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
I just got back from the film and I'm completely appalled. This movie is an absolute mockery to all of mankind. The theatre I was in maybe had 4 other people. This movie was recommended to me and I couldn't believe that this person liked it. I can't believe that any sane human would like it. There was no plot NO PLOT AT ALL. It was a joke. How can you make a movie about nothing. This movie only goes to show why Hollywood is in such a shambles. I can only just look at the spiral of the "Horror Movie" industry and giggle. What a travesty to all filmaking, this is true of all the new "teen horror flicks" Grudge,Boogeyman,Ring,Saw series. It is all such trash. Don't support this kind of hogwash!


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


user
The Return is one of those movies for that niche group of people who like movies that bore and confuse them at the same time. Sarah Michelle Gellar plays a lame buisnesswoman who does not kill vampires or get naked at all throughout the movie. I was willing to put up with this, however I was not willing to put up with the worst editing ever combined with pointless flashbacks. At the end it turns out she crashes her car into herself when she was young. Or maybe I'm wrong and that was just a flashback. With this movie it's impossible to tell. Can you believe the same dude who made Army of Darkness produced this crap? A much better idea is to stay at home and watch Army of Darkness on Sci Fi channel. That movie had it all: sluts, zombies and a dude with a chainsaw for an arm. The Forgotten didn't even have one of these things.


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 saw this movie yesterday...I cannot believe the reviews on this site. The ones that give it over one-star must be Buffy fanatics. Well, I am a Buffy fan of the first order, but I know crap when I see it. On every level, this film is terrible. Technically, much of the time you don't know where you are in this movie, even within one scene, it jumps POV like crazy for no reason. No logic whatsoever in cinematic terms. Emotionally is bleak for bleak's sake and attempts to be a psychological thriller when it is just confusing. Throwing nasty-looking red-necks in your movie is a cheap way to convey "atmosphere". I ran out of patience with it a long time before the last act, but I was having too much fun with my friends doing MST3K riffs to turn it off. Since leaving Buffy, SMG has had 2 successful movies, if even listing "Scooby Doo" on your resume could count. Gellar is a fine actress, but she (or her agent) sure can't find a vehicle for her. And Mr. Shepard, if you are having trouble paying your mortgage, I'll send you a few bucks if you promise to not appear in a movie like this again! ( Also, the estate of Patsy Cline should sue for defamation! )


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


user
The films of UPA are surprisingly well rated on IMDb despite the fact that the animation quality is light-years behind that of Looney Toons, Disney and MGM at their prime. Sadly, due to rising costs in making pretty cartoons with high frame-rates and lovely backgrounds, the UPA style (which debuted about 1950) began to dominate in the late 50s and 60s. After all, the films were dirt cheap to make and they'd received several Oscars to "prove" that the cartoons were now mainstream. So as a result, lousy animation was becoming the norm and this trend wasn't reversed until the 1980s.
This UPA film is one of the early ones. The characters are very simply drawn (any simpler and they would have used stick figures) and the backgrounds were ugly--simple line drawings with colors added in a very slap-dash manner (often with a sponge and rarely completely filling the items).
As for the story, it's a jive story with a strong jazz style attitude. Some will love this, others will just find it very, very loud. It's the traditional "Frankie and Johnny" story and because of the shootings and all, it's probably not a great film for the kids. Heck, because of the animation and jazz, it's not a particularly good film for me, either! Some will read my review and no doubt think I am a crank (which I am, to a degree). However, I love animated films and a little of this minimalistic UPA style goes a very, very long way and you can't seriously consider them great works of art--just very, very quickly made cartoons. Ignore the Oscars and try watching some classic cartoons or something--anything else!


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


user
I watched this film for 45 minutes and counted 9 mullets. That's a mullet every 5 minutes. Seriously though, this film is living proof that formula works. If it ain't broke, it don't need fixin. A streetwise-yet-vulnerable heroine, a hardened ex-cop martial arts master with a heart of gold and a serial killer with 'issues'. Pure magic.


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


user
An update of the skits and jokes you would have seen on a Burlesque stage in the first half of the 20th Century. It's a string of several jokes acted out. Some of them you could tell your Grandmother, some of them not, but it's a fairly safe bet she's heard them all before. For what it tries to be, it's not too bad. Before you rent it, remember that it's an older style of entertainment and has more value as history than as comedy or titillation. Robin Williams has a couple of bits, but he's interchangeable with the other players.


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


user
No real plot to this one, just a series of short skits acting out some VERY old jokes. I chuckled once or twice in the beginning, much to my chagrin. But even at only 73 minutes this film wears out it's welcome before too long and becomes stale and tedious (with some nudity sprinkled in here and there to keep you awake). Still as bad as this movie is (and that's pretty putrid), it's a comedic gem compared to pretty much ANYthing by Aaron Seltzer & Jason Friedberg (Date movie, Epic movie, Meet the Spartans) Also the song is sadly kind of catchy in a sad way.
Eye Candy: 11 pair of tits, 3 bushes, 3 asses
My Grade: D
Code Red DVD Extras: Original trailer for this film; and trailers for "Beyond the Door", "Dead Pit", "the Farmer", "obsessed Ones", "Power Play", "Sole Survivor", & "Wacky Taxi"


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


user
Spoilers... if such a thing is possible... . . . . . . . As a rabid Robin Williams fan, I felt it necessary to buy this film as first on-screen appearance. Wow... I could not imagine a more mind-numbing movie. Essentially, the movie takes one bad joke after another that your uncle Artie would tell you after dinner and dramatizes them. Robin Williams plays a lawyer in a 30 sec skit.
I'm all for bawdy humor, but this humor wasn't pleasantly vulgar, or ribald... it was just mind-numbing. There are no redeeming qualities to this film, other than Robin Williams fanatics, like me, who simply have to own every piece of film.


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


user
....as to the level of wit on which this comedy operates. Barely even reaching feature length, "Can I Do It....'Till I Need Glasses" is a collection of (mostly) dirty jokes. Many of them are so short that you can't believe it when you realize that THAT was supposed to be the punchline (example: the Santa Claus gag); others are so long that you can't believe it when you realize that they needed so much time to set up THAT punchline (example: the students' awards gag). And nearly all are directed without any artistry. Don't get me wrong: about 1 every 10 jokes actually manages to be funny (the iron / phone one is probably my favorite). There is also some wonderful full-frontal nudity that proves, yet again, that the female body, especially in its natural form, is the best thing on this planet (there is some comedic male nudity as well). And I agree with others that the intentionally stupid title song is actually pretty damn catchy! But none of those reasons are enough to give this film anything more than * out of 4.


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


user
When I saw this movie, circa 1979, it became the first movie that I ever walked out of in the middle. There is nothing worse than comedy that just misses being funny, and this misses every time (although I can't speak for the last 25 minutes of the movie). There was nothing original about any of the skits. While I enjoy racy humor where appropriate, these skits were needlessly vulgar. What was even more irritating was that this movie was advertised as "Robin William's first movie", capitalizing on his new found fame in the "Mork and Mindy" television series. Yet his role turned out to be so minor that you cannot even notice him on-screen.


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


user
Can I Do it 'till I Need Glasses? at the very least proves the point that anyone can make a movie. Talent is not a consideration. The folks who unleashed this wretched pile of spewing vomit upon the world, lack any semblance of talent, taste or intelligence. The target audience must consist of the recently labotimized, and infants who play with their own feces. Anyone else would be far too world wise to get even a snicker out of this film. It consists of a series of sophmoric skits in which the punchline does not even extend to the obvious. It ends at the ludicrous. The jokes told are the types of jokes that elementary school children tell (usually potty or sexually related) where they don't know the meaning of all of the terms they use. You know, like the one about daddy's car and mommy's garage. To apply any sterner method of criticism would be pointless, since the usual standards of acting, writing, direction and such have never even been heard of by the creative "minds." behind this mess. Not to be judgemental, but anyone who enjoyed this film should seriously reflect upon their purpose on this earth.



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


user
The comedic might of Pryor and Gleason couldn't save this dog from the tissue-thin plot, weak script, dismal acting, and laughable continuity in editing this mess together. It has a very few memorable moments, but the well dries up quickly. As a kid I remember this as a Luke-warm vehicle for the two actor-comedians, but there was always something strange about the flow and feeling of what was being conveyed in each scene and how this ties to the plot overall. Watching it again after many years, it screams schlock-a-mania. I'm not so concerned with the racial controversy, as I wouldn't mind seeing a movie take that issue on with a little levity. The most obvious fault to me is that the scenes are laid out like a jumbled, non-related series of 2 minute situation comedy bits (any not very good ones at that), that were stapled together by the editor after an all-nighter at the local watering hole. Characters change feelings and motivations on a dime, without rhyme nor reason, between scenes and within scenes, making this feel as though no one had any idea of what to get out of the screenplay. Not that it was any gem to start with. I feel bad for the two actors whose legacy is marred by this disaster that should never have been made. Maybe my sense of humor has become too refined...


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


user
The only redeeming quality of this overlong miscast melodrama is the scenery of southern France and the voice of Nana Mascouri singing the theme song. Stephanie Powers is miscast and betrayed by a phony accent. As has been pointed out, she is too old to play an 18 year old and looks far too young as a grandmother with a college age granddaughter? Lee Remick is good although she also is ageless in her later years. The talented Joanna Lumley is under utilized and also manages to look forever young when her middle aged son (Robert Urich) finally marries Grandma Stephanie Powers. Stacey Keach's ceaseless arrogance makes you wonder what these women saw in him. Don't know how any viewer could relate to his excessive portrayal? The most credible performance is given by Ian Richardson, who makes the rest of the cast look like rank amateurs. It strains credulity that the handsome male suitors in this epic would remain ever single while they patiently await the subject of their affections to finally consent to accept them. Can anybody believe that handsome Robert Urich would remain single for decades waiting for Stephanie Powers to finally accept his endless marriage proposals? The WW2 engagement between the Wehrmacht and the Marquis is laughable. To begin with, the Germans did not occupy the Provence section of France until late in the war, it was controlled by the Vichy French puppet government. We see the French resistance staging a daylight raid on Mistral's villa to steal sheets after which they all lounge under a bridge waiting for a lumbering truckload of Nazi troops to surprise and annihilate them? If you want to see a well acted mini-series set in a foreign country, don't watch Mistral's Daughter. A far better alternative would be The Thorn Birds.


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


user
Usually, I don't think Hollywood productions are fit to be called film, so I call them 'movies' instead. But this piece of elephant manure, is not even fit to be called a movie, hence the quotes in the title.
Where shall i start? 1. If this isn't the start of geriatric casting, it sure is the epitome of it. Stefanie Powers is supposed to play someone even LESS than half her age, she's supposed to play an 18 year old, and she is FORTY effing TWO!!!!
2. A horrible and stupid mindless portrayal of Paris and France, where we see cliché characters such as: the sympathetic grumpy shop owner, the bitchy queen of models, the fairy god mother ex-queen of models, etc. This film is surpassed only in this respect by the Da Vinci Code, (which reviewers correctly determined was a comedy).
3. It's highly and utterly ridiculous to have no nudity in a film about a time and a place where nudity was so common place, especially if the whole focus is about that
4. The horrible accents!!!
5. The Nana Mouskouri elevator-music!!!
I could go on, but i think this is enough. And I was able to make these observations after watching this crap for just half an hour, WHILE surfing the internet and talking to my friends about math equations ... I mean ...!!!!!
I invite everyone to add to my list. :) :P :D


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 saw this movie, and I have to say that it was a big waste of time. The girl who played Eva (Ellen Fjaestad) can't act at all. She read her lines very un-naturally, and she had a very un-natural facial expression through the entire movie. Rosanna Munter who played Petra on the other hand, is a natural. She played her part with great perfection.
SPOILERS! The story was simple - we've seen it many, many times before. She breaks up, he finds another, she get jealous, he breaks up with the other girl and they end up back together in the end. There were no surprises at all, one knew that Eva would break up, and that Adam would "hook up" with Petra. The only thing that nobody saw coming was that Petra told Adam to go after Eva at the party. She became all serious, which is a side of Petra the viewers hadn't seen earlier in the movie, and told him to win Eva's heart back, which was really cute.
Besides Rosanna Munter, there isn't a single actor who gives a memorable performance.
This is a mediocre movie with mediocre actors, so I don't recommend it!


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


user
This was a strange kind of film about a low-lifes in New York City and centering around a main character (the title name, played by Brad Pitt) who thinks he''s a Ricky Nelson-type musician, except he has no real talent.
It's kind of fun to watch until a profane tough New York City-type woman with horrible accent enters the picture and takes over. That ruined the film for me. It must have been Catherine Keener, who usually plays tough and garbage-mouthed women.
The hairdo on Pitt - an exaggerated Pompadour - was fun to look at. I can picture Johnny Depp playing this role better. One last note: it odd to hear a film made in 1992 (other than Woody Allen's) with just mono sound.


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 absolutely the worst movie I've seen all year.
First, I will say that the acting was very good, and by all of the cast.
This was apparently meant to be very offbeat, and in that regard it succeeded. By the same token, the story revolves around a self-centered wannabe, who is a clueless, talentless chronic liar, whose source of self confidence comes from a pair of leather slippers.
This was worse than watching a car wreck.


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 would have been a much better film if the Cajuns had been portrayed in a more believable light. My family is from the southeast region of Louisiana and I live in southeast Texas (about 20 miles from Lake Charles). I have never heard the people I grew up around talk like these folks did. The Cajuns were portrayed as backwards rednecks. Most of the Cajuns I know are well educated, proud people and don't sound uneducated at all when they talk the way these people did. All in all it was an OK movie, with great scenery and music. I understand that the writers were from Lake Charles, and have knowledge of the area, but for the love of all things Cajun, please have the actors study the language, live amongst the people you are portraying and get an all around understanding of how they are before you go trying to act like them. In my opinion, when the actors make you believe they are that person, it's a much more enjoyable movie!


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


user
OK, anyone who could honestly say that this movie was Great or even Good is either delusional or knows the Director, Writer and Producers and is trying to boost the buzz on this film. I watched the movie because a friend of mine worked on it and it was Horrible. I'm an actress and have worked in the industry for a while now on big films and even independents and this movie bored me to tears. The reason I'm being so harsh is because this film was clearly a different take on "Of Mice and Men" and they should sue because it is such a horrible rip-off of the story. In an industry where Hollywood seems to be creatively bankrupt...for someone to take a classic book and film "Of Mice and Men" and destroy it with a new spin bugs me so much. The actors, the accents, the dialog and the direction were amateurish and the writing was dismal. I mean if your going to take a new spin on an existing story make sure its just as good or better than the original to make the new spin justified. Did not like this movie at all.


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 the weakest soft porn film around. I can't believe somebody wrote this stupid story before making some changes. The guy Mike is a major wimp and moron I can't believe he didn't want to take a shower with his bride-to-be Toni and be in a threesome with the french photographer Jan. He does do a threesome with Toni and Kristi but that was short I hate that every time in Soft Core Porn Films threesomes between a woman, a man, and a woman is short but a girl-girl thing is about an hour. To the makers of these films have the threesomes alot longer this film should've have two threesome scenes not one but two.


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


user
A note to all of you budding film writers: Study this film. If your dialog reads like the dialog in this film, please shred your script and try again.
I didn't have high expectations, but was intrigued by the description indicating there was a mystery at the Christmas Ornament Factory. The Mystery is resolved very early and the film becomes a straight romance. I almost stopped watching it at 5 minutes, 10 minutes, and at the first break. My spouse , who is the Hallmark & Lifetime fan, gave up at the first break.
Forest River is a company town - the main business is Aikens Ornaments, who make all manner of holiday decorations.The patriarch of the company has recently passed away, so the companies future might be in question. We soon meet Noelle, who would rather be on Wall Street than Main Street, and the mysterious Justin, who gets a date with Noelle after a large snowman she is inflating crashes into Justins car. Once we meet Alison Aikens, doing due diligence for the Board, we have our story setup.
If you can't nail all the story arcs by the first commercial break, you haven't seen enough of this kind of Holiday film. Maybe that's a good thing.


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


user
They should have named this movie ...Blonde women that needed to get their roots colored. Also the main character, geeze, the too tight sweaters. The giggling. Thought the guy did a good job though. I keep hoping we'll find a good 8 star Christmas movie to watch this week. The dart throwing. Had to laugh at that too. We've still got 3 more on the DVR to watch, maybe we'll get lucky. Oh yeah, I figured the guy out pretty quickly and nailed it when he picked up the flowers and then drove out with his cousin. I told my daughter they were on their way to the cemetery. And how stupid was it that the two gals followed them there spying on them? Creepy.


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


user
Some of the worst, least natural acting performances I've ever seen. Which is perhaps not surprising given the clunky, lame dialog given to the one note characters. Add to that the cheap production values and you've got a movie that doesn't look like it even belongs on television. One doesn't expect much from a Lifetime movie, especially one this old, but this is nearly unwatchably bad.
Plot-wise, it's a dreadful, clichéd romance of a type even Harlequin would consider beneath them. It's possible to guess how the remainder of the movie will go by simply watching the opening couple of scenes. Surprise, the only female character who gets any focus and the mysterious stranger end up falling in love.


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


user
Four years after making his directorial debut with the art-house snoozer "Welcome To L.A.", Alan Rudolph shows us what he really wanted from Hollywood was to be one of the guys. "Roadie" is a frat-boy fracas complete with barroom brawls, horny harpies, Art Carney in a souped-up wheelchair...and Meat Loaf at the wheel. Meat Loaf (playing Travis W. Redfish!) is actually a rather charming presence on the screen, and perhaps in a smaller role (in a better movie) he might indeed be ingratiating, but Zalman King's script is full of stereotypical redneck humor and helpless Meat Loaf is kept wide-eyed and moronic. Alice Cooper, Roy Orbison, Hank Williams, Jr., and Blondie all make appearances--and all look embarrassed. They certainly should, "Roadie" is one bad trip. NO STARS from ****


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


user
The first look on the cover of this picture, it looks like a good rock n roll movie. But don't let the cover fool you, or the fact that Alice Cooper and Blondie is in it. The storyline is just horrible, and so is the acting. Plain and simple: BAD
It's not a movie about a roadie, its just a thin love story, so awful that you see right through it. The only good thing about this movie, is the soundtrack.Some good songs, and that is why I give 2 out of 10. If it wasn't for the music, it would of been 0 out of 10. Meat Loaf is a horrible actor(at least he was in 1980), and the girl who plays the groupie isn't even good looking! This movie was a huge disappointment for me, because it makes a lot of good promises.


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


user
Where to begin? How best to describe just how awful this movie is???
Let's start with the campy hick humor. It isn't very funny. Add a bunch of musicians impersonating actors - Meat Loaf is horrible and Deborah Harry is even worse. Pity poor Art Carney, who should have known better than to do this movie.
And then there is the plot. A roadie whose life goal is to work an Alice Cooper show meets a girl whose life goal is to be a groupie for Alice Cooper. At least they get what they want...
And then, just when the movie should end, they can't come up with a more plausible last scene than a - well, I won't ruin it for you if you really want to see the movie.
There are certain actors that let you know that this is going to be a "B" movie or perhaps worse. Gailard Sartain is one of them for me - and he has a more prominent role. That's a sure sign that the movie probably won't be very good. If nothing else, the movie lives up to the low expectations - even exceeds them by being worse than poor.
Let's just say this. This is the movie against which all bad movies are compared. And none are worse than Roadie.


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


user
What on earth has become of our dear Ramu? Is this the same man who made Sarkar, Satya, and Comapny? I refuse to believe so. If AAG was Ramu's most ambitious project, he has clearly jumped off the high cliff he has ascended by giving the industry some of the greatest works of all times. This movie is made to fall like a brick. I was cringing to leave the theater, but I was forced to sit because I wouldn't have been able to take my car out of the parking lot before others also left. Else, nothing would have made me sit beyond interval.
This movie is nowhere close to Sholay. It doesn't even come near it within a mile. I believe Ramu surely loves The Godfather more than Sholay, since Sarkar was a classic piece of work. I read Ramu's interview a couple of days back, in which the interviewer said that Ramu doesn't sleep for more than 4 hours a day, that too not at a stretch. I completely agree with this now, as his lack of sleep has probably taken its toll on the movie.
There is no power in the performance. Amitabh Bachchan doesn't even look scary. He looked more terrifying in the few posters and wallpapers I saw earlier. Ramu's favorite Nisha Kothari did a fantastic job in Sarkar because she didn't have many dialogs (in fact none if I remember clearly). She opened her mouth in this movie, and has found a place in history. The new guy playing Jai's role seems to have that brash look, but didn't manage Jai's role at all. I cant go on... Im sorry... my pain is too big for me to manage right now.
I promised myself throughout the movie that I will watch the original Sholay once more just to see that it is still there.
Bottom Line: Horrible movie. The media and critics are going to cook Ramu's goose. And just to remind all readers once more, I am one of the biggest Ramu fans, and even I cant spare him for this act.


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


user
Ram Gopal Verma has proved himself as a very innovative and competent director. He had done a remake/reworking of Godfather with Sarkar, and succeeded tremendously. Ditto for Lolita which he made as Nishaabd.
Sholay is been the movie he repeatedly says has inspired him the most. Unfortunately, he has managed to make a disappointing and ultimately boring remake.
The acting ranged from decent to very good, with Amitabh Bachchan being suitably menacing as the villain Babban.
The songs were awful and forgettable. The Mehbooba Mehbooba song came off as a second rate music video.
The worst part was the pacing, and the dialogues - which were forgettable.
Watching the movie in a theatre, I found myself waiting for the intermission, and then for the ending. Some viewers were wise not to wait, and were seen leaving throughout the duration of the film. Ultimately, one of the worst movies made by Ram Gopal Verma.


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


user
This so called remake is terrible. I went to see this tonight.. on the first day as the anticipation and hype was too much for me to handle. But within the first half an hour, we knew that this is a disaster. It not only does not match the hype created but also insults the original blockbuster. The script had loopholes, the editing was untidy quite a few times. Mohanlal who is an excellent actor did an okay job. Amitabh was alright.. the director wanted to portray how evil his character is but he went a bit overboard which resulted in it being forceful. Ajay who is especially smooth in these kind of roles was also a disappointment. Lets not even get started about the new guy Prashant.. one wouldn't be proud to start off a career with something like this. Rajpal Yadav who was thrown in for a few laughs couldn't even get a smile out of anyone because of his forceful humor and the shrill voice. Nisha Kothari proved that she is one of the worst actresses we have today. All in all, RGV who I thought was one of the most talented and gifted directors India has had.. failed miserably. He took up such a huge challenge and responsibility to remake what is known as the best Hindi movie ever and made a mess out of it.


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 have seen the Sholay of 1975, Don't watch this movie. If you have NOT seen the Sholay of 1975, Go WATCH IT. But do not watch this movie. This movie has all the ingredients that could possibly have gone wrong with making a remake of Sholay.
Amitabh 'Babban' Bachchan plays the role of a psycho villain to the best (Probably the only 40 mins of the reel that shouldn't be burnt). If you remove the rest of the movie and just watch amitabh play around with his character, it would still be worth a watch. But as Insp. Narsimha, Mohanlal doesn't do justice to his talent. Ajay Devgan(Heero) is extremely mundane and the only reason i think, they cast Prashant Raj in the role of Raj is because he has a striking resemblance to Amitabh of his young days. Sushmita Sen carries herself well, with grace and make-up. But the award for the "WORST performance and any role till date" must go to Nisha Kothari. She manages to degrade her acting to such levels that even high-school drama would would outshine her performance.
If you have a mortal enemy, take him to 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
If the scale went negative I would be happier. Seeing Sushmita Sen was nice, and Nisha Kothari has a bright future but the producer and the director ruined any and all enjoyment in this story. The choice of angles, choice of lighting and well everything distracted from trying to remember what is the story. Oh, if the songs and dances haven't caused you to rip your ears off your head, first. The film could have been made twice at 1.25 hours, and been pretty good, kinda like "Seven Samurai" but the director and writer didn't go that direction, even if the "townsfolk" finally find their backbone and want to help. This movie fails on so many levels: editing, writing, photography angles, style, lighting, script - name any aspect of this film - it was BAD - probably the food from the caterer was bad too. I have never in 6 years of watching Indian (Bollywood) movies seen something this badly made.


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


user
What's happening to RGV? He seems to repeat himself in every movie. Has he run out of creative ideas? If he has, time to take a back seat. Went to see the movie with great anticipation - of course not once did I imagine it would be anywhere near the original. I knew it wouldn't, the promos said it all. But even then I thought it would be a great RGV treat, after all isn't he the same guy who directed Sathya and Company? Or is he? I have my doubts after watching Aag. I am not going to talk about the plot or the story, as most of it is taken from the original, if you are really dying to go and see this one, you could play a fun game with friends: identify the scenes from the original one and give ratings of your own! So Veeru becomes Heero (how corny is that?), guess Heeru wouldn't sound that great. Ajay Devgan is quite a disaster as Heero, the comedy is strained and the slurred talk that really was effective in Company sounds fake. The chemistry between Heero and Gunghroo (Nisha Kothari) doesn't exists at all. In fact the more charming Nisha tries to be the more irritating she becomes. This reaches a peak by the end. Raj is in fact not bad as compared to the others, he is a guy to watch in the future. I was really disappointed with Amitabh Bachchan as Babban, he looks like a caricature of Gabbar Singh. There is a scene where he is drinking something from a bowl all covered in a shawl, instead of inspiring fear he looks like a beggar with his bowl. The only performance that really stood out was Mohan Lal as Inspector Narasimha. I am afraid I don't have the patience to write more.


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 the film and i got screwed, because the film was foolish and boring. i thought ram gopal varma will justify his work but unfortunately he failed and the whole film got spoiled and they spoiled "sholay". the cast and crew was bad. the whole theater slept while watching the movie some people ran away in the middle. amithab bachan's acting is poor, i thought this movie will be greatest hit of the year but this film will be the greatest flop of the year,sure. nobody did justice to their work, including Ajay devagan. this film don't deserve any audiences. i bet that this film will flop.
"FINALLY THIS MOVIE SUCKS"


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 the first time I'm writing a comment on a movie on IMDb. but i had to write it for this one. its 3 hrs of unadulterated torture. from the starting u get the idea that the movie is gonna be bad. the acting is pathetic. I'm a big fan of Ajay devgan (loved him in bhagat singh) but he is at his worst in this movie. amitabh seems to have worked hard for this one, but somehow the fear is missing. prashant raj is a non actor. and the most irritating part of the movie is nisha kothari. i have no clue why the director took her in this movie. the background score is repetitive. somehow i felt that ramu tried to repeat a sarkar, the color theme, the background score, the camera angles, but it didn't work. PLEASE Don't 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
This film was absolutely...ugh i can't find the word oh wait... crap! I mean when it started i was like yeah this looks good and then after it was so boring. I nearly fell asleep and it had nothing to do with the fact that i caught a late showing because it was utter filth. Ram Gopal Varma has tried his best but the cast could never live up to the cast of the original Sholay i mean what was he thinking doing a remake. What was he trying to do? Be like Sanjay Leeli Bhansani and win all the awards next year like he did for Black? Ajay and that other guy were good especially the other guy who played raj because out of all of them he was the one to look at. What was Amitabh doing? He's destroying his own dignity by doing all these stupid films. First Nishabd then Cheeni Kum then Jhoom Barabar Jhoom and now this i mean hes got to gather a bit of his money and move as far away from Bollywood as possible before he loses all his respect and I'm telling you he's already past half his way. I mean all this is really good for the other actors like Shah Rukh Khan who's getting a really good name now because of the recent downfall of Amitabh. I never really liked him because he thinks he's God and i just knew Abhishek was going to be in that movie.
If you want to save your £17.75 and spend it on something good go watch Heyy Babyy because that's just the funniest movie ever and it's number one in the charts!


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


user
First of all sorry for giving even a rating of 1 to this movie (nothing less than this available). The film fails in every department be it screenplay, direction, characterization or acting.
1) To start with, the name of the movie is really C class (though the movie itself match up to the name). 2) Amitabh Bachchan tries his best to live up to the character but the weak script coupled with pathetic direction ends up making him a humorous character. 3) In Sholay Gabbar Singh has reward of 50,000 on him (which was convincing). Here in Aag the figure was 100 crores for Babban (Amitabh Bachchan but poor man was beaten by our so called hero's and had only few men bikes to commute (with all automatic guns). Making a Sholay like movie in Mumbai type setup in modern time doesn't look convincing. 4) As for Nisha Kothari, somebody needs to tell her that she doesn't know acting. Why is Ram Gopal Verma casting her again and again ? 5) Mohanlal was good but there is hardly anything for him to do. 6) Sushant Singh and Rajpal Yadav who are great actors are wasted in the movie. 7) Legendry role played by Lila Misra (Mausi of Basanti) in Sholay is replaced cheaply in this movie by some Gangu Mummy. Ramu please grow up and understand that there needs to be some intellect in your movie. Enough of stupid characters in your movie like Shiva and Aag. 8) Should not say anything about modern Jai and Veeru..pathetic to the greatest extent.
To summarize, I was shocked to see this movie because it looks like a cheap and comic translation of original classic. Please don't waste money and time on this movie. I think watching Aap Ka Surror (which I thought was the worst movie possible) would be a better idea than to see this horrible package of stupid characters, bad songs and miserable direction.
Thanks, Saurabh


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


user
I, like many other Bachchan fans, having been eagerly awaiting the remake of Sholay. This movie was not it. Thank god they didn't let them use the name "Sholay" in the movie title. Ram Gopal's remake is not worthy of the title. The camera work, the locations, the costumes, the totally out-of-place dancing, the dialogue all combined to make the worst movie I have ever seen. You wonder if the cast of actors agreed to make this movie because they needed money and Ram Gopal was paying a lot of money for the cast. The only non-paid actor, the ant, was the only resemblance to the first movie. Abishek's role was totally ridiculous, did he need money to pay for the wedding to Ash? Save your money, your mind and your time, don't bother with this movie or the DVD when that comes out.


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


user
Something somewhere must have terribly gone wrong right at the time when the director was perceiving this plot. The movie, that was supposed to be the remake of one of the most loved movies in cinema, fails to deliver in every aspect of movie making. The best of the artists could also not pick up the tuning, that simply goes on to show that the movie in itself was a grave mistake.
The editing is poor. Direction is crap. Acting is out of this world(omg)! The characters who are supposed to look scary force people to laugh on the stupidity of their dialogues and costumes.
I wouldn't watch the movie even if someone paid me the cost of the tickets or even gave me a free burger with it.


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 by far the worst movie I have ever seen in the cinema!! Could not wait for it to end. To make matters worse it is given a 12A certificate so you do not see anyone getting shot, just bodies slumping to the ground, even Babban getting killed was cut out!!! Too many scenes were cut to bring in the younger viewers as I think the makers knew it would flop disastrously!! Amitabhs acting was great but that 'Basanti' wannabe and the other idiot who plays Devgans mate can't even act. Devgan was wasted!!
I would not watch this for free again and I advise all others who read this to do just the same YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!


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


user
OVERALL PERFORMANCE :- At last the long waiting AAG hits the screens. Unfortunately, it couldn't set progressive fire in the audience. The first best thing to talk about the movie is The idea of remaking the mighty SHOLAY. And Varma made a nice choice of changing the total backdrop of the movie. If he repeated the same Ramghad backdrop, people will again say there is nothing new in this. Different background is appreciative but the way he presented it is not worthy. Right from the start of his career with SIVA in Telugu, he had been using the same lighting and kind of background. I seriously dunno this guy Varma considers about lighting or not or may be he has no other lighting technique other than like gordon willis GODFATHER. It's all DUTCH DUTCH DUTCH DUTCH. Why would some body use so many Dutch angles and extreme closeup shots!!!!!!! The shot division is lame. Characters couldn't carry an emotion, performances are not to their mark, Storytelling is worse, Background is really really terrible.
Babban:- Amitabhz been over prioritized to his job. VARMA produced great villains like Bikumatre, Bhavtakur Das, Mallik Bhai but this time he failed in carving the all time best characters of Hindi Cinema. There's no comparison of Gabbar with Babban. Babban is a more psycho rather than a villain, still he has a soft corner for his brother ( It's a gift in this movie). Amitabhz performance is not to his mark. His appearance itself is pathetic. The scar on his nose, symbolizes forgotten villains of black and white cinema. What ever they worked on Babban is not successful. Babban is no comparison with Gabbar.
Narsimha:- The first best thing about this character is not to put audience in suspense about his hands. If varma did that , it would be like teaching ABCD to a Bachelor degree holder. Itz good he opened the secret early. But the flashback is pathetic. Varma couldn't use a great actor like mohanlal to his mark.
Durga:- The only character with betterment. This character has been improved with satisfactory changes and was used according to the story.
Heroo, Raj, Ghunguroo:- No body bothers or at least considers these character. The utter failure of movie starts when director could not work on the close friendship between our heroz. These characters carry nothing to this movie.
RAMGOPALVARMA:- His quality is degrading, diminishing. AAG totally can be treated as a C grade movie. Sholay is a fire of revenge, problem of a town, meaning for true friendship and highly appreciated nuisance and fun by Dharmendra. AAG never carried an emotion with its characters. Storytelling is too weak that it could not make audience feel sympathy for the characters. Don't compare AAG with sholay, still u will not like it.
If you dare watch this movie. You will be burnt alive in RAMGOPAL VARMA KI AAG


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


user
Truly shows that hype is not everything. Shows by and by what a crappy actor abhishek is and is only getting movies because of his dad and his wife. Amitabh as always is solid. Ajay Devgan as always is shitty and useless and the new guy is a joke. The leading lady is such a waste of an actor. Such pathetic movie from such a revered director and from such a big industry. With movies as such I have decreased the amount of bollywood movies I watch.
RGV has been making very crappy movies for a while now. Time to get different actors. Hrithek anyone? Bollywood needs Madhuri and Kajol back. Every other leading lady is a half-naked wanna be. Pffffft.


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


user
I must tell you right up front, I am certainly NOT an authority on Bollywood films and have only seen a handful. However, if you've never seen one, DON'T start with this one! I have greatly enjoyed the ones I've seen up until this one, but I just couldn't stand this one. I also must tell you up front that I could not finish this film--it was that annoying. So why was it so annoying?
1. There is a character named 'Rambha' in the film. He is even more annoying than Jar-Jar Binks--which I never would have believed would have been possible. He is so #@^!# annoying!! He spoke in a falsetto voice and I think was meant to be comic relief. Instead, he just grated on my nerves and wanted him to die...slowly! His voice, his mannerisms and his obnoxiousness--he just didn't seem to shut up and dominated every scene he was in--and he needed to die!
2. The heroes had the amazing ability to dodge AK-47 bullets with ease. I kid you not--there was a scene where several unarmed guys took on a small army of guys with these assault rifles!! And, again and again, they avoided taking a single bullet AND beat up the ruffians!!! This made Stallone's actions in "Rambo II" look mundane!!
3. The film was so gosh-darn loud, in your face and intense--it practically made my brain bleed!! It was as if the film were made by people under the influence of meth!! Crazy camera angles, INTENSE music and action, action, action...this movie is clearly designed for someone who can't take a movie with plot and wants nearly 100% action.
4. The two main characters and their actions and motivations made zero sense...none whatsoever!
Perhaps if you are the most ardent action and Bollywood fan you can stand this film, but as for me I can see why it's on IMDb's infamous Bottom 100 list. Wow...this film is bad AND intensely bad!!


assistant
0