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
This is a baffling film.
The beauty in sexual relations between men and women is shown degraded by a set of men and women who can only be described as a collection of oddballs and misfits.
Greenaway acknowledges his inspiration to Fellini's film "8 1/2" but whereas Fellini is a titan of world cinema, Greenaway is not.
He has none of the maestro's lightness of touch nor his ability to convey feelings and emotions with a deftness of clarity.
He is pretentious, the film being divided into chapters with a written introduction to each, as if the viewer has to be guided into the film except that the written notices only stay on screen for a few seconds, not long enough to be read by the audience with the result that they are mostly ignored.
As for the women, only two can be described as lookers, Palmira, played by Polly Walker and Giaconda played by Natacha Amal. The rest ooze with ordinariness. Both the women and the men retreat from the harsh light of reality into the dim shades of fantasy.
Greenaway obviously wants to make the point that sexual fantasy does not lead to happiness. The women themselves are depressing since they render their services in exchange for money. Relations between men and women are debased into a commercial transaction.
There is no sense of joy or happiness or love in the film, indeed there are several scenes that are deeply unpleasant :
The suggestion of an incestuous relationship between father and son, Philip and Storey Emmental played respectively by John Standing and Matthew Delamere. The callous disregard of both men that Giaconda is carrying their child, she in fact, gets pregnant twice, the first foetus being aborted and the second time, she is sent away to a destination chosen by the men from a flight book. Both men having sex with a woman who has no legs, (the half woman in the title). The beastiality that exists between Beryl, played by Amanda Plummer, with a pig named Hortense. Father and son sharing women between them. Women enjoying being beaten sexually. The father sleeping with the corpse of his dead wife.
Mercifully, none of these scenes are shown sexually, only hinted at.
The hinted degradation of women is such that there cannot be any wonder that the film was booed at when it was first premiered at Cannes. What is more extraordinary is that the actresses in the film lined up to defend it, showing yet again that there is no limit to the naivety of women and that women will fool themselves into being exploited by men.
Greenaway's directorial style is pretentious, it is a triumph of style over substance, a depiction of Film as Art accompanied by the abandonment of common sense.
Greenaway tries to attain the sublimity of surrealism but only succeeds in showing the banality of human relationships.


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


user
Writer/Director Peter Greenaway cements his title as the High Lord of Art House Pretension with his latest exercise in obnoxious self-indulgence, 8 ½ Women. The film follows a wealthy Englishman and his son on their mutual quest for sexual satisfaction, as they lure and blackmail women (guess how many) into joining their personal collection of concubines.
Think of any possible way that this premise could be offensive, and chances are Greenaway's done it. The female characters are little more than a catalogue of fetishes for the two protagonists to partake of. There's the Kabuki-obsessed Mio, the ever-pregnant Giaconda and Beryl, who's got a thing for farm animals. Giulietta has no legs and uses a wheelchair, she's the "half woman," get it? Greenaway vehemently denies all accusations of misogyny, but if this isn't it, then what is?
The film goes on to eroticize anything and everything having to do with Japan, a continuation of themes from his snore-worthy (but less sexist) 1996 film, The Pillow Book. But where the The Pillow Book was erotic and graceful, 8 ½ Women just gets horny and exploitative. Greenaway's work is tasteless and arrogant in its fetishism, and the only person likely to enjoy watching it is the auteur himself.


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


user
I dont know about you, but I've always felt drawn to 'ART' cinema. The first 'art' film I managed to get a hold of was Peter Greenaway's "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover", which blew my mind and creative spiret into overdrive. The film was the ultimate paradox, both beautiful and grotesque...this is what 'art cinema' was about, exploring intellectual ideas and bringing the visceral to the screen with purpose. Life, real life, can be like living in a madhouse, and art expressed shows it for what it is. I love movies of all types, but especially those that both entertain and have something to say, whether I agree with it's stance or no...
"8 1/2 WOMEN", is a dry, clinical 'comedy' where a father and son gather a harem to fufill their many sexual fantasies. There is only a very brief allusion to Fellini in the film, unlike what the previews have suggested. The main focus of the film falls on the 'close' relationship between father and son, brought together after the mothers' death. In the early scenes of the film the fathers' sadness is believable, you can feel his pain. What happens afterwards is plain by Greenaway standards, the gathering of the harem, observations on love and death, and flesh displayed for the sake of flesh...One could argue this, but I feel the movie to be shallow and pointless. And the idea that this could be a comedy is perplexing to me. The acting for the most part if fine,...especially good are Polly Walker and Amanda Plummer(though poor Mandy should put her clothes back on) What the film lacks is a compelling story, and the usual Greenaway touches of excess that made his other films so wonderful to watch.
While filled with moments of insight, and the occasional taboo, "8 1/2 Women" is too cut and paste to be considered art, too bland to considered 'funny', and simply too dull to be considered worthwhile.
Save your money...I can only recommend this film as a sleeping aid.
4 out of 10


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


user
Stilted, stagy, strange and opaque, if visually striking ... a wannabe-erotic fantasy. Really boring, way too much male nudity (including father-son incest), and just a sort of shameless pointlessness. I will confess, however, that certain passages of dialogue, taken on their own terms, do have a lulling, haunting quality.


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


user
I am giving this pretentious piece of garbage a 1 simply because i don't believe there is a worse movie in the world.
I hate this movie, i hate the acting, dialog, setting, writing and directing. I hope everyone that was involved in this movie burns and rots in the darkest circle of hell.
Damn this disgusting waste of time.
I pray every day that this movie is just a figment of my imagination. i pray that i dreamt the movie, and that i will never have to see it at
my local video store again.
BURN IN HELL


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


user
To overcome the death of his wife, an old man does what anyone in his position would naturally do (at least in a Peter Greenaway movie): he and his son populate their home with eight and a half (one has no legs) women and embark on a sexual odyssey. This being a Greenaway film, there is lots of pretentious and uninteresting blabbering and of course there is unnecessary male nudity. In fact the father and son share a bed sleeping in the nude. Gross. Besides, who wants to see an old guy full frontal? For those who are not into the homo-erotic scene, one of the women likes to do the nasty with horses. There is no story - just a random collection of dull scenes.


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


user
To borrow from Dorothy Parker: This is not a film to be tossed aside
lightly. It should be thrown with great force.
This is an excruciating mess. And I'm a Greenaway fan.
MIND-NUMBINGLY AWFUL
"The Mummy Returns" has much more artistic merit


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


user
Greenaway seems to have a habit of trying deliberately to disgust his viewers. This film opens with incest--and purposeless, meaningless, casual incest at that. That's Greenaway's big problem. He prefers parlor tricks to shock over actually doing anything meaningful. Technical skill isn't enough. He's just a bit perverse for the sake of perversity.


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 was awful in the worst way: you just didn't care. You didn't care what happened in the plot; you didn't care about the characters. Everyone was devoid of heart. I ended up walking out about an 45 minutes into it because I simply didn't want to subject my mind to it any more. There is far too much sex in the film. Sex can be okay; it can even make the movie (hence Karma Sutra) but the intercourse here was not beautiful or sexy. It was just ugly. Don't see 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
I am sorry to say that it was one of the worst films I've ever seen. Although visually fascinating (e.g. the use of colour was absolutely stunning), it was pretty boring and disturbing (see the father/son incest).
What's more, music is totally absent, and if you think of those wonderful soundtracks by Michael Nyman (who wrote the soundtracks for most of Greenaway's films) then you can imagine what a difference it makes.



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


user
somewhere i'd read that this film is supposed to be a comedy. after seeing it, i'd call it anything but. the point of this movie eludes me. the dialogue is all extremely superficial and absurd, many of the sets seemed to be afterthoughts, and despite all the nudity and implied sexual content, there's nothing erotic about this film...all leaving me to wonder just what the heck this thing is about! the title premise could have been the basis for a fun (if politically incorrect) comedy. instead, we're treated to cheap, amateurish, unfinished sketches and depravity and weirdness for its own sake. if i want that, i'll go buy a grace jones cd.


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


user
Movies have put me to sleep before, but no movie has ever done that twice, so it took me three sittings actually to finish it. The dialog was bad. Women spoke stiltedly and the men were caricatures. And two of the supposedly Japanese women looked Chinese, had Chinese names and spoke with clearly Chinese accents. I'm still trying to figure out why the Emmenthal men were sexually wrapped up with each other. 10 minus 8 1/2 equals a tough choice: Do I give this movie a rating of one? or two?
Movies have put me to sleep before, but no movie has ever done that twice, so it took me three sittings actually to finish it. The dialog was bad. Women spoke stiltedly and the men were caricatures. And two of the supposedly Japanese women looked Chinese, had Chinese names and spoke with clearly Chinese accents. I'm still trying to figure out why the Emmenthal men were sexually wrapped up with each other. 10 minus 8 1/2 equals a tough choice: Do I give this movie a rating of one? or two?


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


user
This flick reminds me some really bad science-fiction movies from 50's and 60's.It is not scary or interesting,but it's dull,cheesy and stupid.Special effects are laughable,all actors are ludicrous and the ending is simply awful.Don't waste your money,rent or buy something better.I give it 3.5 out of 10( I found this turkey quite amusing because of its stupidity).


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


user
"Plants are the most cunning and vicious of all life forms", informs one dopey would-be victim in "The Seedpeople", a silly, flaccid remake of "Invasion of the Bodysnatchers", "Day of the Triffids", and about a thousand udder moovies. And why are seeds moore dangerous than plants, one might ask? Because, according to the same dolt, "seeds can chase us". Yes, I can remember one horrifying incident when the MooCow was just a calf, being chased all the way home from school by ravenous dandylion seed... Yeah, right. Unfortunately, the "monsters" in this seedy little turkey kind of look like shaggy little muppets, some of which roll around like evil tumbleweeds, others which sail about on strings. There's not even the tiniest inkling of terror or suspense to be found here. For reasons left unexplained, the seed monsters are knocked out by 50 volt ultra-violet lights, even though they can walk about in the daylight, which has about 1,000,000,000,000 times more uv energy. As you can see, not much thought was put into this cow flop. The MooCow says go weed yer garden instead of wasting your photosynthesis here. :=8P


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


user
While most of the movie is very amateurish, the Kosher slaughter scene is played up, but not untrue. Kosher law says that an animal must be conscious when the blade touches it's skin. The Kosher slaughter scene is accurate as anyone knows who has seen one, or has seen the Peta film showing a Kosher slaughter, in which the animals throat is cut, and the esophagus cut out while it is still alive, conscious, and obviously suffering. We must remember that history is written by the victors. Is one even Allowed to even THINK that maybe the Nazis were right??
Doesn't it say anything that the Nazis had outlawed this vicious religious slaughter, and the Jews are still practicing it even today?


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


user
I would perhaps give 6 or 7 to this propaganda film because it shows when and how a propaganda film becomes successful. If there are people who watch this piece and think that "well then Jews must have done something to be treated the way they were treated in WW2", then the movie is very cleverly made to conceal 'why's and 'how's as well as mix correct and false observations on how a people live. What more can a propaganda movie aim for? The part in which an American movie about the Rothschild family is included is re-used very shrewdly here, for instance. The question of why the Jew keeps his wealth away from the officer is never asked. No one mentions the system of taxation within that particular social strata.
Besides, the level of excitement (or, the level of disgust) in the movie increases slowly and the solution-like end of the movie suits the aim and the musts of doing propaganda. The audience would leave in joy and gratefulness to the times that are coming up...well done.
In the movie, there is a kind of simplicity that addresses the most basic emotional perception of the audience. The movie is kind of history today, so no need to fuss much about it actually. However, in this simplicity of words of ethnic degradation, a careful watcher can find relevance to today's cultural hatred, violence, decivilization as well as the problems of integration. Overall, fine trash.


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


user
That shall be a documentary? I saw it (which is forbidden in Germany) and I have to say, that it was the worst documentary I've ever seen. It is nothing but one big lie from the beginning to the end. Who can doubt after this trash that all Jews were supposed to be killed in the concentration camps?


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


user
1940. - A visit to the Lodz ghetto in Nazi-occupied Poland, recorded by a German cameramen with the naive co-operation of the Jewish community, is combined with archival footage, clips from international newsreels, and excerpts from related cultural films to portray the World's Jews as swindlers and parasites. This 'documentary' interprets Jewish life from the viewpoint of traditional anti-Semitism and Nazi ideology. A candid, cinematically-unique expression of racial hatred. I personally find this film frightening and highly offensive. One can only hope that such pictures as this will never reach the screen again.


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


user
This film is justly famous as one of the most horrible examples of propaganda ever produced. The insistent equation of Jews with disease is simply
pathological, and even worse it almost becomes believable for brief seconds
through its sheer repetition. The fact that something this crude works, even
briefly, is an object lesson in itself. You have to have a strong stomach and a firm grip on yourself to sit through this, and I wouldn't recommend trying unless you have a good reason.


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


user
Having seen "Triumph of the Will," I can only say this movie is ghastly, even measured against the historically low "standards" of the time. Naturally it's all totally fabricated and prejudicial. This is what one would expect of 1930's German propaganda. Unfortunately, the quality of the presentation, itself, is hackneyed and cheap. It's also so blatantly ridiculous that even contemporary Germans must've left the theater holding their noses. In a genre renowned for its base appeal, lack of originality and unapologetic wrong-headedness, this film doesn't even qualify as "bad." It would have to improve significantly to attain that status!


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


user
Interesting? Hardly. The 'scientific evidence' the movie provides for its point (which is basicly that Jews are a cancer) is so stupid and lame, it's almost laughable (if we didn't know what happened in that era).
Important? Nah. I can't imagine Germans (even at that horrid time) would like or believe this movie. Compare it to Riefenstahl's Triumf des Willens. Now that was I movie I was impressed with. This is just silly garbage.
'Best' part is a scene from M (one of my all-time favorites) where (the jew, as the announcer so eloquently keeps reminding us) Lorre plays a child-molester and murderer. In the eyes of these film-makers, only a depraved mind can do so. Uh-huh. Didn't know M was Hitler's favorite movie, right?
No, it's just plain STUPID. Even for it's nazi-propaganda genre. 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 Book-based movie is truly awful, and a big disappointment. We've been waiting for this move over a month. Many film reviewer were hopeful for it. Also in newspapers and TV, it made big sense. When 29th April comes, many people regretfully noticed that movie is really awful. Why? First of all story was so monotone. It has been many indefinite scenes, sometimes it's hard to realize what's going on. The actresses, out of Hulya Avsar, weren't harmonized with their roles, especially Vildan Atasever. She acts better in comedy films, In this movie, a kind of drama, she couldn't disposed of her previous role. And finally Movie is too short, just 66 minutes.


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


user
How cynical are the writers, to pander so. I may be an American citizen, but I don't need to see other Americans pat each other on the back for an hour and half in order to enjoy a film. I'm astonished that so few have commented on how utterly jingoistic, sentimental and trite the dialogue in this film really is. The historical inaccuracies of the film are not as gross and offensive as in "U-571" (which changes British submariners to American ones) but you still walk away feeling a little slimy. Really, the Germans in this film do nothing but admire the Americans between battle scenes! How sad, unnecessary! I'd just like to say to the writers: it's obvious to many of us that you can't capture real people, with real problems, under real pressure, and that you've taken some very well tested shortcuts. Lucky for you there will always be nationalist nutjobs to appreciate your sugar-coated tripe.


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 read reviews before I watch a movie. Guess what, I didn't do that before watching TLB, and I have to say I was very surprised to see the above average rating at IMDb. I found it to have a total lack of story. You just get dropped into it (and, sadly, not in the way Saving Private Ryan dropped us into the movie), and it also has a sudden end, which was very unsatisfying for me.
I have to admit, the wounded soldiers looked pretty realistic to me, especially with the low budget in mind. But prepare yourself to have a laugh... Some guys are being tossed through the air after an explosion as if they are Olympic gymnasts. A mid-air corkscrew or somersault during WW I is a bit too much for me, especially when it's performed countless times during the movie...
But the parts that really got me laughing until I almost cried were the scenes containing close combat. The screaming and shouting German voices...unbelievably funny. It seems as if they are spoken by one single actor / voice performer, because they all sound exactly the same, and it just sounds like a 'typical' German voice.
I would absolutely NOT recommend this movie to anyone, except to people who just want to have some laughs because of the sad and corny quality 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
I want to say the acting is bad, but I think it was the directing that made it so. I never thought much of Highlander (same director) but that one could be blamed on the 80s.
This one however, has no excuses. People get shot while exiting trenches with a man in front of him!? Those kind of mistakes, along with an unclear time line, weird battle tactics, sub-par cutting and poor visual effects, makes this one a sub-par film over all.
Then like so many other have commented, all this American bullshit. The German general being practically scared of his captured American private. Be prepared to swallow a lot of it, although in small doses.
To sum it up, a not horrible but still definitely sub-par war movie in all aspects.


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


user
When this movie was first shown on television I had high hopes that we would finally have a decent movie about World War I as experienced by American soldiers. Unfortunately this is not it.
It should have been a good movie about WWI. Even though it was made for television it is obvious that a real effort was made to use appropriate equipment and props. But the writing and directing are badly lacking, even though the makers of this movie obviously borrowed freely from quite a few well made war movies. War movie clichés abound such as the arrogant general who apparently does not care a flip about the lives of his men. When will Hollywood realize that, even though there have been plenty of bad generals, most combat unit generals have seen plenty of combat themselves and are not naive about what the average grunt experiences? The first part of this movie appeared to be "Paths of Glory" with American uniforms. Except that "Paths of Glory" was emotionally gripping. Later on there was Chamberlain's charge (except uphill) from "Gettysburg" and even the capture of the American soldier by a ring of enemy soldiers from "The Thin Red Line". But in "The Thin Red Line" the soldier was alone when captured. In this movie a ring forms around the new prisoner in the middle of a battle.
If this movie used a military adviser they ignored him. Even though the actors (and I never could forget they were actors while watching) mouthed military tactics I didn't see very much of it. The American soldiers would stand up to be shot while the Germans attacked. And the infamous Storm Troopers, who were apparently blind, appeared to use no tactics whatsoever in their attack. In the real war, the tactics were what made storm troopers so effective. But the silliest scene was the attack of the German Flamethrowers. In this scene the German flamethrower operators walked in a broad line towards the defending Americans. If that had been real they would never have gotten close enough to use their flamethrowers before they had all been dropped by the defender's bullets.
Okay, so most war movies are unrealistic when it comes to the tactics shown. But it is still disappointing. But what really turned me off to this flick was the typical anti-war anti-military angle that movie makers seem to think is important. True, war is hell. But most American soldiers, even though they grumble and gripe, tend to believe in what they are doing and can be rather gung-ho about it. My Grandfather served in World War I. And even though he died four years before I was born I have been told how proud he was of his service.


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 this movie I was honestly disappointed - not because of the actors, story or directing - I was disappointed by this film advertisements.
The trailers were suggesting that the battalion "have chosen the third way out" other than surrender or die (Polish infos were even misguiding that they had the choice between being killed by own artillery or German guns, they even translated the title wrong as "misplaced battalion"). This have tickled the right spot and I bought the movie.
The disappointment started when I realized that the third way is to just sit down and count dead bodies followed by sitting down and counting dead bodies... Then I began to think "hey, this story can't be that simple... I bet this clever officer will find some cunning way to save what left of his troops". Well, he didn't, they were just sitting and waiting for something to happen. And so was I.
The story was based on real events of World War I, so the writers couldn't make much use of their imagination, but even thought I found this movie really unchallenging and even a little bit boring. And as I wrote in the first place - it isn't fault of actors, writers or director - their marketing people have raised my expectations high above the level that this movie could cope with.


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


user
My God, what an incredible movie it is! Reminded me so much of the similar scene in Mel Gibson's movie "We were Soldiers" when "the Company is not lost, they're just cut off" And the other scene in Pearl Harbour when the British officer says to Ben Affleck "If all Americans are like you, then God help the nation that goes to war with America!
Put all 3 movies together and you would have enough BULLSHIT to fertilise the entire Sahara Desert.
The story of the cut-off Battalion may be real enough but the movie could have done without all that American preachy jingoistic propaganda attached to it. There were audible groans in the cinema during the above-mentioned scene in Pearl Harbour (no kidding either) The Lost Battalion however is really in a class of its own .
"Americans think they are unbeatableinspired bravery. " I actually cringed and damn near puked at all the swill being spewed out throughout this diarrhoeic disaster (the movie that is)
The fighting scenes were well made (3 stars for that) but if the script is manure, then wrapped even in brightly coloured ribbons, it is still manure. The writer, James Carabatsos, also wrote those other screamersHamburger Hill, No Mercy , Heartbreak Ridge. Someone, please shoot him before he writes any more such garbage.
The Director, Russell Mulcahy is an Australian too. God, the shame!!!


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


user
1) I am not weapon expert, but even i can see difference between U.S. army riffles in WWI and WWII. In movie we can see privates, armed with "M1 Garand" (invented in year 1932!), not authentic "1903 Springfield" (aka "Silent Death"), who privates use until WWII. Difference - M1 can load 1,5 times more ammunition and 3 times more fire rate! M1 was semi - automatic, Springfield requires reloading after every shot. Little difference?! 2) German army uniforms has borrowed from 1940 Year too. Especially - helmets. German helmets until end of WWI have significant pike on top, we cannot see even one in movie. And if we make little additional search in archives - how much truthful is this "True Story"? I am surprised, how much "truthful" can be film directors in a pursuit of cheap propagation.


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 has the made for TV stink all over it. Though, it started out with great intentions, featuring great looking sets and authentic props and costumes. The film quickly degenerated into horrible on the nose cheesy dialogue, and rushed TV sappy melodramatic acting. The characters were so sappy that at times I thought that they are about to degenerate into a bilious puddle of goo, and the action was so convoluted and poorly cut that it looked as it the soldiers were merely standing around and taking turns shooting at one another. The Germans were so unrealistically depicted that it was painful to watch. The only thing that the German officers talked about was how wonderful the Americans are. Please take my word for this. I am a huge fan of the war genre, and this movie is crap. Nevertheless, this DVD does have an excellent extra feature, covering letters from the WWI front lines, thus making this rental not a total waste of my time.


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


user
I ended up watching this movie before even going through any of the reviews, on the request of a female. Just out of curiosity, I thought, let me find out if there are people who actually recommend others to watch this movie. I am quite shocked to find such long and positive reviews on this website that makes me conclude that it's a scam.
As far as my opinion goes, I have to ask,"are these filmmakers retarded or do they assume that the viewers are retarded?" The movie is atrocious on so many levels and I'm not even talking about the story or presentation.
So, these bunch of guys plus one girl (the lead actress) form a Music band; guessing from the constant presence of guitars it is supposed to be a ROCK band. Hell, when did dancers started becoming the part of a Rock band??? Anyway, let me accept it as the-Bollywood-version-of-a- Rock-band, but amusingly enough all the scores which actually had these two guitarists doing all kinds of cool "ROCK GESTURES" and I am assuming they were playing the instruments, the sound of the guitar was completely missing!!! I simply can't comprehend the magnitude of stupidity here....
I am just going to conclude here because it is absolutely not worth pointing out any further flaws in the movie. Bollywood directors seem to have no shame anymore!!!!!!!!


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


user
The movie is plain bad. Simply awful. The string of bad movies from Bollywood has no end! They must be running out of excuses for making such awful movies (or not).
The problem seems to be with mainly the directors. This movie has 2 good actors who have proved in the past that the have the ability to deliver great performance...but they were directed so poorly. The poor script did not help either.
This movie has plenty of ridiculous moments and very bad editing in the first half. For instance :
After his 1st big concert, Ajay Devgan, meets up with Om Puri (from whom he ran away some 30 years ago and talked to again) and all Om Puri finds to say is to beware of his friendship with Salman!!! What a load of crap. Seriously. Not to mention the baaad soundtrack. Whatever happened to Shankar Ehsaan Loy?
Ajay Devgun is total miscast for portraying a rockstar.
Only saving grace are the good performances in the second half. Ajay shines as his character shows his dark side. So does Salman as the drug addict.
Watch it maybe only for the last half hour.


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 wondering what is the purpose of making movies like this? the profit? and to whom they are referring what intelligence must use your brain to watch something like this crap? This movie is watchable by under 3 years old children if you are adults don't try to watch it. Thats the reason i think Hollywood started to use cartoons in movies with actors like this you must forget the art of cinema , be sure that you ll have tons of pop corn to consume for time to pass till this movie ends also get many cola's hamburgers your laptop your cellphone this movie can be used easily in a restaurant but for sure not in a theater , my dog who is always next to my family when watching a movie left the building.The sure thing is that this movie is referring to people with no demands from the cinema art.The only thing that this movie can be used is for watching it when making the supermarket shopping list.I am giving 2 stars for supporting the India's cinema efforts but for nothing more or less..


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


user
The film was written 10 years back and a different director was planning it with SRK and Aamir in lead roles
The film finally was made now with Vipul Shah directing it And Ajay and Salman starring together after a decade HUM DIL DE CHUKE SANAM(1999)
The movie however falls short due to it's 90's handling and worst it's loopholes
The film tries to pack in too many commercial ingredients and we also hav the love triangle
Everything is predictable and filmy and too clichéd
There are loopholes like how Ajay runs away from London Airport and makes a place for himself with no one? even the way he starts his band is not convincing The second half gets better with the twist in the tale of Ajay destroying Salman but sadly the climax falls short and the film ends on a bad note
Direction by Vipul Shah is ordinary to below average Music is the worst point, most songs are mediocre
Amongst actors Ajay gives his best shot though he isn't convincing as a Rock singer yet he does superb as the negative role Salman however irritates with his punjabi and talking nonsense he only impresses when he gets drugged and thereon Asin is nothing great just a show piece Ranvijay should stick to MTV Om Puri is okay


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


user
The movie is a total crap. We have two good actors who are miscast and a meat-head of an actor Salman Khan just to attract the female audience. The story is a crap. The characters poorly sketched. Non existent story telling. No editing to speak of. Ajay Devgan as a Rock Star..that is a dream in itself. The movie drags along to the point of decadence. The whole charade about Arjun bringing his Manna to London, let him grope his girlfriend and let him not play at Wembley (Vimbley in the dubbing process) is absurd. Salman Khan's over the top acting or faking is too painful to watch. I remember seeing some good movies from this Producer Vipul Shah but this is not one of them. It seems all the good directors are falling prey to the Box Office mania..that the Mumbai Media Morons have created. This is yet another crap movie in the lines of "Wanted" with idiot actor like Salman Khan who has no place in a Good Hindi Cinema. He is good to the Indian Cinema as Titanic was to the Winter Cruise Business. On a positive note-I like Asin character dancing Bharatnatyam when she changes to the Western style dancing when the teacher is not looking.


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


user
Maaan, where do i start with this god awful movie. Bad bad bad story telling. I do not know what the director was thinking when he made this movie. Namaste London was quite an enjoyable movie to be honest..even the soundtrack was good. But in this one..oh my good..for a movie which is supposed to be a musical one..the songs are soooo bad. AR Rahman should have been the music director.
Given two great actors a much better job should have been done by the director. Even though the first half sucks, the last 30 mins of the movie are OK. Performances from Salman and Ajay save the movie from being a total disaster.
Watch it if you have nothing better to do. The last good movie from Bollywood i watched ( and i do watch a load of them) is Dev D and Wake Up Sid.


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


user
Who were they kidding with this? There was just too much in this film that was hard to digest. Right from when Arjun (Ajay Devgan) unknowingly wishes death on his father to when he arrives in London with his uncle(played by Om Puri) only to abandon him minutes later. The only problem with that theory is that anybody who has ever passed through London Heathrow knows that such a fête would be impossible to pull off and especially not by an Indian. But the film problems do not end there, there's the issue of the two main leads (Salman Khan and Ajay Devgan) passing as rock-stars on the verge of achieving their dreams. I mean yeah we saw success come to Susan Boyle (a woman in the UK achieving her dreams after age 50) but that was a rare case. It was really hard for me to suspend my disbelief because I felt that the casting of Salman and Ajay was just ill-conceived. They would never cast Madhuri Dixit and Sridevi to play the same roles so why should we be forced to watch Ajay Devgan and Salman Khan (men well into their 40s) prance around desperately trying to hang on to their 20s? Let's not even talk about the most self-conscious actress on screen today, Asin. This is her second film (that I have seen) and she is just hopeless as an actress, so conscious of her looks that she only concerns herself with looking good and voguing for the camera rather than giving in a good acting performance. It's just hard to believe that she turned down all those other movie roles to star in this fluff and then be so fluffy as an actress, nothing to write home about at all. And to top all of that, the film just boringly dragged on. There's nothing special about it at all, trust me you will predict every clichéd thing that is going to happen in it.


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


user
Vipul Shah has done some really impressive work as a filmmaker in the past. 'Waqt - The Race Against Time' and 'Namaste London' were entertaining and interesting to watch. 'Singh Is Kinng' was fun, which he produced. His latest outing as a filmmaker 'London Dreams' comes up as his careers weakest fare.
'London Dreams' has a mediocre storyline, it's about how success turns friendship into hatred. Agreed, it has the potential but when you watch 'London Dreams' you wonder what's happening? This film has maybe the worst climax in recent times. Vipul Shah the writer puts Vipul Shah the director down.
The first hour is boring, The second hour is better; but again the climax is horrendous. How can anyone forgive a person who decided to destroy you? I won't. Ajay Devgn suddenly decides to go to India and ask forgiveness to his diaper buddy, thanks to his uncle Om Puri. When he reaches India, rather than slapping or abusing him Salman welcomes him with band baja and says he was the reason behind the entire fiasco? Was Vipul Shah's intension to show Salman's character as a GOD? If yes, than you've failed completely. The only question I want to ask Vipul Shah is that, would you welcome a person who destroyed you with such a great reception? Write what you feel, don't fool us {the audience}, we are sensible enough to understand what's good or not.
This is a musical but the music by Shankar-Eshaan-Loy is terrible. Not a single song stays in your mind.
Salman is superb though. He carries the film on his shoulders and does really, really well in the emotional scenes. But again his character is shown as a GOD, which makes him look like a retard in the end. Ajay is equally good, but Salman has over-shadowed him completely. Asin is wasted, and what is a great talent like Om Puri doing in this film? Rannvijay hams, though Aditya Roy Kapoor excels. Brinda Parekh is alright as the vamp.
On the whole, this dream remains a dream!


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


user
The Lack of content in this movie amazed me the most. First i though that people was going to compare this to Rock On! but i'm really surprised myself to say that this was worst than Rock On! So-so story Horrible cast Ajay Devgan Jamming with Salman Khan and Asin you gotta be kidding me. The music was Okay Khanabadosh was the track of the movie the rest was bad! Vipul Shah hasn't still learn from Singh is King's critically bashed comedy. Now Asin.. where do she come from sorry for Asin's fan out there but she suck*d big time in this movie seriously bad acting she didn't look good at all overdose of make-up! My final verdict go watch Aladin with your family instead wasting your time here.


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


user
It's a bad season for Bollywood with all the big releases with a massive hype surrounding proving to be duds at the box office. London Dreams is no exception to that. Let's dissect it... It's all about chasing your dreams and how far will you go to achieve it. Sounds impressive right? But unfortunately the film is not.
Arjun (Ajay Devgan) is an aspiring musician who wants to make it big someday. His dream is to perform in Wembley stadium in front of a cheering 90,000 audience calling out his name. He is joined by two brothers, Zoheb & Wasim (debutants Aditya Roy & Ranvijay) and a ravishing Priya (Asin). Together they form "London Dreams" their dream band. After impressing the chief of a record company, they become overnight sensations. Arjun is secretly in love with Priya which he doesn't want to reveal till he achieves his goal. Arjun then brings his childhood friend Manjit Khosla aka Mannu (Salman Khan), a carefree flirtatious guy who has got no ambitions in life, to join their band. Mannu is a trained musician and a real talent for whom later Arjun become envious for Mannu's superior skills and his affair with Priya. Arjun with the help of Zoheb plans to blight Mannu. What happens next forms the rest of the movies.
Coming to the technical aspects, we feel only the shadow of Vipul Amritlal Sha whom we have admired in Namaste London. Felt like he simply visualized the screenplay. To cut it short, a glorified cameraman. Screenplay by Suresh Nair dulls even though it has its moments. Defined in a predictable fashion, the screenplay bore you to stiff. Camera work was awesome in capturing the beauty of London. It's the only entertaining part while watching songs.
Few songs are hummable while others are passable noisy fare. Ajay was the one who stole the show with his negative character. Salman is monotonous and he irks you. Asin is forgettable and I don't that she will make it big in Bollywood. Aditya Roy is impressive while Ranvijay is strictly OK. Brinda as the bitch is what we have seen in innumerable movies. Ompuri is ongoing with the proceedings. I don't want to pen down about the flaws as it will be a herculean task.
Finally let me put it simple and straight, London Dreams is a soulless movie which you may better enjoy on DVD.


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


user
First thing first . In this genre movie the first thing you need is a good music , and thats where Mr. shankar and his party fails.
music is completely pale and uneffective. On other hand there is AJAY DEVGAN , WHO HAS REMOVED A LETTER 'A' from his spelling , done good job but was of no use to a bad casted movies like this.
ASIN is like a doll which is used to amuse public, even though she is good to look at but her role in movie is to dance, actually she is dancing member of a rock band and i don't think any rock band have there dancer as a member of band.
in nut shell this movie is a piece of crap a piece of ***t. watch it if you wanna get fooled.


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


user
Below average movie with poor music considering a movie based on music??? Ordinary Script & Direction with full of blunders. Salman Khan was at his usual acting. Ajay's performance deteriorating with time as his looks,especially his styles as a Rock Star were pathetic. Asin was just a showpiece only. Overall I felt like wasting my money in cinema. Salman Khan remains as immature as 10 years ago compared to Aamir Khan. There were many songs in the movie all boring except "Man Ko Ati". The Most Important Song to impress the UK Music Sponsor was most unimpressive. "Khanabadosh" can be very easily understood by an English Music Sponsor. The other movie I saw last week was "Wake Up Sid" which was simple slow love story with good direction & acting despite average music


assistant
0