great example of his ineptitude as both a filmmaker and an 'intellectual' polemicist. It's hard to credit that Godard actually believed all that Marxist and Maoist kant. Anyone with half a brain could work out the bankruptcy of those 'isms' and how many people they had destroyed and were continuing to destroy even as Godard was making his films supporting them. As a filmmaker, ask yourself: would you have boring voice-overs reading tedious political diatribes at your audience, and then, when you couldn't think of anything else to do, layer another voice-over to the first voice-over, which had lost its listeners after the first 100 words in any case? Brilliant, Jean-Luc! As for Godard insisting on making a film with the Rolling Stones: of course he did; wouldn't you? It was the only guarantee of getting such mindless rubbish seen in the first place: the genius of the Stones eclipsing a talentless and babbling political idiot set loose with a camera. The bookshop scene wasn't worthy of even the worst fringe theatre, and was an insult to the intelligence of even the young children who were used to play in it - as could be readily seen. Copping-out by allowing friendly critics to claim that all this artless crap was a satire on mainstream film-making is no more than a safe get-out to offer those who clearly see Godard's poverty of intellect and arrogant contempt for his audience. Ironic that Godard's one-time great friend, Truffaut, with Nuit Americain, made the best film about film-making ever, and Godard made the worst with Le Mepris! Incidentally, Godard didn't choose the Stones' track of Sympathy With the Devil. It just happened to be the track they were working on when the 'film' started shooting at Barnes Olympic Studios.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs a casual listener of the Rolling Stones, I thought this might be interesting. Not so, as this film is very 'of its age', in the 1960's. To me (someone born in the 1980's) this just looks to me as hippy purist propaganda crap, but I am sure this film was not made for me, but people who were active during th '60's. I expected drugs galore with th Stones, I was disappointed, it actually showed real life, hard work in the studio, So much so I felt as if I was working with them to get to a conclusion of this god awful film. I have not seen any of the directors other films, but I suspect they follow a similar style of directing, sort of 'amatuerish' which gave a feeling like the TV show Eurotrash, badly directed, tackily put together and lacking in real entertainment value. My only good opinion of this is that I didn't waste money on it, it came free with a Sunday paper.
\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\nDan Duryea, a perfectly decent B-movie actor who made lots of lookalike noirs in the 1940s, can't do much with this one: young man is accused of murdering an unhappily married singer; when he's sentenced to die, his wife decides to solve the case herself with help from the dead woman's husband. After a dazzling opening shot, flick quickly settles into B-movie formula. It certainly looks good, but the twist finish is colorlessly handled and the cast (including Peter Lorre and Broderick Crawford) is just a bit stiff. Based on a Cornell Woolrich novel, and passable for a single viewing.
** from ****
\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\"Black Angel\" is minor whodunit, with June Vincent as a woman trying to save her husband from the electric chair after he is found guilty of killing an old acquaintance. Dan Duryea (the husband of the murdered woman) decides to help Vincent find the real culprit. Peter Lorre has one thankless role as a suspect. This film noir looks and plays like a cheap programmer, never achieving anything special. It is pleasant enough but then, at some point, it stops making sense and the solution to the mystery provokes one of those big \"give me a break\" reactions. That ending alone could have sank the film completely, but what precedes the conclusion is not very good either. Vincent is a wimpy heroine and Duryea was never very good at playing good guys. I love film noirs, but this one was a real disappointment.
\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 mercilessly corny and painfully unfunny attempt to transplant the character of Sheriff Bart from Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles into his own weekly sitcom, this is really as bad as some people say it is!
The laugh-track only serves to remind the unamused viewer what all in this supposed comedy is intended to be a joke and just how desperate for laughs it really is!
However, it is somewhat interesting to see Louis Gossett Jr. trying his best to impersonate Cleavon Little. His embarrassment shows through in every scene. He was much funnier in the HBO movie El Diablo than he was here in this slab of cheese!
Truly the best and funniest thing about Black Bart is the name of his horse!
\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\nWatching this was like getting a large mackerel slapped in your face over and over again. Even when you thought, \"That mackerel surely can't be coming around again,\" *slap* there it was. I'm not sure what they were thinking. This is the sort of pilot I watched and wondered, \"Did the actors know they were on a doomed ship destined to never be made into a series?\" Not only black stereotypes but Swedish and Indian ones as well. And while \"Blazing Saddles\" made these stereotypes into a mix of comedy and uncomfortableness, these stereotypes were just downright offensive. There was no plot line, the ending was slapped on, and the jokes aren't. Still, if you are a student of comedy, watch this pilot to see what you shouldn't do.
\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 very unfunny failed TV Pilot can be found as an extra on the 30th Annivesery DVD Special Edition \"Blazing Saddles\". Imagine the movie without the satire, humor, or writing skills. But with all the trappings of a typical lame '70's sit-com show complete with obtrusive laugh track and you'll still have no clue how sheer putrid this failed show was. What the hell was Lou Gossett Jr. thinking when he signed onto this disaster?? This was possibly the worst thing he's been in (and yes I'm including the first \"Punisher\" movie and \"Iron Eagles 3\". Steve Landesberg, I understand as he can't say no to crap.
My Grade: F
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just watched the 30th Anniversary edition of Blazing Saddles, one of my all time Favorites!! The TV Pilot for Black Bart stunk. The plot was non-existent and the acting was not good. It was obviously an attempt to profit off of the success of Blazing Saddles and there have been TV shows that have succeeded in doing take-offs of big movies, but this one would never have worked. Considering that for so many years TV would not even play the farting noises when they televised the movie, it is inconceivable that they thought they could put a show on TV with the \"N\" word thrown around. On the other hand, I enjoyed seeing a lot of familiar faces!!! There were quite a few actors/actresses that I recognized from other shows over the years. I had to write down all the names and do a few searches. That was fun. I was arguing with my mother if Steve Landesberg was from Barney Miller or Mash. I won! :)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was on the 30th Anniversary DVD for Blazing Saddles, itself brilliant, but not this. Nowhere did I see Mel Brook's name on here and I can guess why, he's got a lot more sense to not be associated with this pilot. My gawd, who would find this funny. Sure there may be a race issue but for me it just wasn't funny, well cause it's simply not funny. It's like the writers didn't even try to be funny, just to cash in on being tied with Blazing Saddles. Did they expect this show to go for several seasons when they made this pilot? Flat out, they didn't care. It was a quick cash cow which thank god didn't cash out. I guess it's useful for historical purposes only, or only to demonstrate how stupid and unimaginative Hollywood writers can be.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Dutch Schultz\", AKA Arthur Fleggenheimer, was a real person and his rather nasty life is fairly well documented. This movie which purports to depict his life should have used a fictional character, because the overdramatized events are too strong a departure from the facts and the chronology. Not only that, it ignores some interesting details which other versions have included such as the public relations fiasco in upstate N.Y. and his religious conversion. It is true that he was executed by Luciano, Lansky, et. al. but that's as far as it goes. The exploding plate scene which represents Luciano carrying out the execution of Bo Weinberg in his own home, assisted by his own mother is rediculous. Also, there is the scene in which Dutch approaches his own mother to pay protection to Legs Diamond. It just doesn't work. The character of Mrs. Fleggenheimer doesn't work either. This movie does not need a doting Jewish mother for comic relief. The lame representation of Legs Diamond was humorous enough. I'm sure the man is turning in his grave. And, by the way, Dutch did in fact personally kill people, but, he was not Rambo or 007. The scene in which he wipes out the brewery is absurd. I don't know. Maybe it was supposed to be a comedy and I just didn't get 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\nAs I write this review in 2008, we are mired in a remake culture. Movie studios seem determined to ruin as many classic films as they can with thoroughly pointless updates including 'King Kong, 'The Wicker Man' and practically every film that ever starred Michael Caine. This lazy remake mentality is not a new phenomenon, however, as 'Dough for the Do-Do' proves. An entirely pointless colorized version of Bob Clampett's surreal masterpiece 'Porky in Wackyland', 'Dough for the Do-Do' sucks the life out of the original by splashing colour all over Clampett's original footage and adding some lame new footage overseen by Friz Freleng. Freleng was an entirely unsuitable director to be tampering with Clampett's source material, although in truth no director could hope to come close to Clampett's inspired insanity. Inevitably, then, 'Dough for the Do-Do' is nothing more than the raping of a classic with an appalling new title attached. For cartoon fans like myself, its equivalent to a colorization of 'Casablanca'.
\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\nGrowing up, Joe Strummer was a hero of mine, but even I was left cold by this film. For better and worse, The Future Is Unwritten is not a straightforward \"Behind the Music\" style documentary. Rather it is a biographical art film, chock full of interviews, performance footage, home movies, and mostly pointless animation sketches lifted from \"Animal Farm.\" The movie is coherent but overlong by about a half hour.
The campfire format, while touching in thought, is actually pretty annoying in execution. First off, without titles, its hard to even know who half of these interviewees are. Secondly, who really needs to hear people like Bono, Johnny Depp, and John Cusack mouth butt licking hosannas about the man? They were not relevant to Strummer's life and their opinions add nothing to his story.
This picture is at it's best when Strummer, through taped interviews and conversation, touches on facets of his life most people did not know about: the suicide of his older brother, coming to terms with the death of his parents, the joy of fatherhood. To me, these were most moving because it showed Joe Strummer not as the punk icon we all knew and loved, but as a regular human being who had to deal with the joys and sorrows of life we all must face.
There have been better, more straightforward documentaries about Strummer and The Clash. (Westway, VH1 Legends, and Kurt Loder's narrated MTV Documentary from the early 90's come to mind.) Joe Strummer: The Future Is Unwritten is for diehards only.
\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\nStrummer's hippie past was a revelation, but overall this felt like crashing a wake. Campfire stories work best around the intimacy of a campfire. There were just too many semi-boring old friends anecdotes and too much filler stock footage. I love The Clash and Joe for not reuniting and selling their songs until now (FU Mick Jones), but this doc left me wanting..to relate more. Using campfire storytellers without proper explanation of who is telling the anecdote alienates the viewer to some extent. They should have been interviewed on their own. Even using Strummer's 'radio DJ voice' did little to glue the film together. And can someone explain all the flags flying behind the campfire scenes? After the awesome \"Filth And The Fury\" I hoped Temple could deliver. A Joe Strummer doc deserves better.
\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 the music of the Clash and I love the music of Joe Strummer and The Mescaleros. I went to this movie hoping to learn about the man behind most of that. But I came out of the theatre not knowing much more about Joe than I already did after reading the entry on Wikipedia. The movie never really gets through to the person, his thoughts and feelings. What they did was to collect the little material that they had, shaky blurry videos and to interview some people about Joe Strummer at a camp fire. It turns out that most of these people knew him very little or not at all, and that the director just wanted them in the movie in order to have some more celebrities say, \"Oh, he was such an inspiration to all of us\". Like Bono or Johnny Depp (whom they seemingly asked to keep his pirate costume on to benefit from his current success in Pirates of the Caribbean). It seems that the director could not even wait until the body was cold before he jumped in to sell his version of \"the greatest punk rocker and hippie at heart\" that ever lived, sanctifying the person without really knowing enough about him.
Sure, being a fan i enjoyed seeing the images of the band, hearing the anecdotes behind the songs and such, but in the end I felt like what remained as the portrait of Joe Strummer could have easily been told in 60-90 minutes.
Go see the movie if you are a fan, otherwise better listen to some music of the Clash or even better the undeservedly unknown Mescaleros, where Joe Strummer reached the peak of his musical development before his death, melting all his rich influences together to one amazing sound.
\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\nIn the opening scene of \"Malta Story\" Mr A.Guinness bore such a startling resemblance to Noel Coward that I fully expected his first words to be \"Certain women need striking regularly - like gongs\" or some such world - weary bon mot.Unfortunately his dialogue is hardly deathless prose and even the Master would have had trouble bringing it to life.Indeed Mr Guinness wanders through the picture as if looking for a focal point and failing to find one.And therein lies the fatal weakness of the whole movie.Mr J.Hawkins likewise gives up early on and ends up giving a \"Jack Hawkins\" performance without an ounce of individuality.It could have been spliced from any of a dozen British war movies.Many of the early fifties usual suspects turn up and do their schtick to very little purpose. The Luftwaffe failed to bomb Malta into submission in much the same way as it failed to bring London to its knees.The courage of the Maltese people in the face of incessant danger was recognised by the King and the island was awarded the George Cross.A worthy subject you might think for a movie,but \"Malta Story\" does not even qualify for the term \"worthy\" in its most patronising sense.It gives the appearance of being hastily cobbled together to meet a deadline,perhaps before the actors lost the will to live.
\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 British cinema flag waver. Real garbage on offer here once again. I cannot understand (and I am British) why this over the top, patriotic nonsense was ever made. EIGHT years mark you, from when the second world war had actually ended! Other commenter's here have remarked on the editing and apparent seamless use of archive footage. This is extremely poorly observed. The archive footage is in abundance. Model aircraft swing from wires in the 'action scenes' like so many children's kites in the wind. The usual map room sequences tattoo the movie to make us supposedly drawn into the whole Malta event. Guinness must have his worst acting performance ever. The shocking back drop dog fight scenes are laughable. Hawkins bores us all to death in the map room area. Ealing made many great movies. This clearly is not one of them. They should have stayed away from such unconvincing rot!
\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 Stanwyck's husband-to-be is murdered on the eve of their wedding, she retreats to a mountain lodge, where she slips (sort of) off a cliff and is rescued by wealthy attorney Morgan. Morgan falls in love with her, leading to a definitely one-sided marriage, spent on a huge estate in Chicago (which appears to be surrounded by mountains!). Stanwyck is tempted by dashing Cortez, but eventually returns to Morgan, in a very subdued and unconvincing story resolution.
This film has a great cast (Morgan in particular is one of my favorites) and a great director, but the script is meandering and seems pointless at times. I was so ready to enjoy this movie but I was ultimately disappointed. Still worth watching for the cast, and it's good for anyone who likes 1930s films.
\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\nJustin goes home to live with his strict, hard-nosed police detective father, but it seems daddy has turned the upstairs into three makeshift apartments each with bizarre tenants residing in them. Straight-laced idealist Justin is thrust into the world of the occult, murder, under-aged drinking and other dastardly things. Ho-hum
Wow, have I seen the same film that nearly all the other reviewers on here saw??? Clever, compelling, original, intense, clever, genius????!!? I witnessed none of those things. What I DID see was an uninteresting, bland, trite, extremely clichéd low-budget thriller that was ripe with implausibilities and no tension in the least bit as the killer is telegraphed as soon into the film as he gives his monologue/debate/discussion. And where are these humorous laugh-out-loud moments? I never so much as chuckled, perhaps because i was too busy struggling not to be put to sleep by the film.
My Grade: D
DVD Extras: Audio commentary with director Dave Campfield; Second commentary with various contributers as well as isolated music tracks; 4 featurettes (Making of, on the set, turning 1 room into 4, & Inside the black circle); Interviews with Felissa Rose, Desiree Gould, & Raine Brown; Alternate scenes; bloopers; a music video for 'Addiction'; A trailer for this movie; And trailers for \"Shock-o-rama\", \"Chainsaw Sally\", \"Skin Crawl\", \"Sinful\", \"Bacterium\", \"Creature from the Hillbilly Lagoon\", & \"Millennium Crises\"
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just finished \"Dark Chamber\" aka \"Under Surveillance\" and I'm stunned. Stunned, not by the film, but by some of the rave reviews I perused which influenced my watching it. The story was so ravaged by plot-holes and the majority of the acting so flat, categorizing it as a comedy seems appropriate. Seriously, I found myself shaking my head and laughing in bewilderment as I endured this movie.
Justin leaves the confines of living at home with a pain killer-addicted mom to go live with his cop father despite Mom's warnings that Dad is no good. When a young woman is found murdered, Justin becomes suspicious of the tenants who reside in the adjacent apartments. With the help of a couple pals, he installs covert cameras to keep tabs on these folks. As the truth begins to unravel, Justin uncovers an unexpected secret.
One positive point is that Felissa Rose is HOT! I would have generously slapped an extra star or two on here had she peeled down a bit, but no such luck. It would have been the film's potential saving grace. Eric Conley played Justin very adeptly, I thought, and I wouldn't be surprised whatsoever to see more of him in the future.
The general premise of the film, although plagued by clichés, might possibly have worked had it not been for the ridiculously hollow \"performances\" of key cast members, most notably Alexandra Eitel (Kayla) and David H. Rigg (Justin's father). The horror! (pardon the pun).
I have nothing against low-budget films. Indeed, I believe independent film is our only hope for decent film making in the days to come. I'll cut low-budget films quite a bit of slack when it comes to special effects, lighting, even musical score and the overall picture quality. I don't give allowances, however, for stick figure acting and a swiss cheese lover's script. There are a vast number of competently-made low budget films out there. Sadly, this isn't one of them. I can't help but suspect that at least a few of the reviewers who have praised \"Dark Chamber\" here are in some way affiliated with its production.
\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 tackles child abduction from the point of view of a Mom (lisa Hartman Black) who acts like a man would in an action thriller. Unlike other movies where the focus is on the Police, here the Mom is tracking down her ex-husband who kidnapped their son. She gets help from her lawyer who eventually falls in love with her.
Before finally catching up with her son, a lot of bizarre things happen. The Mom tries to take a child that looks like her son from a local Children's Play at a community theater. She gets caught, and then realizes it is not her child. That alone would have gotten most people put into the Mental Ward or a few months in jail waiting for trial. However, in this movie the Mom is release after a couple of hours because the victim's parents feel sorry for her. A little while later Mom breaks into her mother-in-law's house and then the Police arrive and they have their guns aimed at her but they let her run away because they recognize her (and feel sorry for her?).
At another point in the story they have found the child, but when the Police arrive to search the house it turns out they left out the back door and got into the river on a dinghy that apparently the Dad kept around just for such an emergency escape! The Mom gets someone to lend her a raft, and even though it must have taken some time (in a real world), she and the lawyer-boyfriend, and the Police catch up to the other raft pretty fast and it is upside down in the water by landfall. Instead of getting out of the raft to search for the Dad on the land, Mom presumes he drowned the boy and she jumps into the water when she sees his life-jacket. Of course, she cannot swim and sinks like a rock. The lawyer saves her, but they miss a chance to run after the Dad. At one point the Mom is told her son died at a Clinic in Mexico. On and on it goes, and where it stops nobody knows! In some ways, this movie really exploits child abduction and it is not very positive. On the other hand, seeing a woman do all the crazy things that men do in these kind of movies was fun (or funny?).
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of those cheaply made TV Movies were the characters seem to lose all sense. The premise of the story, the kidnapping of a son by the boy's father,is very good. But the story just seems to beggar belief. Whenever the mother is advised not to do anything you know fine well she is going to do it. It is a bit far fetched and not worthy of a viewing.
\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 agree totally with another of the reviewers here who was pleased \"For The Birds\" won the Oscar in 2002 for \"Best Animated Short,\" not this sick material, which is pretentious at best and appealing to anyone, of course, who has no belief in heaven or hell.
The animation was good, but so are a lot of animated shorts. And, by the way, I love dark humor but this just was unappealing from the start.
As for the story here: a guy walking around and surrounded by nothing but grey (symbolism here) is told by a TV set (which appears every few hundred yards away) that he is in either heaven, hell, or purgatory. Each time he puts a gun to his head and shoots himself after hearing the news. I guess that would be funny in two of the three instances.
\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\nIf you have beloved actors, Peter Falk, Rip Torn, George Segal, and Bill Cobbs, you don't need Billy Burke, Coolio, or any other distractions. Massive talent is totally wasted in \"Three Days to Vegas\", with the blame falling squarely on the script. My neighbor's vacation films are about as interesting as this misguided road movie. If you want to see how to utilize a veteran cast with a good script, check out \"The Crew\". There really are no redeeming factors here, and watching these wonderful actors struggling with such weak material is a crime. I wanted to like it, but the shallow script cheats the audience, by essentially giving the actors nothing to work with. - MERK
\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\nOne of the worst films ever. Not funny, poor TV style cinematography, bad acting. Sad to see so many famous old actors barely able to walk, let alone act. Lead female Nancy Young can't act. Terrible direction. Sub-par with bad TV movies. Occasional weak jokes fall flat. Even the basic premise of the movie makes no sense. Somehow they are supposed to stop a wedding from happening but there's no logic behind their actions. Slow pacing made my wife stop watching but I suffered through it. The old men are supposed to be acting like they are young and horny, but it comes off as pathetic instead of funny. How did they even get the money to make this?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was not a well done western. You've got this nut riding around in the blazing sun in a buggy with a parasol over it, killing people for his own reasons. You've got this same person sitting in a snow cave during a blizzard, cutting off pieces of his anatomy which have been frostbitten. Then you've got some woman in a house out in the middle of somewhere shooting wolves that are not there. What is the point of this film? Couldn't Bruce Dern find something better to do? This was a waste of film.
\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 gave this 3 stars out of a possible 10 - because the stories are open-ended and left unexplained, and because of the nauseating scenes of someone eating in an extremely disgusting way, plus scenes of a decaying corpse.
Neither of the above needed to be shown in such a graphic manner.
The film's plot, such as it is, concerns three loosely interconnecting stories, none of which conclude satisfactorily.
The bounty hunter, played by Bruce Dern, is the character that connects all three vignettes.
First we have Dylan McDermott, looking darn fine, as a wanted criminal who is fleeing to Mexico to escape both the law and the bounty hunter, when he rides through a border town and spots a sad-faced saloon girl played by Helen Hunt.
Then we have one of the Hemingway girls, not sure which one, playing a western wife out on the lonely frontier who goes over to see about a neighbor woman, an attractive redhead, whom we soon realize has been out in the badlands a little too long.
The conclusion of the film returns to the bounty hunter and what happens to him, with the final scene in the film being completely beyond rational comprehension.
\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\nDVD has become the equivalent of the old late night double-bill circuit, the last chance to catch old movies on the verge of being completely forgotten like The Border. There were great expectations for this back in 1982  a script co-written by The Wild Bunch's Walon Green, Jack Nicholson in the days when he could still act without semaphore and a great supporting cast (Harvey Keitel, Warren Oates, Valerie Perrine), Tony Richardson directing (although he was pretty much a spent force by then)  but now it doesn't even turn up on TV. The material certainly offers a rich seam of possibilities for comment on the 80s American Dreams of capitalism and conspicuous consumption, with Nicholson's border patrolman turning a blind eye to the odd drug deal or bit of people trafficking to finance his wife's relentless materialism, until he rediscovers his conscience when he finds out his partners are also in the baby selling business. Unfortunately, he never really gets his hands dirty, barely even turning a blind eye before his decency rises to the surface. The film feels always watered down as if too many rewrites and too many committees have left it neutered and, sadly, the recent DVD release is a missed opportunity to restore the original, nihilistic ending where Nicholson goes over the edge and firebombs the border patrol station that was cut after preview audiences found it too downbeat but which still featured prominently in the film's trailers.
While that probably wasn't too convincing considering how low-key Nicholson's crisis of conscience is in the film, it had to be better than the crude reshot climax where the film abandons logic and even basic rules of continuity: at one point he's holding characters at gunpoint, then he's somewhere else and they're free trying to kill him, one character goes from injured at his house to hopping around like a gazelle on the banks of the Rio Grande while Valerie Perrine's character gets dumber on an exponential level. The villains of the piece are disposed of with absurd ease (and one impressive car stunt) in time for a clumsily edited happy ending and you start wondering if you somehow found yourself watching another film entirely. What makes it all the more clumsy is that the rest of the film is so flat and underwhelming that the sudden lurch into melodrama is all the more jarring. Unfortunately Ry Cooder's beautiful title song, Across the Borderline, says it all much more economically. But if you want to know the film's real crime, it's completely wasting the great Warren Oates in a nothing bit part. When even he can't make an impression, you know something's really wrong. All in all, all too easy to remember why I found this so forgettable at the 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\nAfter reading the reviews, it became obvious that everyone intellectualized this work. How utterly boring. Oh how about the good ol' days and there was nothing like it. Of all the comments no one expressed any emotion to this work or any other.
I grew up just after the end of the steam age and this cinematic gem along with Dan'l Boone graced the Saturday afternoon matinées. This was an annual movie that made the rounds and filled the seats with gabbing, yapping, farting, giggling, snot monsters like myself or was-self. And it was a movie theatre filler at the time. Almost as big as the Wizard of Oz.
IMDb insists that every critique contains something about the plot. Problem is was that it was rather a template. Here goes. Randolph Scott (cowboy/hero)gathers friends and goes defeats those evil people. Hooray!
All of us kids figured out that plot before we plunked our quarter down to watch it. That was just about the plot line of every Scott, John Wayne, Roy Rogers film ever made. If you take the time to go back and review each and every movie - just don't ask for surprises.
One must remember the context of the times. There was no or little TV. None for kids. There was school. There was the great outdoors. There were toy guns. No Cyber time. And the steam age had just collapsed. But movies such as this provided the entertainment and filled the imaginations of young whippersnappers. Even the girls got into it.
This movie was the entertainment. And it is just as mindless as anything produced today. It had a purpose originally of being propaganda. But quickly came to be kids movies.
Our fathers had experienced the real thing. And it wouldn't be until Sam Peckinpah a decade later who finally lavished the red splashes of imitation blood in realistic and copious quantities. Not until his directorship did anyone die slowly, with great pain and miserably. Until Peckinpah war and gun fights were a rather bloodless affair. Thanks Sam.
To see a movie had little or no blood, the adults didn't mind. They wouldn't have tolerated it I think. No guts spraying the shattering plant life. So this movie had all of the glory and none of the gory. Gung Ho was suitable for kids then.
You will see that I assigned a four to this rating. Why would I do that? Well. It is a terrible movie. No matter how I love it. I do love this movie because it brought back one of the happier moments of my childhood. But it is not all that good of a movie in quality terms. Basically Gung Ho transitted to become a romance novel for children.
Should people watch it. Of course. I am not saying to stay away. Realistically however. The plot is simple. The characters shallow? they are shoals. You can love a bad movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nShould have been titled 'Balderdash!' Little in the film is true except the name of the island and the fact submarines were involved. Little more than training film quality with poor camera work, muddy stock footage and perhaps the low point of stereotyping 'Japs' with laughing Japanese infantry, laughing Japanese fighter pilots and one-dimensional square-jawed Americans dying left and right. Sixty years later it is unintentionally funny as an odd artifact and as an opportunity to see what is possible when the war fever is upon you. The plot and the dialogue remind me of playing guns on a summer's afternoon in my childhood, peering through the neighbor's hedge to gain a fatal advantage on my best friend Steve and my little brother. In actual fact, the Makin Island raid was a near total failure with Carlson and his men wandering around in the dark exchanging gunfire with shadows until finally, thirsty and completely disoriented, looking for someone to surrender to, before they happened upon some equally confused Japanese soldiers who promptly surrendered to them! In the withdrawal several of Carlson's Marines ended up on another island and were abandoned! The film, of course, couldn't tell that story, not in 1943, so this bit of whimsy was fabricated and rushed into release to the beating of drums. With Randolph Scott, and his jaw, as Colonel Thorwald (Carlson) leading a unit comprised almost entirely of stock caricatures, the green recruit (Harry Landon, Robert Mitchum), the grizzled veteran (J. Carroll Naish, Milburn Stone, Sam Levene), the country-bumpkin (Rod Cameron), the all-American boy (Alan Curtis), and scores of sneering (when they weren't laughing) 'Japs'. And yet the cast nearly overcomes the material. Almost. Randolph Scott's narrow range is well suited to his role of earnest commander and he is supported by a solid group of professionals who do their best with thin gruel. But in the end, the one-note object of the exercise wins. Any pretense is totally abandoned at the close when Randy Scott simply looks directly into the camera and delivers a stirring (well sorta stirring) call to arms. The cast was better than this material. So was the audience. Should be viewed with Reefer Madness and a bottle of moderately priced Merlot.
\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 movie 'Gung Ho!': The Story of Carlson's Makin Island Raiders was made in 1943 with a view to go up the moral of American people at the duration of second world war. It shows with the better way that the cinema can constitute body of propaganda. The value of this film is only collection and no artistic. In a film of propaganda it is useless to judge direction and actors. Watch that movie if you are interested to learn how propaganda functions in the movies or if you are a big fun of Robert Mitchum who has a small role in the film. If you want to see a film for the second world war, they exist much better and objective. I rated it 4/10.
\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 true story of Carlson's Raiders is more of a Army training film than anything else.Obviously thrown together quickly on a miniscule budget about the only thing it has to recommend it is an early performance by Robert Mitchum,who's the only decent actor in the cast,and actual footage of the wreckage at Pearl Harbor which gets your blood boiling,as it was obviously intended to do.
\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 very attractive and capable cast is lost in this deadly boring rehash of the slasher sub-genre. The plot a simply a collection of cliches and set-pieces that we've all seen a hundred times before. Has great potential as an insomnia treatment.
\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 really should have been a one star, but there was so many, clichés, predictable twists, seen it all before slasher flick parallels that I actually give it an extra star for the fact it made me laugh...although this was never the directors intention Im sure.
I don't often write comments about films, they have to be either sensational, or in this ones case really bad.
To be honest, as soon as I saw Jeff Fahey in it I knew it was going to be poor as he has a unique nose for picking out the worst films.
Somehow the farce of it all made me watch it all the way through, possibly for the hilarious voice of MR T, (not relay Mr T, but you'll know what I mean if you bother to watch this), if you do watch it, make sure you don't pay to see it. This may have worked had they actually put intended comedy into it, but Im sure you'll find the odd laugh here and there at the farce of it all...
\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 suppose that any novel that's as much of a downer as Moby Dick would not find much favor with Depression era audiences who had enough of their own troubles. But any resemblance to the classic Herman Melville novel is a pure coincidence.
In fact half of the film is a prequel to the main story as we know it, not that too much of it was kept for the film. We first meet Ahab Creely (he's got a last name and a brother) as one happy go lucky soul with two legs and intentions to marry Joan Bennett who is Father Mapple's daughter. That brother Derek, played by Lloyd Hughes, also wants to marry Bennett.
John Barrymore is Ahab in an over the top performance. Barrymore had not quite mastered the sound cinema and he gave out with all the silent era histrionics plus a stage voice that would have shaken the rafters of any movie theater this film was playing in.
We see Ahab lose his leg to the great whale Moby Dick and I have to say the amputation scene was pretty gruesome. Of course this was all before the Code. Still I'm sure 1930 audiences shuddered.
After that the story of Ahab's hunt for the whale that he thinks made him unsightly in Joan Bennett's eyes. That is not exactly Melville's motivation, in fact there are no women characters in Moby Dick as he wrote it.
One of the things Melville did was invest the crew of Ahab's ship the Pequod with personalities. Other than Queequeg the cannibal harpooner the names are there, but not the personalities. Starbuck and Stubbs might as well be Smith and Jones.
I'd see this version of Moby Dick strictly for curiosity and nothing else.
\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\nNecessarily ridiculous film version the literary classic \"Moby Dick\". John Barrymore is Captain Ahab, who falls in love with the pastor's daughter, Joan Bennett. His brother Derek is a rival for Ms. Bennett's affections. When Mr. Barrymore loses his leg in a whaling accident, Bennett rejects him. He must slay the whale and win Bennett back...
There are several scenes which may have thrilled 1930 theater audiences; particularly the scenes involving Barrymore losing his leg. The film hasn't aged well, however; there are much better films from the time, both 1920s silents and 1930s talkies. The two name attractions, John Barrymore and Joan Bennett aren't at their best.
**** Moby Dick (8/14/30) Lloyd Bacon ~ John Barrymore, Joan Bennett, Lloyd Hughes
\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 version of \"Moby Dick\" insults the audience by claiming it is based on Melville's novel-even going so far as to show a phony first chapter sentence rather than the famous \"Call me Ishmael\". In addition to having atrocious acting, even from John Barrymore,this is perhaps the greatest example of how far Hollywood (especially early Hollywood) would go to revise and change a famous novel just to beef up its chances at the box office.All of the novel's beautiful,poetic language has been absolutely eradicated, and Ahab has been changed from a brooding,blasphemous,obsessive madman to a dashing,misunderstood hero who only wants to kill Moby Dick after his fiance(!) turns away from him after seeing his wooden leg. To this is added the standard evil brother who wants the fiance for himself, and a different ending!
\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 found this a good movie to pass your time, but not by any chance of any historical value. The portrayal of Cleopatra reminded me a cheap soap opera.
The twist of the facts is... funny! She gave birth while feeding her people!?!? O please... A pregnant Queen of Egypt (especially this one) would not bother to go from one room to the other for that reason! They tried to make her appear a saint for God's sake! And the way they tried to justify her murdering her own sister... beyond description.
Cleopatra was the greatest politician of her time. Her decisions were based anything but her feelings and morals. She did everything for only two reasons: Power and self-preservation! She was borne in a family where she had to straggle for survival, something she did very well. Anything that stood on her way was either murdered (her brothers and sister) or seduced (Ceasar and Mark Anthony).
Unfortunately Octavian was too powerful to kill and too... gay to be seduced. So, he was her end...
\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 DVD version consists of 2 episodes, the parricide of Caesar being the juncture. In addition, the language was Spanish without subtitles. Hence, it's hard for me to review in depth this movie because because i didn't understand what was said.
Cleopatra being an historic icon, the part is very difficult and i found that for a newcomer, Leonor Varela just plays fine. She is strong-willed but also a very supportive, tender soul mate. Thimothy Dalton as Caesar is perfect and their romance is the main thing of the first episode. So, it is not really a documentary, nor a peplum but a great love story.
After the parricide, a new lover comes (Marc-Antoine) but the flavor is gone: we remember always our first love. So, i found the second episode dull and their tragic fate isn't told powerfully.
Nonetheless, the production is luxurious: the sets are big, tastefully decorated; the Moroccan live location exotic and the wardrobes splendid. The producers have a lot of money for sure, but they spend nothing on the special effects. They are so poor (blue screens, ships, Sphinx) that it's funny.
Finally, I would like very much to hear it in french or English to make a definitive opinion about this two movies.
\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\nIf this book remained faithful to the book then we can only assume that the author was ignorant of history. Mark Anthony never died of injuries obtained in battle as depicted. He died a coward's death by committing suicide and even then, he asked his slave to do it for him. The slave chose to kill himself instead. In the real story Mark Anthony was ashamed by the slave's great valor and decided to copy him. But even in death Mark Anthony was a drunken failure and failed at his own suicide attempt. He cried out for Cleopatra and was taken to her, bleeding. She hauled his litter up on ropes and Mark Anthony died a while later. If you want history don't watch this movie. If you want romantic drivel then you will probably enjoy it!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"