empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOh dear! Oh dear! Oh dear!
To think that films such as this were made, and probably enjoyed by thousands at drive-ins really boggles the mind. How innocent we were in those days.
To put it bluntly, this film is crap. The hero is so wet you can hear his squishy damp footsteps in every scene. My Lord, but he's just one of a whole slew of awful, awful actors that appear in this turkey. No wonder MST3K picked it. The story, such as it is, centres around a stock car driver (who is so incompetent, you really believe it is the actor driving the car) that he gives up and \"gets in with the wrong crowd\" Oooooh! Scary stuff. However, the wrong crowd turn out to be the biker equivalent of The Three Stooges and their \"hand-me round\" slut of a biker chick. As an example of how lame this whole thing is, the writers obviously wracked their brains to come up with a frightening name for the biker gang - if four people can be called a gang, that is. The result? The gang is called Satan's Angels! I kid you not.
Such dire acting and dialogue, along with ridiculous scenes, make for a wonderful beer and chips movie. But otherwise its just the worst kind of rubbish.
As I said. Once, this may have been considered good. But today it just makes you laugh (and cringe) with every minute that goes by. Avoid it except for a good laugh. And make sure you're more than half-drunk too!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLegendary pop star Steve Alaimo (\"Don't Let the Sun Catch You Crying\") stars as an unlikable stock car racer whose career has hit the skids (ha ha) because he constantly crashes his car (or as he laments, \"I'm tired of being run down by every grease monkey that gets behind the wheel\"). He falls into a bad crowd of humorously inept Nazi bikers, improbably named Jeeter, Banjo, Fats, and, er, Linda. Fats is the most likable of the bunch; he took a surfboard to the back of the skull and now only communicates through grunts, sort of a Harley Davidson Leatherface.
Anyway, Steve is fooled by the cops into catching the dastardly crooks in the middle of one of their bank robberies. The gang only robs banks for \"kicks, man\". I guess they give the money to charity. Steve fails constantly, the bikers get greasier, and the whole thing never comes off as daring because it's so dull. This movie looks like it was filmed through a grease-soaked paper towel. Not since \"Necromantic\" has a movie so trampled my soul.
The guy who played Fats went on to direct \"Deranged\", the Ed Gein biopic starring Robert Blossom.
Anyway, in summary: Wild Rebels: Hilarious on MST3K, dreadful everywhere else.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWild Rebels is fun in a bad way, but also frustrating due to the actual good, or at least workable, elements in the story. It deals with a race car driver (Steve Alaimo) who gets mixed up in a group of bikers called Satan's Angels, who hang around a lot until they decide to rob a bank. Meanwhile Alaimo also gets recruited by the cops to report back to them what the Angels are up to and where they'll rob next. It's not even that the film is really too 'dated', though it does of course carry the significantly crude and stupid music in the film (from the band on stage in one scene, to Alaimo \"performing\" if you could call that drek that, to the regular generic score).
It's just that there's not more care taken by the filmmaker into putting a little more logic, direction, and better actors for the parts. As it is I didn't have a major disliking towards the film, as I did with the Hellcats, but it almost left me a little indifferent to it all, too. What could come through as being unpredictable only comes through with stupid things like the name of the Florida town ('Citrusville' ho-ho). So it's not completely un-worthy then of its Mystery Science Theater 3000 status as of late. The commentary is good on the movie, even if once or twice I almost wanted to hear what the characters on screen were saying in case it might have some worth. Wild Rebels might be more of a good time if you've got a six-pack and low expectations, but as it is I wouldn't watch it again.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is basically your run of the mill violent biker flick complete with nifty slangs, crashes, and music. OK, so just slangs and crashes. It's a slight notch above much of the other fare featured on MST3K but it's still the equivalent of driving a nail into your kneecap: slow and painful. To give away plot would exhaust my energy so I'll just say you're better off skipping this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just caught \"Wild Rebels\" on one of the \"Mystery Science Theatre 3000\" archive compilations, and this movie was so bad even the MST3K crew couldn't make it entertaining. There are some MST3K \"targets\" that were films whose concepts were so dippy they couldn't possibly have been good movies (like \"The Green Slime\"), and others whose basic premises could have been made into genuinely entertaining films if their filmmakers hadn't bobbled them in the execution. \"Wild Rebels\" is a film whose basic premise DID make a good movie three years earlier, when Don Siegel directed his remake of \"The Killers\" at Universal. Both films are about a failed racing driver who's seduced by a femme fatale into driving the getaway car in a robbery masterminded by the woman's boyfriend -- only in \"The Killers\" the driver was John Cassavetes, the woman was Angie Dickinson and the criminal mastermind (cast wildly but successfully against type in what turned out to be his final film) was Ronald Reagan. Steve Alaimo, Bobbie Byers and Willie Pastrano are quite a comedown! But what REALLY makes \"Wild Rebels\" an awful movie is the direction by William Grefé (note the accent over the final \"e,\" present in his on-screen credit), which has absolutely no sense of pace whatsoever and seems to let every shot run at least half again as long as it needs to to make its dramatic point. It's only a pity that someone didn't do a mocking commentary on this movie now (in 2009); the comparison between Steve Alaimo's hairdo and Rod Blagojevich's would have been irresistible!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you decide to watch Wild Rebels, don't expect anything deep and meaningful. If you're looking for a film that explores the relationships and structure of a motorcycle gang, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. If you're looking for an expose on the breakdown of the American educational system and the problem of juvenile delinquency, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. If you're looking for a movie that examines how undermanned rural police departments are when facing a well-financed, well-organized gang, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. But if you're looking for an absurd movie filled with scene after scene of unintentional humor, horrendous acting, a paper-thin plot, and community theater style production values, Wild Rebels is the right movie.
Wild Rebels is the story of a down-on-his-luck stock-car driver named Rod Tillman (Steve Alaimo). After a fiery crash (which Rod walks away from completely unscathed despite having only a cotton pants and a London Fog style jacket for protection), Rod decides to give it up. With no plan for his future other than to wander aimless through the back-roads of the South, he stumbles on the Satan's Angels motorcycle gang (a gang being three of the stupidest guys to ever zip up a leather jacket and a woman they seem to share). This group of hoodlums spends their time terrorizing a rural town in Florida by committing such atrocities as stealing a newspaper from a neighbor's mailbox. These bumbling idiots need someone to act as their driver during some larger crimes they have planned. Apparently, these three Einsteins can only drive vehicles with two tires, not four. So they recruit Rod to perform feats of daring that only an experienced stunt driver would be capable of like keeping the car in the middle of a gravel road during a low-speed chase. Eventually, they hold-up a bank, get into the aforementioned low-speed chase, and have the lamest gun battle with the police ever put on film. I could go on forever, but you get the idea.
I hate the term \"so bad it's good\", but that seems to aptly describe Wild Rebels.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Wild Rebels\" was probably a fun second film at a drive in movie triple feature 40 years ago. It hasn't aged very well, but it was never meant to age well; it was obviously intended to be disposable, forgettable fun from its inception. Taken on that level, it's a good example of the biker flick genre.
Several elements help distinguish it from the dozens of similar films being churned out at the same time. The 'hero', 'Rod Tillman' (Steve Alaimo) comes off as somewhat of an unimpressive 'Everyman' - he's not especially brave, tough, talented, or handsome (although he does win a fight with a tough biker gang member halfway into the film, and the girl gang member chooses to help him over her fellow gang member at the end of the film). The soundtrack is quite well done, featuring a nice 'Ventures' style bass/drum riff that keeps things moving and saxophones and brass charts that pep things up quite a bit. And although the script is pretty shallow, all the actors inhabit their cardboard characters convincingly and with a fair amount of energy.
There are plenty of careless technical gaffes: terrible 'day-for-night' scenes that occur in broad daylight, squealing tires in a swamp, fire sirens mistakenly stuck on the soundtrack instead of police sirens, a bank sign made of duct tape on a ceiling tile, a Luger that sounds like a Winchester 30-06, shotgun blasts that cut down people 100 yards away, a detective killing a biker on a 3rd floor landing from the ground with a revolver with a 2 inch barrel.
There are a whole bunch of goofy story elements : Linda (the girl gang member) disables a bank guard with a drug-filled syringe, the final shootout takes place inside a lighthouse (!), police roadblocks don't actually block roads, the police apparently never heard of ducking, and the police detectives apparently never heard of planting bugs or having their undercover guy wearing a wire.
But the plot chugs along, the cameraman knows what he is doing, the pacing in most scenes is pretty good, and there are some nice, zippy one liners and dialog exchanges here and there that keep the energy level up. (My favorite: \"Man, you're messing with private stock! (ie, Linda)\" So no, don't seek this one out or anything, but if a copy of the MST version should fall in your hands, you should have some good, shallow fun watching it. Vastly superior to \"Five the Hard Way\" or \"The Hellcats\" or even 'Girl In Gold Boots' (three other MST covered counter culture movies).
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nProbably the biggest thing about Wild Rebels that hurts it the most is the hero. He's got LOSER written all over him, but that doesn't stop him from \"getting the girl.\" Probably one of the world's worst race drivers imaginable, he decides to stop racing after he crashes his car. Well, his new job is racing still, as a bunch of biker types pick him to drive their getaway car as they commit crimes. There's nothing really to endear you to Rod, even the situation he's thrown into is pretty stupid. In the end, at the lighthouse scene, you'll wish that Rod gets killed with all the bikers. Get this: He's shot twice, once in the arm and once in the leg, and still manages to crawl up the stairs a little. If only Jeeter had better aim...
Avoid this one unless you're watching the MST3K version.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPrevious reviewer Claudio Carvalho gave a much better recap of the film's plot details than I could. What I recall mostly is that it was just so beautiful, in every sense - emotionally, visually, editorially - just gorgeous.
If you like movies that are wonderful to look at, and also have emotional content to which that beauty is relevant, I think you will be glad to have seen this extraordinary and unusual work of art.
On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give it about an 8.75. The only reason I shy away from 9 is that it is a mood piece. If you are in the mood for a really artistic, very romantic film, then it's a 10. I definitely think it's a must-see, but none of us can be in that mood all the time, so, overall, 8.75.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nCONTAINS \"SPOILER\" INFORMATION. Watch this director's other film, \"Earth\", at some point. It's a better film, but this one isn't bad just different.
A rare feminist point of view from an Indian filmmaker. Tradition, rituals, duty, secrets, and the portrayal of strict sex roles make this an engaging and culturally dynamic film viewing experience. All of the married characters lack the \"fire\" of the marriage bed with their respective spouses. One husband is celibate and commits a form of spiritual \"adultery\" by giving all of his love, honor, time and respect to his religious swami (guru). His wife is lonely and yearns for intimacy and tenderness which she eventually finds with her closeted lesbian sister-in-law who comes to live in their house with her unfaithful husband. This unfaithful husband is openly in love with his Chinese mistress but was forced into marriage with a (unbeknownest to him) lesbian. They only have sex once when his closet lesbian wife loses her virginity.
A servant lives in the house and he eventually reveals the secret that the two women are lovers. Another significant character is the elderly matriarch who is unable to speak or care for herself due to a stroke. However, she uses a ringing bell to communicate her needs as well as her displeasure with the family members. She lets them know through her bell or by pounding her fist that she knows exacly what's going on in the house and how much she disapproves.
In the end, the truth about everybody comes out and the two female lovers end up running away together. But, not before there is an emotional scene between the swami-addicted husband and his formerly straight wife. Her sari catches on fire and at first we think she is going to die. However, we see the two women united in the very last scene of the movie.
The writer/director of this film challenges her culture's traditions, but she shows us individual human beings who are trapped by their culture and gender. We come to really care about the characters and we don't see them as stereotypes. Each on surprises us with their humanity, vulgarity, tenderness, anger, and spirit.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is my first Deepa Mehta film. I saw the film on TV in its Hindi version with its \"Sita\" character presented as Nita. I also note that it is Radha who underwent the allegorical trial by fire in the film and not Nita/Sita. Yet what I loved about the film was its screenplay by Ms Mehta, not her direction. The characters, big and small, were well-developed and seemed quixotic towards the end--somewhat like the end of Mazursky's \"An Unmarried Woman.\" They are brave women surrounded by cardboard men. And one cardboard man (Ashok) seems to come alive in the last shot we see of him---carrying his invalid mother Biji. He seems to finally take on a future responsibility beyond celibacy and adherance to religion.
Ms Mehta seems to fumble as a director (however, compared to most Indian mainstream cinema she would seem to be brilliant) as she cannot use her script to go beyond the microscopic joint family she is presenting except presenting a glimpse of the Chinese micro-minority in the social milieu of India. She even dedicates the film to her mother and daughter (not her father!) Yet her Radha reminesces of halcyon days with both her parents in a mustard field. Compare her to Mrinal Sen, Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Muzaffar Ali and she is dwarfed by these giants--given her competent Canadian production team and financial resources! Mehta's film of two bisexual ladies in an Indian middle-class household may be sacrilege to some, but merely captures the atrophy of middle-class homes that does not seem to aspire for something better than its immediate survival in a limited social space. Kannada, Malayalam, and Bengali films have touched parallel themes in India but did not have the publicity that surrounded this film and therefore have not been seen by a wide segment of knowledgeable cinemagoers.
Ms Das, Ms Azmi, Mr Jafri and Mr Kharbanda are credible but not outstanding. Ms Azmi is a talented actress who gave superb performances under good directors (Mrinal Sen's \"Khandar\", Gautam Ghose's \"Paar\", Benegal's \"Ankur\") a brilliance notably absent in this film. Ms Das sparkled due to her screen presence rather than her acting capability. All in all, the film's strength remains in the structure of the screenplay which is above average in terms of international cinema. I am sure Ms Mehta can hone her writing talents in her future screenplays.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was a great film in every sense of the word. It tackles the subject of tribadism in a society that is quite intolerant of any deviations from the norm. It criticises a great many Indian customs that many find oppressive -- such as the arranging of marriages by others, the importance of status and face, religious hypocrisy, sexism, the valuation of women in terms of their baby-making capacity, the binding concepts of duty and so on. At the heart of the film is a touching love story that goes beyond such limitations of the society which the two protagonists find themselves. The film is well-acted and genuine, completely believable from beginning to end, unlike most Bollywood flicks. The main faults of the film as I saw it was first, that the two lovers seem drawn to one another not necessarily by a natural affinity for each other as much as the fact that they are stuck in dead-end marriages with no passion and no rewards. This may play a part in the sexual awakening of the characters, but most people stuck in the same situation will not \"turn homosexual\". It seems clear from the beginning of the film that the two characters are quite heterosexual -- when Radha does her scene at the end of the movie with Aashok, she makes it quite clear that \"without desire she was dead\", and the implication was that if he had desired so, he could have fulfilled her quite completely, and also when Sita seemed very disappointed when her husband seemed to not like her. Such situations do not turn people into homosexuals -- they may seek comfort in others in the same position, but inthe film it is not at all made clear that they are lesbians from the beginning -- quite the opposite. Some people are bisexual, it is true, but most tend to be either hetero- or homosexual. In the case of the ladies in the film, both had insensitive jerks for husbands . . . if this had not been the case, would they have naturally found the need to express their desire in a relationship that they may have otherwise not have considered? The film ignores this. The other fault is the naming of the characters . . . the names Sita and Radha seem contrived deliberately to shock and outrage (imagine a film in America depicting a gay relationship between a man named \"Jesus\" and another named \"Paul\"!) by using names associated with various Hindoo scriptures. The film is strong enough to stand on its own and needs no such devices in my opinion. At any rate, the faults do not take much away from the power of the movie. It is indeed a very touching and powerful story -- the images and characters will stay with you a long time after you leave the theatre.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA stunningly well-made film, with exceptional acting, directing, writing, and photography.
A newlywed finds married life not what she expected, and starts to question her duty to herself versus her duty to society. Together with her sister -in-law, she makes some radical departures from conventional roles and mores.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOverall, a well done movie. There were the parts that made me wince, and there were the parts that I threw my hands up at, but I came away with something more than I gone in with.
I think the movie suffers from some serious excess ambition. Without spoiling it, let me say that the obvious references to the trial by fire in Ramayana, is way beyond what this movie stands for. The Ramayana is an epic. Not a 200 page book that puts down women in India. The movie is about two girls married into a very distinctive Indian family. While the basic tenets of the \"unwritten laws of the family tradition\" seem to be that of conservative India, let me assure my reader that I (having lived in Delhi for 12 years) found entire parts that just did not ring those bells. I mean some things and some actions are very true, but some other stuff is just way off the mark. Especially today.
Delhi is complicated. India is complicated. The director tries to simplify both. And fails pretty miserably at that.
Why in English? Can you imagine a movie about American Indians in English. Or the French speaking in English. Seriously jarring. Even the servant spoke in fluent accented English (albeit with a hint of colloquialisms in the language for \"believability\").
But the chemistry between the leads is palpable. If you like it hot, this is a movie for you. I think that is the biggest saving grace - the development of a true real life love story.
If this film was about Radha and Sita, then it would have got full marks from me. And in being about them, it could have made a subtle statement. But this movie goes out there to say this is what India is, and this is what Indian society is like. And in that respect it succeeds as much as it fails. Just take everything you see with a pinch of salt. The dark secrets of India are not being revealed. Just two girls are falling in love. Just like it happens everywhere else.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere are questions that sometimes hover over us and have no answer. Two women progressively find themselves ensnared in each other's arms (as corny as the expression sounds, that is exactly what happens) and fins that they cannot answer their own question as to what defines their relationship when their very own society has no name to what they are. Deepa Mehta's somewhat mis-titled FIRE is the first of a loosely connected trilogy, here linked by the theme of the elements, and more symbolic than consuming. Fire as uncontrolled erotic passion does not make an appearance here, since the women -- the older and more feminine Radha (Shabana Azmi) and the younger, more masculine tempered Sita (Nandita Das) come to realize they share a lot more than common ideas and affection for each other and stand for what they believe is their passion for each other despite the opposition faced by their very traditional husbands and families. As in WATER, FIRE is deeply spiritual, even if it technically falls into the mode of sentimental melodrama (where WATER, much like the weight of the word, carries a stronger meaning that ultimately transcends its definition). Even so, it's a very beautiful picture, and a strong voice from a strong director.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI finally watched the third film in Mehta's trilogy: \"Fire\". To begin, I'd say that \"Water\" was the unquestionable masterpiece, on all levels. Fire comes next with Earth close behind in order of quality. Fire: there is so much going on in this film that I'll need a few more viewings to drink it all in. The writing is superb, the script creating friction that starts the entire process of \"heat\" from the beginning until the end when it really does erupt into a fire, the conflicts moving into complete rupture of relationships.
Mehta is one brave lady: she sees with a clear eye much that is jaundiced, false and repressive about the great society from which she came from. India is rapidly changing these days but much of this is economic change. That she met with such ferocious opposition to the making of \"Water\" after having had the script cleared, shows that there are still many taboo subjects which Indian people more than less cannot look squarely in the face, cannot examine or discuss them. Worse, if someone like Mehta has the courage to hold up a mirror to these issues, she faces death threats. So, as much as India thinks of itself as a pluralistic, tolerant society, the facts are not always so. Whereas \"Earth\" was merely a historical setting of the carnage of the civil war after Indian independence, Fire and Water are pointing at personal, social and religious issues, which as I say are considered so strongly (in a negative sense) that an open artistic dialog is still many years away. As I write this \"Water\" is scheduled to actually be shown in India later this year. I'll believe it when I see it.
Fire confronts a similar sexual and emotional conundrum that I saw in \"A price above rubies\". Whether it's arranged marriages (which it used to be like among Jews about 150 years ago, or like it is among many modern Indians), they have the risk of having a bad match forced upon both men and women; or, just plain loveless marriages..... However, this is not the real issue. Mehta is clearly impatient with the totally rigid religious attitudes that either keep widows in misery (Water) or else keep women enslaved to loveless marriages (Fire). I am no expert regarding either the secular or Hindu laws concerning divorce. The film seems to imply that the stigma (of divorce)is almost as bad as the sad marriage. In any case Mehta's film is a very moving, powerful attempt at sexual discourse that holds modern Indian relationships up to probing scrutiny. That all three of these films have made themselves felt in India as an unwarranted attack on their culture sounds to me like the predictable clamor of a repressive mindset. Mehta is forcing the issues to be looked at no matter how much flack. I admire her work and cannot highly recommend her films enough. Superb, disturbing, provocative, taboo shattering.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\none of best movies ever...Fire...it is not much about sociological description of India today...it is the mind blowing use of light that never stops, never becomes...normal...even when...in this sense the movie is almost unique...both leads are of very good quality...the origin of Das as a street performer are pretty obvious...her performance is a superb \"cammeo\"...but the use of the light...I have look at it and looked at it, again and again...still mind blowing after ages...nothing torrid in the story...rather \"pure\" way of facing the subject...in a way it is sad that in the bizarre world we live today, a major art work is usually known as a gender film...Fire can stand face to face with Dryer's Jeanne D' Arc or Ichikawa's Biruma no Tategoto or some of the major Kurosawa movies, just to name \"some\". Wish my input could help a little this movie to its deserved way to fame.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhile the romance in this film is an important aspect, it is largely about the role of responsibility and duty in modern Indian. All of the major characters were well fleshed out, and had their own \"inner life\". I recommend this strongly
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt is more a subtle story of the fact that in Indian household how most decisions are taken by the man, how no attention is paid to the desires of the lady, for example how even when the husband and wife sleep together it would be a test for the husband whether he can control his desires, not to give the woman pleasure. And in such a type of scenario, women invariably have two choices, either to accept all this and take it into their own life, which is usually the case or not accept this and try to mould things to satisfy themselves, which makes a movie!
Fire is a brilliantly directed story of the second option, which women choose for themselves, no sacrifice, not to serve anybody else, rather a decision for their own good. Somehow the whole idea of justifying lesbianism didn't find an acceptance in the Indian audience but if one looks the whole movie from an angle of self-expression, then the whole debate doesn't even arise.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIts a very sensitive portrayal of life with unquenched or constrained desires. What does one do with desire in a culture and society with rigid norms? One husband finds outlet with the immigrant - since immigrants don't belong or aren't accepted, they don't need to conform and dam their desires. The other husband looks for solace in spirituality and tries to evaporate his desire into nothingness. It fails - of course - and he breaks down in the last scene for multiple reasons. Sita still cared enough for him to find that moment to let him know that he is not responsible for her deviant outlet to her blocked desires. The mother in her still couldn't find the strength to destroy his myth. She sees him as a child who is glorifying himself in his lust-control but should she give him the opportunity to finally grow up? Both the wives find courage and togetherness through their shared rejection by their husband.
But the final act of rejection was by the grandmother - she could not break free from her rusted mindset to accept Sita's desire. A decade and more of receiving care was not enough to break the shackles of her culture.
Seems like it was easiest for the househelp to let his desires flow - since he's anyway damned by his culture - being at the bottom of the hierarchy. Since there is anyway no respect and expectations, might as well taste sin.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI admire Deepa Mehta and this movie is a masterpiece. I'd recommend to buy this movie on DVD because it's a movie you might want to watch more often than just once. And trust me, you'd still find little meaningful details after watching it several times.
The characters - except for the grandmother perhaps - are all very balanced, no black and white. Even though you follow the story from the perspective of the two protagonists, there is also empathy for the other characters.
I think the IMDb rating for the movie is far too low - probably due to its politically controversial content.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was a bold movie to hit Indian cinemas when it was released. The first movie to perhaps openly depict lesbian tendencies amongst Indian women. The leading actress of Indian cinema Shabana Azmi added substance to the movie with her hot passionate scenes with Nandita Das.
The movie oozed with sexuality and the director used sex in the best way possible. The sex was not for erotic purposes but was in the context of the movie. The scene where Nandita Das loses her virginity to her husband certainly was the first of its kind in Indian cinemas.
Good acting by all the actors especially Nandita Das amidst criticism from the Indian public
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFor all that has been said about the subject matter, and the controversy that surrounded it, please do not overlook what I feel to be the most important part of the film: the salient struggles of everyone to keep their pride through their trials. Whether dealing with self-imposed male braggadocio, a sexual reawakening, or even life itself, everybody is human.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDeepa Mehta's \"Fire\" is groundbreaking, bold, and artistic. A masterful social commentary on the plight of the women from conservative, upper middle class Indian households, this is a film no one should miss. Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das give stellar performances by underplaying their characters as much as possible. A.R. Rahman's music is the work of the genius and almost plays the role of another character in the film. Mehta uses Rahman's score and together, they create such amazing sound montages that effectively portray the views of the world around Radha and Sita whenever they look to each other for support. This film is not about lesbianism as many have branded it. Lesbianism is just a part of the film. It is unfortunate that most people tend to write the film off calling it taboo instead of giving it a chance and looking at its real meaning.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe theme is controversial and the depiction of the hypocritical and sexually starved india is excellent.Nothing more to this film.There is a lack of good dialogues(why was the movie in english??). There was lack of continuity and lack of passion/emotion in the acting.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe movie is really about choices. In the oppressed state of affairs as seen in Fire, where good women had to be obedient and do what was correct in the eyes of tradition, there seemed few options for Radha and Sita. However, granted that it was not their only option. What is life without desire, Radha questions Ashok. Yes, it's true that life provides us with a number of options but how many we can take depends on a number of external factors. When your world is confined to a small Indian household, being a dutiful daughter-in-law to a silent but observant still powerful matriarch, a dutiful wife of 13 years to a man who has taken a vow of celibacy due to your not being able to have a child, a man who only wants you lying next to him to prove his strength in eliminating his desires. I felt the ladies had little choice but to find solace in each other's company. I guess the fact that so many women applauded Ms Mehta's work, was because it provided them with an option to think for themselves. An option to do what was perhaps unacceptable. The lesbian scenes I felt was merely to put that point across. Every scene in the movie from the first at the Taj Mahal to the last at the Mosque, is etched in my mind. How frustrating to be a prisoner of your feelings and desires. To feel that you had to forgo the human touch to be a dutiful wife just because it is expected of you. To have to suppress any desire you might have and to crave for the human touch. What then is the meaning of our existence one wonders. In the scene where Sita is crying alone in the room and Radha comes in to comfort her, their lips accidentally brush against each others and it awakens a feeling in them. Something they have both been deprived of.
Bravo to Ms Mehta in translating her vision so clearly. I especially like the flashbacks to the young Radha trying to 'see' for the ocean. It is a metaphor for freedom. Freedom to choose, freedom to transport ourselves to places we would normally be unable to reach. In those scenes, it is gently told to us that her sense of duty has also been passed down from her mother who I assume lives within the rich Indian traditions of duty in marriage. The movie is beautifully filmed and enhanced by the musical score by A.R. Rahman. Since the film, I have become ardent fans of the two lead actresses and the director. I look forward to more of Ms Deepa's future productions.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEasily one of the best Indian films ever. Granted, that's not saying much(I made this conclusion after a whopping 15 minutes of watching). But I can truly say that Fire is also one of the really beautiful and brilliant films I've seen.
Beautiful because of its imagery. The best example I can give is the parallelism between the 2 female leads(Radha and Sita) and the characters of the same name in Hindu mythology. Sita, for example, is the wife of the revered Lord Ram. As legend goes, Ram subjugates his wife by making her walk through a Fire to prove her `purity.' Sita, in response, cries and leaves him, reuniting with her mother(the Earth). This story has all sort of crazy links to the stories of the 2 Indian women(Nandita Das and Shabana Azmi). The word `Fire' all of a sudden has many meanings - marriage, tradition, religion, motherhood, and probably a few others I didn't catch.
Brilliant because of its social overtones. Many who were offended by the premise for this movie should in fact be first to see Fire(e.g. my mom, who actually loved it). Why? Because although Fire is an attack on tradition, it is also an attack on tradition. In other words, that is its strength, NOT its weakness. Traditional conservative social mores(whether Indian or Canadian or American or whatever) are useless if they enslave you. Gender roles and self-denial can both do this.
These are the things I took with me after seeing Fire. Hats off to Deepa Mehta
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs well as being a portrayal of a lesbian love story, FIRE is also a comic satire of middle-class (?) Indian culture. I find this is a quality which is little appreciated about the movie. These two genres (i.e. deep meaningful alternative-love story and comic satire) usually mix together just as well as oil and water do, but Mehta (somehow) manages to achieve the balance to near perfection. The servant Jatin's behaviour, the family's treatment of him, the bedridden grandmother's constant inescapable presence, Ashok's obsession with a swami's teachings: coming from a culture much like India's, these are things I can immediately identify as being typical. They have been crying out to be pointed out and ridiculed. While developing her primary subject matter, Mehta manages to achieve this secondary theme skillfully. In fact, much of the humour in the film which provides essential relief from the heavy subjects of taboo lesbian love and gender issues, stem from this satire of the seemingly ordinary. The film flows from the comic to the serious with great subtelty.
All in all, brilliant use of symbolic devices (Radha compared to Sita of legend and coming out of Fire unscathed and, therefore pure; the lifelong desire of the young Radha to see the ocean finally achieved when she gains freedom). Kudos to Shabana Azmi(Radha), the lighting crew and Deepa Mehta; their very un-Hollywood-like (and un-Bollywood-like!) talents made this movie special. One criticism: the first scenes seemed rather disjointed to me in that they did not flow into each other very well.
The verdict: 9 on 10. Nothing less for a movie with scenes so burned on my mind.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFor a moment, let's put aside the cultural aspects of this movie, even if it is a very important side of it, and let's look at the simple fact that this is a very nice love story. Two individuals find themselves in a difficult situation, caused by two selfish husbands. They have to live through their sad days without any ray of hope. If each one of these two women had been alone, imagine what kind of life each one would have had to accept. They found each other and they fell in love. That this love was against all the social, religious and cultural laws of their environment is almost irrelevant. They loved each other, found relief in each other, that was sufficient. The reaction of the individuals around them is but a small fact that they have to accept, suffer even, and then they can go on with their lives, their life. Very nice.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n
Her Excellency Madam Shabana Azmi has worked in countless movies over life time. I think best is yet to come.
Fire is ok.
But still good days are yet to come.
Hopefully, in Water I will be able see her better.
Thanks and Regards.
PS: India doesn't have a director to make best use of her.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n...means \"take up and read\", which is precisely what I felt like doing after having seen this marvelous film.
Von Ancken stimulates and inspires with this breathtaking and superbly executed adaptation of Tobias Wolff's 1995 New Yorker article of the same name. The incredible performance by Tom Noonan is brilliant and provocative and the editing, sound design, cinematography and directing are truly inspired. The nuanced changes and embellishments on the original story are subtle, clever, and make the film cinematically more dynamic. It's lyrical pacing is mesmerizing and begs you to watch it again.
Watch out for this young director...he's going places.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAlthough Bullet In The Brain is, without question, superior amongst short films, it largely seems more like a short piece of writing than a film. And it is a little hard to feel too sorry for the teacher when his smart ass remarks get him shot. But after the bullet enters his brain we begin to understand a little bit about why he became so jaded with life in the first place. There is an awful amount of detail packed into this reasonably short film and this is what makes me feel that it should have been extended a little bit - it seems like there's almost too much to take in at once as the details come flying at you so fast. A slightly more relaxed pace and a less po-faced narrator in the final section would have benefitted this film a little bit. Despite these complaints, there is no denying that Bullet In The Brain is a quite stupendous work compared to many short, and even full length films. The makers should be applauded for trying to make such a basically emotional and literate film in the current climate of quick jokes and Hollywood action.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a very, very odd film...one that is so odd it's best you just see it for yourself. The film begins with a jaded professor haranguing his class because the students have the audacity to not be as incredibly brilliant as he is! You can tell very quickly that this man is a total cynic--finding the value in practically nothing but sticking to his own inner sense of self-importance. Additionally, he seems tired and bored with the monotony of life.
Later in the film, he walks into a bank robbery and manages to annoy the robbers so much that one of them shoots him in the head. Oddly, this is only half-way through the film and what followed was a very bizarre narration of the final seconds of his life. This is when the film becomes exciting because the style of the narration is just like one of this literature professor's novels--one that is intelligently written and says things the way we wish we could all say them.
See this weird film--it's amazingly compelling and not like anything I've ever seen before.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe finest short I've ever seen. Some commentators suggest it might have been lengthened, due to the density of insight it offers. There's irony in that comment and little merit. The acting is all up to Noonan and he carries his thankless character perfectly. I might have preferred that the narrator be less \"recognizable\", but the gravitas lent is pitch perfect. This is a short for people who read, for those whose \"bar\" is set high and for those who recognize that living in a culture that celebrates stupidity and banality can forge contrary and bitter defenders of beauty. A beautiful short film. FWIW: I was pleased at the Picasso reference, since I once believed that Picasso was just another art whore with little talent; like, I assume, most people - until the day I saw some drawings he made when he was 12. Picasso was a finer draftsman and a brilliant artist at that age than many artists will ever become in a lifetime. I understood immediately why he had to make the art he became known for.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie, with all its complexity and subtlety, makes for one of the most thought-provoking short films I have ever seen. The topics it addresses are ugly, cynical, and at times, even macabre, but the film remains beautiful in its language, artful with its camera angles, and gorgeous in its style, skillfully recreating the short story of the same name written by a master of short stories, Tobias Wolff.
Not wishing to spoil anything of the movie, I won't go into any details, other than to say that this movie is magnificent in and of itself. It takes pride in what it does, and does it well. It shows the most important memories of life, all of which can be topped by the single most elusive feeling: unexpected bliss. This movie, of its own volition, has created in me the same feelings the main character (Tom Noonan) felt when words transformed his very existence, and that is one impressive feat.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis short deals with a severely critical writing teacher whose undiplomatic criticism extends into his everyday life. When he learns why that's not a good idea, we learn a bit about the beautiful craft of writing that he's been lecturing on.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"