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\nWhen I started watching \"Fay Grim\", I had no idea that it was a sequel to \"Henry Fool\". Now, the latter was not a movie that I envisioned as having a sequel. But one has arrived, and it's quite good. I assume that you've seen the original, so I won't explain it. This one starts with Fay (Parker Posey) living with her son whom she had with deadbeat Henry (Thomas Jay Ryan). Simon (James Urbaniak) is still in jail. One day, the son gets expelled for bringing a pornographic toy to school. But this is no ordinary toy. It holds a secret that explains much of what happened in the first movie. And this secret delves deeper into geopolitics than \"Syriana\".
I must say that I'm quite impressed with what Hal Hartley has accomplished here. Maybe this one doesn't quite reach the original's quality, but it certainly takes a good look at what's going on in the world. And the end leaves open the possibility for another sequel.
Also starring Jeff Goldblum.
\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\nHenry Fool is a better film. But this is the perfect way to follow-up a film like 'Henry Fool.' To take Henry very seriously, his 'lies' and his mysterious aura. Even the opening shot of 'Henry Fool' when Simon puts his ear to the ground as Henry comes walking over the hill is more fully manifest through 'Fay Grim.' The over-the-top jokes, that are more or less meta-jokes (about the writing of the film and the jokes themselves), are good but the opening of the film is a little saturated in them. Also Hartley's use of Dutch angles throughout the film is jarring, yes, it's intention, but it feels forced and over-used, it goes beyond jarring to, what I'd like to call, annoying. It's a flawed film, but a must see for any Hartley or 'Henry Fool' fan.
And don't listen to stupid reviews, don't watch this unless you've seen the first film. The intrigue, satire and wit of this movie is totally lost if you haven't seen Henry Fool. It's a sequel. That's just dumb.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs someone who has seen and followed Hartley's public work for several years I think much of what used to be fiction told through true stories has been elevated into obscure philosophical mind games.
While entertaining, Fay Grim is another step in the Henry Fool line of thinking, where the movie reflects the quality of an object within the movie itself. In Henry Fool, the object is the memoirs... In Fay Grim, the object is encrypted memoirs - which are themselves stolen, forged and trans-mutated into something so obscure it can't really make any sense - i.e. the process of script writing and film-making in the modern era - where most blockbuster films are little more than a mash-up of the past. That is, in a philosophical sense, what Fay Grim is all about. The object, perhaps, is the tragedy that shock is now cliché and dull (as hinted in the opening scenes at the publishers office).
That being said, many of the movie best points are lost if you do not understand Henry's character and the significance of the memoirs being looked for. Henry is a thinly veiled devil, first visiting Simon as a modern Faust, etc. Without understanding how tragic Henry's character is, much of the quality of Fay Grim's plot and story is lost.
And there is not enough 'detail' expressed through verbal flashbacks - knowing the plot of Henry Fool cannot compare to 'feeling' the quality of the characters as one did in Henry Fool, and so I think for someone who walks into this movie cold there is about 10 minutes of 'so what' responses to highly constructed dialog and then that's it.
However, Henry Fool was also my least favorite Hartley film until I realized that it was bad - putrid and infested - precisely because Henry Fool's confessions were bad... not just raunchy or dirty, but inescapably broken. Henry can not even be a proper villain - and this is perhaps the tragic flaw that makes him most endearing... like Gollum in Tolkien's works, Henry is pitiable.
That doesn't come across in Fay Grim, although Henry's dialog is excellent. What does come across is that the entire movie is constructed as an encryption - a sort of molding of another plot around what ends up being yet another bad story to add to henry's confessions. It is an interesting twist, but one that can't really be digested without viewing the first film. Perhaps showing more of Henry earlier on would have been better than having the publisher describe the basic storyline of the first movie - although this plot is also not really what the first movie was about - unless perhaps one is a casual observer.
Part of the encryption? Hard to say... a little disappointed at the sex gimmicks though. Cheesy.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm one of those people who'd crawl a mile through broken glass to see a Hal Hartley film. From TRUST and IRIS to HENRY FOOL and (my Hartley favorite) NO SUCH THING, Hal's unique brand of movies are an acquired taste. Infusing equal parts mystery/espionage with wispy comedy seems to be his forte. The comedy isn't in your face necessarily, and often runs throughout an entire scene before coming to fruition. And that's the case with FAY GRIM, the sequel to Henry Fool.
Parker Posey stars as Fay Grim, abandoned wife of Henry Fool and mother to Henry's only son Ned. Fay lives a quiet life until she comes home one day to find a CIA agent in her kitchen. His name is Fulbright (Jeff Goldblum, MAN OF THE YEAR) and he wants Henry's notebooks. There are many Henry Fool notebooks and they were all previously believed to contain nothing but mad wanderings. Apparently there's much more to them. Secrets weapons research or paths to terrorists? Who knows but Henry. Agent Fulbright tells Fay that her husband is dead but this is quickly surmised as a ruse to get Fay out of her home and searching for Henry (and it works ...but not the way they think).
Fay battles multiple spy rings to gather Henry's notebooks and to seek him out. She also makes a deal with the CIA to get her brother Simon (James Urbaniak) out of prison (he'd helped Henry escape the country in the original Henry Fool film.) Multiple overlapping events occur in rapid succession: spy rings shoot each other to death, Henry is discovered being held in \"safety\" by a jihadist, Fay frees her brother but unknowingly risks her son's life, and the CIA gets its comeuppance for putting Fay in danger.
Hal Hartley obviously loves to play with themes. And he does so to the extreme here. Even character names (Grim, Fool, Fulbright, Fogg) have implicit meanings of their own that are quite funny. The over-the-top espionage films of ol' are given plenty of screen time, too, as guns blaze in stop-motion sequences, never striking our heroine even though she's right in the line of fire.
Now that I've heaped praise on this creation, I will say that Parker Posey's excessive portrayal of Fay Grim isn't the best part of the film, which is a shame considering how much time she's on-screen. I realize this was probably what Mr. Hartley wanted: an uncurbed woman with hand gestures to the Italian extreme. But it was still painful to watch at times.
Even so, fans will probably devour Fay Grim and beg for more. Though this wasn't my favorite Hal Hartley film, I know I'm ready.
\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\nFay Grim is a true example of what I call a completed puzzle film. It has all the pieces of acting, direction, storyline, and entertainment value. They all fit together and when done so create a masterpiece, Fay Grim.
This film follows a single mother Fay Grim trying to raise her son to not grow up to be her father who ran away from the law and went missing. Soon the CIA contacts Fay in desperate pursuit to find 8 journals of her husband Henry's. These journals were filled with confessions of his long past in the CIA and his involvement with countries and their government doings. Fay is sent to find these journals, in return to release her brother from prison, and is sent on a cat-and-mouse chase all over Europe to recover these journals and learn of the hidden secrets of her husbands past she never knew about.
Parker Posey had already been an actress I liked after I watched her in The OH in Ohio and Best in Show. She brought liveliness to these two comedic roles of hers, but Fay Grim was a far different role than the other two movies. Posey made me believe what was happening on screen, I felt for her, I rooted for her, and I wanted to know more. She grabs you while she is on screen and when she is off you can't stop thinking about what is happening to her.
I haven't seen any other previous works by writer/director Hal Hartley but I believe I will look into viewing some of his earlier films if they are half as good as Fay Grim was.
If you decide to make a smart movie choice next time you decide to rent a movie or purchase a DVD I'd highly urge you to choose Fay Grim. If you have any common sense on how a film should be you will enjoy this movie immensely.
\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\nFay, the sister of the notorious Nobel prize-winning smut poet Simon Grim, still loves Henry Fool. Their son receives an ingenious orgy-in-a-box from an undisclosed sender and a chase across three continents ensues, involving a supremely sad-sack collection of government agents, terrorists, flight attendants, and bellhops.
Parker Posey delivers a perfectly timed comic performance, including some brilliant physical work. With strong contributions by Jasmin Tabatabai and Saffron Burrows, Fay Grim proves in the best Billy Wilder tradition that nothing is funnier than a beautiful woman in trouble.
Another good score by Hartley (and thanks in the credits to the American Academy in Berlin, where Hartley served as a fellow in Fall 2004).
\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 seeing this film months ago, it keeps jumping back into my consciousness and I feel I must buy it or at least see it again, even though I watched it at least 3 times when I rented it at that point.
I fell in love with Hal Hartley's directing many years ago - I found that these films could make me laugh in an place that is rarely entertained. It is a strange feeling, granted, and I assume most people out there really just don't get it, or it makes them feel confused and somewhat uncomfortable - I guess I just really get it - its as if these films were made for me.
Although I don't remember if I actually laughed out loud during this film, it remains one of the funniest films I've seen in many years. If you don't see the humor of the grocery bag Fay carries from the street to a church, to her brother's publisher's office, to her son's principal's office you may lack the intelligence to be highly impressed by this film. The bag is a silent character in itself, being dragged around as an icon of motherhood the usually brash, bitchy Parker Posey must carry before the international intrigue of the remainder of the film besets her.
I consider \"Henry Fool\" my least favorite of Hartley's films. I honestly don't remember it very well - I think the character himself was so despicable I found it tedious. Hartley's forte seems to be feminine character development.
Aside from Posey's brilliance, it was wonderful to see Elina Lowensohn, one of my favorite actresses, again. Her extravagant naiveté is perfect for Hartley's direction. His ability to make the outrageous seem banal helps define his style as a delicious chronic irony throughout.
This film erupts into a highly relevant international intrigue story, explaining political situations in Afganistan. This is never suspected at the beginning. The complexity of this film's development is unparalleled.
This is the epitome of a \"stand alone\" sequel. The less you know about Henry Fool the more mystery is spun around him, the less you expect his appearance toward the end of the film - as an alcoholic chain-smoking complaint machine, hurling insults at his Islamic terrorist caretaker who somehow seems to respect him. Its like finding out Santa Claus is actually a 12-year-old schoolyard bully.
Although I was impressed and satisfied with Hartley's other recent films \"the Girl from Monday\" and \"No Such Thing\", \"Fay Grim\" goes far beyond what I expected, with a sense of humor and originality no Oscar winner would ever dare.
\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\nHenry Fool surprised me. I didn't expect it to entertain and amuse as well, or as strongly, as it did. Fay Grim continues to surprise in that it provides solid continuation to a story that seems not to need it. Once the viewer watches the first 20 minutes of the movie, however, it becomes blindingly aware that this is one of the BEST sequels to brilliant indie film. At least as good as Ginger Snaps Back, if not better.
I am a little disappointed that Jeff Goldblum's part is so small, but I'm happy he is a part of this short run. He is convincing and delightful as Agent Fulbright. Also a delight is Liam Aiken who quite aptly portrays Ned Grim, the son of Fay and Henry.
This movie is a pleasure for so many reasons. I am pleased, for example, to discover that Henry isn't really the loser he seems (by the end of Fool), and to further discover that he is, in fact, a genius...well, that really is a lovely stroke of the pen.
I am hoping they do a third...like the end of the trilogy. It seems to be missing. They should entitle it Ned Fool Grim and it should be Liam looking for his father, to validate the awesome change in his mother, and the sense of near-genius he himself feels welling inside him. Assuming, of course, that Fay continues withholding many of the most important facts from her son, concerning his father. It feels like it needs to be done. I'd buy it.
Even with more action, this is still not an action flick. It is more drama and intrigue...a mystery, of sorts. I'll watch it often.
It rates an 8.3/10 from...
the Fiend :.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've read a lot of comments about the film and how it's so hard for people to believe that it is a sequel to Henry Fool, and even though it technically is, I think that Fay Grim needs to be looked at as an entirely different film. Just because it is the sequel doesn't mean that it has to be a direct continuation of the first, and I enjoyed that so much about it. The whole point of the film was to change direction from the first, which makes sense because the movie isn't called Henry Fool 2, it's Fay Grim. All that aside, the film, I thought, was so well made and thought out that it actually surprised me. I was expecting to rent another nearly-released-straight-to-video film and have to endure 2 hours of bad editing and an almost hard to follow story-line (aka parker's last direct to video feature the Oh in Ohio) but this was so surprisingly well focused that it almost doesn't seem so, which I absolutely loved. There are so many nuances in the film making and writing that I crave to see in films, but never do. The cinematography was brilliant due to it's simplicity and truly making the film seem 'Grim' throughout - in terms of setting. The writing was so well put together as well, whoever said this movie isn't as witty as Henry Fool needs to watch again and actually listen; I almost can't even begin to explain how actually hilarious it was, and pertinent. And well, Parker Posey, who could complain? The scene in which Fool and Jalal were talking in the dark was so captivating and emotional. And I thought the spy-ness throughout the film was just so hilarious and spot on (in hindsight because i do agree that at times during you kind of felt lost). The main thing that struck me so powerfully about the film, and i believe the point of the film, was Parker's love and naivety about Fool, which was so endearing and turned, yes very quickly, from denial to outright passion. The last five minutes of the film were perfect. Obviously there were things that weren't excellent, but nothing is perfect; some of the acting was poor, and at times I did think that some of the new back story and dialogue about terrorism got a little hard to follow and out of hand, but in the end you got it and didn't even mind that at the time it may have slipped from your comprehension. (This may also have to do with Goldblum's tendency to talk extremely fast) On the whole I would say that it was probably one of the best films I've seen this year; stylistically pleasing, clever and witty writing, performances that were so impressive I now have gained new respect for some of the actors, and a truly touching film, and don't forget, a complete departure from Fool. Which was the point.
\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 seems Hal Hartley's films are kind of hit or miss with most audiences. This film will be no exception to that rule. Fay Grim acts as a sequel to Hartley's 'Henry Foole' from 1998. The focus this time is on Henry's ex wife (played to perfection by the always welcome Parker Posey), who is being pestered by CIA goons about Henry's unpublished book about all of his shady dealings. In the interim of all of this, Fay ends up on an odyssey,dealing with international spies,etc. The film does get a bit bogged down in the second half. If you've been a fan of Hal Hartley in the past, this is one not to be missed. For the novice Hartley first timer who has only heard of his film making technique, you might want to check out his earlier films before taking on this one (especially if you haven't seen 'Henry' yet). I admired the camera work,which at times reminded me of certain early Man Ray photography.
\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\nFay Grim is the continuation of a story begun ten years earlier with Hartley's Henry Fool. I haven't seen the earlier film, and I don't know if that's a good thing or not. I can only regard the current film on its own merits.
For most people, Hal Hartley's style of film-making is something that you either like or you don't. His combination of action, drama, absurdity and dry, ironic humour really resonates with me, and Fay Grim is no exception. It has an air of sharply-written intelligent parody that had myself and many in the Melbourne International Film Festival audience laughing out loud. For the first half of the film it was relentless and delivered with deadpan straightness. It's a style of humour sadly lacking in cinemas and a welcome relief to the mindless teen comedies that Hollywood pumps out like pancakes.
During the second half of the film, the humour starts to thin as the film morphs into an international espionage/conspiracy thriller. Whether this was Hartley's intention or whether he ran out of ideas is not clear, but I think a bit of editing or re-writing to cut fifteen minutes off the film would have maintained the film's original momentum.
The performances were generally good, particularly Parker Posey and Jeff Goldblum, who had the most screen time. Saffron Burrows, James Urbaniak, Carl Montgomery and Elina Löwensohn all played good support roles. The film's visuals were nice (set in New York, Paris, Berlin and Istanbul) and the music (also by Hartley) was good without being intrusive. The film is well-written and I enjoyed this it immensely. If you like Hartley's earlier work, you'll probably like this.
\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\nWho would've imagined -- Hal Hartley creates a filmic corollary to Syriana while retaining his signature idiosyncratic style. The fusion is highly entertaining.
Having not seen a Hal Hartley film for about a decade, I approached this one with some caution. His brilliant productions of the nineties had impressed critics and audiences with their unique style and dialog. The director's earlier films featured colorful characters and offered close observations of life -- often in the region of Long Island, New York or in New York City itself -- that were offbeat and insightful.
My initial caution stemmed from the description of this movie as a \"spy thriller\". To my pleasant surprise, Hartley manages to mesh his well established style and focus to produce a highly original drama of international intrigue. It works in more ways than one might imagine. Hartley's film retains the dialog and character focus that are his trademarks, along with a singular cinematographic style.
Moreover it is highly appropriate given the current situation in the world and the state of war that has been fostered by dark elements on all sides. Hartley has brought all his skills to something new -- a political film worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Syriana. Truly he is coming into his own. The cast does a fine job of interpreting Hartley's vision and style. Fans of Parker Posey will see her in full bloom here, still with us and more ripe and gorgeous than 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\nA Murder investigation goes on back stage while The Vanities, on its opening night, plays on to an unknowing audience. Odd combination of musical and murder mystery is worth a look for its cast, its production numbers, and the sheer novelty of the film.
Gertrude Michael has the showy role of a bitchy actress intent on stopping the marriage between the show's stars, Kitty Carlisle and Carl Brisson, as well as starring in the infamous \"Sweet Marijuana\" number (which was also on a 70s Bette Midler album). So while the chorus girls shuffle around backstage, bumbling detective Victor McLaglen ogles the girls while he tries to solve the backstage murder of an unknown woman.
We quickly learn that the maid (Dorothy Stickney) loves Brisson from afar, that the wardrobe lady (Jessie Ralph) is Brisson's mother, and that the stage manager (Jack Oakie) butts into everything. Lots of plots twists among the musical numbers. The show's best-known song is \"Cocktails for Two.\" Kitty Carlisle also sings the haunting \"Where Do They Come From?\" And there's a weird rhapsody that erupts into a Harlem specialty number featuring Duke Ellington! Quite the cast.
Some terrific acting here, especially Gertrude Michael and Dorothy Stickney. Kitty Carlisle is quite good as well. Brisson is a total zero though.
Charles Middleton plays Homer, Toby Wing plays Nancy, Donald Meek plays the doctor, and also see if you can spot Ann Sheridan and Lucille Ball among the show girls.
\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\nThere are moments in the film that are so dreadful, your teeth ache. But knowing that there were only weeks left before the Code made movies innocuous and bland, Paramount rushed this into production before innuendo and leering went out of style. Vanities is so horrifically anti-female that it's delicious. As Kitty Carlisle sings, women are displayed with price tags that would insult a Bronx hooker. They emerge from clams (nudge,nudge;wink,wink) in postures of absolute submission. Minions of the law, so stupid they cannot find the door, get to look up their skirts and snicker. Bare-breasted chorus girls sit uncomfortably in giant cacti (Could they be a source of hallucinogens, perhaps?) while we listen to \"Sweet Marijuana\" and watch as blood falls on a chorines's breast.
Sure, Carl Brisson learned his lines phonetically and doesn't seem to have a clue what he is saying. But it's all worth it as Norma steals the show while no one is looking.
Taking one moment of this fragile fluff seriously is missing the point of the whole exercise. Watch this with a charter member of NOW and prepare to justify the whole Hollywood machismo sch tick between body blows.
Toby Wing, by the way, is the icing on the cake. And Duke Ellington doesn't hurt either.
A must stroll 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 just viewed MURDER AT THE VANITIES in the newly-released Universal Pre-Code set, and I was amazed at how much I enjoyed the vehicle end to end. Most of the other commentators have covered the story, a murder mystery within a musical, but I wanted to add a few additional notes. Brisson and Carlisle are relatively bland, compared to even most of the minor players, and neither one really seems to have the proper voice for what they're singing (Carlisle being a trained opera singer, Brisson a bit wobbly on some of his high and low notes). The great Victor McLaglen and Jack Oakie play well off each other, with an excellent sense of timing that keeps the ball rolling between musical numbers. Yes, Lucille Ball and Ann Sheridan are Vanities girls, but let's not forget the splendid jazz singer Ernestine Anderson in the \"Ebony Rhapsody\" number. Gail Patrick makes one of her early appearances, sounding a bit like Eve Arden; Patrick would go on to become the executive producer of the Perry Mason TV series. Then there's Jessie Ralph as the wardrobe mistress--you'll spot her also in David COPPERFIELD (as Aunt Peggoty) and THE BANK DICK. The music is very good--Brisson introducing the standard \"Cocktails for Two\" in two different scenes; \"Sweet Marihuana\" with barely clad peyote button girls in the background (blood dripping on one chorine's white skin was wonderfully chilling); the \"Ebony Rhapsody,\" with Duke Ellington's Orchestra and a bevy of beautiful dancers, both black and white, mixing it up. And I believe this is one of the only early musicals to feature such a mix--and the costumes leave nothing to the imagination.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSince this is Black History Month and I'm reviewing the achievements of many African-Americans on film in chronological order, I got this movie on VHS from the library because Duke Ellington and his Orchestra were in it. Their jazz version of Franz Liszt's \"Rhapsody\" was the highlight of this mostly overlong murder mystery-musical comedy mixture. Many other numbers I liked were Kitty Carlisle's especially \"Sweet Marijuana\", Carl Brisson's \"Cocktails for Two\" as well as his duet with Carlisle on that earlier, and the ones by Gertrude Michael who's great as the woman you love to hate. Jack Oakie and Victor McLaglen probably go a little too long with their love/hate banter as the producer and detective but they grow on you. And Toby Wing is a sexy dumb tease as Nancy who keeps trying to say something to Oakie but gets a \"Not now\" from him every time. While many of the characters have a motive for the murders that happen, I wasn't surprised by the revelation of who done it. And get a load of how naked the women here are (though of course their breasts are covered, either by their hands or some flimsy top). This was very obviously pre-Code. Worth a look for any film buff interested in this sort of thing. P.S. As a long-time Louisiana resident, I like noting when someone was born here as Carlisle was a New Orleans native.
\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\nFinancially strapped Paramount pulled out all the stops for this '34 stage adaptation entry: big budget, large cast, extravagant production and Mitch Leisen tagged as the director. What happened? Two things: Busby Berkeley didn't work for the out-of focus rock and a murder mystery script that didn't deserve to be in the same trash can as the worst Charlie Chan first draft down the street. I have to believe that the cutting was out of Leisen's hands since the great Duke Ellington's number is savagely chopped, but that doesn't mean that it ain't worth a look: the 'Sweet Marihuana' number featuring topless chorus girls is a mind blower, considering the looming production code and it also has the ravishing Toby Wing (whose unfortunately fed horrible lines and playing the prototype dumb blonde) as a chorion hot for an otherwise preoccupied Jack Oakie. Carl Brisson's acting is bland as Melba Toast but he's a competent singer. MacLaglen reaches for new plateaus as a stereotypical dumb detective. And try to spot Lucy in the chorus. This rates a 7.0 as a curiosity. Feb 2010 re-think: I recently gave the film another look and now feel I was wrong to berate the lack of Busby Berkeley production numbers. I can understand Leisen's argument for more realistic production numbers within the context of the plot. I still have enormous issues with the editing however. Paramount, the raciest major studio in town, faced huge issues with the Production Code at the worst possible time in it's history, financially speaking, and pulled out all the stops on this one (also check out 1934's Search for Beauty). A must see for pre-code buffs.
\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 murder mystery with musical numbers is long on atmosphere and character but rather short on suspense and plausibility. Based on a stage play by Broadway showman Earl Carroll and others, it combines a whodunit plot with a backstage ambiance (a homicide investigation takes place on opening night at the theatre where a musical revue is being staged).
The cast is impressive and varied: tough-goofy Victor McLaglen as the police officer who leads the investigation and never fails to leer idiotically at whatever showgirl happens to be in sight; Jack Oakie (the prewar Jack Lemmon  or was Jack Lemmon the postwar Jack Oakie?) as the harassed director who must coordinate the staged performance as well as the chaos behind the scenes; the ever-homely Jessie Ralph as a wardrobe mistress with deep, dark secrets; Dorothy Stickney, who has a stunning close-up monologue near the end, as the tremulous maid madly in love with the male lead; Carl Brisson, the Danish star, as that very male lead, warbling the classic \"Cocktails for Two\" not once but twice; Kitty Carlisle, operatically delivering \"Where Do They Come from and Where Do They Go\" and other Johnston-Coslow songs; the glorious Gertrude Michael, who parted from us too soon, as a mean-spirited showgirl whose love for Brisson is spurned; the usually ridiculous Toby Wing who here at least is the center of a laugh-getting running joke.
When the plot complications get out of hand there is always an interesting performer or fun and tuneful musical number to distract the viewer. The film's most celebrated sequence is the \"Marahuana\" number, led by Michaels, but aside from its controversial history, it's really one of the lesser musical offerings. All of the songs here are staged as if they could actually have fit into a standard proscenium theatre space, as opposed to the cinematic fantasy setup of the Busby Berkeley style.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA very enjoyable film, providing you know how to watch old musicals / mysteries. It may not come close to Agatha Christie or even Thin Man mysteries as a film noir, but it's much more interesting than your typical \"boy meets girl\" or \"let's put on a show\" backstage musical. As a musical, it's no Busby Berkley or Freed unit, but it can boost the classic \"Coctails for two\" and the weird \"Sweet Marijuana\". The film runs in real time during a stage show, opening night of the \"Vanities\", where a murder - and soon another - is discovered backstage. Is the murderer found out before the curtain falls? Sure, but the search is fun, even though somewhat predictable and marred by outbursts of comic relief (luckily in the shape of the shapely goddess of the chorus girls, Toby Wing). The stupid cop is just a bit too stupid, the leading hero is just a bit too likable, the leading lady a bit too gracious, the bitchy prima donna bit too bitchy, and the enamoured waif a bit too self-sacrificing, but as stereotypes go, they are pretty stylish. There's a bevy of really gorgeous chorus girls, who are chosen even better than the girls for a Busby Berkley musical of the same period, who sometimes tend to be a bit on the plump side. Yes, this film could have been much better than it is, and the Duke Ellington number is an embarrassment, but if you enjoy diving into old movies, this will prove to be a tremendously tantalizing trip.
\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\nDuring the opening night of the Vanties a woman is found dead on the catwalk above the stage. As the show continues the police attempt to piece together who killed who and why before the final curtain.
I had always heard that this was a great classic comedy mystery so I was excited to find myself a copy. Unfortunately no one told me about the musical numbers which go on and on and on. While the numbers certainly are the type that Hollywood did in their glory days, they become intrusive because they pretty much stop the movie dead despite attempts to weave action around them. This wouldn't be so bad if the music was half way decent, but its not. There is only one good song. Worse its as if the studio knew they had one song, Cocktails for Two, and we're forced to endure four versions of it: a duet, a big production number, as the Vanities finale and in the background as incidental music. I don't think Spike Jones and His City Slickers ever played it that much. The rest of the movie is pretty good with Victor McLaglen sparring nicely with Jack Oakie. Charles Middleton is very funny is his scenes as an actor in love with the wardrobe mistress.
By no mean essential I can recommend this if you think you can get through the musical numbers, or are willing to scan through them. Its a fun movie of the sort they don't make any more.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's good to see that Vintage Film Buff have correctly categorized their excellent DVD release as a \"musical\", for that's what this film is, pure and simple. Like its unofficial remake, Murder at the Windmill (1949), the murder plot is just an excuse for an elaborate girlie show with Kitty Carlisle and Gertrude Michael leading a cast of super-decorative girls including Ann Sheridan, Lucy Ball, Beryl Wallace, Gwenllian Gill, Gladys Young, Barbara Fritchie, Wanda Perry and Dorothy White. Carl Brisson is also on hand to lend his strong voice to \"Cocktails for Two\". Undoubtedly the movie's most popular song, it is heard no less than four times. However, it's Gertrude Michael who steals the show, not only with her rendition of \"Sweet Marijauna\" but her strong performance as the hero's rejected girlfriend. As for the rest of the cast, we could have done without Jack Oakie and Victor McLaglen altogether. The only good thing about Oakie's role is his weak running gag with cult icon, Toby Wing. In fact, to give you an idea as to how far the rest of the comedy is over-indulged and over-strained, super-dumb Inspector McLaglen simply cannot put his hands on the killer even though, would you believe, in this instance it happens to be the person you most suspect. Director Mitch Leisen actually goes to great pains to point the killer out to even the dumbest member of the cinema audience by giving the player concerned close-up after close-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\nMitchell Leisen's fifth feature as director, and he shows his versatility by directing a musical, after his previous movies were heavy dramas. He also plays a cameo as the conductor.
You can tell it is a pre code movie, and nothing like it was made in the US for quite a while afterwards (like 30+ years). Leisen shot the musical numbers so they were like what the audience would see - no widescreen shots or from above ala Busby Berkeley. What I do find funny or interesting is that you never actually see the audience.
As others have mentioned the leads are fairly characterless, and Jack Oakie and Victor McLaghlan play their normal movie personas. Gertrude Michael however provides a bit of spark.
The musical numbers are interesting and some good (the Rape of the Rhapsody in particular is amusing) but the drama unconvincing and faked - three murders is too many and have minimal emotional impact on the characters. This is where this movie could have been a lot better.
\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 adaptation of Will Eisner's SPIRIT to the TV screen followed many other offerings developed from comic strip pages or comic books. (Remember, the two aren't exactly the same medium) It is indeed ironic that this is the one and only adaptation (as of the time of this writing)of Eisner's smart alec, wise cracking, tongue-in-cheek super hero.
Story has it that Republic Pictures was interested in doing a film version and was in negotiation with the copyright owner in the mid '40's, but they were never able to close the deal. The left over screen play became the serial, THE MASKED MARVEL, one of Republic's best. Perhaps that it was just as well, for that studio had a penchant for tinkering with material adapted from the comic strips, pulp mags, radio and the comic books.
As for this 1987 made for TV movie, it's pretty obvious that it was a failed pilot for a proposed television series. Whereas an old, long time comic reader,like myself, can be a little harsh in criticism of an adaptation, a viewer unfamiliar with the character may be able to give some fresh observations, clear of any preconceived notions of what this screen version should look like.
Well, while sitting and watching the story unfold, with the characters interacting amid some crime wave, the Little Lady (my wife, Mrs. Ryan) nailed it with one statement. \"This can't make up its mind if it's serious or not!\" That pretty well describes both THE SPIRIT and his creator, Mr. Will Eisner, the true creative genius in the comics.
The film is a sincere attempt to put Eisner's world on the screen. The casting of Denny Colt/The Spirit, Commissioner Dolan and Ellen was really quite well done. Though in a contemporary setting, it was still in the tradition of \"the good old days\" as far as the costuming goes, you know, when men and women still wore hats! That brings up this one final (and meandering) point, and that is that the director and the production made a conscious effort and succeeded in giving the characters a Will Eisner look as far as facial expressions and body language. We say,Kudos to them for their efforts.
It's just too bad that no series followed! Oh, well in today's motion picture world, comic adaptations seem to be a hot item. Maybe some big timer producer and director could do a really 1st class SPIRIT production for the Big Screen. We can only hope.
UPDATE: Dateline, Chicago, Illinois. 6/4/2008. By now, everyone who goes to the Movies at the Shopping Centre Multiplexes has seen the poster advertising the new film of THE SPIRIT, (subtitled, MY CITY SCREAMS); which is to be released Christmas Day, 2008. Well, we'll see then just what we've been talking about. Just keep your fingers crossed! TO BE CONTINUED.............
UPDATE II: We saw the new film, Writer-Director Frank Miller's rendition of THE SPIRIT a couple of days ago. Well, we got our wish; but is this a good thing or another case of \"Be careful what you ask for; because you may get it?\" Please read our write-up elsewhere in IMDb.com. THANX!
\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 1986 TV movie of The Spirit was a pilot for a possible series. However, Spirit creator Will Eisner did not like the film and thus no series was produced. I thought it was a very entertaining film and captured the spirit (sorry) of the comic with a modern twist. I'm sorry it didn't materialize into a series. Sam (Flash Gordon) Jones was a perfect Spirit. Nana Visitor was a nice Ellen Dolan and of course would later go on to Star Trek:Deep Space Nine years later. Maybe with the release of Frank Miller's big-screen version of The Spirit, more people will be able to see this rare gem of Spirit history. It seems that when Hollywood makes a film from an already established character or idea, someone will inevitably seek out previous versions of the property and release it to video in order to make a few dollars. When Antonio Banderas donned the mask of Zorro, we were able to get earlier versions of the masked hero on DVD, such as the great Alain Delon version of the 1970s (although all copies I ever saw were badly edited). Heres hoping someone will release the TV adventure of The Spirit to DVD soon.
\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 pilot when it was first shown, and I'm sure countless \"Spirit\" fans hate it, because, like Batman, the Green Hornet etc., it took the character in the direction of \"camp\". But I evidently never got enough of Batman, because I thought it was entertaining, in some of the same ways as that show. There are two parts that stay with me. First, when Denny's partner has been fatally wounded, and he makes a dramatic speech about how he always stood for the law, and obeying the exact letter of it. Then, he says something like, \"Boy, was I stupid!\" Which is his way of telling Denny to become a vigilante instead, which he does (though the TV Batman kind). Then, there's the scene where he tries to seduce the villainess into letting him go by kissing her, but she isn't fooled, because he's too honest to kiss her convincingly ! This was a great example of \"camp\", that was also \"underplayed\", by both the actor and actress.
\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's really unfortunate that most people outside of Canada think that the only things that Canada produces are snow, mounties and hockey players. This film is the second superlative Canadian film I have seen within the past few weeks (the first was \"The Red Violin\"), far better than all but the best Hollywood efforts.
Gustad Noble is anything but that; he is a middle-aged Parsi bank employee in Bombay in the 1970s. This film sensitively explores various things that happen to him concerning his family, his friends and his work, and their effect on him. At the same time, it is a fascinating, and, I would assume, accurate, portrayal of middle-class, urban life in India at the time.
However, I was somewhat prepared for this, having read Rohinton Mistry's book a few years ago. The film, as might be expected, cannot capture all the complexities of the book, but, if you want to read a really good book, and see a really good film, read and see \"Such a Long Journey\".
\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 great film. The acting - from the doctor to the pavement artist to the head prostitute, with very few exceptions, was wonderful; i thought soni razdan(mrs.noble) and vrajesh hirjee(saurabh) were the best of the lesser known actors. Even Kurush Deboo (Tehmul), who might be accused of overacting, presented quite a believable and familiar character.
Another great thing was the camera work - and the way it captured the energy of bombay streets, the tranquility of gustad saying his prayers and life within the tiny apartments.
I liked the story of the wall that becomes a shrine and then gets broken down - and the artists philosophical take on it.
It's great to see good movies on indian themes.
\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 wonderful to watch Roshan Seth (the strict father in 1992 \"Mississippi Masala\"), who once again takes on the role of a father and head of the family, and more, in SUCH A LONG JOURNEY, set in 1971 Bombay, India. Besides the closely knit family settings, subject matters include the lost and found of a friendship; the unexpected death of a friend (somehow the calm smiling face of a friend in death in the presence of prayers felt peaceful - so Gustad Noble, Roshan's character, similarly noted); a sidewalk artist's chain of events - \"the wall as a latrine turned into a shrineshrine into rumbles and ashes\" was at once prophetic and philosophical. It's packed full of life lessons in different aspects of varying relationships: between father and son; mother and son; father and little daughter; little daughter and father and mother; longtime colleagues; long lost dear friends; even that of a man to man, one whose an innocent slow-witted \"fool\".
In spite of the tone of the film's era, it's a colorful film rich in substance, and the strength of the story in textural layers with humor and suspense. For a director who is not Indian (Sturla Gunnarsson being Icelandic), he's made a political Indian/Pakistani film. He gets into the bone marrow of the life of this Parsi portrayed by Roshan Seth, whose performance has such nuances, subtlety, and joy. (There is singing, too.) The rest of the cast is equally strong: from Om Puri the mysterious friend of a friend; Soni Razdan the enduring wife; Vrajesh Hirjee the argumentative eldest son; Sam Dastor the longtime office mate; Ranjit Chowdhry the pavement artist; to a superstitious \"witch\" woman of a neighbor; an unbeguiling \"fool\" of a man; and a long lost bosom friend - it's a world of many faces and perspectives. Director Gunnarsson has demonstrated sensitivity in the treatment of that time period and subject was well researched with attention to details. He has the good fortune to have Sooni Taraporevala (1992 \"Mississippi Masala\", 1988 \"Salaam Bombay!\") wrote the script. This is truly a worthwhile journey of a film to partake.
Along the lines of cultural exploration (road movie style), Fridrik Thor Fridriksson 1994 \"Cold Fever\" is an Icelandic sojourn about a Japanese young man who went across the globe in search of the specific spot to pay his last respects to his parents, dutifully following memorial rituals for the dead. Such demonstrated reverence and cross-cultural attention to family ties are heart-warming in this day and cyber age.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"