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\nThe Clouded Yellow is a compact psychological thriller with interesting characterizations. Barry Jones and Kenneth More are both terrific in supporting roles in characters that both have more to them than what meets the eye. Jean Simmons is quite good, and Trevor Howard makes a fascinatingly offbeat suspense hero.
\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 delightful little thriller opens with Trevor Howard in his Jag convertible and ends on a dockside in Liverpool. It's all thrills and spills as the ex-spy has to restart his career just as he's getting some serious R & R cataloguing butterflies (how British is that?).
Trevor Howard and Jean Simmons frolic from London to Newcastle-upon-Tyne to Liverpool (via Ullswater) - he's just been thrown out of MI5 or something, and she, you guessed it, is on the run, wrongly accused of murder. There's seedy docks, rolling Lake District hills, sheep, country pubs, coppers getting lost, waterfalls, a bunch of amateur cyclists, rooftop chases, and lots of Chinamen (don't ask), and it's all very Hitchcocky and Hannayesque...
..and a smashing example of British Noir...
\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 young woman (Jean Simmons) is convinced by her scheming and dangerous aunt (Sonia Dresdel) and uncle (Barry Jones) that she's losing her mind and in very delicate condition that requires their supervision which turns out to be more like manipulation, as they try to keep her as far away from outside human contact as possible. The only other person she sees is the estate caretaker, a lascivious character played by Maxwell Reed, whose caught the wayward eye of the middle-aged aunt. All of this, the aunt and the caretaker, the butterfly expert uncle who has a serious underside to him, and the susceptible niece in the middle, would have made for a darker and more sinister film. As it is, a frame-up for a murder sends Trevor Howard (a fired government secret service agent who took a job at the estate cataloging butterflies) and Simmons across the countryside escaping police, catching headlines of \"Police Net Closing In\" over her front page photo, hopping on buses, and winding up in Liverpool, where they meet some wonderfully cast characters, and finally face down the greedy and murderous aunt and uncle.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film plays really well with an audience. Especially once the chase begins. Plus, Trevor Howard with his sensible, smart charms and Jean Simmons with her innocent demeanor and piercing eyes are terrific together.
The film starts as a psychological drama but after the murder it segues into a chase thriller as the two leads head for the border. Some may think the chase is superfluous but actually the chase is essential because it aids in clearing the mind of the Jean Simmons character by getting her out of the oppressive household, plus it helps bring out the real killer - who is suddenly put into such a position that they have to finish the job. The killer rightly believed that once the Simmons character was arrested she would be put away. And it is true that her lack of control in the household - as well as evidence pointing her way - there is no way she would have gotten out of the murder charge. The chase that ensues helps bring out the truth.
This is an entertaining film. Seek it out if you can find 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\nHitchcock was of the opinion that audiences aren't really interested in what puts protagonists into danger - only that they ARE in danger, and need to escape.
This film proves Hitchcock was not 100% correct. Police believe Jean Simmons is guilty of a crime, when she plainly isn't. Trevor Howard decides their best course of action is to run for it. And so, the body of the movie has our charismatic pair dodging on and off trains, buses and coaches - jumping across rocks at the top of a waterfall - scrambling across dockyard roofs.
All good exciting stuff - but I couldn't get out of my mind that it was all unnecessary. They should have stayed put.
In other words, the MacGuffin wasn't strong enough.
\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 documentary on schlockmeister William Castle takes a few cheap shots at the naive '50s-'60s environment in which he did his most characteristic work--look at the funny, silly people with the ghost-glasses--but it's also affectionate and lively, with particularly bright commentary from John Waters, who was absolutely the target audience for such things at the time, and from Castle's daughter, who adored her dad and also is pretty perceptive about how he plied his craft. (We never find out what became of the other Castle offspring.) The movies were not very good, it makes clear, but his marketing of them was brilliant, and he appears to have been a sweet, hardworking family man. Fun people keep popping up, like \"Straight Jacket\"'s Diane Baker, who looks great, and Anne Helm, whom she replaced at the instigation of star Joan Crawford. Darryl Hickman all but explodes into giggles at the happy memory of working with Castle on \"The Tingler,\" and there's enough footage to give us an idea of the level of Castle's talent--not very high, but very energetic. A pleasant look at a time when audiences were more easily pleased, and it does make you nostalgic for simpler movie-going days.
\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 gave it a 10, since everyone else seemed to like it and it would have been churlish not to. The reason I'm troubling you is to add a personal observation on Castle's work.
I've seen \"Homicidal\" and \"The Tingler\" (the version with the clever colour sequence where everything except the blood is in black and white) a few times and \"The House On Haunted Hill\" many times.
Even I am not old enough to have seen them when Castle was up to his showman tricks, thus I can appreciate them for their own merit. And while most pass him off as second-rate, schlocky, hammy, etc., I believe they do him a disservice.
The end sequence of \"Homicidal\" is GENUINELY shocking and works today - and the premise of \"The Tingler\" while silly, was highly original.
But \"The House On Haunted Hill\" was a TRIUMPH. Having used that Frank Lloyd Wright house as its exterior, the great Vincent Price and a solid cast, plus a good score and production values - when I first saw it at a packed late-night showing in the late Sixties, it produced an audience reaction I'd not seen before and have not seen since.
It was the bit where the heroine is alone in the basement (if you've not seen the film, stop reading NOW) and we are waiting to hear the hero on the other side of the wall.
With NO telegraphing of what is coming, the camera slowly pulls back, forcing the AUDIENCE to switch their gaze to... I'm saying no more (my \"spoiler\" declaration above only covers THIS movie).
The point is, I believe this ploy was DELIBERATE - not accidental - and when it happened, the WHOLE AUDIENCE SCREAMED (including most of the men!) It took the audience about TEN MINUTES to calm down.
Now THAT is superior film-making. A flamboyant showman he might have been, but \"House\" and the other two films I've mentioned were GOOD MOVIES. Castle may not have been a Hitchcock, but he was no Ed Wood, either.
It's easy to concentrate on someone's quirks and forget to examine their TALENT. So I hope this documentary acknowledged that. I look forward to seeing 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\n- After their sons are sentenced to life in prison, Adelle (Debbie Reynolds) and Helen (Shirley Winters) begin receiving threatening phone calls because someone fells their sons got off easy. The pair decides to move to California to escape the publicity of the trial and to start a new life. They start a dance school that is soon very successful. One of the students has a rich unmarried father with whom Adelle quickly falls in love. In the meantime, Helen is busy raising rabbits and becoming a little too infatuated with an evangelist on the radio. It's only a mater of time before everything falls apart and the women enter a world of madness and murder.
- I can't help but compare What's the Matter with Helen? to Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?, also starring Shelly Winters. Where that movie seemed almost restrained in its presentation of Auntie Roo's madness, there's nothing holding Helen back in this movie. It may take a good deal of the movie's running time, but once she snaps, Helen is one Bad Mad Mutha. You don't want to mess with her. Winters is so delightfully demented that it was impossible for me not to enjoy her performance. I'm not going to spoil the movie, but the things Helen is capable of are totally over-the-top.
- As good as Winters is, Reynolds is totally ridiculous in her role as the gold-digging tap dancer. I got the impression that she thought she was in a movie that would get her nominated for some award. This ain't Citizen Kane! Quit acting so serious. Hey, Debbie, don't you realize that you're main purpose is to be a victim of Winters' insanity.
- I just love these former-female-stars-in-the-twilight-of-their-career horror movies. What's the Matter with Helen? is as fun as any.
\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\nWell, here's another terrific example of awkward 70's film-making! The rudimentary premise of \"What's the matter with Helen?\" is quite shocking and disturbing, but it's presented in such a stylish and sophisticated fashion! In the hands of any other movie crew, this certainly would have become a nasty and gritty exploitation tale, but with director Curtis Harrington (\"Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?\") and scriptwriter Henry Farrell (\"HushHushSweet Charlotte\") in charge, it became a beautiful and almost enchanting mixture of themes and genres. The basic plot of the film is definitely horrific, but there's a lot more to experience, like love stories, a swinging 1930's atmosphere and a whole lot of singing and tap-dancing! The setting is unquestionably what makes this movie so unique. We're literally catapulted back to the 1930's, with a sublime depiction of that era's music, religion, theatrical business and wardrobes. Following the long and exhausting trial that sentenced their sons to life-imprisonment for murder, Adelle (Debbie Reynolds) and Helen (Shelley Winters) flee to California and attempt to start a new life running a dance school for young talented girls. Particularly Adelle adapts herself perfectly to the new environment, as she falls in love with a local millionaire, but poor old Helen continues to sink in a downwards spiral of insanity and paranoia. She only listens to the ramblings of a radio-evangelist, fears that she will be punished for the crimes her son committed and slowly develops violent tendencies. The script, although not entirely without flaws, is well written and the film is adequately paced. There's never a dull moment in \"What's the matter with Helen\", although the singing, tap-dancing and tango sequences are quite extended and much unrelated to the actual plot. But the atmosphere is continuously ominous and the film definitely benefices from the terrific acting performance of Shelley Winters. She's downright scary as the unpredictable and introvert lady who's about to snap any second and, especially during the last ten minutes or so, she looks more petrifying than all the Freddy Kruegers, Jason Voorhees' and Michael Myers' combined! There are several terrific supportive characters who are, sadly, a little underdeveloped and robbed from their potential, like Michéal MacLiammóir as the cocky elocution teacher, Agnes Moorehead as the creepy priestess and Timothy Carey as the obtrusive visitor to the ladies' house. There are a couple of surprisingly gruesome scenes and moments of genuine shock to enjoy for the Grand Guignol fanatics among us, but particularly the set pieces and costume designs (even nominated for an Oscar!) are breathtaking.
\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 1930s. Classy, elegant Adele (marvelously played with dignified resolve by Debbie Reynolds) and batty, frumpy Helen (the magnificent Shelley Winters going full-tilt wacko with her customary histrionic panache) are the mothers of two killers. They leave their seamy pasts in the Midwest behind and move to Hollywood to start their own dance school for aspiring kid starlets. Adele begins dating dashing millionaire Lincoln Palmer (the always fine Dennis Weaver). On the other hand, religious fanatic Helen soon sinks into despair and madness.
Director Curtis (\"Night Tide,\" \"Ruby\") Harrington, working from a crafty script by Henry Farrell (who wrote the book \"Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?\" was based on and co-wrote the screenplay for \"Hush ... Hush, Sweet Charlotte\"), adeptly concocts a complex and compelling psychological horror thriller about guilt, fear, repression and religious fervor running dangerously amok. The super cast have a ball with their colorful roles: Michael MacLiammoir as a pompous elocution teacher, Agnes Moorehead as a stern fire-and-brimstone radio evangelist, Yvette Vickers as a snippy, overbearing mother of a bratty wannabe child star, Logan Ramsey as a snoopy detective, and Timothy Carey as a creepy bum. An elaborate talent recital set piece with Pamelyn Ferdin (the voice of Lucy in the \"Peanuts\" TV cartoon specials) serving as emcee and original \"Friday the 13th\" victim Robbi Morgan doing a wickedly bawdy dead-on Mae West impression qualifies as a definite highlight. David Raskin's spooky score, a fantastic scene with Reynolds performing an incredible tango at a posh restaurant, the flavorsome Depression-era period atmosphere, Lucien Ballard's handsome cinematography, and especially the startling macabre ending are all likewise on the money excellent and effective. MGM presents this terrific gem on a nifty DVD doublebill with \"Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?;\" both pictures are presented in crisp widescreen transfers along with their theatrical trailers.
\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\nSome of the background details of this story are based, very, very loosely, on real events of the era in which this was placed. The story combines some of the details of the famous Leopold and Loeb case along with a bit of Aimee Semple McPherson.
The story begins with two mothers (Shelley Winters and Debbie Reynolds) being hounded as they leave a courtroom. The crowd seems most intent on doing them bodily harm as their sons were just convicted of a heinous thrill crime. One person in the crowd apparently slashes Winters' hand as they make their way to a waiting car.
Soon after they arrive home, they begin getting threatening phone calls, so Reynolds suggests they both move to the West Coast together and open a dance school. The dance school is s success and they cater to incredibly obnoxious parents who think their child is the next Shirley Temple. One of the parents of these spoiled kids is a multimillionaire who is quite smitten with Reynolds and they begin dating. Life appears very good. But, when the threatening phone calls begin again, Winters responds by flipping out--behaving like she's nearing a psychotic break and she retreats further and further into religion--listening on the radio to 'Sister Alma' almost constantly. Again and again, you see Winters on edge and it ultimately culminates in very bad things!! I won't say more, as it might spoil this suspenseful and interesting film.
In many ways, this film is a lot like the Bette Davis and Joan Crawford horror films of the 1960s like \"Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?\", \"Straight-Jacket\" and \"The Nanny\". While none of these are exactly intellectual fare, on a kitsch level they are immensely entertaining and fun. The writing is very good and there are some nice twists near the end that make it all very exciting. Winters is great as a fragile and demented lady and Reynolds plays one of the sexiest 39 year-olds I've ever seen--plus she can really, really dance.
My only concern about all this is that some might find Winters' hyper-religiosity in the film a bit tacky--like a cheap attack on Christianity. At first I felt that way, but when you meet Sister Alma, she seems sincere and is not mocked, so I took Winters' religious zeal as just a sign of craziness--which, I assume, is all that was intended.
By the way, this film is packaged along with \"Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?\"--another Shelley Winters horror film from 1971. Both are great fun...and quite over-the-top!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI had watched (and recorded) this a few years back on local TV and, having been underwhelmed by it, I subsequently erased the tape; however, when it was released by MGM as part of a \"Midnite Movie\" double-feature DVD of Curtis Harrington/Shelley Winters films for a very affordable price, I couldn't resist giving it a second look (this has since gone out-of-print). Actually, I received the DVD a few months ago but only now, with Harrington's passing, did I get to it; thankfully, this time around I was more receptive to the film and, in fact, now consider it one of the more satisfying WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? (1962) imitations (with whom, incidentally, it shared screenwriter Henry Farrell).
The film offers a splendid evocation of 1930s Depression America - with its child-star craze and sensational murders (exploited during the fake newsreel opening); it's stylishly made (kudos to Lucien Ballard's cinematography and the set design by Eugene Lourie') and boasts an effective David Raksin score. Shelley Winters, Debbie Reynolds and Michael MacLiammoir deliver excellent performances; the latter is especially impressive as the larger-than-life and vaguely sinister diction coach (though he ultimately proves a mere red herring!). Also featured are Dennis Weaver and Agnes Moorehead (hers is only a cameo, really, as the evangelist she plays is mostly heard over the radio).
Many seemed to regret the inclusion of musical numbers by the kids (including an amusing Mae West imitation), but I personally wasn't bothered by them; the film does slightly overstay its welcome due to an unhurried pace and (perhaps needlessly) convoluted plot. Reynolds - a musical star herself - is ideally cast as the dancing-school owner and, despite their on-set rivalry, she and Winters work well together. The latter, in fact, gives a more balanced depiction of paranoia and insanity than in WHOEVER SLEW AUNTIE ROO? (1971); the narrative, then, comes up with a number of ironic twists that lead up to the expected Grand Guignol-type denouement. Apparently, the film was toned down (it originally contained more gore and even a suggestion of lesbianism!) by producer Martin Ransohoff - against Harrington's wishes - in order to get a PG rating...
\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\nYes, a tap dancing horror thriller........with Shelley and Debbie! Goody Goody. This is demented and campy fun and part of the guignol cycle of the 60s that leaked into the 70s. Released as a double feature with the Burt Reynolds comedy FUZZ this mad scare is so bonkers as to be throughly entertaining. Like a mix of DAY OF THE LOCUST, THE OTHER and BABY JANE, I suggest any prospective viewer take on the idea that this is almost meant to be skew-iff and sit with someone with whom you can shriek and elbow all through it. Actually, get drunk whilst you watch it.....on cheap champagne. Again, with many 30s film ideas they are also about delusion; the struggle of the time for a better life getting bitter and twisted by emotional madness falling into murder. But this one is just plain crazy. It also reminds me a lot of BLOODY MAMA the De Niro - Winters shlock fest that makes this film look positively glorious.
\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 was a very good movie i wished i could find it in vhs to buy,i really enjoyed this movie i would definaetly recommend this movie to watch i would like to see it again but can never find it in tv, it would be well worth the time to watch it again
\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 just saw this movie on HBO, and it was really good...a tragic love story indeed! I really appreciated the fact that the guy at the heart of the story had lost the use of his legs in an accident. It's rare to see a love story involving someone who is physically handicapped. The love that developed between that character and the woman who comes into his life nicely portrayed how I'd like to think love can heal someone's heart. Laura Leighton...all of 27 when she made this movie...was great as the woman so full of life she's able to revive this guy's heart. Unfortunately, since his family is wealthy and her's is not, \"problems\" develop.
It's playing on HBO some more times this month. Check out the schedule here - http://www.hbo.com/apps/schedule/ ScheduleServlet?ACTION_DETAIL=DETAIL&FOCUS_ID=598947
\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 simply the epitome of what a made for TV movie should be. It was a lazy Sunday afternoon when my wife and I were in grad school that we stumbled upon this. The cheesy acting. The poorly written script. The good ol' boys. The ridiculous, yet somehow obvious, cliché, and banal premise. The riding in pickup trucks with your propped-up wife-corpse. It has it all.
You will meet familiar characters: gold-digging hussy, stupid rich boy who wants to make it on his own, friends-who-know-better, Daddy who knows better but drives son away. And the wife-corpse. Propped up. In a pick-up.
Wow: and the title. Several things in our lives have been \"Texas Tragedies\" since watching this beauty. Everyone involved in its creation deserves a medal.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is one of the many \"Kung Fu\" action films made in Asia in the late '70s - early '80s, full of cheap sound effects, dubbed dialog and lightning fast martial arts action. But unlike most films of this genre it also has a decent plot and lots of great comedy. When workers of a dye factory are forced out of their jobs by Manchu bullies, they hire a con-artist (Gordon Liu) to try to scare them off. When his attempt fails miserably, he cons his way into a Shaolin temple to learn to fight for real. But instead of making him a Kung-Fu student, the Master instead orders him to build a scaffolding to cover the roofs of all 36 chambers. Well, it turns out that while he's performing these menial tasks (stacking and tying bamboo poles) that he's learning the skills to be a Kung-Fu expert! It's sort of like in Karate Kid when Mr. Miagi teaches Daniel the basics of karate by having him do routine household chores- \"Wax on, wax off\" et cetera. There's lots of great comedy from beginning to end, and plenty of action at the end when Gordon Liu once again faces his Manchu tormentors. \"This time it's not just tricks- it's the real thing!\" Liu declares, proudly thumping his chest. If you like classic Kung Fu films you don't want to miss this one!
\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 agree with another user here and have to say that this is one of the best Kung Fu movies ever! I watched this as a kid and absolutely loved it! The scaffolding scenes are brilliant and you can really empathise with this guy because he is treated as an outcast. Nice humour and fantastic kung fu this movie rocks! If you like Kung Fu you would love 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\nThis movie has a lot of comedy, not dark and Gordon Liu shines in this one. He displays his comical side and it was really weird seeing him get beat up. His training is \"unorthodox\" and who would've thought knot tying could be so deadly?? Lots of great stunts and choreography. Very creative!
Add Johnny Wang in the mix and you've got an awesome final showdown! Don't mess with Manchu thugs; they're ruthless!
\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\nReturn To The 3th Chamber is the comedic sequel to the epic 36th Chamber Of Shaolin, in which Gordon Liu played Shan Te, a young man who became a monk and awesome fighter. In this sequel Liu plays a hapless loser who has to learn kung fu after causing his friends to be beaten. He imitates the original Shan Te, tries all manner of tricks to get into Shaolin Temple to learn and eventually gets some unique skills to fight some bullying bosses. Its a classic light hearted martial arts tale, with the ace production values of the Shaw Brothers and the sure footed direction of Lui Chia Liang. The choreography is fantastic throughout, whether for fighting or slapstick comedy and Gordon Liu's performance, as are the others, particularly the sympathetic monk work perfectly for the material. The film is less epic or profound than some of the stars other work and there are certainly grander, more violent and sweeping Shaw Brothers films. But few have such a magical blend of slapstick, unique training and fighting, with a subtle yet warming tale of a useless guy making good. Full of light hearted joy, its impossible not to give this the highest score.
\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\nReturn to the 36th Chamber is one of those classic Kung-Fu movies which Shaw produces back in the 70s and 80s, whose genre is equivalent to the spaghetti westerns of Hollywood, and the protagonist Gordon Liu, the counterpart to the western's Clint Eastwood. Digitally remastered and a new print made for the Fantastic Film Fest, this is \"Presented in Shaw Scope\", just like the good old days.
This film is a simple story of good versus evil, told in 3 acts, which more or less sums up the narrative of martial arts films in that era.
Act One sets up the premise. Workers in a dye-mill of a small village are unhappy with their lot, having their wages cut by 20% by incoming manchu gangsters. They can't do much about their exploitation because none of them are martial arts skilled to take on the gangsters, and their boss. At first they had a minor success in getting Liu to impersonate a highly skilled Shaolin monk (one of the best comedy sequences), but their rouse got exposed when they pushed the limit of credibility by impersonating one too many times.
Act Two shows the protagonist wanting to get back at the mob. However, without real martial arts, he embarks on a journey to Shaolin Temple, to try and infiltrate and learn martial arts on the sly. After some slapstick moments, he finally gets accepted by the abbot (whom he impersonated!) but is disappointed at the teaching methods - kinda like Mr Miyagi's style in Karate Kid, but instead of painting fences, he gets to erect scaffoldings all around the temple. Nothing can keep a good man down, and he unwittingly builds strength, endurance and learns kung-fu the unorthodox way.
Act Three is where the fight fest begins. With cheesy sound effects, each obvious non-contact on film is given the maximum impact treatment. But it is rather refreshing watching the fight scenes here, with its wide angled shots to highlight clarity and detail between the sparring partners, and the use of slow-motion only to showcase stunts in different angles. You may find the speed of fights a tad too slow, with some pause in between moves, but with Yuen Wo Ping and his style being used ad-nausem in Hollywood flicks, they sure don't make fight scenes like they used to! Return to the 36th chamber gets a repeat screening on Monday, so, if you're game for a nostalgic trip down memory lane, what are you waiting for?
\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 saw this movie once on late night t.v. and knew it was the best movie ever. This is one of the few Kung-Fu movies with a decent plot. The progression of the main character is seamless. The whole movie is great!
\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 thought this would be a sequel to the original \"36th Chamber of Shaolin\" but actually it's more of a light-hearted \"sister\" to the original. Gordon Liu still stars as a would-be hero on a quest to learn kung fu to defeat those pesky Manchus... but this time around it's lighter and more comedic. The film centres around the local dye mill, where wages are cut due to the hiring of 10 new Manchurian bosses. Liu plays \"Chao\", who is able to fool the mill bosses into thinking he is a shaolin monk possessing almost magical kung fu skill. But his luck runs out, he is exposed as a fraud, and he promises the mill workers that he will go to the Shaolin monastery to learn kung fu, and return to protect them.
The comedy really begins at the monastery where Chao makes several bungling attempts to get accepted. This sets up lots of really funny moments, and lots of great fight choreography. Continuing in the \"36th Chamber\" tradition we see all kinds of neat and interesting (and supremely hokey) training methods at the monastery as well as creative uses of wooden benches as weapons.
Also unique and of note is the blending of kung fu and the craft of bamboo scaffold building. Chao is not accepted as a student at Shaolin but is made to build bamboo scaffolding for the \"10 year restoration\" of the monastery. On the DVD I bought there is a special on bamboo scaffold building and the inspiration that director Lau Kar-Leung drew from it. This is a craft many hundreds (perhaps thousands) of years old, and in Hong Kong scaffolding is still built of bamboo even on large high-rises, though the West exclusively uses steel tubes and clamps. As a result of his scaffolding work, Chao develops a special style of kung fu... when asked what kind it is, he hilariously replies \"scaffolding kung fu!!\" which he first tests during a dust-up with the monastery's Abbot. In the final confrontation with the Manchus, there is a dazzling array of creative uses for bamboo poles and ties.
From a comedy perspective, I think it's one of the best of the kung fu genre. As a kung fu film in general, it also stands out... I recommend it to anyone!
\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\nBrilliant film, the next best film to The Drunken Master (Jackie Chan). I recently bought it on an original VHS and i haven't seen this film for 15 years but still as good as it was back then. The acting was terrible and the dubbing was even worse but it those features that make this film (and many other old fashioned Chinese kung-fu movies) great. The choreography is awesome and the storyline is basic. I have never seen the 36th chamber of shaolin but know it is the same film but Gordon liu plays San Te but San Te in Thr Return To The 36th Chamber is played by a different character. It has a lot of comedy value and brilliant kung-fu.
\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\nOf the three remakes on W. Somerset Maughan's novel, this one is the best one, and not particularly because what John Cromwell brought to the film. The film is worth a look because of the break through performance by Bette Davis, who as Mildred Rogers, showed the film industry she was a star. Finally, her struggles with Jack Warner and his studio paid off royally.
The film is dominated by Mildred from the start. We realize from the beginning that Mildred doesn't care for Philip and never will. She doesn't hide her contempt for this kind soul that has fallen in love with the wrong woman. He will be humiliated by Mildred again, and again, as she makes no bones about what she really is.
Poor Philip Carey, besides of being handicap, is a man who is weak. When he tries to cling onto Mildred, she rejects him. It is when Mildred returns to him, when she is frail and defeated, that he rises to the occasion, overcoming his own dependency on this terrible woman who has stolen his will and his manhood.
Bette Davis gives a fantastic portrayal of Mildred. This was one of her best roles and she ran away with it. Her disgust toward the kind Philip is clear from the onset of their relationship. When she tells him she washes her mouth after he kisses her is one of the most powerful moment in the movie. Leslie Howard underplayed Philip and makes him appear even weaker than he is. Frances Dee, Reginald Denny, Alan Hale and Reginald Owen, are seen in minor roles.
This is Bette Davis show, and don't you forget 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 movie, even though it is over 70 years old is still a very moving, strong film. Bette Davis, as the slutty, vicious Cockney waitress Mildred is absolutely believable. Watching her performance is still spellbinding. She makes the viewer absolutely despise her and pity her at the same time. Leslie Howard's performance as the weak, obsessed Phillip Carey is not as strong, but I don't see how any actor could hold their own against Ms. Davis's performance. She chews up the scenery in every scene she is in, totally stealing the show. This is the movie that sealed her stardom and she deserved to win the Academy Award, but lost. It was shocking for it's day what with themes of unwed pregnancy, multiple sex partners, and Mildred's vicious language so it is somewhat dated, but still an excellent movie. Just to see the scene where Mildred tells Phillip what she REALLY thinks of him (\"You cad, you dirty swine....\") is still some of the greatest acting I have ever seen on 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\nSeveral features of this film immediately date it. The sound is rather shrill and one realizes what great strides have been accomplished in sound reproduction in the ensuing years. The language of the dialogue is rather quaint and unnatural and the acting is still reminiscent of its transition from the stage techniques.
Bette Davis always gives a strong performance in all her films as she does in this early period of her very successful career. I do feel however that somehow the cockney accent does not fit the facial expression. I think it is the assumed cockney accent that does not ring true for me.
Somerset Maughan loves to delve into human relationships of great dramatic intensity which will please all movie-goers. As in so many of her character roles, Bette Davis can switch from a beautiful seductive woman to a viper full of fiery hatred. Leslie Howard is well cast as the withdrawn English artist with a club foot desperately seeking a partner and making a bad choice in a scheming little waitress.
Towards the end of the film the young doctor meets his true love in a busy street. They cross through the traffic completely oblivious to a multitude of horns and whistles screaming at them. This scene is possibly meant to be funny, but i find it quite ridiculous in this otherwise very serious film. It is probably construed to send you home with a smile on your face. And after all as far as we can see (and hope for) it is a happy 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\nHow amazing this film is! I've seen it over and over throughout the years and I'm always spellbound by it. The reason why the film is so easy to re-watch is, of course, the arresting performance given by the young Bette Davis. She not only steals every scene that she's in, but is actually much prettier and better photographed here (not to mention sexier) than she was in any of the films that she had made thus far at her home studio, Warner Brothers (this film was made by R.K.O. Radio Pictures). She wears a very flattering make-up and has very attractive hairstyles and oh, those lovely big eyes (especially, in the restaurant scenes that take place in London's Soho). Her body was so curvy when she was young. Get a load of it in the cheap negligee that she wears for her big explosive confrontation scene with Leslie Howard. And oh boy, she is an absolute powerhouse in that scene. Howard is a little too nervous throughout, but he does captures the hero's sensitivity. Frances Dee scores as the sweet, pretty young Sally who truly loves him. Max Steiner's score is both charming and poignant. Splendid performances and thirties flavor make this the must see version of the classic novel.
\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\nComing shortly before the imposition of a morality code darkened the spirits of writers, directors and actors, the first film adaptation of W. Somerset Maugham's \"Of Human Bondage\" titillated countless moviegoers. It has no shock value today, just fine acting.
While the cast is excellent, this is Bette Davis's first great role and one of Leslie Howard's best performances. Howard is English wannabe Parisian artist Philip Carey who is gently and firmly told that he lacks any talent and that his dedication is no substitute for true genius. Taking the lesson to heart he returns to London and enrolls in a medical college (one, by the way, that seems to have no female students-at that time there would have been at least a few. Perhaps author/physician Maugham didn't care for distaff medicos).
Having tea one day Carey is entranced by a waitress, Mildred Rogers, Bette Davis in a role as a morally loose and basically wicked farrago. Her Cockney accent is as sharp as Eliza Doolittle's. His repeated attempts to date her are greeted with the less than enthusiastic reply, \"I don't mind,\" a sure sign for any man with his head screwed on straight that he's plumbing the depths. Maugham's Mildred supplemented her waitress tips with a bit of old fashioned street-walking, something not clearly brought out here.
Carey's besotted prostration serves Rogers' avaricious need for support of the financial kind. He is desperately in love with her-she plays him as a Sunday church organist effortlessly plies her instrument. No sex here. Recognizing that he is getting nowhere, he begins a chaste relationship with Norah, a woman who adores him. Re-enter Mildred, replete with a baby, and in her usual need of being taken care of. Exit heartbroken Norah.
Another separation from Mildred and Carey begins a long-term friendship with Sally, abetted enthusiastically by her dad who seems to view eventual marriage as both a good thing for the two young people and a chance to be relieved of one of his nine offspring.
The movie reasonably but not entirely follows Maugham's excellent novel. Howard's Carey is naive and vulnerable and for much of the movie his sad eyes remind one of a doe facing a double-barreled shotgun. Mildred is unrestrainedly wicked, a user of the worst kind, her sole preoccupation with her own needs barely disguised when she tries to wheedle Carey with a thin patina of affectionate words (and offers-at one point she promises she'll do \"anything [he] wants,\" a daring statement for the times and one I'm sure audiences fully understood.
Pre-Code it may be but Mildred's quick-march dissolution would have satisfied the League of Catholic Decency. The ending is conventional-sin loses, principled behavior triumphs.
Director John Cromwell wrought excellent performances from his two main stars, one well-established, the other established largely because of this film. The atmosphere is 1930s London and the trip back in time is worth taking.
Available on DVD.
9/10 (for Davis's and Howard's performances)
\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\nEnjoyable in spite of Leslie Howard's performance. Mr. Howard plays Philip as a flat, uninteresting character. One is supposed to feel sorry for this man; however, I find myself cheering Bette Davis' Mildred. Ms. Davis gives one her finest performances (she received an Academy Award nomination). Thanks to her performance she brings this rather dull movie to life. **Be sure not to miss when Mildred tells Philip exactly how she feels about him.
\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 movie concerns about Philip(Leslie Howard)he's a serious but handicapped medicine student .He falls fatally in love with a heartless, predatory waitress called Mildred(Bette Davis).She leaves him ,engaging with others(Alan Hale,Reginald Denny).Meanwhile he is romanced with another suitors(Kay Johnson,Frances Dee)but she goes back in a mutually destructive affair.
Easily the best and first of numerous films versions of Somerset Maugham's novel. Bette Davis as the cockney cruel waitress winning yet another magnificent interpretation with an alluring and smouldering performance ,absolutely hypnotic in her account of the bondage that occurs from the beginning to the finale.Davis rose the stardom with her performance.Her role as tough and crude domineering woman will be repeated several times in posteriors acting . Leslie Howard as the essentially good and decent student subtly destroyed gives an excellent and melancholic performance.He was an awesome actor(Gone with the wind)besides producer and writer and dead in plane crash during WWII. Both will play again in ¨Petrified forest¨(1936). The atmosphere film is elaborately recreated in the RKO(Radio Picture Inc) studio is entirely convincing. Remade in 1946 by Edmund Goulding, with Eleanor Parker and Paul Henreid; and in 1964 by Ken Hughes with Kim Novak and Laurence Harvey . The motion picture will like to classic cinema buffs. Rating : Very good but a little bit dated.
\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\nBette Davis' cockney accent in this film is absolutely appalling. I totally understand that Americans and other nationalities mightn't realise this and that's fine; but believe me, it's about half as good as Dick Van Dyke's cockney accent in Mary Poppins, and that was a right load of old pony (slipped into London vernacular there - many apologies).
The remarkable thing to me is that the strange accents and exaggerated acting styles don't detract from the films' power. Of Human Bondage is a fascinating piece of cinema despite its superficial faults. It also has to be viewed in perspective. The technical and cultural limitations of film making at the time have to be appreciated, and given those limitations John Cromwell does a very good job directing the camera and allowing the narrative to develop cinematically rather than solely via the mannered acting and stilted dialogue. A fine example of his skillful direction is the scene set at Victoria Station. It is beautifully conceived, shot and edited. Note too the stark shots of the prostrate Mildred towards the end of the film; they owe more to the early days of artistic film making than the sanitised, formulaic world of the studio that was about to dominate.
The themes of the film are universally familiar and compelling ones: sexual obsession, unrequited love, scorned passion, self-loathing, manipulative relationships, social divides and youthful folly. Though the dialogue is often rather hackneyed, the difficult task of portraying these themes and the inner lives of the characters is tackled well albeit in a low-key way. Some of the scenes of obsession and emotional rejection are uncomfortable to watch but the story doesn't descend into cliché; we're aware that the characters (even the poisonous Mildred) are both victims and perpetrators, and that their actions are motivated by their misunderstanding of each others feelings as well as by wilful selfishness. Whilst naive in style the story reaches to the complex heart of the human condition and the mannered nature of the acting and the occasionally grating exchanges don't diminish the veracity of the work.
Of Human Bondage was one of the films that got Bette Davis noticed in Hollywood and whilst watching it you are conscious of being witness at the birth of a celebrated career. Her unconventional beauty and screen charisma (no one flounced or did disdain quite like Ms Davis) grab your attention from her first appearance. Whilst hers is definitely the memorable performance in the film, Leslie Howard is also excellent as the sensitive and fragile student Philip Carey. They are a good combination, though, why oh why didn't he help her with that terrible, terrible accent!?
\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 a well directed film from John Cromwell who was not a great director but who did make some fine films including the 1937 version of 'The Prsoner of Zenda'. Set in a London that only Hollywood could manage, atmospheric but nothing like the real thing, it is a story of obsession and thwarted love, from the novel by Somerset Maughan.
I was looking forward to seeing it on DVD as I had never seen it before and being a great admirer of Bette Davis wanted to see her in a role considered one of her early great ones. So I bought it. Well she looked fine but I'm sorry to say her London cockney accent just made me laugh. Bette Davis was one of the greatest film actors, make no mistake, but here she did make one. It was impossible to take her character seriously. It wasn't as gruesome as the Dick Van Dyke 'Mary Poppins' cockney accent but close.
In the other major role was Leslie Howard and he did it superbly. He was a subtle and intelligent actor The supporting actors acquit themselves well. Worth watching despite Ms Davis' vocal gymnastics.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"