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 British horror film was in terminal decline by the start of the Seventies, but out of the blackness came three films that were among the best our island produced. The Wickerman, Blood on Satan's Claw and The House That Dripped Blood made the future seem rosy, even though a lot of people knew by this point there wasn't going to be one. THTDB has the sort of cast that could easily form a wishlist, if it hadn't actually been assembled, in the bleak hinterland of 2008 you may well find yourself expecting to wake up. Waxworks is the most overlooked of the four stories and is, naturally, my favourite, Cushing's life and art are interlinked so firmly that you can't tell where performance ends and pain begins. One can only guess how this role affected such a gentle, sensitive man. Death and the maiden. RIP Peter.
\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 good for what it is, and unpretentious; I wouldn't watch it twice, however: I am a Peter Cushing completist and that's why I watched it. The best asset of this movie is: BREVITY and EFFECTIVENESS. Compared to other similar movies, it does NOT drag its feet forever as each of the four (plus one) segments lasts under 30 minutes, with the last under 10. Good uncanny vibes. In the first segment, horror writer suffering from 'writer's block' relocates to secluded old house seeking inspiration. He finds even too much of it when he starts to visualize one of his fictional madmen. Plot contrivance similar to PREMATURE BURIAL. Good use of the point-of-view twist: is the writer getting mentally ill...or (as the ending shows) his trophy wife wants her lover to play along with the husband's phobias to drive him mad & secure his estates...yet will the scheming bimbo survive to enjoy the fruit of her ingenious plan?
In the second segment two long time lost friends get together in the same secluded old house but cannot seem to help visiting a bizarre horror museum featuring the wax statue of the long lost love of their youth, which had once separated them. From the Gothic museum keeper they learn the woman portrayed is a deceased ax wielding murderer...or was she?
The third segment was the less interesting to me.
The fourth shows a horror movies actor -who thinks he's the best of all- sunken to the depths of low budget C movies. Seeking a costume to lend more credibility to his fictional vampire, he gets the real deal. This segment also lacks the solidity of the first two.
Acting is fair, with the 2 initial segments contributing the bulk of it. Good movie, taken with a grain of salt. Not the best Cushing, nor Lee...but worth watching.
\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\nBefore films like 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,' 'Suspiria,' and 'Halloween' changed the view of horror forever, there was a more Gothic and far less violent era in the genre. Films like the Hammer Horror series and 'Rosemary's Baby' were what scared and thrilled audiences throughout the 60s and early 70s. I can't tell you how many times I rented this film during my childhood, but I did because there was something about it. I didn't want to limit myself to the slasher and zombies movies of the 70s and 80s and films like this production from the famous, but sadly long gone Amicus film company were a good start.
Pros: A grand, eerie music score. Strong performances from a stellar cast. Brilliant cinematography. Plenty good old fashioned thrills and chills, especially in the first and last vignettes. Some haunting moments and images. Moves at a slow, but stead pace. The house is one spooky, oppressive dwelling. Great production design and set decoration, which give the film a real old Gothic horror feel. Depends more on mood and bloodless chills than on gore and gratuitous nudity for it's thrills.
Cons: Some pacing issues in the first half. Aside from the 'The Cloak,' the rest of the stories feel like they've been done before. Clichés galore. The second story, 'Waxworks,' has fine acting and it's moments, but is the weakest of the four in terms of scares and suspense. The low budget really shows at times.
Final thoughts: After seeing this film for the first time in many years I can see why I rented it so frequently. It's not a masterpiece by any means, but it's a good example of a time when horror films were made with style and class. Watch this one with the lights off.
My rating: 3.5/5
\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\nFour great stories from master Robert Bloch, adapted to the screen by the best actors in the field in the early Seventies, are the base of this excellent Amicus' production. This was a kind of movie very popular in the Sixties till the mid-Seventies and it's one of my favorite type of horror movies. This one in particular shines for the episode Sweets to the Sweet, where Christopher Lee is stalked by his evil little girl child, heiress to her mother tradition. Great fun from start to finish, and good to very good are also the other three episodes (with the last one a bit on the comic side, but with the great addition of Ingrid Pitt, the most famous vampress of the English cinema.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe late, great Robert Bloch (author of PSYCHO, for those of you who weren't paying attention) scripted this tale of terror and it was absolutely one of the scariest movies I ever saw as a kid. (I had to walk MILES just to see a movie, and it was usually dark when I emerged from the theater; seeing a horror movie was always unnerving, but particularly so when it was as well-executed as this one.) When I had the opportunity to see this one several years ago on videotape (which should always be a last resort), I was surprised at how well it held up. Take the terror test: watch it at night, alone, and THEN tell me it's not scary...
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAn excellent movie and great example of how scary a movie can be without really showing the viewer anything. It's a set of four stories all revolving around the tenants of a charmingly old-fashioned house and their various gruesome and horrific fates, all tied together by a wrap-around story about a Scotland Yard inspector searching for a missing horror film star. It starts out with a story about a mystery writer whose main character becomes a little too realistic, followed by a story about two old romantic rivals who become obsessed over a wax figure in a museum, then a story about a sweetly angelic little child who is anything but, and closing with the story of what happened to the missing film starand what he does to the inspector. It's a gorgeous print that lets you really appreciate the work of director Duffell and what he was able to accomplish with a very small budget. Add to that the acting talents of Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Denholm Elliott, Joss Ackland, Ingrid Pitt and Jon Pertwee and you've got a movie that can be enjoyed again and again. Just don't answer the phone if anyone from Stoker Real Estate calls to offer you a bargain on a beautiful house in the English countryside
\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 days, most people don't watch classic movies, such as this. Most of friends only watch movies from the '90s to present. Thats kinda stingy.
Most old movies like this are masterpieces, unique in their own way. Only because, back when these movies were being thought of and made, thats when ideas were fresh. Now people strain just to think of new ideas.
Anyway, to the movie. For true fans of classic horror. This is for you. The movie is based with a investigator from Scotland Yard investigating the disappearance of an movie actor, and stumbles on to three other strange occurrences with past residents of the same house.
I won't say anymore, for I will ruin the movie more than I already have. But it is a terrific movie for as old as it is. And would never mind watching it again!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFor fans of 1970s Hammer type horror films, this movie should be a treat. The only thing I didn't like about the film was the fact that Peter Cushing was wasted on the worst episode. In general, however, this is a solid, spooky little movie. If this is not Amicus' best film, it's certainly one of them. The best episode, rightfully saved for last, is the one featuring Jon Pertwee as a horror film actor--it is really excellent. As good as Pertwee was in this role, it's hard to believe he didn't do more of these types of movies. All in all, this is an entertaining movie, which scared the heck out of me as a child, and which still gives me the creeps to this day.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a very amusing and sometimes quite creepy anthology, that if a bit short in the screenwriting department, more than makes up for the shortcoming in the acting, location work and overall exuberance. The best episodes of this are the first with Denholm Elliot playing a horror writer stalked by a character from his novel in the works ( a perfect example of the acting pulling this out of the merely pedestrian); the third, with Christopher Lee as a man terrified of his own daughter and the final episode with the late great Jon Pertwee as a pompous horror film star who gets more than just a new role on his latest project. The dialogue between Pertwee and Ingrid Pitt is sparkling and inspired, both obviously relishing the opportunity to really ham it up! Cushing is typically good in the weakest segment, which certainly isn't helped by the fact that the wax figure of the woman he's obsessed with down at the local wax museum, is anything but \"beautiful\" as we are told to believe she is! Someone of shocking beauty was needed and instead we're given a woman with a jaw of a turtle. Minor quibbles aside this movie and it's wonderful country house setting is one to catch when you can.
\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 a quite entertaining horror anthology film (along the lines of Tales from the Crypt) written by Robert Bloch (author of Psycho). It's good fun for horror fans and has an excellent cast. The movie should also be required viewing for Doctor Who fans since Jon Pertwee (the third Doctor) has an amusing role as a rude and obnoxious horror star!
\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\nEnjoyed catching this film on very late late late TV and it kept my interest through out the entire picture. This wonderful creepy, yet mysterious looking English home, with evil looking decorations and weired furniture and rooms that make you wonder just why anyone would want to rent this home or even own it. There are four(4)Tales concerning this house, and each resident of the home meets with all kinds of problems. You will notice the beautiful lake and pond around the home and also the sweet singing of birds, but don't let that fool you, there is horror all over the place. Peter Cushing,\"Black Jack\",'80 gives a great performance as one of the person's living in the home and even Christopher Lee,\"Curse of the Crimson Altar\",68 and his little daughter, Chloe Franks,(Jane Reid) make a wonderful exciting story together, his daughter for some reason loves to read WITCHCRAFT BOOKS! If you love creepy, horrible and mysterious films, with lots of surprises, this is the FILM FOR 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\nA classy offering from Amicus, producer Milton Subotsky and director Peter Duffell ('The Far Pavillions' etc) turn in a classy, intelligent 'four-hander' with a strong cast (Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Jon Pertwee, Ingrid Pitt etc) all giving stylish performances, despite a low budget which results in a few 'un-special effects'. The most outstanding contribution, however, is that of the 7-year-old Chloe Franks who turns in chillingly effective account of her part which makes one's blood run cold. Only spoilt by the lurid title wished on the film by its distributors, this underrated release, a cut above the run-of-the-mill 'blood 'n' guts' shocker movie, is for those who appreciate a little thought with their horror.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI thought that Mukhsin has been wonderfully written. Its not just about entertainment. There's tonnes of subtle messages that i think Yasmin was trying to bring across. And yes, it might be confusing to some of you(especially if you didn't watch Sepet and/or Gubra for 76 times).
I bet u noticed how they use characters from the two movies before right? Its really ironic how the characters relate. Like the bossy neighbour is that prostitute from Gubra. And the chick at the snooker pad turns out to be the religious and wife of the pious man in the future.
And i absolutely love the voice-overs. Its crude yet awakeningly fresh. Like, when they took a shot of the Rumah Tumpangan Gamin signboard, then there was suddenly Mukhsin's voice saying 'Bismillahhirrahmannirrahim..' (the scene when he climbed the tree).
It captured Malaysian's attitude(and in some mild way, sniggering at how pathetic it is) portrayed in the character. For example, even the kids can be really sharp tongued(complete with the shrill annoying voice) and simply bad mouth ppl all movie long. And how you can be such a busybody and talk about ppl, when ur own life isn't sorted out.
All i can say is, this movie totally reached my expectation if not exceeded it.
It kept me glued to the screen, i couldn't even take my eyes off it. Not even to make out in the cinema. Ha ha.
\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\nEveryone has a first love, and though it is hard to define that feeling when you're younger, it is there, aching inside you. That is what Malaysian filmmaker Yasmin Ahmad aims to prove in her fourth feature, a movie where that most complex of emotions is recounted in a deceptively simple, straightforward fashion.
Such an approach is especially convenient in this case, as the love story at the film's core involves two twelve-year olds, and would therefore make any attempts at \"deeper\" analysis seem contrived and pretentious. That they don't is also testament to the astounding performances given by the leading non-actors, Sharifah Aryana and Mohd Syafie Naswip. The former plays Orked (already seen as an adult character in Ahmad's previous picture, Gubra), a lively, almost rebellious girl who, perhaps influenced by her \"British\" upbringing (her mother studied in England), despises playing with dolls, preferring to play violent sports with the boys. Then one day she meets Mukhsin (Naswip), who has come to spend the holidays at his aunt's house, and all of a sudden she changes her habits: goodbye fistfights, hello bike-riding and tree-climbing. But what does this mean? Are they just friends, or is something more implied, something neither of them is yet ready to understand, let alone accept?
Given the young age of the protagonists, answering those questions borders on impossible, and so, like in several \"smaller\" films (Lost in Translation comes to mind), there is no real closure, a choice that leaves a bittersweet, but ultimately satisfying aftertaste: the naturalistic, unfiltered acting (especially Aryana's) gets to the heart almost immediately, and a strong supporting cast (Orked's family most of all) helps keeping the minimalistic narrative fun and seducing. The down-to-earth approach isn't always that effective (the hilarious subplot regarding an adulterous neighbor is dropped way too early), and it is hard to justify the bizarre Pulp Fiction reference at the start of the feature, but the emotional strength of the teenage romance is enough to make this an interesting piece of independent Asian cinema.
\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\nOverall the film is OK. I think it's better than Sepet and much better than Gubra in term of its story, its sentimental value.
There are a few scenes that makes me touched. Yes I agree that the boy (Mukhsin) did his acting very good. Brilliant. I can say that his acting is almost natural.
However, the song 'Ne Me Quitte Pas' by Nina Simone really \"'menaikkan' my 'bulu' 'roma' \".
I love the song. Both the song. \"Ne Me Quitte Pas\" and \"Hujan\". I just downloaded the song. Beautiful.
And salute to Yasmin. The movie's ending credit makes me touched again. We can see how Yasmin really appreciated her parents in an unique way.
I think the movie deserves that Grand Prix Of International Jury at Berlin Film Festival.
I give 8.5 out of 1o 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\nThis is the one movie to see if you are to wed or are a married couple. The movie portrais a couple in Italy and deals with such difficult topics as abortion, infidelity, juggling work and family.
The so called \"culture of death\" that we are experiencing nowadays in the world is terrible and this movie will surely make you think.
A must see. I hope it gets distributed as it should.
Congratulations on the cast and director.
Two thumbs up and a 10 star evaluation from 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\n\"Casomai\" is a masterful tale depicting the story of a young couple who wade through the murky waters of marriage. The story is very believable in telling the strange see-saw between oblivion and continuous interference by others, which is fairly typical in Italy (one may wonder whether such happenings are different elsewhere, though). Pavignano and D'Alatri were very good at writing, and that is one of the strong points of the movie. Acting by Stefania Rocca and Fabio Volo is sober and gripping. And the figure of the sympathetic priest is funny and well-rounded. All in all, a truly deserving movie, probably one of the best Italian movies of the year.
\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 was very pleased to go and see a \"Milanese\" film shot in Milan. Alessandro Alatri is a Roman director who has understood properly and fortunately printed in a film the Milanese philosophy.
Film tells the story of a standard -in career- Milanese couple, starting from \"the birth\" to the death. The birth-wedding is so typical out of any scheme that becomes original and involves all the wedding guests in a flash back story of how the couple came to each other and felt in love. Life is hard in the \"urbe\" of Milan and after the sweeties old days became tougher and tougher, then finally the product: a child, who instead of strengthen further the couple relationship it weaken because \"the selfish effect\" typical of a nowadays \"metropolis\" personality. The advertising environment with all the \"creative\" under stress atmosphere helps to get well involved in the plot. We are losing the life values and this is well and deeply reflected in this nice and sharp movie from the Senza Pelle's director.
The actors are well chosen, Stefania Rocca nice and well characterised, and a positive surprise, an unexpected good Fabio Volo, well known by the \"trash\" TV serie: Le Iene.
Rating: 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\nThis movie contains personalities that so deliciously are playing their parts, I love the final, when nobody knows what are they gonna do about their life, but it's completely great when you see and realize that the priest is right, is jut for two, so what are the other persons doing there? The movie embrace you to a new life, to experiences, to be able of dream with the other person and reach those dreams. Also shows you the life itself, hard like it is. But gives you the option to choose what you want and what you really need. Hope this comment works for you. The movie it did worked well for me. I bought the movie by the way ;) Take care.
\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\"CASOMAI\" was the last movie I've seen before getting married, just last year.
It was also the first movie I've searched for, after I was married, because we promised to offer a copy to our priest.
Sometimes, reality is not that apart from fiction. To all those who wrote that priests like \"Don Camillo\" don't exist in real life, I would recommend them to visit my Priest Pe. Nuno Westwood, in Estoril, Portugal :-)
To all others, I would only recommend them to see this movie, before and after the \"I do!\" day :-)
Rodrigo Ribeiro Portugal
\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 sophisticated contemporary fable about the stresses that work to loosen and ultimately unbind the vows of marriage. The main thrust of the narrative arises from a 'homily' spoken by a country priest following the wedding vows of a young cosmopolitan couple from Milan. In it, the future course of the marriage is spelled out, which bit by bit frays from the stresses of modern life. The 'moral' of this story within a story is that in order for a marriage to work out, both now, and in the past, it has been necessary for that relationship to be abutted by family and friends. This film was a relative blockbuster by domestic Italian standards. It's a terrible shame that this film is not available in either DVD or VHS.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe best film about marriage and family. This is a very interesting reflections to the couples that will be come to the dangerous and paradoxical fascinating world of marriage and family. This decision could be the better or the worst in our lives and the life of our kids. The real intrusion or help of 'friends' -or executioner if we leave-. The real role of families: they can help or they can destroy us. The mad priest who possibly is not much mad telling what could happen according the statistics and the reality. A couple who thinks in a 'special' marriage, live a painful story in their future own history.
Who likes contract marriage? Nobody, after the priest tells their own history if they leave the future in another hands, if they don't know WHAT is the marriage. That the problems are true, that the life demand a real engage, guaranties, from each one. That the real victims of the divorce are kids, with real name Andrea in the film- or names. That the abortion is only an easy exit: sadness, regrets and unhappiness will be there after abortion. That the state and social security thinks every time less in a real problems of the families. The gossip of the 'friends', the infidelity because of weakness and desperation of Steffania because Tomasso lives his life as if he were alone.
Maybe someone could think that this film is a pessimistic film, but not. Steffania and Tomasso, in the deep of their hearts, they like a beautiful marriage and family, if not, Why they like marriage? A truly and beautiful marriage depends only of the couple: of each one of their decisions, of each one actions in their lives. The family could be a place where each one feel loved because being his or her, only by existing. The screenplay is wonderful. The performances are great: Steffania and Tomasso, ¡the almost cynical priest! An excellent direction and script. The colors and the management of the cameras, superb.
\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 now that these days, some people wan't see a movie without movie styling, so much Dogma, Lars Von, Watchosky Brothers, are changed what we expect in a movie, perhaps, Casomai is no-one-more-Independent-non-american movie, the movie take all movies resources and language to tell us a simple history about love and marriage, but much more .. Fully of views, lectures and let you thinking ... and I'm sure, you can't fell boried any second of a long 116 minutes. I calculate that don't have a single scene longer that 3 o 2 1/2 minutes.
\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 right now in front of the tv, watching Casomai. It is changing, it id evolving or better...devolving. It begin with a courius wedding of the two protagonists where their love-story is reported. After that everything change, a child was born, and all the rest usually happen in a couple. It is a not a special movie because it talks about a normal couple, and normality is the center of this movie. It doesn't want to show us something particular, there is nothing new, it is just a normal love-story, the story of a couple, and being normal it become different from the rest. It is also a flashing movie, everything is short, every scene is long just some seconds. It is a reported story, many things are known because friends and parents talk about that, and their opinion is central, the opinions create the story and destroy it. It is a simple story of a couple as I said, but it is not boring, it just show a couple, should be everything known, it is, but I am sure that every one of you will want to know what happen, so don't forget to watch the end!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHer Deadly Rival (1995): Starring Harry Hamlin, Annie Potts, Lisa Zane, Tommy Hinkley, Susan Diol, Roma Maffia, Robert C. Treveiler, D. L. Anderson, William Blair, Sean Bridges, Robin Dallenbach, Wilbur Fitzgerald, Dale Frye, Stan Kelly, Deborah Hobart, David Lenthall, Lorri Lindberg, Chuck Kinlaw, Amy Parrish, Melissa Suzanne McBride, Ralph Wilcox, Al Wiggins, Jeff Sumerel, Daria Sanford....Director James Hayman, Screenplay Dan Vining.
Actor Harry Hamlin (of LA Law fame, Clash of The Titans and other films) seems perfectly cast in this \"Lifetime\" type film directed by James Hayman and released in 1995. He and his wife Lisa Rinna would later work on a film about sex addiction. \"Her Deadly Rival\" is, at first glance, similar to the better known Hollywood box-office hit \"Fatal Attraction\". In \"Rival\", happily married couple Jim and Kris Lanford move into a new home in the typically beautiful suburbs. They have the seemingly perfect marriage- they are deeply in love, despite a routine lifestyle. But then a mysterious admirer sets her eyes on Jim. Her identity is never revealed, despite an attempt by Jim and even investigators to discover who she is. She constantly harasses Jim through phone calls and letters. His marriage nearly flounders as his wife begins to think he's having an affair and trying to cover it up. While Harry Hamlin, Annie Potts and the rest of the cast - Lisa Zane, Tommy Hinkley, Susan Diol, Roma Maffia, Robert C. Treveiler, D. L. Anderson, William Blair- each seem to be straight out of a soap opera. But this is a very suspense-filled drama and has its good moments. There is a twist at the end. Spoiler Alert. All I have to say is \"her deadly rival\" was only herself. Based on a supposedly actual case, Jim's wife Kris suffered from multiple personality disorder and that was what ruined her marriage. Even if the story is not terribly impressive, even if the acting is only a step above soap opera acting, this film has its moments. Especially moving are the intimate scenes between Jim and his wife and the final scene in which, when Jim learns the truth, he can't believe what he has just heard. The movie is probably a little too long and boring in some parts but it's the kind of TV movie that usually does well, especially on Lifetime, which continues to produce films of this kind, of the \"domestic thriller\" type, or seduction stories. Trashy but everyone likes trash.
\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 liked this movie, Although halfway through it, I was able to tell who the secret admirer was.
I am also wondering if it was based on a true story since it told about the \"real\" people at the end of the movie. I guess I will have to research it and let ya know.
Does anyone remember what state this happened in? I believe they moved to North Carolina if I'm not mistaken.
Of course the states could have been changed to protect the innocent.
You would think that this man could have figured it out as easily as I did. Was he stupid or what?
\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 was watching this movie on Friday,Apr 7th. I didn't see the last scene ( cos I was talking with my bro n Mom in law at the same time ). Anyone can tell me what happened to her?I watched slightly that her husband was hearing someone was talking to his wife in the bedroom and then he opened the door,she's dead already.
What happened to her? Did she kill herself? How could she arrange everything like the phone calls,meanwhile she's at home when her husband was talking to this strange admirer?Anyone can explain to me,please. I am so so curious!! ( in the end,I read that she suffered from Multiply Disorder Personality ).
Thnks before.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAlways enjoy the great acting talents of Harry Hamlin,(Jim Lansford),\"Strange Hearts\",'01, who plays a straight as an arrow husband, who seems to get all kinds of attention from very charming young women, namely, Lisa Zane,(Lynne),\"Monkeybone\",'01, who is a co-worker with Jim Lansford and you wonder why he doesn't try to hit on her for some fun. Annie Potts,(Kris Lansford),\"Breaking the Rules\",'92,is a very warm and sweet loving wife to Jim and has complete trust in her husband. Kris wants to always keep her husband happy and even buys him a home with out him even seeing it for himself. This film will keep you guessing right to the very END!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this film at the Toronto International Film Festival. Not as salacious as it sounds, this is a three-part documentary (each episode is 50 minutes) featuring Slovenian superstar philosopher/psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek. Zizek takes us on a journey through many classic films, exploring themes of sexuality, fantasy, morality and mortality. It was directed by Sophie Fiennes, of the multi-talented Fiennes clan (she's sister to actors Ralph and Joseph).
I enjoyed this quite a bit, although I think it will be even more enjoyable on DVD, since there is such a stew of ideas to be digested. Freudian and Lacanian analysis can be pretty heavy going and seeing the whole series all at once became a bit disorienting by the end of two and a half hours. It didn't help that an ill-advised coffee and possession of a bladder led me to some discomfort for the last hour or so.
My only real issue with this is that Zizek picked films that were quite obviously filled with Freudian themes. He spends quite a bit of time on the films of Hitchcock and David Lynch, not exactly masters of subtlety. I would have liked to see him try to support his theories by using a wider range of films, although that's really just me saying I'd like to see part four and five and six.
Zizek is very funny, and part of the humour was watching him present what amounted to a lecture while inserting himself into the actual scenes from some of the films he's discussing. So, for instance, we see him in a motorboat on his way to Bodega Bay (from Hitchcock's The Birds) or sitting in the basement of the Bates Motel (from Psycho). Which is not to say that his theories are not provocative. Even when I found myself disagreeing with him, it definitely made me think a little more deeply about the films. Which is exactly what he's trying to accomplish.
\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\nLots and lots of information to digest, and if you've seen Zizek, you know his pace.
Also if you haven't seen most of the films or at least some other films by the same directors mentioned in this doc, you will be somewhat lost.
And the film list is long. Director includes Hitchcock (Psycho, Vertigo, Birds), Lynch (Lost Highway,Mullholland Falls, Wild at Heart, Blue Velvet ), Tarkovsky (Stalker, Solaris) and The Conversation(Coppola)
There are some segway films like, Star Wars: Espisode III, Matrix ... but these I suspect are baits. To be sure, Zizek is never boring, but if you don't buy (or if you mind) the psycho analytics, then you'll be annoyed to no end.
But you should not be, as the setting, clips, the way the film interleave with these clips, Zizek's points are never boring.
\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\"Cinema is the ultimate pervert art. It doesn't give you what you desire; it tells you how to desire.\"
So begins \"The Pervert's Guide to Cinema,\" in which Slovenian philosopher and psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek applies his Freudian/Lacanian brain-scalpel to world cinema. This film in three parts is the second feature documentary directed by Sophie Fiennes (yes, sister of Ralph and Joseph), and it is a notable accomplishment, clocking in at 2 1/2 hours of talk from one man and yet remaining humorous and engaging throughout. In essence, it is an extended film lecture, and one of the best you may ever get. Over the course of the film, Zizek guides us through a catalog of obsession and desire in film history. He touches on more than 40 films and, in particular, spends a great deal of time with Hitchcock, Lynch, Chaplin, Tarkovsky, the Marx Brothers, and Eisenstein. But he also takes a close look at \"Persona,\" \"The Conversation,\" \"Three Colors: Blue,\" \"Dogville,\" \"Fight Club,\" and \"The Exorcist.\" Thematically, Zizek's inquiry into cinema ranges from thoughts on the death drive to the \"coordinates of desire,\" and from Gnosticism to \"partial objects.\"
\"The Pervert's Guide\" will be a slightly better experience if you've taken a few minutes to bone up on your basic Freudian terminology. However, even if you're not steeped in psychoanalytic theory, Zizek's dynamic and hilarious personality carries the film forward with such gusto that you aren't likely to balk at the specialized lingo. The film frequently cuts from movie clips to images of Zizek *inside* the movie he is talking about--that is, in the original locations and sets. The transitions in these sequences sustain such tension and humor that the trick never gets old. And Zizek himself is constantly making us laugh, either from bizarre little jokes or from his enthusiastic insistence on, for example, a bold Oedipal interpretation of \"The Birds.\" And this go-ahead-and-laugh attitude, on the parts of both Fiennes and Zizek, is essential to the gonzo character of the film. It is the spoonful of sugar that helps us digest Zizek's weird medicine. After all, don't we all have a sense that, past a certain point, psychology theorists are just pulling our legs?
\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 admit creating great expectations before watching because some friends mentioned it (and they are not pervs!) as a must see. And it is a must see! Just don't expect to see something outbreaking.
The Freudian psychoanalyzes are interesting in many parts of the film, but there's just too much perversion and it doesn't stick in the end.
Some of the good things are the analyzes of Kieslowski's Blue, most of David Lynch's, some of Hitchcock's and perhaps a couple more I missed (I just remembered...Dogville), and I usually don't miss things unless they are too obvious or loose in the air.
Other than being repetitive, which makes it too long, the documentary is enjoyable in the sense of noticing some perversions fed by our unconscious, hence the commercial success of most thrillers studied and used as basis for this theory.
I really enjoyed the energetic tone of the narration and the effort of Mr. Zizek to revive Freud's theory, which has been numb for too long, specially in north America. Again, it's way over the top and I believe not to be a completely waste of time for I do believe most humans have a dark appreciation for death and blood.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe person who wrote the review \"enough with the sweating and spitting already\" has no grasp of what cultural, literary, or psycho- critique is. He dismisses Zizek's interpretations because they don't seem \"in line\" with what the director originally intended. So What? The importance of a director's (or author's) intention is not important in critical theory. This is known as the author's \"Intentional Fallacy\" and should be avoided.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy A text or movie CAN be analyzed through a number of theories, many of which disagree with one another, as well as completely ignore the author's intention. This is the most fundamental idea of Critical Theory.
Because of this, whoever wrote that wall of text wasted a lot of time and effort on insulting Zizek. In reality, anyone who studies theory would immediately discredit this guys opinion (I suggest you should too) as it is completely off point.
That being said... If you are at all interested in Freudian, Laconian, or Kristevian discourse, this movie is a must. It connects these theories with popular film, making them much more palpable and enjoyable than simply reading or thinking about them.
\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\nFamous movies are subject to Freudian analysis: Possessed, The Matrix, The Birds, Psycho, Vertigo, Duck Soup, Monkey Business, The Exorcist, The Testament of Dr Mabuse, Alien, Alien Resurrection, The Great Dictator, City Lights, The Tramp, Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz, Dr Strangelove, The Red Shoes, Fight Club, Dead of Night, The Conversation, Blue Velvet, Solaris, Stalker, Mulholland Drive, Lost Highway, Persona, In The Cut, Eyes Wide Shut, The Piano Teacher, Three Colours: Blue, Dogville, Frankenstein, The Ten Commandments, Saboteur, Rear Window, To Catch a Thief, North by Northwest, Star Wars, Dune, Kubanskie Kazaki, Ivan The Terrible, Pluto's Judgment Day (Walt Disney), Wild at Heart.
You may wonder how the Marx Brothers come into play. According To Slavoj Zizek, the host and analyst of this intellectually tickling tour de force, Groucho is the superego, Chico the ego, and Harpo the id.
Scenes from the above listed films are used to illustrate concepts: the role of fantasy in shaping reality and vice-versa, the father figure, male and female libido, death drive, etc. Here are some of Slavoj utterances (most as paraphrases): \"desire is a wound on reality\", \"fantasy realized is a nightmare\", \"music is the opium of the people\" (borrowing from K. Marx), \"of all human emotions, anxiety is the only one that is not deceiving\". The whole is bracketed by an intro that declares \"you don't look for your desires in movies, instead cinema tells you what you should desire\" and concludes with the cineaste view that \"cinema is needed today so that we can understand our current reality\" -- I say, as long as censorship doesn't derail it.
The three part subdivision is merely mechanical, possibly with TV screening in mind. For the theater goer it is irrelevant.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTHE PERVERT'S GUIDE TO CINEMA (2007) ****
If Loving Cinema Makes Me A Pervert, So Be It!
If you are a true 'moviefreak' like me then I'm sure you can't get enough of films about film-making and I don't mean necessarily the dry documentary know and then. I mean a total discourse on the film viewing experience. Well if that's the case have I got a lulu of a film experiment for you.
In Sophie Fiennes (sister of Ralph & Joseph if you were wondering) has noted philosopher cum cinephile Slavoj Zizek give his analysis on cinema with some impressive (and often outrageous) takes on everything from the silent era of Chaplin thru the modern age of the Wachowski Brothers analyzing, probing, and pontificating about the psychosexual underpinnings, socioeconomic, political and of course indefinable magic of the film going experience with his unflagging, determined and near-frenetic dissertations. To go from explaining how The Bates' house in PSYCHO is actually the mirrored psyche of the conflicted Norman Bates with each level as his Ego, Superego & Id is one thing but then to suggest the same thing about each Marx Brother in barely a beat is a remarkable test of faith that wins over the skeptic layman.
Although I had no idea who Zizek was  he resembles a hybrid of filmmaker Brian DePalma, European actor Rade Serbedzija and the hyperkinetic energy of filmmakers Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese  with his sibilant tongue and passion, the host comes across as a mad prophet.
Fiennes cleverly inserts Zizek into several of the film clips' backgrounds peppered throughout making for a humorous tone but still lets the ranting and raving continue full throttle giving pause for argument in three acts covering the gamut of films by the likes of Kubrick, Lynch, Hitchcock and films as diverse as THE WIZARD OF OZ, THE RED SHOES, and FIGHT CLUB.
There's something for everyone and if one man can provoke an argument or at least a reason to discuss a film's themes  even if they are Freudian/Jungian to a fault  then I say this collection of film theory is worth the watch. Seek it out now if you can before it comes to home video; it's the only way to appreciate 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\nHis choice of films, the basic 'conceit' of the production (which places him in the sets or simulacra of the films he is commenting on ) and his delivery are brilliant! But if you want Freud, be aware that you're getting Zizek's version of Lacan, which should not be confused with Lacan himself. As usual, Zizek delivers complex ideas with gusto and in a convincing manner. The rub is he is also quite mercurial and so there may be more in his gusto than in actual content. Cinematically, it is a gem. Psychologically, this will have people of all persuasions (Freudians, Lacanians and Jungians) scratching their heads but reaching for the popcorn all the same. Zizek is a phenomenon and pop icon unto himself.
\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\nMore like psychological analysis of movies, but Psycho does sound better as a header. The man in charge of the movie (the narrator if you will) does depict movies here in his own way. Most of them are classics, but all of them are listed here at IMDb and I'd strongly advise you to see them (especially the Hitchcock movies, Solyaris, Conversation & and the Lynch movies), because Slavoj Zizek will reference them!
Or in other words, he might spoil them for you. I don't remember if he spoiled more than those I've listed (I think the Chaplin movies too), but as I wrote it'd be best if you watch them all beforehand! In the IMDb listing there is a movie missing, that I did report to them, so it might get up there pretty soon. It's a Meg Ryan movie, but it's a only a brief snippet not big of a deal anyways.
Zizek views and opinions are crazy and fun to listen to, if you're open minded to see things through another perspective (even if that does destroy your favorite movie a bit for you ... it doesn't mean it will do that, but it could)!
\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\nMardi Gras: Made in China provides a wonderful, intricate connection between popular culture, nudity, and globalization through the making and tossing of beads. I saw this film at the International Film Festival of Boston, and was expecting a dry introduction to globalization, but what I got was a riveting visual display of shocking footage from both China and the United States. The eye-opening film is humorous, in-depth, serious, non-patronizing, and it leaves you wanting more as the credits role. It is worth comparing to Murderball -- it's simply that well done. The young women workers in China have various points of view, and the owner is amazingly open about the discipline. The revelers during Carnival are the highlight, but only because this excellent film provides in-depth context inside the factory in China without narration. Bravo to the filmmaker for getting inside and finishing the film! I would have never thought about the connection between beads, China, and New Orleans; now I think about the human connection between almost every object, but also the role of globalization, inequality, and fun. More importantly, I can make these connections without feeling a sense of guilt after watching this film, unlike other films on globalization that I've seen.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn this documentary we meet Roger, the rich manager of a factory in China that makes beads and other trinkets sold and traded at Mardi Gras in New Orleans. Roger claims the factory girls love their work and are grateful for the opportunities it provides, but interviews with four of them tell quite another story. The girls' bleak lives are shown in stark contrast to the bizarre excesses of Mardi Gras itself. Filmmaker David Redmon should be lauded for getting excellent and rare footage of everyday life inside a Chinese factory compound, and for landing a revealing on-camera interview with the head of the U.S. company that imports and sells the beads. The movie is compellingly told and clearly serves its purpose as a window into what lies behind those ubiquitous \"Made in China\" labels.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"