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
while mind of mencia could be summed up as nothing more than a clone of chappelle's show, it is really worse than that. first of all, Carlos mencia is a jacka** that is as funny as he is original, which isn't saying much. the show contains lame spoofs of American television ads and political issues, and mencia's "comedic" insight on politics adds to the low quality of this show. on top of it all, mencia tosses in more lame ethnic jokes and stolen Jeff foxworthy lines than i can count on one hand. while every once in a while Carlos gets a cheap laugh, the rest of the time he spends insulting everyone in sight, which does include exploiting his own audience members. with the exception of south park, drawn together, and Friday night stand-up, this show marks the end of the chappelle's show glory days, which for those of you who haven't heard, was before he went to Africa.


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


user
This show reminds me of an episode of "The Simpsons," where Smithers had just been fired by Mr. Burns and was forced to live a miserable life being unemployed. All he did to while the way the hours was to drink and watch Comedy Central. The implication was that Comedy Central was a pathetic TV channel for miserable people with nothing else to occupy their time. "Mind of Mencia" is slightly better than most of Comedy Central's programming, but it still serves as an example of why this channel is low-quality filler for people with absolutely no lives.
Truth be told, Mencia is a fairly competent comedian who throws out trite, soft-ball ethnic jokes and cashes in on bland stereotypes of people based on their race, gender, or economic status, or a combination of two out of three of these characteristics. If you've heard one of these jokes by one of your friends at a bar or at work, believe me, you've heard what passes as comedy on "Mind of Mencia." Carlos also tries to make fun of current events, but lacks creativity or originality. This is not to say that Carlos is a washout all the time. I found some of his skits amusing, such as his rap video portrayal as an oil sheik. If you find bland, run-of-the-mill comedy up your alley, you'll probably enjoy "Mind of Mencia." For those people who are tired of repetitive, pedestrian comedians trotting out the same old time-worn jokes, stay away.


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


user
I'm sorry but this guy is not funny. I swear I've heard heard 4 year olds come up with better jokes then some of his. "Dee dee dee" for instance is possibly the worst catch phrase I've ever heard. It lacks any creativity at all, and to be making fun of mentally challenged people when you've reached level of having your own show is incredibly dim-witted on Mencia's part.
Though every one compares this fool to Chappelle, their is no contest. First off they had very very different shows. I think all in all Menica's show on average had only about 2 short 5 minute skits in between his 10 minute rants about god knows what. Chappelles show came off more as sketch comedy, with 2-4 skits that occupied all the show. All chappelle did was a short summarization of each skit before and after each one. This is where Mencia fails even more. What would make Mencia think having a show which consists of the same standup comedy that he talks about on his standup specials would be a beneficial idea? Does anybody really want to listen to a bit George Lopez pioneered years before Mencia, but just dragged beyond belief to the point where its dead? Snowflake's chance in Hell.
My point is even though most people hate this guy for his rascism, I just cant stand him for his imcompetence. Comedy Central was looking for a minority they could brand as "controversial" and then leave him to follow Chappelles path. The problem, is this guy made it very clear he doesn't want to be Chappelle. So instead he conducts his crappy show like a burning trainwreck right into the ground. Does anybody want to watch a weekly standup about the same stuff every thursday, I know sure as hell I don't.
I cant express my gratitude to Comedy Central though. This idiot's show is done. Personally after watching his standup, I don't know how he got his own show in the first place. There are so many more deserving comics like Jim Gafigan, Zach Galifinakis, etc... In fact anyone is better than this fool.


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


user
This film is worth seeing since it is a classic in the sense of being the very first full length film released in the process of three demention. It was not very good in its acting or story plot, but can be a great movie quiz question from an historical standpoint. It should be seen in the 3 D process with polarized lenses.


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


user
I was a teenager when this first appeared in theaters, and I saw it in Japan. The film's plot wasn't my cup of tea as a high school sophomore, but I went to see it for the 3-D process. It had been ballyhooed in the press so that even service personnel overseas had heard of it, though it never screened at the Post theater.
The film started the trend of throwing objects at the audience, which was taken to absurd levels with later 3-D films.
I don't know whether this qualifies as a spoiler, but you've been warned if it is. In many films of the time, actors would often work in front of a "rear projection screen," where backgrounds could be projected to make it appear that they were in a different environment, such as a jungle background when the actors were actually on a sound stage. This works well on regular films, but when seen in 3-D, they look like a flat scene behind the actors. There were several scenes in the film where rear projection was used, and it didn't work well in the theaters. If seen in 3-D, it will constitute another disappointment.
The film's only importance is historical, since it was the first of its kind.


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


user
I saw this movie when it was first released in Pittsburgh Pa. I had traveled from Youngstown Ohio, a distance of approx. 85 miles. I knew nothing of the plot nor the players. I had read no reviews nor had I talked to anyone who had seen it. Believe me I will never make that mistake again. It was being touted I believe as the first feature length movie filmed in the new 3D process. That was what enticed me to make a 170 mile round trip.
There was a waiting line two abreast that stretched (I kid you not) 2 or 2½ blocks long and moving very slowly. I could hardy wait to be seated. If I had only known at that moment what I soon would know, I could have been ¾ of the way back to Youngstown by the time the feature started.
By the time the first 3D scene was shown, I was already nodding off. The novelty quickly wore thin and from then on it was pure agony.
Without going into excruciating detail, I can only offer the following advice. If you have ever seen the famous film PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE, supposedly the worst movie ever filmed, it in my humble opinion stands head and shoulders above this garbage.
I don't know if this has ever been shown on tv, if it has I don't know why. If you ever get a chance to see it, do something else. Take a walk, cut the grass, wash the dog, have someone flog you with a rubber hose. ANYTHING. Your time will have been better spent.
This has been my first movie review. It might well be my last unless a worse movie comes along and I wouldn't make book that will happen.
Bill



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


user
"The Brotherhood of Satan" is a stupefying combination of conventional horror elements mixed with some imaginative characterization and direction (Bernard McEveety). It all starts out with father Charles Bateman (as Ben) driving out west with his pretty blondes: luscious Ahna Capri (as Nicky), and daughter Geri Reischl (as K.T.). Things get weirder and weirder for the trio, as they approach the town of Hillsboro, which is being gripped by a Satanic cult!
When the dullish travelers hit Hillsboro, the "action" switches to the film's more interesting assemblage of characters: townies L.Q. Jones (as Pete, the sheriff), Strother Martin (as Doc), Charles Robinson (as Jack, the priest), and Alvy Moore (as Tobey). Their interplay is sometimes fun. Soon enough, it all gets very silly, and predictable. Mr. Martin is the stand-out (as you might expect); he considers the possibility of a Satanic cult to be a "cock-and-bull story", but is (of course) their leader. The "Come in, Children" ending is puzzling; unless, perhaps, it was the film's original title.


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 one of those religious horror films which never explain why the forces of "evil" are 10,000 times stronger than those of "good". We've got here a Satanic cult which can: 1) "beam away" people (like in "Star Trek"), 2) kill through little children's dolls, 3) transfer a soul from one body into another, 4) hypnotize telepathically from a bigger distance, and 5) cause drastic car-crashes in which selected persons turn into spaghetti while others (kids, in this case) survive unscathed.
On the other hand, the forces of "good" can: 1) sit around helplessly, 2) stand around cluelessly, 3) panic, 4) laugh hysterically, 5) waste time by doing nothing, 6) read comics while people get slaughtered by the dozens, and 7) arrive too late to Satanic rituals.
In every religious horror movie I have to assume that that movie's world is inhabited by God and by Satan. I also have to assume that Satan can't be 1,000,000 times more powerful, unless the movie has a world order resembling that of Hell. In other words, where were the priests in this film who knew something? The best that this movie's priest could do is guess that there are some witches about - nothing else - from reading all those books in his study. At the first sight of violence this priest becomes catatonic, then laughs hysterically, only to finish in a major panic attack. So this is supposed to be God's contribution to fighting Satan? Ridiculous. Every good religious horror film has the powers of "good" equipped with some form of (more-or-less) supernatural power, or at least SOME concrete knowledge of how to fight "evil". In that sense this movie is quite idiotic. As is the casting of the droll Martin to play the high priest(!) of the cult. There is very little menace or awe in watching the quirky Martin lead a Satanic ritual. I mean, it didn't have to be Christopher Lee or Langhella, but couldn't they have found someone less funny-looking? Also, why does the couple go back to the town after their car is put out of the running? After their "friendly" encounter with the town's folk no sane person would have gone back; they should've just walked on. The man's explanation to his girlfriend (and the viewer) is that "who knows what's in that direction".


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


user
I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of Satanic horror movies and, in fact, I seem to like them less and less every time I see a new one, and that isn't really surprising when I end up watching films like Brotherhood of Satan! Despite its low rating on IMDb, I was surprised to hear some good things about this film and my expectations went up. This turned out to be a big mistake as this is exactly the film that its rating suggests it is: namely, a very bad one! The plot is your basic bunch of Satanists causing trouble, and we focus on a small town where people have been murdered and kidnapped and it's not really clear why. Naturally, Satanists are behind it and this is bad news for a mother, father and daughter on a road trip who become trapped in the mysterious town. I had a feeling that this film might be along the same lines as the crappy Satanist flick 'The Devil's Rain', and while it's not quite as silly as Robert Fuest's later film, it's not much better either. The plot seems to be fairly down to Earth, but it's also rather boring and I can't say that I enjoyed myself at all during this movie. Brotherhood of Satan obviously has its fans, but I'm not one of them; this is a film that I see no reason to recommend...


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


user
Being a big fan of horror films and always manage to find something good about a picture, but this film just did not hold my interest or attention. This story revolves around a father and his daughter and a girlfriend, since his wife died a few years back. These people encounter a horrible situation in a town they stop off and visit and all the senior citizens in this town gang up against these people and almost kill them. This film reminded me of a film called "Children of the Corn" because it really involves children who are being presented to Satan and are his instruments of terror. There is plenty of chants, mambo jumble and a toy tank that completely destroys an entire family in their station wagon as well as dolls who kill a husband and wife.


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


user
This movie is full of pseudo deep thoughtfulness and it's cloying in its writerly-ness, that includes a canned ham voice-over and some unbelievable dialogue. Dialogue that is tinny and tone deaf the way Spike sometimes (not always) is when writing "certain" characters. For those that like nonsense films like Pieces of April and One Hour Photo, this is another one for you.
That said, this comment is nothing against Ryan Gosling who has shown his awesome chops in The Believer. A film that proves that movies are a director's medium, and when a movie is rotten it's fair to say the fault lies there and not in the actors.


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


user
This movie states through its protagonist that the world is essentially sadness and pain and those that ignore this have blinders on. One can argue whether this is true or not. But even if you accept this as true, the movie's ending either A) disputes this by saying there can be some good in tragic situations or B) forgets this and uses a cliched montage in order to leave the audience feeling uplifted.
That the movie metaphorically acquits its protagonist by presenting him as a sympathetic character despite any evidence for that sympathy shows contempt for the supporting characters who were the most compelling in the film.
So what you have in this film is a script that is not consistent in its theme and direction that does not bring the ending into sync with the rest of the film. There are excellent performances given by every member of the cast especially Spacey, Olin, Martin Donovan, and Ann Magnuson. It's a shame that they weren't supported by a better writer/director.


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


user
Not much actually happens in this movie. There are a few pivotal moments, and everything else is talking about a crucial moment that takes place before the movie began. The primary mechanism used in the story is the flashback. Flashbacks can be used very well, but they aren't here. There is zero indication when flashing back or forward, and there are only weeks separating the events, so context as a scene unfolds is the only way to know when something happens. Perhaps this was intended to add a sense of mystery in places, but it was largely annoying.
If you are interested in watching a 100 minute on-screen discussion of the why's of things and a lame questioning of good versus evil, enjoy. If watching close-ups of a mostly vacant stare on Ryan Gosling's face for much of the movie appeals to you, you're in luck. Sadly, I can find no reason to recommend this movie. Oh, and as another review indicated, Spacey really is only in a cameo role here, and plays with a disinterested detachment that you've probably already seen.
*** The rest contains spoilers though a few big points are held back ***
First, the killing of the so-called retarded boy happens before the movie opens, and we never learn what happened exactly. The implication is that he was killed to stop the deep sadness that was communicated through the boy's eyes. There aren't many other unanswered questions as the characters beyond the boy and the lead are very one-dimensional.
As for what is with the lead character... Another review suggested he is crazy. I agree he isn't 'right', but don't know that I'd call it crazy. It seems that the movie tried hard to convey that he was either autistic or retarded in some way, because he sure seemed slow and unable to grasp the obvious. Either that or they were going for a neglected youth with some detachment disorder and/or who was heavily medicated. As always Ryan Gosling is good at conveying something to the audience, but it seems exactly what was deliberately left up in the air in this case. This movie provides no answers, just questions, but it was a sufficiently bad movie that I really didn't care.


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


user
Every once in a while, an indie comes along that has an awesome cast and a story that sounds really interesting and can't-miss, but the movie sucks. Some recent films belonging to this unfortunate category are "Levity" and "The Safety Of Objects", and now here's "The United States Of Leland".
Said awesome cast includes Ryan Gosling, Kevin Spacey, Don Cheadle, Jena Malone, Lena Olin, Michelle Williams, Chris Klein, and Kerry Washington. Gosling plays Leland P. Fitzgerald, the teenage son of a famous author (Spacey) who commits a disturbing and unforgivable crime (murdering a retarded child), but doesn't remember it and doesn't seem to have any sort of motive.
Don Cheadle plays a teacher in juvenile hall who is trying to understand Leland (and also exploit him by writing a book about him), and Jena Malone is his ex-girlfriend. We see their deteriorating relationship (due to her heroin addiction) in flashback. Sounds like an awesome little drama, huh? I thought so, too.
The fact is that this movie is just badly, badly written. The dialogue and narration are painfully pretentious and laden with irritating platitudes about "life", the characters are all two-dimensional indie cliches, and while it does manage to make Leland sympathetic in some ways, it glosses over his crime.
For the most part, there's no problem with the acting. Gosling (who was Oscar-worthy in "The Believer") is a tremendously talented young actor, but the way they're written, none of these characters (least of all Leland) even feel like real people, so there's not much he can do but mumble his ridiculous lines and look sad.
Jena Malone is the most memorable. She has one of the most expressive faces I've ever seen. Even playing an underwritten character in a bad movie like this, she can break your heart with one look. When she's got good material to work with (as in "Donnie Darko" or "The Dangerous Lives Of Altar Boys"), she's really amazing.
But this is not good material. Maybe after a massive rewrite it could have been something worthwhile, but as it is, "The United States Of Leland" is ponderous, inert, and for a movie that seems in love with how "deep" it is, it's really shallow.


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


user
I'm sorry but I cannot even partly agree with some comments on this awful piece of sh...
English is not my native language, because I'm a German citizen, so please do not blame me for inappropriate grammar structures or something *gg I cannot understand why this movie got such a high rating? 6.3??? Are you kidding me? This movie has completely no sense, not even a seem of good acting...
When I looked at the comments on The Da Vinci Code, which has - I think - nearly the same rating, I had to bang my head on the table , because I watched 00 Schneider directly after Sakrileg, and oh my god , there are worlds between them.
The majority of the posters in this board tears every hyped movie to pieces while rating this crime of movie making with a 6.3 and denominates Helge as a genius. Of course , he knows how to make money, but I think the main aspect of your opinions is the fact, that German isn't your native language and you just ignore - or rather don't notice the bunch of crap which is said in the sentences. OK , I must confess that some scenes ARE funny, but all in all , a 6.3 is just too much for my compatriot ;)


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


user
Insane really. Even if you haven't seen the original George Cukor movie with Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Rosalind Russell, Paulette Goddard, Joan Fontaine and a cast of a thousand other stars you may dismiss this forced, politically correct, depressing comedy. Depressing for many different reasons. Meg Ryan for one. What has she done to herself? Her face can hardly move. That alone puts her miles away from Norma Shearer. Annette Bening should be suing the DP and Debra Messing, what the hell was she doing here? Actresses with no connection in the public's subconscious trying to pass for friends, totally unconvincingly. Eva Mendes in the Joan Crawford part is an outrageous piece of miscasting. What a terrible idea! Her character is like a trans-gender performer without any taste or subtlety. Bizarre to think that a woman adapted and directed this women.The only positive things I can mention are a short but very funny appearance by Bette Midler and Cloris Leachman as the housekeeper.


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


user
As a Spanish tourist in Los Angeles and a fanatic movie lover I committed a terrible mistake. I went to see "The Women" The remake of one of my all time favorites. I've seen the original many many times, in fact I own it. My rushing to see the remake was based on Diane English, the woman responsible for "Murphy Brown" My though was: how bad can it be? She must know what she's doing. Well, I don't know what to say. I don't understand what happened. The Botoxed women is a rather depressing affair. Meg Ryan or whoever played Mary - she looked a bit like a grotesque version of Meg Ryan...another actress perhaps wearing a Meg Ryan mask - she doesn't bring to the character nothing of what Norma Shearer did in 1939. The new one is a tired, unconvincing prototype of what has become a farce within a farce. The "friends" Annette Bening, Debra Messing, Jada Pinket Smith are as disconnected as anything I've ever seen and if this wasn't enough: Eva Mendes as Crystal, the character created by Joan Crawford in one of her best and funniest performances. Eva Mendes's casting is really the poster sign for how wrong, how ill conceived this commercial attempt turned up. I didn't give it a 1 out respect for Candice Bergen and Cloris Leachman


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


user
First, I should say that I've seen the '39 version at least 100 times; know all the dialog, and have read the '36 play, which is different from the '39 and contains nuggets of gold of its own. This version is as flat as a Lifetime movie on adultery. There's a reason you haven't seen an expensive campaign of TV ads for it. According to Entertainment Weekly, Bening hated the catty tone of the original and how the women spent the whole time going to war on each other. GUESS WHAT??! That was Booth's intent. It was a slick, theatrical take on gossip, adultery, and back-biting among a set of well-heeled Manhattan socialites. The crowd that made this new version had no intention of honoring the original source material. They pick at it weirdly, putting in half a scene here and half a scene there that come from the first version. Bette Midler (who is in just a few scenes and acts the old Countess part in a broad, grinning style) doesn't have any context in this version. She mentions going after "Buck," which is a key element in the original -- then he's never mentioned again. This movie is so dull that I'm not going to over-analyze it, but here are a few things that I found unbelievable: > Mary Haines bragging to her domestic staff: "I can suck the nails out of a board!" Right. Great writing. Norma Shearer could've done a line reading on that & gotten an Oscar nom, right? > A COMPASSIONATE Sylvia Fowler!!!??? Annette Bening got what she wanted, and the movie just sort of withers away. Claire Booth used Sylvia as the comic engine that swept through the play. As portrayed immortally by Rosalind Russell, she was an ignorant, spiteful woman who rattled off reams of petty, ridiculous, irresistible dialog that is still classic and quotable. She wasn't above biting Paulette Godard's ankle. The 2008 filmmakers decided that this character had to die. In killing her off, they killed the movie.


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


user
To say I was disappointed is an understatement. An amateur film made by professionals. I was about to leave the theater in two or three occasions (something I've never done)I was stopped by Cloris Leachman really. She rings true, the only one I should say. This new women are less modern than the George Cukor women of the 30's. This ones are "acting" for us trying to be with it but their "conflict" is exactly the same as it has always been, in movies anyway. The fun of the original was based on a crisp, vitriolic and very funny script. A masterful direction and an unrepeatable cast. All the elements that are missing here. TV actresses mingling with models and Oscar nominees/winners. There wasn't anything organic about it. The whole thing felt like a put on, improvised in the moment without a clear objective. 2/10


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


user
I really wish I had read everyone's review before going to see the movie... it was one of the most excruciating films that I've ever seen. I was ready to leave the theater 5 minutes into the movie; I should have followed my instinct. The movie offered nothing new or clever, it was boring and very cliché. I was surprised to find that it was directed by a woman! The characters did not represent any women that I know, they were boring, bitter and melodramatic. The movie was unrealistic and depressing and a waste of time and money. And the actors looked tired, poor make-up and hair styling. It was recently compared to the Sex and in the City movie; it was not even half as good. My suggestion, do not see this movie!


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


user
I saw it tonight and fell asleep in the movie.
That is something that I have not done since - I have never fallen asleep at the movies.
I LOVE the original and have seen it several times and recommend it to everyone. This may have been the problem but I do not think so, because there were a couple of bright spots that showed if done right they could have made this movie work.
Bette was under used and Anne was over used and miscast.
I do not know why English or anyone for that matter let this go out in that condition.
They billed this as a Sex in the City but better? Not a chance I liked Sex in the City a lot and was disappointed by this movie.
So do not waste your money on this movie - go see anything but this!


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


user
I've never seen the original movie others have commented on, so my perspective is just about this movie without comparison.
I found the message of the movie to be,: if you only worry about yourself, all will be right with the world, everything will fall into place, your lovers will love you more, your friends will respect and like you more, your employers will want you more, pay you more and even your own children and parents will love you more.
I find this message to be reprehensible and totally false.
Kudos for the very funny birthing scene at the end; there isn't a mother out there who won't laugh during that scene.
Overall a very disappointing movie plot. I didn't find myself rooting for anyone in this movie. I thought they were all pathetic self absorbed individuals that I just didn't care what happened to them and that's not a movie people want to see.


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


user
I was very disappointed by this movie. Ms English who says that she is a fan of the original movie seemed to have taken a great piece of artistic work, and transformed it into a flat-lined "ho-hum" you've come a long way baby production. I tried to like Meg Ryan's Mary Haines, but she was just boring. She didn't seem to feel anything about her husband's affair. There was no emotional struggle, no deep hurt. In the original 1939 movie Norma Shearer's Mary Haines felt betrayed, shocked, vulnerable, confused and angry. The 2008 production was more about some fake sisterhood theme, (Actually my wife's words)and didn't make you shed a tear or even chuckle. The only performances that were note worthy we're of Debra Messing, and Bette Midler. (I wanted more of Bette.) There was really no protagonist in this movie. The Sylvia Fowler character had too many sub themes to it. And Crystal Allen had no fire. The remake of the department store encounter with Annette Benning, and Miss Mendez was Luke warm. Also the pacing was slow as well. Obviously the 1939 version needed to be updated, but this one wasn't it. The reason that the original version worked so well was that the characters were dealing with "man" problems. A subject by the way which isn't out-dated. The magic of the original movie was that the movie was about both sexes, while you never saw the men.


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


user
This film could have been a decent re-make, and gosh knows it tried (or Ms. English tried). Assembling talented actors together with a successful & experienced writer/director should be a formula for a decent film. But Ms. English's experience - according to her IMDb bio - is exclusively limited to television work, and it is glaringly obvious throughout this film.
I am surprised that none of the reviews I have read mention what I found most unlikeable about this film, and what kept it from reaching even a portion of its potential: it looked and felt like it was made for television. To give some credit to Ms. English, many of the jokes that simply did NOT work on a movie screen would have been terrific on TV (and maybe a laugh track would have helped). So much of the camera usage and the lighting would have played out fine on TV but looked awkward or odd on a big screen. If the whole film had been chopped up into a mini-series or a sit-com, I think it could have worked. But this is cinema and sadly Ms. English's talents didn't translate. I cringed at so many different points in my embarrassment for the actors & the writers that I felt like I came out of the theater half shriveled! Meg Ryan is her usual perky, cute self (except for the awful plastic surgery she has had on her face), but where did she have a chance to use her talent?! She has made films where she doesn't recreate her stereo-typed role and done them well... but not here. Annette Bening seemed to simply go through the motions - such a great talent and yet such a poor performance! I enjoyed the other women characters but they were more caricature than substance, and it was sad to see. What worked in this film in the 1930s doesn't translate to the 2000s, and no one helped Ms. English get the changes & updates or subtleties right. If only she (as writer, director AND producer) had reached out for some assistance, I think it could have been good. But it was not.
It's so frustrating to go to a movie that has good stars and a good writer or director and come away feeling it was a waste of everyone's time & money! This New Yorker cartoon I saw yesterday is appropriate: A few movie execs are having a meeting & the caption reads: "Let's remake a classic with worse everything!"


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


user
This movie is not a comedy. It is not even funny in the "this movie is so bad it's funny" department. Rather, it is just plain bad. Other reviewers mention the bad lighting, but beyond that is the abundance of bad plastic surgery.
Meanwhile, a lot of great acting talent was wasted on a poor screenplay and uninspired direction. The main characters are one-dimensional and boring. (It is hard to feel sympathy for any of them). It is also hard to see the four characters as close friends. It seems like just a bunch of women thrown together, pretending to be close.
I won't list all of the problems with this movie, as it doesn't merit that much of anyone's attention. (Nor is it worth the time it takes to watch it).


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


user
Imagine a film the complete opposite of Lawrence of Arabia, instead of having an all male cast, it has an all female cast. Instead of being set in the barren deserts of Arabia, it is set in the bulging metropolis of New York City. And instead of it being one of the greatest films ever made, it is one of the most pointless, boring and forgettable.
The film concerns Mary Haines (Meg Ryan) a perfect wife and mother, the envy of all others in her high society Manhatten social circle. She is painted as a women bearing the weight of the world on her shoulders, despite the fact she needs a live in nanny and housekeeper to cope with her one child. But I don't want to be too hard on her, Mary does all this whilst taking a liassez-faire attitude towards the fashion designing job her father has given her. This idyllic lifestyle cannot last forever though and things start to crash in a very real way.
Mary's husband is cheating on her and her father fires her for not working hard enough. She is quite naturally upset and breaks down a little.
Mary needs to bounce back though, for the sake of her impressionable young daughter and for herself. She does this through rehab, hair straightening and designing her own line of clothes; though amazingly for this kind of film, not a montage. Mary succeeds; her daughter loves her, her mother loves her, her friends love her and her husband decides he loves her now. She decides to take her cheating husband back after realising it was her fault he cheated, as she didn't dote on him enough.
The films one saving grace is that it doesn't go down the "all men are evil" route.


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


user
I have never seen the original 1930s version of the film, but this remake is one of the worst I have seen from a major production studio in years. Seeing actors such as Meg Ryan and Annette Bening, once near A level talents, sleepwalk their way through poorly scripted roles is painful. There appeared to be no desire to be in front of the camera for anyone in this film.
Jada Pinkett Smith and Debra Messing play worthless roles that have no bearing on the plot and add no entertainment value. Jada Pinkett Smith's character is used as nothing more than a ploy to appear modern, having an African American lesbian character, but in actuality she is there to just look cool. There is no actual reason why Messing in this film other than to fill out the amount of women in the original I take.
The side characters played by Eva Mendes and Debi Mazar are stereotypical female characters, with Mendes portraying the vixen looking to steal the wealthy but bored and mildly neglected husband and Mazar covering the gossip roles.
The movie is boring, lacking charm, humor, or sympathy for any characters. It almost felt like the movie was a punishment for everyone involved, whether in front of or behind the camera.
There is one glimmering hope in the film, however little it is allowed to shine surrounded by the dim and dying stars around it is Cloris Leachman. Leachman is still an amazing talent that brings her remarkable charm and humor to the film, in the small role that she has.


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


user
The Women (2008) by Diane English is sadly such a waste of talent. With Annette Benning, Candice Bergen, Bette Midler, Cloris Leachman whom I like and enjoy in everything I've seen them, and Meg Ryan, Jada Pinkett Smith, Debra Messing, and Eva Mendes who may not be my favorite actors but are nice to look at, how could the movie be boring, predictable, embarrassing, sloppy, and simply bad? It was made by Diane English who is known as the writer of the very successful TV show Murphy Brown, and it is her first movie for which she wrote a script. The movie has been a labor of love for English who had tried for many years to make it happen and I respect that. I even found the scenes with the supporting players, Bergen, Leechaman, Carry Fisher and Bette Middler in short but memorable cameos, funny, smart, and enjoyable but in general the movie is a second hand "Sex and the City" which was released few months ago. I did not find Sex and the City very good when I saw it but next to The Women, it was simply brilliant. At least, Sex and the City spared us the long and tasteless scene in the hospital's delivery room where one of the characters' was having a baby and her friends were there supporting her. Poor Debra Messing, what did she do to deserve that nightmare she was put through and we, the viewers together with her? The movies like "The Women" give the whole genre, chick flicks, a bad name. It is nothing wrong with the genre, but why is it so difficult to make a really good comedy about female friendships and hardships, about dealing with marriage, motherhood, and proving yourself professionally? These are all very compelling and important subjects any modern woman can relate to. Why making movies with the lines, dialogs, and situations so clichéd, predictable, not funny and insulting that they will be forgotten as soon as the movie is over?
After I saw the new movie, I checked out from my local library the original The Women and I truly enjoyed it. The story was told much better 70 years ago, and kept my interest all the way. The old movie had a real star power.


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


user
George Cukor's The Women remains one of the glittering gems of 1939, Hollywood's most golden of golden years. The film crackled and sparked and it's absence of males was a subtle touch, hardly noticed because of all the fine entertainment.
Flash forward. We see Fifth Avenue in New York City, in front of Saks. Large crowds bustle along the Avenue...but something's off. The shot reveals only well dressed (attractive and young) women. Creepier than I Am Legend, the visual concept continues, inside the store and later at a large fashion show. What NYC fashion show doesn't have at least 5 gay men? The "no men" rule is rammed down our throats creating an alien world, off balance and distracting.
Enter Meg Ryan, first seen digging in her garden wearing a ridiculous get-up complete with her retro curls and flailing arms. I immediately sympathized with her husband and could understand why he looked elsewhere. Later in the film she morphs into an older Jennifer Aniston look and keeps her arms at her sides. This seems intentional as if to say "Look! I can still be relevant!" Ryan's character is loaded down with a coven of miss-matched friends (insert Sex and the City comparison here) who, if it were real life, would despise each other. Annette Bening plays the power bitch, who during the course of the film realizes her life's dream doesn't really make her happy. Jada Pinkett Smith is the power lesbian, all atitudinous with no use for any of the men who aren't there. Debra Messing is some sort of baby factory that eats a lot. Eva Mendes is an odd choice for the bad girl to say the least. She looks fake, acts fake and any humor she tries to demonstrate falls flat. Someone's comment on here that she looked trans-gender was spot on. Other various stars show up, to rearrange the furniture on this Titanic.
The only thing that would have saved this would have been the brilliant casting of Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie. They could have named their price, tucked their tongues firmly into their cheeks and pulled off something very clever and profitable. But no, Hollywood thinks of itself way too highly for that kind of exploitation. Instead we're given this thing that lumbers along awkwardly with no sparkle. Entire sections of dialog from the original are lifted and plopped down into a scene with awful results. At one point Ryan exclaims something along the lines of, "This isn't a 1930's movie!" No Meg, it's not.


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


user
I went along to this movie with some trepidation; the original is a masterpiece of both writing and acting and unfortunately my fears were realized. This is a humorless piece of work and I sat in the theater waiting for the wit and humor to begin- I'm still waiting, it seems. Updating the storyline to the present time just didn't work and the altering of characters an absolute travesty- why did they introduce Bette Midler's character when she disappeared just as quickly as she arrived; the related character in the 1939 original was an integral part of the plot. The women in the cinema laughed a few times but nothing touched me as being funny with the exception of a line from Meg Ryan talking to her mother about her situation and telling her that 'it's not like a 1930's movie'- I sorely wished I was viewing the 1930's version. It was all too touchy feely 'sisters stick together' and really needing some of the acerbic wit and clever dialog from the original play- I still watch the original movie and pick up a line that I have never caught before. There is no sense of closure to this new version, and whilst the 1939 movie is politically incorrect by todays standards, each thread was tied up and when the movie ended- it did so strongly. This remake should be labeled with a warning for any viewers- if you know the original, don't bother: I felt cheated by losing part of my life in a cinema watching this unmemorable piece of fluff. Bring on the Jungle Red!!


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


user
Saw this movie last night. I don't usually comment good or bad, as I think movies are like books in that there is something for everyone and everyone is different, tastes vary, yadda yadda. This movie was bad. By the end I thought, oh my, this is testing my patience. How many women really look and live like this when they hit "rock bottom" and if I could just borrow some cash from mum and carry out to live my fashion designing dreams - gosh, life would be great! I was out for a nice chick-date flick with my girl (my darling hubby likes watching movies together and I knew this wouldn't be his thing), something light and easy on the senses, but this was one bad movie. We are intelligent and interesting movie watchers and this movie wasn't that. Annette Benning is a great actress, she held her own. Bad. Bad.


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


user
No! no - No - NO! My entire being is revolting against this dreadful remake of a classic movie. I knew we were heading for trouble from the moment Meg Ryan appeared on screen with her ridiculous hair and clothing - literally looking like a scarecrow in that garden she was digging. Meg Ryan playing Meg Ryan - how tiresome is that?! And it got worse ... so much worse. The horribly cliché lines, the stock characters, the increasing sense I was watching a spin-off of "The First Wives Club" and the ultimate hackneyed schtick in the delivery room. How many times have I seen this movie? Only once, but it feel like a dozen times - nothing original or fresh about it. For shame!


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


user
Updating of the Clare Booth Luce play and the 1939 movie is a major disappointment. The cast of women is excellent, most of the individual scenes work but nothing hangs together. There is no connection from scene to scene almost as if the film was crafted in parts and then assembled in a vacuum. Granted the story of a woman dealing with her husband's infidelity and how she is helped and hindered by her friends is a less shocking one now in an age when divorce is so common, but at the same time its just as timely as ever, I just wish they could have managed to connect all of the pieces together because as it stands now you really don't feel pulled along by the plot. Wait for Cable.


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, in simple terms, one of the worst films ever made. The story goes way beyond being tasteless and judging by the actors performance, they know it. There just in not one single redemming quality of this film. Patrick Swayze will have to overcome some major obstacles in his career, before people forget about this turkey.


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


user
It's about time for a female boxing flick, but this one ain't it. Though the acting isn't too bad, the predictable storyline and silly dialogue pretty much ruin this one from the get go. To top it off, the boxing scenes display zero tension. Come on! How hard is it to make a boxing match seem exciting??!!


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


user
I hired the DVD yesterday and first of all it started bad, it's 4:3 aspect ratio film, and it just keeps getting worse, the acting is so bad and the movie itself is way to predictable, I was like watching the movie and said to myself: this going to happen next and guess what happened? right...
if you want to see a good action boxing movie, don't watch this one you'll end disappointed on this low-budget movie like I did. go and see Ali its way better!


assistant
0