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\nBela Lugosi plays a doctor who will do anything to keep his wife looking young and beautiful. To this end, he drugs brides during their wedding ceremonies to make it look as if they are dead so he can steal their bodies. I'm not exactly sure what he does with the bodies. I don't remember it ever being fully explained. All I know is that he extracts something from them and injects it in his wife. (I'll just guess that it's 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, really more than a couple, but I'll only write about two) of problems that I have with this movie. One is the way Bela is used. Sure, he does a decent enough job in his own overacting sort of way (BTW, the rest of the cast is simply abysmal). But, to have him hiding in the back of a hearse or having him creep into the female reporter's bedroom to do nothing is just silly. Also, why have him beat and/or kill every henchman he has? Is it to make him look evil? Well, someone who is kidnapping comatose brides doesn't really need to be made to look more evil.
The second problem I have is the idea of drugging brides. Why brides? Wouldn't any female under the age of 20 do? Watching Bela go through these gyrations to get his victims, I was reminded of the idiotic Fisherman in I Still Know What You Did Last Summer. In each case, 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, an alternate title for this movie is The Case of the Missing Brides. I guess that partially explains the need for 'brides'.)
\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\"Bela Lugosi revels in his role as European horticulturalist (sic) Dr. Lorenz in this outlandish tale of horror and dementia. The good doctor's 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, where he kidnaps the unsuspecting brides before they can complete their vows? Sedating them into a coma-like state, he brings them to his mansion to collect his tainted bounty,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. That brief description is much more entertaining and imaginative than the movie.
** The Corpse Vanishes (1942) Wallace Fox ~ Bela Lugosi, Luana Walters, Elizabeth Russell
\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\nPatricia Hunter: Oh, professor, do you also make a habit of collecting coffins? Dr. Lorenz: Why, yes, in a manner of speaking. I find a coffin much more comfortable than a bed.
Interesting Bela Lugosi (Glen or Glenda, 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, Patricia Hunter< who was to be a victim, but woman-power trumps evil scientist every time.
2'11\" Angelo Rossitto and creepy Frank Moran , who liked to stoke the women's hair added to the film.
Interesting look at a 40s horror film.
\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 number of brides are mysteriously murdered while at the altar, 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, 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, who lives in a secluded estate, with his wife. In reality, Dr. Lorenz is responsible for the crimes, by putting the brides in a suspended state, and using their gland fluid to keep his wife eternally young. Patricia, along with Dr. Foster (who is working with Dr. Lorenz on the medical mystery surrounding his wife) try to force Dr. Lorenz's hand by setting up a phony wedding, which eventually leads Patricia into the mad doctor's clutches. This movie had a very good opening reel, but basically ended up with too many establishing shots and other weak scenes. The cast is decent, Walters and Coffin deserved better, but that's life. Russell steals the show (even out hamming Lugosi- who does not give one of his more memorable performances, even considering his Monograms) as Countess Lorenz playing the role with the qualities of many of the stereotypical characteristics of many of today's Hollywood prima donnas. Weak and contrived ending as well. Rating, based on B movies, 4.
\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\nBela 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.
\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\nBela 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't set the mood very well. Even at its worst any of Bela's movies is only mediocre though.
\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\nBela 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, 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 you feel helpless as you watch.
Usually I'd score bore flicks like this one low, but the midget added just enough creepiness and entertainent to gain a couple more points.
\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 bought this video at Walmart's $1 bin. I think I over-paid!!! In the 1940s, Bela Lugosi made a long string of 3rd-rate movies for small studios (in this case, 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), they are nonetheless poor films and should be avoided by all but the most die-hard fans.
I am an old movie junkie, so I gave this a try. Besides, a few of these lesser films were actually pretty good--just not this one.
Lugosi is, what else, 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, 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, she follows some clues all the way to the doorstep of Lugosi. Lugosi's home is complete with his crazed wife, a female assistant and two strange people who are apparently the assistant's 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, the maniacs ALL die--mostly due to their own hands and all is well. At the conclusion, the reporter and a doctor she just met decide to marry. And, naturally, the reporter's dumb cameraman faints when this occurs. If you haven't noticed, there's a lot of fainting in this film. Or, maybe because it was such a slow and ponderous film they just fell asleep!
\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\nBela Lugosi is an evil botanist who sends brides poisoned orchids on their wedding day, steals the body in his fake ambulance/hearse and takes it home for his midget assistant to extract the glandular juices in order to keep Bela's wife eternally young. Some second rate actors playing detectives try to solve the terrible, terrible mystery. Bela Lugosi hams it up nicely, but you can tell he needed the money.
This film is thoroughly awful, and most of the actors would have been better off sticking to waiting tables, 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, which I think is a pretty accurate valuation, anyone paying more for this would be out of their mind.
\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\nUgh. This is a terrible film, full of disastrous comic relief, no scares, and scary leaps in story and plotline. The only creepy thing here is the leading lady's hats. Lugosi was on his downhill slide and it shows. I give this a 1, and this ain't no fun.
\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\nBernard 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: \"Tiré à Part\" (1996) in spite of Terence Stamp's sensational performance was very caricatured in the depiction of the characters, \"une Affaire De Goût\" (2000) was a slick affair even if Bernard Giraudeau delivered a perverse performance, \"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, the starting idea let predict a twirling, 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, they pretend to part company with each other. And things don't go as planned because the announcement of their separation doesn't 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, Rapp's undistinguished directing can't 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, especially Sandrine Kiberlain. The audience is soon caught in a deep torpor.
It's regrettable to say it: Bernard Rapp's films never lived up to his intentions as \"un Petit Jeu sans Conséquence\" bears witness.
\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\nYou'd think the first landing on the Moon would be dramatic enough without needing to make up stuff about it. However, 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's nearly fatal accident with the training vehicle, 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, when it's actually thirty seconds before an abort is mandatory.
If you want to see a documentary or dramatization of Apollo 11, go for \"From the Earth to the Moon\" or one of the PBS documentaries, but skip this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI 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, 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've been great - but I feel I've wasted about 45 minutes of my life whilst watching a 60 minute programme. I want those minutes back.
\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 was expecting a lot better from the Battlestar Galactica franchise. Very boring prequel to the main series. After the first 30 minutes, I was waiting for it to end. The characters do a lot of talking about religion, computers, programming, retribution, etc... There are gangsters, mafia types, who carry out hits. However, Caprica doesn't have the action of the original series to offset the slower parts.
Let me give you some helpful advice when viewing movies: As a general rule, if there is a lot of excessive exploitive titillation, then you know the movie will be a dud. Caprica has lots of this. The director/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/writers who do this should be banned from the business.
If you want to be bored for an hour and a half, by all means, rent Caprica. There's (free) porn on the 'Net if you really want to see naked bodies. Otherwise, move along, nothing to see here.
\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 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 & unbelievable. This scene was simply put there to raise the release rating to Restricted. Not that teens don't love virtual reality mosh pits filled with sex & violence & heavy dance music. Its the part about those same teens having the intellectual depth & reason or political & 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 & much more believable in the brilliant, 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 & unoriginal & cheap looking, using recycled CGI of Caprica from BSG. I doubt I'll 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
\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\nBattlestar Gallactica was so great because it had tight writing, a great look, excellent actors, and interesting stories... AND yeah, 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, 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'm 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, I was still wondering when it was going to be over.
So what exactly is it that's supposed to bring me back? The science fiction? It's awfully light on that. The actors? Besides Polly Walker's fine turn, there isn't much interesting being done here. There aren't even any \"hotties\" in the cast, except for maybe Esai, although for the younger set he's pretty old, since he's over 25.
I loved BSG. I was skeptical when I heard about Caprica, and unfortunately, I think I'm 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.
\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 had to endure teen-aged, 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've 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's the only reason I'm 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, 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.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you like a syfi soap opera this show is for you, as fare as I am concerned it does not work for me and after watching 3 episodes I just can't watch it anymore. It is boring and slow and for a show that the timeline is based around 100.000+ years ago if you base it on battlestar galactica's 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, there is just to much of today's stuff involved in it to not overlook, 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.
\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\nBasically, \"Caprica\" is the Cylon origin story. The premise of the show is interesting. However, 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, little or nothing happens.
Daniel Graystone (Eric Stolz) is a military contractor working on a robotic soldier using a stolen chip. Unfortunately, his only working prototype is driven by the AI version of his dead daughter Zoe, who died in a suicide bombing caused by Soldiers of the One (STO), an underground monotheist extremist group.
Meanwhile, Joseph Adama (father of \"Battlestar Galactica\"'s 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, 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).
\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 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 I watched every episode of the fourth year, totally faithfully in great hopes that it would somehow turn around. Well, it didn't.
I watched the Caprica pilot and was enthralled. There was hope for something good here. Then I started watching the regular episodes, and they are getting more and more boring.
It's too obvious, too predictable. It reminds me of the droll political correctness of his last failed show, Virtuality.
Much of his line work on DS9 was good. When he focused on BSG in an organized way, 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, 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, very nervous.
\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 realize it's not supposed to be BSG and I can handle slow-paced shows if they're interesting but I find myself completely uninterested and bored with this series.
The formula for BSG seemed to be: Action + Adventure + SciFi + Suspense + Mystery + Drama
the formula for Caprica seems to be: Bland Drama + Moderate Scifi
Maybe it will get more interesting but as of episode 3 I can barely watch it. In fact, it's 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, Stargate Atlantis, and BSG on Friday nights? They had a good thing there.
\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\nOf course I was watching BG. I loved S1, I liked season 2, season 3 was OK, and loved the final one. Yay, there is a spin-off show! I didn't know about this at all, 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, hardly any. At the end of every episode we can catch a glimpse of a Cylon. That's all. Who cares this? Did they decide that the next show's target audience will be females under 18? Boring religious nonsense talking, moaning, bitching... and some more.
It is just sad that there is nothing out there at the moment to watch. Stargate ruined, BG over...
\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\nWhat 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, 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, a waste of time and a waste of effort. This is one spin off that should have never been made.
\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\nMatt Saunders (Luke Wilson) thinks he has found the perfect woman in Jenny Johnson (Uma Thurman), who seems like a quiet but pretty woman, though he soon learns that she's needy and possessive, oh, and she's also the superhero G-Girl, though you wouldn't 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 didn't 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, they made the guy likable and they made the superhero a psycho. It just wasn't very fresh and after about forty minutes, the film wore out it's welcome. Sure, 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, he started making crap like Evolution and Father's Day. I wouldn't say My Super Ex-Girlfriend is a complete bust but I don't give him credit for any of the quality the movie holds, which isn't 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 don't think he makes for an appealing leading man and he's better in supporting roles like in The Family Stone. Anna Faris was just doing her \"Scary Movie\" routine and it's 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, she is just annoying and doesn't bring anything to the movie. Eddie Izzard was alright, nothing special. Rainn Wilson was just annoying and not funny. Overall, I was disappointed with the movie. It wasn't awful yet it had so much potential and the final result was just so average. Rating 5/10
\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\nIvan Reitman is something of a savior. The most tired plots (Ghostbusters, Evolution) come to life in his skilled hands. Even his occasional flop (Six Days, 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, superhero gets superpower-fueled revenge), 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't decide whether to be romantic comedy or superhero drama. The result is a film the flip-flops between both, with neither aspect being very well done. Uma Thurman is tops, as usual, and Luke Wilson pulls off his role too, though his slacker antics quickly grow tired. What's even more maddening is that, in certain scenes (such as when a very turned on Uma knocks a headboard through a wall), you sense a witty, raucous Reitman opus practically screaming to get out. But seconds later, the magic is lost, gone as quick as the superheroine whose movies disappoints in almost every way.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is 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, how long its been since they got some, when their next sexual liaison will be, and with whom it should be with. On top of that the dialogue and acting was very poor and very forced, not felt, 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, do not even think about taking anyone under 16 if you have to go and see 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\nif they gave me the option of negative numbers I'd use it. This movie was truly god-awful. I went into the theaters expecting it to be horrible, and it somehow managed to exceed my expectations.
The script was weak, the acting was painful. I wanted to walk out but my friend was driving and wanted to get her moneys worth, 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, he came off as oddly weak and silly. Jenny Johnsons (Uma Thurman) came off as psychotic and strange, as did Matt's (Luke Wilson) friend Vaughn (Rainn Wilson.
\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 what point exactly does a good movie go bad? When does a movie go from \"watchable\" to \"where's that &^@_+#!* OFF switch\"? Thank goodness for DVDs, like this one, that can be borrowed from the library - for free! Likewise, 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've forgotten exactly when because now it's all just a blur), our \"hero,\" Luke Wilson starts running through traffic; I think he was looking for a cab. It was at that point when I gave up, realizing I couldn't 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, hair dryer in hand, and first meets the \"heroine,\" Uma Thurman. That scene ended with the purse-snatching criminal dangling helplessly from the fire escape far, far above the departing Luke and Uma. That was the last time the movie was funny, and when was that scene? Ten minutes into the flick?
Every time the movie tried to become \"funny,\" it couldn't. Every time the movie approached \"excitement,\" it fizzled out, heading in the opposite direction. When a musical score might have helped squeeze life out of this dullard, the sound track stayed empty and silent.
The sex scenes were not needed and were beyond lame; the damage to sets and props unnecessary and childish. When Uma turns into the crazy ex-girlfriend, I felt like I was watching \"The 40 Year Old Virgin Meets Pulp Fiction\"; that's when I realized that there was no turning back because I thoroughly disliked \"The 40 Year Old Virgin\" and \"Pulp Fiction.\"
Luke Wilson's sidekick, Rainn Wilson (also seen in the dreary \"The Last Mimzy\") adds nothing but insult to injury in this awful movie. Rainn Wilson, the King of Television Boredom, should stay with that equally awful medium. Hey, Rainn Wilson! Leave full-length motion pictures alone! Every time Uma's rival, Anna Faris, came on screen, I expected Jason or Freddy or some fright flick monster to jump out from behind the scenery; once you see Anna Faris in \"Scary Movie,\" that's all you ever see, no matter the movie, no matter the medium. The character played by Wanda Sykes was just plain awful and was so out of place in this 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\nWhat 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't get out. The jokes are weak and tired, and not even seeing Wilson's naked behind can redeem any part of this film. The special effects.....aren't. 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's faster-than-a-speeding-bullet flying or fight scenes, they covered over everything with a swirling vortex of blurred screen - which hid the awful effects quite nicely. Wilson's 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't sexy and the funny scenes weren't funny. I guess I just expected too much from these actors. None of the characters were really sympathetic, 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, a super stinko movie - I wouldn't even recommend it as a rental - it would still be a waste of money!
\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 movie is being shown over and over on cable lately, 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 that's the only reason to watch this movie. I suppose it is 'funny' that Luke's even uglier/dorkier/stupider friend is around, but well, that is what we get.
Neither of the female leads would ever, 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 *@$#
\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\nIt's easy to see how this below-average screenplay got by in the early sales-pitch meetings at Regency Films (and later with Fox): cross the superhero genre with a comedic take on \"Fatal Attraction\"...voilà! I don't know how on earth a talented director like Ivan Reitman got involved, 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; despite the fact she's distracted and unpleasant, he eventually gets her into bed--only to find out later she's the Big Apple's resident superhero, G-Girl. This distaff Superman, with powers bestowed upon her by a fallen meteorite, isn't a fantasy heroine, however...screenwriter Don Payne has conceived her as a needy, possessive, vindictive bitch (he telegraphs this to us from miles away, though Uma Thurman still plays the role for sassy laughs). This is the kind of worthless movie that can't let an insult slip by. Our introduction to leading man Luke Wilson, talking with Rainn Wilson on the train, 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's nemesis, who wants to zap her powers, Wilson is told this will make her just an ordinary woman scorned...and isn't that better after all? Thurman's early performances in films like \"Henry & June\" and \"Jennifer 8\" showcased an intelligent woman with angular grace and hypnotic poise; her films with Quentin Tarantino helped expose her sinewy hardness and intensity, but that came at a price (the actress has seemingly lost her graceful touch). The picture is exceedingly well-produced and shot, with expensive-seeming special effects, yet nobody bothered to find the humor in this scenario. It's pushy, leering, ugly, and badly-cast. Bloated, frozen-faced Wilson can't tell any of his co-workers that he's dating G-Girl because she made him swear he'd rather have a chainsaw stuck up his rectum. I wonder if writer Payne actually thought that was hilarious...or, indeed, if anyone involved did? * 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'm a huge fan of Ivan Reitman-I loved Evolution and who didn't like Ghostbusters? From the trailer you already know that Uma's character will get dumped by Luke's.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, 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,right?
It's 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's see if Jason Reitman can salvage the family name.
\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 see this film yesterday and although i didn't have high hopes for this film, 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'll only end up being disappointed afterwards. My advice is to save your money, go shopping, treat yourself, just don't go and see this film... You'll live to regret it lol!
\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\nNeeded 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 don't recall ever walking out on a movie before, 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.
\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\nWell I must say this is probably the worst film I have seen this year! The jokes were extremely crude (wasn't expecting it from as PG movie)(Rated PG in Canada) and they weren't funny! With this great cast I at least expected some good acting but I didn't 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's characters are the least bit likable and i really could have cared less what happened to either of them. I didn't expect this at all as in the past I have really liked other movies by this director (Six Days, 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.
\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 to admit when I went to see this movie, I didn't 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's slight mention of a girl stalking him but that's pretty much it for that character. Which i don't 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, Uma Thurman. This is strange to say the least, as everyone can clearly see that Uma Thurman does not belong under the category of \"hot\".
Rainn Wilson's performance is also far from \"hot\". Normally I'm all for his acting, but even he couldn't salvage this movie. His character was jumpy, unrealistic and rather annoying. You could never tell if the writers were trying to make him the comical token closet gay guy, or just desperate. It was almost painful.
But anyway, someone steals her purse as she goes to leave the subway, and Luke Wilson being the charming savior he is runs after the robber. Now we all know that Uma Thurman is the superhero, or \"G-Girl\" as they like to call her in the movie. It still baffles me as to what the \"G\" stands for, but we'll leave that for the message boards to debate.
The sex scenes I assume are supposed to be funny, but I find myself asking who has sex like that? They nearly throw the bed through the wall because of Uma Thurman's \"passion\" let's say. It makes my head hurt, but not in the \"I'm thinking really hard to understand this\" way.
When Uma insults Anna Faris, calling her a \"whore\" I had no debate with that. Apart from the fact that she can't choose movies properly, she can't act and relies souly on the fact that she's blonde and typical.
Overall I would've walked out of the theater if i hadn't paid $8.75 to see it. The characters are typical and have absolutely no chemistry, especially Uma Thurman. Someone should let her know that just because you move your head a lot doesn't mean you're acting.
Also, the script and storyline could've used either a lot of work or a match and some lighter fluid. I actually started to feel embarrassed for the actors, and their dying careers. Overall, if you value your money, and your self respect do NOT waste your time with this pathetic attempt at a movie.
\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 my god. oh my god, i cant get over this movie. It was god-awful. horrible, terrible! Don't even waste your money to buy it in the 99 cent bin. No, avoid it at all costs I'm warning you!!!
It was the worst movie I've ever seen. In my life. In my life!!
First of all, 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 didn't even seem to care that there was a flying blonde just zooming her way around the town saving a fire.. Ohh big!
Jesus, 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's, blonde flowing hair, no glasses and a leather skin tight suit?!
If it was trying to be romantic ... than.. god, i don't know. It was horrid, 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, everything went too fast. First that guy was single, 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.
\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 rented this movie tonight because it looked like a fun movie. I figured that you really couldn't 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
\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 had two reasons for watching this swashbuckler when it aired on Danish television yesterday. First of all, I wanted to see Gina Lollobrigida - and here I wasn't disappointed. She looked gorgeous. Second of all, 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's films. On this account, however, 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, the action scenes were done in a strangely mechanical and uninspired fashion, with no sense of drama at all. I kept watching until the end, but I got bored very quickly and just sat there, waiting for the scenes with Lollobrigida.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"