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\nIt surprises me that I actually got the courage to watch the bio flick or flicks \"Che: Parts 1 & 2\". Why? Because if my Cuban exile parents would ever found out I saw this movie about this despicable mass murderer of the Cuban revolution, I would be grounded for life. Hey wait? I am an adult, they can't ground me no mas. Director Steven Soderbergh, and newbie commie (sorry Steven, but I had to take Soder shots here) divides the movie in two partes on Commander Ernesto \"Che\" Guevara's revolutionary life. \"Che: Part 1\" presents how Che in the mid 1950's joined Fidel Castro's guerilla crew in their revolutionary quest to overthrow Cuban President Fulgencio Batista's regime; which as we all know was a revolutionary success for them, but a gargantuan guerilla disaster to many Cubans as it revolted into Communism. \"Che: Part 2\" presents Che trying to revolutionize the T-Shirt industry by pitching T-Shirts with his appalling bearbado face to T-Shirt manufacturers. OK, I am che-chatting a lot of crap towards your way! I meant to say the 'Che: Part 2\" focuses on Che in the late 60's trying to bring back the revolution, this time to a poverty-stricken Bolivia, but with far different results. In fact, Che ended up being dead meat enchelada when he was captured and killed by the Bolivian militia in 1967. Soderbergh does not include the in-between time of those two instances in Che's life when he commanded the despicable La Cabana Fortress Prison in Cuba, where he mass murdered many Cubans who opposed Communism. That is where I think Soderbergh executed a cinematic injustice by not showing the viewers how atrocious Guevara really was. I did decide to see \"Che\" in hopes that Soderbergh would not glamorize him, but instead present how disturbed he really was. Unfortunately, Soderbergh did not do the latter and sadly decided to present Guevara as a Revolutionary hero, which he was not. He was a sick man who thank God is now probably at the bottom of the devil barrel. Now, I do have to be an objectivistic reviewer and must admit that Benicio Del Toro's performance as Che was extremely commanding, and worthy of merit. And that Demian Bichir was a haunting dead-ringer as Fidel Castro in his meticulous performance. But the rest of the cast of \"Che\" was primarily comprised of mediocre performances of actors portraying Guerilla soldiers. And as much as I do admire Matt Damon, why did Sodebergh throw him in the revolutionary mix in a Spanish-speaking cameo performance portraying a Bolivian delegate? Soderbergh did not have to present this biopic which is mostly \"too much talk and not enough action\" in 4 hours and 30 minutes. We have had too much of Che already, even posthumously with those ridiculous t-shirts, so why give us too much more of him? But I guess when you have the Del Toro by the horns (as you did here Steven), I guess it is your saving grace for not totally executing \"Che: Parts 1 &2\". *** Average
\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 up a little bit on Che before watching this film and you wanna know something, he was a real hero for the people because he only wanted to see equality for everyone and that he hated what the oppressive forces were doing to his people as well as all other Latin Americans in general! Now, I don't know about others, but to me he did the right thing by wanting socialism so that everyone had to pay their fair share. However, the powerful elite obviously weren't going to go for that. So, rather than understanding what Che Guevera wanted, they were forced to kill him in attempting to suppress the revolution. It didn't work since there were too many of his other followers who only picked up where he left off. A good example of this was when Castro continued his leadership in Cuba. As far as I'm concerned and as Che said it himself right before he died: \"If you kill me, that's fine. But you're only killing a man, you'll NEVER kill the cause!\" I couldn't have said it any better myself.
But ... ANYWAYS.... that's why I give this film a 7 out of 10.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched part one two days ago and today I saw part two. Of course the two parts are worlds apart so I am a little shaken by all that I just saw. I felt consumed by the knowledge of the inevitability of Che's death; for me, it clouded the entire movie. I suppose that is exactly what Soderbergh wanted us to feel, the slowly evolving inevitability of his death. Part Two was so downbeat compared to, again an inevitability but in Cuba it was positive and in Bolivia it was so negative. The politics of the movement in Bolivia were only alluded to but rarely confronted didactically. For me the memorable scenes were all at the end of the film: the confrontation with the jailer and the milder talk with the Bolivian official where that official questions Che about the failure of the peasants to support his revolution. I had not considered the national differences playing as much role as they did in the conflict, Argentine versus Bolivian. I thought Soderbergh dealt admirably with the inevitable problems of supply in a revolutionary struggle; how do you get food without antagonizing the peasants who do not have enough themselves. I was struck by how hard it would be to try something as Che tried. I guess it is all in the timing; is there sufficient anger against the government to begin the movement; in Bolivia there wasn't. Che realized the terrible corundum of revolutionists in his letter to Fidel read at the beginning of the film: If not now, when, 50 years from now. A very thought provoking and well done film; make every effort to see it.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFrom what I've read a lot of people were disappointed by this film, compared to Part 1. Initially I could understand this but after a bit of thought I think they are wrong to be. Soderbergh continues his fact based telling of Che's life that he started in Part 1. Part 1 told a story of a revolution moving from unpromising beginnings to an ultimately successful conclusion. Part 2 tells a story of a revolution that moves from unpromising beginnings to a completely unsuccessful conclusion. It is not Soderbergh's fault that these 2 parts of Che's life had completely different outcomes. He bravely chooses to tell both in a fairly straightforward way. The viewer may feel a lot better coming out of the cinema after Part 1 than Part 2 but that is the reality of Che's life and not in my opinion any fault of the director. The film is far from perfect. It is probably too long. At least in Part 1 we saw different aspects of the war as the guerrillas had successes. In Part 2 they can't catch a break and we see their numbers constantly being reduced by death and capture. Che's capture and death are dealt with well. The film is greatly enhanced by the dialogue being in Spanish. Benicio Del Toro is again excellent as the charismatic Argentinian. So if you've seen Part 1 you will see a very similar telling of a very different story in Part 2.
\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 first one meant victory. This one means defeat. It takes place in a Bolivia, there the guerillas are sick and wary and don't meet that much sympathy from the farmers. If you know your 60s history, you understand how it ends. You will understand it even without that knowledge.
Del Toro is once again splendid. He goes on building this icon about the revolutionary who remains the same, regardless of success or failure. That's what Guevara is according to the legend, but still it's so well acted.
The documentary feeling is there around the icon, which is one of the greatest achievements in this big Soderbergh project. He has succeeded.
\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\nPart II or formerly known as GUERILLA, is also a great achievement but not quite as entertaining as PART I because this is where we begin to witness what might have caused the fall and death of Che Guevara. Once again, I'm impressed by the cause-and-effect that both parts have in their interconnecting stories. We're reminded again and again that the lead character, Che Guevara is an Argentine. Some of the men in Fidel's army chose not to take orders from a Foreigner and now that Che has chosen to leave the comfort of victory to continue the revolutionary in Bolivia, he doesn't get much respect from his new army and the natives either, only because he's a foreigner.
As far as technical goes, I think Part II would've been more helpful if before everything else, right after the display of the map, it would show some highlights from the previous installment just to refresh memory about his characters and what he's set himself on doing, to make the audience understand why his methods was successful in Cuba but they don't work in Bolivia. It is clear now in this segment, that Che is not as charismatic as Fidel Castro. In Bolivia, he's dealing with a bunch of soldiers whose hearts are not fully in it. It's said that the ingredient for revolutionary is love.. well, they don't give a damn that much about their country so it's a tough sell. It's excruciatingly painful and difficult for Che to get the others to buy into his vision.
I like one particular scene that illustrates Che's deteriorating condition, a scene in which his horse would not go no matter how badly Che tries to direct it, and then his temper took the better of him and for a moment there, he forgets he's a doctor, and he becomes this desperate soldier who's stabs his own horse. His army is like a horse that doesn't want to be led. But at the same time, the film drags, it relies on small cameos from familiar faces that you'll recognize just for the sake of brief entertainment and for the most part, you get pounded left and right by one obstacle after another, but maybe that is the intention of Part II, if so.. then it definitely works. Standing ovation to the cinematography that gives us a first person view at the moment of Che's last breath. This movie may not answer the questions of why Che Guevara was so stubborn, why he was so determined he could pull it off even wen the odds were against him and why he deeply wants South America to have the same fate as Cuba but the movie CHE is a story worth telling.
\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 year is 1964. Ernesto \"Che\" Guevara, having been a Cuban citizen for the last five years,disappears from the face of the Earth,leaving a glum Fidel Castro to announce that he is probably dead,when in truth, he has left Cuba to move to Bolivia to live an assumed identity. Whilst living in La Paz,Guevara undertakes an idea to overthrow the corrupt,bourgeois government there. Once again,Steven Soderberg takes up where 'Che:Part One' leaves off (only better this time). The pacing is more on target,the job of acting is ever so fine (including a turn by a sickly looking Benecio Del Toro,as Che Guevara). Suffice it to say,it's probably best if you see both films,to get the true story of Guevara & what kind of a man he was (I had the rare open window of opportunity to see both films at one screening----talk about a long haul!). As with 'Che-Part 1:The Argentine',this film has no MPAA rating, but contains enough salty language & violence to easily snag it an 'R'.
\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 wouldn't be surprised if Soderbergh was pressured to avoid making pre- revolution Cuba as graphically corrupt as it was. Merely reciting a few statistics isn't going to make it with the younger crowd. Still, part one, which is almost entirely shot in the jungle, does capture the feel of that place, especially when traversing the mountainous areas of Cuba. I liked Del Toro's interpretation of Che Guevara's personality. And the actor who plays Castro, Bichir, also did a great job, against all odds. It's clear Soderbergh doesn't look down on these people, but it's also clear he's not going to plea their case to 'yanquis' far removed from the recent past. Some of the more important historical aspects contradict what I've read. To my knowledge Castro did not court the Soviet Union until all attempts to gain acceptance from the United States were exhausted. But on other aspects he is right on, especially as to the looting by the expatriates as the island went other rebel control. The country's treasury was left empty.
\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 not quite understand why any of the \"reviewers\" gave this documentary \"0\" other than for political reasons. No, the film did not investigate both \"sides\" of the story, but then surely one film in favour of Chavez against the tides of propaganda against him should be seen as an attempt to balance out the narrative overall (especially given A. the history of CIA involvement in Latin America in fermenting civil unrest - google National Security Archive and B. the coverage in that country and elsewhere of the clearly faked scenes of Chavez supporters shooting non-existent opponents). What is most amazing about this film is the fact that the film makers stayed in the presidential palace all of the way though the coup - surely a first in documentary making - images of a coup from both sides!!!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is something new.
There's a coup d'etat and a couple of irish documentary filmmakers are right inside of it.
A democratically elected president who uses his power to bring literacy to his people and encourages them to read the constitution is being slandered by the private media openly as dictator, mentally unstable, new hitler, etc. without repercussion from the governments side (like, say, silencing them via bullets and other traditional dictatorial methods). Oh, and they still claim that they are being suppressed, of course.
See how the media gloats about their own role in the coup d'etat on TV after they toppled the government with the help of rouge generals (how much more stupid can you get?? ).
And see how the people of Venezuela march to the palace, holding the constitution in their hands, and reinstall their elected government.
This sounds like a Hollywood fairytale, but it happened for real, against the explicit wishes of the USA. The documentary is a historical masterpiece, shot from the center of the action, acute and totally embarrassing for the prime supporters of the coup: The good, democratic, freedom loving, benevolent USA (who still channel large amounts of money to Chavez' political opponents).
Also highly entertaining and exciting. 10 points.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just saw this last night, it was broadcast on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's 'Passionate Eye' series. It has been screened recently (Sept. 2003) at the Toronto International Film Festival as well as many others. It is a quite remarkable film. The filmmakers literally stumbled into the story, being there to make a documentary about Chavez himself. Instead, they found themselves squarely in the middle of events as the coup unfolded. They had unprecedented access to events and people and, for the most part, let the story unfold as it happens. They, of course, have their own ideological perspective (which they make evident) but they keep themselves in the background and instead try to focus attention on the events, the people, and the background and history leading up to the coup. As a film, it is not ground-breaking in a stylistic or aesthetic sense, and that is, I think, the way it should be. What we get to see what 'embedded' journalism should really be. What we get to see is a remarkable account of a country struggling to attain democracy... a charismatic leader (Chavez) who actually cares for his people... a story about power and greed as a coalition of corporate/military/media interests combine to lead a coup of a democratically elected leader... and unprecedented access to a historical event as it unfolds.

\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 collect Horror films from all over and I have seen the good and the very bad - Zombie Bloodbath is a low budget video. Sure, the acting is bad, the storyline is basically a mix of all zombie movies thrown together and the quality is low in some spots. The thing you seem to be missing is that it's still entertaining and really very fun. The effects range from, like someone on here has said, pasty-faced zombies that look like KISS rejects to really good ones with some amazing latex work. But the reason you buy a movie with a title like this is for the gore and this film is amazing in that area. The effects are very good for such a small film. Someone called it a Party movie and it is. 100% fun party movie. I have heard from various websites that this is actually a \"rough cut\" of the film that got general release but the actual \"director's cut\" is coming on DVD and it is very nice quality. I will buy it and judge for myself.
Story is basically a Nuclear power plant goes bad and makes zombies. The gov't closes it down, hides the story and sanctions houses to be built over it. Some of the plant is still underground and these undead come up and attack the area. A few actors do a great job, there's some pretty straight social commentary that is insightful and true, good music, great lighting, some effective suspense and tons of blood and sick gore. One guy gets attacked and ripped from the lower area all the way up, if you know what I mean. Then his guts are shoved out of his mouth. Another is torn in half like in Day Of The Dead and they did a great job of that effect. There are a million gore gags and it's almost ALL action. I say stop being a prude, enjoy life and get more movies like Zombie Bloodbath and Meat market. Two great undead epics.
OK - UPDATE!!! I just got the DVD set and here is what I thought:
MUCH better picture quality and for once I was able to see the actual DIRECTOR'S CUT of the film and it is a much better movie. I liked it before, but now I can see what Todd Sheets was actually trying to do with this one. And the commentary helps too, hearing Sheets talk about the film in detail, He knows it's a trashy zombie movie, but he does show respect to all people involved. Also, Sheets has a great sense of humor and some humble integrity that others could learn from in the movie field. The behind the scenes of Zombie Bloodbath is pretty fun as well. I felt it was almost as entertaining as the film it was made for. There are some great interviews and behind the scenes footage, mixed with news stories about the film from some major places like CNN, FOX and MTV. Over all, a fun little film that is VERY rough around the edges, but still had me laughing and enjoying the ride! I have seen many DV films, and some shot of video films, and many are quite dull, but this one really wasn't. While newer DV films are technically superior, they just aren't this much fun!
PS - I heard they are now remaking this on a big budget???
\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 in my opinion is one of the best action movies of the 1970s. It not only features a great cast but is also loaded with wild shootouts and explosions that are still impressive today. The story is about a Vietnam vet (Kris Kristofferson) being recruited by his brother (Jan-Michael Vincent) to help clean up the criminal element in a small town and what happens when Kris starts taking advantage of his position and becomes as bad as the criminals he was hired to get rid of. It's great seeing Kris play against type. Bernadette Peeters and Victoria Principal both offer great support as the respective ladies of the two male stars. Jan-Michael shows real movie star persona in this film. I don't think Vigilante Force is on video but it occasionally shows up on TV. It's a great flick for guys who like movies.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie could only originate in the 1970's!! It's a bizarre action movie set in a small California workers town. Some sort of mill or plant is closing down, so suddenly, rampant bad behavior is occurring in the streets! The townsfolk's are fed up! So Ben Arnold (Jan Michael Vincent), goes to another town to recruit his brother, Aaron, played by Kris Kristofferson. Aaron is a Vietnam Vet who looks and acts a littleoff balance. He hangs out with a bunch of other surly Vietnam vet's. They come into town to clean it up (they become deputized), but underneath their good deeds, they are actually running gambling houses, asking for protection money, etc.!!! It takes a while for people to catch on, and in a biblical Cain and Abel showdown, Vincent has to take on his older brother. There's an interesting blue-collar sleaze atmosphere to this movie, which makes it interesting (note the cock-fighting scene!). Vincent is almost too angelic in this role  he thinks so highly of his brother, he cannot conceive of him committing the evil deeds he's accused of. He finally comes to his senses  his girlfriend, Victoria Principal, is brutally shot in the back & he himself is beaten up in his home. Kris Kristofferson is creepily effective as Aaron. He coolly denies any wrong-doing, and even gently coos and talks to Vincent's young daughter (she refers to him as 'Uncle Aaron') even while he's threatening her father's life, all the while smiling! Vincent and Kristofferson have good contrasting chemistry with each other. Bernadette Peters makes an interesting appearance as a 'saloon' girl who attracts Aaron's attention. This is a good 70's action movie, if you can find it!! It is NOT available on DVD yet
\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\nAnarchy and lawlessness reign supreme in the podunk hick hamlet of Elk Hills. The town elders deputize tough, cagey Vietnam veteran Aaron (a wonderfully robust and engaging performance by Kris Kristofferson) and several of his fellow vet buddies to clean up the place. The plan goes sour when Aaron and his cruel cronies decide to take over Elk Hills after they get rid of all the bad elements. It's up to Aaron's decent do-gooder brother Ben (amiably played by Jan-Michael Vincent) to put a stop to him before things get too out of hand. Writer/director George (\"Miami Blues,\" \"Gross Pointe Blank\") Armitage whips up a delightfully amoral, cynical and wickedly subversive redneck drive-in exploitation contemporary Western winner: he expertly creates a gritty, no-nonsense tone, keeps the pace brisk and unflagging throughout, and stages the plentiful action scenes with considerable muscular aplomb (the rousing explosive climax is especially strong and stirring). The first-rate cast of familiar B-feature faces constitutes as a major asset: Victoria Principal as Ben's sweet hottie girlfriend Linda, the fabulous Bernadette Peters as flaky saloon singer Little Dee, Brad Dexter as the feckless mayor, David Doyle as a slimy bank president, Andrew Stevens as an affable gas station attendant, John Carpenter movie regular Charles Cyphers as one of the 'Nam vets, Anthony Carbone as a smarmy casino manager, John Steadman as a folksy old diner owner, Paul Gleason as a mean strong-arm shakedown bully, and Dick Miller as a talentless piano player. Moral: Don't hire other people to do your dirty work. William Cronjager's slick cinematography, Gerald Fried's lively, harmonic hillbilly bluegrass score, and the abundant raw violence further add to the overall trashy fun of this unjustly neglected little doozy.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a pretty strange movie. It does comes across as an exploitation film with over-the-top violence and unrealistic situations, but unusual for being constructed around rural characters at war with each other, as opposed to an invading 'other'.
The movie is an excessive stereotype of Vietnam veterans, in a long line of films that portrayed the vets of that war as dangerous psycopaths. Kris Kristofferson's last line is 'I ain't lost a war yet', as he meets his demise after wreaking a long trail of murder and destruction, including the town's chief of police and his brother's girlfriend in a particularly chilling scene. However, Kristofferson is a good enough actor, and charismatic enough, to carry this villain with a surprising depth. Vincent is clearly the golden boy, but with enough intensity layered over his clean cut goodness. The movie bears some plot resemblance to Winchester 73 where Jimmy Stewart tries to tolerate a criminal brother until being forced to act against him.
The movie has b-movie grade action, though the presence of Kristofferson, Vincent, a gorgeous Victoria Principal and Bernadette Peters give it an A-grade lineup.
I give it a 7 for being a long lost view into an American psyche of post-Vietnam/pre-Reagan introspection, paranoia, and confusion, and a movie industry that was willing to address such topics at that time.
Seen on the THIS channel, a great network that keeps playing lots of old movies of the 70s through 90s, regardless of political bent.
\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 remember seeing this one when I was seven or eight. I must have found the characters round, because they left a impression in my mind that lasted for a long time after the end of the movie. And the ending, now that's sad, well... for a 7-8 year old kid.
I had the opportunity of seeing this movie again lately, and found that the plot was too simple, the character, two-dimensional... I guess it's the kind of movie that you can only with the innocence of a young child... Pity...
I recommend this one for all you parents with small kids... ( I saw it in its original french version, so I cannot tell you whether the translation is good or not.)
\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***1/2 Out of ***** While I am not concerned with the fact that this is an English dubbed version as some reviewers have mentioned, it should be noted, as it seems to reside in many Quebecois native hearts. However, this was a movie as a child that I was a fervent admirer of; keeping in mind now that it was made for children, I rate it on a relative basis. The story is of children on winter break building an awesome snow fort, and jostling back-'n-forth for control with weapons such as snowballs and other concoctions, as idle hands and free time equal winter break lessons. If I had children, this definitely is a film I would try and get them interested in, as the snow fort wowed me when I was young, and I think even children today would agree, albeit with Pixar and all the computer animation, maybe I am out of date and just don't realize it. In addition, the movie's message is wonderfully allegorical and a positive one at that, for children (and adults alike).
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was very good because it remember when I was young when I maked snow castle. It was so fun. This movie is interessant. This is a good quebeker movie with no much money and is also a magical movie because their wonderfull castle is very big and beautiful.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat can i say about this movie? I have seen it quite a few times since the first time when i was around 6. I have seen the english version and it is done very well. It is a great movie for all ages, but it is directed more for children. I love the childlike humor and appreciate it. If you have not seen it, you should try to rent a copy, you will not be disappointed!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBut the rest of us, who love a good sentimental and emotional story that is a lock to get you crying..enjoy!
Tom Hulce is magnificent as Dominick, a mentally slow trashman who loves professional wrestling and his brother, Eugene, played by Ray Liotta, who is a doctor and who works very long hours.
Due to Eugene's work schedule, Dominick is alone a lot of the time and tends to make questionable judgment calls. He really just wants to be a good boy, to do the right thing, and to make his brother proud of him. He stops in church to pray at one point and expresses his emotions so openly and so well that the character has you crying before the damn movie even gets really started.
Not about to give anything away here, but the movie is extremely involving and sad and heartbreaking. Those unafraid of these things will have a field day with this beautiful story, its loving characters and a great song I cannot quote here, that has nothing to do with the movie at all but is strangely appropriate..but you hear it in a bar.
I thought Tom Hulce would be nominated for this movie, since he was for 'Amadeus' I figured that might give him the inside track to actually winning. No such luck. Liotta is just as good but has less of an emotional impact, but then he does later on. All I can say about Jamie Lee Curtis is that she doesn't have much of a part here but it was nice of her to lend her name to a small drama set in Pittsburgh about two brothers who you will never forget.
\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 want to warn you that there is a very bittersweet quality to this comment. Also, this comment will be much more meaningful to you after you have seen the movie.
Although it is tragically sad to say, that movie bears a resemblance to my life that is so striking that it is truly scary. The rest of you will never know how accurately that movie depicts how persons who have been in situations like that act and react in their later lives.
This could not have been a work of fiction; it had to be based on personal experience.
My testament to the how good the movie was is shown by the fact that, although it was one of the best movies I've ever seen, watching my life portrayed on the silver screen was such a searingly painful experience that I will never be able to see it again.
But I endorse it heartily to all others as a chance to peer into the soul of another human being to the extent that you probably never experienced before or will ever again. I know that for a fact, because that's my soul you will be observing.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film was excellent - the emotional power of Tom Hulce and Ray Liotta's performances brought tears to my eyes and joy to my heart - this film shows us that there is still hope in the world. If this film had come out at the end of 1988, instead of Rain Man, Hulce would certainly have been at least nominated for a Best Actor Oscar. Definitely a must-see!
\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\nIf you have any kind of heart and compassion for people, this is a tough movie to watch, at least in the second half of it.
It's in that segment where we see nice little kid get beaten up and then a retarded (mentally- challenged) man go off the deep end after he witnesses this brutal act against the child. It's not pleasant material.
However, it's a good movie and the acting is good, too. The story will sit with you awhile.
\"Dominick\" is the mentally-disabled guy and is played by Tom Hulce. I think this might be Hulce's best role ever. He's looked after by a med student, \"Eugene,\" played by Ray Liotta, who became a star the following year with Kevin Costner's \"Field Of Dreams.\"
Dominick is a goodhearted garbage man who reads \"Hulk\" comic books and loves wrestling. He's the type of \"slow\" guy that you can't help but love and root for to live a happy life. When he freaks out, it's for several good reasons and...well, see the film for the whole story. It's worth your time but be prepared to go on real emotional roller coaster and possibly be very upset at some things you see.
\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\nWords are seriously not enough convey the emotional power of this film; it's one of the most wrenching you'll ever see, yet the ending is one of the most loving, tender, and emotionally fulfilling you could hope for. Every actor in every role is terrific, especially a wise and understated Jamie Lee Curtis, a tightly wound and anguished Ray Liotta, and a heart-stopping turn from Tom Hulce that should have had him up for every award in the book. (He's the #1 pick for 1988's Best Actor in Danny Peary's \"Alternate Oscars.\") The last half hour borders on melodrama, but the film earns every one of its tears--and unless you're made of stone, there will be plenty of them.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was on at 2 or so In the morning one Saturday a few years ago, for various reasons I don't remember the entire story but what remains are the two standout performances from the central characters. Dom has had a unfortunate lot, manipulated & literally working a rubbish job, Eugene torn between personal aspirations and duty towards his sibling. Tom Hulce' Dom doesn't plead for sympathy - It comes naturally. Ray Liotta Is a universe away from Henry Hill, displaying a soft centre In what must feel a thankless position.
In many ways this deals with the dilemma many young carer's face - the past or the future. As It turns out, with some work the two can happily co-exist. Thoughtfully handled & sensitively played Dominick & Eugene Is difficult not to warm to.
\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 loved this movie! It was all I could do not to break down into tears while watching it, but it is really very uplifting. I was struck by the performance of Ray Liotta, but especially the talent of Tom Hulce portraying Ray's twin brother who is mentally slow due to a tragic and terrible childhood event. But Tom's character, though heartbreaking, knows no self pity and is so full of hope and life. This is a great movie, don't miss 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\nTOM HULCE* turns in yet another Oscar-worthy performance as Dominick Luciano, the brain-damaged garbage man who's helping put his brother (Ray Liotta as Eugene) through medical school.
This is a must-see for all movie lovers and all lovers of life and people!
===========> *From the small studder to the eratic dancing, to the repeated words \"Oh, Jeez\" whenever Nicky is in a bind, the belieavablitly of Tom's performance is so excellent that you will have to concentrate to remember that it's an actor on screen!
\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 of my favorite movies I saw at preview in Seattle. Tom Hulce was amazing, with out words could convey his feelings/thoughts. I actually sent Mike Ferrell some donation money to help the film get distributed. It is good. System says I need more lines but do not want to give away plot stuff. I was in the audience in Seattle with Hulce and director , a writer I think and Mike Ferrell. They talked for about an hour afterwords. Not really a dry eye in the house. Why Hollywood continues to be stupid I do not know. ( actually I do know , it is our fault, look what we watch)Well you get what you pay for guys. Get this and see it with someone special. It is a gem.
\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 emotional powers and characters of Dominick and Eugene are the things that Hollywood doesn't make anymore. This is one of the most emotional, sensitive, and heart-felt movies that I have ever seen! Roy Liotta, Tom Hulce, and supporting actress Jamie Lee Curtis, deliver Oscar Winning caliber performances! There are not enough words to express how great this movie is. Sure, people who are not into sentimental movies may not care as much as the rest of us about Dominick and Eugene, but for the rest of us, this movie goes right to the heart and sole of compassion and humanity. You will never forget this film, EVER!
*****SPOILERS BELOW*****
The simple yet eloquent story is masterfully told. Eugene is a med-school intern who faces long hours and a demanding work load at the hospital. His fraternal twin brother Dominick (born 12 minutes earlier) is a little slow and awkward because of brain damage due to a victim of abuse by their father. (A heartbreaking moment when this is found out in the film that will leave you in tears!) Eugene (a.k.a \"Geno\") faces a painful dilemma. He must decide whether to finish medical school, which would mean accepting his residency in another city and leave Dominick (a.k.a \"Nicky\") behind, or forfeit the rest of his education to take care of him. Nicky helps pay his brother's med-school tuition by working as a trash collector.
The questions of ethics, morals, and responsibilities are masterfully blended in this landmark movie. Just when Gino thinks Nicky might be making progress toward independence, Dominick turns around and winds up doing things like helping out a drug dealer, or tying to use a faulty cord that he finds at the dump on an electrical appliance.
Larry, is \"The Character\" and Nicky's partner on his garbage route who fills gullible Dominick's head with all kinds of stories like Geno and Jennifer (his girlfriend, whom he is tutoring in Clinical Pharmacology) going to Atlantic City and gambling away all their money. But deep down, you can see that Larry cares for him. On their rounds, Nicky also befriends a little boy, whom we find out has also been beaten by his father. An end result is also tragic and the pain that you see on Nicky's face when it happens, speaks volumes.
The sensitivity that the two brothers share for each other can not be overstated enough. All Nicky wants to do is be loved and look for acceptance in anyway he can. (i.e he goes to church, loves Hulk Hogan) Geno loves Nicky more than anything in the world. But can his brother become independent enough so that Geno can pursue his dream of becoming a doctor? A brilliant film that should have gotten tons more recognition than it deserved, but unfortunately came out around the same time as Rain Man, which dealt with a similar issue. However, I like Dominick and Eugene better because it has a far stronger emotional component. Be forewarned that this movie is aimed right at the tear-ducts, so have Kleenex handy! What a 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\nRay Liotta and Tom Hulce shine in this sterling example of brotherly love and commitment. Hulce plays Dominick, (Nicky) a mildly mentally handicapped young man who is putting his 12 minutes younger, twin brother, Liotta, who plays Eugene, through medical school. It is set in Baltimore and deals with the issues of sibling rivalry, the unbreakable bond of twins, child abuse and good always winning out over evil. It is captivating, and filled with laughter and tears. If you have not yet seen this film, please rent it, I promise, you'll be amazed at how such a wonderful film could go un-noticed.
\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 purchased and viewed the DVD of this film. The DVD transfer is from last year, 2001. This 1988 film is really a great little film. Overlooked by most people. I saw it in the theater in 1988 and have loved it ever since. I love the opening shot of Pittsburgh (not Baltimore, as another user commented). Makes Pittsburgh look like one of the most beautiful cities in the world! And I must say, the tour of Pitts on the garbage truck with Nicky is a very scenic, interesting one! Tom Hulce, as everyone else has said, gives a remarkable, wonderful performance. The DVD is a good transfer, with no extras, but a widescreen format. I recommend it to those who love the 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\nI'm gonna tip the scales here a bit and say I enjoyed this. However, the cartoon is really only going to appeal to those who have very absurdist tendencies. It's definitely something that most people will not get, as is the nature of absurdism.
the animation is horrible, but yes, that's the point. The main character is foul mouthed, violent, and stupid. no redeeming qualities whatsoever. his wife shrieks and wails, apparently just barely capable of the most basic communication skills. most of these stories completely lack any kind of point.
but again, that's the point ;)
If non sequiters, foul language, and complete and utter randomness are your thing, you're going to love this.
It is really short, so I would probably rent instead of buying.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a short, crudely animated series by David Lynch (as it says in the beginning), and it follows the misadventures of a backwoods, overall-wearing large man, with a wife who has a stress disorder and an annoying son. Both of those elements are harped upon repeatedly in the short episodes, and there's no real plot to be seen. It's easier if you think of this as an exceptionally odd, slightly macabre Looney Tunes- with far more gore, profanity, bloody violence, and occasional moments of hilarity.
I bought the DVD along with Eraserhead, having previously seen Eraserhead. Don't look to this series if you want an artistic masterpiece- this is anything but. In fact, it seems to almost be a statement against such things, as its rough style spits in the face of any sort of animation convention you may see. As Lynch says, \"If this is funny, it is only funny because we see the absurdity of 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 consider myself a great admirer of David Lynch's works, for he provides the viewers with absolutely unique motion pictures with typical \"Lynch-elements.\" Having seen most of his works, I naively thought I could predict Lynch's next step. I was dead wrong. Dumbland is something I could have never imagined under the name of David Lynch. Still, after my recovery from the first shock, I started to contemplate about this extremely primitive main character, and I drew the conclusion that all the absurdities, cruelty, brutality and disgust presented here are mirroring bits from reality, being emphasized by distorting it. There are things in our lives we hardly ever emphasize, for they are either disgusting or horrible, however, they are surrounding us, so I take the courage to say, Dumbland focuses on these bits and pieces. This is not a movie to enjoy, though you'll sometimes laugh out of a strange, perverted sense of humor, this is an animated reflection of all things we rather reject to observe, with its simplicity, morbidity and absurdity. Take it as it is, you don't have to like it. It just exists. And finally, if you're attentive enough, you'll find elements typical to Lynch as well. I recommend it for tolerant people!!!
\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 September of last year, I have been borrowing four to six films each week from the Harold Washington Library, which boasts an impressive DVD collection. (The HWL truly is a circulating library: three-quarters of its films are out at any given time!) Recently, I was thrilled to find The Short Films of David Lynch. Yesterday, knowing little about the animated series, I picked up Dumbland. I'm here to report that, for David Lynch fans, watching the eight episodes is half an hour well-spent.
The most remarkable feature of these brief pieces are their soundtracks. Each episode has its own rhythm. Respiratory and digestive systems provide percussion. Outrageous voices accent pauses' ends. Physical violence supplies the beats. Chirping birds and buzzing sockets brush along the edges. Many other elements fill out the orchestra. The pacing of the crude animation often keeps in sync with the sound, but the soundtrack itself struck me as Lynch's primary interest in creating and disseminating this work. In a way, these eight shorts are unique Lynchian rhythms.
That said, the situations are odd, ugly, profound, dumb and funny as hell. And there's enough space within them to reflect on how absurd we humans can be. I can't say that I'll watch the collection again, but for anyone who revelled in the movements that is the suite Inland Empire, Dumbland is worth half an hour of your 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\nDumbland is not for all. In fact Dumbland maybe in for nobody except Lynch and that's what make it funny and a collective cartoon. Violent? Yes. Profanity? Yes. Absurd? Yes. A piece of garbage? Never. Dumbland is a wonderful picture of some Americans that don't have brains and hit wife and kids for fun. From México I can say I love it! My favorite episodes are: 1- My teeths are bleeding, all the noise around and violence make me wanna scream and put me behind my bed. 2- Get the stick! Yeah baby get it and learn a lesson: some people never be thankful for your actions. 3- Ants. The more Lynch episode of all, music, surrealism and a very sweet revenge...
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a bit of a puzzle for a lot of the artsy Lynch crowd. They tend to try to write this off as some kind of meaningless, crude, side project of Lynch's. Like this is Lynch passing gas between his real pieces of film art. Well it may be a fart, but its one of those intriguing farts that you catch of a whiff of and are embarrassed to admit you enjoy.
Dumbland distilled down beyond this is art. What can you do with aspects of modern life but laugh at it. If you took it seriously you would go nuts. You hook into it, smell it, taste it, feel its agonies, its unreasoning stupidities, and then express it in any medium you choose. Thats called art, and art isn't dumb. But it is Dumbland.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"