empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is completely ridiculous. Not only is the plot atrocious, but the acting is horrendous. The special effects are asinine and the entire movie is set in a post-apocalyptic desert. Yet, it is by far the most amusing movie ever given permission to be produced. It is 101 minutes of laughs due to the fact that we all know there will be no fuel in the year 3000, or any El Camino's. There are also other aspects which I will not spoil, just because they are what makes the movies so wonderfully moronic. I highly recommend this movie, just because of its utter idiocy. I have no idea who would watch this expecting it to be a high quality feature, but if a good laugh is what you need, watch Exterminators of the Year 3000!
\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 the only full length feature film about the world of bridge. I found the first 10 minutes a bit slow, but after that, the movie is absolutely perfect in describing professional bridge players and how they go about earning a living.
Some of the scenes are very funny. I don't think that a non-bridge player would get the charm of this movie.
Some of the dresses are really beautiful, pity the movie is in black and white - I can only imagine what they would look like in color. The way the media are portrayed is absolutely hilarious. There is no way on earth bridge will ever be like that.
Watch it as soon as you can, and tell your friends 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\nThis is the only full length feature film about the world of bridge. I found the first 10 minutes a bit slow, but after that, the movie is absolutely perfect in describing professional bridge players and how they go about earning a living.
Some of the scenes are very funny. I don't think that a non-bridge player would get the charm of this movie.
Some of the dresses are really beautiful, pity the movie is in black and white - I can only imagine what they would look like in colour. The way the media are portrayed is absolutely hilarious. There is no way on earth bridge will ever be like that.
Watch it as soon as you can, and tell your friends 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\nA brilliant Russian émigré devises the Stanislavsky' system for winning at contract bridge - which makes him and his beautiful wife the GRAND SLAM Sweethearts of America.
What could have been just another silly soap opera is elevated by fine production values & excellent acting to the status of a very enjoyable little comedy. A few unexpected touches are thrown in to keep the viewer's attention engaged - the way in which the principle cast is introduced as faces on a deck of cards; the introduction of a zany acrobat into the plot for no other reason than to enjoy a bit of lunacy; and the way in which a wide variety of different kinds of Americans are shown to be transfixed by listening to the broadcast of the concluding game.
Paul Lukas & Loretta Young do very well as the Bridge Sweethearts - Lukas suave & sophisticated and Miss Young passionately loving and beautiful (even if the script keeps her puffing on a cigarette a bit too much). They are fun to watch, even when their behavior is not always the most believable or compelling.
Frank McHugh gives another good performance as a relentlessly cheerful ghost writer who adores Miss Young. The delightful Glenda Farrell eschews her customary wisecracking persona in a small role as McHugh's ditsy gal pal. Roscoe Karns handles the fast-talking dialogue as a brash radio announcer. Diminutive Ferdinand Gottschalk is wonderful as a snobbish bridge expert.
Movie mavens will recognize Dewey Robinson as a belligerent nightclub patron; Emma Dunn as a sob sister reporter; Paul Porcasi as the owner of the Russian nightclub; Charles Lane as a Russian waiter; and Jimmy Conlin as a kibitzer at the final bridge game - all uncredited.
The film takes advantage of the fad for contract bridge which had swept across the country since its development in the 1920's. It expects the viewer to have a basic knowledge of the intricacies of the game and makes no attempt to explain anything to the uninformed.
\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\n1933 seemed to be a great year for satires (\"Duck Soup\" for instance) and this one fits in well even though it is about the obsession with contract bridge. The tone is like a humorous piece from The New Yorker, appropriate, since the film begins with the \"Goings On About Town\" page of that magazine. The only thing odd is the casting. Made a few years later William Powell and Myrna Loy would have been perfect. However, after 1934, you wouldn't have had adultery handled in such a sophisticated fashion, the young and beautiful Loretta Young in some shear and slinky outfits, or a group of prostitutes listening to a bridge contest on radio. Even if you know nothing about bridge, you may still want to check out a rare example of Hollywood satire.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPaul Lukas played a Russian intellectual making his living as a waiter in
\"Grand Slam,\" directed by William Dieterle (1933). It is a surprisingly funny satire of the building up of celebrity. The waiter and the Russian restaurant's hat-check girl played by Loretta Young become America's sweethearts as bridge partners who do no squabble. With the aid of publicist and ghost-writer 'Speed' McCann (the wonderfully deadpan Frank McHugh) they become walking advertisements
for the \"Stanislavsky system,\" a \"system\" of bidding whatever one feels like
(since bids are not rational, there is no basis for recriminations about their stupidity).
A duel with displaced bridge guru Cedric Van Dorn (sounds close to Goren, no? and I suspect the choice of the character's name \"Stanislavsky\" was also a slam at another kind of system), a puffed-up charlatan played very well by Ferdinand Gottschalk, is broadcast on radio stations across America like a prize-fight by Roscoe Karns (another great fast-talking deadpan comic actor of the 1930s).
The bridge players are even in a roped-off square, though the audience is
above them, unlike in boxing \"rings.\"
The wide variety of American types prefigures the comedies of Preston Sturges, though for manufacturing celebrity, \"Grand Slam\" most calls to mind two better movies from the same (pre-Code) era with Lee Tracy playing fast-talking
publicists: \"The Half-Naked Truth\" and \"Bombshell,\" but \"Grand Slam\" has its
moments, especially for anyone who has played bridge with serious point
counters.
Loretta Young was already a clothes horse. (To me, her face seems a bit long
and horsey, too. Another era's notion of beauty, I guess...) The movie
unfortunately all but drops Glenda Farrell, who plays McHugh's forgetful
girlfriend.
\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\nWhen I found this film in my local videostore I expected it to be another cheesy American vampire film in the same vein of \"The Lost Boys\"(1987).To my surprise \"To Die for\" is a really good movie.It's a little bit corny at times,but still there are enough stylish set-pieces and surprises to satisfy vampire enthusiasts.This is a perfect mix of romance and horror and it's surprisingly gory at times.Highly recommended.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat a gem of a movie, so good that they made a sequel.
The film starts off really good with a nasty monster who eats a few people and a party where the 2 main characters first set eyes on each other.
Bendan Hughes plays the eccentric Vlad, a bit of an inkling there to who this character is, who has moved into town and uses the services of a particular real estate agent to find him a house.
Hell, we've all seen vampire movies, we know the format.
The movie is watchable, but the actors' performances are very wooden and they seem as they don't want to be in this film, but may be that's just all part of the decadent ambiance.
Didn't like the ending, but there is a sequel, must track it down.
When I watched the film I thought Brendan Hughes didn't really fit the part. Later on, I couldn't stop thinking about him, he sort of exudes an eerie sensuality, so maybe he was right for the part.
BRENDAN HUGHES Last seen in 'Hitler - the rise of evil' as Lt. Guffman.
Where is he 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\nSmall SPOILERS alert !!!
Good movie...VERY good movie. And I'm surprised to say that myself, because I'm not a big fan of vampires and the sound of the director's name Deran Serafian usually means bad news. Most of his films are below average action movies like Death Warrant and Gunmen. This was one of his first films and maybe he should have continued making horror movies instead of action. This movie really fascinated me. Good accomplishment, seeing no famous actors or big budget was involved. It really is the story that keeps you focused. Especially fans of the original Dracula myth will be satisfied. Sarafian lights up another aspect of the famous Bram Stoker story and remains rather loyal and true to the truth. It explains the life of the Roemenian Count Dracula and how he scared the Turkish army away by spearing dead corpses in front of his castle. Of course, that's where the reality and the \"based on a true story\" stops. The blood drinking and stuff all was invented by Bram Stoker.
In this movie, the count ( Vlad Teppish) emigrates to the USA and seduces tons of woman. And they're all pretty girls, I'll give him that. Overall, good acting by unknown faces, enough blood and gore to satisfy the more morbid horror fans and an interesting storyline. This film is really unknown and it was hidden on the darkest shelf at my local videostore. But it certainly is worth cleaning up the dust on the cover and put it in the VCR. Heck, it's a lot better than the famous Nicole Kidman movie with the same title. These two films have nothing else in common, but I blame that movie for stealing the attention away from this nice little picture. Check it out...my humble opinion on To Die For = 8.5/10
\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\nTo Die For has it all.This film has a great cast. Lots and lots of romance and terror. Not too gory but still enough to appeal to horror fans. There are a lot more vampire love stories. If you are a fan of vampire love stories I strongly recommend this film-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\n\"A Girl's Folly\" is a sort of half-comedy, half-mockumentary look at the motion picture business of the mid-1910's. We get a glimpse of life at an early movie studio, where we experience assembly of a set, running through a scene, handling of adoring movie fanatics, even lunch at the commissary. We are also privy to little known cinematic facts - for example, did you know that \"Frequently, 'movie' actors do not know the plot of the picture in which they are working\"?
The plot of this film in essence is movie star Kenneth Driscoll's discovery and romancing of a budding young starlet whom he discovers while shooting on location in the country. I believe the 30-minute version I watched was abridged, included on the same tape with Cecil B. De Mille's \"The Cheat.\" It is a very credible film - an easy watch with a large cast of extras. As a bonus it includes some of best-illustrated captions I have ever seen accompanying a silent movie.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHaving previously seen the abridged print presented by David Shepard, I finally got a hold of a complete--or nearer complete version, which was about 56 minutes compared to the 30-minute version more widely distributed. The Shepard print for Image Entertainment is certainly of superior quality, and the best parts are there, but it's nonetheless good to see the rest of the film and fill in some loose story ends.
In the Shepard print, the film ends with Mary stating, \"You see, I've changed my mind--I'm never going home.\" Yet, in the complete version, Mary and Kenneth Driscoll end their relationship soon after that scene  Mary returns home to the country  and Driscoll rekindles his relationship with Vivian. This additional footage develops the character Vivian, who had little relevance in the Shepard version. Moreover, in the complete version, the film begins in the New Jersey countryside with Mary, where she reads and fantasizes about her ideal lover. She's disappointed by the reality of the advances by farm \"chore boy\" Johnny Applebloom (a character completely absent from the Shepard version), but after her affair with Driscoll, she returns to the country to presumably and eventually become a farmer's wife.
Regardless of the print, 'A Girl's Folly' is a good little film for 1917, made by one of the top directors of the 1910s Maurice Tourneur. In it, Tourneur takes plenty of jabs at his own business, including by playing a caricature of himself--the director of the film-within-the-film. The two leads also give quality performances by early screen-acting standards: Robert Warwick, an actor playing a skirt-chasing star, and Doris Kenyon, as an ingénue aspiring to play an ingénue on the screen.
Self-referential films, which made film-making the focus of the films, were nothing new by now. Mack Sennett had already parodied this type of film three years prior with 'Mabel's Dramatic Career'. Several aspects of this one stand out, though. Frances Marion's intertitles are humorous, including illustrations of the actors on a chessboard with a hand directing them--remarkable for 1917. I especially liked the film's final title cards where two observers remark on the film's happy ending: \"Gee but ain't that romantick!\" And, the other replies, \"Romance, nuthin!  That's movin' pictures!\" Fellow female screenwriter Anita Loos made a similar self-referential conclusion to another film from 1917 'Wild and Woolly'. Both writers helped change the role of their professions in the business and art.
Some of the photography by Tourneur and John van den Broek is good, especially concerning the film-making business. The use of mirrors in several scenes is a nice reinforcement of the film's self-reflexivity. Furthermore, the editing is exceptional. The quick crosscutting during the studio scenes is especially salient; it serves to punctuate the hectic pace filmmakers work at, especially back then.
\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 haven't read through all the comments, but at least one poster mentioned that the 30 minute version might possibly be abridged. I'm curious about that myself because the later parts of the film just didn't make much sense to me even when I rewatched them. 30 minutes seems really short for a movie in 1917 also. \"Poor Little Rich Girl\" which was Tourneur's next film is 65 minutes long and \"Pride of the Clan\" which was his previous feature was 84 minutes long. So I'm relieved to see that I wasn't crazy, there must be part of this film missing and that's why the resolution didn't make much sense.
It's hard to review or comment on a movie that you're only able to see half of... but I would recommend this film anyway because of the really fascinating view that it provides us of the insides of an East Coast movie studio of the time. It's the earliest film I've personally seen that's based on the movie industry itself. The main character is a movie star played by Robert Warwick, who was later a mainstay Hollywood character actor and appeared in almost all of Preston Sturges' films. He plays a western actor perhaps vaguely modeled on William S. Hart, who Warwick does resemble somewhat. After the really fascinating sequences set in the studio we see them on a location shoot where he discovers a country girl (Doris Kenyon) and convinces her to come to New Jersey for a screen test which goes very poorly. After that point the movie seems to be missing major pieces in the form we have now.
Again, I'd recommend it to anyone who's interested in film history for the documentary value, but in the form we have it doesn't hold up much as a movie and isn't a particularly good example of Maurice Tourneur's work.
\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 the usual chase scene, Jerry accidentally winds up inside a bottle of invisible ink, which was part of a chemistry set. He quickly discovers he's invisible...so the predictable results occur, meaning he uses his new hidden condition to torment Tom. Jerry often is just defending himself, but often he has sadistic streak in him that torments the cat whenever possible, even when unprovoked.
Here, he makes Tom think his eyes are deceiving him when cheese from a mousetrap disappears before his eyes, or milk from a dish. Tom can't take anymore so he tries to sleep this nightmare off, but Jerry sets fire to his paw! Man, I hope little kids didn't ideas watching these cartoons back in the '40s and '50s! I always found Jerry, the little mouse, more evil than cute.
Thankfully, in cartoons, generally, whatever damage a character suffers is gone within seconds and he's back to normal.
The best part of this cartoon is about two-thirds of the way through when Tom figures out what the story is with Jerry, and tries different methods to detect where the mouse is located (such as putting flour on the floor to see his footprints).
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe usual cat and mouse antics abound until Jerry jumps into a bottle of invisible ink. He gets the bright idea of torturing Tom without him knowing. The cat gets wise and tries to do stuff to make him 'see' jerry even if it's not fool-proof. Of course Jerry gets Butch aka Killer aka Spike the dog into the act (even if it's late in the short, and his contribution is minimal indeed) Brilliant animated short which kind of reminded me of the one with the white mouse who scares Tom so badly. Most of the gags work and all violent as any good tom and jerry short should truly be. This hilarious cartoon can be found on disc one of the Spotlight collection DVD of \"Tom & Jerry\"
My Grade: B+
\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 Invisible Mouse\" is a delightful and different Tom & Jerry's cartoon. It features the usual cat/mouse chases and battles, but in a different way this time. Jerry accidentally falls in a bottle of invisible ink and is obviously very glad about this because he realizes that he can prepare lots of \"surprises\" for Tom, scare him, torment him and confuse him.
As much as it is weird, it's also very cool and funny to see what we can't see: Jerry invisible. It's amusing to see things lifting up in the air without seeing who's doing it (we know who, right?) - it's like those things had a life of their own or even almost like a matter of ghosts. It's equally amusing to see Jerry eating some candies and fruits while he's invisible. I really like that instrumental music which plays when he's not visible.
Some of the best jokes on this short are when Tom sees Jerry's shadow and slams him and even when Tom tries to slam him with a frying pan and Jerry writes \"Missed me\". I also like when Jerry drinks Tom's chocolate milk, becoming visible again and with a happy look on his face.
Overall, this short has the basic ingredients needed for a classic cartoon: humor, entertainment, fun and some nice artwork too.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe cat and mouse are involved in the usual chases when Jerry dives into a bottle of invisible ink and discovers that it makes him vanish. Instead of seizing the opportunity to go spy on a girl mouse changing room or something, he uses his new-found invisibility to torment Tom. And it's pretty funny and quite inventive despite being a somewhat one-joke cartoon. And the action never leaves the interior of the house, which is usually the trait of below average T&J shorts. Still worth a 7/10.
However, I'm not sure how an invisible mouse can cast a shadow on the wall, it defies physics and the very nature of being invisible itself.
\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\nWhen DEATHTRAP was first released, the poster--reproduced on the cover of this DVD--offered a graphic akin to a Rubik's Cube. It is an appropriate image: originally written for the stage by Ira Levin, who authored such memorable works as ROSEMARY'S BABY and THE STEPFORD WIVES, the play was one of Broadway's most famous twisters, and under Sidney Lumet's direction it translates to the screen extremely well.
DEATHTRAP is one of those films that it is very difficult to discuss, for to do so in any detail gives away the very plot for which it is famous. But the opening premise is extremely clever: Sidney Bruhl (Michael Caine) is the famous author of mystery plays, but these days he seems to have lost his touch. After a particularly brutal opening night, an old student named Clifford Anderson (Christopher Reeve) sends him a script for a play he has written. It is called \"Deathtrap,\" and Sidney recognizes it as a surefire hit. Just the sort of hit that would revive his career... indeed, a hit to die for. And when Clifford visits to discuss the play, events suddenly begin to twist in the most unexpected manner possible.
Like Anthony Shaffer's equally twisty SLEUTH, DEATHTRAP is really a story more at home on the stage than the screen--to reach full power it needs the immediacy that a live performance offers. Still, under the expert guidance of director Sidney Lumet, it makes a more-than-respectable showing on the screen. Much of this is due to the cast, which is remarkably fine. Michael Caine gives a truly brilliant performance, Dyan Cannon is funny and endearing as Sidney's relentlessly anxious wife, and Christopher Reeve gives what might be the single finest performance in his regrettably short acting career. If you can't see it in a first-rate theatrical production, this will more than do until one comes along.
Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe comparison to Sleuth, the earlier stage-play-turned-film, is obvious and upon my first viewing I too thought Sleuth was better, but Deathtrap has, at least for me, many more repeat viewings in it than Sleuth.
I purchased Deathrap in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart, figuring that it had Caine and the underrated Reeve and was worth the 6 bucks. It was one of the finest DVD purchases I could've picked up.
It's one of those best-kept-secrets that movie buffs always are always delighted to discover. And it's totally worth repeat viewings.
Though Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine turned in bravado performances in Sleuth, I was doubly impressed with Christopher Reeve as Clifford Anderson. Reeve, rightfully associated with his now legendary portrayal of Superman, stole the show in what should've been an Oscar worthy performance. I've always felt Reeve was a type-cast actor who didn't get much of a chance to shine outside of the Superman films and a few other flawed but entertaining films like Somewhere in Time, but this film shows that his potential was truly tapped and put to use, thank goodness.
I absolutely relished Michael Caine's performance. He was glib, deliciously manipulative and sadistic. And watching him work with Reeve and Dyan Cannon was an absolute pleasure. In fact, it was thanks to this movie that I got into a \"Michael Caine phase\" and started renting as much of his stuff as humanly possible.
As for Deathtrap, there's enough juicy dialogue in here to fill up its \"memorable quotes\" section. (Unfortunately, much of the dialogue would inherently spoil the immensely entertaining plot).
It's really, really hard to talk about the movie without spoiling important plot points that are infinitely more fun to discover on your own. Needless to say, it's a must-see. But for me, it was the greatest and most rewarding blind purchase of all time.
Repeat viewings are a must.
And it deserves to sit alongside Sleuth on your DVD shelf.
I'll leave you with this beautifully written quote from the film: \"I wonder if it wouldn't be...well...just a trifle starry-eyed of me to enter into such a risky and exciting collaboration...where I could count on no sense of moral obligation...whatsoever.\"
\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\nDefinitely one of the most witty and twisted who-dunnit I ever seen. Christopher Reeve and Micheal Caine were brilliant and kept me going through the whole affair.
Very classy set pieces and the props really lend a sense of atmosphere to the proceedings. The minimalist feel works for the whole picture.
My only complain isn't with the film itself but the lack of a decent widescreen edition of the movie on DVD. I own the fullscreen version (which proves I love the film enough to endure fullscreen presentation) but a awesome Deluxe or 'special' edition would most surely get my cash.
\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\nEvery time you think you have a handle on Deathtrap, another plot twist comes along. Best to just sit back and enjoy the ride on this one. Most noted for its on screen kiss between Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve (which was unfortunately cut from the televised version I saw), this movie has a great deal more to recommend it.
Sidney Bruhl (Michael Caine) is a very unhappy man. Once a successful playwright, his last several plays on Broadway have flopped. And while his wife Myra (Dyan Cannon) is nothing but supportive, in both the monetary and emotional sense, this does little to make Sidney feel any better. To add insult to injury, young playwright, Clifford Anderson (Christopher Reeve), has just sent Sidney a play to look at. It's Anderson's first, and Sidney can see that the young man is a gifted writer. He jokes to his wife that he should invite Anderson over, kill him, and submit the play as his own. She laughs with him at first, but when Sidney actually invites Anderson over for dinner, she worries that he may really be putting his scheme into action. And her fears just may be justified...
It's a brilliant script. There are twists and turns all through the plot, and they come faster and more furious as you get closer to the end. It's the kind of film that has you on the edge of your seat from the beginning, and keeps you there the entire time. An absolute masterpiece of suspense and mystery.
The acting is excellent. Caine gives his usual excellent performance, and he does exhibit a knack for playing cultured, refined, and intellectual men. Reeve also gives an excellent rendering of a man who isn't nearly as wide eyed or innocent as he seems. Cannon's franticness works well for Myra. And Irene Worth gives a nice performance as a nosy neighbor who is also a psychic.
This is a film with an ending you'd never expect, and repeated watchings help to pick up on things missed in earlier viewings. An unsung classic that is unfortunately only remembered for a scene which ruffled some sensibilities at the time - and that is a real shame.
\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\nNothing's more enjoyable for me than a who-dun-it or suspense tale that keeps you guessing throughout as to how the whole thing will end. And that's precisely what happens in DEATHTRAP, based on a chilling play by Ira Levin (\"Rosemary's Baby\").
And in it, MICHAEL CAINE and CHRISTOPHER REEVE get to do the kind of stunt that Caine and Laurence Olivier pulled off in SLEUTH--with just about as much skill and as many puzzles as ever existed in that extraordinarily clever play.
But because it's meant to scare you, surprise you, and keep you guessing as to the outcome, it's difficult to write a review about the plot. Let's just say that what we know in the beginning is all you have to know about the film for the present. MICHAEL CAINE is an insanely jealous playwright whose latest play has failed miserably. When a young aspiring writer CHRISTOPHER REEVE sends him the manuscript of his play, Caine realizes that passing it off as his own would solve all his problems and get his reputation back.
From that point on, it's a matter of fun and games for the audience as Ira Levin's story unwinds, managing to trump Agatha Christie for the number of twists.
Caine and Reeve play off each other brilliantly, each bringing a certain dynamic tension to the tale as well as some humorous touches that come from a script that laces drama with humor.
Summing up: Well worth seeing--but not everyone is pleased with the ending.
\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\nUnlike Tinseltown's version of HELLO, DOLLY!, Jay Presson Allen's screen adaptation of Ira Levin's hit Broadway thriller couldn't wait for it's stage incarnation to shutter before putting it up on the silver screen, so producers wisely decided to make the most of it's lengthy White Way run! The film's opening and closing scenes are shot inside New York's intimate Music Box Theater where DEATHTRAP played for nearly five years. Even the film's final fadeout on the theatre marquee is a version of the stageplay's famous logo. (Although marketeers decided to go with a more fun Rubik's Cube icon for the movie.)
Now on a low-priced DVD release, DEATHTRAP seems just as fresh and inventinve as ever. The cast is just right (better than their stage counterparts) and location scouts should be applauded for finding a suitably spooky house for our \"one room, two act thriller\" to take place in. Opened up in surprisingly simple and innovative ways, director Sidney Lumet wisely tags any \"new\" material onto the beginning and end of the film and leaves Levin's wickedly twisty center alone.
The film's last scene is a major Hollywood departure from the boards, and slightly undermines one of Levin's plot points from earlier in the film [Helga (about a dagger): \"Will be used by another woman BECAUSE of play.\"]. Like Robert Altman's THE PLAYER, however, our new finale helps the film fold in on itself once again and blurs the lines between stage, screen, and (could it be?) real life!
\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\nDeathtrap runs like a play within a movie about who did what to whom, as it primarily takes place on one set. The premise is that an accomplished playwright, whose star is falling, receives a magnificent manuscript from a former student and so he plans to off his protege and appropriate his play, to the (loud) protests of his wife. Or so you think, for the first half of the movie. Past the halfway mark, Deathtrap begins to throw in twists and surprises that turn its premise on its head, then right around, and then in a mad spin, all the time keeping its title appropriate. It's an excellent mystery movie soaked in wit.
Michael Caine, as the senior playwright, plays himself in this movie - a slightly loony and very dramatic Brit. No surprises here - he does his usual good work. He gets the best line of Deathtrap, which he executes perfectly: \"What is your definition of success, being gang-banged in a state penitentiary?\"
Christopher Reeve, on the other hand, juggles comedy and drama in a surprisingly strong performance playing the ambitious (and psychopathic) young playwright. He also gets to show off his very toned body, which he must've retained coming off the Superman movies.
Caine and Reeve have collaborated in another movie that's one of my favorite comedies - Noises Off. It similarly revolves around a play as well, although this time Caine is the director and Reeve is an actor. They are joined by comic veterans Carol Burnett, John Ritter, Marilu Henner (Taxi) and Mark Linn-Baker (Perfect Strangers). Together, they demonstrate the calamities that befall the bed-hopping cast and crew of a play. On the surface, the movie looks to be mostly slapstick but upon watching you find that they are many subtle jokes that require more than one viewing to catch. Wish this underrated movie was available on DVD.
\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\nStage adaptations often have a major fault. They often come out looking like a film camera was simply placed on the stage (Such as \"Night Mother\"). Sidney Lumet's direction keeps the film alive, which is especially difficult since the picture offered him no real challenge. Still, it's nice to look at for what it is. The chemistry between Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve is quite brilliant. The dynamics of their relationship are surprising. Caine is fantastic as always, and Reeve gets one of his few chances to really act.
I confess that I've never seen Ira Levin's play, but I hear that Jay Presson Allen's adaptation is faithful. The script is incredibly convoluted, and keeps you guessing. \"Deathtrap\" is an enormously entertaining film, and is recommended for nearly all fans of stage and screen.
7.4 out of 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\nNo one better spoil this piece of work! Awesome movie! Written expertly by the likes of Ira Levin and depicted with the best performance of Christopher Reeve's career and one of Caine's very best, this is simply excellent. I wish I could catch a staged version somewhere...maybe someday I will. I hope this grossly underrated, overlooked film has not become too difficult to locate because it a 'must' for any Hitchcockian, Agatha-phile or lover of great film. One of very few movies I couldn't instantly solve or predict and worth a second or even third viewing, \"Deathtrap\" gets a 9/10 and earns every iota of it. We need and deserve more movies like this!
\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\nIra Levin's Deathtrap is one of those mystery films in the tradition of Sleuth that would be very easy to spoil given any real examination of the plot of the film. Therefore I will be brief in saying it concerns a play, one man who is a famous mystery playwright, another man who is a promising writer, the playwright's wife who is much younger and sexier than the role should have been, and one German psychic along for the ride. Director Sidney Lumet, no stranger to film, is quite good for the most part in creating the tension the film needs to motor on. The dialog is quick, fresh, and witty. Michael Caine excels in roles like these. Christopher Reeve is serviceable and actually grows on you the more you see him act. Irene Worth stands out as the funny psychic. How about Dyan Cannon? Love how Lumet packaged her posterior in those real tight-fitting pants and had her wear possibly the snuggest tops around, but she is terribly miscast in this role - a role which should have been given to an older actress and one certainly less seductive. But why quibble with an obvious attempt to bribe its male viewers when nothing will change it now? Deathtrap is funny, sophisticated, witty, and classy. The mystery has some glaring flaws which do detract somewhat, and I was not wholly satisfied with the ending, but watching Caine and Reeve under Lumet's direction with Levin's elevated verbiage was enough to ensnare my interest and keep it captive the entire length of the film.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI would not hesitate to put this adaptation of 'Death Trap\" in a top 5 list of the best stage-to-movie adaptations ever. Caine and Reeves (an underrated actor who never really got a chance to do more than soggy romances and \"Superman\") play off each other extremely well here. Even Dyan Cannon - who I normally don't care for - is perfectly cast in a role that exploits her annoyance value as an actress.
I'm not sure that comparisons of \"Deathtrap\" with \"Sleuth\" - another brilliant stage-to-screen adaptation featuring Michael Caine - are valid, or even fair. Yes, the two stories have a lot in common. But \"Sleuth\" is as much about class warfare as the battle of wits, and the house in \"Sleuth\" is set is at least as much a character in the movie as the two actors - the house doesn't really have an equivalent in \"Deathtrap\". And \"Deathtrap\" isn't so much a battle of wits as it is a pointed vignette about how people are no damned good (and never as smart as they think they are) and deserve everything they get. I'll just say that both movies are superb examples of the genre, and well worth your time and money. This is America, after all. You don't have to choose!
I won't give away the twists and turns of the plot, but I don't think it matters anyway. I've watched the DVD eight or nine times in a dozen years, and still enjoyed the chemistry and the timing and the mean, scary moments when things go \"all pear shaped\". It's all done so well that the ride becomes more important than the actual destination.
Anyone who likes black-hearted comedy and suspense in the Hitchcock style of film-making will probably enjoy \"Deathtrap\" immensely.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of my favorite movies of all time. It's great and the acting is brilliant. In the scene in which Michael Caine calls the police in tears and then stops the waterworks the second he finishes the call really displays Caine's brilliance. The twists are a lot of fun. The film is top-notch.
\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\nNew York playwright Michael Caine (as Sidney Bruhl) is 46-years-old and fading fast; as the film opens, Mr. Caine's latest play flops on Broadway. TV reviewers poke fun at Caine, and he gets drunk. Passing out on the Long Island Railroad lands Caine in Montauk, instead of his residence in East Hampton. Finally arriving home, Caine is comforted by tightly-attired wife Dyan Cannon (as Myra), an unfortunately high-strung heart patient. There, Caine and Ms. Cannon discuss a new play called \"Deathtrap\", written by hunky young Christopher Reeve (as Clifford \"Cliff\" Anderson), one of Caine's former students. The couple believe Mr. Reeve's \"Deathtrap\" is the hit needed to revive Caine's career.
\"The Trap Is Set For A Wickedly Funny Who'll-Do-It.\"
Directed by Sidney Lumet, Ira Levin's long-running Broadway hit doesn't stray too far from its stage origin. The cast is enjoyable and the story's twists are still engrossing. One thing that did not work (for me) was the curtain call ending; surely, it played better on stage. \"Deathtrap\" is a fun film to watch again; the performances are dead on - but, in hindsight, the greeting Reeve gives Caine at the East Hampton train station should have been simplified to a smiling \"Hello.\" The location isn't really East Hampton, but the windmill and pond look similar. And, the much ballyhooed love scene is shockingly tepid. But, the play was so good, \"even a gifted director couldn't ruin it.\" And, Mr. Lumet doesn't disappoint.
******** Deathtrap (3/19/82) Sidney Lumet ~ Michael Caine, Christopher Reeve, Dyan Cannon, Irene Worth
\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've bought certain films on disc even though the second rate presentation wasn't an option. A certain company I won't identify here has put out several pan and scan dvds (\"Clean and Sober\", \"Star 80\", and this one, to name just three!) of films I don't think anyone wants to see in this compromised format. Some discs give the viewer a choice of 16x9 or full screen and others are just in their theatrical release 1.66:1 ratio.
That off my chest, I'll say \"Deathtrap\" was a spooky and oddly enough, amusing picture. My only complaints are the tinny score (what IS that f____g instrument that is usually dragged out for films set in 18th century France?) and Dyan Cannon screaming at regular intervals. Couldn't her character have been an asthmatic who grabbed for an inhaler when she was stressed? Minor complaints, both. The benefits of discs include being able to fast forward to get beyond those things which you don't like.
I never saw a staged version of \"Deathtrap\", so having these folks in the roles sets a great impression of their careers at the time. Before Broadway tickets cost an arm and a leg, the theatre was more affordable to average people. Now, anyone paying less than a king's ransom to get live entertainment probably isn't going to a hit show on the great hyped way.
Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve were both large, virile specimens in the early 80s and that's integral to how we'll react to their profession and overall image here. They're definitely not bookish men who can't fight or will back down from an obstacle. The two are equally great as their criminal stubbornness becomes their ultimate \"deathtrap\".
\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\nPlaywright Sidney Bruhl (a wonderfully over-the-top Michael Caine) would kill for a hit play. Enter young wonder kid (a solid Reeve) who's just written such a play. Weave into this Bruhl's overly hysterical wife (superbly played by Cannon) and a German psychic (a very funny Irene Worth) and you've got yourself a wonderfully funny suspense flick.
While not up to \"Sleuth\" standards, \"Deathtrap\" is none the less a very capable, twist filled comical suspense ride based on a terrific play by Ira Levin. The performers are obviously having a field day with the material, with Caine in particular delivering top notch lines with gusto.
The film loses a bit of steam midway through and the ending is a lot less satisfying than the hilarious one in the original play but overall \"Deathtrap\" is solid, well acted and suspenseful fun.
\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 into Deathtrap expecting a well orchestrated and intriguing thriller; and while that's something like what this film is; I also can't help but think that it's just a poor man's Sleuth. The classic 1972 film is obviously an inspiration for this film; not particularly in terms of the plot, but certainly it's the case with the execution. The casting of Michael Caine in the central role just confirms it. The film is based on a play by Ira Levin (who previously wrote Rosemary's Baby and The Stepford Wives) and focuses on Sidney Bruhl; a playwright whose best days are behind him. After his latest play bombs, Sidney finds himself at a low; and this is not helped when a play named Deathtrap; written by an amateur he taught, arrives on his doorstep. Deathtrap is a guaranteed commercial success, and Sidney soon begins hatching a plot of his own; which involves inviting round the amateur scribe, killing him, and then passing Deathtrap off as his own work.
Despite all of its clever twists and turns; Deathtrap falls down on one primary element, and that's the characters. The film fails to provide a single likable character, and it's very hard to care about the story when you're not rooting for any of the players. This is not helped by the acting. Michael Caine puts in a good and entertaining performance as you would expect, but nobody else does themselves proud. Christopher Reeve is awkward in his role, while Dyan Cannon somehow manages to make the only possibly likable character detestable with a frankly irritating performance. It's lucky then that the story is good; and it is just about good enough to save the film. The plot features plenty of twists and turns; some work better than others, but there's always enough going on to ensure that the film stays interesting. Director Sidney Lumet deserves some credit too as the style of the film is another huge plus. The central location is interesting in its own right, and the cinematography fits the film well. Overall, I have to admit that I did enjoy this film; but it could have been much, much better.
\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\nExcellent plot within a plot within a plot. Shame about two of my film heroes having a good snog. Must be my upbringing:)
Very well acted by all. You never quite know who's going to out-do who. The last little twist at the end allows for all to get their just deserts.
Recommend to all. A harmless, tongue in cheek thriller which if it has any faults is probably Michael Caine's over-use of the word \"bloody\", but that's his signature, isn't it.
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\nDeathtrap is not a whodunit. It's a who gonna do it to who first. It's so hard to describe this movie without giving anything away so I won't mention anything more about the plot. As far as acting goes it is Cris Reeves greatest role as Clifford, a young playwrite. You really see the range in his acting abilities in this movie from \"exhaling cheeseburgers\" to downright frightening. Clifford is such a hard role to play and in the stage production of this I have never seen Clifford played well on both ends of the spectrum. The actor plays him as a little puppy or a homicidal maniac. Reeves is the only person I have seen who has the character right all the way through. As for Michael Caine he's.....well he's Michael Caine. One of the best actors of the last 50 years and in this film as good as he has ever been.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"