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 just saw a press screening of this film and I was pleasantly surprised. Not often is it that I get to see all of my favorite actors in one film at one time.
I really enjoyed the pick pocket scene and it was good to see Rachael Bilson and Hayden back together. I think their chemistry on camera is a direct result of their time together off camera. My favorite scene was by far (surprisingly so) Bret Ratner's piece... Without giving too much away, I'll just say that there is a surprise that leaves you hanging...
The old couple were really good together and you actually got the impression that they had spent a lifetime together.
Both the Chris Cooper and the Ethan Hawke segments packed a punch with surprises that seem realistic and similar to experiences that I've had in the big apple. Over all the film is a great place to take a date... especially if you're already fond of the city itself.
I can't wait for the next in the Cities of Love.
\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 at an advance screening and found it excellent.
New York I Love You is a true spin on a romance that explores clever, funny, and sometimes shocking situations around the human race's most powerful emotion.
The cast is huge, a veritable Oceans 11 with Andy Garcia, Ethan Hawke, Shia Labouf, Natalie Portman, Bradley Cooper and others. They all give stand out performances in one way or another.
That's not to mention that there is a who's who of directors interweaving stories in clever and interesting ways. Brett Rattner, Shaka Kapur, Natalie Portman, I mean -WOW! This movie is not a straight ahead romance or romantic comedy even though it is both romantic and funny. It also has serious stories and notes. But that's good in my opinion. Go see it for yourself and reply to my review, I want to hear what others have to say.
\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\nNew York I Love You is full of love and power. Not for everybody, however, but is a beautiful movie.
It has the likes of Shia LaBeouf (seen in Transformers, Disturbia, Charlies Angels, I Robot, Indiana Jones, and many more), Maggie Q, Kevin Bacon, Blake Lively, Natalie Portman, and many more. With a star-studded cast, this movie is without a doubt, brilliant.
From many top-notch directors around the world, it does not fail to impress. The diversity from one story to another is creative and unique.
It is safe to say that New York I Love You is a popcorn movie, and should be watched on a BIG TV! This time, trust the IMDb rating, because it is an excellent film.
Eagerly waiting Shanghai I Love You in 2010.
Watch NY ILY, you won't be disappointed.
\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\nBored and unhappy young babe Zandalee (a winningly sultry and vibrant performance by luscious brunette knockout Erika Anderson) feels trapped in a stale and loveless marriage to failed poet and decent, yet dull businessman Thierry Martin (a solid and credible portrayal by Judge Reinhold). Zandalee has a torrid adulterous fling with sleazy and arrogant artist Johnny Collins (deliciously played to the slimy hilt by Nicolas Cage). Can the relationship between Thierry and Zandalee be salvaged? Or is everything going to fall apart and go to seed? Director Sam Pillsbury and screenwriter Mari Kornhauser lay on the tawdry soap opera-style histrionics something thick while attempting to tell a wannabe serious and insightful story about desire run amok and its potentially dangerous consequences; the plot goes gloriously off the rails in the laughably histrionic last third. The dialogue is likewise hilariously silly and vulgar (sample line: \"I wanna shake you naked and eat you alive\"). Better still, this flick certainly delivers plenty of tasty female nudity (the gorgeously statuesque Anderson looks smoking hot in the buff) and sizzling semi-pornographic soft-core sex scenes (Johnny and Zandalee doing the dirty deed in a church confessional booth rates as a definite steamy highlight). The tart'n'tangy New Orleans setting adds extra spice to the already steamy proceedings. With his long, scruffy black hair, greasy mustache, foul mouth, and coarse manners, Cage's Johnny is an absolute hoot as the single most grossly unappealing \"romantic\" lead to ever ooze his way onto celluloid. The cast deserve props for acting with admirable sincerity: Anderson, Cage and Reinhold all do respectable work with their parts, with fine support from Joe Pantoliano as Zandalee's merry flamboyant homosexual friend Gerri, Viveca Lindfors as Theirry's wise, perceptive mother Tatta, Aaron Neville as friendly bartender Jack, and Steve Buscemi as a funny, blithely shameless thief. Walt Lloyd's sharp and gleaming cinematography gives the picture an attractive glossy look. The flavorsome, harmonic score by Pray for Rain likewise hits the spot. A delightfully campy and seamy riot.
\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\nRecap: Zandalee is a young woman that feels more and more trapped in her marriage with Thierry. Thierry himself is struggling with the death of his father the previous year and has lost his way. He has submerged himself in work, laid of his writing, and Zandalee desperately misses the attraction between them. Into this enters Johnny, and old friend of Thierry's who once were artists in exile together. But Johnny has kept on painting, and just have a day job for the rent. He takes the day as it comes and leaves tomorrow to its destiny. There is an instant raw attraction between Zandalee and Johnny, and they enter into an affair. But Zandalee struggles with her lust to be desired and her conscience and love for her husband. But none of them, not Zandalee, not Johnny and not Thierry can stop the relationships between them to spin totally out of control.
Comments: It is set as a thriller. But maybe more a thriller of heart than a normal thriller where it's about life and death, and threat of violence. Not that a thriller of heart can't take on fatal proportions, but the threat comes from a different angle. And it is not really until the second half in Zandalee until the thriller emerges, and even though the foundation for it is laid in the first half, I can't really describe the genre as a thriller then. Much more of a romantic drama than anything else, but with the underlying currents of other genres. The developing thriller is there, but it also has more than a little tint of a sensual erotic kind. Because that is what it is all about, what drives the characters and therefore the entire story. Desire. The need to have, and the need to be.
In my opinion it is quite good, definitely a lot better than its current (4.1) rating anyway. It takes its time but it grows a good feeling of suspense, and it handles the erotic part very well, with taste. It is always an integral part of the story, needed to be there to give the story it's needed weight, and I never felt it was an excuse to show a naked breast or anything like that. But unfortunately the climax of the story comes well before the end, and the end itself feels kind of flat, even if in its own way kind of dramatic.
The cast is impressive, spearheaded by known actors like Nicholas Cage and Judge Reinhold. But the show is almost completely stolen by Erika Anderson. Beautiful and very adept at acting out the sometimes subtle feelings of desire, she excels were both Cage and Reinhold sometimes goes a bot overboard and become a little rough. Her career afterward is too thin for the talent she shows in Zandalee, I can only hope it is because of her own choices. Also two personal favorites appear in small roles that give some extra edge to the movie, it is Steve Buscemi and Joe Pantoliano.
When you're in the right mood this is a very good movie, it could have used another end to get the credit it really deserves.
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\nThanks should be given to the Hong Kong VCD/DVD distributors that I only paid US$1.4 and I could have such a surprisingly delightful enjoyment.
Adultery? How common in our modern days. Eva grabbed her two children and kidnapped Nick to chase after Luis and Charlotte to Italy. She wants her revenge done but at the end, she also commits the same crime of Luis: she had sex with Nick.
In this small indie production, Vivian Naefe dealt with the teething problems in modern marriage with a light heart. How can one dare treat marriage seriously in this fast-food time where people are now of higher mobility in physical, mental and technology areas? Conjugal commitment asks for too high a price that most people would choose to succumb to circumstances. Nick once trusted Charlotte but he fell for Eva after that kidnap journey which forced him to experience much growth.
Most viewers may feel happy about the ending because Eva and Nick come together, well, this should be the greatest retribution to the unfaithful act of their spouses. However, I want a sequel, I want to see how the four would develop after this exchange. Perhaps they may exchange back, how can one be so sure about the shaky love relationship.
Good acting and good scenery. The two little child-actors should not be neglected especially the boy when he cries at the reception of the hotel in Venezia. And of course, how can we forget the \"bella, bella\" scenery of the city.
\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 haven't seen much German comedy, but if this film is anything to go by, I'm compelled to see more! The simple but effective storyline takes two very different people on a trip from Germany to Italy after Eva, an unemployed mother of two, discovers that her artist husband is having an affair with the wife of a wealthy lawyer. I won't reveal anything further, but what results is a very funny series of events with the perfect conclusion. My interest in international cinema has expanded since I first saw this film. I recommend it to anyone (any adult... don't let the inclusion of the young children fool you into thinking it's a family film) who love comedy - even those unfamiliar with the language.
\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\nJust re-saw this movie after thirty seven years. I was eleven years old and caught this flick on South Beach at the long gone Cinema Theater on Washington Avenue. In 1969, I thought Where it's At! was a very good movie. Now, however, after almost forty years, it's not as good as it was. Times have changed, and this movie is now a tired old re-hash of the war between the generations. It did however, catch a place in time which is just a memory. It's really interesting to see the mod fashions, the old Vegas, a slim Don Rickles, chain smoking, and a hip opening song. The acting was decent, the script somewhat out-dated, but the memories were still fresh. Where it's At, may not be where it's at for you, but for me, it was still a nice and entertaining trip down memory lane.
\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 in 1969 when it was first released at the Cameo Theater on South Beach, now the famous Crowbar Night-club. It was the last year of the wild 60s and this movie really hit home. It's got everything; the generation gap, the sexual revolution, the quest for success, and the conflict between following one's family \"traditions\" to those of seeking ones own way through life.
It was a fast paced, highly enjoyable movie. Vegas was at it's hippiest peak, Sin City in all it's glory. Beautiful women, famous cameos, laughs, conflict, romance, and even a happy ending. A very enjoyable time over all.
The poster from this film rests on my bedroom wall. I look at it and I go back in time; a time of my youth and my times with my dad, a great time in my life.
\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 stumbled onto this movie when I was eBay'ing Caesars Palace stuff, as I'm enamoured with its rich Vegas history as the last of the original luxury resorts still standing in good condition (unless you count Bally's, the original MGM Grand). In that respect, this movie delivers full-force. You're given a grand tour of the Caesars property,which in spite of all the renovations and additions they've done over the 40 years it's been open, looks alarmingly similar. As a film overall, the plot is somewhat difficult to follow, thanks in large part to the horrendous editing. And when I say horrendous, I'm not using that word lightly. There's a lot of spliced-in, second-long snippets of Vegas traffic, casino crowds, and even a scene where the Robert Drivas character is having a conversation with his father about how much he's grown up, and without any explanation, he (Drivas) goes (in those infamous snippets) from being himself, to a baby, to a little boy, and then back to himself while talking back and forth with his father. (That doesn't give away any plot details; if anything, one can be prepared for it and maybe they won't be as flabbergasted as I was by the editing.) The film has aged well otherwise, and has a good message about the inherent differences between a father and his son that most guys could relate to in some form or fashion.
\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 extraordinary Rosemary Forsyth is the main reason to see this flick. Why she never became a bigger store may never be known. But she is exceptional and steals every scene she's in. Garson Kanin directed this piece of fluff and the cast is first rate, with Robert Drivas and Brenda Vaccaro especially memorable. A \"9\" out of \"10.\"
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWithout a doubt, Private Lessons II is the greatest movie I have ever seen. A Japanese import (poorly) translated into English, its a joy to watch. Not much of it makes sense, but that doesn't matter. It's the greatest comedy around without ever being intentionally funny.
The film is rare and unavailable on video, but I have caught it a couple of time late, late at night on pay cable. My taped copy has been watched dozens and dozens of times as I slowly, person-by-person, introduce this film gem to the world.
Joanna Pacula plays the tutor/lover to Ken, our hero. (She apparently was just working for her check.) Ken is played by Goro Inagaki, of the Japanese pop band SMAP, who gives it his all and has great hair through out the movie. Stacy Edwards, of \"In the Company of Men\" fame, shows up in the movie too and is probably happy that she found other film work afterwards.
It takes at least three viewings to sorta figure out what the plot is. On repeating viewing you can enjoy elements like the abnormal amount of vases Ken has in his house (at least 50) or that Ken is wearing a shirt with embroidered husks of corn in the movie's finale.
The movie is predictable, but highly quotable. My friends and I reenact entire scenes. Yes, it sounds like we're lame losers and we are ... but we're lame losers who have seen \"Private Lessons II.\" Be one of ten people in the world who have seen this movie. You'll thank me for 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\nAfter tracking it down for half a year, I finally found a copy and it was not disappointing.
Not disappointing because I'm one of those die hard SMAP fans who need to see all their works and I finally got to see the so called hot film of Goro. But I couldn't believe Goro was forced to make a movie as such. In his respectable self now, I'm sure he cringes that he made this movie. Nevertheless, they found the perfect person for looking embarrassed, ill at ease and half depressed most of the time.
Man, I still can't believe he made this movie...I had to cover my eyes at many parts not believing he really made such a movie....hahahaha....
But I'm glad to have watched it. Thank goodness he has grown up....
\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 probably one of the worst movies ever made. It's...terrible. But it's so good! It's probably best if you don't watch it expecting a gripping plot and something fantastically clever and entertaining, because you're going to be disappointed. However, if you want to watch it so you can see 50 million vases and Goro's fantastic hair/bad English, you're in for a real treat. The harder you think about the film, the worse it gets, unless you're having a competition to spot the most plot holes/screw ups, in which case you've got hours of entertainment ahead. I'd only really recommend this film for the bored or the die-hard Smap fans. And even then, the latter should be a bit careful, because Goro's Japanese fans were a bit upset about it, they thought he was selling himself out. (He wasn't really, not when Johnny Kitagawa (who was the executive producer) can do that for him).
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film was quite a surprise. I wasn't expecting much, to be honest. Greta Garbo's first Hollywood film? So what? Probably something rough and with the usual exaggerated arm-waving and facial contortions that low-grade silent films so often show.
Well, was I mistaken. Greta Garbo must have just shocked the studio people as much as she did me, because this film made her a star, and deservedly so. She instinctively understood the power of just standing still, or of simply holding a meaningful expression for a long, lingering moment so its effect could be felt and not just seen. I kept thinking to myself, how did this modern actress get into a creaky silent film? She was just years and years ahead of her time.
The story isn't all that interesting, it is the usual tale of love found and lost. It is only the performance of Garbo as Leonora, the poor village girl who makes good in the big city and then returns to get the man who got away, that gives it life. Co-star Ricardo Cortez is serviceable, but his character is never really developed and he is demeaned by the script throughout. At one point he is made to wear Garbo's clothes, leave in a huff, then ignominiously return and give them back. And let's not even talk about his horrible final scenes with Garbo and then his wife. Way too ordinary, he didn't have much of a career after this and I can understand why. But he suffices as the somewhat mystifying object of Leonora's obsession.
There is one utterly fantastic line in this film that just says it all. \"Leonora, you are becoming conspicuous.\" Yes, conspicuous indeed.
If you really want to know what it's all about without seeing the whole film, just watch the last 30 seconds or so - Garbo's glance as she sits quite alone in her luxurious car says everything. \"She must be so happy, she has everything she wants\" - yes, Garbo's face says it all about that. I have to see this one again, Garbo is just amazing.
\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\nGreta Garbo's American film debut is an analogy of how our lives can be swept off course by fate and our actions, as in a torrent, causing us to lose a part of ourselves along the way.
Greta plays Leonora, a poor peasant girl in love with Ricardo Cortez's character Don Rafael, a landowner. Ricardo is in love with her too, but is too easily influenced by his domineering mother. Leonora ends up homeless and travels to Paris, where she becomes a famous opera singer and develops the reputation for being a loose woman. In reality, part of her attitude is bitterness over Rafael's abandonment.
She returns to her home to visit her family and eventually confronts Rafael. Surprisingly, no one knows that she's the famous La Brunna, and Garbo acts up her role as the diva she truly was and re prised with such cool haughtiness in her later portrayals.
Ricardo Cortez reminds one a lot of Valentino in looks in this part, and he was groomed to be a Valentino clone by MGM, though he never thought he could be in reality and he was right. He is believable in an unsympathetic part as a weak willed Mama's boy, and allows himself to age realistically but comically at the end of the movie. He fails to win Leonora when she returns home, and later when he follows her, his courage is undermined.
This movie is beautifully shot, with brilliant storm sequences and the sets depicting Spain at the time are authentic looking. There are also some fine secondary performances by old timers Lucien Littlefield, Tully Marshall, and Mack Swain.
Although this is a story of lost love and missed chances, I don't think Leonora and Rafael would have been happy together, as he needed a more traditional wife and she was very much a career woman, and I don't think would have been happy in a small village. The ending is true to life and pulls no punches.
See this one as Garbo's American film debut and a precursor of things to come
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMGM were unsure of how to market Garbo when she first arrived in Hollywood. Mayer had a lot of faith in her and her appearance in \"Torrent\" justified that. She did not speak a word of English so she must have found it difficult to work, also Ricardo Cortez did not make it very easy for her.
The torrent of the title is the river Juscar that winds through a sleepy little village in Spain. Leonora (Greta Garbo) hopes someday that her voice will bring great wealth and happiness to her struggling parents. Leonora and Don Rafael (Ricardo Cortez) are in love but he is under his mother's thumb and cannot get her to consent to his marriage. Meanwhile Dona Brull (Martha Mattox) has evicted Leonora's parents from their home and they send Leonora to Paris hoping to give her a chance to further her singing career. Leonora sends a note to Rafael, urging him to remember his promise and come with her. His mother is enraged and forbids him to go - so of course he caves in to her request.
Years pass. Leonora has a new identity - she has become La Brunna, the toast of the Paris Opera. Rafael has turned out just as his mother wished - he is running for office and is courting a \"safe\" young girl, Remedios (Gertrude Olmstead) who is a \"hog\" heiress. Mack Swain plays her father. Leonora decides to visit her old home, and I agree - why hasn't she helped her mother out. Her mother is still living at the family home, working as a skivvy and taking in washing. Leonora and Rafael meet but Leonora is full of ridicule. Garbo is so enchantingly beautiful, it is hard to believe that he could be happy with Remedios.
The dam is bursting and the torrent is flooding the town. Leonora's house is in the path of the raging river but when Rafael attempts to rescue her he finds she is quite safe. They then re-kindle their romance. There is a \"horizontal\" love scene in this film, very similar to the one in \"Flesh and the Devil\".
Dona Brull goes spreading gossip about how Leonora really got her wealth and Leonora's mother believes her and tells Leonora to go. Rafael meets Leonora just before she is about to tour America. Again he intends to go with her but again he lets her down. He spends so much time listening to other people destroy her reputation - \"what will she do for you but drag you down\". The irony is she has just secured a top government job for him if he comes with her. They meet again, years later - she is as fresh and vibrant as ever - he looks older than his years, bowed down by mediocrity.
It is certainly a good film with a positive message to follow your heart.
Lucien Littlefield does a good job as Cupido, the barber and Leonora's old and faithful friend.
Highly Recommended.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film has to be viewed in the right frame of mind. First, the central father-son relationship makes it pretty clear that the film was intended as a prequel to his Wong Fei Hung film \"Drunken Master\" (ideas from this film recur in \"Drunken Master II), and not \"Young Master\"; that Chan backed away from this plan and renamed the characters indicates that he himself was not convinced the material was coming together properly; and, indeed, the film conveys a sense of being incomplete; for instance, the romantic relationship around which half the plot turns is left utterly hanging at the end of the film. \"Young Master\", from the same period, also feels underdone, but at least all its central threads are tied together at the end. This film feels as though Chan wrestled with the plot and characters trying to find his central theme, only to abandon the effort, possibly due to time and budget.
Or perhaps the film is simply over-ambitious. This is an important turning point film in Chan's career, because he commits himself to development of the central character above all other concerns - which is why there's such a lack of kung fu throughout the film. Chan wants to make an historical romantic comedy that just happens to have kung fu in it. But both the historical element and the romantic element come across as little more than plot-twists.
That leaves us with the comedy. Since Chan's concern is character-development, the comedy is largely character driven - as in the conflict between Chan's character and his best friend, an argument over a girl. But there's plenty of slapstick as well. Frankly, I find the comedy amusing enough to forgive the incompleteness of the plot.
This film represents an effort on Chan's part to find a viable formula that he can use and develop over time. It doesn't quite work, and Chan would only find that formula after abandoning the historical elements of his earlier films, with the making of the contemporary action comedy \"Police Story\". But going back to view this film is still very informative as to how Chan worked his way through the historical genre, and perhaps why he abandoned it.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is bufoonery! and I loved it! The \"dragon lord\" (Jacky Chan) and his buddy, \"cowboy\", totally made the movie fun, meaningful, and just plain silly. The movie is a rare blend of a good vs. evil fight and (somehow) the wonders and fun that is growing up. Long Shao Ye takes the viewer through the daily activities of the young \"dragon lord\" (so named because he is the son of a wealthy family) and \"cowboy\", which include implementing clever, elaborate ways to escape studying (with the help of the entire household, including the tutor), competing in rather boyish (and idiotically interesting) ways to gain the affection of a local girl, competing in \"soccer\" (you will see what i mean) and the list goes on. Somehow they find themselves in the midst of a fight to save the a shipment of valuable antiques and the lives of several people.
The movie has its serious moments. But they do not depress, but rather inspire. The playfulness of the boys are not lost in this exchange, but is actually employed against evil. What I really loved about this movie is how it ends. Not the typical confrontation (which in itself was awesome), but well, you'll see. Let me just say it truly captures the spirit of the movie.
silly, witty, meaningful, and nostalgic. great movie.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Dragonlord\" sees Chan returning to his role of \"Dragon\" from \"The Young Master\". Not much has carried over from the first film though. \"Tiger\", his older brother, is nowhere to be seen; neither is the Marshall, his daughter or his son played superbly by Yuen Biao in the original film. Dragon does have the same master though - presumably all the other students have moved on to other things. (Dragon's laziness at training is portrayed heavily in this film, so maybe he's still studying!)
Originally titled \"Young Master In Love\", this film sees Dragon (for the first sixty minutes at least) pursuing a villager girl in various idiotic and slapstick ways. His rival for her affection is his friend (inappropriately named \"Cowboy\") played comically by the longtime Chan Stunt-team member Mars. We see various scenes where their silly schemes backfire. It is one of these scenes that we (thankfully) find \"Dragon\" in over his head.
This film is notorious in that it failed expectations at the box office. That said, I'm sure the expectations were pretty high, and I feel that this film has never had a fair judgment based on it's own merits. But even when I try to do this, I still feel that there is a problem with the film. It seems quite unfocused, sometimes rushed, and I think the action is too sporadic and not as brilliant as Chan's other work from this period.
The thing that really saves the film is the ending sequence. As in \"The Young Master\", there is a fantastic final reel that it full of incredibly exhausting action - you really feel every blow. And again, Chan goes up against the same rival from \"The Young Master\" (is it the same character?), and the timing and energy here is brilliant. Chan's style of using every last bit of his environment to help defeat his opponent - not just relying on pure physical ability - is as apparent here as anywhere else. The barn they fight in is full of clever little prop gags and improvisations. This is an absolute highlight of the film and one of Chan's incredible career.
It's not necessary to see the prequel before seeing \"Dragonlord\", in fact, it might even raise more questions than what it hopes to answer. But it must be said that the original film is the superior film, and \"Dragonlord\", with it's focus on girl-chasing and team-sports does seem baffling. Luckily, the few fight scenes it offers (plus a fantastic shuttle-cock scene) push it over the line as a must-see film in this genre.
\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 review is for the extended cut of this movie.
I first watched Dragon Lord when I bought it on DVD many years ago. I always liked this movie and you can read some of the more positive reviews of it to get the general idea.
That being said. I've always found the storyline a bit confusing. The movie is, after all, a love story. And it always seemed strange to me that a love story should end with a 20 minute fight scene.
Well, in the extended version this is no longer so. The old \"original\" version begins off with a huge barrel-climb/rugby-like sequence which is the new ending sequence in the extended version. The opening sequence is Dragon(Jackie Chan) hanging around his house and pretending to be training and reciting whenever his father is around.
Other sequenced have also been shift or prolonged in the extended cut and the story makes a lot more sense when you watch it. The pacing is also better and overall it just works better. It feels more like a love story and doesn't leave you asking questions about why it ends so drastically and dramatically as the regular version does.
I suggest everyone who is a Hong-Kong cinema, or just plain Jackie Chan fanatic to get a hold of the extended version and watch the movie the way it was originally intended.(Or at least that's how I think it was intended. Why else would they make it and rearrange some of the scenes) When I was done watching it, I felt like I had watched a completely new Jackie Chan movie although most of the sequences were the same.
\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 an above average Jackie Chan flick, due to the fantastic finale and great humor, however other then that it's nothing special. All the characters are pretty cool, and the film is entertaining throughout, plus Jackie Chan is simply amazing in this!. Jackie and Wai-Man Chan had fantastic chemistry together, and are both very funny!, and i thought the main opponent looked really menacing!, however the dubbing was simply terrible!. The character development is above average for this sort of thing!, and the main fight is simply fantastic!, plus some of the bumps Jackie takes in this one are harsh!. There is a lot of really silly and goofy humor in this, but it amused me, and the ending is hilarious!, plus all the characters are quite likable. It's pretty cheap looking but generally very well made, and while it does not have the amount of fighting you would expect from a Jackie Chan flick, it does enough to keep you watching, plus one of my favorite moments in this film is when Jackie (Dragon) and Wai-Man Chan(Tiger), are playing around with a rifle and it goes off!. This is an above average Jackie Chan flick, due to the fantastic finale, and great humor, however other then that it's nothing great, still it's well worth the watch!. The Direction is good. Jackie Chan does a good job here with solid camera work, fantastic angles and keeping the film at a fast pace for the most part. The Acting is very good!. Jackie Chan is amazing as always, and is amazing here, he is extremely likable, hilarious, as usual does some crazy stunts, had fantastic chemistry with Wai-Man Chan, kicked that ass, and played this wonderful cocky character, he was amazing!, i just wished they would stop dubbing him!. (Jackie Rules!!!!!). Wai-Man Chan is funny as Jackie's best friend, i really liked him, he is also a very good martial artist. Rest of the cast do OK i guess. Overall well worth the watch!. *** out of 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\nPanic delivers the goods ten fold with Oscar caliber performances from William H Macy, Neve Campbell, and Donald Sutherland. In a movie about the choices we make and the consequences we live with. Chillingly Honest and thought provoking, Panic is easily one of the best film to come out of Hollywood in years. The impact stays with you right after you leave the theater.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Panic\" is a captivating, blurred-genre film about a brooding and conflicted middle aged hitman's reconciliation of infatuation with a younger uninhibited hairstylist, his love of wife and son, his duty to his employer/father with his own identity. Although the film has a nebulous purpose and an ambiguous ending, it is a superb production in almost all aspects. The characters' clarity and sincerity in such an improbable story may both fascinate and annoy audiences.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI gather from reading the previous comments that this film went straight to cable. Well, I paid to see it in a theatre, and I'm glad I did because visually it was a striking film. Most of the settings seem like they were made in the early 60s (except for the shrink's office, which was dated in a different way), and if you leave the Neve Campbell sequences out, the whole film has a washed- out early 60s ambience. And the use of restaurants in the film was fascinating. For a first-time director whose background, I believe, is in writing, he has a great eye. Within the first ten minutes I felt the plot lacked plausibility, so I just willingly suspended my disbelief and went along for the ride. In terms of acting and the depiction of father-son, mother-son, husband-wife, parent-child relationships, the film was spot-on. William H. Macy, a pleasure to watch, seems to be filling the void left by the late Tony Perkins, if this and Magnolia are any indication. Tracey Ullman as the neglected wife was quite moving, to me. It was a three-dimensional depiction of a character too often viewed by society as two-dimensional. Of course, Donald Sutherland can add this to his collection of unforgettable portrayals. The depiction of the parents (Bain/Sutherland) reminded me, in an indirect way, of Vincent Gallo's BUFFALO '66, although toned-down quite a bit! I would definitely pay money to see a second film from this director. He has the self-discipline of a 50s b-crimefilm director (something P.T.Anderson will never have!), yet he has a visual style and a way with actors that commands attention.
\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\nWhat a surprising treat to come across on late television. Had I only read a brief plot rundown on a television listing before seeing the movie, I would have passed. The idea of a movie about a hit-man-seeing-a shrink-wanting-to leave-the-business-and-falling-in-love....sounds trite. But the film works. From the start of the movie, it's clear the man carries a weight on his shoulders, before he even says a word. The look and feel of the film is perfect. dark, but not obnoxiously so.
Aside from the hit-man family aspect which provides a touch of surrealism, Macy's character grapples with his marriage, and his father's control. Macy shows a repressed sadness, and his bedtime talks with his young son are amazing. The young boy shows acting skills well beyond his years, and the interaction between the father and son is so very natural, personal and loving.
This is one of the best movies I've seen in a while, and I can't believe I came across it by accident on late night television.
\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 is either loving or hating this film. I am going with loving. It is so well shot and so well acted. Beautiful. This film is for people who appreciate well crafted film making. If you are not a fan of well done films of course you would hate this. But if you like the tops of acting, photography, story and development, look no further then here.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n
I really liked this film. One of those rare films that Hollywood Really does not make anymore. William H Macy Is Just great as the hit man with a soul, and Neve Campbell is just flat out fantastic as the woman who puts his life on the track of redemption.
If you have a chance, see this film. It earns it's praise
\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 extended nuclear family, united in business as well as in personal life, is examined in this serious study of a grown son's conflict with his father's desire that he remain in the family business. This triggers a midlife crisis which may or may not be ameliorated by an affair and retreat to a shrink's couch. Very fine acting by all. A sleeper that deserves wide attention.
\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 first time director (Bromell) has assembled a small but powerful cast to look at the world of a middle aged, middle class, depressed hit-man and his struggle with his relationship with his father. This film in less than 90 minutes presents an incredibly interesting contrast in human nature. David Dorfman as the 6 year old son of William H. Macy is the most refreshing little actor I've seen in awhile. Macy is brilliant in a part that almost seems written for him as a self tortured sole struggling to break the reins of his father and his business. It's always great to see Donald Sutherland and here he's wonderful as the callous father of Macy. The films alternate audio track is well worth it to hear the director explain how he picked the cast, locations, and filmed the movie. The basic dolby 2 channel sound is adequate for this film and well recorded. The cinematography creates the mood along with a very subtle musical background. Any film buff or observer of human nature will enjoy this one especially if he's a fan of contradiction.
\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 a few months ago on cable, and it was fantastic. William H Macy is one of my favorite actors, and his performance was just amazing. He makes you care for his character, even when he is clearly doing the wrong thing, and Neve Campbell gives a performance that is with out a doubt the best performance I have seen by an actress this year. She is fantastic as a wild young woman who is wise beyond her years.
Donald Sutherland is just plain creepy as Macy's father, and John Ritter is fine as a shrink stuck in the middle of everything that is happening.
I wish that this was in the theater because I feel that it's a movie that should be view by a wider audience. That's a shame, because it's a hell of allot better that most of the new movies coming into the theater now.

\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie displays the kind of ensemble work one wishes for in every film. Barbara Bain and Donald Sutherland (who play husband and wife)are positive chilling, discussing the \"family business\" as if it were a grocery store or a dry cleaners. Macy, Campbell, Ullman, and Ritter are also terrific. They play off each other like members of a top-notch theatrical troupe, who realize that a quality product requires each actor to support the others unselfishly. And finally, there's Sammy (David Dorfman). What an amazing performance from a child...and what an uncanny resemblance he has to Ullman, whose son he plays!
We're treated to a unique story in \"Panic,\" and that's a rarity in these days of tired formulaic crap. The dialogue is sharp and smart, and this relatively short film nevertheless has the power to elicit a full range of emotions from the viewer. There are places to laugh, to be shocked, to be horrified, to be saddened, to be aroused, to be angry, and to love. It's not a movie that leaves you jumping for joy, but when it's over you're more than satisfied knowing you've spent the last ninety minutes experiencing a darn good piece of work.
More of us would go to theatres if we were treated to quality fare like this. When are the powers that be in Hollywood going to wake up? It's a real shame when something this good fails to get exposure beyond festivals and households fortunate enough to have cable.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt is always sad when \"fringe\" movies such as this are overlooked by the majority of filmgoers. \"Panic\" is a wonderfully compelling and poignant study of a character who feels trapped in the pointlessness of his own life.
William H. Macy, as Alex, is as convincing as always. This fine actor seems to have a special talent for pulling at your heartstrings, no matter how flawed his characters may be; we may not always condone the lifestyles of the protagonists he plays, but the emotions of fear and confusion that he evokes in us are often all too painfully familiar. The title, \"Panic,\" initially seems paradoxical, given the lack of overt emotion. At one point Alex tells his doctor that he rarely gets angry. Yet, as this story unfolds, it becomes increasingly obvious that rage and desperation, not indifference, are the driving forces behind this man's existence.
More than once I was reminded of his performance in \"Fargo,\" another strongly character-driven movie. In both \"Fargo\" and \"Panic\" we witness a middle aged man who somehow seems to have stepped out of synch with the rest of life. He has lost his way, and the only way back deceptively appears to be though the darkness. He knows he is making bad choices, but desperation overpowers self-control and common sense.
Alex connects with Sarah, a 23 year old woman (mesmorizingly played by Neve Campbell), whom he meets in a doctor's office. Thematically, this union is less coincidence, more the work of fate. Alex finds a certain comfort being with Sarah, sensing perhaps that she is a fellow drifter, like him, someone who has lost her way and is floating aimlessly through the rest of her life, waiting powerlessly for its inevitable conclusion.
Opting for movies such as this is a shrewd and convincing way for Neve Campbell to answer those critics who question her acting abilities. Too often it is the characters she has played who are the weakness, offering Campbell no depth in which to flex her acting muscles. This performance, however, may be an eye-opener for many.
In a perfect movie world, not only would there be many more films like \"Panic,\" but also they would reach and be appreciated by a much wider audience. If you watch movies for the richness and depth of characterization, rather than merely the latest state-of-the-art special effects, then, for you, \"Panic\" is unmissable. A+.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"