empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI can understand why some people like this movie, and why some people don't. For me, though, I really like it, even if I noticed some good bits, and not so impressive bits. The animation was actually excellent, like Charlie's dream. The characters were a mixed bag, the best being Anne-Marie, voiced by the late Judith Barsi.(I was physically ill when I read what happened to her) Also, Carface is a very convincing villain,especially voiced by the wonderful Vic Tayback(I particularly loved \"Morons I'm surrounded by Morons\") and along with Rasputin and Warren T.Rat is probably the most memorable of all the Don Bluth villains. Charlie and Itchy only just lacked the same sparkle, but I loved King Gator and his song. Some of the film is very haunting, like Annabelle's \"You can never come come back\", which kind of scares me still. Unfortunately, there were some bits I didn't like so much. The story had a tendency to become clumsy and unfocused, but Disney's Black Cauldron suffered from the same problem. Also there were some dark scenes, that young children would find upsetting, but the ending is very poignant. However the biggest flaw was the rather bland songs and the way they were sung. None of them in particular stick out, with exception of \"Let's Make Music Together\" and \"Love Survives\", and Burt Reynolds can't sing and Dom DeLuise has done much better singing. All in all, a watchable movie, that could have been more, but is definitely memorable, and I would definitely watch it again. 7/10. Bethany Cox
\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 Dogs Go To Heaven Is The Most Cutest Animated Film To Have Dogs In 1989. The Previous Don Bluth Film The Land Before Time(1988) Became A Success. Dogs Are So Cute As Little Mice. Aw, I Just Want To Hug Them When They're Cute. Where Was I? Oh, Yes. Its Animation Is Beautiful, The Characters Are Great When They're Perfectly Voiced And The Songs Are Cute And Touching. It Opened In November 17 1989 The Same Date As The Little Mermaid Produced By Walt Disney Feature Animation.
The Part Where Charlie Got Killed By Carface Was So Unforgivable. Carface Is So Mean Because He Wanted To Kill Charlie. Shame On Him! The Love Survive Song Performed By Irene Cara And Freddie Jackson Was So Beautiful. All Dogs Go To Heaven Is The Best Animated Movie Ever.
\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 Dog's Go to Heaven is an animated kid's movie like no other. Gambling, drinking, death, guns and Hell are all prominent in the plot, and though kids will get very little of it, adults will be scratching their heads as to why this movie was made to feel like some sort of gangster movie. The actual movie isn't explicit in any way, it's just an odd combination to make a kid's movie on.
Charlie Barkin (Burt Reynolds) is a player dog, who owns half a casino with his partner Carface (Vic Tayback). After getting drunk (A dog....getting drunk...in a kid's movie. It just sounds weird.), Charlie is tricked and murdered by Carfax. When in heaven, he finds a way to come back to Earth, but he will no longer be allowed in Heaven. He still goes back to Earth and meets up with his old friend Itchy (Dom Deluise), and plans payback on Carfax. Meanwhile, Carfax has a little orphan girl Anne Marie held captive because of her amazing ability to talk to all species of animals, which helps predict races. Charlie and Itchy free her, and try to help her find a family, while learning a lot about themselves.
This movie is one of the few non-Disney that will appeal to both kids and adults. Kids will enjoy the funny characters and lively animation, while adults will enjoy the nice, sweet plot, and the more than normal developed characters. One thing that keeps this down, is that it's a musical. Normally, that's a good thing, but the music here is honestly terrible. They tend to jump around, almost sounding ad libbed, with next to no instrumental backing. In fact, these are probably the worst songs I've ever heard in an animated movie, but luckily, the rest of the film is strong enough to not fall apart because of some bad notes.
The ending of this movie works, but I honestly hate it. It's sad, but happy, but more sad than happy, and makes the movie feel like it needs a sequel. Considering how bad the sequel made to this was, I wish the ending wouldn't have warranted a sequel and it would've wrapped up into a nice, super happy ending. This is one of the few movies I feel this way about, but I do.
Overall, this is a nice family film, with odd themes thrown in, but nonetheless, good entertainment.
My rating: *** out of ****. 85 mins. G.
\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 the first films I can remember, or maybe the first one. Exactly the beautiful kind of film than introduce a kid, sweetly, into the world of violence and addictions were we live. A little bit of Babe, Casino and Constantine, all this well mixed into a carton, and we get this. I don't know if its truly rated for kids, but I think it was very cool, very funny and interesting. I hate when a film (spescially a carton)can have a good end and its ruining because every character must have a happy end, even if it sounds weird (Im not a bitter person).But this was OK, he simply goes heaven and they let it in that way.
All this is just a critic, Its a good movie an something new. very touching and I gotta go
\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 wish kids movies were still made this way; dark and deep. There was (get this) character development (and Charlie is the epitome of the dynamic character), plot development, superb animation, emotional involvement, and a rational, relatable, and consistent theme. If not for the handful of song-and-dance routines, you would never have thought this was a kids movie, and this is why I give it such a high rating. This movie is an excellent film, let alone for a kids' movie. Which brings me to my second point: this has got to be the darkest \"kids'\" movie I've seen in quite some time, this coming from a 22-year-old. I'd be shocked to see any child under the age of 8 not completely terrified throughout a great deal of the latter half and some of the first half of the movie, and it all ends with one of the saddest endings you could ever come across (ala \"Jurassic Bark\", for those of you who are 'Futurama' fans), and this is what makes this movie so good. Just because the movie universally evokes emotions we don't normally like to feel and assume are bad does not make the movie itself bad; in fact, it means it succeeded. Good funny movies are supposed to make us laugh; good horror movies are supposed to make us scared; good sad movies are supposed to make us sad. My point is, good movies are supposed to MOVE you, not simply entertain; this movie moved me.
Also, this movie is incredibly violent by today's standards for a kids' movie and contains subject matter that, by today's standards, may not be suitable for some children. Parents, I'd say watch it first. I'm not usually one to say anything about this kind of thing, but I just saw this yesterday and it came as a surprise even to me.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ni just saw this film, i first saw it when i was 7 and could just about remember the end. so i watched it like, 10 minutes ago, and (i may seem like a baby as i am 12 ha-ha) i started to cry at the ending, i forgotten how sad it was. i think i was mainly sad for Anne-Marie because she said: 'i love you Charlie' and also: 'i'll miss you Charlie', just made me really cry ha-ha. it has to be one of me favourite movies of all time, it is just a film well worth watching. WATCH IT ha-ha, thats all i can say XD
but, i love this film, its a true classic.
xx Maverick xx 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\nFirst things first, I was never once scared of this underrated gem as a kid (\"Little Mermaid\" on the other hand...). As my title says this was one of my fav childhood movies that I still love as a teenager. It's a beautiful, bittersweet movie about a misfit German Shepherd called Charlie (fantasticaly voiced by Burt Reynolds) who is killed by his boss/partner in crime (is name ha,ha is Carface). Charlie is sent straight to heaven by default because \"all dogs go to heaven because unlike people, dogs are naturally good and loyal and kind\". Chalie gets sent back to Earth 'cause he winded up his life clock where he gets into even more mischief with his best friend, Itchy and a little orphan girl, Anne-Marie. I used to watch this all the time as a kid and I still sometimes watch it. Anyways, it's a beautiful bittersweet film as I said before that might just leave a tear in your eye...
\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\nMy dog recently passed away, and this was a movie I loved as a kid, so I had to see it to try to cheer up.
(Beware of Dog, I mean Spoilers.) This movie isn't just for kids and it's far from ordinary. It was set in New Orleans in 1939. First and foremost, the dog was not portrayed as an extra family member in this film, but as an adult with his own complicated life to deal with.
In the beginning, Charlie is not too different from his dishonest and brutal business partner, Carface. He is money driven, greedy, and just escaped death row, as he states in the start of the feature. The difference between Charlie and Carface is that Charlie can learn and is willing to listen to others; Anne Marie and his sidekick, Itchy. Carface will not even listen to the fat, ugly dog with the big glasses who happens to be closest to him.
Carface attempts to murder the hero, because he wants 100% of the profits in their business and won't settle for only 50% - a highly unusual way for a German Shepherd mix to die. Also, being eaten by a prehistoric sized alligator who ends up sparing your life because you can sing is highly unlikely whether you are a dog or not. This is a cartoon, and that's why it is logical here.
Carface's method of revenge is through murder, while Charlie believes success is the best revenge, financial success that is. After surviving death, he starts a business by taking Carface's source of financing, a highly talented girl who possesses the ability to communicate with animals. They win a whole bunch of races, and Charlie tells her he'll give the money to the poor - hint hint: Charlie and Itchy live in a junkyard, and are therefore poor. He uses the money toward his casino/bar/theatre, and not the other \"poor.\" The reason why Anne Marie has the ability to talk to animals is that she has compassion, and she listens carefully. She teaches Charlie ethics by pointing out his gambling, lying, and stealing. Charlie tries to make up for it by buying her dresses. She added the ethics that his business needed, while Charlie did management, and Itchy provided construction.
Carface uses violence and property damage to tear down Charlie's business, which is unprotected by the government. Charlie loses everything and all he has left is this little girl. In the end he had to choose between her life and his own. He first grabs the watch out of self preservation, and sets it down when the girl started to sink. Both the girl and the watch were sinking, and he had to choose which one, and he chose the girl.
The great part about this movie that focuses on a person's ability to learn right from wrong over time, and a child's ability to cope with the natural occurrence of death of their pet, is that it never shows anyone dying! The watch symbolizes his life, and the watch is shown being submerged and stopped. All the deaths were suggestive, even for the villain. I didn't cry during this movie until now, and I have gotten so much more out of it, that I had to write it down and share it with you.
\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\nOkay, I saw this movie as a child and really loved it. My parents never purchased the movie for me, but I think I'll go about and buy it now. I'm a sucker for pre-2000 animated films. Anyway, onto the actual review.
WHAT I LIKED: There was an actual portrayal of heaven and hell, one of the few I've seen in animated films. Character development existed! It's easy to classify characters in this movie (i.e.: Charlie is the selfish mutt, Itchy is cynical but believes Charlie, Carface is obviously the relentless villain, etc.). I also loved King Gator's song. I've always loved loud, annoying, flamboyant guys. This song may have been random, but it was so fun. Finally, the detail of the animation was beautiful. You could tell Charlie was all gruff and stuff and the backgrounds were beautiful.
WHAT I DID NOT LIKE: The actual portrayal of heaven: The way Charlie reacted to it, \"no surprises whatsoever\", made it actually seem very boring. He denied a place in heaven and STILL got to return to it in the end. I remember a few lines of certain songs such as \"... you can't keep a good dog down\", \"... let's make music forever\", and \"... welcome to being dead\" but I can't remember the majority of any of them. The songs weren't that catchy, to be honest. Whippet Angel: She's annoying and that NECK! AUGH!
WHAT PARENTS MAY NOT LIKE: A few very scary (depending on the viewer) images of Hell are shown during the movie. Carface is quite threatening. Beer is also implied, but not actually DUBBED beer. Gambling is a key element in the movie. The good guy dies.
OVERALL: I LOVE this movie, even if it is a bit forgettable at times. The scarier children's animations are always my favorite ones. This was created back in a time when producers and writers weren't afraid to give kids a little scare now and then. Nowadays, this probably would have been rated PG. Kids under the age of 8 (or easily disturbed kids) should not watch this. Other than that, I give it 9/10. :)
Happy Viewing!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this film when it was originally released in 1989. I enjoyed it then, and I still do now. But what I realize now is that this is quite \"adult\" for a film with a G rating, especially the notion of dying and going to Heaven. Burt Reynolds and Dom DeLuise work wonderfully together, and Reynolds' singing voice is appropriate for a junkyard dog. There are some good songs ranging from upbeat (\"Let's Make Music Together\") to downright emotional (\"Home to My Heart\"). I found the plot good, although it does go off on a tangent once or twice. The final scene of the film with Charlie and Anne-Marie is one of the saddest I've ever seen in animation. A film worth experiencing.
\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 Dogs Go To Heaven is on a par with Watership Down for scary kiddies films. Both were dark and pretty sinister, but at the same time the most mesmerising experience a child can have. This was one of my favourite films as a kid. I was in love with Charlie and at the tender age of about five or six, I'll admit... I had a crush on a cartoon dog. All Dogs tells the dark story of lovable cad Charlie and his partner in crime Itchy. The story starts with Charlie escaping from death row and swaggering off to the nearest club to do some gambling. Of course, as a child, I didn't understand the concept of this film. I loved the songs and the animation but as I've got older I do begin to wonder why I wasn't disturbed by this film as a youngster. It deals with pretty adult themes --- gambling, murder, hell and prison but in a world of goody-goody Disney films, it's something every child should watch once.
Yes, there's some sort of crazy transvestite crocodile scene and the hell scenes scare me more now that when I was little, but it delivers such a poignant message that should not be ignored by parents!
\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 14 years old and I love this cartoon. Burt Reynolds and Dom Deluise make a great pair. This movie is really funny and I love the songs. My favorite songs are \"You can't keep a good dog down\" and that song about sharing, I think it's called \"What's mine is yours\". This was the last movie with Judith Barsi, who played the voice of Anne-Marie. My favorite character is Charlie but I find Itchy's voice is so fun to hear. Although some scenes I actually found scary, I still have a hard time watching the scene with Charlie's dream, and Carface scares the crap out of me. Other characters like King Gator I found really funny. The ending was adorable and was actually sad, made me cry a little. I give this movie 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\nSaw this Saturday night at the Provincetown Film Festival, and it's a stick-to-your-bones movie -- it's really stayed with me. Adapted very smartly from what is probably an excellent novel, it's a back-and-forth-in-time drama with fully rounded characters, thoughtful rumination on life choices, and, I'm not exaggerating. one of the greatest casts ever assembled in 100+ years of movie-making. Wonderful work from everyone, led by a luminous Vanessa Redgrave as a dying, deluded Newport matron, and Claire Danes as her much younger self. Meryl Streep's daughter Mamie Gummer is, like Mama, the real deal; Patrick Wilson looks like Paul Newman circa 1958 and doesn't overplay the charm; and what a pleasure to see such excellent stage actors as Barry Bostwick and Eileen Atkins contributing sharp, detailed cameos. Hugh Dancy, also from the stage, doesn't bring much edge to the somewhat clichéd role of an unhappy rich wastrel, and the family issues are resolved perhaps more neatly than real life would allow. But it's a deliberately paced, visually gorgeous meditation on real life issues, and you can cry at it and not feel like you're being recklessly manipulated. Also, what a sumptuous parade of 1940s/50s automobiles.
\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\nSince starting to read the book this movie is based on, I'm having mixed feelings about the filmed result. I learned some time ago to see the movie adaptation of a book before I read the book, because I found that if I read the book first I was inevitably disappointed in the film. This would undoubtedly have been true here, whereas in the case of Atonement, which is probably the best filmed adaptation of a book I've ever seen, it would probably not have mattered.
I'm trying to figure out what the cause is, and I suspect that I have to point my finger squarely at Michael Cunningham. Much as I respect him for The Hours (which I have not read but which I saw and was awed by) I cannot escape the feeling that he not so much adapted Susan Minton's book as he did take a few of the characters and the basic premise and write his own movie out of it.
It's not that I dislike the movie. I actually love the movie, which is why, since I started reading the novel, I'm feeling disturbed about the whole thing. I feel disloyal to Ms. Minton for enjoying the movie which was so thooughly a departure from her work. Reading it, I can understand why she had such a struggle adapting it. Unlike what one reviewer of the movie said, it's not so much that some novels don't deserve to be a movie; it's more like some books just can't make the transition. Ms. Minton's novel operates on a level so personal and intimate to her central character, so internally, that it seems impossible to me to place it in a physical realm. Even though a lot of the book is memory of real events, it is memory, and so fragmented and ethereal as to be, I feel, not filmable. I think that Ms. Minton's work is a real work of literature, but cannot make the transition to film, which in no way detracts from its value.
I cannot yet report that Evening, the film, does not represent Evening, the novel, in any more than the most superficial way, since I'm only halfway through, but the original would have to make a tremendous leap to resemble the film that follows at this point. I guess I'm writing this because I feel that if you're going to adapt a novel, adapt it, but don't make it something else that it's not. I'm not sure if Michael Cunningham has done anything wholly original, but from what I can see so far the things he has done are all based on someone else's work. We would not have The Hours if Virginia Woolf had not written Mrs. Dalloway, and we would not have Evening, in its distressed form, if Susan Minton had not had so much trouble doing what probably should not have been attempted in the first place. But it's too much to say that it would be better if Ms. Minton had left well enough alone, because Evening, the film, is a satisfactory and beautiful work of its own.
Thus my confusion, mixed feelings, sense of disloyalty, and ultimate conclusion that, in this case, the novel cannot be the film and vice versa, and my eventual gratitude to both writers for doing what they did, so that we have both works as they are.
\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\nHalfway through Lajos Koltai's \"Evening,\" a woman on her deathbed asks a figure appearing in her hallucination: \"Can you tell me where my life went?\" The line could be embarrassingly theatrical, but the woman speaking it is Vanessa Redgrave, delivering it with utter simplicity, and the question tears your heart out.
Time and again, the film based on Susan Minot's novel skirts sentimentality and ordinariness, it holds attention, offers admirable performances, and engenders emotional involvement as few recent movies have. With only six months of the year gone, there are now two memorable, meaningful, worthwhile films in theaters, the other, of course, being Sara Polley's \"Away from Her.\" Hollywood might have turned \"Evening\" into a slick celebrity vehicle with its two pairs of real-life mothers and daughters - Vanessa Redgrave and Natasha Richardson, and Meryl Streep and Mamie Gummer. Richardson is Redgrave's daughter in the film (with a sister played by Tony Collette), and Gummer plays Streep's younger self, while Redgrave's youthful incarnation is Claire Danes.
Add Glenn Close, Eileen Atkins, Hugh Dancy, Patrick Wilson, and a large cast - yes, it could have turned into a multiple star platform. Instead, Koltai - the brilliant Hungarian cinematographer of \"Mephisto,\" and director of \"Fateless\" - created a subtle ensemble work with a \"Continental feel,\" the story taking place in a high-society Newport environment, in the days leading up to a wedding that is fraught with trouble.
Missed connections, wrong choices, and dutiful compliance with social and family pressures present quite a soap opera, but the quality of the writing, Koltai's direction, and selfless acting raise \"Evening\" way above that level, into the the rarified air of English, French (and a few American) family sagas from a century before its contemporary setting.
Complex relationships between mothers and daughters, between friends and lovers, with the addition of a difficult triangle all come across clearly, understandably, captivatingly. Individual tunes are woven into a symphony.
And yet, with the all the foregoing emphasis on ensemble and selfless performances, the stars of \"Evening\" still shine through, Redgrave, Richardson, Gummer (an exciting new discovery, looking vaguely like her mother, but a very different actress), Danes carrying most of the load - until Streep shows up in the final moments and, of course, steals the show. Dancy and Wilson are well worth the price of admission too.
As with \"Away from Her,\" \"Evening\" stays with you at length, inviting a re-thinking its story and characters, and re-experiencing the emotions it raises. At two hours, the film runs a bit long, but the way it stays with you thereafter is welcome among the many movies that go cold long before your popcorn.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this movie Sunday afternoon. I absolutely loved this movie. I loved everything about it, from the sappy moments of mothers and daughters to the scenes where Mamie Gummer (Lila) is crying because of her poor decision in marrying a man for her parents and not because she is truly in love. I loved these moments because they were just so real. At first I was seriously scared because I was hoping that it would not end up like Bobby, which was a great cast but a poorly written movie with no real meat to it. But during the middle of the movie i felt completely different. You will laugh and you will cry but in the end you will want to see Evening one more time. Trust me when i say GO SEE IT!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI had the pleasure of viewing this beautiful film last night, with the wonderful addition of a question and answer session with the director following the viewing. I suspect that the first commenter has never lost a parent or someone very close to them in death. I have had many such losses, and this movie spoke to me. One of the major themes is how we don't deal with questions/issues/stories with our loved ones until it's too late--they're too incapacitated or dead before that happens. Talk to your loved ones, listen to and record their stories, tell people you love them, resolve differences. I loved the message that there are no mistakes. I love the director's portrayal of the relationship of the two daughters--as one of six siblings, it's clear to me he understood how complex those relationships are. His history as a cinematographer also comes through loud and clear--what a beautiful movie! The casting is outstanding--a film not to be missed!
\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 struck home for me. Being 29, I remember the '80's and my father working in a factory. I figured, if I worked hard too, if I had pride and never gave up I too could have the American Dream, the house, a few kids, a car all to call my own. I've noted however, without a degree in something (unlike my father that quit at ninth grade) and a keen sense of greed and laziness, you can't get anywhere.
I would like to know if anyone has this movie on DVD or VHS. it's made for TV, and I just saw it an hour ago. Ic an't find it anywhere! I'd love to show this to my friends, my pseudo friends, family and other relatives, see what they think and remind them that once upon a time, Americans WOULD work for the sake of feeling honor and that we had pride in what we accomplished!! I think the feeling is still there, but in a heavy downward spiral with so many things being made overseas...
\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 the soundtrack is a bit dated, this story is more relevant in the U.S. now more than ever. With not only blue collar jobs but everyone's jobs being outsourced by U.S. corporations while the government profits and American suffer.
Peter Strauss is Emory, a steel worker who works the same job his father did for 35 years. His wife is well-portrayed by Pamela Reed, who is very realistic, trying to support the family with two children when Emory loses his job. The mill is closed under the pretext of mismanagement, but there is also embezzlement and cheaper wages where they can pay one steelworker in one month (outsourcing) what they would have to pay Strauss/Emory in a day. Never mind that these men are all good loyal workers who have values and try the best for their family.
John Goodman, Gary Cole (as Strauss' brother) and a few other co-workers are also affected. It is very disturbing and realistic. Some scenes between Emory and his father are moving. Emory hopes his local union will be able to re-open the mill, as they promise to do so.
Emory's brother, Lee already sees the writing on the wall. There are no jobs left in the rust-belt (Ohio) and they must move on. However where in the U.S. can they move to?. Where will it be better for a blue-collar steel worker?.
There is a triumphant scene at the end where Emory and his crew fill the loading dock with steel products. The guard allows them to do this as a final gesture, one of the men committed suicide and he has empathy.
Overall, a good message film about hard times right here in America. Something that few care to face until personally affected. 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\nThis is good little shocker; not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but tight, competent and disturbing. An excellent example of a simple idea developed into a compelling 90 minute script.
The set up requires no bells and whistles, no lengthy exposition or wordy back story; Kate (Franka Pontente), a young German business woman living in London, drifts off whilst waiting for the last tube train. She awakens to find the place deserted, but quickly comes to realise that she is far from alone. Someone, or something, is down there with her and it's intentions are wholly malicious.
In fact she encounters several other characters in her quest to survive, including a lecherous work colleague, a homeless couple and a caged sewage worker, all of whom add pace and substance to the plot. There is a slightly awkward gear change somewhere in the middle of the film when tension thriller mutates into gore fest, but nothing so clumsy as to slow the hectic pace. For those of you with weak dispositions this is likely to be a harrowing ride; for those of you who relish a bit of well executed carnal mayhem this should press all the right buttons.
The climax of the film is perhaps less successful than the main body of the film, but it is punctuated with a nice moment of unexpected social commentary which provides a satisfying conclusion.
Some may find themselves feeling somewhat cheated of a clear explanation as to the exact nature and history of the threat encountered by Kate and her confederates, however, for me this was not the case. A horror film writer should not need feel compelled to dot every i and cross every t, in the same way a writer of political thrillers might be expected to. There are enough clues here to give you a very pretty clear idea of what brought this evil into existence, making a detailed and conclusive solution superfluous. The retention of a certain sense of mystery is to be welcomed and reminds us that in this film the ride was always going to be more important than the exact destination.
My understanding is that the budget for this film was, to say the least, minimal, in which case our applause for this British horror should be all the louder, for at no point does one have the impression of corners being cut or effects failing to deliver.
If this sounds like your kind of film then it probably is. Buy a ticket and climb aboard.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just saw this film last night at Toronto Film Festival where it was playing under the Midnight Madness section. To tell you the truth, the only reason why I went for this movie was because it shared its name with the Radiohead song, and also because my friend had bought the tickets so I really didn't have a choice :-D I went in expecting it to be something like The Silence of the Lambs, but it turned out to be semi-gore flick. Somebody has already mentioned that none of the characters are likable, and that is absolutely correct. I really couldn't care less if Potente's character got her entrails ripped out by the Creep. I was rooting for the homeless to make it out alive with Potente's character getting her just desserts. Christopher Smith has certainly done a great job with the visual aspect of the film. However, the story is rather weak, but then again the whole point of the movie was to scare the crap out of you and it did that quite effectively. The score by a Bristol band called The Insects was top notch. That, more than anything else, really scared the crap out of me.
The director was a really decent chap and was quite entertaining during the Q&A session. I really do hope he gets to make better films in the future.
This one is strictly for genre fans, but I'd recommend non-fans to give this a try anyway. It was a fun ride.
\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\nSTAR RATING: ***** Unmissable **** Very Good *** Okay ** You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead * Avoid At All Costs
Stuck-up career bitch Kate (Franka Potente) heads to the London underground to catch a train to take her to meet George Clooney. However, after a hectic working day, she dozes off and awakens to find herself alone in a deserted platform. As she races off on a situation taking her from one daunting encounter to the next, however, she learns of something far more malign and evil waiting for her out there.
In a lot of ways, the British Film Industry is really becoming one on it's own, especially in the horror thriller department, with films such as Creep and the successful 28 Days Later (which this has strong echoes of in parts.) In terms of succeeding in what it set out to do, Creep does cleverly create (especially at the beginning) a scary sense of isolation and tense fear. At it's clever running time, it also (though inadvertently, I suspect) manages to pay homage to some of those pioneer high-concept horror films from the 70s that rely on shocks and fear through-out without really focusing too much on character development and such.
Of it's weaknesses, some scenes are a little predictable, but these don't really succeed in making it less scary or effective in any way. I'm not sure if the ending was meant to make it come off as some sort of morality play and it's not exactly perfect, but it's certainly very effective and serves it's basic function very well. ***
\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\"Creep\" is a new horror film that, without a doubt, will please many genre fans simply because it's so down to the point and unscrupulous! It has many genuine shock-moments, a whole lot of repulsive gore-sequences and a rare claustrophobic tension. What it hasn't got is logic and a solid plot but, to tell you the truth, that didn't bother me for one second. When the end-credits start to roll, there are still many unanswered questions to ponder on but director/writer Christopher Smith (in his debut) seemly preferred to fully focus on tension and adrenalin-rushing action instead of long, soporific speeches and theories that could explain the existence of the \"creep\" in the London subway. The story revolves on the young and haughty Kate, who leaves her own party in order to go and meet the famous actor George Clooney who's in town to present his new film. She falls asleep in the subway, misses the last train and she finds herself trapped in the underground subway network. Things really get terrifying when she encounters a mad-raving lunatic who lives in the old tunnels and kills/kidnaps people to experiment upon. Even experienced homeless people, security guards or sewer-workers can't rescue her from this ravenous monster! I really dug the creep-character! He's nauseating, hideous and primitive but in a strange way fascinating. Christopher Smith only leaves us clues and hints, and it's merely up to the viewer to guess this vile creature's origin and background. I reckon this isn't very original, and I'm sure many people won't appreciate the lack of content, but I forgive Smith and I think it's better this way than going over the top completely, \"Jeepers Creepers\"-style (that particular film started out great as well, but as soon as the Creeper's identity was clear it turned into a very mediocre horror effort). The obvious aspect-to-love is the outrageous gore! There's some severe butchering going on in this film and the make-up, as well as the sound effects, are very convincing. The ominous setting of the abandoned London subway during night is effectively used. There also is some acting-talent present in this film, with Franka Potenta (Run Lola Run) returning to graphic horror nearly five years after the cool German film \"Anatomie\". Creep is terrific entertainment when you're in an undemanding mood and Christopher Smith definitely is a director I'll keep an eye on. Make sure you don't have to take the subway right after watching this 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\nCREEP is a straight up serious horror film set in real time that wants nothing more than to just show people get attacked in a empty subway platform by a mutant for 85 minutes. And it does just that. Nothing more, nothing less. Director Christopher Smith draws out the drama a far as he plausibly can by introducing a series of characters that would actually have a reason to be in the subway after it is locked. He also leaves the origins of the titular Creep deliberately vague (unlawful experiments happening in the 60s underground are hinted at) and that little bit of mystery works for the most part. Sadly, he undermines himself toward the end by actually holding back from a twist ending where more genetic malformations would appear (they are hinted at as well). Yes, you heard me right - I wanted a clichéd twist ending! Franka (RUN LOLA RUN) Potente is good as the terrorized female lead and the rest of the cast is fine.
\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\nFirstly, I would like to point out that people who have criticised this film have made some glaring errors. Anything that has a rating below 6/10 is clearly utter nonsense.
Creep is an absolutely fantastic film with amazing film effects. The actors are highly believable, the narrative thought provoking and the horror and graphical content extremely disturbing.
There is much mystique in this film. Many questions arise as the audience are revealed to the strange and freakish creature that makes habitat in the dark rat ridden tunnels. How was 'Craig' created and what happened to him?
A fantastic film with a large chill factor. A film with so many unanswered questions and a film that needs to be appreciated along with others like 28 Days Later, The Bunker, Dog Soldiers and Deathwatch.
Look forward to more of these fantastic films!!
\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 exceeded my expectations. I thought and have heard that it was going to be rubbish, so i wasn't expecting much. However, i was pleasantly surprised. At first i didn't take well to the lead girl and didn't really care if she lived or died. After a while she definitely grew on me and became a likable character. It's not just some slasher film where people die for no reason. There is a background story that only takes a few seconds of the film, but explains a lot. I would recommend this film to everyone. If you're not sure just watch it anyway, it's only an hour and a half of your life. You're going to live for 80 years anyway.
\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\nChristopher Smith is an obvious horror fan and this is made clear in his debut horror flick 'Creep'. 'Creep' although a little bit loose on information, proves itself worthy of a true gory classic. A little less glossy than recent US horrors (Amityville Horror remake, House of Wax remake) this dark and gruesome tale follows Kate (Franka Potente) through the labyrinth of underground tunnels and disused railways as she, and a number of others along the way, try and flee a murderous attacker. Though some bad reviews have slated this film, I truly believe that on a tight budget and for a UK production from first time director Smith that 'Creep' truly does live up to its name. It delivers fast-paced gory action more or less from the beginning, sometimes too fast as the story is patchy in some areas, but with a perfect location and the best character-reaction-at-the-end I've seen in a while, 'Creep' delivers some scenes that are definitely the stuff of nightmares.
\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- SMALL SPOILER HEREIN! -
When I looked at the votes for \"Creep\" today, I was surprised about so many IMDb-users rating this movie \"1\". I am wondering: what do people expect of such kind of movie? Are there so many people watching a movie without knowing anything about it?
\"Creep\" is a HORROR movie and it is a pretty good one! This automatically means: it has a absurd story full of holes, outrageous hazards and simple one-side-characters. So why complain about it? Just take some popcorn and coke, make yourself comfortable in your seat and then... ...enjoy to be scared to death! The first 60 minutes when there is almost nothing else than Kate and a lonely subway station are incredibly scaring. There is suspense and fear in every corner of the screen and you will give some jerks just because of a sudden sound of a blinking neon lamp in the back of you. (In my opinion the sound editor did the best job in this movie.)
When Kate meet her pursuer the quality of the movie drops but it still doesn't become a bad movie. The second part of the movie is not scary at all, but the gore effects are well done and the story is quite well developed. (...as long as you keep in mind that it is a horror movie you are watching and not the Discovery Channel!) So, if you want to make yourself a very, very scaring hour. Just watch the first hour of \"Creep\" and then leave the cinema or turn of your TV. You know the rest of the story anyway, don't you? The bad guy will die and Kate will be the only survivor. But even if you watch this movie up to its end, you will not be disappointed.
...and if you want to push anxiety to the next level, do what I did after watching this movie: leave the cinema by dark night, go to the next subway station and take the last train home...
\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 i am going to go against the grain on this film so it seems. Being a self confessed horror fan I sat down to this not quite knowing what to expect. After 2 or 3 mins i actually found myself scared (quite rare). The film obviously has a small budget and is set around charing cross station but the films lack of money does not distract from the story. Yes the story is a bit far fetched and doesn't explain itself very well but THE CREEP is a class act and proceeds to slash and dismember anything that comes its way. MESSAGE FOR LADIES !!! THERE ARE CERTAIN PARTS OF THE FILM YOU SHOULD CLOSE YOUR EYES AT OR AT LEAST CROSS YOUR LEGS !! you will understand when you see it.
All in all a good film and it makes a change to see a good slasher movie that actually scares
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've never been huge on IMAX films. They're cool, but once you get over that initial rush of \"Whoa, it feels like flying!\" the movies themselves are usually pretty corny and ordinary.
The exceptions have been the powerful \"Everest\", the exhilarating \"Wild California\" and now the BBC's \"The Human Body\", a super-sized look at the insides of our bodies.
Our bodies are machines of a complexity that is simply inconceivable. This 50 minute film could be 10 hours long, and still wouldn't get to all of the systems working in tandem just as I type this review and listen to my radio, and most of us take it all for granted.
Here you can see the inside of a pumping heart (looks like an alien spaceship), the inside of your lungs, the tiny hairs in your eardrum that process sound, the development of a baby inside a mother's womb, and surprisingly, a few of the...um, less attractive functions that I thought it would shy away from (pimples, the churning of acids in the stomach...)
This film also has a rather funky style to it, which sets it apart from other IMAX documentaries. For instance, we've all seen sperm finding its way to the egg, but have you ever seen it set to the tune of Marvin Gaye's \"Let's Get It On\"? It's creative moments like that that make \"The Human Body\" not just a health lesson, but fun as well.
\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\nActually, the answer only occupies a tiny portion of this excellent Imax movie that educates us on our delicate selves. C.G. and special cameras--assisted by Imax--incredibly display the inner (and outer) workings of an average human, be it adult men and women, boys and girls, or babies. Nearly every human body part aspect is specifically detailed: digestion, reproduction (featuring a Marvin Gaye hit), the heart, etc. Some especially revealing moments include how an infant can be immersed underwater and also how the brain's impulses look. It is amazing how we function.
The subject matter skips around an awful lot. But at all times we still learn a hell of a lot about our bodies that we should be *required* to know.
\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
Human Body --- WoW.
There are about 27,000 Sunrises in human life....
Hardly one thousand Sunrises will be watched by 90% of Humans on this planet....
Our days are limited...
Excellent movie for all women.... makers of human body...
Thanks and Regards.

\n
assistant\n1
\n"