empathielabs/imbd_dataset_v0 huggingface dataset:
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Larry Clark is not renowned for his talents as a writer or a director, but he has made some undeniably important films. Kids, Bully, and to a lesser extent Ken Park all achieve their intended purpose: shock, revulsion, and even disgust. These films are uncompromising in their content and use their controversial nature to expose very serious problems in modern youth. Kids exposed us to the proliferation of A.I.D.S. and sexual promiscuity among the young. Bully touched upon similar issues. Ken Park dealt somewhat ham-handedly with sexual abuse and suburban ennui. Irrefutably, all of these films exposed something horrifying and left a bad taste in your mouth.
Wassup Rockers is about a group of poor Hispanic skateboarders from South-Central Las Angeles who go to arbitrarily go to Beverly Hills to skate. That's it.
Wassup Rockers is nothing.
It has no substance. It has an essentially nonexistent narrative. And, like Kids, it features a cast of first-time actors who were drawn out of the films setting. However, unlike Kids, none of them have any semblance of talent. There is better acting in porn. This film features, without a doubt, the most terrible performances I've ever seen in a feature film. One can respect Larry Clark to exposing these young men to the film-making process, but these kids are absolutely cringe-worthy, folks. Might I add that apparently these gents also produced the soundtrack, which features some of the most dismally inept garage punk you'll ever hear- my advice is to pop a couple of migraine pills before you enter the theater, or you'll regret it afterward.
But then again, it's not like they had much of a script to work with. Every line that is uttered is a contrived, pathetically-delivered, and irritating beyond all measure. The story itself is ludicrous. It starts out reasonably enough, but soon slips quite unexpectedly into sheer absurdity. This begins of course with a capricious sexcapade with a pair of rich white girls, followed by a series of clichéd National Lampoonish encounters, characters being killed off for no reason, and finally resulting in a ridiculous anti-climax. Shots go on much longer than they need to. Be prepared to watch people fall of skateboards for about fifteen minutes straight, overlong, lingering shots of characters doing nothing or skateboarding down streets. But then again, with the script at a scant 32 pages they need as much useless filler as possible. Perhaps Wassup Rockers would have worked better as a short film.
Anyways, I could go on like this. This is the worst film Larry Clark has made yet. For those of you who are interested in seeing a Clark movie if only for his shocking pederast antics, look elsewhere. This is by far the tamest film he's made yet, and it's also the worst. It's flat out horrible. Like, Uwe Boll horrible. Definitely the worst one I saw at the festival.
1/10


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
There's nothing to say except I want my time back that this movie took from me. I'm not racist against Latinos. Hell, I'm half Brazilian. I loved the movie Kids. It doesn't make any sense. These kids just go around and do nothing. They're not even good at skating. The whole time I'm just waiting for something, anything, to happen! but it doesn't. NOTHING happens the whole movie. Did I mention they suck at skating. I might make a movie called beat up rockers, and the whole premise will be about kicking the sh*t out of poser moron punks like these kids. I'm not even going to get into it, this movie sucks. Please do yourself a favor and burn this movie if you come in contact with it so some other poor soul won't make the same mistake.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
It starts out like a very serious social commentary which quickly makes one think of other Clark movies like Kids, Bully, etc. But then just as quickly, it unravels into a direction-less mess. Who is the main character? Is this a serious film or some Gregg Araki-esquire over the top goofy film? Is this a skate documentary with moments of dialog inserted? I have no clue. I found myself watching the clock and wonder when this turd was going to end. I kept thinking there would be some big shocker culmination which never came. I cut a good 20 minutes out of the movie by fast forwarding through the pointless skate scenes. Yes, it illustrates the changing landscape between the have's have not's. I got it way back in the beginning. Kids and Bully was done in such a way that I actually felt like I was observing the realities of that group of friends. Wassup felt very staged, poorly constructed and ever worse acting. Teenage Caveman, which Larry didn't write but did direct, was terrible. But at least it felt like it was suppose to be a terrible movie that didn't take itself seriously. Wassup Rockers was just plain bad.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Pick a stereotype, any stereotype (whether racial, sexual, cultural, etc.), and I bet you'll find it in Wassup Rockers. Do you think that all Hispanic teenage boys are stupid, hairy, inarticulate, and dirty troublemakers? Are Hispanic girls sex-crazed, easy, ass-baring sluts? Do Black people all want to start fights and carry guns? Do all gay people throw themed parties with pink drinks and ask young boys to model for them? Are all White teenage girls rich, stuck-up princesses who are bored with White teenage boys and are looking for something a little more dangerous? If you answered "yes" to any of the previous questions, you, my friend, are a bigot, and you will LOVE Wassup Rockers.
Director Larry Clark likes to shock his audiences (I was 15 years old the first time I saw Kids and I think that's why I'm still a virgin), but Wassup Rockers isn't shocking it's just bad. He tries to be edgy and realistic with his minimal dialog and body-hair close-ups, but these characters and this story are completely unrealistic.
Simply put, Wassup Rockers is a teenage boy's fantasy. What 14-year-old boy doesn't want to be a skater who gets in trouble, crashes parties, drinks 40s, and is told by the hot, rich, White girl that his uncircumcised penis "looks dangerous?" Besides that demographic, I really don't know who's going to enjoy this film.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
**Possible Spoilers Ahead**
Whenever fans of bad movies congregate for more than a few minutes, a name that invariably comes up is that of Larry Buchanan. This amazing director has given us remakes of other turkeys (ZONTAR THE THING FROM VENUS), cheap-jack crime dramas like A BULLET FOR PRETTY BOY, and tawdry conspiracy flicks like DOWN ON US and GOODBYE NORMA JEAN. THE LOCH NESS HORROR is a humdinger to say the least. Overlooking the fact that Loch Ness is extremely long and narrow, Larry filmed this howler on a wide and round California lake. Early on, the film boasts some dazzling (for the budget) underwater photography and creates some atmosphere in spite of itself. Then it degenerates into windy dialogue uttered by no-name actors with lapsing Scottish accents, not to mention a soundtrack that will do nothing for the much-maligned bagpipe. At one point, campers sing "You Take The High Road, I'll Take The Low Road," just to throw in one more Scottish cliche. If Scottish people ever decide to jump on the Political Correctness bandwagon they'll sue Larry Buchanan over this film, his surname notwithstanding. The monster looks like a giant papier-mache puppet and it makes the dragon in Beanie & Cecil look terrifying by comparison. In one unforgettable scene Nessie takes to land and, to evade some patrolling soldiers, the fifty-foot long critter tries to hide behind a tree-and the soldiers don't see it! THE LOCH NESS HORROR is a true mind-boggler that must be seen-several times--to be believed.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Something strange is happening in Loch Ness. The water is crystal clear, nor cold. A giant robotic plastic monster emerges and kills Scots! What is this movie?! First, I love reading stories about Nessie, sea monsters in general. When i saw this for sale, i thought it was a cheap rip off of jaws. No. It was terrible! The story was pointless, acting was 100% garbage, the only up side was the cool mechanical Nessie they used. It was full of inaccuracy, wrong locations, and bad everything. Not worth your while, just leave it on the shelf (or garbage can) you found it on. On second note, This film was shot in Cailifornia, not Loch Ness, a major diss to Nessie fans.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
OMG, another bad film by Larry Buchanan. That guy did not learn to stop, did he? First, he gives us zero budget sci-fi movies and lies about famous dead people, and now he is exploiting the Loch Ness Monster as being vicious.
The "plot" is basically about some southerners of the USA pretending to be Scottish camping out at Loch Ness. Alas, out on the fishing hole, oops, I mean lake of Loch Ness, there is a killer inflatable monster that clams itself to be Nessie, going out of its way to kill people for no apparent reason.
I am surprised that the crew of MST3K never heard of this movie. Yes, it is that bad too.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I think this is one of those few movies that I want to rate it as low as possible just to pay it a compliment.
I haven't seen this movie in about 25 years, so I really can't say that much about it. It still seems to be very hard to find on video. But I remember my brother and I stumbled upon it somewhere in the toxic brew of late night UHF channel television of the mid 1980s when I was about 10 years old. So I've never actually seen the beginning of the movie, but I saw most of it. The first thing I remember is this couple is sneaking out of a campsite and they're rowing to an island to make out, and then they get attacked by an insane Scotsman in a kilt with an axe! They manage to escape from him but get attacked by the Loch Ness Monster, which in this movie is just a head and a neck with no body. The eyes and the mouth of the monster don't even move, it looks like a piñata.
I mean I had just literally never seen anything on this magnitude before and it totally blew my mind. I had seen some bad movies on TV in the early 80s but I had never seen something so totally inept and so casually and thoughtlessly constructed that it seemed like the people who made it spent less time and effort on it than we did watching it. I had already seen some of the Troma films and that type of thing that tries to deliberately be "campy", but this was the pure and real stuff and it was my first encounter with truly great bad film-making. This movie was like the last gasp of the drive-in era and I caught a whiff of it just in time. Actually when we were watching it, we couldn't figure out if it was made in the 50s or the 70s. Turns out it came out just a few years before I saw it.
Later I came into contact with Mystery Science Theater and found out about a lot of the old B movies and serials, but I had already seen it in this movie. The movie is so funny that I had never even laughed that hard at the Monty Python crew or Bill Murray or any comedian. After seeing this movie I was always trying to search for the "good bad" movies and I got a lot of my friends into it. But this movie was and basically is an impossible one to find. I never really found out what it even was or who Larry Buchanan was until the 1990s when IMDb took off and the internet took off and information started getting passed around. But this movie still needs to be discovered by a lot of others who might appreciate its transcendentally bad qualities. Look for it.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
What can I say about a movie as bad as this? The people who made this movie, didn't even try to make the monster in it look realistic. You never see more than its head, and the head is just a giant puppet that has little movement except for when it opens it mouth to roar. And the sound they used for the roaring is the best part. At many points in the movie it sounds exactly like a TIE fighter flying over! I couldn't believe that when I first heard it and had to rewind several times to make it sink in. Other than the terrible looking monster and the noises it makes, there isn't much more to this film except for a few corny attack scenes and the crazy Scotsman attacking the kids trying to have an intimate moment in his castle. Still, it's watchable if you like this sort of trash. I know I do....


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
A few buddies and myself have the strange hobby of seeking out really horrendous and utterly obscure (for a good reason) horror flicks and then subsequently watching them under the influence of mind-broadening consumer goods like alcohol and/or soft drugs. Surely a lot of people do this, but they watch movies like the "Godzilla" remake, whereas we torment our eyes and brains with stuff like "The Loch Ness Horror". And, eureka, this is a prototypic bad movie! We open traditionally, with bag pipes music during the opening credits. This is, of course, to emphasize extra to us dumb viewers that the story is supposed to take place in the Scottish highlights and not in director Larry Buchanan's birthplace Texas. For that exact same reason, the cast members are seemingly also instructed to overact tremendously and talk with talk with atrocious accents. The American marine biologist Prof. George Sanderson arrives in Loch Ness with some brand new and highly sophisticated sonar equipment to track down the whereabouts of the legendary monster in the lake. Meanwhile, there are many other parties hanging around the lake, like a group of kids on a Science Camp (what a boring way to spend your vacation), retired army generals looking for a Luftwaffe plane that crashed in the lake during WWII and a bunch of thieves and failed scientists that are steeling the monster's egg. You would think that these numerous sub plots bring some diversity and excitement in the plot, but unfortunately that's not the case. "Loch Ness Horror" is an overall boring flick with only a couple of noteworthy elements. The monster itself, for example, is a delightfully cheesy creation with cute eyes and a smoky breath. His teeth also glow in the dark, which is quite useful when you're dumb enough to go out on a boat ride in the middle of the night. Near the end of the film, the remaining cast members were more interested in the lost Luftwaffe plane than in the monster, so it was about time to wrap it up. "Loch Ness Horror" is carefully recommended in case you're a fan of bad B-movies from the 80's, but be advised that it contains an overload of senseless dialogs and a bizarrely rushed ending that makes it look as if the film suddenly ran out of budget.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I completely forgot that I'd seen this within a couple of days, which is pretty revealing in itself. The umpteenth version of Gaston 'Phantom of the Opera' Leroux's locked-door country-house mystery, I had heard that it was an engaging and witty update. So it appeared from the likable title sequence and a few neat touches in the opening scene, but the film very quickly ground to a halt and became vaguely tedious and wholly unsatisfying.
As a mystery the major problem is that it is fundamentally unsolvable by the audience: like the worst Agatha Christies, it depends on a character appearing in the final act with a wealth of background information that we have not been privy to. As a film, be it comedy or thriller, the crucial problem is that characterisation is almost non-existent. With the exception of the killer, everyone is a face-value version of the typical suspects in the typical country-house murder story - reporter, endangered heiress, suspicious fiancé, scatterbrained scientist father (a surprisingly poor Michel Lonsdale), etc. There's no depth and little of interest, and the frequently over-ripe or misjudged performances don't help. You frankly don't care about anyone in it, so there's no jeopardy or suspense. Only Claude Rich and, in the last reel, Pierre Arditi get anything to work with, and only in the last reel does the film get close to a sense of resonance that is too fleeting to be really effective.
For the rest, we get endless exposition and a couple of ineffective would-be comic set pieces (a promising one with a photographer trapped inside a grandfather clock is just too poorly thought through to pay off), with Dennis Podalydes reduced to Irving the Explainer for the last third of the picture. I'm not fond of country-house movies or Agatha Christie style whodunits, so those who are might cit it a lot more slack, but I found it a poor show. As Rich says when the mystery is revealed, "It's all rather something of a disappointment."


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Oh dear! Oh dear! Oh dear!
To think that films such as this were made, and probably enjoyed by thousands at drive-ins really boggles the mind. How innocent we were in those days.
To put it bluntly, this film is crap. The hero is so wet you can hear his squishy damp footsteps in every scene. My Lord, but he's just one of a whole slew of awful, awful actors that appear in this turkey. No wonder MST3K picked it. The story, such as it is, centres around a stock car driver (who is so incompetent, you really believe it is the actor driving the car) that he gives up and "gets in with the wrong crowd" Oooooh! Scary stuff. However, the wrong crowd turn out to be the biker equivalent of The Three Stooges and their "hand-me round" slut of a biker chick. As an example of how lame this whole thing is, the writers obviously wracked their brains to come up with a frightening name for the biker gang - if four people can be called a gang, that is. The result? The gang is called Satan's Angels! I kid you not.
Such dire acting and dialogue, along with ridiculous scenes, make for a wonderful beer and chips movie. But otherwise its just the worst kind of rubbish.
As I said. Once, this may have been considered good. But today it just makes you laugh (and cringe) with every minute that goes by. Avoid it except for a good laugh. And make sure you're more than half-drunk too!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Legendary pop star Steve Alaimo ("Don't Let the Sun Catch You Crying") stars as an unlikable stock car racer whose career has hit the skids (ha ha) because he constantly crashes his car (or as he laments, "I'm tired of being run down by every grease monkey that gets behind the wheel"). He falls into a bad crowd of humorously inept Nazi bikers, improbably named Jeeter, Banjo, Fats, and, er, Linda. Fats is the most likable of the bunch; he took a surfboard to the back of the skull and now only communicates through grunts, sort of a Harley Davidson Leatherface.
Anyway, Steve is fooled by the cops into catching the dastardly crooks in the middle of one of their bank robberies. The gang only robs banks for "kicks, man". I guess they give the money to charity. Steve fails constantly, the bikers get greasier, and the whole thing never comes off as daring because it's so dull. This movie looks like it was filmed through a grease-soaked paper towel. Not since "Necromantic" has a movie so trampled my soul.
The guy who played Fats went on to direct "Deranged", the Ed Gein biopic starring Robert Blossom.
Anyway, in summary: Wild Rebels: Hilarious on MST3K, dreadful everywhere else.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Wild Rebels is fun in a bad way, but also frustrating due to the actual good, or at least workable, elements in the story. It deals with a race car driver (Steve Alaimo) who gets mixed up in a group of bikers called Satan's Angels, who hang around a lot until they decide to rob a bank. Meanwhile Alaimo also gets recruited by the cops to report back to them what the Angels are up to and where they'll rob next. It's not even that the film is really too 'dated', though it does of course carry the significantly crude and stupid music in the film (from the band on stage in one scene, to Alaimo "performing" if you could call that drek that, to the regular generic score).
It's just that there's not more care taken by the filmmaker into putting a little more logic, direction, and better actors for the parts. As it is I didn't have a major disliking towards the film, as I did with the Hellcats, but it almost left me a little indifferent to it all, too. What could come through as being unpredictable only comes through with stupid things like the name of the Florida town ('Citrusville' ho-ho). So it's not completely un-worthy then of its Mystery Science Theater 3000 status as of late. The commentary is good on the movie, even if once or twice I almost wanted to hear what the characters on screen were saying in case it might have some worth. Wild Rebels might be more of a good time if you've got a six-pack and low expectations, but as it is I wouldn't watch it again.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This is basically your run of the mill violent biker flick complete with nifty slangs, crashes, and music. OK, so just slangs and crashes. It's a slight notch above much of the other fare featured on MST3K but it's still the equivalent of driving a nail into your kneecap: slow and painful. To give away plot would exhaust my energy so I'll just say you're better off skipping this one.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I just caught "Wild Rebels" on one of the "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" archive compilations, and this movie was so bad even the MST3K crew couldn't make it entertaining. There are some MST3K "targets" that were films whose concepts were so dippy they couldn't possibly have been good movies (like "The Green Slime"), and others whose basic premises could have been made into genuinely entertaining films if their filmmakers hadn't bobbled them in the execution. "Wild Rebels" is a film whose basic premise DID make a good movie three years earlier, when Don Siegel directed his remake of "The Killers" at Universal. Both films are about a failed racing driver who's seduced by a femme fatale into driving the getaway car in a robbery masterminded by the woman's boyfriend -- only in "The Killers" the driver was John Cassavetes, the woman was Angie Dickinson and the criminal mastermind (cast wildly but successfully against type in what turned out to be his final film) was Ronald Reagan. Steve Alaimo, Bobbie Byers and Willie Pastrano are quite a comedown! But what REALLY makes "Wild Rebels" an awful movie is the direction by William Grefé (note the accent over the final "e," present in his on-screen credit), which has absolutely no sense of pace whatsoever and seems to let every shot run at least half again as long as it needs to to make its dramatic point. It's only a pity that someone didn't do a mocking commentary on this movie now (in 2009); the comparison between Steve Alaimo's hairdo and Rod Blagojevich's would have been irresistible!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
If you decide to watch Wild Rebels, don't expect anything deep and meaningful. If you're looking for a film that explores the relationships and structure of a motorcycle gang, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. If you're looking for an expose on the breakdown of the American educational system and the problem of juvenile delinquency, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. If you're looking for a movie that examines how undermanned rural police departments are when facing a well-financed, well-organized gang, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. But if you're looking for an absurd movie filled with scene after scene of unintentional humor, horrendous acting, a paper-thin plot, and community theater style production values, Wild Rebels is the right movie.
Wild Rebels is the story of a down-on-his-luck stock-car driver named Rod Tillman (Steve Alaimo). After a fiery crash (which Rod walks away from completely unscathed despite having only a cotton pants and a London Fog style jacket for protection), Rod decides to give it up. With no plan for his future other than to wander aimless through the back-roads of the South, he stumbles on the Satan's Angels motorcycle gang (a gang being three of the stupidest guys to ever zip up a leather jacket and a woman they seem to share). This group of hoodlums spends their time terrorizing a rural town in Florida by committing such atrocities as stealing a newspaper from a neighbor's mailbox. These bumbling idiots need someone to act as their driver during some larger crimes they have planned. Apparently, these three Einsteins can only drive vehicles with two tires, not four. So they recruit Rod to perform feats of daring that only an experienced stunt driver would be capable of like keeping the car in the middle of a gravel road during a low-speed chase. Eventually, they hold-up a bank, get into the aforementioned low-speed chase, and have the lamest gun battle with the police ever put on film. I could go on forever, but you get the idea.
I hate the term "so bad it's good", but that seems to aptly describe Wild Rebels.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
"Wild Rebels" was probably a fun second film at a drive in movie triple feature 40 years ago. It hasn't aged very well, but it was never meant to age well; it was obviously intended to be disposable, forgettable fun from its inception. Taken on that level, it's a good example of the biker flick genre.
Several elements help distinguish it from the dozens of similar films being churned out at the same time. The 'hero', 'Rod Tillman' (Steve Alaimo) comes off as somewhat of an unimpressive 'Everyman' - he's not especially brave, tough, talented, or handsome (although he does win a fight with a tough biker gang member halfway into the film, and the girl gang member chooses to help him over her fellow gang member at the end of the film). The soundtrack is quite well done, featuring a nice 'Ventures' style bass/drum riff that keeps things moving and saxophones and brass charts that pep things up quite a bit. And although the script is pretty shallow, all the actors inhabit their cardboard characters convincingly and with a fair amount of energy.
There are plenty of careless technical gaffes: terrible 'day-for-night' scenes that occur in broad daylight, squealing tires in a swamp, fire sirens mistakenly stuck on the soundtrack instead of police sirens, a bank sign made of duct tape on a ceiling tile, a Luger that sounds like a Winchester 30-06, shotgun blasts that cut down people 100 yards away, a detective killing a biker on a 3rd floor landing from the ground with a revolver with a 2 inch barrel.
There are a whole bunch of goofy story elements : Linda (the girl gang member) disables a bank guard with a drug-filled syringe, the final shootout takes place inside a lighthouse (!), police roadblocks don't actually block roads, the police apparently never heard of ducking, and the police detectives apparently never heard of planting bugs or having their undercover guy wearing a wire.
But the plot chugs along, the cameraman knows what he is doing, the pacing in most scenes is pretty good, and there are some nice, zippy one liners and dialog exchanges here and there that keep the energy level up. (My favorite: "Man, you're messing with private stock! (ie, Linda)" So no, don't seek this one out or anything, but if a copy of the MST version should fall in your hands, you should have some good, shallow fun watching it. Vastly superior to "Five the Hard Way" or "The Hellcats" or even 'Girl In Gold Boots' (three other MST covered counter culture movies).


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Probably the biggest thing about Wild Rebels that hurts it the most is the hero. He's got LOSER written all over him, but that doesn't stop him from "getting the girl." Probably one of the world's worst race drivers imaginable, he decides to stop racing after he crashes his car. Well, his new job is racing still, as a bunch of biker types pick him to drive their getaway car as they commit crimes. There's nothing really to endear you to Rod, even the situation he's thrown into is pretty stupid. In the end, at the lighthouse scene, you'll wish that Rod gets killed with all the bikers. Get this: He's shot twice, once in the arm and once in the leg, and still manages to crawl up the stairs a little. If only Jeeter had better aim...
Avoid this one unless you're watching the MST3K version.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Previous reviewer Claudio Carvalho gave a much better recap of the film's plot details than I could. What I recall mostly is that it was just so beautiful, in every sense - emotionally, visually, editorially - just gorgeous.
If you like movies that are wonderful to look at, and also have emotional content to which that beauty is relevant, I think you will be glad to have seen this extraordinary and unusual work of art.
On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give it about an 8.75. The only reason I shy away from 9 is that it is a mood piece. If you are in the mood for a really artistic, very romantic film, then it's a 10. I definitely think it's a must-see, but none of us can be in that mood all the time, so, overall, 8.75.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
CONTAINS "SPOILER" INFORMATION. Watch this director's other film, "Earth", at some point. It's a better film, but this one isn't bad just different.
A rare feminist point of view from an Indian filmmaker. Tradition, rituals, duty, secrets, and the portrayal of strict sex roles make this an engaging and culturally dynamic film viewing experience. All of the married characters lack the "fire" of the marriage bed with their respective spouses. One husband is celibate and commits a form of spiritual "adultery" by giving all of his love, honor, time and respect to his religious swami (guru). His wife is lonely and yearns for intimacy and tenderness which she eventually finds with her closeted lesbian sister-in-law who comes to live in their house with her unfaithful husband. This unfaithful husband is openly in love with his Chinese mistress but was forced into marriage with a (unbeknownest to him) lesbian. They only have sex once when his closet lesbian wife loses her virginity.
A servant lives in the house and he eventually reveals the secret that the two women are lovers. Another significant character is the elderly matriarch who is unable to speak or care for herself due to a stroke. However, she uses a ringing bell to communicate her needs as well as her displeasure with the family members. She lets them know through her bell or by pounding her fist that she knows exacly what's going on in the house and how much she disapproves.
In the end, the truth about everybody comes out and the two female lovers end up running away together. But, not before there is an emotional scene between the swami-addicted husband and his formerly straight wife. Her sari catches on fire and at first we think she is going to die. However, we see the two women united in the very last scene of the movie.
The writer/director of this film challenges her culture's traditions, but she shows us individual human beings who are trapped by their culture and gender. We come to really care about the characters and we don't see them as stereotypes. Each on surprises us with their humanity, vulgarity, tenderness, anger, and spirit.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This is my first Deepa Mehta film. I saw the film on TV in its Hindi version with its "Sita" character presented as Nita. I also note that it is Radha who underwent the allegorical trial by fire in the film and not Nita/Sita. Yet what I loved about the film was its screenplay by Ms Mehta, not her direction. The characters, big and small, were well-developed and seemed quixotic towards the end--somewhat like the end of Mazursky's "An Unmarried Woman." They are brave women surrounded by cardboard men. And one cardboard man (Ashok) seems to come alive in the last shot we see of him---carrying his invalid mother Biji. He seems to finally take on a future responsibility beyond celibacy and adherance to religion.
Ms Mehta seems to fumble as a director (however, compared to most Indian mainstream cinema she would seem to be brilliant) as she cannot use her script to go beyond the microscopic joint family she is presenting except presenting a glimpse of the Chinese micro-minority in the social milieu of India. She even dedicates the film to her mother and daughter (not her father!) Yet her Radha reminesces of halcyon days with both her parents in a mustard field. Compare her to Mrinal Sen, Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Muzaffar Ali and she is dwarfed by these giants--given her competent Canadian production team and financial resources! Mehta's film of two bisexual ladies in an Indian middle-class household may be sacrilege to some, but merely captures the atrophy of middle-class homes that does not seem to aspire for something better than its immediate survival in a limited social space. Kannada, Malayalam, and Bengali films have touched parallel themes in India but did not have the publicity that surrounded this film and therefore have not been seen by a wide segment of knowledgeable cinemagoers.
Ms Das, Ms Azmi, Mr Jafri and Mr Kharbanda are credible but not outstanding. Ms Azmi is a talented actress who gave superb performances under good directors (Mrinal Sen's "Khandar", Gautam Ghose's "Paar", Benegal's "Ankur") a brilliance notably absent in this film. Ms Das sparkled due to her screen presence rather than her acting capability. All in all, the film's strength remains in the structure of the screenplay which is above average in terms of international cinema. I am sure Ms Mehta can hone her writing talents in her future screenplays.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This was a great film in every sense of the word. It tackles the subject of tribadism in a society that is quite intolerant of any deviations from the norm. It criticises a great many Indian customs that many find oppressive -- such as the arranging of marriages by others, the importance of status and face, religious hypocrisy, sexism, the valuation of women in terms of their baby-making capacity, the binding concepts of duty and so on. At the heart of the film is a touching love story that goes beyond such limitations of the society which the two protagonists find themselves. The film is well-acted and genuine, completely believable from beginning to end, unlike most Bollywood flicks. The main faults of the film as I saw it was first, that the two lovers seem drawn to one another not necessarily by a natural affinity for each other as much as the fact that they are stuck in dead-end marriages with no passion and no rewards. This may play a part in the sexual awakening of the characters, but most people stuck in the same situation will not "turn homosexual". It seems clear from the beginning of the film that the two characters are quite heterosexual -- when Radha does her scene at the end of the movie with Aashok, she makes it quite clear that "without desire she was dead", and the implication was that if he had desired so, he could have fulfilled her quite completely, and also when Sita seemed very disappointed when her husband seemed to not like her. Such situations do not turn people into homosexuals -- they may seek comfort in others in the same position, but inthe film it is not at all made clear that they are lesbians from the beginning -- quite the opposite. Some people are bisexual, it is true, but most tend to be either hetero- or homosexual. In the case of the ladies in the film, both had insensitive jerks for husbands . . . if this had not been the case, would they have naturally found the need to express their desire in a relationship that they may have otherwise not have considered? The film ignores this. The other fault is the naming of the characters . . . the names Sita and Radha seem contrived deliberately to shock and outrage (imagine a film in America depicting a gay relationship between a man named "Jesus" and another named "Paul"!) by using names associated with various Hindoo scriptures. The film is strong enough to stand on its own and needs no such devices in my opinion. At any rate, the faults do not take much away from the power of the movie. It is indeed a very touching and powerful story -- the images and characters will stay with you a long time after you leave the theatre.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
A stunningly well-made film, with exceptional acting, directing, writing, and photography.
A newlywed finds married life not what she expected, and starts to question her duty to herself versus her duty to society. Together with her sister -in-law, she makes some radical departures from conventional roles and mores.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Overall, a well done movie. There were the parts that made me wince, and there were the parts that I threw my hands up at, but I came away with something more than I gone in with.
I think the movie suffers from some serious excess ambition. Without spoiling it, let me say that the obvious references to the trial by fire in Ramayana, is way beyond what this movie stands for. The Ramayana is an epic. Not a 200 page book that puts down women in India. The movie is about two girls married into a very distinctive Indian family. While the basic tenets of the "unwritten laws of the family tradition" seem to be that of conservative India, let me assure my reader that I (having lived in Delhi for 12 years) found entire parts that just did not ring those bells. I mean some things and some actions are very true, but some other stuff is just way off the mark. Especially today.
Delhi is complicated. India is complicated. The director tries to simplify both. And fails pretty miserably at that.
Why in English? Can you imagine a movie about American Indians in English. Or the French speaking in English. Seriously jarring. Even the servant spoke in fluent accented English (albeit with a hint of colloquialisms in the language for "believability").
But the chemistry between the leads is palpable. If you like it hot, this is a movie for you. I think that is the biggest saving grace - the development of a true real life love story.
If this film was about Radha and Sita, then it would have got full marks from me. And in being about them, it could have made a subtle statement. But this movie goes out there to say this is what India is, and this is what Indian society is like. And in that respect it succeeds as much as it fails. Just take everything you see with a pinch of salt. The dark secrets of India are not being revealed. Just two girls are falling in love. Just like it happens everywhere else.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
There are questions that sometimes hover over us and have no answer. Two women progressively find themselves ensnared in each other's arms (as corny as the expression sounds, that is exactly what happens) and fins that they cannot answer their own question as to what defines their relationship when their very own society has no name to what they are. Deepa Mehta's somewhat mis-titled FIRE is the first of a loosely connected trilogy, here linked by the theme of the elements, and more symbolic than consuming. Fire as uncontrolled erotic passion does not make an appearance here, since the women -- the older and more feminine Radha (Shabana Azmi) and the younger, more masculine tempered Sita (Nandita Das) come to realize they share a lot more than common ideas and affection for each other and stand for what they believe is their passion for each other despite the opposition faced by their very traditional husbands and families. As in WATER, FIRE is deeply spiritual, even if it technically falls into the mode of sentimental melodrama (where WATER, much like the weight of the word, carries a stronger meaning that ultimately transcends its definition). Even so, it's a very beautiful picture, and a strong voice from a strong director.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I finally watched the third film in Mehta's trilogy: "Fire". To begin, I'd say that "Water" was the unquestionable masterpiece, on all levels. Fire comes next with Earth close behind in order of quality. Fire: there is so much going on in this film that I'll need a few more viewings to drink it all in. The writing is superb, the script creating friction that starts the entire process of "heat" from the beginning until the end when it really does erupt into a fire, the conflicts moving into complete rupture of relationships.
Mehta is one brave lady: she sees with a clear eye much that is jaundiced, false and repressive about the great society from which she came from. India is rapidly changing these days but much of this is economic change. That she met with such ferocious opposition to the making of "Water" after having had the script cleared, shows that there are still many taboo subjects which Indian people more than less cannot look squarely in the face, cannot examine or discuss them. Worse, if someone like Mehta has the courage to hold up a mirror to these issues, she faces death threats. So, as much as India thinks of itself as a pluralistic, tolerant society, the facts are not always so. Whereas "Earth" was merely a historical setting of the carnage of the civil war after Indian independence, Fire and Water are pointing at personal, social and religious issues, which as I say are considered so strongly (in a negative sense) that an open artistic dialog is still many years away. As I write this "Water" is scheduled to actually be shown in India later this year. I'll believe it when I see it.
Fire confronts a similar sexual and emotional conundrum that I saw in "A price above rubies". Whether it's arranged marriages (which it used to be like among Jews about 150 years ago, or like it is among many modern Indians), they have the risk of having a bad match forced upon both men and women; or, just plain loveless marriages..... However, this is not the real issue. Mehta is clearly impatient with the totally rigid religious attitudes that either keep widows in misery (Water) or else keep women enslaved to loveless marriages (Fire). I am no expert regarding either the secular or Hindu laws concerning divorce. The film seems to imply that the stigma (of divorce)is almost as bad as the sad marriage. In any case Mehta's film is a very moving, powerful attempt at sexual discourse that holds modern Indian relationships up to probing scrutiny. That all three of these films have made themselves felt in India as an unwarranted attack on their culture sounds to me like the predictable clamor of a repressive mindset. Mehta is forcing the issues to be looked at no matter how much flack. I admire her work and cannot highly recommend her films enough. Superb, disturbing, provocative, taboo shattering.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
one of best movies ever...Fire...it is not much about sociological description of India today...it is the mind blowing use of light that never stops, never becomes...normal...even when...in this sense the movie is almost unique...both leads are of very good quality...the origin of Das as a street performer are pretty obvious...her performance is a superb "cammeo"...but the use of the light...I have look at it and looked at it, again and again...still mind blowing after ages...nothing torrid in the story...rather "pure" way of facing the subject...in a way it is sad that in the bizarre world we live today, a major art work is usually known as a gender film...Fire can stand face to face with Dryer's Jeanne D' Arc or Ichikawa's Biruma no Tategoto or some of the major Kurosawa movies, just to name "some". Wish my input could help a little this movie to its deserved way to fame.


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
While the romance in this film is an important aspect, it is largely about the role of responsibility and duty in modern Indian. All of the major characters were well fleshed out, and had their own "inner life". I recommend this strongly


assistant
1
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
It is more a subtle story of the fact that in Indian household how most decisions are taken by the man, how no attention is paid to the desires of the lady, for example how even when the husband and wife sleep together it would be a test for the husband whether he can control his desires, not to give the woman pleasure. And in such a type of scenario, women invariably have two choices, either to accept all this and take it into their own life, which is usually the case or not accept this and try to mould things to satisfy themselves, which makes a movie!
Fire is a brilliantly directed story of the second option, which women choose for themselves, no sacrifice, not to serve anybody else, rather a decision for their own good. Somehow the whole idea of justifying lesbianism didn't find an acceptance in the Indian audience but if one looks the whole movie from an angle of self-expression, then the whole debate doesn't even arise.


assistant
1