empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter too many bad memories, 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've always considered this the worst ST:TNG episode (with the exception of \"Shades of Gray,\" 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's Writing 101 teacher: \"SHOW, DON'T TELL!\" From Deanna Troi's pronouncement, and everyone else's constant elbowing reminders about what a charming, dangerous rogue Okona is, to Guinan's explanation about how funny her droid joke is (it isn't), to the who-cares resolution to the conflict, there isn't a plot point that isn't highlighted and triple-underlined for our edification, and there ain't a believable moment in any of it. Unfortunately, Bill Campbell, a charming actor in other circumstances, is too puppy-dog huggable to be the center of the machinations of the plot. On the other hand, 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, by the way, to the Data subplot. While I think Joe Piscopo stopped being funny decades ago, 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, you may be able to think of this as a charming little homage to a lesser Original Series episode. Me, I'd rather skip ahead to \"Time Squared\" or \"Q Who.\"
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI went to go see this at the Esquire Theatre in Cincy, OH, and - I hate my life now.
Christopher Reeves would have been a more believable boxer.
As a film it was painful, 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, 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, or smart enough for that matter. That is the feeling you get from the What the Bleepesque trickle of brainwashed, impressionable neo-yuppies that came to see this Bret Carr Piece of Work.
It's an emotionally draining experience just thinking about writing about this film, so goodbye.
-Anonymous
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe 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't 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 & son is never made clear. Also the whole movie has most him one way, and then all of a sudden BAM, 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, making him live his life the way that he is living it, but when he changes, he doesn't leave boxing, he teaches others how to box. Thumbs Down.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nStraight to the point: \"The Groove Tube\" is one of the most unfunny, unclever and downright horrible films ever made. This \"comedy\" is so void of anything remotely resembling a trace of wit that it's almost incomprehensible that it was even made. I said almost because there are fans of everything after all.
This film isn't 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, SO poorly made, acted and scripted and SO incredible stale, that there just isn't even a trace of \"camp\" or \"schlock\" to be found.
Even though this was made before Saturday Night Live premiered, comparisons were probably inevitable. I'm not a big fan of SNL, but this film is worse than the worst SNL skit you can find. And man, that's BAD. Just to keep the men viewers from leaving, Shapiro throws in a pair of breasts every so often, but poorly-filmed breasts from 1974 aren't going to excite anyone these days. Truthfully this film is so poorly made and is such a sleep-inducing excursion, I doubt if they excited anyone in 1974 either.
A man named Ken Shapiro made this film. I swear to God, any ten-year old with a video camera could have made something funnier and more clever. It's 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's porno mags out at night won't laugh.
I will give this film one thing - the very last sequence, the \"dancing man\" sequence, where a guy (Shapiro) on the streets of NYC dances to a tune, 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, while not so great itself, it easily beats anything else in this \"film.\"
Otherwise, this film is such a complete piece of crap, it's unfathomable as to how an actual human being can be so downright cleverless. The name of this film should have been \"Ken Shapiro's Craparama.\" It's amazing that this was made, but many truly talented filmmakers can't get in. However, I will say that I bet the geniuses at NYU would love this movie. Total garbage.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter two long, long opening skits, one of which my brother saw the conclusion coming of and the other totally joke free, we start the fast-forward fest that it GROOVE TUBE proper. Naturally, uber-stupid frat boys who still mainline JACKASS or Tom Green will find the idea of fecal matter coming out of the some tube, SEX OLYMPICS(I really don't need to give you details, do I), and a clown who basically does the \"not very endearing clown\" bit I think I've seen approxiately ninety times now will eat this up like dung beetles: well, more power to you.
I just want to express that, despite what you've heard, 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, EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX, and so on. And done way better.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nRented it last night. The opening(2001) ran WAAAAAAAAAY too long. The hitchiker scene served no purpose. Some skits were just retarded. I knew beforehand, Chevy Chase was on for less than 2 minutes. No problem. Here are the best parts:
KOKO, URANUS, BABS COMMERCIAL, Curtis Mayfield song
Total: 7 minutes of good material out of a 75 minute movie
Everything else was either unfunny or stupid as hell.
Let me give you some advice: If you want a crude movie spoofing TV and movies, rent \"Kentucky Fried Movie\". If you want a less crude movie spoofing TV and movies, rent \"AMAZON WOMEN ON THE MOON\" or \"UHF\"
Otherwise, don't bother renting this movie. You'll save 2-3 dollars.
IMHO: Ken Shapiro's best movie is STILL \"Modern Problems\"
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOh 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't be blamed for this utter tripe. It seriously is very, very bad. While meant to be a political comment on USA at the time of it's 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 they're all drawn out to the point of complete boredom. This is credited as Chevy's movie debut and I'm pleased to say that everything he did after this bettered it. Avoid even if curious.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHearing about how hilarious this movie is, I finally rent it at
the video store and for 75 minutes maybe I laughed 3 times. This
movie, a collection of skits that make fun of television is an
incoherrent mess. The jokes fall flat, the humor deals with
issues from the 1970's that just aren't relevant anymore, and
the jokes go on way too long (almost like the new SNL skits the
past few years). Yeah, Chevy Chase is in this but maybe of all
about 1 or 2 minutes. I liked the fact that this was very
raunchy and had nudity galore but couldn't it be funny? Do
yourself a favor and rent Kentucky Fried Movie which is a far
superior film made in the
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI 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 didn't think that this appallingly unfunny montage WASN'T the acme of humour in the 70s or indeed in any other era! If this isn't the least funny set of sketch *comedy* I've ever seen it'll 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't 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.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe only film I've ever walked out on. Amazing, since I paid for myself and my date and I'm really cheap. But my brain couldn't stand any more of the dreck being piled on, particularly since I could have written funnier material while tie up and gagged.
From the beginning to the end this film offends. Worse, it ain't funny. It wasn't funny then, and it sure ain't funny now. But even worse, is that this film represents the beginning of the end of really smart, sophisticated comedy. It's juvenile, really sophomoric script and ideas began an era (which continues to this day) where cheap laughs, and sexual innuendo dominate the culture of comedy in film.
Sexual Olympics? What High School kid hasn't thought of that? The beginning of the end.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA repressed housewife (an annoying lisping Angie Dickinson, whose body double treats/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, 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, \"pay homage to\") Hitchcock, watch \"Sisters\" instead of this. \"Dressed to Kill,\" while loaded with style and technical skill, 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, as long as they can get past the silly story line, that must have been dated even in 1980.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA call-girl witnesses a murder and becomes the killer's next target. Director Brian De Palma is really on a pretentious roll here: his camera swoops around corners in a museum (after lingering a long time over a painting of an ape), divvies up into split screen for arty purposes, practically gives away his plot with a sequence (again in split screen) where two characters are both watching a TV program about transsexuals, and stages his (first) finale during a thunderous rainstorm. \"Dressed To Kill\" is exhausting, 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's own \"Carrie\"--not to mention \"Psycho\". The explanation of the dirty deeds plays like a spoof of Hitchcock, not an homage. Stylish in a steely cold way, the end results are distinctly half-baked. ** from ****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI 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 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, 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, wondering why I bothered to watch it at all.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSorry to go against the flow but I thought this film was unrealistic, 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.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAnyone 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 given \"three\" in return. Three what? Not three wishes, but three rides into the 1800's on a rickety elevator...
The first novel is Time at the Top. The second is All in Good Time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere 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 you'll realize this remake is ludicrous. Eric Roberts as Perry Smith? His sister could have done a better job! Having been to Holcomb & Edgerton, KS where the story takes place, the sets and locations looked NOTHING like Kansas. The original is riveting, from the location filming to the use of the actual participants, 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.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn 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 the spirit of that form was carried over into the film script, which he co-wrote. Despite the fact that we were well into the era of color film, 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, the confinement of shooting a film for TV makes reduces the options of how the shots are framed and focused. As a result, we lose the dramatic clash which makes the second part of the original film (police interviews, trial, imprisonment, and execution) so claustrophobic. On the small screen, it's just another version of Law and Order spin-offs.
Hollywood's search for scripts continuously takes it back to movies that were successful in another age. Usually, that's a mistake, and this is no exception.
All of the actors are competent. The script is OK. The directing doesn't get in the way. It's just that the movie doesn't work as well as the original precision instrument. It doesn't hook the viewer into the ambivalence toward Smith and Hickock that the original film provokes. At the end of the TV version, we are left with the feeling: \"Ho hum, who cares?\"
See the original first, on as large a screen as you can, then watch the TV version simply to understand why the first one was such an important film in 1967.
Wouldn't 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 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
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhy 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's insist on wearing that dopey, broad-billed, baseball cap?...it made him look like Jim Varney.
Why would anyone spend four hours suffering through this?
Watch the original. Then YOU won't have to ask yourself WHY.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis waste of time is a completely unnecessary remake of a great film. Nothing new or original is added other than Perry's backflashes, 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't understand any high ratings for this at all. It's quite bad. Why does anyone waste time or money making crap like this and why did I waste time watching it?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs 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's infliction obviously caused by a phantom zone character and when he wakes up he will win and blah blah blah so the writers don't 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.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNot that \"a film by Ulli Lommel\" filled me with hope, 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, 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, but it helps. Unfiltered digital video really only works for the \"mockumentary\" style, 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's even more unforgivable is that the Lommel is NOT a young filmmaker. He ought to know better. He ought to know that it's 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, he wrote the script too! So you can expect convoluted actions that mean nothing, unjustified behavior, and at least one truly pretentious plot element that will leave you utterly unsatisfied. Please, please miss this film. You'll thank me later.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAt least I was able to enjoy mocking the movie which is surprising since I was barely able to sit through it. In all honesty, 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, when a new version of that just came out...nice touch guys, 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+ grad student of some film school excited to use every film technique he ever learned while attending classes....sometimes, 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't even come close to pulling it together, well, that makes it an exceptionally bad movie. Without a doubt this is the worst movie I have ever seen, and that includes my friends' french final video for senior year of high school, but hey maybe i'm a bit biased, I mean I did get to play an extra. P.S. I don't even think this deserves a star...not even a half. NONE FOR YOU!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n1 is being pretty generous here. I really enjoyed BOOGEYMAN, 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, it is something else. For being directed by a guy who has been around a long time and directed a lot of movies, it looks like it was shot on a VHS camcorder by a 10 year old! The story and acting are atrocious! David Hess, you have let me down too. After playing one of the most menacing villains in film history, you have resorted to this? The story and acting may have been able to be forgiven however, 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 don't look like it, or at least aren't so obvious that it detracts your attention from the film. I can't say it is the worst movie ever, because I couldn't make it through the entire film, but it is certainly close.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nExcept people apparently buy into this garbage! As shows like \"Moral Orel\" have shown, even if you tried to make the most outrageous, over-the-top parody of evangelism you could possibly think of, it wouldn't come close to the hilarity of this show. It's hard to tell what's even going on when you're watching it. Is it a news show? A talk show? Who knows!? They start out by reporting on various international news stories, but at seemingly random points, the news is interrupted by this odd, troll-like little man with a forehead bigger than his entire face, mumbling and laughing and generally being creepy.
Pat Robertson doesn't even seem like such a bad guy at first glance. He just seems like a senile, 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, who has befriended and offered aid to not one, but TWO murderous dictators, who has illegally used donation money to run diamond mines, who has SUPPORTED forced abortions in China, and who regularly implies that Caucasians (straight American male Caucasians in particular) are superior to all other races.
Still, this would all be funny, except that he apparently has a large enough fan base to keep his little show on the air 40 years later (either that, or enough money to bribe some TV executives who don't give a damn what they show). The idiocy of the show becomes alarming when you realize that some people, somewhere, must be watching it and hanging onto every word. Even when Robertson has repeatedly shown how corrupt he is, people still listen to him. I don't know if it's funny or scary. I guess a healthy mixture of both.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ndoes anyone think that this show actually helps some people, 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.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBefore 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, 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't discriminate, spew hatred filled rants on TV, or try to shove their own beliefs down every unfortunate soul that ventures onto the channel. ALl of these that crazy, idiotic, conservitive, bible thumping, Fred Phelps lover Pat Robertson does daily. I am all for free speech, 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 didn't give us any work. And we (against many of us's will) watched 700's Club, and of course that jerk Pat was on ranting and raving about the bible, 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's right.\" WTF??? Seriously, if the host is trying to make people think that someone else's sexual orientation is a huge sin, then they seriously need to take that host, duct tape them, and throw them off of a cruise liner in the middle of the arctic.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHere are some examples of Pat Robertsons dubiously claimed \"relatively good track record\" on predictions
In his widely reported comments from the January 2 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, 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, host Pat Robertson boasted that he had \"a relatively good track record\" on earlier predictions. But a review of Robertson's 2006 New Year's predictions undermines that claim. He predicted, for example, that:
* \"President Bush is going to strengthen.\" WRONG
* \"The fall elections will be inconclusive, 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'll begin withdrawing troops before the end of this year.\" WAY WRONG
Further, as a January 3 Associated Press article reported, Robertson has a history of making dubious predictions:
The broadcaster predicted in January 2004 that President Bush would easily win re-election. Bush won 51% of the vote that fall, beating Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. WRONG
In 2005, 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..
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI turn on 700 Club once in awhile and only agree with some of the statements made- I'm one of many believers that is considered liberal by most Christians and conservative by most non-Christians. I vote my mind, and its usually not rep. or dem. - i don't believe 700 club tells people what to believe, 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've forgotten to show love to certain people and promote peace like Jesus did. Please don't judge Jesus based on ignorant individuals that believe on Him and let's also not be as ignorant with our comments about them. Why ARE people so mean to each other?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Back of Beyond\" takes place at a dive diner/gas station in the middle of the Australian desert run by Tom McGregor (Paul Mercurio), a shy guy who suddenly finds himself in a spot of trouble when some visitors unexpectedly arrive. We get what, at first, 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, he appears as a terribly quiet, and sometimes, moody character in the presence of the arrivals.
We know one thing is for sure and that is McGregor's sort of spiritual sense, his foresight of danger and such--his clairvoyance only slightly relevant to the story, the bulk of which concerns three diamond thieves who's car breaks down and who rely on Tom to help them out of spot without getting in their way. Of course, Tom falls for one of the thieves, a young woman named Charlie, and suddenly, 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, the whole movie all the while seems to want to build up to something significant, but really fails to do so. Even the ending, of which plays out like a trite campfire tale (and one that really reveals a lot of narrative flaws), is almost just as ridiculous.
It may be worth trying if you don't mind the terribly slow pacing, but are in the mood, at least, for something a little different than the usual.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPointless 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's greatest exports on screen. Roles like this are major disappointments and films like this are just a waste of talent and time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPoor Paul Mercurio. After landing the role of Scott Hastings in Strictly Ballroom, the best film in history, he managed to find himself doing a lot of rubbish. None of the characters in this film is very unlikable, or even hateable, but Mercurio's lead is the sort of person you prefer to ignore - completely unloveable and he wears OVERALLS. Big mistake in costume design, that one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf this series supposed to be an improvement over Batman - The Animated Series, I, for one, think it failed terribly. The character drawing is lousy... (Catwoman, for instance, looks awful...) But what really annoyed me is that it made Batman look like a sort of wimp who just can't take care of himself in a battle, without the help of two, even three sidekicks. I mean, he's Batman, for God's sake! I know the comic books, I know that Nightwing and Batgirl are supposed to be Batman's allies, besides Robin, but still... making Batman say that he needs help from them... What, he can't handle a few punches? In BTAS, he could face a dozen adversaries without any problem... He's getting old? Come on...
And another thing: I really don't think that Batman would allow a kid like Tim Drake to go into battle that soon, without years of hard training. One, it's irresponsible (and Batman is everything, but irresponsible), and two, it's not what happened in the comics, if we are to remain faithful to them.
Batman - The Animated Series made history, with its animation, its stories and its characters... That really was a legend of Batman. The New Adventures series turned the legend into just another Batman flick.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst of all I must admit Batman: The animated series is the best batman series by far. We watched it when it used to be on TV. I didn't realize that there was a season four. Actually there wasn't. BTAS ends with season 3, 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, it seems that each time they revise his appearance he looks more and more creepier. He doesn't seem to have pupils anymore, and now he doesn't 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, Bruce Wayne now has blue eyes.
Night Wing really needs a haircut, please! Alfred just has pupils from eyes, looks more like a character from the 80's.
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: The animated series, 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 don't think as many people would have bought it.
Save yourself the disappointment and stick to seasons 1-3.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe ultimate goal of Big Brother, that we know what to think before we think it, has been realized. Is it some kind of miracle, or sinister joke, that people don mental straight jackets of their own volition, twist themselves into contorted shapes, and grin like apes? Movies, art, no longer risk the unknown, but are forgone conclusions, drained of life.
\"The Notorious Bettie Page\" is a bland case history, fit for a freshman college feminism course. Its lesson is schematic, right-angled and linear: \"See how women are objectified, exploited, abused, then tossed on the trash heap, by a male-dominated society.\"
Bettie Page, supposedly, was the \"pin-up queen of the 1950's,\" the ass millions of men ejaculated to. (All reviewers repeat that phrase, \"pin-up queen of the 1950's,\" like a choir of monkeys.) Her history as an American sex bomb is familiar: Southern, abused by her father, raped, etc. In this movie she is a naïf, an innocent unaware of the prurient interests she serves and shamelessly profits from. Although she believes in Jesus, 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, Oxford-educated AND ex-punker (do you smell the combined rot of privilege and \"hipness\" as I do?): \"I feel that without feminism, I wouldn't be doing this. ... I don't make feminist films in the sense that I don't 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, it's subject and purpose having been eulogized and interred well before the movie began. Ms. Page has a boyfriend, but we are shown next to nothing about their relationship. In fact, there are no intimate or detailed relationships in the film.
One can't ignore its smug simplicity. In New York, where Ms. Page tries her best to fit into and appease a man's world, letting herself be tied up in the ropes of bondage and tightly laced into the black leather boots and bodices of S & M, the movie is black and white. But down in Miami, where she goes to get away from it all, gleefully takes off her clothes, and is photographed by a \"liberated\" female, the movie turns into color.
Like hell Harron doesn't \"make feminist films,\" doesn't \"make anything ideological.\" Ideology has become so internalized, so assumed, so programmed, that it's almost invisible. Big Brother must be smiling.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSadly, Marry Harron decided to do a fictional account of Bettie Page's life to go along with her own issues with men. As typical in all her work, every major male character is portrayed as weak, bumbling, or twisted. To add to her fiction, she projects ideas and issues that are not true, 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, through the influence of her 3rd husband- a minister). She left it, because she was in her late 30's, 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's own words and are the director's 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, who did many famous photo shoots of Bettie, 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, there are other movies and documentaries more accurate and honest to her life and the people in it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWho is Bettie Page? I certainly didn't find out while watching this movie. From what I have gathered from other sources, 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, the woman, 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, the \"naughty\" pictures. Characters are introduced and abandoned within a few frames but there is frame after frame of Bettie in her pointy bras, Bettie in her girdle and stockings, 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's \"naughty\" photos seem in 2007. It is truly sad that seeing a woman trussed up like a pig on a spit wouldn't even get a hit on My Space or You Tube. I'm 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.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have only seen Gretchen Mol in two other films (Girl 6, Donnie Brasco), and don't really remember her, but she did a great job as a naive girl who posed for pictures because it made people happy.
She really didn't think what she was doing was wrong, even when she left the business and found her religion again.
The photos she made were certainly tame by today's standards, and it is funny seeing men with cameras get all excited, and politicians pontificating on the evils of pornography. David Strathairn (Good Night, 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.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"