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 finished watching the 139 min version (widescreen) with some friends and we were blown away. I won't bother repeating what others have said. What the filmmakers do with the concept is unexpected and fun. The huge battle is exhausting. Afterwards we were stunned to find there was still nearly 30 minutes left to go but that didn't keep us from being completely involved and entertained.
There is one thing that nearly ruined it and that was the horrific music/songs. Blues, Country/Folk and Rock Ballads do not belong here and every time they are used we all broke out in laughter. It's hideous. You have been warned but the story and storytelling keeps you grounded.
There are several outstanding moments that make you appreciate the talent behind the camera. There are many uses of silence as well as slow-motion photography that work beautifully. I really wish I could erase the music but alas.
Seek this out. It's fun, it's different and it takes you to places you wouldn't expect and that's very refreshing.
\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 would firstly say that somehow I remember seeing this movie in my early childhood, I couldn't read the subtitles and I thought Sonny Chiba was Sean Connery. But I did really like the concept. If you are not able to at least partially suspend your adult scepticism and embrace your inner seven your old you may want to avoid this movie. That said, having just watched the restored 137 minute version on DVD I have to say I enjoyed it, though not as much as when I was seven ( I remembered the ending ).
There are aspects of the movie that are worthy of criticism , the first 15 minutes and final 15 minutes both have some really comic moments, my favourite being the contrast between scenes acted out in the final 10 minutes and the curious choice of backing music ( listen to the lyrics ).
For an action film there is a great deal of focus on the personal stories of certain soldiers and the social dynamics of the squad as the strain of their time travel takes its toll. By the ending of the movie I had decided that this was a good thing, when seven I though the 'relationship' guff was a bad thing.
For an action film there is also plenty of gratifying gory action, especially a couple of epic battle scenes between the platoon and hordes of Shogun era warriors. The makers of the movie have ensured that as many deaths as possible are bloody and, lets face it, humorous. I thought this was a splendid aspect of the movie when I was a kid, and I am not ashamed to say that I still do.
I also like the fact that the modern day soldiers in general don't spend the movie walking on egg shells trying to avoid altering the space time continuum, they've got heavy calibre machine guns, mortars, rocket launchers, a tank and a helicopter and they're hell bent on making feudal Japan theirs. Which is what I'd like to think any vigorous IMDb user would do in their boots.
In short the movies worth watching, it makes the viewer regret that there are not more movies made with a similar premise, and at the same time offers some hefty hints as to why a movie like G.I. Samurai is so unique.
\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\nPop quiz: you're a part of the modern armed forces in peacetime on routine manoeuvres and you find yourself thrown back in time with a chance to change history. What do you do? Well, if you're a Hollywood studio, you change the Japanese G.I.s in G.I. Samurai (aka Timeslip) to the crew of an American aircraft carrier, have them debate stopping the attack on Pearl Harbour for 90 minutes and then go home and hope that no-one reminds you that Japan did it first and with more balls in 1979 with this Sonny Chiba movie. But unlike its Hollywood counterpart The Final Countdown, this sees its premise through: thrown back 400 years into the Japanese feudal wars, its peacetime soldiers decide that their best hope of getting back lies in provoking history by trying to change it by joining with a warlord to conquer the country  cue lots of tank and helicopter vs. samurai action, including a very impressive unrelenting 25 minute battle sequence featuring a cast of thousands inflicting serious damage on each other. And yes, there are decapitations.
Of course, things don't go as planned, and even superior firepower doesn't stand up as well as hoped to thousands of soldiers. Even before that, the soldiers are falling out with each other into those who want to go home, those who want to go to war and those who want to rape and pillage for the Hell of it. Impressively directed and surprisingly well thought through, the soft rock and country and western songs are sometimes a distraction, especially when they feature English lyrics sung by Japanese singers who audibly can't pronounce the words let alone speak the language, but it's a forgivable flaw in a surprisingly good sci-fi actioner.
Optimum's UK DVD is a good transfer of the uncut 138-minute version.
\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\"GI Samurai\" sees Sonny Chiba and some other guys get transported back to civil war stricken feudal Japan for no particular reason, and much carnage ensues. It's a rather over the top essay of sword vs. machine gun that ultimately yields some interesting results.
The plot essentially runs along the rails that you might expect from the title; initial fish-out-the-water antics (\"what is this flying metal box?\" etc etc), \"aren't we better off here\" discussions and ultimately a huge battle. The latter is proof that the film doesn't take itself seriously at all, the carnage taking up most of the second half as samurai army battles Chiba's platoon; a face off one would fully expect from the title but it still manages to overwhelm with its inventiveness and extravagance. It's certainly one of the most unique battle sequences of its time and doesn't drag despite its extended length.
Chiba gives a gruff performance as Iba, initially a good leader but someone who finally finds himself questioning his own morals as the situation slowly has an effect on him. This is certainly one of his better vehicles from his terrific CV. By the final act the two worlds have had such an effect on each other you have to wonder if it was a bit of nihilism on the part of the writers, as they seem to be asking \"weren't we better off back then?'. But this is maybe reading a bit much into was can generally be described as a hugely entertaining two hours of (almost) non stop action.
\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 waited for this movie to come out for a while in Canada, and when it finally did, I was very excited to see it. I really enjoyed it. Of course, in the beginning, it is a very sad movie (and it was New Years Day - making it even sadder) - however, it sticks with you. The next day I was thinking about it again, because although it revolves around something so emotionally draining, you realize after a few days that it is such a beautiful story. How one person can be seen as the link to so many people, but sometimes you can be blinded so many things. And how Diane Keaton's character kind of saves the rest of them by just being there. And how they save her in the process as well. It was such an excellent movie, and Chris Pine (one of my favourite actors) provides the perfect comic relief. It is definitely a movie that will need a box of tissues, but will really stay with you for a long time.
\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 movie held my interest, mainly because Dianne Keaton is my favorite actress. I disagree with some of the other posts on the grounds that the plot was not convoluted. I had no trouble following it (maybe some people had too much eggnog the night before). The movie was very sad and touching as well. What more do you want? Alexa Davalos is a fine new talent (beautiful too), and Tom Everett Scott does an excellent job with his part as well. The relationship of the mother and daughter may have been a bit unrealistic, but the behavior of the young people in the movie was not. It was tragically sad but enlightening. It sure beat the other shows that were on TV New Years Day evening
\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\nCharles McDougall's resume includes directing episodes on 'Sex and the City', 'Desperate Housewives', Queer as Folk', 'Big Love', 'The Office', etc. so he comes with all the credentials to make the TV film version of Meg Wolitzer's novel SURRENDER, DOROTHY a success. And for the most part he manages to keep this potentially sappy story about sudden death of a loved one and than manner in which the people in her life react afloat.
Sara (Alexa Davalos) a beautiful unmarried young woman is accompanying her best friends - gay playwright Adam (Tom Everett Scott), Adam's current squeeze Shawn (Chris Pine), and married couple Maddy (Lauren German) and Peter (Josh Hopkins) with their infant son - to a house in the Hamptons for a summer vacation. The group seems jolly until a trip to the local ice creamery by Adam and Sara) results in an auto accident which kills Sara. Meanwhile Sara's mother Natalie Swedlow (Diane Keaton) who has an active social life but intrusively calls here daughter constantly with the mutual greeting 'Surrender, Dorothy', is playing it up elsewhere: when she receives the phone call that Sara is dead she immediately comes to the Hamptons where her overbearing personality and grief create friction among Sara's friends. Slowly but surely Natalie uncovers secrets about each of them, thriving on talking about Sara as though doing so would bring her to life. Natalie's thirst for truth at any cost results in major changes among the group and it is only through the binding love of the departed Sara that they all eventually come together.
Diane Keaton is at her best in these roles that walk the thread between drama and comedy and her presence holds the story together. The screenplay has its moments for good lines, but it also has a lot of filler that becomes a bit heavy and morose making the actors obviously uncomfortable with the lines they are given. Yes, this story has been told many times - the impact of sudden death on the lives of those whose privacy is altered by disclosures - but the film moves along with a cast pace and has enough genuine entertainment to make it worth watching. Grady Harp
\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 completely disagree with the other comments posted on this movie. For instance, the movie is based on the book and if the writer had a gay character in it then how could \"Hollywood\" just throw in a token gay character in the movie. And besides there was two gay characters and I thought they reflected each other great. One was normal and the other was more feminine but it wasn't over the top. And Diane Keaton gave a wonderful performance and if the other reviewer had the decency to actual watch the entire film they would have seen that her character developed through out the film by interacting with the other characters. For instance when she and Adam went to look at the car that Sara crashed in the junkyard you could see the maternal side of her come out and later in the film you saw that she too was invincible. But I guess if you're too worried about gay characters and characters that are flawed then this movie is bad. But if you're more open-minded and I don't know actually have some inkling of what is good then you'll enjoy this film.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI very much enjoyed watching this film. I taped it while watching so that i could review it later. I actually enjoyed the second viewing more since i was able to absorb more of the clever dialog between Natalie and Adam, the 2 main characters. I thought the way this story evolved was very thought provoking. I got very intrigued with how Natalie was going to interact with her daughter's friends , at first it seemed that she was going to spew a lot of animosity but once she started interacting more pleasantly i had to see how this visit was going to unfold. i wasn't disappointed . Gradually the secrets that Sara kept from her mother started to reveal a daughter who was not so perfect, a flawed human being like most of us who wanted her freedom from a domineering mother who thought she knew her daughter but unfortunately had to learn in a very painful manner that sometimes to really love someone you have to give them their freedom. The viewers who stuck with this film to the end saw a very touching performance from Diane Keaton (who is always wonderful, even in some of her less well received films-think Town and Country). The closing scene of Diane Keaton driving home was well worth waiting for, revealing that anyone who loves another human being has got to learn that we have to live our own lives, we love others but don't own them and ultimately we have to let go. It's a hard lesson but well worth contemplating now and then.Thank you CBS for this broadcast,it was worth the long wait.
\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\nDiane Keaton gave an outstanding performance in this rather sad but funny story which involved quite a few young people and their deep dark secrets. Diane Keaton,(Natalie),\"The Family Stone\",'05, who had an only daughter and loved her beyond words can describe. She always called her and told her, \"Surrender Dorothy\", which was an expression used in the 'Wizard of Oz',1939. A sudden car accident occurs and Natalie gets herself deeply involved with her daughter's friends and lovers. As Natalie investigates, the more truths she finds out about herself and her real relationship with her daughter. Great film to view and enjoy, especially all the good acting from all the supporting actors.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI thought this was one of the best movies I've seen in a very long time. It was a great story line and showed that people are so intricate in all kinds of different ways. Have recommended it to all my friends!! I always enjoy a good story line and this movie had one of the best I've seen in a long time. I could see myself having a daughter and doing the same things that Natalie did to find out more about her life and loves. It showed how we not only have lives with our families ; but also have parts of our lives that we don't share with them - as it may not be in their best interest to know all the details of things we don't do that we are so proud of.
I look forward to another such movie, and will keep my eye out.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was a great movie with a good cast, all of them hitting on all cylinders. And when Dianne Keaton is at her best, well, it just doesn't get any better than that. But Tom Everett Scott, always underrated, was even better. He should be a star.
My only complaint is with one aspect of the screenplay. None of the characters ever acknowledged that the dead daughter wasn't always a good person. And neither was her mother, played by Keaton. At one point she breaks a promise she made to one character not to reveal that he had been sleeping around.
One of the other commentators said the movie had a \"political agenda\". That is a baffling thing to say. There was no politics at all in this movie.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHave never understood why the MacDonald-Eddy swan song has always been panned so mercilessly--not just by their detractors but by virtually everyone. To me, \"I Married an Angel\" is more lively and imaginative than any of the duo's more celebrated outings. The sets and costumes are as lavish as any to be found in an MGM musical, the script is by the reliable Anita Loos (\"San Francisco,\" \"The Women,\" \"Gentlemen Prefer Blondes,\" etc.), the Rodgers and Hart tunes (albeit altered a bit by MacDonald-Eddy regulars Bob Wright and Chet Forrest) are given celestial treatment by Herbert Stothart (Oscar-winner for scoring \"The Wizard of Oz\"), and best of all, the \"singing sweethearts\" look great in their contemporary clothes and seem to be having fun with the bizarre proceedings. Try to show \"Rose Marie\" or \"Sweethearts\" to the uninitiated today and they may very well have a hard time sitting still, but this offbeat, fast-paced fantasy is bound to entertain.
\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 appears that there's no middle ground on this movie! Most of it takes place in a dream and, like most dreams, it's often foolish and illogical. It's also a gorgeous production with some great songs and fine performances, especially by our angel.
Jeanette's deadpan, unknowing insults and various other faux pas at the dream reception are hilarious, and her jitterbug with Binnie Barnes is a surprise and a delight. At one point, she gets to sing a snippet from Carmen, followed by the final trio of Faust (holding a lapdog, for some strange reason), then \"Aloha Oe\" on the beach!
It's a surreal comedy--tremendously entertaining if you can get into the groove.
\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\nJeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy star in this \"modern\" musical that showcases MacDonald's comic abilities. Surreal 40s musical seem to be making fun of 40s fashions even as they were in current vogue. Eye-popping costumes and sets (yes B&W) add to the surreal, dreamlike quality of the entire film. Several good songs enliven the film, with the \"Twinkle in Your Eye\" number a total highlight, including a fun jitterbug number between MacDonald and Binnie Barnes. Also in the HUGE cast are Edward Everett Horton, Reginal Owen, Mona Maris, Douglas Dumbrille and Anne Jeffreys. Also to been seen in extended bit parts are Esther Dale, Almira Sessions, Grace Hayle, Gertrude Hoffman, Rafaela Ottiano, Odette Myrtile, Cecil Cunningham and many others.
Great fun and nice to see the wonderful MacDonald in her jitterbug/vamp routines. She could do it all.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI know a lot of people don't like this movie, but I just think it is adorable. There's not much I can say, but the movie is a feel-good movie I guess. The songs are beautiful, the costumes are beautiful, the voices are beautiful, and there are a lot of funny lines in the movie, especially as Briggitta learns about the do's and don't's of society. If you like musicals, I'd say you'd like this one!
\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 movie is a fantasy. The story line is thin but serves as the structure upon which some wonderful songs are sung and sung beautifully. (I still cannot believe that such handsome and attractive people could sing this well.) Some of the dialog is wonderfully clever. The costumes made me feel as though I was watching a haute couture fashion show from 1942.
Movies are designed to serve various purposes. This one is designed to entertain and it certainly does. If I have one negative comment it would be that Nelson Eddy was a little too old to be the handsome dashing Count. Some of the closeups made me uncomfortable. But he could still sing and sing magnificently. However, Jeanette MacDonald was just as dazzling as ever. She makes a spectacular angel.
This genre is well before my time, and I an new to the Jeanette MacDonald/Nelson Eddy films and related conversation. The music in this movie is beautiful. As much as I love the classic rock music which fills most modern movies, there is no question in my mind that this music is simply and clearly more memorable, more delightful, better constructed. The stars in this movie are more talented than the stars I see in the movie theaters today. And Jeanette MacDonald, without the benefit of Beverly Hills plastic surgeons, was more beautiful than the stars I see today. I am unclear as to why so many other posters are apologetic about liking this movie and more generally this group of movies. They say it is dated and try to explain why it is the way it is. And those that do not like it say that it is not very good but compared to what? I think this movie will doubtless still be entertaining people when so many other movie are long forgotten. There is just too much quality in every way in this movie for it not to be remembered and enjoyed. I recommend this movie without reservation to anyone who appreciates great talent, great beauty and great music.
\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\nOne used to say, concerning Nathaniel Hawthorne, that his failures were more interesting than his successes. I believe that the same remark could suit to McDonald-Eddy's pictures. And especially this one.
It apparently possesses many characteristics of a failed movie: it's kitsch, the script, because of censorship, sounds inconsistent Yet, this movie gets also some good points: good Rodgers-Hart's music (\"I married an angel\", \"Tira tira tira la\"), good acting with E.E.Horton and Reginald Owen.
Anyway, if you may dislike it, you can't forget it. This strange movie actually leaves a very strong, dreamlike, impression, and you are very likely to keep it in mind for days, maybe for weeks. Why? In the thirties and the beginning of the forties, movies didn't have the same mean than today: it aimed, like a dream, to divert the public in order to make it forget a difficult reality. Of all the the dream-movies that was made, in that time, this one stands as particularly powerful.
In short, let's say that the better way to appreciate this movie, is to watch it without wondering whether it's good or bad. To watch it, like you would watch a dream.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy observations: vamp outfit at end is ravishing and wonderful, exotic and fantastic. Jeanette wore it well, and got even with naive Nelson. Boat crashing into his balcony served him right. Costume outfits of his female mafia were designed surprisingly well, especially by today's standards. 1942 costume designer did great job. Main song theme just lovely.
Caution to negative posters: 1942 was time of WW II; Pearl Harbor happened year before. U.S. just coming out of Great Depression; needed to get out and spend that hard earned money on diversion of singing, dance and yes, fantastic fantasy. Despotic dictators were trying to rule out there in RL, snuffing out freedoms. Thank goodness the public had these fantastic plot line movies to attend. Movie going was a privileged treat, in those depressing times. When you, negative posters, become actors or even movie stars, then YOU have room to talk and criticize. Jeanette's and Nelson's movies stand the test of time.
Angel wings wonderful, on the real angel. RL wings at costume party not so hot, but great on Jeanette considering the SL.
Beautiful singing by Jeanette and Nelson, as always. Jeanette dancing was a pure delight.
15/10
\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\nThere was some hesitation from my part about what this movie had to offer. For starters, the casting didn't seem right. Kiefer Sutherland had already done very well in \"24\" and the preview didn't seem to offer anything challenging to him or the audience. Eva Longoria appeared out of place, and the rest didn't seem very interesting.
When the film finally ended, I was not completely displeased for I had seen a decent thriller that could have been much better, had the responsible parties taken a little more care to watch for the narrative gaps and given a little more care to character development. We have seen threats of this type before, and that made the main conflict much more challenging to the writers. As an audience, we don't want to sit through the same old story again. We want to see something different, be thrilled and entertained.
There is nothing wrong with the casting. From Kim Basinger's delicious first lady. She carries herself with enough grace and sex appeal to make the part memorable. Michael Douglas has been and done that before. Unfortunately, the president is much of a non entity to even care about his fate. Sutherland rehashes his \"24\" tough guy approach with enough power to make it big enough for the big screen, and Eva does a passable job, as the newcomer.
Don't expect as many twists and fireworks as some of the established classics (\"North by Northwest\" and \"The Fugitive\" come to mind). Leave your expectations outside and enjoy the ride for whatever it might be. It's o.k.
\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 been 19 years since Gordon Gekko used \"Wall Street\" to let us know that greed is good. Now, Michael Douglas takes the GG persona and morphs it into a Secret Service agent, Pete Garrison. Guess what? It works! This is a solid political thriller that kept me guessing. The detail work in showing the security precautions taken by the SS on behalf of the President and First Lady was likewise intriguing. All the leads were pretty good but, try as I might, I could not accept Eva Longoria as a Secret Service agent. Whereas Jodie Foster just made you suspend belief and really think she was FBI agent Starling in \"Silence of the Lambs\", you do not get the same feeling with Longoria. Nevertheless, this is a fun film, escapist entertainment with the Beltway as the backdrop.
\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\nAt first glance, this film looks like the Keifer Sutherland series 24 for the big screen. With the focus on a plot to assassinate the President of the United States, a race against time, and plenty of Secret Service agents, the agency under the spotlight in The Sentinel.
But wait, the protagonist turns out to be Michael Douglas' character Pete Garrison instead, a veteran Secret Service agent famed for taking the bullet for Reagan in 1981. The SS agents are specially trained to \"take the bullet\", which is what makes them special - who in the right mind will put themselves in the line of a bullet and a target? But Garrison gets implicated in the assassination plot, and has to run for his life while at the same time doing his bit of investigations into the plot. All this because of his failure in a polygraph test, due to his adulterous banging of the First Lady (Kim Basinger). Tsk.
There are shades of Clint Eastwood's In the Line of Fire. Both featured aging actors, and aging veteran has-been heroes with a bit of a historical reference, who took the bullet in their respective tours of duty. While Eastwood's movie has a more enigmatic villain in John Malkovich, The Sentinel suffered from its lack of a central strong villain, preferring to share the assassination responsibility amongst many forgettable ex-KGB villains, and the mole within the Presidential Detail. With Douglas on the run from the law, he becomes similar to Dr. Richard Kimble of The Fugitive, hunting the proverbial one-armed man while at the same time, relying on his smarts to outwit fellow agents, which turned out to be quite interesting to watch - despite slick processes, it still boils down to the performance and gullibility of individual agents.
Keifer Sutherland and Eva Longoria, top TV stars of today from 24 and Desperate Housewives, get relegated into support roles as the Secret Service investigators who are looking into Garrison's probable involvement in the assassination plot, and at times seem to have lept off the pages of CSI with their forensics skills. The beautiful couple had chemistry that could have resembled X-Files' Fox Mulder and Dana Scully, but alas these two had very little to do here. We know the reason why they're in the movie, and that is to get their fans into the theatres. Also, Longoria's role seemed unable to shake off her sexy-mama Gabrielle, and here, has her in fairly low cut blouses (Sutherland actually tells her to cover up) and tight pants (ogle-fest for fellow agents).
Nonetheless, it's still a pretty interesting look into the lives of probably the most highly charged and tense protection detail in the world, and the typical threats that they face daily, including the following up on every nutcase's threat on the life of the most powerful man in the world. It's a decent suspense and investigative thriller, with enough subplots to keep you entertained. But one thing though, like most ending action sequences, this one has a big enough loophole for you to fly a jumbo jet through.
\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 enjoyed this film. I thought it was an excellent political thriller about something that's never happened before - a Secret Service agent going bad and involved in an assassination plot. Unfortunately, for Michael Douglas' character, \"Pete Garrison,\" they think HE's the mole but he isn't.
He's just a morally-flawed agent having an affair with the First Lady! Since he's doing that, he's unable to give an acceptable polygraph exam and that makes him suspect number one when it's revealed there is a plot to kill the President.
\"Garrison\" is forced to go on the lam but at the same time he's still trying to do the right thing by protecting the President. Douglas does a fine job in this role. I don't always care the people he plays but he's an excellent actor. Keifer Sutherland (\"David Breckinridge\") is equally as good (at least in here) as the fellow SS boss who hunts down Douglas until convinced he has been telling the truth. When he does the two of them work together in the finale to discover and then stop, if they can, the plot. The crooks are interesting, too, by the way. Also, I have never - and never will, unfortunately - see a First Lady who looks as good as Kim Basinger
This is simply a slick action flick that entertains start-to-finish. Are there holes in it? Of course; probably a number of them, and a reason you see so many critical comments. However, it is unfairly bashed here. It just isn't intelligent enough for the geniuses here on this website. My advice: chill, just go along for the ride and enjoy all the action and intrigue. Yes, it gets a little Rambo-ish at the end but otherwise it gets high marks for entertainment.....which is what movies are all about.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI thought that The sentinel was going to be a mediocre movie.When I finally saw it,I took a good surprise.The movie isn't great thing but it's very fun and the action scenes are very well done.This movie reminded me TV series like 24 or Alias.It's very similar to that series and it reminded me too,to the Wolfgang Petersen's thriller In the line of fire.If you're going to expect one of the most original and and one of the greatest thrillers in the history of movies,you will be disappointed.But if you go with little expectations,you will enjoy The sentinel.
Rating:7
\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 can admit that the screenplay isn't very good, and that it has some slow parts, but all of you critics of this movie need to learn how to have some fun. First of all, the performances are great (Michael Douglas, Kim Basinger, Kiefer Sutherland, and Eva Longoria. Michael Douglas proves he has still got it, and Kim Basinger plays a very interesting character as the cheating wife. Kiefer Sutherland and Eva Longoria, play the dynamic duo, both adding their incredible talent to the pot. And second of all, this movie is the most fun I have had in years in a Theodore. Its plain and simple, if you want to go to the movies, and have a lot of fun see, The Sentinel.
\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 Sentinel i was hoping would be a good film and boy i was right.A great story first of all from a novel and i thought this was an original story but i guess it wasn't and it was a very smart story. Michael Douglas in this film is very good and Keither Sutherland is too,but however it is very hard to shrug him off his role as Jack Bauer in 24 but eventually you do and he is very different in The Sentinel than he is in 24.also another person trying to shrug off their TV role but failed.Eva Longeria.She wasn't that good in the film and had a back seat in the entire thing.After i saw the film i had constant dreams about The Sentinel and couldn't sleep.Overall Sentinel is a good film and i would recommend 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\nThe Sentinel features a sort of run of the mill and clichéd suspense/mystery but is lifted with some good acting and taut pacing. These stories have already for the most part gone through as many permutations as we can bear, so what we're left with is how good is the acting, how smart are the setups and bad guys, how well crafted is the main plot etc etc.....so the Sentinel does a solid job given it's content. Michael Douglass and Kiefer Sutherland both maintain some good screen bravado and attitudes. Eva Longoria (first time I've seen her on screen) brings some satisfactory support. The whole affair side of the story is utterly implausible knocking it down a bit, but it deserves slack. Worth a viewing if you like the 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\nGood for an evening's entertainment - but the plot was unconvincing. Garrison's affair with the First Lady was unreal and passionless; the President was a cardboard cut-out. And who were the real villains anyway? Nothing was developed or explained sufficiently. I still don't know why they wanted to kill the President or how the mole got involved. The villains were nameless and undeveloped, so you never felt involved in their plot. Michael Douglas and Kiefer Sutherland did their best to inject some reality into the story - the chase and confrontation were good. But Kim Basinger and Eva Longoria were both unbelievable in their roles, Basinger totally lacked character and no way could Longoria have been a Secret Service agent. This could have been a very good film but somehow it missed the way, with too many unanswered questions. Disappointing on the whole despite some very good scenes. And did they use the 'West Wing' set for the White House scenes? - I kept expecting CJ or Charlie to appear!
\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 was a pretty decent movie. This movie is good to just sit down and watch and be entertained. Just a typical Hollywood film. This movie will never win an Oscar or anything and definitely doesn't deserve one, but I thought it was pretty good. It's kind of like the show 24 but set into movie format. If you like the whole we've got to stop the terrorist from killing the president kind of movie then you will enjoy this flick. I personally think that storyline has been done WAY too much, but The Sentinel does add a little twist with the mole in the Secret Service. All in all, this movie won't leave your jaw to the floor or change your life, but who says every single movie has to be like that to be good?
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSeeing as Keifer Sutherland plays my favorite character in the history of TV, it was a foregone conclusion i was gonna go to the movies and spend $15 on this. I also think this applies to Eva Longoria fans.
The movie revolves around a leak that a Secret Service agent is planning to assassinate the President. As the investigation unfolds, it seems the only likely candidate is the highly decorated Pete (Michael Douglas). Pleading innocence, Pete goes on the fun, fugitive style, to search for the truth.
It's solid, but certainly not spectacular. A decent cast, a decent story but it left me feeling a bit empty, but you could certainly do far worse.
\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'll be honest,I finally checked this movie not because of the stars--though they were reasonably watchable and compelling,particularly the three leads--or even the compelling story of a breach in the Presidential Secret Service(something,I've been informed through the DVD extras of this show,has yet to ever happen.Assuming that's true,that's remarkable!). I got it because it was directed and has a choice cameo by none other than Detective Meldrick Lewis!! Well,okay,Clark Johnson,one of my faves from \"Homicide:Life on the Street\" and a veteran (mostly) TV director. I'd say that he does about as good as he can with a project that is watchable but pretty average,despite the possibilities.
Veteran and ace Secret agent Pete Garrison(Michael Douglass)has to find out both who is blackmailing him AND who killed his friend,targeted and blew up an Air Force One chopper and is gunning for the Prez.(David Rasche. Anyone remember \"Sledgehammer\"?). His affair with the first lady(Kim Basinger,clearly one of the HOTTER first ladies we've ever had,fictional or real)is certainly not helping his standing. He's got to both ferret out the real mole in the service and avoid the hound dog like hunting of his former best friend and fellow agent and chief(Kiefer Sutherland,almost still completely in \"24\" mode). Throw in some other pivotal Service agents(Martin Donovan and the foxy,somewhat hard to buy as the gig Eva Longorria) and shady foreign characters and you have a fairly standard political thriller that doesn't aim as high as it purports and reaches the desired,if underwhelming,results.
The summary line is about the best way to describe how this show plays out without giving spoilers. The DVD extras to me seemed more insightful and interesting than the movie,though the film itself was entertaining enough to keep most (myself included) interested.
\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 might not be the best movie of 2006 but it was a just a movie to excite and to think about.The Sentinel is a good political thriller movie which seems similar to or even borrows some elements from other political thriller movies such as In the Line of Fire and The Manchurian Candidate. The basic plot of this movie is similar to other movies like this: A plot to kill the President of the United States. Michael Douglas stars as Secret Service Agent Pete Garrison who spearheads the operation only to find out later that he has been framed.Kiefer Sutherland co-stars as a sort of rival by the name of David Breckinridge and Eva Longoria as Jill Marin who is a rookie agent going under the guidance of Agent Breckinridge and Academy Award winner Kim Basinger as First Lady Sarah Ballentine. One improvement for this movie could have been more action as it is by some sources considered just as much an Action film as is a Thriller film but a good thing about this movie is instead of just an assassination plot to kill the US President,it also concerns a mole(traitor) in the Secret Service who is leading the President in the wrong direction.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy Take: Makes use of its familiar plot with fine performances and a few genuine moments of excitement.
The plot is familiar. An innocent man is framed for a plot to assassinate the President of the United States, the first traitor in the United States Secret Service. As his fellow secret-service agents pursue him, he tries to prove his innocence. Of course we know his innocent, and the real culprit is just around the corner, but I was still entertained by THE SENTINEL. In this time where thrillers are reduced to being too ludicrous and too abundant in action sequences, THE SENTINEL is a good lick-back to all those good old-fashioned political crime thriller. The familiar plot is elevated by neat thrilling sequences and terrific performances.
Michael Douglas, the perfect man for the job, is long-running Secret Service agent Pete Garrison, who is framed for being part of a plot to assassinate the President. Former colleagues in the secret service (Kiefer Sutherland and Eva Longoria) pursue Harrison while he tries to find out who is behind the possible assassination and the traitor in the Secret Service. This leads to a lot of chase scenes that, surprisingly (and thankfully), are never unbelievable. The screenplay also offers a subplot involving Garrison having an affair with the First Lady (played by Kim Basinger). This thankfully wasn't unnecessary like most subplots are to these kinds of films.
The films director is Clark Johnson (S.W.A.T.) who manages to make the film look good. Although many have criticized it as \"should have been a TV movie\", I must disagree. Agreed, this is not a perfect film, and much of it is inspired from other action thrillers and political intrigues like IN THE LINE OF FIRE or an episode from the TV series 24 (which this film closely resembles when it comes to style and star Sutherland), but even so, this film takes its plot into serious heights and doesn't abandon even its smaller details. The performances are terrific (with a top-notch cast, its bound to be, even with the by-the-numbers script.
All-in-all, I award it ***1/2, not perfect, but not far from it.
Rating: ***1/2 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\nWelcome back Kiefer Sutherland. it's been too long since you've appeared in a movie,, and what a movie this was, was it 24 no,, but very intriguing, especially with a pro like Michael Douglas in the lead as the embattled Secret Service Agent. Kiefer's character is the one chasing Michael Douglas the whole movie,, Kiefer's partner,, is Eva Longoria,, the Desperate houswife. wow she can actually act besides flirt all day and look good,, i wish though that Kim Bassinger had a bigger role,, but other than that, i really think the whole movie was a blast from start to finish. This movie is what i consider to b e a political thriller, everybody played their part to the hilt. nothing was revealed to sooon in the movie,, so as to keep you guessing at all times. and i really think that Kiefer did one heck of a job here in this movie,, but in my opinion Michael Douglas had the besxt performance of the day,, thumbs 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\nEngaging, riveting tale of captured US army turncoat who has to prove his innocence to avoid the hangman. Paul Ryker dodges friendly fire in a seemingly doomed attempt to convince a military court that he was actually a US spy on a secret mission in Korea.
In the vein of classic courtroom dramas, \"Sergeant Ryker\" is an extremely well crafted mystery, ably guided by an outstanding cast, director Kulik's constant momentum, and effective plot twists and turns.
This film was originally made as a television movie in 1964, and subsequently beefed up for this revision with the presence of many \"name\" actors, and some action sequences. Dillman, reprising his role, is spot-on as the doubting defence attorney, whose attentions sometimes stray to the personal plight of Ryker's supportive, yet somewhat distant wife, played with aplomb by Vera Miles. Rounding out the frontline is Peter Graves for the prosecution, and Norman Fell and Murray Hamilton in key supporting roles.
Marvin's interpretation of the Paul Ryker character is a balanced depiction of a simple but dedicated man whose normally laid back demeanour is challenged by the desperate circumstances in which he's placed. Marvin switches perfectly from resigned indifference, to passionate determination, giving a convincing, often intense performance that is the highlight of this otherwise small-scale drama. It's this performance that should elevate the film to a platform where it occupies a place on the best-ever lists of courtroom dramas.
However, despite its apparent obscurity, \"Sergeant Ryker\" still remains a taut and compelling examination, like a book that you just can't put down. 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\nSergeant Ryker is accused of being a traitor during the Korean War, a hanging offense. A long drawn out court-marshal ensues during which time the Sgt. must remain in a military jail. After much investigation the defense attorney attempts to exonerate the doomed non-com with an eleventh hour ploy. Very good picture.
\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 Korean War has been dubbed Americas's forgotten war. So many unanswered questions were buried along with the 50 thousand men who died there. Occasionally, we are treated to a play or movie which deals with that far-off, ghostly frozen graveyard. Here is perhaps one of the finest. It's called \" Sergeant Ryker. \" The story is of an American soldier named Sgt. Paul Ryker (Lee Marvin) who is selected for a top secret mission by his commanding officer. His task is to defect to the North Koreans and offer his services against United Nations forces. So successful is his cover, he proves invaluable to the enemy and given the rank of Major. However, he is thereafter captured by the Americans, put on trial as a traitor and spy. Stating he was ordered to defect, he sadly learns his commanding officer has been killed and has no evidence or proof of his innocence. He is convicted and sentenced to hang. However, his conviction is doubted by Capt. Young (Bradford Dillman), his prosecutor. Convincing commanding Gen. Amos Baily, (Lloyd Nolan) of his doubts, he is granted a new trial and if found guilty will be executed. The courtroom drama is top notch as is the cast which includes Peter Graves, Murray Hamilton and Norman Fell as Sgt. Max Winkler. Korea was a far off place but the possibility of convicting a Communist and hanging him hit very close to home in the 1950's. Due to its superior script and powerful message, this drama has become a courtroom Classic. Excellent viewing and recommended to all. ****
\n
assistant\n1
\n"