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 problem is that the movie rode in on the coattails of the 60's-created concept that comic books could only be done as \"camp\" (i.e., the 60's Batman show) for TV and movie. Thus you have combat sequences with subtitles (come on!), a cluelessly unromantic Doc Savage (he was uncomfortable around women in the pulps, not an idiot), Monk Mayfair in a nightsheet (a scene guaranteed to give you nightmares for several nights), and the totally hokey ending with the secondary bad guy encased in gold like a Herve Villechez posing for an Oscar statute. And when they're not doing booming Sousa march scores, the tinkly little \"funny\" music undercuts much of the drama.
Even as such, this movie is...okay. It's fun, and when it stays serious it's a very accurate representation of the pulps. Except for Monk, as has been mentioned before: he's hugely muscled, not obese. And Long Tom, who is supposed to be a pale scrawny guy with an attitude, not Paul Gleason with an (inexplicable) scarf.
The Green Death sequences, for instance, are remarkably gruesome and not something I'd recommend for children. But they are very close to the feel of the pulps. When the writers and producers get it right, they do get it right - I'll give them that.
But if the producers had done Doc with the loving care and scripting of, say, Reeves' first two Superman movies, think what we might have had then. I think the problem is the movie's schizophrenic. There's a definite sense of trying to do a 30's homage, but they're also trying to give in to the \"heroes must be camp\" attitude that Batman created. One gets the impression there was a sober, pulp-style first draft and then someone came in and said, \"Hey, let's make it funny - it worked with the Batman show 8 years ago!\"
But Doc lives on, thanks to Earl MacRauch and Buckaroo Banzai. If MacRauch ain't doing a homage to Doc Savage in that movie, the man is truly demented. So when the series actually gets on TV (allegedly mid-season in '99-00), Doc Savage, updated to the 90's, will live once 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\nMost people miss Hollywood's point of concept. If a hero can stimulate heroic deeds to the mind of a child, within the confines of the law then I, approve of the lessons being taught by Doc Savage.
In all times of conflict or war, the public and government look for heroes to decorate. The motion picture industry brings heroes to the screen for people to identify with - such as Doc Savage, James Bond, Superman, Batman, Spiderman and others. Doc Savage is remembered by more than one generation as being the 'best of the best' before James Bond, Superman or any of the others. All others that follow Doc Savage are only a part of the character, not the 'Man of Bronze'.
\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***Possible spoilers***
I recently watched this movie with my 11 year old son and was pleased to see that he laughed in the right places and was thrilled by the action sequences. Ron Ely is just right as Doc. Cool, calm, almost always in control(and with an occasional twinkle in his eye). What more can one ask for? I have never read a Doc Savage book, so I don't know if it is faithful to the source but I enjoyed the light tone and derring-do. Many people have compared this movie to Raiders of the Lost Ark, which I don't think is fair. The difference in budget is astounding(Raiders must have at least 10 times the budget). Doc Savage does not have the extensive location work that Raiders has. Special effects are also at a minimum but come on people, the story is a lot of fun and the humor is just right. The Sousa music is catchy(love that theme song- Every time I watch the film, I end up humming the theme for days).The best way to approach this film is to just RELAX and enjoy. Highlights include the exciting opening sequence where the fabulous five and Doc chase the Indian sniper throughout the rooftops of New York and the VERY funny fight sequence between Doc and Captain Seas. Not as good is the villain who sleeps in a giant crib (really!). Overall a great movie to watch on a rainy day. I give it 7 out of 10.
Doc Savage, Doc Savage...thank the lord he's here!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHaving read many of the other reviews for this film on the IMDb there is ostensibly a consensus amongst purists that this film is nothing like the books upon which it is based. Upon this point I cannot comment, having never actually read any of the protagonists adventures previously. However, what I can say with certainty, is that it strikes me that many of the said reviewers must have surely undergone a sense of humour bypass; Let's be honest here - this film is just so much fun!
OK..so I must concede the point that the film apparently is not representative of the character/s but let's put this into a clear perspective..do the same individuals who are carping on about this film also bemoan the fact that the classic 1960's Batman series does not remain faithful to the original DC comic book character? Or perhaps is there STILL unrest in same persons that the 1980 film version of Flash Gordon was too much of a departure from the original series?
The point is, yes this film is incredibly camp but that's precisely its charm!
Former Tarzan, Ron Ely plays the eponymous hero in this (and bears more than a passing resemblance to Gary Busey to boot!) and is backed up by a great supporting cast who all look to be having a ball with their respective roles. Also look out for a very brief but highly welcome appearance by horror movie favourite Michael Berryman.
Best scene? Far too many to choose from but check out the hilarious facial expressions adopted by the waiter when Savage and his men commit the ultimate faux pas of ordering coke, lemonade and milk at a formal occasion! Also the often noted scene near the end of the film wherein Savage tackles his nemesis Captain Seas utilising various martial arts disciplines which are labelled on screen!  Priceless!
Simply put, the film doesn't take itself at all seriously and is all the more fun for it. Great fun from start to finish! (and you'll be singing the John Phillip Sousa adapted theme song for days afterwards guaranteed!)
\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\nYou know how Star Trek fans flocked to all the Star Trek movies, even the really bad ones? Why? To see their heroes in action one more time. That's the way I feel about Doc Savage. I am a major fanatic for the character, and the prospect of seeing Doc and his crew in an adventure was overwhelming. And the first 20 minutes of the film only heightened that feeling of anticipation. Then they decided to crib elements from a number of Doc adventures and throw them into this one movie, resulting in a somewhat disjointed film. There's a lot of promise in here, diluted by a number of unfortunate choices (the music, the \"camp\" elements, etc.) But the spirit of Doc is there, and that's what those of us familiar with Doc and his crew respond to. So, in my long-winded way, what I'm trying to say is that this is not a bad movie: it's just not as good as it should have been. And anyone who is a fan of Superman, James Bond, Indiana Jones, Buckaroo Banzai, and many other characters ought to check this movie out just to become familiar with the hero who provided inspiration for them all.
\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\nRemember these two stories fondly and in the first, set in the not too distant future, we see a young boy preparing for examination day, the state i.q test. The boy is slightly puzzled as to his parents anxiety as some of his friends have already done it already and eventually goes off to do the test. Upon arriving he is given an injection and is curious as to why. The examiner smiles and tells him that it is just to make sure he tells the truth. The boy then asks, puzzled again, why wouldn't he? It is later and the parents are sitting waiting worriedly by the screen when a message appears and declares that the state are sorry, but their son's i.q level has exceeded the national quotient and ask politely would they like a private burial. A corker of a concluding scene! A Message From Charity was a heart warming story about a fluke mental connection between a girl from the past and a guy from the present. Which pans out into a weird story of witchcraft accusations in the past and delving into the history pages in the present. A nice story with a heartwarming conclusion.
\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 one and \"Her Pilgrim Soul\" are two of my favorite episodes in this new version of Twilight Zone. As I mentioned in my comment on the new series, there's something lacking in this new series. Maybe they emphasize too much the lesson that has to be learned. It's a little bit more mawkish and sentimental than Serling's version. However, this episode can be considered as quite sentimental too. I think the appeal is that no matter what they do, the lovers can never unite. I remember I wasn't surprised by the Korean movie \"Il Mare\" (later remade into \"The Lake House\". I think it's because I saw this episode first so it ruined the impact of the later 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\nChina O'Brien (1990) was an attempt to make Cynthia Rothrock a star in the United States. This Golden Harvet production was helmed by veteran director Robert Clouse. Sadly he was either lucky with Enter the Dragon or he's lost his touch because he's not that great of a director. The only reason to watch this movie is to see the fighting skills of Ms. Rothrock and Richard Norton. If this movie was directed by Corey Yuen or Hoi Meng it could have been an action classic instead of a cheesy straight-to-video action flick.
China O'Brien returns home to help out her dad. He's having trouble with the local mob and he needs her help. So she returns home and restores order (with the help of two unlikely people). But will they be enough to topple Mister Big and his evil cronies?
If you're a big Cynthia Rothrock fan then this movie's catered for you. I only enjoyed the fighting scenes, everything else is rubbish. Why didn't Raymond Chow shell out a few shekels and hired a top notch action director?
Recommended.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs long as you go into this movie knowing that it's terrible: bad acting, bad \"effects,\" bad story, bad... everything, then you'll love it. This is one of my favorite \"goof on\" movies; watch it as a comedy and have a dozen good laughs!
\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\nStarring: Jim Carrey, Morgan Freeman, Jennifer Anniston I was really quite skeptical the first time I watched this movie. I mean, what a conceptual NIGHTMARE. Jim Carrey playing God? Nothing is sacred anymore.
Well, this movie is hardly sacred, but it also is not sacrilegious, at least not to any great extent. Yes, Jim Carrey has the powers of God for a while, but he is not God. Confused? I'll give you the low down.
Jim Carrey plays Bruce Nolan, a reporter who is down on his luck and feeling very unsuccessful with his life. He lives with his beautiful girlfriend, Grace (Anniston), and you can tell right off the bat that they love each other, but the relationship is on fairly shaky ground.
Then Bruce gets a shot at anchorman, only to have it underhandedly stolen by Evan Baxter. Obviously not please, Bruce shares his thoughts with the world through the television in a way which is comical and definitely worthy of getting him fired.
Much complaining and griping about God later, Bruce gets a page. After a while he gets tired of it calling, so he responds and goes to the Omni Presents building (heh). There he meets God (Freeman), who is the Boss, Electrician, and Janitor of the building. I found this highly amusing. God is the Boss, the Holy Spirit is the Electrician, and Jesus Christ is the Janitor. Think about it. Boss, obvious. Electrician, the guy who keeps everything running. Janitor, the guy who cleans up the mess that the world has left. BRILLIANT.
Anyway, Bruce is a little skeptical about having actually met God, but when God gives Bruce his powers and gives him a shot at playing God, he starts to believe a bit. Wonder why. Enter the flagrant abuse of powers for personal gain and to abuse the enemies.
Since this is Hollywood, Bruce obviously eventually smartens up, learns his lesson, and starts using his powers for the good of the world. In the end he cries out for God to take it away and prays that His will be done, not Bruce's.
Since it is Jim Carrey, the movie is quite amusing, and there are definitely some highly entertaining moments in it. The movie is not perfect theology, but for Hollywood, it is definitely a good attempt. Many statements in the film can be quite thought provoking and even challenging, and I applaud Tom Shadyac for his effort in this movie.
So, while far from perfect, definitely an amusing popcorn movie with a little bit of thought behind it.
Bottom Line: 3.5 out of 4 (worth a view or two)
\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\nNow either you like Mr Carrey's humour or you don't. Me, Myself and Irene had audiences both walking out in droves and, on the other hand, cheering and collapsing in puddles of mirth. Bruce Almighty is a bit more mainstream, but you have been warned.
If you're not sure, watch the trailer. I saw the trailer three times and still laughed at the same gags when I saw the film. If you don't find the sight of a dog putting the seat down after using the loo funny, don't bother with the movie.
Carrey, a reporter stuck in a rut covering 'lighter news' berates God when the whole of his life seems to be going to pot. God takes up the challenge and asks Carrey if he can do better. Carrey gets into the swing of having all of God's powers by making his girlfriend (Jennifer Aniston)'s breasts bigger, getting himself promoted, and answering everyone's prayers by single stroke computer commands.
This is not a highbrow movie or even that memorable, but it is very well made within it's very limited intent, provides almost continuous laughs to Carrey fans, and even any religious cheesiness is likely to be inoffensive to all but the most narrow-minded god-squadders and anti-god-squadders.
On the more thoughtful level, the film tempts us to speculate about Carrey's own career - stuck in his 'comedy' typecasting he has largely failed to make an impression as a serious actor even after winning two Golden Globes. His most accomplished 'straight' role, the Man on the Moon, is less well known that his comedy romps - or The Truman Show (on which the Academy heaped three nominations whilst bypassing Carrey).
\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, was Morgan Freeman any more unusual as God than George Burns? This film sure was better than that bore, \"Oh, God\". I was totally engrossed and LMAO all the way through. Carrey was perfect as the out of sorts anchorman wannabe, and Aniston carried off her part as the frustrated girlfriend in her usual well played performance. I, for one, don't consider her to be either ugly or untalented. I think my favorite scene was when Carrey opened up the file cabinet thinking it could never hold his life history. See if you can spot the file in the cabinet that holds the events of his bathroom humor: I was rolling over this one. Well written and even better played out, this comedy will go down as one of this funnyman's best.
\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 really do not know what people have against this film, but it's definitely one of my favourites. It's not preachy, it's not anchored by it's moral, it shouldn't be controversial. It's just God. Any possible God, no matter the religion. And it's really funny.
Jim Carry plays Bruce Nolan, a TV reporter usually stuck on the lighter side of the news, desperate to prove himself (more or less TO himself) that he can be taken seriously and do a good job in an anchor job. This drive is what is slowly driving his beautiful girlfriend Grace (Jennifer Aniston) away. When the final straws are executed, he's quick to not laugh, but yell in the face of God, who in turn gives Bruce his powers. Bruce then makes his life better for himself, until he's guilted into helping others, where he then continues to miss the point of his powers. Meanwhile, his constant excitement about his own life makes him more selfish, leaving his relationship on dangerous ground.
OK, that was kinda long. But as a plot, it works well. The step-by-step fashion in which we meet the challenges of being God is much better than clustering his problems together, and is able to hide itself fairly well.
As you probably know from hearing about this movie in the first place, Carrey's pitch-perfect acting stays in character (which, luckily enough, is him), and controls and gives atmosphere to the movie scene by scene. Whether they would admit it or not, the role was written or rewritten exclusively for Carrey. Without him, the humour would turn flat, as humour is half execution. And the humour is very good in the first place. But without Carrey, it would kinda feel like a It's a Wonderful Life wannabe.
Jennifer Aniston is great and, no matter what some may say, does not act like the only excuse for the third act. At least, you don't think that when you see her. She gives a heartfelt performance and makes you forget you're watching a movie, she and Carrey feel very much like a real couple.
The movie feels ggooooodd (see the movie to understand), has a very nice feeling, tackles the idea appropriately and better than expected and overall should never have been called slapped together just to save Carrey's career (which wasn't goin' anywhere.).
\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\nAs someone who lives near Buffalo, New York, this movie scored points with me before I even saw it, since the story is based here. There are even some bit parts with real-life news-TV anchor people from Buffalo..and, for once, it doesn't knock the area. Hallelujah!
Theology-wise, puh-leeze!!! God is still made to look and think like humans...and, of course, be a bit on the liberal side. Being the lightweight comedy it is, it's nothing that should win any awards but it still is entertaining and is a pleasant way to kill 102 minutes.
There are some laugh-out-loud slapstick comedy scenes and, hopefully, audiences - from Christians to atheists.- got something out of this besides a few laughs, such as what prayer should really be all about. Kudos to the writers for at least getting that theology correct and giving a good message.
Overall, it's a good-hearted film that should offend very few.
\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\nIf you want a serious laugh pain, watch this movie, and the things Bruce inflicts on his fellow newscaster. The deleted scenes are priceless. I don't know why they didn't include them in the original movie. It can't be because of time, since the movie is only 101 minutes long. Morgan Freeman is a brilliant actor, who has been overlooked for too long. Jim Carrey needs meds!
\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\"Bruce Almighty\" looks and sounds incredibly stupid, especially from the trailers. Nevertheless, I found in it a deeper message that actually made me like this film more. Bruce (Jim Carrey) is angry at God and is given divine powers by him to be God for a week to see if he can do a better job. Morgan Freeman plays a man symbolized here as God, and though it isn't his usual type of film or one of his best roles, he does excellent with what he is given to work with. Although crude at times, the film does have quite a few laughs, from Bruce parting his soup in half like the Red Sea and the customers' reactions to him, as well as Freeman's seemingly laid-back and wisecracking image of God. It is overly exaggerated at times, and there is some crude humor, but overall it manages to be somewhat funny. There is a decent supporting cast, such as Jennifer Aniston, Lisa Ann Walter, and Steve Carrell, which always helps. The end of the film proves to be very romantic and tear-jerking, and the message is clear, that we should do what God has called us to do and \"be the miracle.\" The film is far from perfect, but still enjoyable, and far better than I and many people probably would have expected, especially if we see the deeper message of the film.
*** out of ****
\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\nBruce Almighty is the story of Bruce Nolan, an average man who feels God is messing up his life. God confronts him and show Bruce the error of his ways. Of course, giving someone God's powers could take a turn for the worse. Bruce Almighty is a good comedy, Jim Carrey is good, as always Morgan Freeman is first-rate and seems right at home as God and the cast brings the plot together well. The jokes are almost always on target, although sometimes they resort a bit too much on Carrey's facial expressions. I liked the fact that the movie actually portrayed God, not only that but also as a black man. I thought this quite well, especially with the brilliant Freeman. There are some hilarious scenes, the opening cookie scene for instance, others miss the target slightly but still a good film. 6/7 out of 10
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is the best film Jim Carrey has ever made. Carrey did not have his usual face making stuff in this film. He was both funny and sad. Carrey played a reporter named Bruce Nolan. Nolan blames God(Morgan Freeman) for everything that goes wrong in his life. Then, God comes down from heaven and gives Bruce his powers. As I said before, Carrey did an excellent job. I also thought that Morgan Freeman and Jennifer Aniston were great as supporting actor/actress. The plot was good because it had many subpoints in the main point. This movie can be funny(Bruce's dog) as well as sad(the \"break-up\"). The script worked well, too. I am glad they made a sequel to this film. I rate this film a 9/10.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBruce Almighty, one of Carrey's best pictures since... well... a long time. It contains one of the funniest scenes I have seen for a long time too... Morgan Freeman plays God well and even chips in a few jokes that are surprisingly funny. It contains one or two romantic moments that are a bit boring but over all a great movie with some funny scenes. The best scene in, it is where Jim is messing up the anchor man's voice.
My rating: 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\nA very funny movie. It was good to see Jim Carrey back in top form. It was definitely worth the price of admission. Morgan Freeman and Jennifer Aniston both played outstanding supporting roles in this film. I think they may have played the dog a bit too much however, still a good film to see.
\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 am a VERY big Jim Carrey fan. I laughed my ASS off during Liar Liar and Ace Ventura. I also like him in his serious movies, especially Truman Show. This one is a cross between his VERY funny side, and his serious side. He is of course VERY funny in this movie, but there are parts that are very serious, and he pulls it off with a lot of ease. he is truely a multi-function actor.
As for the rest of the cast, I was happy with Jennifer Aniston's acting. I think she is more than just a couple of nice tits and great ass. Morgan Freeman makes a VERY cool God. As for Steven Carell, his limited scenes are VERY funny, especially in the anchor scene.
Overall, I would have to rate this a 9. Good acting, funny script, and some very serious situations make this a very good film.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI for one was glad to see Jim Carrey in a film where being over the top wasn't the goal. His character is like all of us. Wanting more - better things to happen to us and expecting God to deliver.
Morgan Freeman made a great God. With a sense of humor and a genuine sense of love for each of us yet ready to take a little vacation when the opportunity presents itself.
I thought Jennifer Aniston's character was a little too vulnerable and understanding towards Carry's basically self-centered TV anchorman wanna-be but that's the way it was written.
I think the previews ruined several potentially very funny scenes because everyone who saw them knew what was coming before it happened.
I have read a number of the reviews and it seems some people are looking a little too deep. This is a summer comedy and is not meant to solve the problems of the world although there are a few messages we could all take to heart.
A funny 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\nWell not actually. This movie is very entertaining though. Went and saw it with the girlfriend last night and had to use the \"I think there might be something in my eye\" routine. The movie is a great combination of comedy and typical romance. Jim Carey is superb as a down on his luck reporter who is given the power to change himself and the city in which he resides. In fact all the characters are great. The movie is not overly funny or sappy, good flick to go see with the wife.
All in All 8/10....note * I am not an easy grader. Thats all from BigV over and out!
\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\nFairly funny Jim Carrey vehicle that has him as a News reporter who temporarily gets the power of God and wrecks havoc. Carrey is back in familiar ground here and looks to be having a good time, and Jennifer Aniston as his put upon girlfriend is also charming and affecting. The story is predictible to the extreme but the cast (including Morgan Freeman as \"God\") is great and makes the film worth catching. GRADE: B
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOk, so it's not a masterpiece like the Godfather, but it doesn't have to be. The only purpose this movie has is to make the viewer laugh several times. If it can make the viewer laugh a bunch of times, it has accomplished its purpose. I laughed out loud and left with a smile. I feel like I got my money's worth.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJim Carrey and Morgan Freeman along with Jennifer Aniston combine to make one of the funniest movies so far this 2003 season (late May) and a good improvement on Carrey's past crazy and personally forgetable roles in past comedies. With a slightly toned down Carrey antics yet with just the zap and crackle of his old self, Carrey powerfully carries this movie to the height of laughter and also some dramatic, tearfully somber moments. Elements of Jim's real acting abilities continue to show up in this movie. This delightful summer entertainment hits most of the buttons, including dramatic elements along with the goofy moments that fit perfectly with this script. While still lacking in the superbly polished ensemble of comedy/drama, Bruce, Almightly deserves credit for being a great date movie along with a solid message and soft spiritual cynicism and parody that maintains its good-natured taste. Eight out of ten stars.
\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`Bruce Almighty' will sweep the Academy Awards with a record 14 Oscar wins! It will surpass `Titanic' as the highest grossing film of all time! Jim Carrey's illustriousness will be at such a supreme level that he will announce his presidential candidacy for the 2004 White House playoffs. Almighty then! These grandeur fantasies would only transpire if the filmmakers (Carrey included) would possess the powers of God. That very same premise is the paramount ingredient in Carrey's new laugh riot `Bruce Almighty'. Carrey plays Bruce Nolan, a televison reporter who is so utterly obsessed in being the main anchor that he holds God to total culpability for his own contretemps. God, heavenly played by Morgan Freeman, grants Bruce the `Gift of God'(his powers) in order to challenge him if he can do God's job any better. Obviously, Bruce gets `carreyed' away with his newfound blissful faculties and uses them selfishly. Carrey is back in his habitual almighty comedic form in `Bruce Almighty'. Jennifer Aniston was not `mis.pittiful' as Bruce's girlfriend. However, my premier kudos goes to Director Tom Shadyac for not letting the dog out of the house for #2, and showing us the most hilarious doggoned bathroom scene of all time! `Bruce Almighty' is not the most in-depth Carrey film, but it is still an almighty chuckling exhibition of `Carreyism'! **** 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\nLet me start out by saying I'm a big Carrey fan. Although I'll admit I haven't seen all of his movies *cough*the magestic*cough*. Bruce Almighty was enjoyable. None of the other reviews have really gone into how cheesy it gets towards the end, I dont know what the writers were thinking. Somehow I couldn't help but feel like this movie was a poor attempt at re-creating Liar Liar.
On a positive note, The Daily Show's Steve Correl is HILARIOUS and so is the rest of the cast. See Bruce Almighty if you're a big Jim Carrey fan, or if you just want to see a light-hearted (que soft piano music) somewhat funny comedy.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter a slow beginning, BRUCE ALMIGHTY is a very funny film that had something positive to say. It wasn't one of Jim Carrey's best performances, but he was still OK. Morgan Freeman was just right as God. Jennifer Aniston had some good moments. I miss Steve Correll on \"THE DAILY SHOW!\"
I like director Tom Shadyac's choices of movies. He also did LIAR LIAR, PATCH ADAMS, and THE NUTTY PROFESSOR. In all three of those and in Bruce Almighty, he takes a big comedy star and tells a human story with him. A director who knows comedy, can get the talent he gets, and can tell a meaningful and intelligent story with it is hard to find.
My biggest complaint is that they should have used more biblical references. I only remember three specific biblical references and they were the three funniest parts of the whole movie. My guess is that the first few drafts of the screenplay had more biblical references, but they were cut out because the producers were afraid of offending people. That's too bad because I thought it was a missed opportunity.
My Grade:
7 out of 10
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBruce Almighty is the best Jim Carrey work since The Truman Show, and was a pleasant surprise after some of his recent \"Hey Hollywood - look how good I can act!\" box office disappointments. It's great to see Jim recognizing and embracing his strengths. He won't get an Academy Award but the film itself will last longer than many of the \"awarded films\" of the Academy. He is at the top of his form in this most recent film - it's like the return of an old friend.
Carrey, Freeman, and Aniston all do a great job together - comfortable in their comedy roles, superb comic timing, and obviously having fun together but without the \"hey mom - look how funny I am\" type of comedy. A real surprise was Steven Carrell as Carrey's nemesis (Carrell of The Daily Show fame), who walked away with some the best and funniest scenes of the film. I laughed harder at Carell than anyone else in the past three years.
I can foresee the religious nuts in the US will be up-in-arms over the treatment of God, but the bottom line of the film is true to all major theological beliefs - we are masses of protoplasms trying to get through our short lives by exercising our free will. Without Married With Children t o complain about, this will likely become a target of people with misplaced priorities (who know the types - men adorned in gold watches on Sunday morning and late nigh television, selling prayers to God). And, again, about 0.5% of the country will care and 80% of the media will report it.
The bottom line: this a purely entertaining film, each audience member laughingly wondering what they would do, and a feel-good feeling at the movie conclusion. A walk down any major street in America has to confirm that God has a tremendous sense of humor. What better comic genius to remind us of that than Jim Carry.
Thanks again, Jim -- it's GREAT to have you back!!
\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, finally Jim Carrey has returned from the died. This movie had me laughing and crying. It also sends a message that we should all know and learn from. Jeniffer Aniston was great, she will finally have a hit movie under her belt. If you liked liar liar you will love this movie. I give it 9/10.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI absolutely loved this movie. It met all expectations and went beyond that. I loved the humor and the way the movie wasn't just randomly silly. It also had a message. Jim Carrey makes me happy. :)
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of those movies that they did too much promoting for. If you watch T.V., then you might as well not watch the movie. Almost all the funny scenes are spoiled in the previews, except one which just happens to be Jennifer Annisten being the funny one. It is typical Jim Carrey humor and it is really funny. Just don't go see this movie expecting to be surprised. All in all, if you like Jim Carrey or comedies this is a must-see, otherwise just watch the previews and you'll be just as satisfied.
\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 amazing! While being funny and entertaining, it is also profoundly deep and eye-opening. I will watch it again and again. Bruce is a guy who is unhappy with his life. He has a job and a life, but it isn't what he thinks it will take to bring him happiness. Bruce is bitter, unsatisfied, and resentful that his life isn't the way he envisions it should be. As a result of this state of mind, Bruce ends up losing his job and blaming God for everything that he thinks is wrong with his life. God comes to Bruce and grants him Godly powers. Bruce uses these powers to get everything he has always wanted. His life is finally exactly what he envisioned it would take to make him happy.....with one exception. In the process of gaining everything, he loses the one person who truly loved him. As the movie unfolds, Bruce learns that the real change that needed to occur in his life was not the circumstances, but his perception of what was truly there. This movie was inspirational and deep. If you really pay attention, it forces you to look at your life with a deeply humbling respect for the fact that a lot of the time we are so much more blessed than we recognize. As my wife says, \"Since when does anybody know what it takes to make them happy?\" and my humble addition, \"May we not lose ourselves and those who matter while we try to find out.\"
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n`The United States of Kiss My Ass'
House of Games is the directional debut from playwright David Mamet and it is an effective and at times surprising psychological thriller. It stars Lindsay Crouse as best-selling psychiatrist, Margaret Ford, who decides to confront the gambler who has driven one of her patients to contemplate suicide. In doing so she leaves the safety and comfort of her somewhat ordinary life behind and travels `downtown' to visit the lowlife place, House of Games.
The gambler Mike (played excellently by Joe Mantegna) turns out to be somewhat sharp and shifty. He offers Crouse's character a deal, if she is willing to sit with him at a game, a big money game in the backroom, he'll cancel the patients debts. The card game ensues and soon the psychiatrist and the gambler are seen to be in a familiar line of work (gaining the trust of others) and a fascinating relationship begins. What makes House of Games interesting and an essential view for any film fan is the constant guessing of who is in control, is it the psychiatrist or the con-man or is it the well-known man of great bluffs David Mamet.
In House of Games the direction is dull and most of the times flat and uninspiring, however in every David Mamet film it is the story which is central to the whole proceedings, not the direction. In House of Games this shines through in part thanks to the superb performances from the two leads (showy and distracting) but mainly as is the case with much of Mamet's work, it is the dialogue, which grips you and slowly draws you into the film. No one in the House of Games says what they mean and conversations become battlegrounds and war of words. Everyone bluffs and double bluffs, which is reminiscent of a poker games natural order. This is a running theme throughout the film and is used to great effect at the right moments to create vast amounts of tension. House of Games can also be viewed as a `class-war' division movie. With Lindsay Crouse we have the middle-class, well-to-do educated psychiatrist and Joe Mantegna is the complete opposite, the working class of America earning a living by `honest' crime.
The film seduces the viewer much like Crouse is seduced by Mantegna and the end result is ultimately a very satisfying piece of American cinema. And the final of the film is definitely something for all to see and watch out for, it's stunning.
An extremely enjoyable film experience that is worth repeated viewings. 9/10
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHouse of Games is a wonderful movie at multiple levels. It is a fine mystery and a shocking thriller. It is blessed with marvelous performances by Lindsay Crouse and Joe Montegna, and a strong, strong cast of supporting players, and it introduces Ricky Jay, card sharp extraordinaire, prestidigitator and historian of magic. Its dialogue, written by David Mamet, is spoken as if in a play of manners and gives the movie (in which reality is often in question) an extra dimension of unrealness.
On the face of it, House of Games is a convincing glimpse into the unknown world of cheats and con men, diametrically different from The Sting, which was played merely for glamour and yuks. At this level it does succeed admirably.
However, you cannot escape the examination at a deeper level of the odyssey of a woman from complacent professional competence to incredible strength and self realization. The only movie I know of which treats the theme of emergence of personal strength in a woman in as worthy a way is the underrated Private Benjamin. That thoroughly enjoyable movie unfortunately diffuses its focus, hopping among several themes and exploiting the fine performance of Goldie Hawn to chase after some easy laughs. House of Games sticks to its business. As Poe once said of a good short story, it drives relentlessly to its conclusion.
There is another strain of movies-about-women, epitomized by Thelma and Louise, a big budget commercial money maker with the despicable theme that women are doomed, whether or not they realize their inner strengths. What tripe.
As usual you really ought to see this film in a movie theater. It should be a natural for film festivals. Nominate it for one near you if you get the chance.
I bought the original version of House of Games and gave it to my 23 year old daughter. Better she should see it on a TV than not at all.
\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\nIf your idea of a thriller is car chases, explosions, and dozens of people being mowed down by gunfire, then \"House of Games\" is definitely not the movie for you. If you like and appreciate psychological drama and suspense, then, by all means, see it.
\"House of Games\" tells the story of an esteemed psychologist and writer, Dr. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse), who tries to help a patient and gets involved in the shadowy world of con men led by the charismatic Mike (Joe Mantegna). To say anything more about the plot would ruin the suspense. Frankly, I find it hard to believe anyone who says they saw the twists coming. Just like a clever con artist, this movie draws you into its web and lulls your vigilance.
The story is taut and well-crafted, the dialogue smart and laconic, the acting uniformly good (Mantegna is superbly charismatic). Some have complained that Dr. Ford is not a very sympathetic character, and wondered why Mamet would make Lindsay Crouse look so physically unattractive. But Dr. Ford is supposed to be cold and aloof; moreover, her homeliness is in a way essential to the plot (at one point, I believe that an injury to her sexual self-esteem is a key part of her motivation ... I'll say no more).
\"House of Games\" is a dark look at the underside of human nature that concludes on a note of discomforting ambiguity. It will hold your attention every second while you are watching, and stay with you for a long time afterwards.
\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\nHouse of Games is spell binding. It's so nice to occasionally see films that are perfect tens. There are few movies I've seen that can grip you so quickly. From the opening scene this movie just gets you.
I'm trying really hard not to give to much away to those who may not yet have seen this but there will be a FEW SPOILERS SO DON'T READ ANYMORE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW.
I would say House of Games is not just a superb film but is the best movie about con artists I have ever seen-bar none. From the moment the movie is over it begs to be replayed.
Lindsay Crouse as Margaret Ford is simply perfection, from her mannerisms to the inflection of her voice she gets into the role immediately. Joe Mantegna was also wonderful. The dialogue in this movie has an unforced almost unscripted quality and these two people communicate as much in a look as they do with their voices. I also loved the way the movie was filmed, in that grainy, surreal type of way, it fit perfectly and helped make the film what it was.
There were a few movies I've seen and loved that this reminded me of including The Grifters and The usual Suspects but really, House of games is completely different in it's way. Margaret and Mike are two of the most absorbing characters I've seen on the big screen and not only do they have screen chemistry that is strong and palpable from the moment they meet, but the buildup that starts from the moment they set eyes on each other is electrifying. You know something's going to happen but you have no idea what. And just when you think you've guessed what the \"something\" is, you realize you haven't even scratched the surface....
House of Games is one of those movies that may be lumped in to a certain genre of movie type but is essentially a movie about human nature. The character study is not just about the mind of the con artist but the victim as well. As the movie moves along and we get to know more and more about the main characters, we learn about them not just through what they say but how they say it. It is a great character study and is flawless in the way it speeds to it's conclusion.
In closing, I'd rank this 10 of 10, call it (although not my absolute favorite film, pretty high on the list), most definitely outstanding and would go so far as to say it does rank as one of the best character studies and contains some of the best \"twists\" I've ever seen as well. Although I love all types and genres of movies, when it comes to movies of the human psyche, it really doesn't get much better then this. See this movie.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWealthy psychiatrist Lindsay Crouse has just published her first novel and is feeling down about her profession feeling that it's hopeless to help her patients. A young gambling junkie client asks her to help him pay off his debts if he truly wants to help him get better. Here she gets involved with Joe Mantegna. To reveal any more of the plot would spoil one hell of a fun movie and 'House of Games' may very well be the best con movie I've seen. David Mamet wrote and directed this gem that's full of snappy dialogue, great one-liners, and enough twists to keep you guessing til the end. Crouse is perfect as the uptight psychiatrist needing a change and Mantegna tops her as the devilishly sly con-man. And with the exception of a coincidence in the last quarter of the movie, the film is in utter control of it's audience; and we are loving the con.
*** out of ****
\n
assistant\n1
\n"