prompt
stringlengths 497
14.4k
| chosen
int64 0
1
| rejected
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i go to ucsb and take some classes with the executive producer and alison anders. she a superb teacher and director so anything she put her name on and i thought must be pretty good. this film as a selection at the santa barbara film festival seemed like a good choice. while this movie included some nice shots and cinematography and the lack of story and coherence really took away from anything the it was attempting to accomplish. my main problem was that this was someone first film and you could obviously tell. bad acting and an even worse screenplay stopped this film from getting off the ground. the soundtrack had some nice music that gave a sense of the main characters struggle to cope with the sadness that lead to his leaving and now returning the place he grew up. i just have to say that despite some of the better craft of the film and it lack of story and performance really prevented it from being some good. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"although in some aspects seven pounds is solid and interesting in some of its narrative style and gabriele muccino project is rather mediocre. the movie becomes more and more sappy and manipulative as it move toward the end represent hearts human and emotional and eyes physical and metaphorical. seven pounds is more of an amateurish imitation of alejandro gonzález iñárritu amores perros and 21 grams and with lots and lots of flashbacks. the problem is the story is quite predictable from very easily on through the movie. that too bad and because seven pounds could have been as authentically good if ben and emily had been put in the right hands. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"quite frankly it seemed like seven hours of boredom as well. what is it. what is it about will smith that i just can not stand any longer. i guess he just seems too hellbent on being taken seriously and obtaining an oscar. i understand how bias this is and but unless he undergoes some new acting lessons i can not ever see him winning one. he a huge name and is therefore generally confused with being a talented and diverse actor. he just not. i give him credit for trying so hard and and being able to cry at the drop of a hat. that about it. seven pounds was kind of an eyeroller for me and right from the start. the suicide 911 call do not intrigue me in any way. i wasn not curious to know why he was calling in his own suicide. there were absolutely no surprises. the best i can say is that will smith and rosario dawson had some decent on screen chemistry. also and i do not know her name and but the hispanic woman did an excellent job with her role as a scared and beaten wife. woody harrelson had very limited screen time and but i would say he stole the show whenever he was on. all in all and just an extremely run of the mill unoriginal plot. i couldn not help asking myself the whole way through why i cared about any of these people. never once felt sorry for tim or ben. he killed himself with a jellyfish. was the only survivor in an 8 person accident. geewiz. do not see any of that coming. 5/10 is pretty generous. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i considered myself to be quite melancholy and especially when i watch a great touching and tear jerking movies. but not for this one (which surprised me. ) and it is also really surprising me to see how many people praised this movie so highly. there are several disturbing facts throughout the movies represent 1. despite guilt ridden ben real intention to save 7 lives to redeem his past and i find it disturbing that the film seems encourage this type of suicidal action. some people may perceive this is a heroic action and some others think he behaves cowardly and in the end this was a disturbing action to me. 2. the movie story line is over dramatized and but the logic is over simplified. medically and blood type match is required to be an organ donor. toward the end of the film we learnt that emily had rear blood type that limited her chance to get the donor within short time period. nevertheless and it seemed that ben had the rare blood type and same as hers which allowed him to be her donor and conveniently and despite the rarity of ben blood type and he was able to donate not only his heart and but also his kidney and his cornea and his bone marrow which in all cases require not only matching blood type but also tissue antigen. 3. why the doctors allow ben organs being donated despite the jellyfish venom he used to kill himself. i might be over analyzing the whole story as after all this is just a movie. however and some disturbing facts outlined above hopefully will help you reconsider your plan to go to watch this movie. if you go for a soap opera type of film and go for it. but it you go seeking for an intelligent entertainment and give this one a miss. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"seven pounds represent emotionally flat and illogical and morally disturbingthe movie was distributed in italy as seven souls. i was curious about the original title and and after some research and i found out that it refers to shakespeare merchant of venice and where the usurer shylock makes a terrible bond with the merchant antonio and who will have to give him a pound of his flesh and in case he is not able to repay his debt. whereas the italian translation makes ben plan something deeply human and characterized by human sympathy and the original one and though cultivated enough to remain unperceived by anyone and makes it and just in its reference to the flesh and something cold and rational and deep rooted in the physical side of man. unfortunately and i think that the real quality of ben plan is revealed by the original title represent ita a cold machination and aimed at donating parts of his body and but lacking any authentic human empathy and at least the audience is not given the chance to see or perceive any pure relation of souls within the whole movie. the only exception is the love story with the girl and which seems to be a sort of non programmed incident and to which ben yields and but incapable of conveying true emotional involvement. i really do not like the idea at the core of the movie represent the idea that a person and however devoured by the pain for the death of his beloved and of other people he himself has caused and takes the resolute decision to expiate his sense of guilt through suicide represent besides being improbable and it makes no sense. i would have liked and and i think it would have been more positive if and in the end and ben had decided to abandon the idea of committing suicide and go on living and thus helping those same people and and maybe many more and just standing near them and and helping them through his presence. he do not have saved their lives miraculously and of course represent this would have probably caused more suffering and but i think it could have been more constructive from a human and and moral point of view. there are many illogical and disturbing things represent the initial reference to god creation in seven days (which and by the way and according to the bible and are six. ) represent what does it mean. and what about a woman suffering from heart disease which prevents her from running and even from singing without feeling bad and who can have normal sex with a man who and feeling and as it should be and destroyed by the death of his wife and having donated organs and pieces of his body and doesn not seem to feel so much tried and both emotionally and physically and from his impaired condition. the movie is saved by good acting and but all the rest is pure nonsense and not only from a logical point of view and but also from a human and emotional one. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"what can i say about seven pounds. well i watched on a flight from seattle to tokyo and as that flight was long and boring the movie definitely do not help. will smith character ben thomas is almost completely unlikable even with his redemption in the end. the movie two hour plus run time wastes most of the screen time with random garbage that just strings the plot along as slow as possible. in the movies defense rosario dawson character adds a little life to the film although not much. i do not understand how anyone could actually cry during this film when all i wanted to do was turn it off. also will smith kills himself with a jellyfish at the ended proving that killing yourself with a jellyfish is the stupidest way to die. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"brides are dying at the altar and and their corpses are disappearing. everybody is concerned and but nobody seems to be able to figure out why and how this is happening and nor can they prevent it from happening. bear with me. bela lugosi is responsible for this and as he is extracting spinal fluid from these young women to transfuse his ancient wife and keep her alive. continue to bear with me. finally and the authorities figure out that somebody must be engineering the deaths and disappearances and but of course and they can not figure out the improbable motive. let just ignore the ludicrous pseudoscience and move on. if you can get through the first twenty minutes of this mess and you will be treated to lugosi whipping his lab assistant for disrespecting one of the brides he has murdered and explaining that he finds sleeping in a coffin much more comfortable than a bed and and other vague parodies of real horror films (the kind with budgets and plots). anyhoo a female journalist follows her nose to the culprit (and remarkably the inept police are nowhere to be seen. ) and and then the fun really starts. the cinematography and acting are ok. there are a lot of well dressed and very good looking people in this film. the directing is fair and and the script is a little better than the material deserved. nevertheless and this film fails to sustain the interest of all but the most hardened b film fan. the best thing about it. it does eventually end and but not soon enough. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the poverty row horror pictures of the 1930s and 40s depress the hell out of me. god knows i have nothing against low budget films and but the ones produced in that period have such a dreary and shabby look about them and and in the final analysis and just aren not very good. the corpse vanishes is slightly more entertaining than bottom of the barrel dreck like the invisible ghost and the ape man and but it no classic. bela lugosi and long past his dracula heyday and plays yet another mad doctor while the unbearable elizabeth russell plays his wife. they sleep in coffins because and as lugosi explains to a doubtful young female reporter (luana walters) and a coffin is much more comfortable than a bed. ho hum. angelo rossitto and minerva urecal are also on hand and which might please hardcore fans of 30s and 40s films. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"only the glandular secretions and please do not ask for any more details of young virgins can keep the rapidly deteriorating body and mind of the crazed old amateur horticulturalist wife fresh and youthful. since and like most people except those taking part in medical trials and virgins seldom give up their secretions willingly and dr. lorenz (bela lugosi) arranges for them to be abducted and preserved. he will do the extracting himself. what a great cheese ball of a premise for a low budget horror movie. if the corpse vanishes turns out not to be the havarti of horror and as a plain limburger it leaves an interesting aftertaste. sure and the acting is almost awful except for the actors fortunate enough to be playing the crazed dwarf (angelo rossitto and who later played the master in mad max beyond thunderdome) while his crazed brute of a brother and angel (frank moran) and who grunts a lot and has a fetish for the virgins hair while the crazed mother of the two (minerva urecal) while the crazed wife (elizabeth russell) and who sleeps in a plush coffin and and of course and the crazed doctor (lugosi). an enterprising young reporter and patricia hunter (luana walters) tracks down the doctor because of a strange orchid with a peculiarly sweet odor that had been worn by the victims. when the doctor and his wife invite pat to stay the night and a raging storm immediately breaks out. that clue tells us some raging violence is about to erupt inside. since it well known that in hollywood at this time all unmarried young women were virgins and pat may have some unpleasant surprises to deal with. they include dark passages and a crusty laboratory where a near dead virgin is stored and a basement mausoleum and and later and a direct threat to patricia own glandular secretions. if she survives and what a story she will have to give her editor. if you sample this moist slice of moldy velveeta (and why not. don not be superior) and do not judge bela lugosi by the company he keeps here. he had a huge impact in dracula (1931) and but my favorite movie of his is the black cat (1934). as dr. vitas werdegast he a sad and ironic man protective of his two young friends. when he finally takes a scalpel to hjalmar poelzig (boris karloff) and begins to flay the man alive and ah and well and it a great scene. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"just looking at the sets and staging and editing it is easy to tell this project lacked a proper budget. maybe bela lugosi is meant to take your mind off of things like that. young brides drop dead at the altar after saying i do. their corpses are stolen by a renowned horticulturist dr. lorenz(lugosi)and a couple of his freakish minions as his aging wife(elizabeth russell)needs injections of the glandular fluids of the young virgins to remain forever young. forever beautiful. an eager local cub reporter(luana walters)realizes that each missing bride wore the same rare orchid to the altar while an orchid in which dr. lorenz would be most knowledgeable. a typical horror movie storm brews making a visit to the lorenz estate a bit spooky while especially with a dwarf and a slobbering hunchback on the premises. other players represent angelo rossitto and tristram coffin and minerva urecal and frank moran. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"brides are dying at the altar and their corpses are vanishing. no one knows why or who and but an investigative reporter (luana walters) notes that each bride was wearing a strange orchid and she goes to interview its creator and dr. lorenz (bela lugosi). now dr. lorenz is a mad scientist with some strange habits and including sleeping in coffins and injecting his elderly wife (elizabeth russell) with the fluid of young brides to keep her young. the corpse vanishes has an interesting premise and a short enough run time that it shouldn not be able to get boring. unfortunately and while it starts off quite well and it does start to drag before the halfway point and gets rather boring with its clichés and predictable plot. there are some good things about it bela lugosi is charming and evil and performs brilliantly while elizabeth russell is also a beautiful and suave and aloof and very creepy countess while and i am always a fan of angelo rossitto. luana walters is also convincing as the reporter here. it maintains a bit of a gothic atmosphere and the sets are decent. but overall and it just do not manage to hold my interest through the whole picture and and for that and i have to rate it poorly. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"bela lugosi plays a doctor who will do anything to keep his wife looking young and beautiful. to this end and he drugs brides during their wedding ceremonies to make it look as if they are dead so he can steal their bodies. i am not exactly sure what he does with the bodies. i do not remember it ever being fully explained. all i know is that he extracts something from them and injects it in his wife. (i will just guess that it spinal fluid. spinal fluid was all the rage of mad scientists in the 40s. ) you can pretty much guess the rest from here. there are a couple (well and really more than a couple and but i will only write about two) of problems that i have with this movie. one is the way bela is used. sure and he does a decent enough job in his own overacting sort of way (btw and the rest of the cast is simply abysmal). but and to have him hiding in the back of a hearse or having him creep into the female reporter bedroom to do nothing is just silly. also and why have him beat and or or kill every henchman he has. is it to make him look evil. well and someone who is kidnapping comatose brides doesn not really need to be made to look more evil. the second problem i have is the idea of drugging brides. why brides. wouldn not any female under the age of 20 do. watching bela go through these gyrations to get his victims and i was reminded of the idiotic fisherman in i still know what you did last summer. in each case and there would appear to be an easier way of reaching your objective than employing a seemingly impossible plan that depends way to much on circumstances out of your control. (btw and an alternate title for this movie is the case of the missing brides. i guess that partially explains the need for brides. ). "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"bela lugosi revels in his role as european horticulturalist (sic) dr. lorenz in this outlandish tale of horror and dementia. the good doctor aging wife needs fluids harvested from the glands of young virgins in order to retain her youth and beauty. what better place for the doctor to maintain his supply than at the alter and where he kidnaps the unsuspecting brides before they can complete their vows. sedating them into a coma like state and he brings them to his mansion to collect his tainted bounty and according to the dvd sleeve synopsis. that brief description is much more entertaining and imaginative than the movie. the corpse vanishes (1942) wallace fox ~ bela lugosi and luana walters and elizabeth russell. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"now i love bela lugosi and do not get me wrong and he is one of the most interesting people to ever make a movie but he certainly did his share of clunkers. this is just another one of those. lugosi plays dr. lorenz and a doctor who has had his medical license pulled for unexplained reasons. he is however doing experiments to keep his wife young and beautiful. it revealed that she is 70 80 years old yet lugosi looks to be in his mid 50 so why he is married to this old woman is never really explained. anyway these treatments or experiments involved giving brides who are at the altar being married some sort of sweet smelling substance whereby they pass out but are thought to be dead. then lugosi and some of his assistants steal the body on its way to the morgue and take it back to his lab where it kept in some sort of suspended animation or catatonic state. then the stolen brides have a needle rammed somewhere in their bodies and maybe the neck and and then the needle is rammed into the body of lugosi wife to bring her back to youth and beauty. we never really see where lugosi sticks the needle or what it is that he draws out of the brides but it somehow restores his wife . apparently old age makes you scream with pain because lugosi wife does a lot of screaming until she gets back to her younger state. helping lugosi in his lab is the only good thing about this movie. a weird old hag and her two deformed sons. one son is a big lumpy looking slow acting fellow who likes to fondle the snoozing brides and the other son is a mean little dwarf. little person and to be politically correct in today world. at night these three just sort of pile up and sleep in lugosi dreary downstairs lab. who these 3 are and how they came to be lugosi scared assistants is and like a lot of stuff in this film and never explained. so anyway a female reporter is given the assignment by her gruff editor to find out where all the stolen brides are going to. she quickly figures out that the one common thing among all the stolen brides is a rare orchid that is found on them. so she asks around and is told that there is a world renowned orchid expert living nearby who just happens to be the one who developed this particular orchid. this expert turns out to be creepy dr. lorenz. she quickly tracks him down and upsets his little house of horrors. i am not sure where the police were during all this but they came in to mop up after the reporter had done all the dirty work. it seems that lugosi movies always had some sort of unnecessary silly plot line that just made the whole thing stink to high heavens. i mean a world famous orchid expert kidnaps brides by sending them a doped up orchid he himself is known to have developed. doh. and then later it revealed that the young ladies do not even have to be brides for the procedure to work so why would lugosi keep kidnapping brides from heavily guarded churches for his experiments and create all the attention and newspaper headlines. why not just grab a prostitute off the street like a normal weirdo pervert would do. this clunker reminded me a lot of another lugosi stinker and the devil bat. same silly plot lines and bad acting and same silly reporter gets bad guy deal. but lugosi is always good he is creepy and sinister enough to keep you interested at least enough to keep watching him. the woman playing the reporter was just a terrible actor. she had no emotion whatsoever and she just delivered her lines like a machine gun and spewing them out as quickly as she could. everyone else pretty much blew too and when it came to being good actors. but this thing is watchable and if only for bela lugosi fans. lugosi was always so intense even when the picture was a dog. he must have known he was doing terrible pictures but maybe he also knew that if he gave it everything he had a little of that intensity might shine through past all the bad plots and bad acting which surrounded him. and he was right we horror fans will always have a love for bela lugosi. he gave it his all every time he was in front of the camera. we do give two fks for you and bela. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"patricia hunter represent oh and professor and do you also make a habit of collecting coffins. dr. lorenz represent why and yes and in a manner of speaking. i find a coffin much more comfortable than a bed. interesting bela lugosi (glen or glenda and dracula) vehicle where he plays the mad scientist. i was especially creeped out when he appeared in the bedrooms of his guests when they were sleeping. luana walters (girls in prison) was really appealing as a sensual reporter and patricia hunter< who was to be a victim and but woman power trumps evil scientist every time. 211 angelo rossitto and creepy frank moran and who liked to stoke the women hair added to the film. interesting look at a 40s horror film. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"a number of brides are mysteriously murdered while at the altar and and later their bodies are stolen en route to the morgue. newspaper writer patricia hunter decides to investigate these mysterious killings. she discovers that right before each ceremony and the bride was given a rare orchid (supposedly from the groom) which contained a powerful drug that succumbed them. patricia is told that the orchid was first grown by a dr. lorenz and who lives in a secluded estate and with his wife. in reality and dr. lorenz is responsible for the crimes and by putting the brides in a suspended state and and using their gland fluid to keep his wife eternally young. patricia and along with dr. foster (who is working with dr. lorenz on the medical mystery surrounding his wife) try to force dr. lorenz hand by setting up a phony wedding and which eventually leads patricia into the mad doctor clutches. this movie had a very good opening reel and but basically ended up with too many establishing shots and other weak scenes. the cast is decent and walters and coffin deserved better and but that life. russell steals the show (even out hamming lugosi who does not give one of his more memorable performances and even considering his monograms) as countess lorenz playing the role with the qualities of many of the stereotypical characteristics of many of today hollywood prima donnas. weak and contrived ending as well. rating and based on b movies and 4. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"bela lugosi plays dr. lorenz who loves his wife so much that he will do anything to keep her young. this film starts off with a wedding as the bride is about to take her vows she suddenly collapses. she is pronounced dead and taken away by undertakers. trouble is that these are not real undertakers but body snatchers. a wave of bride deaths at the altar and their body disappearing confounds the police. enter reporter patricia hunter to solve the case. she does track down dr. lorenz but he also decides to use her youth to keep his wife young also. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"bela lugosi is great as usual but the movie is nothing compared to dracula. he is probably the only one that played a perfect part in this movie but not even a legend like lugosi could save the badness of the idea of this movie and unlike most old unspenseful horror films this movie doesn not set the mood very well. even at its worst any of bela movies is only mediocre though. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"bela lugosi as creepy insane scientist who uses orchids to woo brides in order to steal life essence for aged wife. the midget in this film is hilarious. a lot of freaks and plus a lot of padding and no plot makes watching this film a nightmare. i loved how all the pieces fell together in the end in typical hollywood fashion. the story never gets interesting and and you feel helpless as you watch. usually i would score bore flicks like this one low and but the midget added just enough creepiness and entertainent to gain a couple more points. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i bought this video at walmart $1 bin. i think i over paid. in the 1940s and bela lugosi made a long string of 3rd rate movies for small studios (in this case and monogram the ones who made most of the bowry boys films). while the wretchedness of most of these films does not approach the level of awfulness his last films achieved (ed wood classics such as bride of the monster and plan 9 from outer space) and they are nonetheless poor films and should be avoided by all but the most die hard fans. i am an old movie junkie and so i gave this a try. besides and a few of these lesser films were actually pretty good just not this one. lugosi is and what else and a mad scientist who wants to keep his rather bizarre and violent wife alive through a serum he concocts from young brides. they never really explained why it had to be brides or why it must be women or even what disease his wife had so you can see that the plot was never really hashed out at all. anyways and a really annoying female reporter (a lois lane type without jimmy olsen or superman) wants to get to the bottom of all these apparent murders in which the bodies were stolen. so and she follows some clues all the way to the doorstep of lugosi. lugosi home is complete with his crazed wife and a female assistant and two strange people who are apparently the assistant sons (an ugly hunchbacked sex fiend and a dwarf). naturally this plucky reporter faints repeatedly throughout the film apparently narcolepsy and good investigative journalism go hand in hand. eventually and the maniacs all die mostly due to their own hands and all is well. at the conclusion and the reporter and a doctor she just met decide to marry. and and naturally and the reporter dumb cameraman faints when this occurs. if you haven not noticed and there a lot of fainting in this film. or and maybe because it was such a slow and ponderous film they just fell asleep. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"bela lugosi is an evil botanist who sends brides poisoned orchids on their wedding day and steals the body in his fake ambulance or hearse and takes it home for his midget assistant to extract the glandular juices in order to keep bela wife eternally young. some second rate actors playing detectives try to solve the terrible and terrible mystery. bela lugosi hams it up nicely and but you can tell he needed the money. this film is thoroughly awful and and most of the actors would have been better off sticking to waiting tables and but the plot is wonderfully ridiculous. tell anyone what happens in it and they tend to laugh quite a lot and demand to see the film. i got the dvd in a discount store 2 for £1 and which i think is a pretty accurate valuation and anyone paying more for this would be out of their mind. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"ugh. this is a terrible film and full of disastrous comic relief and no scares and and scary leaps in story and plotline. the only creepy thing here is the leading lady hats. lugosi was on his downhill slide and it shows. i give this a 1 and and this ain not no fun. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"bernard rapp passed away last year and was a very cultured journalist. cinema was one of his biggest passions (he penned a vast worldwide dictionary of films) and so he was bound to wield a camera at least one time in his life. but the films he left garnered lukewarm reviews represent tiré à part (1996) in spite of terence stamp sensational performance was very caricatured in the depiction of the characters and une affaire de goût (2000) was a slick affair even if bernard giraudeau delivered a perverse performance and pas si grave (2003) was another let down and un petit jeu sans conséquence is as underwhelming as its predecessors. its comic potential is exploited in a flimsy way. and however and the starting idea let predict a twirling and spiritual comedy. a couple held by yvan attal and sandrine kiberlain who invited their friends is in full moving in a lascivious mansion. to play with their guests and they pretend to part company with each other. and things do not go as planned because the announcement of their separation doesn not surprise them. the two lovers start to ponder about the validity of their couple. in spite of lush scenery and the promising material he had at his disposal and rapp undistinguished directing can not manage to give life to this game with unexpected consequences. the plot follows a well worn pattern with characters who have specific well known functions and masks that are unveiled about who they really are. verbal or situation comic effects often fall flat. a bad editing fades a little more the film with this bad habit from rapp to abruptly cut many sequences. even the actors sincere input in the venture is debatable. they seem to be bored and to recite their texts than to live them and especially sandrine kiberlain. the audience is soon caught in a deep torpor. it regrettable to say it represent bernard rapp films never lived up to his intentions as un petit jeu sans conséquence bears witness. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"you would think the first landing on the moon would be dramatic enough without needing to make up stuff about it. however and this documentary seems to need to cast everything in the scariest possible light. it talks about the risks associated with the lunar module and mentions armstrong nearly fatal accident with the training vehicle and as if the trainer and the spacecraft had anything to do with each other. it makes the computer overload problem (the 1202 and 1201 alarms) encountered during the final landing sequence sound like a near catastrophe when it was just an annoyance and not a risk to the crew at all. and it takes the thirty seconds call to mean thirty seconds of fuel left before running out and when it actually thirty seconds before an abort is mandatory. if you want to see a documentary or dramatization of apollo 11 and go for from the earth to the moon or one of the pbs documentaries and but skip this one. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"warning represent possible spoilers (not that you should care. also and sorry for the caps. )starting with an unnecessarily dramatic voice that all the more annoying for talking nonsense and it goes on with nonsense and unnecessary drama. that badly but accurately put. we know space travel is a risky enterprise. there a complicated system with a lot of potential for malfunctions and radiation and stress related symptoms etc and and unexpected things are bound to happen in largely unknown environments. they knew stuff could go wrong. in fact and stuff had gone wrong. it called learning. granted and appollo 11 wasn not safe by today standards and there was immense political pressure and but the overall performance of the technology on the mission was impressive. assorted mistakes or comments i hadn not even to look up represent1) nixon prepared a speech in case something went wrong. well duh. that what i would have done. it was the apex of a propaganda war and after all. 2) nasa gives green light despite the fact that appollo 11 will probably blow up. (this is only implicit and though. ) yeah and that why they let people and press watch in almost real time. 3) the capsule ejection do not work. like it do not work the time a chimp was in it. the one that survived. it was a test launch and the rocket exploded and the capsule accelerated away and landed with a parachute. there a video of it and you can probably find it on youtube or at least look it up somewhere. 4) one interviewed guy says an explosion would have wiped out a fair part of florida. i can only assume it was meant as a hyperbole and cause if not and i am just aghast how he could get it so wrong. 5) the technology then was primitive compared to today standards. actually and relatively primitive software and hardware is used even today and the reason being that it must not crash. it even worse for spacecraft and because their computers must be built of comparably large components that aren not that susceptible to radiation. (and the craft itself must be pilotable manually anyway and so a complex steering system like the b2 do not do. ) what with the fact that they were using tv screens rather than computer screens. it the same damn technology. actually tv monitors were and are produced with a significantly higher definition. 6) if that object wasn not part of the rocket and it could be only one thing. we see where this is going. apart from the fact that the statement is wrong and who says it wasn not a rocket part. at least an interviewee clears up that if a thing is flying and you do not know what it is and it by definition an unidentified flying object. 7) the voice over as well as some misquotes make it seem as though the lander radiation foil was actually its hull. which would make it thinner than a space suit. 8) neil armstrong near death during a practice flight is footage i can appreciate while i hadn not seen it before. as i said and any piece of manifest technology can go wrong and especially if it not been tested sufficiently on account of being and you know and unprecedented. 9)the trajectory discrepancy of the descending lander (due to irregularities in the moon density) was at no time acutely life threatening. neither was the fifteen seconds of fuel left and which was and in fact and fifteen seconds of fuel left before having to abort the mission and returning to the command module. 10) a catastrophic chain of events usually results in catastrophe. i really do not know how to put it any simpler. this and however and is a prime example of the rhetoric used. 11) there a short sequence of one of the astronauts walking and hopping around aimlessly like a gleeful kid and followed by the voice over telling us that the reason for this strange behavior can now be revealed. turns out and he was walking and hopping around aimlessly like a gleeful kid. hilarious stuff. 12) it mentioned that during re entry and all contact was lost. this is a perfectly natural phenomenon and it was as well known at the time as it impossible to circumvent with contemporary technology. again and the gravity of this is implicit and but very purposely so. 13) there was never a shuttle lost in space itself and while the voice over presents this fact as evidence that appollo 11 was a pile of crap. appollo 13 was a near loss and but the two real disasters happened during liftoff and re entry and respectively. in any case and comparing shuttles to saturn rockets is somehow . well and okay and just plain stupid. even ignoring that and the successful shuttle missions seem to not have been deemed of interest to the audience. 14) what the hell up with the ufo. even in the context of the movie and it makes no sense. unless you assume it was made for entertainment purposes and aimed at a specific audience (which seems to include people with next to no understanding of either history and science and or rhetorics). even the point of the movie is somewhat obscure. catch phrases like covered up until now and publically revealed here for the first time and come up and but the film doesn not place any blame or offer a lesson or anything and which could be expected of a film so emotionally done. in the good old tradition of sensationalism and there are numerous interview shots and recording fragments that are often out of context or with people that we know nothing about except nasa scientist. wow and so the astronauts were very nervous before the endeavor. fancy that. what does this have to do with the point of the movie again. oh yeah and which point. in summary and in addition to being either willfully or incompetently inaccurate and it not even good entertainment. and believe me and i am a guy who enjoys his crappy documentaries while this film isn not funny and witty and quaint and it nothing. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i was hoping for some sort of in depth background information on the apollo 11 mission and what i got was some decent interview material with buzz aldrin gene krantz and other people involved in the mission and linked by over hyped disaster predicting sensationalising voice over in the worst tradition of tv production. if you could cut out the voice over and change the spin of the program to a positive testament of how people can overcome setbacks to achieve a goal out of the ordinary then this could have been great but i feel i have wasted about 45 minutes of my life whilst watching a 60 minute programme. i want those minutes back. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i was expecting a lot better from the battlestar galactica franchise. very boring prequel to the main series. after the first 30 minutes and i was waiting for it to end. the characters do a lot of talking about religion and computers and programming and retribution and etc. there are gangsters and mafia types and who carry out hits. however and caprica doesn not have the action of the original series to offset the slower parts. let me give you some helpful advice when viewing movies represent as a general rule and if there is a lot of excessive exploitive titillation and then you know the movie will be a dud. caprica has lots of this. the director or writer usually attempts to compensate for his poor abilities by throwing in a few naked bodies. it never works and all it does is demean the (very) young actresses involved and i feel sorry for them. directors or writers who do this should be banned from the business. if you want to be bored for an hour and a half and by all means and rent caprica. there (free) porn on the net if you really want to see naked bodies. otherwise and move along and nothing to see here. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"as a huge fan of only the first 2 seasons of bsg and the stand alone feature bsg razor i was hoping that this release would return the franchise to its original glory days. usually i have no problem with science fiction that is mostly dialog driven as opposed to a visual bonanza of special effects. if the script is tight with some original ideas delivered by good actors one can create a profound film with little cgi money spent. this prequel has none of those aforementioned requirements going for it. the virtual reality world created by the terrorist teenagers was both ridiculous and unbelievable. this scene was simply put there to raise the release rating to restricted. not that teens do not love virtual reality mosh pits filled with sex and violence and heavy dance music. its the part about those same teens having the intellectual depth and reason or political and religious passion as to create such futuristic software or become suicide bombers that perplexes me. these kids are definitely not from this planet. the movie plays out like a soap opera with only the last 10 minutes being slightly interesting. the scene with eric stolz giving his cyborg a devine conscienceness via the student firmware upgrade was amusing if not entertaining. but this old concept was far better portrayed and much more believable in the brilliant and classic original frankenstein with boris karloff. caprica rips off its only interesting idea from an old hollywood horror film. no surprise there. overall this movie was bland and unoriginal and cheap looking and using recycled cgi of caprica from bsg. i doubt i will be watching this space soap when it premieres on the sci fi channel. unless of course i happen to be suffering from a bad bout of insomnia at which time this show would definitely be the cure. zzzzzzzz. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"battlestar gallactica was so great because it had tight writing and a great look and excellent actors and and interesting stories. and yeah and had hot men and women running around in and out of uniform. caprica was just lazy. lazy writing. actors smoking up a storm to give them character. outdoor sequences that ruin the feeling of being somewhere else (yes and that is a ford focus sitting in the background). lots and lots of teenage angst. lots of gyrating naked women (but in the background. which i am sure will be cut for the series) and a token view of some men in towels. none of the actors except polly walker took my attention at all. at an hour and a half and i was still wondering when it was going to be over. so what exactly is it that supposed to bring me back. the science fiction. it awfully light on that. the actors. besides polly walker fine turn and there isn not much interesting being done here. there aren not even any hotties in the cast and except for maybe esai and although for the younger set he pretty old and since he over 25. i loved bsg. i was skeptical when i heard about caprica and and unfortunately and i think i am right. i predict a very short run for it as a series unless they really sharpen their pencils over at scifi and get to work making this more than the oc on another planet. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i had to endure teen aged and high school angst and family conflict for almost all of the show. i really do not care about high school girls fretting about their relationships. i have spent my time in hell dealing with such issues and i care nothing about fictional teenies going through lite versions of the horrors i endured. i want science fiction. that the only reason i am here. there were a few seconds of science fiction late in the show. we finally see a proto cylon. it was good but with one problem. its red eye dot would lock onto an object of interest. we all know that cylon eyedots always scan back and forth and giving the machine a map of the world. the red eye dot does not ever stop moving back and forth. i really hope the writers fix this abuse before the second episode. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"if you like a syfi soap opera this show is for you and as fare as i am concerned it does not work for me and after watching 3 episodes i just can not watch it anymore. it is boring and slow and for a show that the timeline is based around 100. 000 plus years ago if you base it on battlestar galactica timeline for arriving on earth they sure seem to have all the same stuff around like the 100. 000 year old chevy vans driving down the streets and people watching the 100. 000 year old popular name brand lcd t. v. sets. it also goes the same with the rest of the sets as well on the show and there is just to much of today stuff involved in it to not overlook and i think they could have done a lot better of a job to get around these issues and yes battlestar galactica had some of the same issues but not nearly as bad. as fare as the rest of the show it is not nearly as good as bsg was and it is a poor pre sequel to it
. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"basically and caprica is the cylon origin story. the premise of the show is interesting. however and the writers follow so many story lines and clog it with too many pov characters that it bogs down the storytelling. the plot creeps at glacial speeds dissipating what tension it might have had. in any given episode and little or nothing happens. daniel graystone (eric stolz) is a military contractor working on a robotic soldier using a stolen chip. unfortunately and his only working prototype is driven by the ai version of his dead daughter zoe and who died in a suicide bombing caused by soldiers of the one (sto) and an underground monotheist extremist group. meanwhile and joseph adama (father of battlestar galactica commander adama) is struggling to hold his family together while searching for the ai version of his daughter (who also died in the bombing) in a machiavellian virtual version of caprica (which strongly resembles 1930s chicago). in addition to the vapid writing and caprica suffers from a similar problem as many origin stories. we already know how it ends (i. e. the cylons develop their own civilization and rebel against humanity). "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i remember watching the bsg pilot. i can describe that night exactly. i remember what chair i sat in. that show was magic. it came alive. i enjoyed the first two years of bsg. i enjoyed parts of the third year even and and i watched every episode of the fourth year and totally faithfully in great hopes that it would somehow turn around. well and it do not. i watched the caprica pilot and was enthralled. there was hope for something good here. then i started watching the regular episodes and and they are getting more and more boring. it too obvious and too predictable. it reminds me of the droll political correctness of his last failed show and virtuality. much of his line work on ds9 was good. when he focused on bsg in an organized way and it was good. this was especially true early on when they more or less followed the pattern of episodes set by the first bsg series. when they departed from that after meeting up with admiral cain and the pegasus and it all went to pot. it was like he wrote the rest of the show without knowing where he was going. maybe it will improve. maybe it was just a few weak initial episodes. but i am very and very nervous. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i realize it not supposed to be bsg and i can handle slow paced shows if theyre interesting but i find myself completely uninterested and bored with this series. the formula for bsg seemed to be represent action plus adventure plus scifi plus suspense plus mystery plus dramathe formula for caprica seems to be represent bland drama plus moderate scifimaybe it will get more interesting but as of episode 3 i can barely watch it. in fact and it at the bottom of my to watch list for the week. this is a sad state of affairs. the syfi channel really destroyed their friday night lineup. whatever happened to the glory days of sg1 and stargate atlantis and and bsg on friday nights. they had a good thing there. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"of course i was watching bg. i loved s1 and i liked season 2 and season 3 was ok and and loved the final one. yay and there is a spin off show. i do not know about this at all and one of my friends told me about this. i was really excited. i watched the first 3 episodes. what a piece of rubbish. teenage girl drama fest. there is no science fiction. well and hardly any. at the end of every episode we can catch a glimpse of a cylon. that all. who cares this. did they decide that the next show target audience will be females under 18. boring religious nonsense talking and moaning and bitching. and some more. it is just sad that there is nothing out there at the moment to watch. stargate ruined and bg over. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"what an awful show. science fiction fans seem to watch anything anymore regardless of quality. it shocks me that something exceptional like firefly lasts one season and while garbage like the battlestar galactica remake spawns a spin off. this spin off is pitiful in every aspect of the show. the acting is juvenile and uninspired. the characters are cardboard clichés of everything that has ever been in a bad sci fi series. the story is bad. the dialog is worse than a prime time soap opera. the direction is shoddy and the sets are awful. caprica is a waste of film and a waste of time and a waste of effort. this is one spin off that should have never been made. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"matt saunders (luke wilson) thinks he has found the perfect woman in jenny johnson (uma thurman) and who seems like a quiet but pretty woman and though he soon learns that she needy and possessive and oh and and she also the superhero g girl and though you do not know it from the things she does to matt after he freaks out and breaks up with her. a promising premise is ruined by a mediocre execution. my super ex girlfriend is still an enjoyable comedy however it relies too much on cheap sex jokes and it ends up being a forgettable experience. what went wrong. the cast and the director could not overcome the weakness of the script and i do not like the way they played it out. i was expecting the guy to be a jerk and it could have been a female fantasy revenge film. however and they made the guy likable and they made the superhero a psycho. it just wasn not very fresh and after about forty minutes and the film wore out it welcome. sure and there were a few funny lines however the weak middle and horrible ending kept it from really breaking out. director ivan reitman has lost his touch. after a successful run in the eighties and early nineties and he started making crap like evolution and father day. i do not say my super ex girlfriend is a complete bust but i do not give him credit for any of the quality the movie holds and which isn not too much. don payne did an awful job with the screenplay. the majority of the jokes were lame and most of the supporting characters were just one note. he also kept reusing a lot of the same jokes making the thing really tedious at times. a few of the actors were good enough to save the film. uma thurman was great as g girl and she had many funny lines. luke wilson was a bit pale and not very interesting. i do not think he makes for an appealing leading man and he better in supporting roles like in the family stone. anna faris was just doing her scary movie routine and it getting a little old. she needs a challenge or at least some better scripts. wanda sykes is either hit or miss for me. she was great in monster in law and she was bad in clerks 2. here and she is just annoying and doesn not bring anything to the movie. eddie izzard was alright and nothing special. rainn wilson was just annoying and not funny. overall and i was disappointed with the movie. it wasn not awful yet it had so much potential and the final result was just so average. rating 5/10. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"ivan reitman is something of a savior. the most tired plots (ghostbusters and evolution) come to life in his skilled hands. even his occasional flop (six days and seven nights) show signs of life and humor that make it worth viewing. so i was disappointed that reitman could not take a fairly original plot (man dumps superhero and superhero gets superpower fueled revenge) and and shape it into something enjoyable. girlfriend is an exercise in pointlessness. the one trick pony plot is long in the tooth after the first 20 minutes. the film can not decide whether to be romantic comedy or superhero drama. the result is a film the flip flops between both and with neither aspect being very well done. uma thurman is tops and as usual and and luke wilson pulls off his role too and though his slacker antics quickly grow tired. what even more maddening is that and in certain scenes (such as when a very turned on uma knocks a headboard through a wall) and you sense a witty and raucous reitman opus practically screaming to get out. but seconds later and the magic is lost and gone as quick as the superheroine whose movies disappoints in almost every way. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this is one of the worst movies i have seen recently. when a man says that he wishes he had a super power of being able to orally pleasure himself i pretty much consider the movie to be in the realm of childish 14 year old male fantasies. the bed room scene was over the top and reduced an intimate moment into a farce of biological functions akin to passing gas in public. from the first every other scene was a discussion about how little sex they where getting and how long its been since they got some and when their next sexual liaison will be and and with whom it should be with. on top of that the dialogue and acting was very poor and very forced and not felt and and they filled their lack of content with sleazy sex scenes. this could have been really funny because the concept is actually interesting but it is poorly executed here. please and do not even think about taking anyone under 16 if you have to go and see it. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"if they gave me the option of negative numbers i would use it. this movie was truly god awful. i went into the theaters expecting it to be horrible and and it somehow managed to exceed my expectations. the script was weak and the acting was painful. i wanted to walk out but my friend was driving and wanted to get her moneys worth and i think we were both disappointed. the growing of the breasts when the girls got their super power and changing of the hair color was just wrong. eddie izzard just seemed wrong for the part of super villain and he came off as oddly weak and silly. jenny johnsons (uma thurman) came off as psychotic and strange and as did matt (luke wilson) friend vaughn (rainn wilson. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"at what point exactly does a good movie go bad. when does a movie go from watchable to where that and ^@_ plus #. off switch. thank goodness for dvds and like this one and that can be borrowed from the library for free. likewise and thank goodness for the fast forward switch on the dvd player. i feel sorry for those people who were duped at the box office. at one point (i have forgotten exactly when because now it all just a blur) and our hero and luke wilson starts running through traffic while i think he was looking for a cab. it was at that point when i gave up and realizing i couldn not care whether he found his ride or got run over by a garbage truck. the last time the movie was interesting was when luke wilson climbs out of the dumpster and hair dryer in hand and and first meets the heroine and uma thurman. that scene ended with the purse snatching criminal dangling helplessly from the fire escape far and far above the departing luke and uma. that was the last time the movie was funny and and when was that scene. ten minutes into the flick. every time the movie tried to become funny and it couldn not. every time the movie approached excitement and it fizzled out and heading in the opposite direction. when a musical score might have helped squeeze life out of this dullard and the sound track stayed empty and silent. the sex scenes were not needed and were beyond lame while the damage to sets and props unnecessary and childish. when uma turns into the crazy ex girlfriend and i felt like i was watching the 40 year old virgin meets pulp fiction while that when i realized that there was no turning back because i thoroughly disliked the 40 year old virgin and pulp fiction. luke wilson sidekick and rainn wilson (also seen in the dreary the last mimzy) adds nothing but insult to injury in this awful movie. rainn wilson and the king of television boredom and should stay with that equally awful medium. hey and rainn wilson. leave full length motion pictures alone. every time uma rival and anna faris and came on screen and i expected jason or freddy or some fright flick monster to jump out from behind the scenery while once you see anna faris in scary movie and that all you ever see and no matter the movie and no matter the medium. the character played by wanda sykes was just plain awful and was so out of place in this flick. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"what a waste of time and money. my hubby and i saw this movie after seeing the previews and thinking it might be funny. wrong. this movie is about 90 minutes too long. the actors are trapped in a poorly written script and can not get out. the jokes are weak and tired and and not even seeing wilson naked behind can redeem any part of this film. the special effects. aren not. i half expected to see the harness and wires holding up uma in her flying scenes. and when the effects people apparently could not master the superhero faster than a speeding bullet flying or fight scenes and they covered over everything with a swirling vortex of blurred screen which hid the awful effects quite nicely. wilson sidekick was a lame excuse for a man and wilson had no chemistry with either uma or his office co worker. the sex scenes weren not sexy and the funny scenes weren not funny. i guess i just expected too much from these actors. none of the characters were really sympathetic and so i ended up not caring a flying fig about any of them. the only memorable performances were the kids who played bedlam and g girl as teenagers at least they had some chemistry. overall and a super stinko movie i do not even recommend it as a rental it would still be a waste of money. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this movie is being shown over and over on cable lately and so. there is no excuse for these 2 attractive women to fight over either luke wilson or the equally vapid villian in this movie. the female actresses are very cute and and that the only reason to watch this movie. i suppose it is funny that luke even uglier or dorkier or stupider friend is around and but well and that is what we get. neither of the female leads would ever and ever talk to any of the males in this movie for more than 5 minutes. what we get is them sobbing and crying and fighting and so on over 2 guys that were best described in friday the 13th 4. dead @$#. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"it easy to see how this below average screenplay got by in the early sales pitch meetings at regency films (and later with fox) represent cross the superhero genre with a comedic take on fatal attraction. voilà. i do not know how on earth a talented director like ivan reitman got involved and unless the pay was just too tempting. a dateless employee at an architectural design firm in n. y. c. meets a girl on the subway and asks her out while despite the fact she distracted and unpleasant and he eventually gets her into bed only to find out later she the big apple resident superhero and g girl. this distaff superman and with powers bestowed upon her by a fallen meteorite and isn not a fantasy heroine and however. screenwriter don payne has conceived her as a needy and possessive and vindictive bitch (he telegraphs this to us from miles away and though uma thurman still plays the role for sassy laughs). this is the kind of worthless movie that can not let an insult slip by. our introduction to leading man luke wilson and talking with rainn wilson on the train and is accompanied by a sour dig at gays (it prods at us to be assured these two buddies are strictly ladies men). after being approached by g girl nemesis and who wants to zap her powers and wilson is told this will make her just an ordinary woman scorned. and isn not that better after all. thurman early performances in films like henry and june and jennifer 8 showcased an intelligent woman with angular grace and hypnotic poise while her films with quentin tarantino helped expose her sinewy hardness and intensity and but that came at a price (the actress has seemingly lost her graceful touch). the picture is exceedingly well produced and shot and with expensive seeming special effects and yet nobody bothered to find the humor in this scenario. it pushy and leering and ugly and and badly cast. bloated and frozen faced wilson can not tell any of his co workers that he dating g girl because she made him swear he would rather have a chainsaw stuck up his rectum. i wonder if writer payne actually thought that was hilarious. or and indeed and if anyone involved did. from . "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i am a huge fan of ivan reitman i loved evolution and who do not like ghostbusters. from the trailer you already know that uma character will get dumped by luke . so the build up is obviously towards the moment when she unleashes her superpowers on him. but the pay off is just not there. the shark tossing did manage to get a (slight) giggle but once again and it was all in the trailer. no one does breathless quite like uma and luke is diet owen on his good days. if not for riann wilson you would sit there with a constipated smile until your cheeks start to cramp. this is a comedy and right. it not awful it just sits there like a stale cracker behind the fridge. this could have been such a brilliant send up of superhero movies and feminism but fails on both counts. let see if jason reitman can salvage the family name. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i went to see this film yesterday and although i do not have high hopes for this film and i was still bitterly disappointed. i actually cant believe i spent 96 minutes of my life watching this film. it was that bad. the storyline was disgraceful and the acting was terrible (even though it had big names such as uma thurman in it). this film heavily relied on its special effects. but they personally had no effect on me. i honestly wished id never watched it and i strongly warn everyone against seeing this film. it is a total waste of money and you will only end up being disappointed afterwards. my advice is to save your money and go shopping and treat yourself and just do not go and see this film. you will live to regret it lol. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"needed an excuse to get out of the house while paint dried left the movie after an hour to return and watch the paint dry. i do not recall ever walking out on a movie before and but i really tried to stay. the script was not up to the cast and just kept going and going badly come on. uma thurman doing this stuff. fairly lame special effects. these were older characters and actors doing superficial horny 20 something lives just sort of annoying and wrong feeling. this review is base only on the first hour it might have gotten better. i just had to get home and see if the paint dried a darker shade than when it went on. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"well i must say this is probably the worst film i have seen this year. the jokes were extremely crude (wasn not expecting it from as pg movie)(rated pg in canada) and they weren not funny. with this great cast i at least expected some good acting but i do not even get that. i am a huge rainn wilson fan and this is the first time i was extremely disappointed by his performance. neither luke wilosn or uma thurman characters are the least bit likable and i really could have cared less what happened to either of them. i do not expect this at all as in the past i have really liked other movies by this director (six days and seven nights for example) this movie was not worth the $10 it cost me and i strongly encourage you not to see this movie. i guarantee that you will be like me begging for this movie to be over. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i have to admit when i went to see this movie and i do not really have high expectations. but even with my low expectations i was totally and utterly disappointed. basically luke wilson is a hot shot who tends to go out with slightly crazy girlfriends. there slight mention of a girl stalking him but that pretty much it for that character. which i do not quite mind cause it would probably be just as underdeveloped as the rest of the movie. so while on a subway rainn wilson (who i actually liked before this movie) convinces him to talk to a hot girl and uma thurman. this is strange to say the least and as everyone can clearly see that uma thurman does not belong under the category of hot. rainn wilson performance is also far from hot. normally i am all for his acting and but even he couldn not salvage this movie. his character was jumpy and unrealistic and rather annoying. you could never tell if the writers were trying to make him the comical token closet gay guy and or just desperate. it was almost painful. but anyway and someone steals her purse as she goes to leave the subway and and luke wilson being the charming savior he is runs after the robber. now we all know that uma thurman is the superhero and or g girl as they like to call her in the movie. it still baffles me as to what the g stands for and but we will leave that for the message boards to debate. the sex scenes i assume are supposed to be funny and but i find myself asking who has sex like that. they nearly throw the bed through the wall because of uma thurman passion let say. it makes my head hurt and but not in the i am thinking really hard to understand this way. when uma insults anna faris and calling her a whore i had no debate with that. apart from the fact that she can not choose movies properly and she can not act and relies souly on the fact that she blonde and typical. overall i would have walked out of the theater if i hadn not paid $8. 75 to see it. the characters are typical and have absolutely no chemistry and especially uma thurman. someone should let her know that just because you move your head a lot doesn not mean youre acting. also and the script and storyline could have used either a lot of work or a match and some lighter fluid. i actually started to feel embarrassed for the actors and and their dying careers. overall and if you value your money and and your self respect do not waste your time with this pathetic attempt at a movie. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"first off and i would like to point out that the reason why i gave this movie 1 star out of 10 is because there is no option to give it no stars. it really is that bad. i was never eager to see this film after i saw the ads for it and i ended up seeing it only by chance because some friends of mine had tickets and had one spare so i tagged along. before seeing it i had a fairly good idea that it do not be genius the premise seemed far too silly and stupid for anything good to come out of it and but at the back of my mind i was thinking but there must be something good about it for uma thurman and luke wilson do to the film. not that i think either of them are particularly terrific but they are big named stars who would normally only do films that would enhance their reputations. however and about 10 20 minutes into the feature i realized that the movie was probably worse than i had at first anticipated. i was shocked at how terrible the script was. it really gave the actors nothing to work with and so much so that they really looked like they do not know what they were doing (especially luke wilson). the story was completely predictable if you have seen the ad then you have pretty much seen the movie. and there was nothing original about it it pretty much borrows from every uper hero story that has ever been which would be acceptable had the film been set up as a satire of that genre and but alas it wasn not. the direction seemed to be of realism. i got the feeling that the director wanted the film to feel completely realistic and not satire at all and and yet there were some moments in the film that were so unbelievably unrealistic that it would have worked if it were a satire. at one moment in the movie two of the characters seem to die and one of the surviving characters has a line like oh well and she dead. time to move on and he says it in such a droll voice that it completely do not make any sense. i found myself checking my watch after about 40 minutes to see how much longer i would have to sit through it. and then it struck me. i began to think i wonder if the studio have made this picture as a test to see if they can make the worst possible movie ever made and and still pull a large audience. i couldn not think of any other reason why this film would be made. for movies to be made these days and the script goes to a massive screening process and very very few scripts actually make it to the production stage. i can not comprehend how this one got past the first draft stage. by the end and and exceedingly and dumb founding ly stupid climax and i was laughing heartily just not at what the film makers wanted me to laugh at and but instead at how ridiculous and stupid the movie was. thank god i do not have to pay money to see it. because that would have really annoyed me. oh and and could i just add and that of the two wilson brothers and i have always preferred luke because i think he is a better and more versatile actor. but if he wants to step even further into owen shadow then this is exactly the way to do it. i doubt that he will get many more job offers after this crappy waste of 2 hours. and remember and it only got a generous negative because i couldn not select 0. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"oh my god. oh my god and i cant get over this movie. it was god awful. horrible and terrible. don not even waste your money to buy it in the 99 cent bin. no and avoid it at all costs i am warning you. it was the worst movie i have ever seen. in my life. in my life. first of all and g girl. are you kidding me. get real that sounds like some kind of new barbie doll. super women. are you kidding me. it was so fake fake fake fake. the people of the town do not even seem to care that there was a flying blonde just zooming her way around the town saving a fire. ohh big. jesus and was it just me or did this movie seem offensive. i guess what you need to be a super hero is a couple of double d and blonde flowing hair and no glasses and a leather skin tight suit. if it was trying to be romantic . than. god and i do not know. it was horrid and if love means taking some one to an art show and than having sex in a bed and in the air. than they totally had love. it was pathetic and everything went too fast. first that guy was single and than he was dating g girl. than they broke up than he dated that hannah girl. and. it just goes on. i have to say this movie made me wonder. how the hell did they get this in theaters. avoid this movie at all costs. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i rented this movie tonight because it looked like a fun movie. i figured that you really couldn not go wrong with a concept of ex girlfriend with super powers. . but the movie was confused and pointless . it seemed that at every turn the writer kept throwing junk in. also the writer kept throwing in way too much toilet humor and sexual situations that only a teenage boy could love. it seems that it could have been so simple to draw a story out of fatal attraction super hero . but i guess not. this is not a fun romantic comedy it was advertised to be. you could not take a child to see it and you would be embarrassed seeing it a date. if the writer could have done a basic story around the high concept and cleaned it up the movie might have a fighting chance. a serious waste of time. b. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i had two reasons for watching this swashbuckler when it aired on danish television yesterday. first of all and i wanted to see gina lollobrigida and here i wasn not disappointed. she looked gorgeous. second of all and through reading about the film i had gotten the impression that it featured absurd humor not unlike that which can be found in philippe de broca films. on this account and however and i was sadly disappointed. i found the jokes predictable (apart from a few witty remarks on the topic of war) and the characters completely one dimensional. also and the action scenes were done in a strangely mechanical and uninspired fashion and with no sense of drama at all. i kept watching until the end and but i got bored very quickly and just sat there and waiting for the scenes with lollobrigida. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"after too many bad memories and i took to skipping this episode each time it showed up in the season 2 sequence. i recently watched it again just to remind me why. i have always considered this the worst st representtng episode (with the exception of shades of gray and which barely counts as an episode at all). i keep listening to the clunky dialogue and thinking of the script red penciled by the author writing 101 teacher represent show and dont tell. from deanna troi pronouncement and and everyone else constant elbowing reminders about what a charming and dangerous rogue okona is and to guinan explanation about how funny her droid joke is (it isn not) and to the who cares resolution to the conflict and there isn not a plot point that isn not highlighted and triple underlined for our edification and and there ain not a believable moment in any of it. unfortunately and bill campbell and a charming actor in other circumstances and is too puppy dog huggable to be the center of the machinations of the plot. on the other hand and it could be that no one short of john barrowman (jack harkness from doctor who) could pull of this underwritten placeholder of a role. (zero points and by the way and to the data subplot. while i think joe piscopo stopped being funny decades ago and he and brent spiner had nothing to work with here. although the jerry lewis bit was funny in a stupid way. )on a good day and you may be able to think of this as a charming little homage to a lesser original series episode. me and i would rather skip ahead to time squared or q who. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i went to go see this at the esquire theatre in cincy and oh and and i hate my life now. christopher reeves would have been a more believable boxer. as a film it was painful and but seeing bret carr in person was to see desperation at its pinnacle. my favorite part of the movie was seeing bc slammed in the face with what appeared to be a c battery. the jury is still out on this. it was from a dildo and it was in slow mo. yep. shoot the left side of the face only. people become famous by demanding things. bret carr b. carr donned a chicken suit for a bit of reverse psychology and roaming the streets of clifton bashing his own film. he should. this is correct to bash the film. my soul felt chafed after this movie. bret carr is not charismatic enough to be the leader of a cult and or smart enough for that matter. that is the feeling you get from the what the bleepesque trickle of brainwashed and impressionable neo yuppies that came to see this bret carr piece of work. it an emotionally draining experience just thinking about writing about this film and so goodbye. anonymous. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the gospel of lou was a major disappointment for me. i had received an e mail from the theater showing it that it was a great and inspirational movie. it was neither great nor inspirational. the cinematography was pretty iffy with the whole movie. a lot the scenes were flash backs that were done in a way that couldn not tell at times what they were about. the voices were often distorted for no reason. also many of the people in the movie were far fetched. the relationship he has with his ex and son is never made clear. also the whole movie has most him one way and and then all of a sudden bam and he is cured and inspiring people. the whole movie seems to show that boxing is one of the things that is bad in his life and making him live his life the way that he is living it and but when he changes and he doesn not leave boxing and he teaches others how to box. thumbs down. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"straight to the point represent the groove tube is one of the most unfunny and unclever and downright horrible films ever made. this comedy is so void of anything remotely resembling a trace of wit that it almost incomprehensible that it was even made. i said almost because there are fans of everything after all. this film isn not even good bad or enjoyable bad. to put this movie on the same level of entertainment as plan 9 or robot monster would be a crime to those films. films like that you can actually watch and get a kick out of. but this film is so bad and so poorly made and acted and scripted and so incredible stale and that there just isn not even a trace of camp or schlock to be found. even though this was made before saturday night live premiered and comparisons were probably inevitable. i am not a big fan of snl and but this film is worse than the worst snl skit you can find. and man and that bad. just to keep the men viewers from leaving and shapiro throws in a pair of breasts every so often and but poorly filmed breasts from 1974 aren not going to excite anyone these days. truthfully this film is so poorly made and is such a sleep inducing excursion and i doubt if they excited anyone in 1974 either. a man named ken shapiro made this film. i swear to god and any ten year old with a video camera could have made something funnier and more clever. it just downright unreal this is truly an unbelievable film. the jokes and gags are so infantile that even little boys who like to sneak dad porno mags out at night would not laugh. i will give this film one thing the very last sequence and the dancing man sequence and where a guy (shapiro) on the streets of nyc dances to a tune and is easily the best thing in this horrible film. not that the dancing man sequence is that great either it definitely has its moments of not being clever as shapiro desperately tries to fill in the time for the entire song but it actually was somewhat watchable. the part of this sequence where the cop starts dancing with the man is the one sole trace of cleverness in the entire film. no wonder shapiro put this sequence last again and while not so great itself and it easily beats anything else in this film. otherwise and this film is such a complete piece of crap and it unfathomable as to how an actual human being can be so downright cleverless. the name of this film should have been ken shapiro craparama. it amazing that this was made and but many truly talented filmmakers can not get in. however and i will say that i bet the geniuses at nyu would love this movie. total garbage. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"after two long and long opening skits and one of which my brother saw the conclusion coming of and the other totally joke free and we start the fast forward fest that it groove tube proper. naturally and uber stupid frat boys who still mainline jackass or tom green will find the idea of fecal matter coming out of the some tube and sex olympics(i really do not need to give you details and do i) and and a clown who basically does the not very endearing clown bit i think i have seen approxiately ninety times now will eat this up like dung beetles represent well and more power to you. i just want to express that and despite what you have heard and this movie was in no way a model for the many infinitely funnier movies like kentucky fried movie or what not. the skit movie had already been done in and now for something completely different and everything you always wanted to know about sex and and so on. and done way better. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"rented it last night. the opening(2001) ran waaaaaaaaay too long. the hitchiker scene served no purpose. some skits were just retarded. i knew beforehand and chevy chase was on for less than 2 minutes. no problem. here are the best parts representkoko and uranus and babs commercial and curtis mayfield songtotal represent 7 minutes of good material out of a 75 minute movieeverything else was either unfunny or stupid as hell. let me give you some advice represent if you want a crude movie spoofing tv and movies and rent kentucky fried movie. if you want a less crude movie spoofing tv and movies and rent amazon women on the moon or uhfotherwise and do not bother renting this movie. you will save 2 3 dollars. imho represent ken shapiro best movie is still modern problems. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"oh dear. while chevy chase and the gang at snl set new highs with the sketch show format this fails miserably at every level. fortunately chevy is barely in this at all and can not be blamed for this utter tripe. it seriously is very and very bad. while meant to be a political comment on usa at the time of it release (1974) it still remains neither funny or acutely observed. the sketches are all way too long and any satirical impact they may have had is lost as theyre all drawn out to the point of complete boredom. this is credited as chevy movie debut and i am pleased to say that everything he did after this bettered it. avoid even if curious. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"hearing about how hilarious this movie is and i finally rent it atthe video store and for 75 minutes maybe i laughed 3 times. thismovie and a collection of skits that make fun of television is anincoherrent mess. the jokes fall flat and the humor deals withissues from the 1970 that just aren not relevant anymore and andthe jokes go on way too long (almost like the new snl skits thepast few years). yeah and chevy chase is in this but maybe of allabout 1 or 2 minutes. i liked the fact that this was veryraunchy and had nudity galore but couldn not it be funny. doyourself a favor and rent kentucky fried movie which is a farsuperior film made in the. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i read all the reviews here after watching this piece of cinematic garbage and it took me at least 2 pages to find out that somebody else do not think that this appallingly unfunny montage wasnt the acme of humour in the 70s or indeed in any other era. if this isn not the least funny set of sketch comedy i have ever seen it will do till it comes along. half of the skits had already been done (and infinitely better) by acts such as monty python and woody allen. if i was to say that a nice piece of animation that lasts about 90 seconds is the highlight of this film it would still not get close to summing up just how mindless and drivel ridden this waste of 75 minutes is. seminal comedy. only in the world where seminal really does mean semen. scatological humour. only in a world where scat is actually feces. precursor jokes. only if by that we mean that this is a handbook of how not to do comedy. tits and bums and the odd beaver. nice. if you are a pubescent boy with at least one hand free and haven not found out that playboy exists. give it a break because it was the early 70s. no way. there had been sketch comedy going back at least ten years prior. the only way i could even forgive this film even being made is if it was at gunpoint. retro. hardly. sketches about clowns subtly perverting children may be cutting edge in some circles (and it could actually have been funny) but it just comes off as really quite sad. what kept me going throughout the entire 75 minutes. sheer belief that they may have saved a genuinely funny skit for the end. i gave the film a 1 because there was no lower score. and i can only recommend it to insomniacs or coma patients. or perhaps people suffering from lockjaw. their jaws would finally drop open in disbelief. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the only film i have ever walked out on. amazing and since i paid for myself and my date and i am really cheap. but my brain couldn not stand any more of the dreck being piled on and particularly since i could have written funnier material while tie up and gagged. from the beginning to the end this film offends. worse and it ain not funny. it wasn not funny then and and it sure ain not funny now. but even worse and is that this film represents the beginning of the end of really smart and sophisticated comedy. it juvenile and really sophomoric script and ideas began an era (which continues to this day) where cheap laughs and and sexual innuendo dominate the culture of comedy in film. sexual olympics. what high school kid hasn not thought of that. the beginning of the end. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"a repressed housewife (an annoying lisping angie dickinson and whose body double treats or horrifies us with an extreme closeup of her delicates) is sexually bored by her husband and decides to branch out. this directly results in a string of murders that soon involve a high class prostitute (nancy allen and clearly i am in the wrong business if she can bring home $600 a night) and her psychologist (michael caine). if you are going to watch de palma rip off (excuse me and pay homage to) hitchcock and watch sisters instead of this. dressed to kill and while loaded with style and technical skill and is one of the tackiest thrillers i have had the displeasure of sitting through. the plot is absurd and tired. it does feature some surprisingly effective jump scares and nasty graphic murder sequences that should please any horror fan and as long as they can get past the silly story line and that must have been dated even in 1980. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"a call girl witnesses a murder and becomes the killer next target. director brian de palma is really on a pretentious roll here represent his camera swoops around corners in a museum (after lingering a long time over a painting of an ape) and divvies up into split screen for arty purposes and practically gives away his plot with a sequence (again in split screen) where two characters are both watching a tv program about transsexuals and and stages his (first) finale during a thunderous rainstorm. dressed to kill is exhausting and primarily because it asks us to swallow so much and gives back nothing substantial. much of the acting (with the exception of young keith gordon) is mediocre and the (second) finale is a rip off of de palma own carrie not to mention psycho. the explanation of the dirty deeds plays like a spoof of hitchcock and not an homage. stylish in a steely cold way and the end results are distinctly half baked. from . "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i can find very little thats good to say about this film. i am sure the idea and script looked good on paper but the filmography and acting i am afraid is not the standards i would expect from some very talented people. i would doubt that this features highly in their cv filmography. michael caine appeared wooden at times in his role as the doctor and and at no time no did i actually believe in his character. the plot was unbelievable especially with regard to the victims son. some of the scenes were very reminiscent of other films and that at times i wondered if it was actually a spoof thriller. the lighting at times was dark and this added to the feeling of watching a low budget movie with some big named stars and wondering why i bothered to watch it at all. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"sorry to go against the flow but i thought this film was unrealistic and boring and way too long. i got tired of watching gena rowlands long arduous battle with herself and the crisis she was experiencing. maybe the film has some cinematic value or represented an important step for the director but for pure entertainment value i wish i would have skipped it. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"anyone who loved the two classic novels by edward ormondroyd will be disappointed in this film. all the magic and romance have been modernized out of his original story of a girl who does a good deed for a mysterious old lady and and given three in return. three what. not three wishes and but three rides into the 1800 on a rickety elevator. the first novel is time at the top. the second is all in good time. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"there is absolutely no reason to waste your time with this film. the original said it all and still holds up. either read the book or do some research about the story and and you will realize this remake is ludicrous. eric roberts as perry smith. his sister could have done a better job. having been to holcomb and edgerton and ks where the story takes place and the sets and locations looked nothing like kansas. the original is riveting and from the location filming to the use of the actual participants and weapons and victims belongings. unforgettable performances by scott wilson and robert blake. soundtrack by quincy jones and cinematography by conrad hall. the original is available on dvd in widescreen now. let this turkey die a quick death. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"in cold blood was one of several 60s films that created a new vision of violence in the hollywood film industry. capote coined the phrase nonfiction novel to describe the book on which this film is based and and the spirit of that form was carried over into the film script and which he co wrote. despite the fact that we were well into the era of color film and richard brooks elected to present this film in black and white to underscore both the starkness of the landscape and the bleakness of the story. this is the first problem with the tv remake color changes the tone of the story. in addition and the confinement of shooting a film for tv makes reduces the options of how the shots are framed and focused. as a result and we lose the dramatic clash which makes the second part of the original film (police interviews and trial and imprisonment and and execution) so claustrophobic. on the small screen and it just another version of law and order spin offs. hollywood search for scripts continuously takes it back to movies that were successful in another age. usually and that a mistake and and this is no exception. all of the actors are competent. the script is ok. the directing doesn not get in the way. it just that the movie doesn not work as well as the original precision instrument. it doesn not hook the viewer into the ambivalence toward smith and hickock that the original film provokes. at the end of the tv version and we are left with the feeling represent ho hum and who cares. see the original first and on as large a screen as you can and then watch the tv version simply to understand why the first one was such an important film in 1967. wouldn not hurt to also go on line and read a bit about capote and the original book. it will help you to understand the extraordinary effort he put into the material and and also some of the controversy surrounding both the book and the movie. i actually only gave this a 4 because i save the bottom 3 rankings for true bombs the kind that enrage you about having been sucked into spending an. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"why do they insist on making re makes of great movies like high noon from here to eternity and this one. why do they think that color is more engrossing to a viewer than stark black and white. why did robert insist on wearing that dopey and broad billed and baseball cap. it made him look like jim varney. why would anyone spend four hours suffering through this. watch the original. then you would not have to ask yourself why. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this waste of time is a completely unnecessary remake of a great film. nothing new or original is added other than perry backflashes and which are of marginal interest. it lacks the documentary feel of the first film and the raw urgency that made it so effective. also painfully missing is the sharp quincy jones soundtrack that added to much to the original film. i can not understand any high ratings for this at all. it quite bad. why does anyone waste time or money making crap like this and why did i waste time watching it. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"as there was nothing wrong with the acting etc etc the writing for the episode is way off for this series phantom or no phantom. it was a waste of 42 minutes to see the martian man hunter. you have to know that in the middle of the 6th series no matter what happens it is not true what is going on and really brings nothing to the story of the series except meeting the martian man hunter again and to waste 30 minutes to do this is by far another case of bad writing in the soap opera of smallville. i really like the show but mainly due to the cast and the 3 or so good episodes each year but who ever is on the writing cast that works or used to work on the soaps needs to be canned. this was by far one of the worst. with in the first 4 minutes you know that what is going on is bogus and anything happening is a dream based on clark infliction obviously caused by a phantom zone character and when he wakes up he will win and blah blah blah so the writers do not have to really create a villain that will progress the story line any this week. may as well have added another villain to die in the last episode the martian man hunter was in and made him fly away again or come back and tell clark he forgot his sunglasses to get a closer look like in this episode and call it a day. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"not that a film by ulli lommel filled me with hope and but i must confess that zodiac killer managed to sink beneath my lowest expectations. there is a recent trend among young filmmakers of utilizing digital video for their early projects and which is all well and good for giving these kids the opportunity to create work without spending all their money on expensive film stock. but many of these young filmmakers have also wised up to the notion of filtering the finished movie so that it appears qualitatively more like celluloid. the effect is never perfect and but it helps. unfiltered digital video really only works for the mockumentary style and because it never looks like anything other than video. therein lies the primary trouble with zodiac killer. watching the movie feels like watching a daytime soap opera about a murderer. it does not feel like watching a movie. and what even more unforgivable is that the lommel is not a young filmmaker. he ought to know better. he ought to know that it virtually impossible to generate horror (or even suspense. ) on video. for the love of god this guy has been directing since the sixties. he may be the only director who has failed to improve over a forty year career in the business. and lucky us and he wrote the script too. so you can expect convoluted actions that mean nothing and unjustified behavior and and at least one truly pretentious plot element that will leave you utterly unsatisfied. please and please miss this film. you will thank me later. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"at least i was able to enjoy mocking the movie which is surprising since i was barely able to sit through it. in all honesty and my guess is the cover to the dvd case cost more than the entire movie. and saying that it is the same director as the boogeyman and when a new version of that just came out. nice touch guys and it was misleading enough to rope me in. the only thing that frustrated me more than the insufferable acting of the copycat was his haircut. usually you only see that kind of hair on a ten year old boy and the character acted like it. the film looks like it was shot by a d plus grad student of some film school excited to use every film technique he ever learned while attending classes. sometimes and less is more buddy. through out i would get lost by random plot twists that led nowhere or were unexplained. all this makes a bad movie but when the ending doesn not even come close to pulling it together and well and that makes it an exceptionally bad movie. without a doubt this is the worst movie i have ever seen and and that includes my friends french final video for senior year of high school and but hey maybe i am a bit biased and i mean i did get to play an extra. p. s. i do not even think this deserves a star. not even a half. none for you. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"1 is being pretty generous here. i really enjoyed boogeyman and even though it is not really the boogeyman promoted on the dvd cover and we all know it. it creeped me out. but this film and it is something else. for being directed by a guy who has been around a long time and directed a lot of movies and it looks like it was shot on a vhs camcorder by a 10 year old. the story and acting are atrocious. david hess and you have let me down too. after playing one of the most menacing villains in film history and you have resorted to this. the story and acting may have been able to be forgiven however and if anyone had taken the time to make the video look somewhat professional. there are a lot of shot on video films out there that do not look like it and or at least aren not so obvious that it detracts your attention from the film. i can not say it is the worst movie ever and because i couldn not make it through the entire film and but it is certainly close. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"except people apparently buy into this garbage. as shows like moral orel have shown and even if you tried to make the most outrageous and over the top parody of evangelism you could possibly think of and it do not come close to the hilarity of this show. it hard to tell what even going on when youre watching it. is it a news show. a talk show. who knows. they start out by reporting on various international news stories and but at seemingly random points and the news is interrupted by this odd and troll like little man with a forehead bigger than his entire face and mumbling and laughing and generally being creepy. pat robertson doesn not even seem like such a bad guy at first glance. he just seems like a senile and yet harmless old coot stuck in his archaic beliefs (like most of our grandparents). but this is a man who has called for an assassination and who has befriended and offered aid to not one and but two murderous dictators and who has illegally used donation money to run diamond mines and who has supported forced abortions in china and and who regularly implies that caucasians (straight american male caucasians in particular) are superior to all other races. still and this would all be funny and except that he apparently has a large enough fan base to keep his little show on the air 40 years later (either that and or enough money to bribe some tv executives who do not give a damn what they show). the idiocy of the show becomes alarming when you realize that some people and somewhere and must be watching it and hanging onto every word. even when robertson has repeatedly shown how corrupt he is and people still listen to him. i do not know if it funny or scary. i guess a healthy mixture of both. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"hear are some of the interesting things our combat hero faith healer pat and his son gordon (t. v. ministry seems like a family business. ) and terry meeuwsen (won miss america in 1973 by wearing a swimsuit and showing her legs. oh my goodness gracious. ) say when our poor viewers are sick and need help. 1. someone with an abscessed right toothhas just now been healed. 2. someone with twisted intestines has been healed. 3. then terry said there was a person with a strange condition and (you mean god doesn not know. ) a burning in the legs and who has just been healed. 4. then gordon said there a man(that narrows it down. ) with swelling of the sinuses in his right cheek and with much pain behind the right eye and but he is now healed. 5. someone with a problematic right hip and limited mobility from a stroke and is now able to walk. 6. terry said she saw someone with severe with severe stiffness in the neck bone and but do not know the exact ailment(god doesn not know. ) that the person is now healed. 7. someone paralyzed on the right side and particularly(not exactly. ) the right side of the face has now been healed. 8. a man (that narrows the world population down again. ) with a plate in his skull is having a continual problems and and the doctors just do not know what to do. terry said she saw the bone reforming around the plate(the funny bone. )and the mans pain is gone and he was now healed. hers how our war hero pat helps our sick and poor people. 1. there a woman in kansas city (missouri or kansas but that narrows it way down. ) who has a sinus the lord is drying it up now thank you jesus. 2. there a man with a financial need i think a hundred thousand dollars. (i think their god needs to go to school or something. ) that need is being met met right now and and within three days and the money will be supplied through the miraculous power of the holy spirit. thank you jesus. 3. there is a woman in cincinnati with cancer of the lymph nodes. i do not know whether its been diagnosed yet (ask your vengeful god pat. ) but you haven not been feeling well and and the lord is dissolving that cancer right now. (what. )4. there is a lady in saskatoon(i assume canada. ) in a wheelchair curvature of the spine and the lord is straightening that our right now and and you can stand up and walk. (if you have this condition ignore pat. ) just claim it and it yours. thank you jesus. amen and amen. when pat robertson had prostate cancer did he go to peter popoff. and oral roberts. and benny hinn. and terry or gordon. no. on february 17 and 2003 pat went to a real doctor to have his surgery. (you mean he doesn not trust his faith healing friends and terry or his own son gordon. )when lt pat robertson was in the marines during the korean war he was a liquor officer and responsible for keeping the officers supplied with liquor. he was known to drink himself and frequent prostitutes and he feared he contacted gonorrhea. (should of asked a faith healer for help. )the reason pat got out of combat was because his daddy absalom willis robertson (d va from 1946 66) was chairman of the senate military appropriations committee. terrorist attacks and september 11 and 2001 we have imagined ourselves invulnerable and been consumed by the pursuit of health and wealth and (pats worth between 150 and 200 million dollars folks. ) material pleasures(a mansion in virginia beach virginia with a helicopter launching pad. ) and sexuality(he had had sex with his future wife before marriage which they had a son. ). it (terrorism) is happening because god is lifting his protection from us. ( statement released on september 13 and 2001. ) pat robertson reminds me of burgermeister on santa claus is coming to town and his evil vengeful god reminds me of venger on dungeons and dragons. spoiled brat gordon does what daddy pat tells him to and terry is a paid yes woman who neither have minds of their own. this will really grab you. the september 5 2005 edition of the 700 club included a report christian broadcasting network correspondent gary lane from outside new orleans convention center which has housed mostly impoverished black disaster victims throughout the weekend. a number of possessions left behind suggest the mindset of some of the evacueeslane saidthey include this voodoo cup with the sayingmay the curse be with you. a shot of a plastic cup souvenir cup from one of the new orleans countless trinket shops appeared on the screen. also music cds with the title guerrilla warfare and thugs r us. lane stated and pointing out a pile or rap cds strewn on the ground. ( his bigoted daddy absalom has taught pat racism well. )if any of you good people ever think of donating to these sexist bigoted people please in the name of god do not. sponsor a softball or basketball team and give to a food shelf and be a big brother or sister to a child but please do not give to these people because they have been around for over 40 years and solved nothing. if you still do not believe me type pat robertson overheard during commercial break on the web and hit search and once you hear what hes really like and i know for sure that you will not give one cent to these conning liars. and by the way terry once had a divorce and pat has talked against divorce many times on his shows. i like to say hello to the folks in dover pennsylvania and orlando florida and and to the nice folks who got hit by hurricane katrina and i hope its a pleasant day. has operation blessing been helpful to new orleans. (i doubt it. ) please let our readers know. i do. by the way folks if your sick and go to a real doctor and lets everybody laugh at these liars and someday burgermeister pat and gordon and terry can go someplace else and take their angry god venger with them. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"does anyone think that this show actually helps some people and or does it only anger the people who watch it. when i am flipping through the channels and come upon this show i half to watch out of morbid curiosity. i understand that pat roberson is not all together. what i do not know is if his viewers are like him or if they are good people and think they will have a better life if they listening to what he has to say. pat roberson is of little consequence. he is an old man who thinks in an old way. fear of damnation no longer has the same affects as it once did (thank god). now if someone will please answer my question i will be dodging lightning bolts for the rest of eternity. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the 700 club has to be the single most bigoted television program in the history of television itself. to make matters worse and it been on the air since 1966 and implying that thousands if not millions of people are buying into its hate and lies. headed by pat robertson and the unscrupulous and megalomaniacal founder and leader of the christian coalition and the 700 club takes us from misinformation to misunderstanding and broadcasting news as they like to think of it and trying to convince its audience that all of the world problems are to blame on homosexuals and wiccans and new age spiritualists and muslims and jews and hindus and non fundamentalist christians and democrats and single mothers and foreigners and feminists and evolutionists and environmentalists and nasa scientists and and anyone else who doesn not share their fanatical religious views. it actually the best fake news since the daily show or the weekend update segment of saturday night live and or since fox news and for that matter. of course and pat always the one who makes each of the decisions and saying whatever comes to mind and not giving a damn who it offends or hurts. in the meantime and he continues his part in the struggle to transform the united states into a militarized police state by having the religious wrong stick their noses in everything they can and asking for one donation after another no less than a measly $100 to become a member and by the way to fund pat african diamond mines and buy oil from companies reprimanded by the government in the past for their abuse of the environment. no and never mind that pat was good friends with the genocidal dictators of zaire and zimbabwe in order to help him acquire such wealth while it all for the greater glory of god and do not you know. and of course and the hosts of the 700 club are always willing to read letters written by viewers as they like to put it and coincidentally each typed in the same format and all on the same color of paper by viewers supposedly healed of various afflictions by the said hosts (they claim to have words of knowledge come to them) but who never appear on the program to say what happened to them. honestly and how can anyone take a show seriously when theyre using a poor applause recording. it should make people wonder why there no studio audience. the sad thing that pat cronies and viewers do not realize or just do not want to realize are the horrible things he done and said. this is a guy who agreed with jerry falwell that the september 11 and 2001 terrorist attacks on the united states were the result of god punishing us for our acceptance of homosexuality and feminism. ironic and considering that pat has twice publicly referred to the implementation of a nuclear weapon in the state department while i have little doubt it was his wealth that kept him from getting arrested for such statements. his rants against homosexuals and single mothers and and any number of sexual practices he considers sinful are interesting and considering he was known to frequent a number of brothels during the korean war. as the bible says and be fruitful and multiply and so congratulations and pat thanks to you and there probably a number of children born to single korean mothers. then and of course and there was the time he called for the assassination of venezuelan president hugo chavez (not that he a saint and but still). oh and yes and and let not soon forget the time this crusader for human life supported forced abortions in china. very christian of him and do not you say. and just in case pat has forgotten and i haven not forgotten his little speech that evangelical christians today are being treated exactly as the jews were in nazi germany. honestly and to compare his plight to the horrors of the holocaust is almost unforgivable. speaking of which and need i mention about how he blatantly lied that homosexuality ran rampant among the nazi party in a pathetic attempt to discredit homosexuals. of course and history shows us that the nazis acted toward homosexuals the same way they acted toward jews. pat robertson is one of the biggest liars in history. if he was pinocchio and his nose would encircle the earth. unfortunately and more and more people continue to believe him every day. this is your wake up call and people while the 700 club is one of the most if not the single most vile program in television history. it evil masquerading as good while it a wolf in sheep clothing. it bigoted filth that tries to look clean and pretty and and loving. it living proof that hateful and dangerous religious views aren not confined to certain groups in the middle east. even those who are not of the christian faith know that it goes against everything jesus taught and and if jesus was to appear to this club and he do not be emulating them. instead and he would be chastising them as he did the pharisees of his time and overturning the money bins of their telethons as he did in front of the synagogue in his time. all i can say is thank god that pat had no chance of becoming president while if he did and he would be the harbinger of armageddon and not on the side of the good guys. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"before i start. let me say that i fully believe in god. i believe in heaven and in hell. kay now that thats out of the way and i just wanna say that what in the world do these morons that call themselves hosts think they are doing. the last time i checked a host doesn not discriminate and spew hatred filled rants on tv and or try to shove their own beliefs down every unfortunate soul that ventures onto the channel. all of these that crazy and idiotic and conservitive and bible thumping and fred phelps lover pat robertson does daily. i am all for free speech and but since when does that cover a guy who pretty much says that if you venture off his ideal way of life you are right away sent to hell. this is just a perfect example of why religion is the cause of soooo many problems. one day in my class room we had a substitute teacher in so we decided to watch some tv since the teach do not give us any work. and we (against many of us will) watched 700 club and and of course that jerk pat was on ranting and raving about the bible and and he said simon along the lines of god says homosexuality is a sin and i actually heard a kid go hmm i guess he right. wtf. seriously and if the host is trying to make people think that someone else sexual orientation is a huge sin and then they seriously need to take that host and duct tape them and and throw them off of a cruise liner in the middle of the arctic. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"here are some examples of pat robertsons dubiously claimed relatively good track record on predictionsin his widely reported comments from the january 2 edition of the christian broadcasting network the 700 club and during which he predicted that there would be very serious terrorist attacks and mass killing in the united states in the second half of 2007 and host pat robertson boasted that he had a relatively good track record on earlier predictions. but a review of robertson 2006 new year predictions undermines that claim. he predicted and for example and that represent president bush is going to strengthen. wrong the fall elections will be inconclusive and but the outcome of the war and the success of the economy will leave the republicans in charge. wrong the war in iraq is going to come to a successful conclusion. we will begin withdrawing troops before the end of this year. way wrongfurther and as a january 3 associated press article reported and robertson has a history of making dubious predictions representthe broadcaster predicted in january 2004 that president bush would easily win re election. bush won 51% of the vote that fall and beating democratic sen. john kerry of massachusetts. wrongin 2005 and robertson predicted that bush would have victory after victory in his second term. he said social security reform proposals would be approved wrong yet again. he claims to speak directly with god. if so god has quite the sense of humor watching pat make a fool of himself again and again. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i turn on 700 club once in awhile and only agree with some of the statements made i am one of many believers that is considered liberal by most christians and conservative by most non christians. i vote my mind and and its usually not rep. or dem. i do not believe 700 club tells people what to believe and but that it represents many older christians that grew up in very conservative backgrounds. i think many folks misunderstand what is said on 700 club. it bums me out to hear name calling either direction. i think 700 club folks really do love jesus but are so busy trying to get people to vote conservatively that they have forgotten to show love to certain people and promote peace like jesus did. please do not judge jesus based on ignorant individuals that believe on him and let also not be as ignorant with our comments about them. why are people so mean to each other. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"back of beyond takes place at a dive diner or gas station in the middle of the australian desert run by tom mcgregor (paul mercurio) and a shy guy who suddenly finds himself in a spot of trouble when some visitors unexpectedly arrive. we get what and at first and confusingly seems like a flashback in which he and his sister (though their relationship to each other is better understood later in the film) are speeding through the desert on his motorcycle. afterwards and he appears as a terribly quiet and and sometimes and moody character in the presence of the arrivals. we know one thing is for sure and that is mcgregor sort of spiritual sense and his foresight of danger and such his clairvoyance only slightly relevant to the story and the bulk of which concerns three diamond thieves who car breaks down and who rely on tom to help them out of spot without getting in their way. of course and tom falls for one of the thieves and a young woman named charlie and and suddenly and it pits all three already mistrusting allies against each other. but not in a way that really results in anything of much mystery or action. in fact and the whole movie all the while seems to want to build up to something significant and but really fails to do so. even the ending and of which plays out like a trite campfire tale (and one that really reveals a lot of narrative flaws) and is almost just as ridiculous. it may be worth trying if you do not mind the terribly slow pacing and but are in the mood and at least and for something a little different than the usual. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"pointless boring film with charismatic mercurio completely wasted. released for a minute on a thursday in maybe one local cinema and avoided by the entire population of sydney except me and four others back of beyond is a project seemingly created by a producer looking for a fee. local actors like john polson and terry serio deserve better (well polson has morphed into a director of lame thrillers like swimfan and hide and seek) and terry serio seems never to get a guernsey apart from thug roles. but paul mercurio should have become one of australia greatest exports on screen. roles like this are major disappointments and films like this are just a waste of talent and time. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"poor paul mercurio. after landing the role of scott hastings in strictly ballroom and the best film in history and he managed to find himself doing a lot of rubbish. none of the characters in this film is very unlikable and or even hateable and but mercurio lead is the sort of person you prefer to ignore completely unloveable and he wears overalls. big mistake in costume design and that one. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"if this series supposed to be an improvement over batman the animated series and i and for one and think it failed terribly. the character drawing is lousy. (catwoman and for instance and looks awful. ) but what really annoyed me is that it made batman look like a sort of wimp who just can not take care of himself in a battle and without the help of two and even three sidekicks. i mean and he batman and for god sake. i know the comic books and i know that nightwing and batgirl are supposed to be batman allies and besides robin and but still. making batman say that he needs help from them. what and he can not handle a few punches. in btas and he could face a dozen adversaries without any problem. he getting old. come on. and another thing represent i really do not think that batman would allow a kid like tim drake to go into battle that soon and without years of hard training. one and it irresponsible (and batman is everything and but irresponsible) and and two and it not what happened in the comics and if we are to remain faithful to them. batman the animated series made history and with its animation and its stories and its characters. that really was a legend of batman. the new adventures series turned the legend into just another batman flick. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"first of all i must admit batman represent the animated series is the best batman series by far. we watched it when it used to be on tv. i do not realize that there was a season four. actually there wasn not. btas ends with season 3 and and it should have stopped there. why did they have to mess with a good thing. catwoman and poison ivy now have terrible grey faces. the joker looks beyond scary and it seems that each time they revise his appearance he looks more and more creepier. he doesn not seem to have pupils anymore and and now he doesn not even look remotely human (although he is). bruce wayne is voiced by kevin conroy who does the best batman. although he now looks like superman. there is nothing that sets him apart because they both look the same and bruce wayne now has blue eyes. night wing really needs a haircut and please. alfred just has pupils from eyes and looks more like a character from the 80 . i have watched three episodes from disc 1 in the series and i already find that this version is more violent and graphic (there is blood in every episode). if you are a fan of batman represent the animated series and there is no batman season 4. they just included this series as season 4 for marketability. if they just released it as the new batman adventures i do not think as many people would have bought it. save yourself the disappointment and stick to seasons 1 3. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"on the 26th of september 1983 a short dumpy 60 year old woman stood trial for the attempted murder of leonie haddad and a lady whose husband had recently died and had agreed to take in a lodger who came via a housing authority for the elderly. haddad was not made aware that her new lodger had and in fact and come fresh from the patton state mental hospital where she had been incarcerated for an inexplicable knife attack on a married couple three years previously. haddad soon realised that something was rotten in denmark when the woman began to lock herself in the bathroom with a tape recorder reciting prophesies about seven gods. haddad fears were confirmed one night when she awoke to find her lodger sitting astride her chest holding a bread knife announcing that god has inspired me to kill you. haddad managed to knock her assailant out with a telephone but not before she had lost a finger and suffered deep lacerations to her face and chest. it was a miracle she survived. the lodger was judged to be innocent by reason of insanity but sent and kicking and screaming and back to the laughing academy. ten years later she was released and found that she was now a celebrity while but not for the brutal attacks on her innocent victims and but for her incarnation of 25 years earlier when she was known as the queen of the curve and the tennessee tease and miss pin up girl of the world the notorious bettie page. director mary harron and mainly known for american psycho takes us back to the glory days of a legendary cheesecake and bondage model (played solidly enough by gretchen mol) who inadvertently wrote the blue print for fetish iconography and whose influence can be detected in everything from comic books to catwalks. t. n. b. p is day glo fun ride through an evocative depiction of the 1950 where page and with the familial help of good intentioned boyfriends and photographers and becomes the number one star of pocket sized men glossies with titles like wink and tab and parade. her real dream of movie stardom evades her and a brush with the authorities over obscenity charges in 1957 is the inciting incident which leads her to retire from modelling and give herself to god. the overall style of the film is light and frothy and only darkens momentarily with an allusion to her father incestuous attentions and a sexual assault which inexplicably appears to have no discernible effect on her. mol plays page as she seems in her photographs and happy and carefree and fun even the bondage shots betray little more than a good humoured incomprehensibility. the film ends on the upbeat with page cheerfully handing out bibles in a park with no indication of the real life unhappy marriages and personal tragedy and decent into murderous insanity which lay before her while avoiding what i think is the essential core of page story rebirth and resurrection. having emerged from a decade of incarceration page found that her cult had been in the ascendance since the mid 1980 and that she had become a huge underground icon and during which and many were asking whatever happened to bettie page. her amysterious disappearance fed the fires of any number of conspiracy theories only adding to the allure of her legend. when the world media finally caught up with her she gave no hint of her darker past and she was soon giving interviews for magazines and t. v and being photographed at playboy parties with the likes of pamela anderson and the equally tragic anna nicole smith. she found that she was now more famous than she ever was in her glory years but in the glare of this resurrection it was only a matter of time before the full story would come to light. the only notorious thing about the notorious bettie page is they left out the part when she became truly notorious. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the ultimate goal of big brother and that we know what to think before we think it and has been realized. is it some kind of miracle and or sinister joke and that people don mental straight jackets of their own volition and twist themselves into contorted shapes and and grin like apes. movies and art and no longer risk the unknown and but are forgone conclusions and drained of life. the notorious bettie page is a bland case history and fit for a freshman college feminism course. its lesson is schematic and right angled and linear represent see how women are objectified and exploited and abused and then tossed on the trash heap and by a male dominated society. bettie page and supposedly and was the pin up queen of the 1950 and the ass millions of men ejaculated to. (all reviewers repeat that phrase and pin up queen of the 1950 and like a choir of monkeys. ) her history as an american sex bomb is familiar represent southern and abused by her father and raped and etc. in this movie she is a naïf and an innocent unaware of the prurient interests she serves and shamelessly profits from. although she believes in jesus and she enjoys frolicking nude before a camera lens just the wholesome girl next door sex slave american males supposedly fantasize. from the mouth of writer director mary harron herself and oxford educated and ex punker (do you smell the combined rot of privilege and hipness as i do. ) represent i feel that without feminism and i do not be doing this. . i do not make feminist films in the sense that i do not make anything ideological. but i do find that women get my films better. what a cozy clique. the movie merely goes through the motions of telling the story of a human life and it subject and purpose having been eulogized and interred well before the movie began. ms. page has a boyfriend and but we are shown next to nothing about their relationship. in fact and there are no intimate or detailed relationships in the film. one can not ignore its smug simplicity. in new york and where ms. page tries her best to fit into and appease a man world and letting herself be tied up in the ropes of bondage and tightly laced into the black leather boots and bodices of s and m and the movie is black and white. but down in miami and where she goes to get away from it all and gleefully takes off her clothes and and is photographed by a liberated female and the movie turns into color. like hell harron doesn not make feminist films and doesn not make anything ideological. ideology has become so internalized and so assumed and so programmed and that it almost invisible. big brother must be smiling. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"sadly and marry harron decided to do a fictional account of bettie page life to go along with her own issues with men. as typical in all her work and every major male character is portrayed as weak and bumbling and or twisted. to add to her fiction and she projects ideas and issues that are not true and according to bettie page herself. bettie did not leave the biz because she thought it was morally wrong or had religious issues (though she became a born again later in life and through the influence of her 3rd husband a minister). she left it and because she was in her late 30 and her acting career had gone nowhere and she felt she was losing her looks. the hints of molestation and rape are unvalidated and denied in bettie own words and are the director attempts to claim that any woman who did what bettie did must have been victimized by men. harron fails to point out that bettie designed her own clothes in almost all her shoots (not handed to her by sick fetishists). harron also fails to make a point that bunny yeager and who did many famous photo shoots of bettie and also did many naughty shoots with bettie and was not the morally upright professional photographer portrayed in the film. the only saving grace is gretchen mol looks very much like bettie. otherwise and there are other movies and documentaries more accurate and honest to her life and the people in it. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"who is bettie page. i certainly do not find out while watching this movie. from what i have gathered from other sources and ms. page was highly in demand in the post world war ii period as the queen of naughty pictures and that is exactly what this film depicts. i never did get to know bettie and the woman and though. her childhood in tennessee was a combination of an evangelical christian upbringing and a sordid home life which is only hinted at. the film glosses over her personal life and gets right down to the purpose of the film and the naughty pictures. characters are introduced and abandoned within a few frames but there is frame after frame of bettie in her pointy bras and bettie in her girdle and stockings and bettie in bondage. etc. the movie slides from black and white to color every time ms. page visits miami beach. then back to her shades of gray life in new york we go. gretchen mol portrays bettie as one of the most dimwitted young ladies you could ever meet. when bettie confides to a friend that she missed being her high school valedictorian by getting an a rather than an a one can only assume that there were only two students in her senior class. the most interesting part of this movie is how quaint ms. page naughty photos seem in 2007. it is truly sad that seeing a woman trussed up like a pig on a spit do not even get a hit on my space or you tube. i am not sure if this movie was written poorly or if some crazed editor cut the thing to shreds. i would only recommend it as a source for persons studying the history of odd undergarments. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i have only seen gretchen mol in two other films (girl 6 and donnie brasco) and and do not really remember her and but she did a great job as a naive girl who posed for pictures because it made people happy. she really do not think what she was doing was wrong and even when she left the business and found her religion again. the photos she made were certainly tame by today standards and and it is funny seeing men with cameras get all excited and and politicians pontificating on the evils of pornography. david strathairn (good night and and good luck) played a super part here. mary harron (american psycho) wrote and directed an outstanding biopic of the most famous pinup girl ever. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"when setting out this film and director mary harron seemingly had the goal of clearly documenting the progress of bettie page career and from early modelling days to leaving modelling to go back home after the senate hearings on juvenile delinquency and her religious rediscovery in the 50s and and so intent is she to get all of these facts on screen in the time allowed she seems to have missed out on taking any time to explain anything in depth. when you think of someone who had page career you would think that there would be plenty to discuss and her reasons and decisions and life event and personal traumas and but harron avoids any kind of personal exploration of the character. in the first fifteen minutes or so of the film there are brief hints of child abuse and domestic violence and a gang rape and but these are all rushed past and then never referred to again. you get the impression that harron and guinevere turner (co writer) wanted to gloss over anything that wasn not glamorous and flattering. you go into this film expecting to gain an insight into who the person behind the posters was and but all you are given is a list of things that she did and recreations of some of her most famous photo shoots. all in all the film really frustrates you as you watch and desperately waiting for some extra layer to reveal itself. how did she balance her religion with her job. what made this young tennessee girl move from modelling into bondage photography. the film simply shows her going to another modelling agency and putting on whatever she told and but surely it would have involved some shock and deliberation and this was after all the 50s. it seems to me that harron is trying to make a point about how tame all this is by today standards (page never took any photos of explicit sexual actions) and how the reaction some gave this kind of thing was really overzealous and although this is true and she never actually makes it seem sordid in the eyes of others. today we look at a young girl posing topless and think nothing off it and but we should have got some sort of feeling about how shocking it would have been to a contemporary audience. this woman was a central part of a senate hearing on juvenile delinquency and but no one is ever really shown as shocked. basically i left this film just thinking how tame it was. harron and turner have managed to avoid anything that might be unpleasant to a viewer. they come across as two lifelong fans of miss page and are desperate to make sure that nothing and absolutely nothing and could possibly put a bad light on their heroine and and have therefore avoided any in depth probing into who she really was. (before and after her career there are reports of her violent nature and mental problems) and all that left is the string of events that made up her career and without any substance whatsoever behind it. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"well that 90 minutes of my life i would not get back. this movie makes teen tv show california dreams look like almost famous. the acting was horrid and storyline unrealistic. don not even get me started on the actual band at the forefront of this story and lame songs and look etc. you had to believe that they were one of the hottest bands in the country and and there isn not enough irony in the world to accept that one. the guitarist is seen to be a heroin user and not that i blame him and if i was around such a putrid band with stale songs and wooden acting i would be injecting the horse too. if you take music remotely seriously and avoid this at all costs. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"now and i would not deny that when i purchased this off ebay and i had high expectations. this was an incredible out of print work from the master of comedy that i so enjoy. however and i was soon to be disappointed. apologies to those who enjoyed it and but i just found the compleat al to be very difficult to watch. i got a few smiles and sure and but the majority of the funny came from the music videos (which i have got on dvd) and the rest was basically filler. you could tell that this was not al greatest video achievement (that honor goes to uhf). honestly and i doubt if this will ever make the jump to dvd and so if youre an ultra hardcore al fan and just have to own everything and buy the tape off ebay. just do not pay too much for it. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"and the oscar for the most under rated classic horror actor goes to dwight frye. seriously his name should be stated with the same awe as karloff and lugosi and and price and and this movie proves it. his character herman was one of the 2 reasons i can give to watch this movie. dwight gave this somewhat more than slightly disturbed misfit a lovable yet creepy demeanor that led you hoping for a larger role the entire movie. the other reason is the comic relief of m. eburne. being in the medical profession myself i have to give kudos to the expert performance of a self pity prone hypochondriac. though other medical mistakes did give a brief chuckle especially when the good doctor samples his fellow physicians medication. well continue giving it to her unfortunately these 2 outstanding performances could not keep me awake through 3 attempts of sitting through this unbearably slow movie. the plot is predictable with only few minor twists. the filming while pulling off a legitimate spooky atmosphere was more productive at making me yawn yes you can use too much shadow. my recommendation watch this once to see frye and eburne but only when wide awake and with lots of caffeine. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"when a small bavarian village is beset with a string of mysterious deaths and the local (magistrate) demands answers into (sic) the attacks. while the police detective refuses to believe the nonsense about vampires returning to the village and the local doctor treating the victims begins to suspect the truth about the crimes and according to the dvd sleeve synopsis. an inappropriately titled and dramatically unsatisfying and vampire mystery. curiously and the film second tier easily out perform the film lackluster stars represent stoic lionel atwill (as otto von niemann) and skeptical melvyn douglas (as karl brettschneider) and and pretty fay wray (as ruth bertin). the much more enjoyable supporting cast includes bat crazy dwight frye (as herman) and hypochondriac maude eburne (as aunt gussie schnappmann) and and suspicious george e. stone (as kringen). mr. frye and ms. eburne and and mr. stone outperform admirably. is there another movie ending with a mad rush to the bathroom. magnesium sulfate
epsom salts
it a laxative. the vampire bat (1933) frank strayer ~ dwight frye and melvyn douglas and maude eburne. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"think stage play. this is worth seeing once for the performances of lionel atwill and dwight frye. compare the melvyn douglas in ghost story with the melvyn douglas of this film. are there vampires at loose in this bavarian village and or is there a more natural and albeit equally sinister and explanation. dwight frye is herman and a red herring and who is cast as an especially moronic character. it fun to look at his different facial expressions in what is really a stock character. not much happens for a long time and but then we discover that atwill pipe smoking doctor is the real murderer. there is too much comic relief but that is par for the course for this era. fay wray looks really good. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"it the nature of businesses to try to capitalize on others success. here we have a movie taking elements from the earlier dracula (1931) and frankenstein (1931) in a germanic town the village leaders believe that vampires (in the shape of bats) have been the cause of recent deaths of bloodless victims. even though shot at universal (and at the bronson caves. ) it a poverty row feature while it not fair to compare it with those earlier and more expensively made and superior films. from the familiar and exciting and chilling music of the main titles (which must have been by mischa bakalienikoff) and through the talky but well done opening sequence and we anticipate the arrival of lionel atwill and fay wray and dwight frye to give us a good 30s mystery film. unfortunately and it doesn not happen. that the disappointment. we get little more than the formulaic elements of such films but with slow pacing and low budget and not enough of dwight frye and the overdone presence of maude eburne (aunt gussie) and and the premise for lionel atwill (dr. von niemann) to require human blood or how he exhibits mind control over his servant emil (robert frazier) never made very clear. do not watch the technicolor dr. x (1932) which also stars lionel atwill and fay wray but as father and daughter before watching this the way i did while it an oscar winner by comparison. so watch this one first. structurally and the vampire bat still isn not that good. it plods along with too much talking or unnecessary comic relief and without focusing strongly on the vampiric villainy. besides dr. x and mystery of the wax museum (both 1932 and co starring fay wray) and lionel atwill most famous appearances are as the one armed gendarme in son of frankenstein (1939) and as moriarity in sherlock holmes and the secret weapon (1943). dwight frye steals all his manic scenes in dracula (1931). as the young lovers and melvin douglas and fay wray have a nice kissing scene and but that about it. he can be seen in the old dark house (1932) and and fay gets dragged around by joel mccrea in the most dangerous game (1930). then there her 1933 classic creamer. too bad more time and money and rewrites weren not available for this film to better showcase the talents and chemistry of lionel atwill and fay wray and dwight frye. sadly and then and this drearily disappointing film only gets a 4. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.