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
Damp telling of the American Revolution.
When farmer 'Tom Dobb' (Al Pacino) and his son arrive in New York Harbor, they are immediately conscripted by street urchin Annie Lennox... Annie Lennox?... to contribute to the war effort.
After getting chopped down by bits of chain-link fired from British cannons, Tom and his son are promptly chastised by Continental Army sympathizer 'Daisy' (Nastassja Kinski) for 'not standing their ground'. Following this Kodak moment, a series of digressive chapters take place including Tom's participation in a 'foxhunt' in which he must carry a model of "poor old Georgie Washington" stuffed in effigy while running from a lace handkerchief-wielding English captain (Manning Redwood), and having a barbecue with a group of Iroquois Indians as they plan on the best way to sneak back into the fighting so Al and his ingrate kid can kick the crap out of British officer Donald Sutherland's butt.
Director Hugh Hudson presents a unique style of film-making and the atmosphere is as thick as the proverbial London fog, but the scriptwriter's painting of the redcoats as evil monsters once again reveals Hollywood's patented hatred of the British.
Steven Berkoff appears as an enlisted American soldier.


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


user
Historically accurate? Hmm... Perhaps... if you squint, and light falls upon the subject just-so. But core accuracy is no compensation for a dismal, patchy and inconsistent plot, reams of cardboard dialogue and an unsatisfying conclusion. The principal characters are merely characterizations; embarrassing stereotypes that range from the 'enigmatic and noble' American Indians through to the 'stuffy but sadistic' British officers. A wretched and unworthy rendition of a fascinating period in American history. I want my money back.


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 movie also, and altho it is very well done, I found it a heartbreaker and would not recommend this to women who have small children.. The terror on this mother's face when she sees her child about to be run over by a train is truly heartbreaking. And the sad thing is--internally she dies. Eventually she goes back to the Applacian mountains. All the money in the world which she makes from making dolls does not conceal the grief she has. I remember her desperate face as she pulls money out of her clothes to try to have her child healed. I'm surprised this movie takes place in Detroit, because when I watched it I thought for sure the people had come to Cincinnati, Ohio. This also was a route for the poor from the mountains.


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 read all the rave reviews here and am impressed with the imagination of those who loved this film. I can't say that I found much to recommend it. The Leonard Cohen sound track is not only excessively heavy-handed but dreary beyond measure. The film looks authentic enough, but something's got to happen for it to work, and nothing much does: a cursory plot (not a real problem for me), not much character development, nothing thematically. It just slogs along. Flawed as it is, Cimino's "Heaven's Gate" has some moments of genuine wonder and is a film I'd sooner watch again. For a brilliant reconception of the West, HBO's "Deadwood" is much superior to "McCabe."


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


user
Robert Altman's downbeat, new-fangled western from Edmund Naughton's book "McCabe" was overlooked at the time of its release but in the past years has garnered a sterling critical following. Aside from a completely convincing boom-town scenario, the characters here don't merit much interest, and the picture looks (intentionally) brackish and unappealing. Bearded Warren Beatty plays a turn-of-the-century entrepreneur who settles in struggling community on the outskirts of nowhere and helps organize the first brothel; once the profits start coming in, Beatty is naturally menaced by city toughs who want part of the action. Altman creates a solemn, wintry atmosphere for the movie which gives the audience a certain sense of time and place, but the action in this sorry little town is limited--most of the story being made up of vignettes--and Altman's pacing is deliberately slow. There's hardly a statement being made (just the opposite, in fact) and the languid actors stare at each other without much on their minds. It's a self-defeating picture, and yet, in an Altman-quirky way, it wears defeat proudly. ** from ****


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


user
Oh God,what an idiotic movie!Incredibly cheap with fake special effects(the creature is played by one guy in lame costume)and stupid plot.All dialogues are unbelievably bad and these actors(HA!HA!HA!)...they're simply ludicrous.For example I have never seen so annoying characters like in this junk(these dumb kids or pregnant woman with his husband and many more).All in all,this is a great entertainment if you're drunk.Avoid it like the plague.Am I drunk?I don't think so...


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


user
Blue monkey is actually mentioned in the film but not in any way that makes any possible sense. At one point,some kids are wandering thru the deeper levels, exploring.
They begin to discuss what they'll find down there and one of them (a girl) says she bets they'll find a blue monkey.
Yes, thats it. Totally inconsequential to the story, the only sad connection to the title, and no idea why she would suppose she'd find a blue monkey in a hospital's basement.
I'm embarrassed for having remembered it but somebody had to remember I suppose!


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


user
Never even knew this movie existed until I found an old VHS copy of it, hidden deep in my dusty horror closet. The title on the box said "Insect" and the illustrations on the back made clear that it is just another insignificant and poorly produced 80's horror movie. They can surely be fun, of course, as long as don't expect an intelligent scenario and as long as you're not irritated by seeing a giant amount of cheesy make-up effects. Just about every important aspect that makes a horror movie worthy viewing is substandard here in "Blue Monkey"! The plot is ridiculous and highly unoriginal, the acting performances are painful to observe and there's a total lack of suspense. Following the always-popular trend of "big-bug" movies, "Blue Monkey" handles about a new and unknown insect species that wipes out the doctors and patients of a remote hospital. The makers couldn't be more evasive about the actual origin of this gigantically over-sized critter! All we know is that it's not from outer space and it initially crawled out of a tropical plant. Other than this, there's absolutely no explanation for where this new type of insect all of a sudden comes from! Like I said, don't get your hopes up for an intelligent screenplay. The first half of the film is entertaining enough, with some nice gore and the introduction of a couple deranged characters (an 80-year-old blind and alcoholic lady!) but the second half (when the entire hospital is put to quarantine) is dreadfully boring. It is also near the end that "Blue Monkey" begins to exaggeratedly rip-off older (and better) films. Approaching the climax, they apparently ran out of budget as well, since the lighting becomes very poor and the guy in the monster suit isn't very well camouflaged anymore. "Blue Monkey" is worth a peek in case you're really bored or if you really want to see every 80's horror movie ever made. Fans of B-cinema may recognize John Vernon ("Killer Klowns from Outer Space", "Curtains") in the small and meaningless role of Roger, who's in charge of the clinic.


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 first saw the cover of this movie (a giant bug chasing a few nurses) And the name "Blue Monkey", I knew I wasn't in for any big Hollywood movie. I was pleasantly surprised to see Steve Railsback in this cheese-ball flick, who always does a good job in whatever role he tackles.... The FX are pretty corny, there isn't too much of a plot, and I'm still not sure why this movie is called Blue Monkey, because there is nothing in this movie to do with monkey. But come on people, what did you expect?? It's not really as bad as it seems.... If you enjoy the old 50's style black and white bug attack movies, this one is basically an updated version, without the updates special FX


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


user
All this dismaying waste of film stock needs is Count Floyd popping up every sixty seconds. Somehow they got Steve Railsback, Susan Anspach, John Vernon, and Joe Flaherty together on a set and couldn't get within five miles, about eight kilometers, of an actual movie. BOY does this thing suck. There isn't one original line, thought, shot, or effect from brainless opening sequence to brainless close. The magical, ethereal Susan Anspach of Five Easy Pieces - boring. Steve Railsback - boring. John Vernon - boring. The big bug - boring. If this is a scary movie, Buttercream Gang is a thuglife documentary.
Seriously - every bad movie contains its own explanation of its badness. Usually it's in the opening credits - "Written, Directed, and Produced by" one guy. Or at the very center of the action is some bimbo so talentless that you know there's one and only one reason this turkey got made. Here, you don't find out till the very last of the credits, where the cooperation of about a dozen subfunctions of the Canadian Government is gratefully acknowledged.
Right now I'm watching MST's take on Beast of Yucca Flats to get the taste out of my mouth. Ghod, what an improvement.


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


user
Now, it would be some sort of cliché if i began with the bit about the title, so i'll wait on that. First, this movie made me wonder why kids do stupid things like wander around in labs and break bottles. Then i realized it, this is a movie with a message, that message is beat kids and things like this won't happen. Things like what you ask? Things like a giant insectish monster growing up and causing a bit of mayhem before dying in the typical "kill the monster indirectly" fashion. Now, as promised... Blue Monkey... has nothing Blue in it nor any Simian of any kind. Now it snot like i was cheated or anything. The picture on the cover had a giant bug/crab/idiot/thing on the front chasing some screaming nurses. That kinda happened but i wanted apes! having just enjoyed MOST EXTREME PRIMATE a few nights before(half drunk on Cask and Creame's brandy mind you) i was in the mood for more monkey hijacks 80's style. Not so much. If you like snow boarding apes or blue things this movie is not for you. If you like bugs and good reasons to hit kids, rent this.


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


user
Blue Monkey (1987) or 'Invasion of the BodySuckers' as it's known here in the UK was a pretty boring horror movie about an old man who gets bitten in a greenhouse by some mysterious toxic plant!!!! The man gets rushed to hospital, where this worm like creature comes out of his mouth, of course this transforms into this insect monster and proceeds to go on the rampage!! Despite Steve Railsback and John Vernon being in the movie, i found it to be boring, with a flat predictable storyline, un-interesting characters, cheap special effects and lack of action!!!! Horror fans don't really need to track this rare movie down, you wont be missing much trust me!!! I give this movie 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
An older man touches a flower in his wife's greenhouse that seems to be wilting. He gets pricked by it, or bitten by something on it. He quickly becomes ill, and at the hospital spits out a large writhing white larva of some kind. A later attempt to resuscitate him with paddles results in a splatter of blood.
A cop is at the hospital because his partner got badly hurt in a shoot-out. Somehow the cop gets paired up with one of the female doctors, as well as an entomologist who is brought in. There are several young kids wandering around the hospital, who I suppose we're supposed to find adorable, but who are extremely annoying little brats. They happen to wander into the room where the specimen is being kept, and happen to dump a growth hormone on it. Horror movie logic would say they deserve to die for this, but they're never even in any danger.
The critter grows and starts breeding. People run away from it, and sometimes towards it for some reason. The hospital gets surrounded by military who are prepared to destroy everything if need be.
There are no really compelling characters in the movie, and most of the time it seems like people are searching around for the monster. It was fairly boring. Clearly it owes something to the Alien movies, with the monster being born inside a human and having several stages of its growth. There's also a character named Bishop, and the lead actress has Sigourney Weaver's hair.


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 the worst MTV Movie Awards EVER!!! I barely laughed, none of the presenters were funny, the hosts really sucked, and the parodies weren't so great either. Why can't we go back to the good olden days when the show was a riot?


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


user
I usually check out the MTV movie awards to watch a witty, entertaining show that delivers a unique award show (Chewbacca winning a life-time achievement award as example). So this year was no different. While I'm not a fan of Justin Timberlake, Seann William Scott has always been funny-albiet stupid-to me. I've laughed at Stiffler in both American Pie movies, and even enjoyed him in Dude Where's My Car?. But the MTV movie awards were simply horrible. Nothing was coherrent, humorous, or entertaining. Justin Timberlake should stick to singing and dancing; he sure as hell can't act.
I'm curious as to who the writers were for this show. Last year's performance by Jack Black and Sarah Michelle Gellar was extremly funny (The Lord of the Rings parody alone was worth watching the entire show), but this year was completly different. Did anyone understand Timberlake's comments regarding Luke Wilson and Kate Hudson ("They're staring in a movie together, but have never met! Here they are...") Where was the joke? Kate and Luke just went into their lame dialogue, never making a reference to the "joke" by Timberlake. And Seann was completly wasted as a talent, not even causing me to smile, yet alone laugh. And what was the point of Harrison Ford's one-liners? Did they make ANY sense to anyone? Perhaps the MTV writers figured the young viewers would only know the aging Ford as Han Solo, Indiania Jones, or the President from Air Force One. I'm baffled. And would someone tell me the deal with Adrian Brody? How old is this guy and how old does he THINK he is? The guy looks 30, trying to act 19 again....give it up, show some class (like in your best actor academy award speech) and act your age!
I give this show 1 star out of 4, simply because of the speech by Gollam for Best Visual Performance. This was very creative, extremely well done, and caused the only genuine laugh of the entire evening.


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


user
The Japanese have always had incredible ambitions in their fantasy movies. They have always been ready to destroy cities by huge plastic monsters coming from outer space and elsewhere. The problem is they have never had the money to succeed in making convincing special effects. This film, released in France under the title Les envahisseurs de l'espace, is no exception. Its ambition is to show three creatures from the giant octopus to the giant lobster trying to have the upper hand on the humans. It's extremely awkward and laughable, but well quite enjoyable too. After all, we do like these creatures and these films after all, don't we?


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


user
How can such good actors like Jean Rochefort and Carole Bouquet could have been involved in such a... a... well, such a thing ? I can't get it. It was awful, very baldy played (but some of the few leading roles), the jokes are dumb and absolutely not funny... I won't talk more about this movie, except for one little piece of advice : Do not go see it, it will be a waste of time and money.


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


user
I completely agree with the other comment someone should do a What's up tiger Lily with this film.
It has to be one of the worst french films I've seen in a long time (actually along with Brotherwood of the Wolves, 2 horrendous films in a much too short period of time).
It's really sad because the cast is really interesting and the original idea kind of fun. Antoine DeCaunes in particular and Jean Rochefort being among my darlings, I was bitterly disappointed to see them compromised in such a poor film.
Lou Doyon is quite bad, as usual which goes to prove that a pretty face and famous parents can get you into the movies but they don't necessarily give you talent.
avoid this film, if you want to laugh watch an Alain Chabat instead or some nice period piece full of fun like LA FILLE DE D'ARTAGNAN.


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


user
After watching the first 20mn of Blanche(sorry I couldn't take more of it), I have now confirmed she does not.
Basically, this "movie" is an insult to the real french actors participating in this farcical piece of junk. It starts from a concept successfully used in French comedies ("Deux heures moins le quart avant Jesus Christ", "La Folie des Grandeurs",...): a historical movie with anachronic tone / dialogues. This can give brilliant results if supported by brilliant actors and a "finesse" of direction avoiding the dreaded "heavy comedy" stigma.
Unfortunately, the horsey-faced Lou Doillon ruins everything and Blanche, instead of a comedy, just turns into an horror movie. Horror to cinephiles who want to be puzzled and shocked watching fine actors such as Decaune, Zem or Rochefort struggling in the middle of this gaudy burlesque kitchy-prissy farce.


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 to see this a few days ago, and it's hard to forget that film...for the wrong reasons. This film is supposed to be funny, it's not, not a single laugh in the theatre( perhaps for josé garcia and gérard Depardieu ), and it's boring, boring, boring. It was even hard sometimes to understand what they were saying. They just talk to fast and don't open their enough for us to understand. I was with a friend and more than 4 or 5 times i caught myself saying after a line that was supposed to be funny " what, what did he say", and i'm french. I hate to say that, given the fact that i think good films are made here, but i apologise in advance for all foreigners who will go see the film ( if ever shown outside of France ).
We're deeply sorry for that cr@p. 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
This is one of the worst movies I saw! I dunno what are the reasons for shoting suck a crap. Don't waste your time watching this. Good actors, but extremely bad screenplay and dialogues. Hope there'll be no Blanche 2 :-) Avoid this movie by all means!


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


user
Avoid this one, unless you want to watch an expensive but badly made movie. Example? The sound is good but the dialogue is not clear - a cardinal sin in a French film.
This film attempts to combine western, drug intrigue and ancien regime costume epic. What? Well, consider this. The cowboy music is hilarious during sword fights. Or how about the woman in her underwear, holding a knife and jumping up and down on the bed?
Someone should do a 'What's Up Tiger Lily' on this bomb. Rewrite the script and then either dub or subtitle it. Heck, it's almost that now. (BTW, Gerard Depardieu and Carole Bouquet, both known to American audiences, have roles.)


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


user
Sorry, but every time I see a film wherein a woman sucker-punches a man and the man does nothing but cower, the film looses all credibility. So the new (female) Starbuck immediately tainted the plot before it even got off the ground (no pun intended). Dirk Benedict was so much more plausible as the sensitive hero-type than the new-age Kattee Sackhoff-- whose overacting will probably be henceforth lauded as "a compelling, exciting, must-see, ground-breaking performance," by the politically correct new-speak of today's review copy editors; but in essence, it is just a tired, old image of a woman with a chip on her shoulder as big as a townhouse: the biggest cliché on screens today. I may give this series one more shot, but human caricatures alone will not keep me tuned in. As James Hilton once bemoaned, "A story, please; just give me a story."


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


user
I fail to see the appeal of this series (which is supposed to be sci-fi). It's really just "let's see what soap operatically happens this week" and oh, the Cylons are involved through flashbacks.
The Cylon "babe" that keeps nailing the other guy is pretty lame, it's pretty obvious that T&A was added to the show. Every time she pops up I'm bewildered as to WTF is supposed to be going on. And don't even try to bullsh*t me about "story arcs".
It's a soap opera with some CGI thrown-in. This is not science fiction aside from the original premise.
This series is not everything it's worked-up to be. If you like trendy, edgy, dodgy, jumpy, vague editor-on-crack camera work, this show might be for you. Since nerds seem to be raving about this show, it's a clear indication that vocal nerds' opinions have been changed from Picard's TNG.


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 yesterday seen the second part. And I must say, it was actually better then the first one. At the begin, I realized, It is actually a sequel, not a remake but not a good one. I do not like the old movies and series of Galactica, because the cylons saw like toasters (just as it was mentioned in this new movie) and were completely harmless for the old galactica. This movie turns the sides - the Humans were harmless but the whole movie was for me completely chaotic and stupid. Many scenes were unnecessary, for instance the story of the "computer expert" - completely a crap. If I were a scriptwriter I would leave him die in his house, killed by the cylon woman. And the evacuation from the planet? Oh, please if it would be bombed by 50 Megatons (why exactly 50 MT??) nukes, they would be dead killed by the radiation. And how is it actually possible that the big fleet of cylon was completely hidden before the attack? Aha, it was possibly this computer virus, created by the cylon - the script was probably written by ten-years-old school boy. The good side of the movie is, that the humans are at last defeated!! Really defeated, the population is near the extinction (children are dieing - two times explicit in the movie: 1. a baby!!! maybe one month old and a girl in age of max ten - what a violence...). And the bad-asses won and I think it is the first time in such sci-fi galaxy fight movie. I also appreciate the design of the cylons (not only of the humanoid cylon:-) a good job with these ships - I like the design of the ships by both of them - human an cylons. The human ships are a good never version of the old ones. And galactica - really pretty with these docks, I liked that. But this is all, only the design is not enough. The acting was really bad, the whole plot was expectable (only two things not - the human-cylon on the ragnardocks and the human-cylon at the end).The dialogs were trivial (and in the Slovak dabbing just stupid, but that is not fault of the movie). The whole movie looked like a pilot film for a series, but who would shoot such series? What it would be about? One star for the design the second one for the near extinction of humanity.


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


user
The most horrible retelling of a great series. It should not have been named Battlestar Galactica, because it's only the same in name alone. Too many changes to just have changes. You have characters turned from male to female, black to asian to cylon all in a way to "attract female audiences," when there was already strong female characters that could have just been made stronger. Gone are the egyptian feeling. Gone are the quest for earth. The lack of cylons to go to terminator rejects takes away from the film, especially when one is made a fembot. Granted the original show had a lot of cheese to it, but it had a large following. They tried to hold onto this following but give the fans nothing to work with and basically spit in their face as they make it "their own story." Changes are good, when they make something better, not to just make them.


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


user
We all knew even before it aired, the Ron Moore mini-series is no Battlestar Galactica. That's fine. It just means it must stand on its own. It can't lean on Battlestar Galactica. If it's any good, it's good on it's own merits, and Ron Moore has something to be proud of. If reports are true, this is what Moore wanted. However, if his mini-series rots, he has shamed all the excellent actors that performed on-screen, not to mention the myriad off-screen personnel. And this is what he's done.
Yes, this mini-series is no remake. I wouldn't even call it a re-imagining. It's a new production, inspired by Battlestar Galactica. It does not take place in the Galactica universe, with the same places and jargon and technology. It doesn't tell of the Galactica's search for the thirteenth tribe. Nor does it rely on the legends and mysteries that underpinned Galactica. Ron Moore's mini-series is a space-opera, action flick with a ceremonial nod to Battlestar Galactica.
Maybe I should say, "just another" space-opera, action flick. Because as plots go, his has little that's original, or even interesting. I could relay the whole thing to you without a spoiler warning. But I won't inflict that on you. I'll just hit the most important point. Ready now? Here it is: Just watch the trailer. It will tell you everything there is in the story.
Yes, creations of man turn on man and seek to destroy man. (I guess they forgot Azimov's rules, again.) They look like humans, so there's the whole aliens-among-us thing. At least there's no time-travel. Oh, and lots of fighting scenes and random acts of sex and violence. The end result was that when Moore did draw from Galactica, that ceremonial nod, it came off more corny than respectful. I mean, couldn't he even think up anything of his own?
From the first few minutes, I wanted to watch something else. I didn't care about any of Moore's characters, since I couldn't identify with any of them. This fact hit me in the face when the Cylons began their attack. Armageddon on a planetary scale, and I didn't give a damn. How depressing.
Moore's heroes when faced with an insurmountable obstacle, instead of overcoming it, rather tucked tail and saved their own butts. After all, it was the only way to save humanity, yadda yadda yadda. They took the safe way out, rather than risking their own lives to defend others. At least disgust is not apathy.
But in the end, the Ron Moore mini-series was just activity without purpose, a movie on a treadmill, forever running yet going nowhere. And I just wanted it to be over. And by the time it was over, my life-force had been sucked from me. Against my own will, I was turning into a mindless, soulless zombie, probably of the type to which this mini-series would appeal. I needed to replenish myself. I needed to-and I swear this is true-I needed to watch an episode of Babylon 5. Two episodes, in fact, and I felt much better. And happier.


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


user
After a lively if predictable opening bank-heist scene, 'Set It Off' plummets straight into the gutter and continues to sink. This is a movie that deals in nasty, threadbare stereotypes instead of characters, preposterous manipulation instead of coherent plotting, and a hideous cocktail of cloying sentimentality and gratuitous violence instead of thought, wit or feeling. In short, it's no different from 90% of Hollywood product. But it's the racial angle that makes 'Set It Off' a particularly saddening example of contemporary film-making. Posing as a celebration of 'sistahood', the film is actually a celebration of the most virulent forms of denigrating Afican-American 'gangsta' stereotype. The gimmick this time is that the gangstas are wearing drag. Not only does the film suggest that gangsterism is a default identity for all African Americans strapped for cash or feeling a bit hassled by the Man, it presents its sistas as shallow materialists who prize money and bling above all else. Worse, 'Set It Off' exploits the theme of racial discrimination and disadvantage simply as a device to prop up its feeble plot structure. Serious race-related social issues are wheeled on in contrived and opportunistic fashion in order to justify armed robbery, then they're ditched as soon as the film has to produce the inevitably conventional ending in which crime is punished, the LAPD turns out to be a bunch of caring, guilt-ridden liberals (tell that to Rodney King), and aspirational 'good' sista, Jada Pinkett Smith, follows the path of upward mobility out of the 'hood and into a world of middle-class self-indulgence opened up for her by her buppie bank-manager boyfriend. 'Set It Off' illustrates the abysmal state of the contemporary blaxploitation film, pandering to mindless gangsta stereotypes and pretending to celebrate life in the 'hood while all the time despising it. While the likes of 'Shaft' and 'Superfly' in the 1970s might have peddled stereotypes and rehashed well-worn plots, they had a freshness, an energy and an innocence that struck a chord with audiences of all races and still makes them fun to watch. 'Set It Off' wouldn't be worth getting angry over if wasn't a symptom of the tragic decline and ghettoisation of African-American film-making since the promising breakthrough days of the early 1990s.


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


user
An interesting idea (four African American women crushed under society's boot heel take their revenge by robbing banks) is ruined by F. Gary Gray's horribly slow direction and an excruciating script (by Takashi Bufford and Kate Lanier) full of unintentionally funny moments. Instead of delivering a pointed commentary about the role of urban women struggling to stay afloat in a world where men cruelly abuse and humiliate them, Gray, Bufford and Lanier prefers to pummel their unsuspecting audience with highbrow notions of operatic tragedy. It's melodrama at its worst. Gray has his actors linger over every tired line and John Carter's lazy editing refuses to pick up the slack, choosing instead to keep his camera trained on the performers' bemused faces. And bemused they are: although actors such as Jada Pinkett, Kimberly Elise and Vivica A. Fox have some raw talent (Queen Latifah is the fourth and as an actress she's an excellent rapper), they need a surer hand than Gray's to guide them and as a result they come off as shrill and uncomfortable in front of the camera. Steer clear.


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


user
Without a doubt one of the worst movies I've seen in recent years. The story focuses on four women driven to robbing banks who we are somehow supposed to sympathize with. It's tough to sympathize with characters who keep making such stupid decisions. Oh no, the cops are on to us, they know who we are, what do we do?...Let's rob one more bank then we're outta here! What!?! Every character is a stereotype and it's easy to tell who's gonna end up dead.


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 a long time ago (aprox 10 years or so) and liked it then. I remembered it the other day and decided to watch it again. The second time around was not pleasant. The acting is 'so,so', the plot is illogical, unreasonable and predictable.
The acting...I'm sure it wasn't a stretch for those actresses to play those characters. The plot...there's no way in hell those women would have gotten away with the first robbery much less the 2nd. (side note: Why did TT not realise that even if she came up with a load of money for her court date they would ask where she got it and she would have no logical answer! Ding, Ding...we have a crook!). It horribly stereotyped black women in saying basically that the only way black women can 'beat the system' or obtain a large amount of money was to steal it and not use their intelligence or other resources. It plays too much on sympathy b/c all of them die in the end (bar Jada) but it's not sad (you're thinking 'They were so stupid; they deserve to die). You just don't really care about the characters unless you're a shallow person.
I can't believe this film rates over a 5.


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


user
Thomas Archer (Ron Eldard) has his child killed and his wife viciously attacked in a home invasion. Dr. Heller (Christopher Plummer) tries to help him through the post traumatic stress. Then Archer finds himself confronted with a man (Til Schweiger) bound and gagged to a chair. He is told this is the man who killed his child and attacked his wife and he can do whatever he likes to him. And there's a large assortment of instruments there to help him...
Film is interesting at first (and shows real restraint in terms of blood and gore) but gets stupider by the minute and has some highly unlikely plot twists and turns. It all ends in a final twist that was so old and stupid that I was shocked anyone would actually think of using it anymore. How such talented actors like Eldard, Schweiger and Plummer got involved in crap like this is beyond me. This gets three stars for the acting but the stupid plot and truly unbelievable twists make this a chore to sit through.


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


user
The premise of the film is that Thomas Archer's son was murdered and his wife was brutalized -- and he is given a chance at revenge when (after Post Traumatic Stress Disorder therapy), he is put in a room with a man strapped to a chair and told this was the culprit. He is given a large table of implements with which to offer retribution: drills, bats, nails, sledgehammers, torches, whatever you can think of that someone could possibly want to use to physically hurt another human being.
We go way too many scenes of torture before we figure out that The Man Archer is torturing is not the man who committed the crime. The two then create an uncomfortable alliance; who put them in this situation and why.
Well, when all is said and done, we don't really care...


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 deeply idiotic. A man wants revenge for a crime- but when he enacts his revenge- there is a video camera pointed right at him the entire time. What man with a brain cell in his head would sit there and do this for so long in front of a video camera?
Just the fact that this script could never even happen except with someone unable to dress themselves destroyed it for me- but it got dumber!!!
I am thinking the script writers have some serious habits that are cooking their brain cells and making them miss plot holes you can drive an battalion of armored tanks through.
PLOT: a man seeks revenge for the death of loved ones, but in the middle of the plot something goes totally wrong, and then the unexpected unfolds.
If only these people writing this story hadn't been so dumb as to write totally unrealistic plot turns that could never happen this way. To the writers I say- seek help for your serious mental problem.


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


user
This thing is really awfull. There´s no charachter with weight, they´re all floating around in the BG´s. The Motion Capture is a fine toy, but this movie demostrates that you really need people who knows animation to do an animated film. THE MACHINE CAN´T DO ANYTHING WELL BY ITSELF. If you see it as a bizarre film, you´ll have fun finding mistakes of continuity... IN A 3D MOVIE!!! It´s funny to watch the princess dress move around like a thing with diferent phisics. You need animators and 3D animators, not data-entries whom know 3D programs. Note the junctions, like the elbows, how they lost volume and get deformed. The person who made the charachter design (a very good one) sufered for sure when he/she watched them move, ´cos you can´t say they come to life.


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 only boring, it is also really badly done. The graphics are so bad, they are not even second rate - they are dreadful. The characters do not show any facial expresssions, the voice acting is empty and without any soul, and the plot absolutely lacks .... well... anything and everything. My 5 year old likes it - but thinks it's a bit boring. I agree with him.


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


user
When you have two tower house of performers pitched against each other, the least you can expect is the superb camaraderie and that is the case in this film where we have a 64 yrs old Amitabh Bachchan romances a 34-yr old Tabu. Wait! In fact that is all there in the name of plot therefore instead of "cheeni" it is the content that is "Kum" in this Adman turned Writer-Director R. Balki's maiden effort..
Trust the two senior actors to bring the house down with their wise-cracks and bitter-sweet moments when love happened in this unconventional pair, and that is all you find in slow but refreshing first half. The locales of London as captured in rainy season are captivating. By the end of first half, romance completed and mission accomplished. There is not much left to be said. Therefore in the second half a strange opposition comes in the form of girl's father to the extent that he goes for a Satyagrah is really a test of patience. There is an equally strange climax about how he gives in. The result, second half is dry, flat with no energy. There is a subplot with a girl child dying of cancer, not making much impact. Nonetheless, the film is recommended for its fresh approach and the performances.


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


user
R Balki tries to tell you a story that had been earlier told by Ram Gopal Verma in Nishabd in a sensuous way. This time it is mixed with mature humors.
Amitabh Bachchan is a Chef and owns an Indian Cuisine in London. He is very dominating and arrogant and respects his job just like any other job. According to him, Cooking is an art. Still cannot make Hyderabadi Biryani properly.
Enter Tabu who sends her the proper Hyderabadi Biryani made by her and they soon starts meeting up and finally falls in love with each other Amitabh is 65 and Tabu is 35. No probs! But one Hitch! Tabu's father Paresh Rawal!! The couples decide to meet the father for the approval of their marriage. But Amitabh realizes that Tabu's father is much younger to him. And the complications begin Performance wise all three actors are brilliant. The script of the film is very tight and interesting. The dialogues of the film are catchy. But somewhere you feel that your stomach is not properly filled. The comedy is sometimes not properly understood. The film also tries to go lengthy at some parts.
Musically nothing much to sing about except the Title Track. The camera-work is good. Director R Balki could have given much better from this script. But in the second half he himself looks confused. The "Satyagrah" scene of the father looked irritating. But the lines spoken by Amitabh Bachchan during that scene are clap worthy.
On the whole, Cheeni Kum needed to have more sugar!


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


user
In this movie, the old Amitabh Bachchan falls in love with a much younger woman, again. He meets her in his restaurant. The younger woman, Tabu, flirts with him. He does not know what to do and asks her out. Her reaction on his invitation is rather weird. Is was supposed to be funny.
And that annoys me about this whole movie. It wasn't that funny. The jokes and script was terrible! The only jokes I liked was about the teeth of a waiter, but after a several times, even that began to bore.
Amitabh has a little girlfriend called sexy. This was a weird relationship! A little girl with the mind of an old woman! It was frightening! I know someone can be attached to a kid, but this man has adult conversations with this child. It did not make any sense.
Tabu's father is Paresh Rawal. He has to give Amitabh a hard time, but we all know Paresh, he can't do that. So even the conversation at the end, when they sit all around the table, even that was supposed to be funny.
I only like movies who really are funny. I suppose I will never watch this movie again.


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


user
The subject this latest adman-turned-movieman tries to tackle in his debut (ad)venture is quite an age-old topic of discussion by almost any cultural standard -- timeless romance (pun intended).
However, the exploration (and exploitation for Desi auds) falls woefully short as the usual inclinations to 'pepper, spice and sugar' up the usual masala mix of b/g score, dialog, dance, drama, etc creates a nice-looking package with not much inside.
In the first 40 minutes of the movie, the kitchen scene has been repeated at least 8-9 times. Further repeats follow thru-out the movie (after all the lead character's a cook). But therein lies les problemos -- no story! Hah, no wonder. Someone forgot to write a script.
Amitabh puts in a Cheeni Jyada (more) amount of over-acting. Really when is this guy ever gonna stop?? How many 60-somethings prance around like that even when teased by a nubile 30-something??? Timeless mind yes, but surely what about the not-so-ageless bod? And sole? Sorry, soul?! Reasonably good acting by Paresh Rawal who has the only sensible role in the film. The director lacks any sense of realism getting all caught up in his new-fangled discovery of a hot new idea. Nowhere are we presented with any real-life problems or issues such a pair might face, other than actually getting married which is only the initial obstacle. The sub-plot of a little kid with cancer (the bachelor boy's first love) goes nowhere and whatever little bit of poignancy this otherwise insipid presentation would have evoked is quickly killed off along with the girl's character.
Anyway, nice try but not quite there yet.


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


user
well i don't know what people saw in this movie i don't know.
i saw this movie yesterday and i got a severe headache. other than few good dialog there is nothing in this movie.
the big b rt now is preaching to fall in love with girls of half of you age.
i didn't like the movie at all. i wanted to give 1 rating but giving 3 as
i like the role of the small girl who is called "sexy" by AB. my word "DONT WATCH"
save your self donot watch this movie.
save time and money.


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


user
OK, so obviously ppl thought this was a good movie in 1955.
I pity the fools who still think so... Its absolute rubbish.
The story is just ... ridiculous. The characters are absurd caricatures - but this film is not meant to satirise, im sure its meant to be a serious drama isn't it?
Dean and others, are too old for their parts. People say Dean is great in this film, and well, maybe he did play his part as well as he possibly could've. His character is meant to be 16 or 17 or so. But Dean was a 24 year old man when he made this film. Seeing him agonise and throw little tantrums like a 4 year old boy... its pathetic.
Natalie Wood is gorgeous, but the early scenes at the police station where she is crying and whining are very unconvincing. It sets a bad precedent for the film... and for the rest of it, you feel like cringing every time one of these badly acted emotional scenes comes along.
It may've been good for its time, but, really, its drivel.
It must've just been hype about Dean's death that has over-inflated the reputation of this film.


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


user
Relative to other Columbo movies, this can only be rated a 1 (awful). I seriously do not understand what the other reviewers have seen in this appalling train-crash of a film. It was only through morbid fascination that I continued to watch it - to see what bizarre or inept decision the director would make next.
Another reviewer suggested that it was Falk's only directorial outing because it interfered with his acting role. In fact, I think the real reason lies with the studio bosses, who must have been horrified when they saw what he had done with their money. It's a wonder they didn't murder HIM.


assistant
0