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\nI'm a horror/gore movie freak and this flick was so bad, I felt embarrassed for not only the \"actors\", but also the director and the poor sap of a producer who actually put his money up for this schlock.
From the title, you'd expect some great carnage, somewhat of a storyline and at LEAST some direction or dialog. Instead, you get what looks like a slightly more violent and sexual Three Stooges episode. At least I laugh at the Three Stooges. While watching this crap, I turned another TV on and started watching Howard Stern until something interesting happened.
Needless to say, I kept watching Stern.
Watching this \"film\" I realize that I could produce a film with three monkeys, 2 DV cameras, $50 dollars in loose change and a broken PC. This film is my inspiration to get into no-budget film making. Watch this movie if you dare, but be warned...there is a lot of nothing in here but a whole lot of talking and very little action. This makes \"KaZaam\" look like a Meryl Streep film.
I'm sure Germany didn't ban it due to sex or violence. Other countries need to take heed.
\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 expect the same excitement as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE but I was let down by just junk how can you even call this a movie ( its kinda of a mini porno) . It made my sick when the guy was made to eat his own business. There is no story line to it at all it jumps to quickly from each murder. If you like seeing a women naked or even mens parts then there's spots in the movie for and there's even a masturbation spot in the movie which makes it a porno and not a movie at all. I have seen some dumb movies in my time but this is number 1 . I want be watching it again at all. The actors even look bored during the movie to me so they probably were in need of money badly to make this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNO SPOILERS.
I love horror movies, but this has got to be the poorest attempt to make one ever. Calling it \"a movie\" is also a stretch. This \"random-clips-of-obviously-fake-and-tacky-violence-and-an-ugly- woman-trying-to-act-sexy-edited-poorly-together\" is not worth watching.
Watching this is about as interesting watching as some random family's holiday pictures, and it has about the same quality you would expect when you send your ten year old son into the woods with your new vid-cam, and tell him to make a movie.
Terrible.
\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 watch bad movies.
This movie is not good enough to be a bad movie. Not an ounce of humor, not an ounce of talent throughout.
I am LAZY.
Usually, I see a bad movie and curse. This was so bad, I actually made a review to try and save others from the completely boring mess I fell victim to.
I am smashing my copy of this movie.
It's too lame even to use clear a room. So boring. Watch 'Bloodsucking Freaks' or 'Shock, shock, shock' for absolute crap that has some merit as entertainment. This sludge looks awful, is awful, and whoever made it should feel awful.
\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\nPicture the fugly annoying goth kids from college in a scat film, throw in a pinch of story and a whole lot of awful acting, and you are still not even close to how bad this movie is.
Shot badly, bad effects, worse acting. Contrived attempt at shocking horror. Everyone I've showed this to gets kinda depressed watching it. The sex scenes are disturbing, not necessarily for their content, but more because they're just something you want to end as soon as possible. The last sex scene is just foul, even before she gets to the guy.
I'm one of those people that loves to watch movies that people hate, which is why I picked this one up. But for your own sake, save yourself the time and avoid this abhorrence. It's that bad. I literally threw it in the garbage.
\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\ngood lord! (and that coming from an atheist), this \"movie\" is bad !
much has already been said by the reviewers before (the ones who rated this piece 3 and below) to which I fully agree, I just like to add a few things:
among the three guys who had to eat their own digestive end products, got chopped up by an Axe, raped by a broomstick, had their balls blown away - the ex-boyfriend suffers the worst torture while having to listen to the girl's endless and pointless babble at the kitchen table (as do we, but at least we have the mercy of the mute button).
had the director cut out the point- and endless graveyard and inverted scenes, our suffering would have been over after 30 minutes.
the only things that made this flick at least somewhat bearable are Emily Haack's tits (one point).
forget it. don't buy it. don't waste your time. and your sanity. my brain is so fried after watching this I feel the urgent need to watch (and suffer?) \"Scrapbook\" right now.
\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\nWith a title like that, it's above and beyond my comprehension how this movie just did NOT appeal to me. Granted, there's a few decently sleazy moments and a little gore, but the way in which the movie was shot and the overall storyline just struck me as an idiotic and lazy attempt at profuse \"shock\" tactics... The inconsistent plot starts with a guy raping and murdering a woman stranded at the side of the road. He and his abetting brother are imprisoned up until the brother breaks out and arranges to meet his girlfriend out in the woods. He ends up forcing her into a house where they screw and he later shows her a collection of kidnapped guys in the basement. The heavily drugged captives consist of her old boyfriend who raped her, a \"grabby\" neighbor, and her sexually abrasive boss. He explains to her that he is going to kill them all. She winds up killing HIM and then turning her focus towards the men (or pigs) whom she tortures and kills, herself... Most of the violence and humiliation has to do with sh!t eating and genitalia destroying - all of which are far from disturbing and essentially mild. The best scene is a graphic broom handle masturbation followed by some painful man-rape... Surely, \"I Spit on Your Corpse, I P!ss on Your Grave\" was intended as an unofficial sequel to \"I Spit on Your Grave\" - based on, mainly the title, and a reference the main character gives - suggesting her mother was Camille Keaton. I personally consider that to be a wildly blasphemous assertion! This movie is a boring, amateurish mess that strives for shocks but failed miserably...
\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\nAm I wrong,or is the 2007 version just a rip-off of the original? I have to ask because the DVD I just bought is one of the worst films I have ever seen.....bad acting,bad editing etc....the only \"exploitation \" aspect here is how we were ripped off for our money buying this piece of crap. It is nothing more than a light-weight porn flick...no real gore, no scary images, just a cheaply done bit of garbage. If anyone wants to see an excellent film with no name actors,some slimy gore and a decent storyline...get Baby Blood...also done on a cheap budget but well made...and an actual story too!I Spit was a waste of money but I'll keep it just for a laugh....it is pathetic! New comment....Sept 3.....I'll keep this film forever just because it it SOOOOO bad it's almost good....in a really bad way....the worst acting ever...a real crap-movie classic!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn director Eric Stanze's 'ISOYC, IPOYG', three men are subjected to torture at the the hands of a woman that they have all sexually abused. The first victim is forced to eat his own crap, before being axed to death. The next bloke ends up with a bullet in the crotch after refusing to have anal sex with the first guy's corpse. But it's the third man who gets it the worst: he has to watch the heavily tattooed 'star' Emily Haack get naked and masturbate with a broom handle (oh, he also gets the handle shoved up his butt too!).
And, unfortunately, so do we (get to see her masturbate, that isnot get a broom handle up our butts!).
Yes, 'ISOYC, IPOYG' is one harsh viewing experience, not because of its relentless violence, but because Haack, who is obviously under the misguided notion that she has the body of a goddess (as opposed to that of a roadie for Metallica) constantly gets buck naked for the camera. It ain't a pretty sight.
In addition to the non-stop nudity from an inked-up Haack, viewers also get to see dreadful direction from Stanze (who thinks that endless shots of tombstones and trees is entertaining stuff), some really bad acting, and a fat guy's penis.
Strangely enough, I give 'ISOYC, IPOYG' a rating of 3/10, which is actually slightly higher than its current 2.9 average. That's one point for the messy axe attack (which, being a gore-hound, I actually enjoyed); one point for the bit where the fat guy gets his face pushed in chocolate mousse masquerading as feces (hilarious); and one point for the sheer nerve to suggest that this film might somehow be a sequel to Meir Zarchi's superior exploitation classic I Spit On Your Grave.
\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...through the similarly minded antics of Eric Stanze. A not-particularly talented director has helmed a not-particularly good movie, yet I still found myself sitting through it to the closing credits, if for nothing more than to see what happens next.
A rapist escapes from prison and calls up his old flame. After capturing her (even though she came willingly) and threatening her into having sex (another event she was also willing to do) he reveals that he has kidnapped three guys who wronged her in the past. He then decides to kill her (huh?) but is foiled and dies instead. The girl's mind snaps (or something like that) and she takes out her rage on the unlucky chaps in the basement.
Alright, the writing sucks: it's long winded, loaded with ten-cent words and there is WAY too much of it.
The acting sucks: what a minute, what acting?
The filming sucks: home video is bad enough, but 20 minutes of graveyard footage is just a damn insult.
And the budget is a joke: get it...'budget', that was the punchline.
And yet there was a charm to the thing. Back in the 70's these kind of movies came out in theatres with actual budgets and talent attached to them, not in this day and age though. If you want to watch this kind of violent, sexually exploitive trash (don't lie, some of us do) then this is all your gonna get nowadays.
Some brief hardcore shots in a sex scene, torture with fecal material, fun with axes, anal rape by broom stick and a lengthy shot of the crazy chick masturbating with the same broom stick are some of the better items on the menu.
It's not good and it won't be remembered, but not since the heyday of Joe D'amato have people made movies like this.
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 movie is extremely boring, it tells a story of a female gas station owner and her life. Nothing exciting ever happens. The director has really \"kept it real\" and it feels just like a camera following a woman around as she lives her life. I had to watch other films by this director for a class, the others were not as boring. This film was also watched for an assignment...it better be worth the boringness with a good grade!! Overall, unless it's required, don't watch the film. But don't discount other films by this director, because they're not as bad...and don't discount other films about Africa, they're usually good, especially when done by a western director.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere is one really good scene in Faat Kine. The title character gets in an argument with another woman and after being threatened, Faat Kine sprays her in the face. The scene works because the act is so unexpected, bizarre, and rather funny at the same time. In that one instance, writer/director Ousmane Sembene gives the audience a character that is easy to root for, an interesting film character that could be worth watching for two hours. In the scene, he presents a brave woman who is bold in her actions. For the rest of the movie, the only other thing he seems to present is conflicting tones.
The tone is all over the place. It's true not all movies have to clearly fit within a specific genre, but I don't think Faat Kine fits into any genre. Supposedly, it's a drama, though there are moments of such broad comedy (the aforementioned spraying in the face) that it cannot be taken seriously. On the other hand, the film is certainly not a comedy with the abundant amount of serious topics Sembene has crammed into the picture. There is a way to successfully mix comedy and drama together. Unfortunately, Semebene doesn't find that balance. Instead, one scene after another just drift into each other without much rhyme or reason, leaving two different tones hanging in the wind.
Faat Kine also has the problem of running two hours long with an extremely drawn out finale. The film ends with a big party where all the characters' conflicts are resolved, only they aren't resolved quickly. The scene lasts longer than any other scene, going on for probably twenty minutes. Because the rest of the scenes up until this point have been meandering, the finale is particularly hard to endure with repetition beginning early on in the scene, making for a frustrating viewing experience.
Perhaps I am being too hard on Faat Kine. I am not the right audience for it. I felt nothing towards the characters and had no connection to any part of the story. There are people who will probably find something meaningful in the story and see strong characters. However, I was unable to do so and thus cannot recommend 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\nFew films have left me with such a feeling of unease, and this is not a compliment. Since I saw it in a theater (How it ended there I can only wonder) I was subjected to 90 mn of hateful, derivative garbage, the main impression being a bit like this other sick-o movie \"Don't answer the phone\" - but worse. The nastiness of it all, rape and all, is shown without any distance (unlike strong stuff like \"Last house on the left\") and utter contempt for the (perfect ?) victims and everybody involved, leaving the viewer to be treated as a sadistic voyeur. At the end I felt like taking a shower. No credits to the director
\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\nWhile not quite as monstrously preposterous as later works, this slow-moving, repetitive giallo offers some nice touches in the first half, but grows more and more lethargic and silly as it stumbles to its lame denouement.
To be sure, the actors are above average - considering this is an Argento movie - and some moments show the director's visual skills, but whole sequences should've been cut and, basically, it's just the same exploitative trash as ever, wallowing in fake science and abnormal sexual depravity.
3 out of 10 genetic disorders
\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 CAT O'NINE TAILS (Il Gatto a Nove Code)
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1 (Cromoscope)
Sound format: Mono
(35mm and 70mm release prints)
A blind ex-journalist (Karl Malden) overhears a blackmail plot outside a genetics research laboratory and later teams up with a fellow reporter (James Franciscus) to investigate a series of murders at the lab, unwittingly placing their own loved ones at the mercy of a psychopathic killer.
Rushed into production following the unexpected worldwide success of his directorial debut THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE (1969), Dario Argento conceived THE CAT O'NINE TAILS as a giallo-thriller in much the same vein as its forerunner, toplining celebrated Hollywood actor Karl Malden - fresh from his appearance in PATTON (1969) - and rising star Franciscus (THE VALLEY OF GWANGI). Sadly, the resulting film - which the ads claimed was 'nine times more suspenseful' than \"Bird\" - is a disappointing follow-up, impeccably photographed and stylishly executed, but too plodding and aimless for general consumption.
Malden and Franciscus are eminently watchable in sympathetic roles, and cinematographer Enrico Menczer (THE DEAD ARE ALIVE) uses the wide Cromoscope frame to convey the hi-tech world in which Argento's dark-hearted scenario unfolds, but the subplot involving Euro starlet Catherine Spaak (THE LIBERTINE) as Franciscus' romantic interest amounts to little more than unnecessary padding. Highlights include an unforgettable encounter with the black-gloved assassin in a crowded railway station (edited with sleek assurance by cult movie stalwart Franco Fraticelli), and a nocturnal episode in which Malden and Franciscus seek an important clue inside a mouldering tomb and fall prey to the killer's devious machinations. But despite these flashes of brilliance, the film rambles aimlessly from one scene to the next, simmering gently without ever really coming to the boil. It's no surprise that \"Cat\" failed to emulate the runaway success of \"Bird\" when released in 1971.
(English version)
\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\nRarely has such an amazing cast been wasted so badly. Griffin Dunne, Rosanna Arquette, Illeana Douglas, Ethan Hawke, Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken, and John Turturro, all jumped on board, only to be torpedoed by a script that seems like nothing more than a Hollywood in joke. Attaching Martin Scorsese's name to this was probably the draw, but the end result is way less than the sum of it's parts. Resembling a nightmare gone horribly wrong, each scene seems more contrived than the next. \"Search and Destroy\" is nothing more than abstract, stylish, self indulgent nonsense, and the entire film is decidedly dull.......... 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\nFrom the start, you know how this movie will end. It's so full of clichés your typical NRA member will not even like this movie. I give it 2 out of 10, only because of the acting of William Benton. I can't believe people voted 6+ for this movie. It's so biased towards a 'certain point of view' (once a thief...). People aren't born bad. Neither are they born good. They are born with a clean slate. It's society, parents and education what makes them who they are. And if they take the wrong turn, somewhere down the line, it certainly isn't going to be the American penal system that gets them back on track! Anyway, avoid this movie like the plague. I bet you have better things to do with your time than waste it on this piece of crap.

\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 an extremely boring film. If you grew up during the Vietnam Was, as I did, then you've seen and heard all of the film footage and arguments here a hundred times by now. But what really makes this film boring is the narration by director Carlton Sherwood. The majority of the film is shot with Sherwood talking directly into the camera about his opinion of this conflicting time in the history of our nation.
If you're old enough to remember Vietnam, then you won't find anything new here. There is no new evidence to condemn John Kerry or new evidence worthy of another documentary on Vietnam. Younger viewers who are interested in the subject should see George Butler's excellent film Going Upriver! Stolen Honor was clearly meant to be a hatchet job on John Kerry, but it fails miserably at accomplishing that goal.
\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 British Public School system did not evolve solely with the idea of educating the upper classes despite that popular and widespread misconception.It was designed to produce administrators and governors,civil servants and military men to run the British Colonies.These people were almost entirely recruited from the middle classes.When the Public Schools had begun to show their worth the scions of the aristocracy were sent to them rather than be educated at home by tutors and governesses as had previously been the case.They tended to favour the schools nearer \"Town\" so Eton and Harrow became particularly popular with that class of parent. The vast majority of Public Schools took their pupils from lower down the social scale.Tom Brown,perhaps the most famous Public School pupil ever,was the son of a country parson,not a belted earl. Thus in late 1960s England,a country in the throes of post-colonial guilt and shedding the last of its commitments to its former dependants as quickly as Harold Wilson could slip off his \"Gannex\" mac,Lindsay Anderson's \"If\" was greeted with cathartic joy by the chattering classes and mild bemusement by everyone else. It must be remembered that the so-called \"summer of love\" was followed by the \"October Revolution\" a non-event that left a few policemen in London with bruised heads and the U.S. Embassy with one or two broken windows,but achieved absolutely nothing. So when Mr Anderson's film reached the cinemas the disgruntled former revolutionaries revelled vicariously in what they saw as Mr Malcolm McDowell's glorious victory over an amorphous \"Them\" despite the fact that he was ruthlessly gunned down at the end,a fate that would have undoubtedly overtaken them had they succeeded in their attempts to get into the U.S.Embassy. The film told us nothing new about Public Schools,homosexuality,bullying cold showers,patrician sarcastic teachers,silly traditions.an all-too familiar list .It was declared to be an allegory comparing Britain to the corrupt,crumbling society represented by the school.Well,nearly forty years on the same schools are still flourishing,the British social system has not changed,the \"October Revolution\" has been long forgotten except by those involved on one side or the other and Mr Anderson has completed his \"State of the Country\" trilogy to no effect whatsoever. If by any chance you should wish to read a book about schoolboys who did buck the system rather more successfully than Mr McDowell and his friends and furthermore lived to tell the tale,find a copy of \"Stalky & Co.\"written by the man whose much-maligned poem \"If\" lent it's name to Mr Anderson's film,a man born in colonial India,a man whose work is quietly being airbrushed out of our literary history.And do it before the chattering classes succeed in declaring him a non-person.Perhaps somebody should start a revolution about that.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've read reviews that apparently you have to have been a student in a very strict, British school in the 1960's to understand this. Maybe that's true, if so, then this movie is outdated.
*************SPOILER ALERT**************************************** The ending makes about as much sense as all the kids who're anti-government and anti-corporation without having any better solution that doesn't torch society to a Mad Max type cinder.
Yeah, the main characters could leave, but they don't. The reasons they go about this don't make sense. There isn't enough character development to explain why. What shooting up a bunch of innocent people is supposed to mean is never explained or even hinted at. It is mentioned that war is the final creative expression, quite possibly the only revelation that any characters of this movie have, and it makes no sense.
The characters who go on a murder spree aren't fighting the institution, they're just killing people. I thought they might've used all the explosives to blow up the place or at least the sanctuary at the end, that would've made greater symbolic sense, but they didn't.
tl;dr - This movie is an adolescent's daydream of fighting against authority that plagues them, though in reality they need. It has no moral, symbolic truth, or meaning to it; this movie simply plays out the fantasy of killing teachers and people in \"power\" that annoy you.
If you think a murder rampage/ school shooting similar to columbine or virginia tech is a rational and sensible way to deal with teachers and institutions you don't like, then I guess you'll love this movie. If you're like me and you're working towards making a life for yourself instead of just blindly (very blindly in this movie) rebelling against \"the man\", this movie is juvenile and boring.
You can also tell in parts that funding was lacking, and the story seemed to have a touch of attention deficit disorder.
All in all, this seems like a very rough draft of what could've been an okay movie, but no effort is put into the dialogue, character development, or moral so it's just... poorly done.
If... only I could get my two hours back.
\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\nAh, the spirit of '68. The streets of Paris were running wild with rebellion, the hippies were high on the spirit of love. How was Britain marking this age of radicalism and revolution? Erm, by the looks of it, dear Old Blighty was focusing on making films about boys in boarding schools. If... contains the evil establishment. It contains the uprising of the oppressed. What it lacks in contrast to the Parisien passion and the hippy headtripping is any sense of excitement, except in its all-out ammo-and-artillery fire ending.
Lindsay Anderson's If... stars the ever-marvellous Malcolm McDowell as one of three private school pupils who decorate their dorm with photos of Lenin and other left-wing radicals. It's clearly an anti-establishment movie in its depiction of the evil upper-class oiks who rule the roost and the antiquated autocratic practices of the pish-posh public school standard. What makes If... unusual though is that for all its radical sympathies, it doesn't explicitly give us any sense of great tension between human decency and the despotic school system, instead it just kind of floats: lacking in plot and lacking in personality.
Surrealist bits fade in and out occasionally and the film slips from black-and-white to colour again (is it due to the low budget or is it an arty expression?), but there is little of interest to speak of. All we get is the poignant denouement where the young rebels reach for their rifles and shoot down the shady overlords of the establishment. Hooray! A revolution! At last something that demands a second thought unlike the rest of this dull exercise in boarding school daydreaming.
If... could have been a powerful political statement, but as it is it drifts and only gathers any sense of direct interest at the end. Instead of being a testament to the dissident zeitgeist of the late-Sixties, it only succeeds in being a dazed document of upper-class British education. Anarchy? Apathy more like, the only man many viewers will want to stick it to after watching If... will be Lindsay Anderson.
\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.... is the cinematic equivalent of Sgt. Pepper's: Revered by baby boomers as the pinnacle of creation, and viewed as rather a silly bit of business by preceding and subsequent generations. Now that the children of the middle classes the world over are seemingly super human due to the internet, and view the prospect of boarding school as a wonderful opportunity thanks to the Harry Potter books/films, the relevance of if.... couldn't be further from modern concern. In fact, many scenes appear so alien and exaggerated as to hint at an inspiration for Pink Floyd's The Wall.
One should never hold personal bias against a film while reviewing, and the cemented date of this film aside, there are a few flaws which others have overlooked. Lindsay Anderson was known to be a fan of Luis Buñuel, on top of generally being too smart for his own good. And despite a straightforward narrative through the first and second acts, the latter portion of the piece it taken hostage by cod Buñuel surrealism and strained attempts at symbolism. Anderson wasn't capable of this feat due to his over-intelligent cynicism, failing to see that Buñuel was jovial in his work. I have not found a critic whom champions the 'Chaplain in a drawer', and am almost certain it still gets sideways looks from those who adore this film. The ending is not so much a concise punch to the established class/values system, as a wet slap on a moving target.
The British public school system was firmly for the middle classes (the upper crust being educated at home by private tutors). And the modus operandi of if.... was to check the boxes of public school life which Lindsay believed had been unexplored in film, thereby savaging middle class pretense. Homosexuality, generational cutlery, cold showers et al. In reality, such issues HAD been covered in many other great British films, if.... merely brought them to the fore. The Browning Version was a more oblique damning of such pomp, to name but one.
if.... is oddly quaint, and simply can not be viewed with modern (especially American) eyes. Kudos to Anderson for avoiding Mick and Kieth in favour of African chant, and a few brownie points for the latent homoerotic overtones. Points deducted for pretension, establishing characters who disappear, and inciting a glib revolution which came to naught.
\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 saw \"If\" I can remember the advertisements for the movie from 1968, so I was interested in finally seeing it. It may be the perspective of an American who never went to a British public school and misses some of the social references, but I thought the movie was awful. For one thing, as others have pointed out, it takes almost the entire movie for the much ballyhooed-at-the-time revolt to break out. For another, whether the last scene is real or imagined, what occurs isn't a revolt, but a shooting rampage. There's quite a difference.
I know it may be bad form to judge a movie on subsequent events, but one cannot avoid doing it here. One person wrote a message board posting asking us not to compare the end of movie to the incidents at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech. But if there's a scintilla of difference between Klebold, Harris and Cho on the one hand and Travis (Malcom McDowell) on the other, I simply can't see it. All four of them were under the delusion that their gunfire is going to purify a f___-ed up world that they arrogantly take no responsibility for.
Which brings me to: why the hell are Travis and his chums even in a school they so despise? They are adults, or close to it. They're not in a military prison, like the inmates in \"The Hill,\" a much better British film from about the same time. No one is forcing them to go to College and take beatings from the the whips, except maybe ambitious parents in need of a wake-up about the nature of their sons. I had the opportunity in college to join a frat, except I couldn't stand to be given silly, cruel orders by delinquents claiming to be my prospective \"brothers.\" I took the consequences of not having the \"in\" with the Establishment that frats provide, and I can't say I regretted it.
If Travis fancies himself the second coming of Lenin (whose unbearded picture hangs prominently in his room) he's free to go out and organize a fitter's union or work for Michael Foot in the next election. If he wants to be Jack Kerouac, then get on the road and start writing. What possible benefit is he giving the world in joyriding a motorcycle and getting drunk in his room?
Sometimes reviewers have to be like the person who responded to the scene in \"Last Tango In Paris\" where Brando mopes about having had to go on a date with cow manure on his shoes. In the real world, the person said, a listener would say \"Why didn't you scrape it off? Change your shoes?\" --Don't allow fictional characters to lay a self-pity trip on you because you don't dare point out an common-sense alternative course of action for them. So it is here.
\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\nLindsay Anderson was very much a European film maker , whereas the likes of David Lean , Ridley Scott and Alan Parker make spectacular movies involving visuel scope Anderson`s movie are more about social commentary and subtext , so much so that the message often ends up taking over the entire film whose primary function should be to entertain the audience
What you think of IF comes down to what you think of British film makers . I`m very much of the view that cinema should be a universial medium ( The best Brit movie makes are those who try to emulate Hollywood in my opinion ) , if you want to send a message try pony express , and I find the movie dated , pretentious and too set in the 1960s . 1968 was the summer of love and the year of student rebellion in France . You can just imagine every single French leftist worshipping this movie especially the climax . French new wave film makers will also admire the abstract surrealism of some scenes but a mainstream international will dislike it , and many will dislike it intensely
\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\nThat is quite an outdated movie which aims to showcase the youth's yearning for freedom in some dehumanizing British school. Oh yes it's like in the army, you learn to obey and do what you're asked to. Yes the young dream of something else but it breaks their dreams and sweeps away their optimism on the threshold of life. Great.
Basically that's how you could sum up the nice intentions in If... Nice intentions that arouses no cinematographic challenges: the result is a declamatory movie. Do you see how boring I mean?
At least that oldie helped Kubrick cast McDowell in A Clockwork Orange, a movie with a truly powerful social satire and no self-indulgent sentimentalism.
\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 didn't like this Bill Murray vehicle when it was originally released in the 80s, so I tried watching it again to see if my distaste for this film was down to my movie-going tastes in the 80s or was it that \"Stripes\" is simply a bad movie. Well, the verdict is in and \"Stripes\" is a bad movie.
Now, \"Stripes\" may have been innovative comedy in the early 80s, and it may appeal to people who have gone through basic training or who are Bill Murray fans, but its still a bad movie.
Why is it bad? Mostly because \"Stripes\" is supposed to be a comedy but it's just not that funny. There are some laughs, but they are few and far between. Most of the movie is consumed by the dramatic plot which is incredibly convoluted and not very interesting. This lack of comedy is especially noticeable if you're used to more contemporary comedies such as \"Anchorman\" which strive for laughs in every part of the movie.
\"Stripes\" further suffers from Bill Murray and Harold Ramis's lack of acting ability. Bill Murray is a great comedian but he was not a very compelling dramatic actor at this point in his career, and Harold Ramis is playing Harold Ramis. These two are just not good enough as actors to carry the dramatic arch of the movie.
Lastly, most of the comedy that there is in \"Stripes\" revolves around Bill Murray's self-centered, smart-alec man-child character so if you don't find that character funny (like I didn't) you're not going to find most of what little comedy there is in \"Stripes\" funny either.
\"Stripes\" is very much a movie of its era, it hasn't aged well and is not worth watching. If you want to watch an early 80's \"buddy\" comedy I would recommend \"Stir Crazy.\" Like \"Stripes\" the humor in \"Stir Crazy\" is not as fast-paced as in contemporary comedies, but unlike \"Stripes\" it has aged much better and as a result is still watchable.
\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\nPossibly not, but it is awful. Even the fantastic cast cant save it. OK, I admit it started off quite funny but it seemed to plummet downhill as soon as they jumped those girls in the Generals house. Bill Murray turned from being a quick witted, humorous guy into an arsehole who was shouting things at people in the street that just weren't funny, its like he was trying too hard to be funny. His character stole a weapon (an RV? come on...) and ends up being a national hero after invading another country and killing god knows how many soldiers, for a laugh. One good point is that this film shows the inadequacy and incompetence of the US Army and shows how arrogant and imbecilic they really are, albeit unintentionally. I actually felt disgusted that this kind of propaganda crap could really be released.
\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\nWhat an insult to the SA film industry! I have seen better SA films. The comments I read about Hijack Stories,by saying it is worthy of a ten out of ten is quite scary. A movie's rating should not depend on.., \"OH, A MOVIE FROM A DEVELOPING COUNTRY. LETS BOOST THEIR INDUSTRY BY SAYING NICE THINGS ABOUT THEIR WORK, EVEN THOUGH IT IS BAD.\" We have the expertise to make good movies. Don't judge the film industry on what people say how great they think Hijack Stories is. We can tell great stories such as Cry the beloved Country and Shaka Zulu. Cry the beloved Country I'll give 9 out of 10. Great directing by Darryl, great acting by two great elderly actors, irrespective from where they are. Hijack Stories.., I'll give 1 out of 10. It could only be people involved in the project who would give it high scores. I would've done the same if it was my 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\nFrom a plot and movement standpoint, this movie was terrible. I found myself looking at the clock in theater hoping it would end and relieved after 80 long minutes that it mercifully did. Basically, five characters appear in the movie, A Son & Father, son's girl friend, and two male characters of the son's age who appear and then disappear without context or explanation. The movie and scenes seemed to suggest homo-eroticism, but nothing ever actually happened to reveal this one way or another. There were a couple of brilliant scenes. At the beginning of the movie, the son's girl friend shows up at a window outside his room and they engage in an odd conversation. The photography and acting lent an incredible seductiveness to the interaction between the two, ending with her admitting to having another man who was \"older\". End of that story.
\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 film begins with promise, but lingers too long in a sepia world of distance and alienation. We are left hanging, but with nothing much else save languid shots of grave and pensive male faces to savour. Certainly no rope up the wall to help us climb over. It's a shame, because the concept is not without merit.
We are left wondering why a loving couple - a father and son no less - should be so estranged from the real world that their own world is preferable when claustrophobic beyond all imagining. This loss of presence in the real world is, rather too obviously and unnecessarily, contrasted with the son having enlisted in the armed forces. Why not the circus, so we can at least appreciate some colour? We are left with a gnawing sense of loss, but sadly no enlightenment, which is bewildering given the film is apparently about some form of attainment not available to us 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\nThis film is beautiful to look at, but is like watching really bad experimental theater. The plot (if there was one) doesn't make any sense. But it is very \"artistic\". Lots of shots of half-dressed actors wrestling and looking deep into each other's eyes. Lots of arty shots through windows and with people out of frame. Mumbling and people wandering wistfully. Lingering close-ups of faces and bodies. By the time you get to the threesome on the roof with the cat, you'll be ready to throw a bottle of KY at the screen.
It is supposed to be about a father and son's relationship, but you will just be wishing the two of them would just f*$& each other and get it over with. If you have always wanted to see bad Russian gay porn without any money shots, your wish has been granted.
\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\nLike wearing a hair shirt. Positively, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt one of the worst movies ever. Pure torture. Zero stars out of ten. One long, tedious, labored, pretentious, self-conscious, theatrical, and leadenly artsy scene after another. Intended to be dreamlike and impressionistic, the soul bared, it is, instead, morose mush.
Half-naked, father and son grope and whisper to each other like lovers. \"Homo-erotic\" is the point, loud and clear. OK, so what?
Repeated more than once by the son is the line, supposedly lifted from \"Lives of the Saints,\" \"A father's love crucifies. A loving son lets himself be crucified.\" The parallel to god and his son, Christ, is heavy-handed, irrelevant, and bombastic, like everything else here.
Some reference points to the theme of Russian filiality: \"Mother and Son\" (1997); \"The Return\" (Andrei Zvyagvatsev, 2003); \"Little Odessa\" (James Gray,1994); Turgenev, \"Fathers and Sons\"; and, of course, Dostoyevsky, \"The Brothers Karamazov.\"
Credits in English indicate intended international distribution, meaning that the excuse cannot be used that you have to be Russian to understand this mess.
This is nowhere near as accomplished or compelling as Sokurov's last, \"Russian Ark\" (2003).
As in his \"Mother and Son,\" an equally powerful soporific, some scenes are filmed from distorting mirrors, though not as interestingly. The film is almost monochromatic, shot from start to finish through beige filters, making it as visually as it is dramatically numbing. A soft-focus haze only adds to the drugged feeling.
An annoying soundtrack drones on, never shuts up, like a tape loop. An old radio constantly plays in the background. Russian Romantic melancholy swells endlessly as \"themes based on Tchaikovsky.\" The presence of a \"sound designer\" (Sergei Moshkov) signifies, of course, that all those irritating little sounds, radio static, noises, distortion, and such, are \"designed.\"
It's hard to believe someone (Sergei Potepolov) actually wrote this thing. It all seems as arbitrary as traffic, as if improvised by bored actors, popping out of nothingness into nothingness.
Modern art has finally succeeded in signifying the thing without being the thing, so that what we behold is the idea of the idea, empty as a shell, but not even a shell, merely the idea of a shell. Could one ask for a better definition of decadence?
\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 consider myself to be a bit of a snob when it comes to everything and although the cinematic experience is more suited to explosions than high drama, I can be very stuck up about films, too.
Not all art films, however, are better than King Kong. I quite possibly would give Kong two stars, double this film's haul.
My guess is that people got so excited about this because it was almost identical in style to what you can see in a play. For the less discerning art-buff, a film that looks like a play is 'great art'.
This film, however, was useless.
There was hardly any story so it relied on high drama. The only drama in this film was whether the cat would drop off the roof or not. So, deep and meaningful dialogue, then? No. Great acting? Hardly.
To be excessively fair: Some of the scenery was interesting, though: Communist flats, city vistas (Petersburg?) and the Soviet trams still in service.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"