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\nWriter/director Henry Brommel has done a wonderful job with his film, \"Panic,\" from the year 2000, and that includes his choice of cast: William H. Macy, Tracy Ullman, John Ritter, Neve Campbell, Donald Sutherland, Barbara Bain, David Dorfman. Brommel has cast Ullman and Ritter in decidedly un-funny roles, and the offbeat casting is a welcome change from what we normally see.
\"Panic\" is the story of a hit man, Alex (Macy) who actually works for his father (Sutherland). He covers his true profession by doing mail order work; by all appearances, he and his wife (Ullman) and their son Sammy (Dorfman) are a typical suburban family. Unhappy with his life, Alex seeks the help of a psychiatrist (Ritter), telling only his mother (Bain). In the waiting room, he meets a young woman (Campbell) to whom he is immediately attracted, which complicates his situation further. His mother breaks her promise and tells his father about the psychiatrist. When Alex receives his next assignment, he discovers that he is to kill his psychiatrist.
This is a profound story of a gentle, good man made into a killer by a monster of a father, with his mother's knowledge, who kills to please his father but also can't stand up to him and quit. His rage is so deep-seated that he has lost emotional attachment to just about everything and everyone except his son - and it's finally his son who wakes him up out of a nearly lifelong repression. When it's time for \"Panic\" to moves, it does - quickly.
\"Panic\" doesn't seem panicked at all. In fact, it moves very slowly. But it moves slowly not because it's poorly made - the slowness is deliberate, mirroring Alex's own psyche slowly coming out of the fog. By making a decision about Sara, the Campbell character, and by seeing his mark, his own psychiatrist, as a living, breathing human being, Alex starts to make the connections between what he does and who he is -and how they don't jive. And the difference between the two could lead to the loss of another psyche, Sammy's.
William Macy gives another brilliant performance, as a loving father, a distant husband, and a cold killer, the child of two monsters who never cared a damn for his feelings or desires, a man who realizes finally that he has to step up to the plate or have the cycle repeated.
This is not the kind of drama that plays well in a movie theater. It's too adult, too small, too subtle, too character-driven, and too good.
\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 bought this a year or more ago for $2 (yep, $2), left it on the shelf for ages, now watching DVDs while holed up with a cold.
This is a haunting movie. Brilliant performances by all involved, especially the 6yo boy (about the only smiles you get in this movie).
Plot reminds me of perhaps my favourite movie ever, Grosse Pointe Blank, but obviously that's lighthearted, this is heavy hearted.
As a psychologist, a clinical and forensic psychologist, a shiver went up my spine when the identity of the new contract was revealed. Scary stuff! Brilliant work all round.
Pete
\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\nWow I really liked this movie, William H. Macy is great as the quiet hit-man Alex.
All the performances here are really good, the plot is interesting and entertaining.
Alex, a married hit-man (like his father)with a little son, is going through a middle age crisis and wants to quit the family business so he goes to the psychiatrist for help and in this place he meets the young free will spirit Sarah of whom he falls in love to. One day Alex doesn't know what to do when he gets a job to kill a person he knows.
I recommend you to watch it if you like mature interesting movies.
8 stars = very good
\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\nHad placed this on my TIVO for a rainy day due to the cast, some really hard working people in the industry, and when I finally watched I was NOT disappointed.
This movie has some Altman-like flavor (he's mentioned in the end credits as a \"thanks\" person) utilizing seemingly independent unrelated plot lines that intertwine as the film draws to its climax. Macy is pure, clean, and honest as a man who can't seem to escape his \"destiny\", Sutherland plays and portrays as few can, Neve adds splash to a deliberately toned down environment, add Tracy Ullman, Barbara Bain (remember Mission Impossible on TV?), not to mention the steady John Ritter and you have all the ingredients for a good FILM. The script is uncluttered, the dialog is free from cliché and thoughtful (especially between Macy and David Dorfman). Suspend belief and enjoy, this is truly time well spent.
\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\nIn his first go as a Hollywood director, Henry Brommell whips an enthralling yarn that is all of penetrating relatable marital issues with melancholic authenticity, and lacing such with an equally absorbing subplot of a father-son hit-man business. The film is directed astutely and consists of a wonderfully put together cast as well as a swift, family-conscious screenplay (also by Brommell) that brings life to an otherwise fatigued genre. As a bonus, 'Panic' delivers subtle, acerbic humoran unexpected, undeniably charming, and very welcome surprisethrough its bumbling, unsure-of-himself, low-key star, whose ever-cool state is enticing, especially given his line of work.
The forever-great William H. Macy again captures our hearts as Alex, a unhappy, torn, middle-aged husband and father who finds solace in the most dubious of persons: a young, attractive, equally-messed-up 23-year-old named Sarah (Neve Campbell), whom he meets in the waiting-room at a psychologist's office, where he awaits the therapy of Dr. Josh Parks (John Ritter) to discuss his growing eagerness to quit the family business that his father (Donald Sutherland) built. Alex, whose lust to lead a new life is obstructed by the fear of disappointing his dictating father, strikes an unwise fancy for Sarah, which ultimately leads him to understand the essence and irrefutable responsibility of being a husband to his wife and, more importantly to him, a good father to his six-year-old son, Sammy (played enthusiastically by the endearing David Dorfman).
Henry Brommell's brilliant 'Panic' is something of a rarity in Hollywood seldom seen (with the exception of 2002's 'Road to Perdition') since its conception in 2000it weaves two conflicting genres (organized-crime, family drama) into a fascinating, warm hunk of movie-viewing that is evenly strong in either directionand it's one that will maintain its exceptional, infrequent caliber and gleaming sincerity for ages to come.
\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\"Panic\" is kind of a crime comedy-drama with William H. Macy, Donald Sutherland and Neve Campbell in the leading roles. Alex (played by Macy) is a guy who kills people for living. But for the moment he's facing a depression and that's why he is seeing a therapist. That's where he meets Sarah (Neve Campbell) and he falls in love with her. He's also facing another problem: he wants to quit the family business (the killings), but he doesn't now how to tell this to his father.
What follows is the story of a guy during he's midlife-crisis, facing the regular problems: falling in love with a pretty young girl and everything that goes with that.
Pretty good acting performances by the cast. Macy is excellent as the depressed Alex. I had high expectations for this one and it was a good movie but he doesn't completely deliver. The story was rather flat and cliché..
7/10
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWilliam H. Macy is at his most sympathetic and compelling here as a hit-man and loving father who wants to step out of the family business without angering his overbearing parents. Treads much of the same territory as TV's \"The Sopranos\" in terms of the mid-life crisis of a criminal theme (here too he visits a shrink) but is still worth watching thanks to some taut direction from Brommel (I look forward to what this guy directs next), an excellent script, and all around great performances. Macy is excellent as always. This is probably his best role since \"Fargo.\" Donald Sutherland is at his creepy best as the domineering father. Tracy Ullman gives a surprisingly riveting dramatic turn as Macy's wife. Young David Dorfman is excellent as Macy's bright and sensitive son (many of his lines sound ad-libbed and are wonderful). Even Neve Campell (who I usually find abhorrent) is compelling as the troubled young woman who captures Macy's eye. All of this is punctuated by a moving score and crisp pace that lead up to a predictable but still powerful climax and meaningful and touching aftermath. This film deserved a much wider release, as I suspect it would have connected with audiences.
\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\nStrange yet emotionally disturbing chiller about fed up middle-aged man (William H. Macy) who finally decides to leave the family business (murder for hire) run by his quietly over-demanding father (Donald Sutherland) while seeing a shrink (John Ritter) and flirting with another patient (Neve Campbell).
Talk about a major dilemma, but \"Panic\" is a top-notch thriller that looks like \"American Beauty\" meets \"The Professional\". Macy and Sutherland are the stand-outs here. Remarkable debut for first-time writer/director Henry Bromell. I'm surprised that this movie didn't get a chance to stay in theaters for more than a couple of weeks.
\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'd never heard of this movie, but boy was I surprised when I caught it on TV. Great cast, great acting. Excellent movie! How can a movie with William H Macy, Neve Campbell and Donald Sutherland go wrong? I wonder why I never heard of it before.
\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 funniest movie I've seen in a long time. The bad acting, bad script, bad scenery, bad costumes, bad camera work and bad special effects are so stupid that you find yourself reeling with laughter.
So it's not gonna win an Oscar but if you've got beer and friends round then you can't go wrong.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen I was over at Hollywood video I looked through their clearance out movies and there was DEMONICUS for five buckaroos plus fifty percent off! I saw it only once before and couldn't pass up this great deal! The second viewing was much better than the first. The box is so cool and the music is very good. If you haven't seen Demonicus yet I recommend that you do or if you rented and hated Demonicus do give it another chance as another viewing of it may change your mind. If you seen a copy at Hollywood Video for the price I got it for don't pass it up as it is a great deal!
Demonicus is well a very different but entertaining movie.Believe it or not is like watching a interactive video game with out playing it!It has very low budget and actors I'M sure that nobody is familiar with. We began the the video game uh I mean film with a guy and a woman some where in Italy and there is a cave that actually looks like a rail road/train track tunnel and she says don't go in there and what does he do?The normal stuff!HE DIDN'T LISTEN TO HER! He goes in there and find lots of gladiator artifacts and armor and a almost perfectly preserved body of a legendary gladiator named Tyrannous!Where did the chair come from that Tyrannous was sitting on and how did his body stay so good and where did the Cauldron Pot come from?So every cave is complete with a Caultron Pot?Tyrannous is wearing his armor,helmet,and has a weapon or two.He does the dumbest thing a person could do,he puts on the helmet and is taken over by the spirit of Tyrannous! From there he walks around just killing all of the campers near by to bring back the real Tyrannous.
Now,I said before its like a video game.Its hard to explain but it just feels like it.The music even sounds like video games.The acting is really terrible.The actors say things like why is he doing this,oh he was nuts already and Fine since he's nuts i'm going home!Also the movie also has some major errors like a guy is running and trying to find his girlfriend in the night and is still running in the day time still searching for her with out taking a break!
This movie has some errors but it isn't a classic like Werewolf but it is entertaining if you like really low budget error prone movies then you better see Demonicus!
\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\ndemonicus rocked, you guys need to understand how hard it rocked, unfortunately, the words needed to explain the extent of the rocking have not been discovered. for a tiny idea, pop like 50 hits of E, watch Death Factory while on the phone with Jesus, wait, Jesus is on call waiting, you're having phone sex with Will Smith on the primary line. seriously, that movie... so good. you need to watch it at least a 4 times to catch all the subtleties... well, not so much subtleties as much as it takes the length of the movie, times 4 in order to ponder why the people at full moon are allowed to A, live, and B, reproduce. what is our world coming to?
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDemonicus is a movie turned into a video game! I just love the story and the things that goes on in the film.It is a B-film ofcourse but that doesn`t bother one bit because its made just right and the music was rad! Horror and sword fight freaks,buy this movie now!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAll good movies \"inspire\" some direct to video copycat flick. I was afraid that \"Gladiator\" wasn't really that good a film, because I hadn't seen any movie that had anything remotely resembling anything Roman on the new releases shelf for months. Then I spotted Full Moon's latest offering, Demonicus. I'm a fan of Full Moon's Puppetmaster series, and Blood Dolls, but had never seen one of their non-killer puppet films. Anyway...
Demonicus chronicles what happens to a group of campers in the mountains of the Alps. One of the campers, James, finds a cave with old gladiator artifacts, and feels impelled to remove a helmet from a corpse and try it on. He becomes possessed, and, as the demonic gladiator Tyrannus, is impelled to kill his friends to revive the corpse, who is the real Tyrannus.
Granted, like many Full Moon films, this has little or no budget. At times, the editing and direction was so amateurish I'd swear I was watching the Blair Witch Project. The attempts at chopping off of limbs and heads reminds me of a Monty Python skit. The weapons, although apparently real, look really plastic-y. It literally looks like this was filmed by a group of friends with a digital camcorder on a weekend. Granted, there's nothing wrong with such film-making, just don't rent this expecting a technical masterpiece. It looks like there were attempts at research for the script too, because, even though Tyrannus really doesn't act much like a gladiator until the end, at least he speaks Latin.
All trashing aside, I actually enjoyed this film. Not as much as a killer puppet film, perhaps, but Full Moon still delivers! The only thing that disappointed me was there was no Full Moon Videozone at the end!
\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 undoubtedly one of the funniest movies ever made. Amitabh as a country bumpkin, Arjun Singh, is hilarious. The best thing is the laughter never stops. The plot is a same-old same-old story where child is separated from mother who sacrifices everything for her duty - with a happy reunion at the end. There are villains (Ranjit) and there are brothers (Sashi Kapoor) and there are vixens (Parveen Babhi) and there are lovers (Smita Patil) and there is a blind brother and a grandfather thrown in for good measure. But this movie is about Amitabh and thats all you remember at then end.
Amitabh comes to the city to make a decent living and his dialogue delivery and mannerisms are hilarious. Later in the movie he turns into the Angry Young Man he is famous for but the humour stays. Memorable parts include his walking, talking and speaking english, the song (pad gungaroo re bhand, meera nachi thi) and everything with his dadoo.
All in all I was rolling with laughter throughout the movie. If you want 3 hours of entertainment with Amitabh at his absolute best - this is it. It will easily give it a 10/10.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFor anyone who may not know what a one-actor movie was like, this is the best example. This plot is ridiculous, and really makes no sense. It's full of cliched situations, hackneyed lines, melodrama, comedy... you name it!
But Amitabh Bachchan can make anything convincing, and this movie is by no means an exception. Everyone turns in a decent performance - Shashi Kapoor, Waheeda Rehman, Ranjit, Om Prakash, Smita Patil... But it is the Megastar who overshadows everyone with his towering presence. Without him, this movie would have been a non-starter... The story is about separation / mistaken identities / misunderstandings / love / hate / loyalty / good vs evil - everything, really! Amitabh's is a brilliant performance on all counts, in an otherwise silly film! And did I mention that it is ridiculously funny?
\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 will tell you why Amitabh Bacchan is a one man industry. This movie will also tell you why Indian movie-goers are astute buyers.
Amitabh was at the peak of his domination of Bollywood when his one-time godfather Prakash Mehra decided to use his image yet again. Prakash has the habit of picking themes and building stories out of it, adding liberal doses of Bollywood sensibilities and clichés to it. Zanzeer saw the making of Angry Young Man. Lawaris was about being a bastard and Namak Halal was about the master-servant loyalties.
But then, the theme was limited to move the screenplay through the regulation three hours of song, dance and drama. What comprised of the movie is a caricature of a Haryanavi who goes to Mumbai and turns into a regulation hero. Amitabh's vocal skills and diction saw this movie earn its big bucks, thanks to his flawless stock Haryanvi accent. To me, this alone is the biggest pull in the movie. The rest all is typical Bollywood screen writing.
Amitabh, by now, had to have some typical comedy scenes in each of his movies. Thanks to Manmohan Desai. This movie had a good dose of them. The shoe caper in the party, the monologue over Vijay Merchant and Vijay Hazare's considerations, The mosquito challenge in the boardroom and the usual drunkard scene that by now has become a standard Amitabh fare.
Shashi Kapoor added an extra mile to the movie with his moody, finicky character (Remember him asking Ranjeet to \"Shaaadaaaap\" after the poisoned cake incident\"). His was the all important role of the master while Amitabh was his loyal servant. But Prakash Mehra knew the Indian mind...and so Shashi had to carry along his act with the rest of the movie. It was one character that could have been more developed to make a serious movie. But this is a caper, remember? And as long as it stayed that way, the people came and saw Amitabh wearing a new hat and went back home happy. The end is always predictable, and the good guys get the gal and the bad ones go to the gaol, the age-old theme of loyalty is once again emphasized and all is well that ends well.
So what is it that makes this movie a near classic? Amitabh Bacchan as the Haryanvi. Prakash Mehra created yet another icon in the name of a story. Chuck the story, the characters and the plot. My marks are for Amitabh alone.
\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 film transported everyone back to October 20, 1944 where we seemed to be part of the great Philippine 'I Shall Return' landing scene It was on that Leyte shore where General MacArthur reaped his fame
Above all, Gregory Peck triumphed in his portrayal of the great general It is the stride, the set of the shoulders, the intensity It's what both men have had in common: intensity, total absorption, devotion With MacArthur it was for the military With Peck it was for the challenge of acting An Academy Award winner for \"To Kill a Mockinbird\", an Oscar nominee for \"Keys to the Kingdom\", \"The Yearling\", \"Gentleman's Agreement\", and \"Twelve O'Clock High\"he has played everything from an apparently homicidal amnesiac to a crusading journalist; from a troubled gunfighter to an obsessed attorney; from biblical David to Captain Horatio Hornblower He has brought to them all his own unique insight, his character, his sincerity, warmth and love, and especially, his humor
There is a scene where 'MacArthur' stands on deck with the 'President of the Philippines.' We can hear the dialogue: \"General, I hope the water isn't too deep,\" says the 'President,' \"because my people will find out I can't swim.\" Then come Peck's sonorous voice: \"And my people are going to find that I can't walk on water!\"
As \"MacArthur,\" Peck once again justified his reputation as a giant in the film industry Through him we felt MacArthur's emotions: we knew his anger, his happiness and we understood the relationship with his whole family
\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\nGregory Peck's brilliant portrayal of Douglas MacArthur from the Battle of Corregidor in the Philippines at the start of the Pacific War largely through to his removal as UN Commander during the Korean War offers reason to believe all three of the above possibilities. Certainly the most controversial American General of the Second World War (and possibly ever) MacArthur is presented here as a man of massive contradictions. He claims that soldiers above all yearn for peace, yet he obviously glories in war; he consistently denies any political ambitions, yet almost everything he does is deliberately used to boost himself as a presidential candidate; he obviously believes that soldiers under his command have to follow his orders to the letter, yet he himself deliberately defies orders from the President of the United States; he shows great respect for other cultures (particularly in the Philippines and Japan) and yet is completely out of touch with his own country. All these things are held in balance throughout this movie, and in the end the viewer is left to draw his or her own conclusions about the man, although one is left with no doubt that MacArthur sincerely and passionately loved his country, and especially the Army he devoted his life to.
Peck's performance was, as I said, brilliant - to the point, actually, of overshadowing virtually everyone else in the film (which is perhaps appropriate, given who he was portraying!) with the possible exception of Ed Flanders. I though he offered a compelling look at Harry Truman and his attitude to MacArthur: sarcastic (repeatedly referring to MacArthur as \"His Majesty,\") angry, frustrated and finally completely fed up with this General who simply won't respect his authority as President. Marj Dusay was also intriguing as MacArhur's wife Jean, devoted to her husband (whom she herself referred to as \"General,\" although their relationship seems to have been a happy enough one.) I very much enjoyed this movie, although perhaps would have liked to have learned a little more about MacArthur's early life. I have always chuckled at MacArthur's reaction to Eisenhower being elected President (\"He'll make a fine President - he was the best damn clerk I ever had\" - which seems to sum up what MacArthur thought the role of the President should be, especially to his military commanders during wartime.) Well worth watching. 8/10
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nName just says it all. I watched this movie with my dad when it came out and having served in Korea he had great admiration for the man. The disappointing thing about this film is that it only concentrate on a short period of the man's life - interestingly enough the man's entire life would have made such an epic bio-pic that it is staggering to imagine the cost for production.
Some posters elude to the flawed characteristics about the man, which are cheap shots. The theme of the movie \"Duty, Honor, Country\" are not just mere words blathered from the lips of a high-brassed officer - it is the deep declaration of one man's total devotion to his country.
Ironically Peck being the liberal that he was garnered a better understanding of the man. He does a great job showing the fearless general tempered with the humane side of the man.
\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\nMacArthur is a great movie with a great story about a great manGeneral Douglas MacArthur. This is of course, the story of one of America's great military figures, and a figure made familiar to me from the earliest moments of my memory. Though there is a continuity issue (there may be others) e.g. MacArthur's speech portrayed in the film as his 1962 address to the U.S. Military Academy on accepting the Thayer award did not contain the phrase \"old soldiers never die; they just fade away.\" (That was in his speech to Congress upon his dismissal by President Truman) in 1951 for his alleged insubordination (these two did not see eye to eye!) Gregory Peck is im-Peck-able as the general who vowed he would return to the Philippines in World War II. The film moves quickly and easily with the General, his family and his staff from the beginning of the Second World War to the end of his service career. This film would be of much greater significance to one familiar with both WW II and the Korean War. Nevertheless, Peck's portrayal of this great man who fought the twin evils of fascism and communism and who hated war as only a soldier can is a memorable one indeed. \"In war there is no substitute for victory.\"
\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\nAn underrated addition to the Graham Greene cinematic canon - its perceived faults can now be seen as virtues. Director Shumlin, theatrical director, frames his action with an oppressive rigidity appropriate to the material, and the seemingly inept compositions compellingly suggest unease. Both a dark thriller and a story of moral regeneration (for the female character! In a 40s thriller!), the film has an upright hero who turns mad and murderous (and possibly paedophiliac), brilliantly brings the faraway ideologies of the Spanish Civil War into jolting dangerous reality, has one horrific murder, an astonishing insights into class and capitalism, clever theatrical metaphors, a rare approximation of Greene's God, and an ending that is only happy if you know nothing about history.
\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\nGood old black and white Graham Greene based people in dangerous times doing heroic and mysterious things. Hardly a shot fired or a punch thrown and a hundred time more interesting than the glop that's being minted by Hollywood today. Bacall lights up the screen of course and Boyer is entirely engaging. They don't make movies like this any more.
\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\nWhile this is a faithful adaptation, it is much less exciting than Greene's novel. Also, it's a bit ridiculous when people say things to Boyer like, \"You're Spanish, aren't you?\"
Still, the movie's not at all bad, just slow-moving.

\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt could have been better had it been directed by someone with more experience. Shumlin didn't do a bad job but it is not a great work of cinematic art.
It is, however, a beautiful movie. I have loved it since local channels used to show it. Graham Greene is one of my favorite writers of the last century. Some pretty bad movies were made from his novels and stories. (Many love \"The Fallen Idol\" but I am not among them. I think I saw \"Brighton Rock\" once many years ago and liked it but maybe I'm simply thinking fondly of the novel.) This is superbly cast. Charles Boyer does not, it's true, come across as Spanish. But he seems to have the perfect temperament for this character -- tired, wary, caring. Lauren Bacall is appealing as the British girl who falls for him. But the supporting players are the best: Katina Paxinou is excellent. Her performance is a little Grand Guignol, but I attribute that to the director. Peter Lorre, whom we first meet as he gives Boyer a lesson in an Esperanto-like universal language, is excellent -- as always.
And Wanda Hendrix could break the hardest heart. She comes across as a precocious early teenager. The character wants to be helpful. She does her best.
I recommend this movie highly. Not without reservations. The reservation is, primarily, that it is a little stolid. But the story and acting can scarcely be bettered.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film has scenes that come back to me at the strangest times -- that intense scene with Mr. Muckerji telling Mrs Melandez that someone he spoke with witnesses the girl being pushed out the window by a woman who fits HER description ---is one that rolls around -- the way she keeps referring to him by name --- in a Greek accent \"Mr Muckerji\" -- and then when Boyer discovers her having just taken poison and gives her one last smack up the side of the head before she dies --- its a delight! \"Fools -- Fools -- all my life\"...etc etc -- you get the point..I have to buy this one. I love Dan Seymour's acting -- he usually plays some plump foreign sultan or police chief and appeared in Casablanca and many great pictures.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe novel is easily superior and the best parts of the film are direct translations from what Greene wrote; for instance the quiet but grim humour that breaks into the scenes with Boyer and Lorre, or the murdered-child obsession that takes over some of the plot. Where the film deviates from the novel, it tends to the ludicrous.
However I don't want to suggest that the film is bad in any way. It always looks the part and the story stays in the mind like a good 'un. Some of the minor characters were stock actors who could turn their hand to anything.
It's a dreadful shame that the film's not available on DVD.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt could have been a better film. It does drag at points, and the central story shifts from Boyer completing his mission to Boyer avenging Wanda Hendrix's death, but Graham Greene is an author who is really hard to spoil. His stories are all morality tales, due to his own considerations of Catholicism, guilt and innocence (very relative terms in his world view), and the human condition.
Boyer is Luis Denard, a well-known concert pianist, who has sided with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. He has been sent to England to try to carry through an arms purchase deal that is desperately needed. Unfortunately for Denard he is literally on his own - everyone of his contacts turns out to be a willing turncoat for the Falagists of Spain. In particular Katina Paxinou (Mrs. Melendez) a grim boarding house keeper, and Peter Lorre (Mr. Contreras) a teacher of an \"esperanto\" type international language. Wanda Hendrix is the drudge of a girl (Else) who works for Mrs. Melendez. The local diplomat, Licata (Victor Francken) is already a willing associate of the Falangists.
The Brits (Holmes Herbert, Miles Mander, and best - if not worst - of the lot, George Coulouris) don't give much hope to Boyer's cause (which he soon grasps may be Britain's before long). Herbert and Mander just retreat behind the official policy of neutrality ordered by the Ramsay MacDonald's and Stanley Baldwin's governments during the Civil War. Coulouris here is a typical Col. Blimp type - always impeccable in his native English diction, he is sharp in showing his dislike for foreigners in general.
The one ray of hope is Lauren Bacall (Rose Cullen), here trying to play her role as well as she can - but she can't really. She's an aristocrat - the daughter of a Press lord. It was Bacall's second film, and (sad to say) almost sank her long career. She does act well, but the spark she showed in her first film was due to the dual effect of starring with Humphrey Bogart and being directed by Howard Hawks. Boyer is a fine actor, but he's not Bogie, and Herman Shumlin is not Hawks. Her next film returned her to Bogie and Hawks again, and her star resumed it's ascendancy.
It's a bleak film (as was the novel). Boyer's mission never succeeds, as he has too many hidden foes all over the place. But the villains are likewise also losers - frequently with their lives.
With Dan Seymour as a suspicious foreign tenant of Katina Paxinou (and the man who destroys her). It is well worth watching to catch the Warner's lot of character actors doing their best given the weakness in direction.
\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 watch a lot of films, good, bad and indifferent; there is usually something of interest to fixate upon, even if it is only set design, or the reliable labor of a good character actor, or the fortuitous laughter that emerges from watching ineptitude captured forever.
However, I was quite pleasantly surprised by this film, one I had never seen before. Graham Greene has been translated into film many times of course, in such masterpieces as \"Thin Man\" and in lesser vehicles. \"Confidential Agent\" is one of those lesser vehicles, yet it manages to get me somewhere anyway, despite lackluster direction, the incongruity of Bacall and Boyer's depictions as (respectively) British and Spanish, and the almost complete non-existence of any chemistry between the two leads. In some ways, this last \"problem\" actually begins to work in the film's favor, for how can love really blossom in the killing atmosphere of fascism and capitalism meeting about one person's tragedy? The most compelling aspect of the film arises directly from Greene's complex and guilt-ridden psychology, which pervades the film. I know some see the deliberate pacing here as dull, and I can understand that. Yet I found that plodding accentuated rather than detracted from what is a claustrophobic world. I was compelled to watch, not by any great acting (although Boyer is marvelous as usual, managing to convey a rich mixture of world-weariness, tragedy, hope, and fervor with his magnificent voice and yearning eyes), but by the down-spiraling rush of one man's slim hopes against a world of oppression and money. What is a thief? What good is love in the face of death? Where does mere profit-taking end and exploitation begin? The film does not rise to the level of art, and thus cannot hope to answer such questions, but it is much more than mere entertainment, and its murders and guilts are very grimly drawn. The lack of glitz, of \"bubble,\" of narrative \"bounce\" help to make this movie very worthwhile.
And there is no happy ending, for history wrote the ending.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nCharles Boyer is supposed to be Spanish, and he's come to London to buy coal in \"Confidential Agent,\" a 1945 film also starring Lauren Bacall, Katina Paxinou, Peter Lorre, Dan Seymour, and Wanda Hendrix. Boyer is Luis Denard, and everyone is out to stop him except Bacall. His papers are stolen, he's accused of murder but he's determined to get coal for his people so that they can fight the Fascists.
This film has its good and not so good points. It rates high for atmosphere and for suspense, and it is highly entertaining. Bacall is incredibly beautiful, Boyer is passionate, Paxinou is mean, Lorre is slimy, Hendrix appropriately pathetic, and Seymour outrageously wonderful.
The not so good points: Bacall is supposed to be English, and Boyer Spanish. Uh, no. Boyer is terrific in his role even with the wrong accent, but Bacall is 100% American, not of the British upper class. The two have no chemistry. Conclusion: Bacall is somewhat miscast. Her acting isn't up to snuff either; she's better in other films. But she's an astonishing looking woman, and much can be forgiven.
Paxinou is nearly over the top and hateful. Dan Seymour almost steals the entire film as a hotel guest who studies human nature. It's a great part and his performance is perfect, while some of the direction of the other actors isn't as good. This was definitely a case of no small parts, only small actors. Seymour wasn't a small actor.
Definitely worth seeing even with its flaws.
\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\nBacall does well here - especially considering this is only her 2nd film. This one is often overshadowed because it falls between 2 great successes: \"To Have and To Have Not\" (1944) and \"The Big Sleep\" (1945), both of which paired her with Humphrey Bogart. Granted this one is not up to par to the other movies but I think through no fault of her own. I think there was some miscasting in having her portray a British upper-crust lady. No accent whatsoever. I think all the strange accents were distracting - Boyer was certainly no Spaniard. It was hard to keep straight which country people were from.
I really liked the black and white cinematography. Mood is used to great affect - I especially liked the fog scene. The lighting also does a great job of adding to the intrigue and tension.
Bacall is just gorgeous. Boyer just doesn't fit the romantic leading man role for me - so he and Bacall together was a little strange. Not great chemistry - and certainly no Bogie and Bacall magic. But I still really liked this picture. There is great tension and it moves along well enough. I must say I found the murder of the little girl quite bold for this period film.
Katina Paxinou and Peter Lorre stand out as supporting cast. Paxinou as the hotel keeper is absolutely villainous and evil in her portrayal. Her one scene where she laughs maniacally as Mr. Muckerji is leaving after exposing her as the child's murderer is quite disturbing. Lorre also does quite well in his slimy, snake portrayal of Conteras - a sleazy coward to the end. Wanda Bendrix also does quite well in portraying the child Else - especially considering this was her first picture and she was only 16 at the time (though she appears much younger). Turns out she later married Auie Murphy which proved to be a short lived, tempestuous marriage.
\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 film that dramatized an understandable reluctance to face the inevitable coming of the the second world war, when a Spanish Republican, sent by his soon to be overthrown government, (Charles Boyer) infiltrates himself into England looking for support for his cause by trying to influence wealthy mine owners not to sell coal to the fascists back in Spain. He upsets the locals, getting convincingly beaten in one scene, and later in the film facing an angry crowd of miners who see him as yet another threat to their shaky livelihood. Notwithstanding socio-economic hierarchy, xenophobia, and world politics, this film expertly delves into a dark and suspenseful intrigue involving unfaithful compatriots played by Katina Paxinou and Peter Lorre, and is expertly filmed in numerous darkly lit scenes set in a dreary hotel by James Wong Howe, and manages more than once to get under your skin.
\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 enjoyable minor noir boasts a top cast, and many memorable scenes. The big distraction is the complete disregard for authentic accents. The Spanish characters in the film are played by a Frenchman (Boyer), a Belgian (Francen), a Greek (Paxinou) and a Hungarian (Lorre)! And to top it all off Bacall is supposed to be an English aristocrat! Despite these absurdities, the performances are all very good - especially those of Paxinou and Lorre. But the scene in which Boyer, Paxinou and Lorre meet, and talk in wildly different accents, is a real hoot! And I guess, seeing as how they were alone, that they should actually have been speaking in Spanish anyway! It seems pretty weird that the Brothers Warner couldn't find any Spanish speaking actors in Los Angeles! Of course Hollywood has often had an \"any old accent will do\" policy - my other favorite is Greta Garbo (Swedish) as Mata Hari (Dutch), who falls in love with a Russian soldier played by a Mexican (Ramon Novarro). Maybe they should have got Novarro for \"Confidential Agent\" - he would have been great in Boyer's role or at least in Francen's (which would have saved greatly on the dark make-up budget).
\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\nNever realized that Charles Boyer, (Luis Denard) appeared with Lauren Bacall,(Rose Cullen) in a film together and enjoyed their great acting together. Even Peter Lorre, (Contreras) had a role in this film and had a bad misfortune in his bathroom that caused him to faint. This story deals with a Republican Courier, Luis Denard who visits England during the Spanish Civil War and tries to disrupt a coal mining contract that will cause great harm to other nations. Lauren Bacall, (Rose Cullen) comes to the aid of Luis Denard by picking him up and at the same time falling in love with him and then proceeds to help him escape from an angry crowd of English Mine Workers who threaten his life. The real bad guy in this film is Victor Francen, (Licata) \"Beast with Five Fingers\" who gives an outstanding performance. Great Classic 1945 film without Humphrey Bogart.
\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\nbut it's worth watching for Boyer, Lorre and Paxinou. Greene's entertainments that were filmed during the war either required transplanting to American shores, as in This Gun for Hire, or the use of American actors in roles where they did not fit. Bacall fits that part here. I kept waiting for her to whistle and bring Bogie to life; her tone of voice is simply all wrong for an upper class Englishwoman. But listen to the dialogue! No, people don't talk that way except in books, but Greene was sending a message about an England that needed to wake up to the dangers of the world. One other positive note: Greene's range of characters were kept whole. While Mr. Mukerjee resembled more a Brahamin, at least his nationality was kept, and his final conversation with Paxinou is priceless.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm feeling a little protective of this film because it was my introduction to the U.N.C.L.E.-verse. The year was 1972, and I.T.V. ran all eight features in one bumper run ( followed by re-runs of 'The Persuaders' starring Tony Curtis and Roger Moore ) on Saturday evenings. 'The Karate Killers' was chosen to open the season. It commenced with a cool action sequence as Solo and Kuryakin's sports car got attacked by a squadron of THRUSH mini-copters. I was a fan for life from that moment on.
After the main credits ( nice to see a special title sequence here instead of the usual practice of slowing down action footage ) we go to the laboratory of Dr.Simon True ( Jim Boles ), inventor of a new formula to extract gold from seawater. True's wife Amanda ( Joan Crawford ) has been having an affair with THRUSH agent Randolph ( Herbert Lom ). A ruthless fellow indeed, he kills both the doctor and his wife, before hunting for the formula. True has prepared for the event - he has divided it into five segments, each written on a photograph of himself, and sent it to his five daughters, all of whom are scattered throughout the world.
Solo and Kuryakin set out to get the formula first, leading to a string of episodes in different locations, and cameos from the likes of Telly Savalas ( as a tight-fisted Italian Count ), Terry-Thomas, and Curt Jurgens. One of Dr.True's daughters - Sandy ( Kim Darby ) - accompanies the U.N.C.L.E. boys on their global quest.
Having assembled the formula, THRUSH turns up and makes them hand it over, before whisking them off to their secret base at the North Pole...
Of all the U.N.C.L.E. feature films, this is the one I feel should have been produced specially for the cinema. It hurts by being a television product, albeit even one more slightly expensive than usual. No location filming was done, and the various segments come across as repetitive, usually culminating in a scrap between U.N.C.L.E. and THRUSH. Of the cast, Joan Crawford is memorably hammy in her small role, and Curt Jurgens badly miscast as a sugar daddy. As a London bobby, Terry-Thomas is as delightful as ever, and Herbert Lom good as the chief villain. Kim Darby grates though as 'Sandy'. She should have been told to stay at home.
What is surprising about this is that it manages to be more amusing and entertaining than many official cinema releases of the time, including 'In Like Flint', 'Casino Royale' and 'The Ambushers'. I'd love to know how Solo and company escaped from THRUSH H.Q. after Randolph's death though.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"