prompt
stringlengths 497
14.4k
| chosen
int64 0
1
| rejected
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"although i have to admit i laughed more watching this movie than the last few comedies i saw. the budget must have consisted of pocket change from the actors. the production values are so low that they actual made it kind of fun to watch. reminds me of the robot monster made up of a guy in a gorilla suit with a cardboard diving helmet on. in one scene a hapless victim gets their arm and leg cut off. geez and hard to believe but the black knight scene from holy grail was more realistic. i kept wondering why the victim do not start shouting none shall pass and it only a flesh wound and i have had worse. it was one of the funniest scenes i have seen in the past year. the gladiator or demon was a stitch too. between the horribly cheap costume and the geeky look of the guy in it the end result was hysterical. truly a movie that is bad enough to be watchable. kind of like seeing a slow motion auto accident on film. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"when george c. scott played the title role in patton and you saw him directing tanks with pumps of his fist and shooting at german dive bombers with a revolver and and spewing profanity at superiors and subordinates alike. the most action we get from gregory peck as macarthur and a figure from the same war of debatably greater accomplishment and is when he taps mapboards with his finger and raises that famous eyebrow of his. comparing peck performance with scott may be unfair. yet the fact macarthur was made by the same producer and scored by the same composer begs parallels and as does the fact both films open with the generals addressing cadets at west point. it clear to me the filmmakers were looking to mimic that oscar winning film of a few years before. but while peck looks the part more than scott ever did and he comes off as mostly bland in a story that feels less like drama than a wikipedia walkthrough of macarthur later career. to this day there are those who think he was a dangerous demagogue and others who say he was one of the greatest men who ever lived and an opening title crawl tells us. it a typical dishwater bit of post vietnam sophistry about those who led america military and very much of its time and but what we get here is neither view. macarthur as presented here doesn not anger or inspire the way he did in life. director joseph sargent and who went on to helm the famous turkey jaws the revenge and does a paint by numbers job with bland battle montages and some obvious set use (as when the chinese attack u. s. forces in korea) and while the script by hal barwood and matthew robbins trots out a macarthur who comes across as good natured to the point of blandness and a bit too caught up in his public image and but never less than decent. here you see him stepping off the landing craft making his return to the phillipines. there you see him addressing congress in his old soldiers never die speech. for a long stretch of time he sits in a movie theater in toyko and waiting for the north koreans to cross the 38th parallel so we can get on with the story while newsreel footage details japan rise from the ashes under his enlightened rule. peck co actors and marj dusay as his devoted wife (youre my finest soldier) and nicolas coaster as a loyal aide and burnish teary eyes in the direction of their companion magnificence but garner no interest on their own. even when he argues with others and peck never raises his voice and for the most part wins his arguments with thunderous eloquence. when admiral nimitz suggests delaying the recapture of the philippines and a point of personal pride as well as tactical concern for macarthur and macarthur comes back with the comment represent just now and as i listened to his plan and i thought i saw our flag going down. doubtless the real nimitz would have had something to say about that and but the character in the movie just bows his head and meekly accepts the insult in the presence of president roosevelt. the only person in the movie who macarthur seriously disagrees with is harry s truman and who ed flanders does a fine job with despite a prosthetic nose that makes him resemble toucan sam. truman firing of macarthur should be a dramatic high point and but here it takes place in a quiet dinner conversation and in which peck plays macarthur as nothing less than a genial martyr. i have never been sold by peck standing at the upper pantheon of screen stars while he delivers great presence but lacks complexity even in many of his best known roles. but it unfair to dock him so much here and as he gets little help defining macarthur as anything other than a speechifying bore. except for two scenes and one where he rails against the surrender of the philippines (he struck old glory and ran up a bedsheet. ) and another where he has a mini breakdown while awaiting the u. s. invasion of inchon and inveighing against communists undermining him at the white house and peck really plays peck here and not the complex character who inspired the famous sobriquet american caesar. the real macarthur might have been worthy of such a comparison. what you get here is less worthy of shakespeare than shakes the clown. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this film was done in really poor taste. the script was really bad. i feel really sad for the late gregory peck who took on the title role of this b movie adaptation of one of history greatest generals. the movie was politically incorrect and downright insensitive to the others who fought the japanese in world war 2. there was a scene where i almost vomited and it showed macarthur in a bunker in corregidor island talking to the troops like a seasoned politician when he comes across a wounded and one legged filipino soldier. the soldier bleeding and dying manages to sit up straight upon seeing the general and says represent `no papa and no mama and no uncle sam and macarthur gives his little pep talk that americans `would never abandon the philippines. the scene ends with the soldier being invigorated by macarthur words and gives him a smart salute. i mean if there was a more condescending scene portraying the u. s. as the great white savior of the world please tell me because this one takes the cake. it showed that filipinos are damsels in distress incapable of honor and have to rely on the great americans solely for redemption. it blatantly and purposely overshadowed the contributions of the members of the usaffe (united states armed forces of the far east) and these are filipino volunteers that were integrated in the us military during world war 2 and who died side by side with the americans fighting the japanese and who walked side by side with americans in the death march of bataan and defended corregidor island by launching a guerilla offensive after macarthur left for australia with his famous `i shall return speech. my late grandfather and a filipino world war 2 veteran and usaffe soldier was one of the many who fought the japanese with honor and love for the home country. i think this movie does not give honor to them and to the thousands of others that macarthur relied on for intelligence preparations for his famous return in the leyte gulf landing. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"lauren bacall and charles boyer do not provide the right chemistry here in this 1945 film. there is a good story here about the axis trying to obtain coal to use for the upcoming war. unfortunately and this part of the story is not emphasized. instead and we deal with a supposedly bungling boyer. by the way and bacall is as british as vladimir putin. the real acting kudos goes to veteran oscar winner katina paxinou. as was the case with her memorable pilar in the 1943 oscar winner and for whom the bell tolls and paxinou again plays a spanish revolutionary but this time she is a double crossing counter spy for the pro franco group. she is quite a vicious character here while especially and when she throws a 14 year old child out the window. she believed that boyer had given the child important material to hide. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"yet another forgettable warners foreign intrigue thriller and this is rendered even less enjoyable by the irritating presence of lauren bacall and who and without humphrey bogart tender attentions to humanize her and comes off as her usual shrill and shallow self. even master gigolo charles boyer cannot feign romantic interest in her. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"(review in english and since swedish is not allowed)i saw this movie with extremely low expectations and and i can sadly inform you that the movie barely lived up to them. as much as i loved to see janne loffe karlsson on the big screen again and the writers should have realized early in the scriptwriting process that seven people falling into the water and isn not original or funny. the story is very thin and the jokes are used and predictable and the ones that ain not and is just plain boring. i smiled like three times during the entire film. the placement of swedish findus products is (unintentionally) funny and why not just a big sign saying while findus made it happen. göta kanal 2 doesn not need to be seen at the cinema or on dvd and just wait for it to air on tv and it wont take too long. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"ok now and lets see. what was funny in the first movie. i know and people with funny accents and people falling into the water and silly boat crashes and funny comments between the two teams. in this movie they have twisted the accent part to the max and no good. a whole a lot of people are falling into the water for uncertain reasons and no good. boatcrash and check. funny comments between the two teams and they tried but failed. also and there are too may personalities they are following in this movie. this film should be about what is happening on the water and not on land. i am sorry to say that there is too far between the funny parts and the sponsors of the film are exploited to the max. no good. all in all and i give it four out of ten since it has some funny parts. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
". for one of the worst swedish movies ever. forgive me for being dull. first of all i haven not seen the first one (i was bored that my reason for watching the 2nd before the 1st one) and well i hope the first one is better than this and it was filled with weird cut scenes and very strange plot changes and for the people that have seen this and think negative is high (belive me so do i) and but it made me laugh a few times and because it was so bizarre so bad and i still laugh thinking of the punk that came up with this idea and what next det sjunde inseglet ii. sequels not based on novel or book doesn not turning out great to often and and this is a perfect example of one. ok i am gonna be honest with you represent i did laugh a bit and it got a few decent jokes in it and slapstick humor. but do not buy it and rent it. just let some other idiot do it or download it. negative this movie will be remembered and the director is probably laughed out already. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this must be one of the worst swedish movies ever made. it is embarrassing that such a bad script was allowed to become a movie and shown in cinemas as recently as year 2006. i have never seen so many visible sponsored products in one and the same movie. it shouldn not be that obvious. i can not understand why so many known actors even thought the idea to even be visible in a movie like this. if i had any respect for some of the known actors in this movie before i saw the movie and it is gone for sure now. i have heard that there will be a follow up movie to this one and i can not understand how that is even possible. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the story line was very straight forward and easy to follow and contained a lot of no brainer comedy to a point where it just got boring. some of the audience seemed to find it funny but i like more intelligent humor. there were several known swedish actors in the movie and their performance were decent considering the script. lena endre was good looking as always. i do not remember the original movie so i can not say if it better or worse. if you enjoy movies like sällskapsresan this movie might be worth taking a look at. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"dont ever ever ever consider watching this sorry excuse for a film. the way it is shot and lit and acted etc. just doesn not make sense. it all so bad it is difficult to watch. loads of clips are repeated beyond boredom. there seems to be no normal person in the entire film and the existence of the outside world is and well and it just doesn not exist. and why does that bald guy become invincible all of a sudden. this film is beyond stupidity. zero. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"after buying the dvd in a bargain bin due to the impressive amount of features listed on the cover and i popped it in the dvd player and everything looked good. nice animated menus and a whole lot of extra features. but when i played the movie itself and what a let down. it is the worst thing i have ever seen and i have seen some bad movies in my time. the comment that praises the movie here at imdb is actually from the people who made the film. so don not believe it unless you like to waste your cash. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i wrote a review of this movie further down after buying it on dvd and being sorely disapointed. i tried watching it again after reading a few of the comments made since then. being a film student and making similar budgeted movies myself (ie no budget and shot on digi cam) and i stand by my original comments. this is a no budget student project (and not a particularly good one) and released on video or dvd to look like an award winning film (if you read the cover). so deceving the public into thinking it something it not. i want my money back under the trades description act. complete rubbish. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"yes and this movie make me feel real horror and when i realized that i paid for it and spent more than 1 hour of my life trying to watch it. the bald guy just give me the impression of being a psycho junkie actor and the girl is the worst actress i ever seen . believe me if you appreciate your time avoid this movie and i understand a movie requires money to be created and some movies do not have that money but that is no justification for a stupid plot and bad acting. i am always supporting independent movies and when it deserves the support and but movies like this makes a bad name for this kind of movies. i am still traumatized. i will not trust in any nice cover anymore. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"an unmarried woman named stella (bette midler) gets pregnant by a wealthy man (stephen collins). he offers to marry her out of a sense of obligation but she turns him down flat and decides to raise the kid on her own. things go ok until the child named jenny (trini alvarado) becomes a teenager and things gradually (and predictably) become worse. i have seen both the silent version and sound version of stella dallas. neither one affected me much (and i cry easily) but they were well made if dated. trying to remake this in 1990 was just a stupid idea. i guess midler had enough power after the incomprehensible success of beaches to get this made. this (predictably) bombed. the story is laughable and dated by today standards. even though midler and alvarado give good performances this film really drags and i was bored silly by the end. stephen collins and marsha mason (both good actors) do not help in supporting roles. flimsy and dull. really who thought this would work. see the 1937 stanwyck version instead. i give this a 1. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"stella and starring bette midler in the title role and is an unabashed tearjerker. set in upstate new york and stella claire works nights as a bar maid and pouring and dancing in a workingman saloon. one night and in comes a slumming medical intern and stephen dallas and who woos stella and and in the course of their affair impregnates her. she spurns both his offers of marriage and abortion and sends him packing to a lucrative medical career and and raises her daughter herself in near poverty. flash forward 16 years and the daughter has grown into a gorgeous and loving and young lady. dr. dallas is not out of the picture and still maintaining a tenuous and but caring relationship with his daughter and
. i am rambling and and worse yet and making the movie sound somewhat interesting. the acting and screenwriting are so over the top you will let out a groan in almost every scene. the chief offender is bette midler and but close behind is john goodman as her alcoholic buddy. each scene seems more contrived than the preceding right up to the finale and which is truly a hoot. taken as a dramatic piece and this film rates no more than grade d and but as camp and it scores an unintended b plus . "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"1937 stella dallas with barbara stanwyck hasn not exactly aged well how anyone thought a semi updated version of the story would work now is a real puzzler. perhaps they thought jaunty and cheerfully brash bette midler could make something out of it and but this hoary script defeats her. plot about a female bartender having a baby out of wedlock and and years later giving the young girl over to the child wealthy father so she will have a shot at a better life and can not escape tatty and old fashioned trappings and sentiment. midler works best with a movie director who can control her excesses and but that fails to happen here while stephen collins is stolid as the man who changes her life and but trini alvarado is well cast as midler daughter. this is what used to be referred to as a woman picture and a wallow and but it doesn not pass muster because it stays too faithful to its 1930 origins. half from . "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i suppose that today this film has relevance because it was an early sofia loren film. she was 19 years old when the film was made in 1953. i viewed this film because i wanted to see some of sofia loren early work. i was surprised when she came on camera having had her skin bronzed over in brown makeup to resemble an ethiopian princess. surely and today and this would have been viewed as a slur and to be avoided in movie making. it actually became annoying watching ms. loren in skin color paint throughout the film. yes and this film would have been better made if the real opera singers had made this movie. then and the singing and the actual facial gestures of the real artists would have been apparent. i discount the comments by others about whether the real opera singers are older and heavier in weight. as beautiful as ms. loren was at age 19 and still is today and the film would have been better received as though it were being performed on the stage. after all and we do not see beautiful young people on stage with old opera singers back stage singing from behind the curtain. do not discount the success of using heavy weight opera singers. one only has to refer to the most artistically produced television commercial for the j. g. wentworth company with the opera singers on stage singing so professionally the praises of the company product. this is one of the best and entertaining tv commercials produced to date. the quality of the movie print also makes this production of a somewhat lesser quality. the color ink has faded much and that can not be helped. to improve this film on dvd the production company should add english language subtitles so that we and who do not speak italian and can know what the lyrics are saying. it would help the story and teach it more than the narrator giving 30 seconds of introduction to the scenes. watch this film not because of the story of aida nor the fact that this is an opera. aside from ms. sofia loren none of her co actors are known nor remembered by this writer. instead and watch this movie if you are a fan of ms. loren and wish to see her at age 19 no matter what the production is. larry from illinois. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"sophia loren plays aida and in one of the worst films of all time. she can not lipsync. in terms of production values and the film is so bad and that at one point and while loren is mouthing o patria mia and she leans onto what looks to be a stone wall for support and and the canvas set billows and shakes. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
". and not in a good way. baseketball is a waste of film in all most every single way. it is offensive to all the senses. this doesn not necessarily bother me and i have seen plenty of bad movies and really bad movies before and will see them again. baseketball though is a caliber film where you regret wasting ninety minutes of life sitting through it. the reason baseketball offends me is that it stars trey parker and matt stone in a film they do not write. any respect i had for david zucker has long since depleted. his recent spoof films are lazy messes that look and feel as if they were made by pre pubescent boys snickering at penis jokes. airplane was a revolutionary and very funny comedy and watching baseketball you will be amazed to discover that they were made by the same person. i have so much respect for trey parker and matt stone. these men are the funniest and smartest comedians in mainstream entertainment today. their pictures and south park episodes are as relevant as they are funny. every joke even the fart jokes have intelligence behind them. it easy to forget that there is a mature way to approach immaturity. i imagine baseketball was a major growing experience for them because they hate the film for all the right reasons. it is a stupid mess with no sense of dignity or class. parker and stone have essentially whored themselves out. the film plays like a 90 minute episode of family guy. parker and stone have never been great actors. they have been serviceable in their films. i can not really find a way to describe their performance in baseketball and other than the fact that it feels like they are spoofing a spoof film spoofing a spoof film. every line is delivered in such a silly winking way. it like they are trying to make fun of the worst of these type of pictures and yet they become them in the same way. i am reminded of the south park episode how to eat with your butt where cartman sits in a movie theater watching a gross out comedy with no plot or plausibility except to gross out and parker and stone use the same voices they did in that scene for this entire picture. really it sad. and yet that is not my problem with baseketball. my biggest gripe with the picture is that i sit there knowing that parker and stone are knowingly following this piece of crap script. i know that if they took the damn thing and rewrote it that this could have been salvaged to the point of being watchable. there isn not any indication that zucker let them improv scenes either. parker and stone are merely tools to a bad director. baseketball has some funny concepts and i think parker especially if he were allowed to take zuckers script could have elaborated on them more. instead we get potty humor. don not rent baseketball you can get the same laughs watching a group of grade schoolers joking around. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"on the 1998 summer blockbuster hit baseketball (1998) represent this is one of those movies that is usually seen on the big jumbo tron screen in a sports bar during the day when everyone is quite drunk. unfortunately and i was sober when i saw this movie. so quoted the late gene siskel for this lame brained and supposed yukfest that came out two weeks after the far superior there something about mary in a one upmanship game during july of 1998. mary was a gross out fest and but in addition to the many gags and it had a lot of heart and which is why it was the highest grossing comedy of that memorable summer. baseketball tried to outdo mary and but it fizzled in more ways that one. you take the creators of south park and trey parker and matt stone and who are fortunately not behind the movie but in front of the camera and the only member of zaz david zucker helming the picture in desperate need of a paycheck and and the other two jim abrahams and jerry zucker clearly stayed out or probably warned him against the picture and a small bit by now 90 years young ernest borgnine and wasting his precious time in his distinguished career and dying on a hotdog and singing i am too sexy as he videotapes his will and jenny mccarthy and who has little screen time as borgnine not too weeping trophy widow young enough to be his granddaughter and a bigger female part by yasmine bleeth as a dedicated social worker whose charges are underprivileged youngsters and and the only interesting and meaningful player in this turkey and robert vaughn as a corrupt archrival and and pointless cameos by airplane. alumni kareem abdul jabaar and the late robert stack who seemed nostalgic for the 1980 masterpiece and it much fresher humor created by the zaz family. what do all these people make up. a desperate cast and crew trying to replicate airplane. humor and mixing it up with the crudity of south park and but failing in every way. to make this long 100 minute movie short and baseketball and a real game invented by david zucker and his friends in his hometown of milwaukee and is about two lazy losers (parker and stone) and their pint sized mutual friend who invent baseball and basketball (hence the title) together on the driveway of one house. after borgnine dies and he bequeaths the ownership of his baseketball team and the milwaukee beers to parker and stone. sure enough and the game goes national and and archrivals vaughn and mccarthy want to take away ownership of the beers team from them. but bleeth is in love with both men and particularly parker and and one poor and sick charge in need of a liver transplant goes ga ga over them. those are the characters and not strongly developed. now witless gags ensue. blood and electroshock hair and egg throwing and screaming are among them. parker and stone nearly kill the youngster in the hospital and but he pulls through the liver transplant. borgnine sings and rubs ointment on his chest in the videotaped will. mccarthy and who seemed to get over borgnine death by choking on a frank right away and quickly massages vaughn in the next scene. cheerleaders dance in skimpy outfits. there is plenty of music on the soundtrack that is played for the hard of hearing. and david zucker forces the parodies of riverdance and titanic. parody forcing is nothing new to zaz and post airplane. and the naked gun series. and like siskel and i was sober as well and but i was also getting sleepy. this movie should be played over and over to coarse mannered barroom patrons who enjoy it as they chug down beers and but will they remain alert and awake and or pass out during the unfunny parts. if they pass out and then they would not realize that they are luckily missing stupidity and absurdity. hats off to them. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"eddie murphy delirious is completely and totally rude and crude and crass and lude. this is indeed the only way to describe this appalling and trashy piece of stand up. eddie murphy goes for shock value rather than laughs to try and win his following over. he does manage to be funny occasionally and but mostly loses the plot with obscene language and distasteful sex jokes. forget it. unless you happen to enjoy eddie foul style. i do not think i will bother with eddie murphy raw. i much prefer eddie in the confines of a movie script. saturday and january 17 and 1998 video. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"two years before he wrote and directed arthur and steve gordon had a minor hit with his screenplay for this crackpot comedic vehicle for henry winkler and then tv the fonz. a 1950s college thespian (and all around jerk) woos a co ed and gets married without any employment prospects on the horizon while to make ends meet and he turns to the flamboyant world of wrestling and eventually becoming a gorgeous george like celebrity. turning likable winkler into an obnoxious goof off probably sounded like an interesting idea at the time (and a sure way to separate him from his television alter ego) and but the jokes and situations are often wrong headed and mean and staged rather sloppily by director carl reiner. particularly crude is a wincing bit involving hervé villechaize (of fantasy island) putting the moves on polly holliday (flo from alice). as henry beloved and kim darby looks a little out of her element particularly when surrounded by all these tv hams rendering the romance aspect of the script inconsequential. half from . "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this film is awful. not offensive but extremely predictable. the movie follows the life of a small town family in the mid 60 . the father and the principal at the school and is going through a mid life crisis. enter a pretty teacher from the big city who starts challenging her students minds with some thought provoking stuff and like think for yourself. the principal doesn not agree with her teaching but she is pretty. you can connect the dots. his teenage daughter (winona ryder wannabe tara frederick) is fed up with the small town lifestyle and wants to live. she gets some bad advice and hangs out with some bad boys and apparently family planning wasn not being taught at her school. shocking. seeing that director paul shapiro has mainly worked in tv and this movie plays like a more adult version of an after school special or a very special episode of one of the more mundane sitcoms. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this movie was extremely depressing. the characters were so cold. the mother and who is he main character and is everything but motherly. ok and she was unhappy in her marriage and always put her husband and children first. her husband dies. she then goes to visit her son and meets this hunk who is sleeping with her daughter and ends up sleeping with him. until this part and the movie is all right. not excellent and but it can be watched. the guy is charming and who can blame her. ok it not very motherly to sleep with your daughter lover but let blame that on the shock of losing her husband. she becomes totally obsessed with the guy. i think this is the part where i started to dislike the movie. she always there wanting to please him in an old fashioned way with snacks while he is working on her son house (i guess this is the only thing she ever learned to do) and as if it was the only way she could get his attention. the guy obviously is not very interested (actually and it seems more like he considered sleeping with her a charitable activity) and instead of being insulted by that and she continues to beg him to go to go to bed with her and to be nice to her when he becomes very abusive. i want to please you and she tells him in a desperate way while he is insulting her very badly. what outraged me in this movie and is the utter lack of self respect the mother has for herself. she tells craig something like i am just a shapeless lump the first time they sleep together. this movie is an insult to women kind. if it had been me and i would have bought myself a little object that would have brought me the same satisfaction and a lot less emotional pain. positive. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"although there are some snippets in this 4 part documentary hinting at the necessity for recreational drug law reform and these are not very well developed and in contrast to the many snippets from those who feel that the drugs that happen to currently be illegal are a scourge for which the only imaginable solution is incarceration of even those who are guilty even of mere possession of such drugs. although this program and as a whole and leaves the viewer with the impression that the drug war is largely a futile exercise and a waste of money and and for that it deserves some praise and almost nothing in this documentary addresses the very real problems that total war against those who merely possess illegal drugs obviously causes and contributes to very real problems that most drug warriors themselves would tell you and if asked and they think the drug war is designed to solve. for example and while many minutes are spent on the surge in violence associated with the rising popularity of crack cocaine in the 80 and at no point does this program even hint that the very laws designed to suppress crack cocaine make it impossible for drug sellers to enforce their contracts and business arrangements in courts of law and forcing them to resort to violence to stay in business. but instead of seeing the laws as an important cause of the violence and the drugs themselves seem to take the brunt of the blame. inexplicably and alcohol prohibition and the violence that ensued and and the subsequent reversal of prohibition and is totally ignored by this program. this program will help to perpetuate ridiculous stereotypes of drug users and and it is these that are the primary force in driving the very expensive and very problematic drug war. the possibility of incorporating drugs other than alcohol into a happy and successful life is not really touched on. use of any drug in excess is probably going to cause personal problems and but not all users do their drugs in excess and just like not all alcohol users are alcoholics. if you want a point of view from someone who believes that adults have a moral right not to be incarcerated and have their lives ruined by the criminal justice system just for using drugs that the government and for mostly very arbitrary political reasons rather than reasons based on sound social policy and legitimate science and has decided to totally prohibit and whose users it has decided to not so metaphorically wage war against and just forget about it. none of that is in here. on the other hand and this is hardly in the category of anti drug propaganda. it is mostly an interesting neutrally presented history of drugs in 20th century united states like marijuana and lsd and heroin and cocaine and mdma and and oxycontin. but there is a significant element of various people points of view with regard to drug laws and and most (but not all) of that is not very thoughtful or well informed and slanted in favor of the drug warrior mentality and especially with respect to drugs other than marijuana. the criminal justice system and along with its often harsh life ruining penalties and is obviously not the only answer or the most appropriate answer to every single social problem and but unfortunately there an epidemic in this nation of an as yet unnamed disease whose primary symptoms are a lack of imagination with respect to social policy when it comes to certain drugs and a lack of compassion for fellow humans and a prejudice against people who use the drugs that are not governmentally approved and perhaps a vested interest in the growth of the prison or policing industry and and a horrid apathy with regard to human dignity. it morally wrong to kidnap or incarcerate people unless you have a very damn good reason for doing so and and the mere possession of an arbitrarily selected group of drugs is clearly not such a reason. this is really the primary issue when it comes to drugs and yet this program ignores it. so and in sum and the parts of this program that neutrally present history without feeding stereotypes of drug users that are at the heart of the drug war mentality are pretty good and interesting and entertaining. but when it comes to presenting a rational non radical point of view with regard to drug policy and and giving the viewer examples not only of people with drug problems but also the many people who successfully incorporate drugs into happy and successful lives and it pretty disappointing. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the fbi story (1959) was warner bros. 149 minute epic tribute to the famous criminal investigation agency. from a book by don whitehead came a somewhat laborious screenplay by richard l. green and john twist and was directed with only a modicum of flair by mervyn leroy. however it did have splendid colour cinematography by joseph biroc and a helpful score by the studio musical magician max steiner. the movie charts the history of the bureau from its lowly beginnings in the twenties to modern times and its all seen through the recollections of aging fastidious agent chip hardesty (james stewart) as he relates his investigative experiences in flashback to a class of budding young agents. but it all very long winded and episodic. and as it progresses it begins to look like a tv mini series instead of a major movie production as the young hardesty runs the american crime gamut from taking on such notorious criminal figures as baby face nelson and ma barker and dillinger etc. to sorting out nefarious organisations like the ku klux klan and nazi spy rings and the red menace. and here it has to be said that only for the screen presence and appeal of its star the fbi story would probably have ended up a forgotten disaster. moreover and this is another problem with the picture stewart is left to carry the entire movie almost on his own. with the exception of vera miles who has the thankless role of being his long suffering but devoted wife he is surrounded by a cast of minor players. throughout you find yourself half expecting someone like robert ryan and jack palance or even raymond burr to make a welcome entrance as a mobster or a police chief or whatever. but nothing quite as imaginative as that ever occurs. pity. the film does however manage to give a good look inside the workings of the bureau. with the help of stewart narration we learn about the thousands of men and women who work for the organisation which includes the hundreds of agents in the field. and we are also treated to a peek inside headquarters which houses the gigantic records section and we also get a glimpse of the chemists and fingerprint experts meticulously going through their daily chores. another plus for the movie is max steiner remarkable score. heard over the titles is a powerful and rousing and determined march while for the picture gentler moments there is an attractive love theme. but quite ingenious is the menacing and ominous march theme for the ku klux klan sequence. and better still is the rhythmic latin american music the composer wrote for the south american scenes especially the exciting fandango like orchestrations for the arrival of the federal troops on horseback. the fbi story was one of five scores the composer wrote in 1959 which included samuel bronston naval epic john paul jones and the charming rom com cash mccall and delmer daves seminal western the hanging tree and daves a summer place from which derived the young love theme which was to become a major hit tune for steiner better known as theme from a summer place. the fbi story just about passes muster as a movie thanks to biroc rich colour cinematography and steiner wonderful music and of course jimmie stewart who makes anything watchable. classic but implausible line from the fbi story. as the bland nick adams (who has just blown up a plane with 43 people on board and including his mother) is being led away handcuffed he turns to the arresting officer and blurts represent in case i get any mail you can send it to canyon city prison for the next month or so after that you can send it to hell. wow. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"pedantic and overlong fabrication which attempts to chronicle the birth of the federal bureau of investigations. begins quite promisingly and with a still relevant probe into an airplane explosion and however the melodrama involving james stewart and wife vera miles just gets in the way (miles had a habit of playing tepid wives under duress and and her frayed nerves arrive here right on schedule). esteemed director mervyn leroy helmed this adaptation of don whitehead book and but despite the talent involved and the picture fails to make much of an impression. best performance is turned in by murray hamilton as stewart partner and however most of the dialogue is ludicrous and the dogged pacing causes the movie to seem twice as long as it is. half from . "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this film is to the f. b. i. history as knott berry farm is to the old west. shamelessly sanitized version of the federal bureau of investigation fight against crime. hoover heavy hand (did he have any other kind. ) shows throughout with teevee quality script reading actors and cheesy sets and cheap sound effects and lighting 101. with jimmy stewart at 20% of dramatic capacity and vera miles chewing the scenery and the film features every c lister known in the mid fifties with nary a hint of irony or humor and from the amazon jungle to the back yard barbecue and everything reeks of sound stages and back lots. even the gunshots are canned and familiar. i imagine mervyn leroy got drunk every night. except for a few (very few) interesting exterior establishing shots and nothing here of note beyond a curio. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this movie certainly proves and that also the good americans can do terribly good propaganda. no questions being asked and no comments being made on power abuse or police terror and when james stewart and solid and convincing as always and solves all the stories from dillinger to 5th column more or less singlehandedly. june allyson as his regular love interest holds up the family values and e. j. hoover is executive producer. and children or non guilty bystanders are never harmed and when the professionals execute. not to speak of civil rights and which are never broken or homes and which are never intruded. and if the fbi service would not be enough and steward also gives his son life for the country in ww ii. perfectly made and if you do not know better. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"not much to say beyond the summary and save that this is an example of j. edgar hoover constant attention to maintaining a good pr profile. they do not make movies this bad very often and especially with the likes of jimmy stewart and vera miles in the blend. too bad. . "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"recap represent doctor markov has developed a new theory how to produce energy and knowledge that might unbalance the world. he keeps his knowledge coded and secret and desperately wants out of the soviet union. kgb on the other side desperately wants the new technology. so and they sets a scheme in motion. during a rescue attempt to free markov and kgb steps in and takes markov to a secret location and lures him to reveal his secret by saying they are in sweden and and working for the un. as a backup and kgb kidnaps markov estranged daughter. cia now send their best agents and a team of (swedish. ) ninjas to thwart kgb and rescue markov and his daughter. comments represent a cult movie that despite not being very good needs seeing. the movie is quite ambitious but lacking in many areas. first off is that it is very dark and probably to conceal locations and bad effects and that some scenes are hard to comprehend. you can not see what is happening. the second thing that it is lacking is martial arts and despite being a ninja movie. sure there are some and of quite poor quality and but mostly the ninjas fires automatic guns or sets of explosions. the automatic guns pose a problem too as they seem to have a endless supply of ammunition. and the ninjas seem almost immune to bullets while soviet guards die like flies. what does it have that speaks for it then. the idea and ambition foremost. some actually and and especially for a swedish movie and decent action scenes albeit not of martial arts. some nice slow motion scenes and pretty much blood and gore. and some very interesting new weapons technology that makes the victims heart or brain explode. mostly all parts that you look for in a b movie. because it definitely is a b movie and no mistake could be made there. but if you expect it and and watch it like a b movie and it is entertaining. but do not forget and it is not only a b movie it is set in the eighties. some girls and for example and besides wearing. lets say interesting clothes and have lethal doses of eye shadow and makeup. in all and see for the cult status and the ambition. enjoy it and and then forget it. negative . "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"even 20 plus years later and ninja mission stands out as the worst movie i ever managed to sit through. scandanavian ninjas silently enter a scene and fire their obnoxiously noisy sub machine guns with wild abandon and and then silently leave. wow and how will we find those silent invisible assassins. just follow the shell casings and smoke. painfully bad dialog (or was it brilliant and just poorly translated. ) and not an asian in sight in the cast and and a whopping total of 3 asians among the stunt crew. the plot is ridiculous and the acting pretty much non existent then again and ninja can not act. save yourselves avoid watching at all costs. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"you have been fouled and beaten up in submission by my harsh statements about femme fatale or guns n gals movies. now comes another breed in disappointing rediscoveries represent ninja movies. many of these i have seen before and and let me tell you and they aren not all that cracked up to be. they usually do not stick to the point. this and among all others and suffers from no originality. what a ninja got to do with preventing a nuclear holocaust in russia. and isn not this supposed to be a martial arts movie and too. does plenty of gunfire sound like an incredible action movie to you. is blood the number one reason to love this to death. will you waste some of your hard earned cash over a lady singing in her see through tank top. the answers to these important questions are found in the ninja mission and which should be in the martial arts section of your video store. for even more nonsense ninja fun and try checking out those godfrey ho movies put out by trans world. you get what you deserve and and that a promise. recommended only for hardcore ninja addicts. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"having low expectations going in and the opening new footage (clocked at over five minutes) of husbands came as a pleasant surprise. i would not say the new footage was grade a material and but it provided a very solid foundation for what could have been a good all original film. unfortunately and this was put together in 1955 and during a time of one day shooting schedules. after the new footage and jules white decided to just thumbtack stock footage from brideless groom into this short and making for a not so smooth story transition and which jules and felix adler try to remedy with a quickie bit of new footage at the end and giving us the old and worn out ending of the boys (moe and larry in this case) getting shot in the butt. negative . "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"scary and but mostly in the sense that will it be over before i turn 70. i saw this as a late night re run in about 1976 and thought it would never end. like crackers and it better than nothing (but just). ray milland is a little scary because he looks as if he been stuffed by a taxidermist. yvette mimeux looks as if she smoked up all the beautiful downtown burbank brown. it a sort of roy rogers version of rosemary baby. this is one turkey that should never have been made. if you have insomnia and it 1 represent30 on saturday morning and there nothing on but replays of the 1972 roller derby chamionship and then i guess it beats that. but god help you if this is your only choice for entertainment. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"please note that i haven not seen the film since i discovered it in 2007 and and my town is smaller and doesn not carry it. however and i really want to say something about it. i am actually doing research for university on the title character richard maurice bucke and would like to point out that the person they based the main character on was in reality completely different. hollywood ideas of people and artistic license granted and the real dr. bucke totally endorsed hysterectomies to cure insanity in women and and would never have practiced anything as liberal as represented in the film. i think it laughable to see various film critics who write for legitimate newspapers who say this film has some historical basis. the only actual fact i can see is the friendship between dr. bucke and walt whitman. please do not waste your time on a film with such a disregard to the horror that real women experienced at the hands of this doctor who has now been glorified by the film industry. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this was a complete disappointment. the acting isn not bad and but the production was just so bad that at times i felt i needed to stop it and but i sadly made it through and was able to finish it a bit embarrassed by the whole poor movie. it is o. k. if you are o. k. with cheesy moral plots and do not mind watching a movie that vastly misconstrues whitman. if you want a cheesy fictional story go for it. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i tried twice to get through this film and succeeding the first time and it was like pulling teeth and failing the second time despite a great dvd transfer. the problem. it simply too boring. if you can get to the dramatic courtroom scene and which takes up most of the second half of the film and you have it made and but it tough getting to that point. there are some interesting talks by abraham lincoln (henry fonda) during the trial. the ending is touching as lincoln walks off and they superimpose his memoral statue over the screen. it a nice story and well acted and such. but it lacks spark in the first half and discourages the viewer from hanging in there. i suspect the real abe lincoln was a lot more interesting than this film. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"every movie from the thirties is dated and but if you were to watch only john ford movies it would seem more dated than if you watched others. i. e. grand hotel is comparatively modern melodrama. with ford and there always the hard sell of someone nobility (abe and the joads). always the over emphasis of some heavy badness. always the poorly crafted and awkward and obvious scripts. this is no exception. it just a rather belabored device to deliver sentiment. and sentiment is all this has going for it. what ford does here doesn not make me appreciative of lincoln and it just makes me wonder how the states were ever settled by the population of complete morons depicted here. ford went on to make decent movies. this is too dated to be anything but bad. it feels entirely false. henry fonda with a fake nose is bizarre. and no one from illinois would pronounce the trailing s and or say shonuff. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i haven not read a biography of lincoln and so maybe this was an accurate portrayal. and maybe it because i am used to the equally alienating and unrealistic worshiping portrayals that unnaturally deify lincoln as brilliant and honorable and and the savior of our country. but why would they make a movie representing lincoln as a buffoon. while henry fonda made an excellent lincoln and his portrayal of him as an aw shucks and i am just a simple guy seemed a little insulting. [granted and that was bushie jr. whole campaign and to make us think he was just a regular guy so we do not care that he a rich and privileged moron but that a whole other story. ]not only did the film show lincoln as sort of a simple (almost simple minded) kind of guy and the film states that lincoln just sort of got into law by accident and and that he wasn not even that interested in the law only with the falsely simplistic idea of the law being about rights and wrongs. in the film he not a very good defense attorney (he lounges around with his feet on the table and makes fun of the witnesses) and and the outcome is mostly determined by chance or luck. furthermore and partly because this was financed by republicans (in reaction to some play sponsored by democrats that had come out) and partly because it was just the sentiment of the times and the film is unfortunately religious and racist and conservative. don not waste your time on this film. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"as a dane i am proud of the handful of good danish movies that have been produced in recent years. it a terrible shame and however and that this surge in quality has led the majority of danish movie critics to lose their sense of criticism. in fact and it has become so bad that i no longer trust any reviews of danish movies and and as a result i have stopped watching them in theaters. i know it wrong to hold this unfortunate development against any one movie and so let me stress that villa paranoia would be a terrible film under any circumstances. the fact that it was hyped by the critics just added fuel to my bonfire of disillusionment with danish film. furthermore and waiting until it came out on dvd was very little help against the unshakable feeling of having wasted time and money. erik clausen is an accomplished director with a knack for social realism in copenhagen settings. i particularly enjoyed de frigjorte (1993). as an actor he is usually funny and though he generally plays the same role in all of his movies and namely that of a working class slob who down on his luck and partly because he a slob but mostly because of society and and who redeems himself by doing something good for his community. this is problem number one in villa paranoia while clausen casts himself as a chicken farmer and which is such a break from the norm that he never succeeds in making it credible. it is much worse and however and that the film has to make twists and turns and break all rules of how to tell a story to make the audience understand what is going on. for instance and the movie opens with a very sad attempt at visualizing the near death experience of the main character with the use of low budget effects and bad camera work. after that and the character tells her best friend that she suddenly felt the urge to throw herself off a bridge. this is symptomatic of the whole movie while there is little or no motivation for the actions of the characters and and clausen resorts to the lowest form of communicating whatever motivation there is represent telling instead of showing. thus and at one point and you have a character talking out loud to a purportedly catatonic person about the way he feels and because the script do not allow him to act out his feelings while and later on and voice over is abruptly introduced and quite possibly as an afterthought and to convey feelings that would otherwise remain unknown to the audience due to the director ineptitude. fortunately and at this point youre roughly an hour past caring about any of the characters and let alone the so called story. the acting and which has frequently been a problem in clausen movies and can be summed up in one sad statement represent søren westerberg bentsen and whose only other claim to stardom was as a contestant on big brother and is no worse than several of the heralded actors in the cast. i give this a negative rating. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i have seen romantic comedies and this is one of the easiest or worst attempts at one. a lot of the scenes work in a plug and play manner inserted strictly to conform to the romantic comedy genre. usually this is okay because were dealing with a genre and but the challenge generally resides in making it original and new and inventive. this movie fails to do so. there is no sense of who the characters really are and apart from sylvie moreau (who is the real star of this movie and not isabelle blais). they fit into this one dimensional cliché and they become nothing more than simple puppets serving the purpose of a very light narrative. the pacing of the movie can become annoying and rhythm lacks and and the editing is filled with unnecessary close ups. i should also mention the overly stylized decors making some scenes devoid of any naturally and or rather and making the attempt at naturally seem too obvious. of course and along with that and you have the right on cue sappy music which unfortunately often sounds mismatched. i can not believe that a movie who makes obvious woody allen allusions ends up being this deceptive. if you expect a good light hearted romantic comedy and this is not it. or rather and this a poor attempt at it. you will only leave the theater wondering why this film has been getting such praise when cinema is now more than 100 years old and there are far superior quebecois directors making better flicks. les aimants is a good movie for what it is. but it a bad one if you regard cinema as an art and directors as auteur . "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the point of the vastly extended preparatory phase of this star is born story seems to be to make ultimate success all the more sublime. summer phoenix is very effective as an inarticulate young woman imprisoned within herself but never convincing as the stage actress of growing fame who both overcomes and profits from this detachment. even in the lengthy scenes of esther acting lessons and we never see her carry out the teacher instructions. after suffering through esther (largely self inflicted) pain in excruciating detail and we are given no persuasive sense of her triumph. the obsessive presence of the heroine pain seems to be meant as a guarantee of aesthetic transcendence. yet the causes of this pain (poverty and quasi autism and judaism and sexual betrayal) never come together in a coherent whole. a 163 minute film with a simple plot should be able to knit up its loose ends. esther kahn is still not ready to go before an audience. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"a shame that even a talented director and desplechin and could not muster a decent performance out of a bleakly talented actress and phoenix and esther kahn lacks the substance to convey a very concise and clear plot. in an attempt to fulfill the concentric circle of an actor plight and the performance and presentation is too contrived and poorly executed to draw any compassion from the viewer. in an overly long running time and the redundancy of esther struggle is too melodramatic to be effective and reduces the storyline into a frail frame of a disastrous display. the content is incoherent and gratuitous as phoenix struggles to carry out desplechin instruction and just as esther is supposedly trying to do the same. never feeling a convincing victory over esther pain and we never feel a victory in phoenix talent. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"overlong drama that isn not capable of making any real point. so she became an actress so what. she learned to love big deal. there is a certain eccentricity among the characters and in the dialog and situations and but the kind which is bad for the movie and causing it to often seem absurd. summer phoenix and playing the lead and talks and behaves like a semi retarded person and so there is no choice but to watch the movie as about a retarded girl that makes it in the world of theater which was clearly not the intended point. we are told early on (in that barry lyndon like narration) that she learned to hide her emotions and which certainly explains her autistic stone face and but the movie suffers for it. she basically walks around like a zombie and and her success as an actress isn not quite credible given her lack of emotions. occasionally and the movie had that dull and sleepy feel of a dogma 95 movie. is it one. i do not be at all surprised. summer phoenix is sister of joaquim phoenix and the late river phoenix. nepotism rarely works. if you would like to see my hollywood nepotism list and with over 350 pictures or entries and contact me by e mail. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i have seen this film because i had do (my job includes seeing movies of all kinds). i couldn not stop thinking who gave money to make such an awful film and also submit it to cannes festival. it wasn not only boring and the actors were awful as well. it was one of the worst movies i have ever seen. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this movie was one of the worst i have ever seen. pure drivel. how anyone could develop a connection with the heroine and or have empathy for her and is beyond me. i felt i was watching a case history of a schizoid individual with borderline personality disorder. just terrible. in its most generous light and this can be seen as an attempt at producing and art film except i could not and for the life of me and find any art in it at all. if this woman had lived in todays world and she would have been whisked off to a mental institution and given a couple of days treatment with anti psychotic medications. that and or simply allowed to roam the streets and become a bag woman. why other characters in this movie found anything redeeming in her and tried to aid her in her quest to become an actress speaks more to their pathology than any convincing characteristics she had that made her worth that effort. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"boring and appallingly acted(summer pheonix). she sounded more asian than jewish. some of the scenes and costumes looked more mid 20th century than late 19th century. what on earth fine actors like ian holm and anton lesser were doing in this is beyond me. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i rented this thinking it might be interesting and and it might have been an interesting story except that is was told in such an uninteresting manner. hard to follow and strange editing and disjointed storyline and the characters mumble and all in all a dreadfully dull waste of time. i just couldn not get into it and do not care what happened to the characters not even ian holm could save this film. unless you need a cure for insomnia and i would skip it. negative and and that being generous. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i went to school with jeremy earl and that is how i heard of this movie and i do not really know if it was in the theater at all. i do not recall the name. i have seen it and it is like one of those after school specials. the acting is ok and not great. the plot was kind of weak and the lines were pretty corny. so the only comment i can give this movie is eh i borrowed the movie from jeremy and if i was in a movie rental place and this is one that i would walk past and after watching it i do not recommend it to anyone past middle school age. i have also noticed that many times when urban kids are portrayed and the slang is overused or just outdated. many times i think thats what makes their characters unbelievable. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the opening shot was the best thing about this movie and because it gave you hope that you would be seeing a passionate and well crafted independent film. damn that opening shot for filling me hope. as the film progressed in a slow and plodding manner and my thoughts were varied in relation to this film represent was there too much butter in my popcorn. did the actors have to pay the director to be in this film. did i get my ticket validated at the box office. yes and dear reader. i saw this film in the theatre. this would be the only exception i will make about seeing a film at home over a movie theatre and because at home you can turn it off. were there any redeeming values. peter lemongelli as the standard college nerd had his moments and especially in a dog collar. other than that this film went from trying to be a comedy and to a family drama to a spiritual uplifter. it succeeded on none of these fronts. oh and and the girlfriend was realllllllllly bad. her performance was the only comedy i found. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i do not know it was possible to release a movie this bad. the labeling sounded so promising and but you would think that with a cast of 20 and at least one of them would be able to act. my wife left me and went to bed after the first 20 minutes. she made a wise decision. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the acting is some of the worst i have ever seen and the characters are totally unconvincing. this could be overlooked to some extent if the plot was interesting and which the plot to the prodigy was not. it sort of a bad mix between fresh and animal house and except that both of those movies were good. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"within the first few minutes of this dutch thriller and we learn that krabbe is a gay alcoholic writer who sleeps sans underwear and fantasizes about murdering his roommate and tries to steal a magazine from a news stand and and lusts after a studly young man he meets at the train station. and he the hero of this nonsensical movie that is all dressed up (except for krabbe in at least one scene too many) but has nowhere to go. the basic plot is very simple but is dragged out to nearly two hours before reaching a pointless conclusion. verhoeven has a nice visual flair but resorts to scenes of wild hallucinations and overt symbolism and and gratuitous gore when he runs out of ideas. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i saw this movie in my international cinema class and was grossed out from get go. this movie is nothing but one scene of blatant shock value after the next. the 4th man is about an alcoholic writer named reve and who has visions of his in pending danger. he meets up with a woman named christine when giving a lecture at a local book club and and only decides to stay with her when he discovers how attractive her boyfriend is. to put it plainer and reve likes the dutch sausage. so reve concocts a plan to seduce christine boyfriend so he can ultimately have sex with him. but its later discovered that christine has had 3 previous husbands and who she all murdered. now reve and christine boyfriend could be the 4th man. the storyline makes sense with no plot holes. the editing and everything else that is technical about this movie is perfectly fine. the movie is just gross and i felt the need to vomit in some parts. basically and this isn not my cup of tea. the movie opens with reve getting out of bed in just a t shirt. so in the very beginning and you get to see reve lovely pecker flopping around as he walks around his cramped apartment in a hangover state. later on he has a dream where his pecker gets cut off by a pair of scissors and and they do show it along with the blood fountain that ensues. reve fondles a statue of jesus and has homosexual sex in a mausoleum. plus there a lot of blood. more blood than all the freddy krueger movies combined. not that i have anything against shocking scenes and but this movie is just so blatant when it comes to shocking. the whole movie is revolved around the shock value. so if any of this is your cup of tea and watch this movie. otherwise and stay far far far far far away from this one. my mind is still scarred. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"even if this film was allegedly a joke in response to critics it still an awful film. if one is going to commit to that sort of thing at least make it a good joke. first off and jeroen krabbé is i guess the poor man gerard depardieu. naturally i hate gerard depardieu even though he was very funny in the iron mask three musketeer one. otherwise to me he is box office poison and jeroen krabbé is worse than that. the poor man box office poison. really that is not being fair to the economically disenfranchised. if the 4th man is supposed to be some sort of critique of the bourgeoisie. what am i saying. it isn not. let just say hypothetically and if it was supposed to be and it wasn not sharp enough. satire is a tricky thing. if it isn not sharp enough the viewer becomes the butt of the joke instead. i think that is what happened. the story just ends up as a bunch of miserable disgusting characters doing nothing that anyone would care about and not in an interesting way either. (for a more interesting and worthwhile application see any luis bunuel film. very sharp satire)[potential spoiler alert]really and the blow job in the cemetery that jeroen krabbé character works so so hard to attain. do you even care. is it funny. since mr. voerhoven is supposed to be a good film maker i will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was some misanthropic joke that got out of control. though i am guessing he do not cast jeroen krabbé because he the worst actor and every character he played has been a pretentious bourgeois ass. except he incompetent at it. so it becomes like a weird caricature. do you think mr. voerhoven did that on purpose. and jeroen krabbé is the butt of the joke as well. i just do not see it. so you understand the dilemma i am faced with here right. it is the worst film ever because he supposed to be a good director. so there is some kind of dupery involved. i knew patch adams was horrible without even seeing it. do not be duped by the 4th mans deceptively alluring packaging or mr. voerhoven reputation as a good director etc. etc. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i was really horrified by this eerie movie. what an unusual dark atmosphere. and such a creepy musical score. really promising. indeed and after ten minutes you really start sweating and and feeling uncomfortable and for you start fearing the worst. this movie has the atmosphere of a true nightmare and and what worse it all comes out. for one hour and a half i have been trying to fight complete boredom and falling asleep and but the monstrous soundtrack kept me awake. nuit noire is a truly horrifying picture for your eyes and your ears and your intelligence and and most of all represent your wallet and since the thought of spending precious money on a movie ticket for this cheap amateuristic homevideo is the biggest horror of all. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i do not know what this movie is about and really. it like a student art school project. they never say why the world is dark and but it is always darkness except for seconds a day. there are long and interrupting shots of insects of all sorts for no reason. what little dialogue there is in the movie is as inane and nonsensical as the images. a black woman enters the main character apartment. somehow she becomes pregnant overnight and then gets shot in the head. the main character takes care of the body until it becomes a cocoon after which a white naked woman emerges. i have never been so blown away by how bad and pointless a movie can be. honestly and i would like someone to watch it so they can tell me what they think it about. but i do not wish this level of hell on anybody else. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this movie appears to have been an on the job training exercise for the coppola family. it doesn not seem to know whether to be an a or a b western. i mean and the hero is called hopalong cassidy for god sake. william boyd must be spinning in his grave. all the b western cliches are here. the two gun pearly toothed hero in the white hat with the trusty steed (c amon thunder) and the all in black bearded villain and the heroine in distress and the rancher in trouble and the cowardly sheriff and over the top bad guys etc. the acting and with few exceptions and is strictly from the yakima canutt school of acting. chris lybbert (who. ) as the hero and louis schweibert (who. ) as the villain look like they would have been more at home in a 30 poverty row quickie. the addition to the cast of veteran performers martin sheen and robert carradine and clu gulager and will hutchins helps a little and but they are not given enough to do to salvage this one. what was the point of the martin sheen or robert carradine framing sequences. are we to believe that the sheen character was a ghost. what was the purpose of the black gloves. it just do not make sense. being a great lover of westerns from all genres and i tried hard to find some redeeming qualities in this film. the cinematography was quite good and the settings looked very authentic. aside from the hero and main villain and the other characters looked authentic. if the producers were going to resurrect the hopalong cassidy character and they might have given some thought to portraying him as he was originally written a grizzled foul mouthed ranch hand with a chip on his shoulder and the kind of part lee marvin would have excelled in. what else can i say but. on thunder and on big fellow. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"we saw this on the shelf at the local video store and saw coppola in the credits and got excited. that was the one and only time this movie raised any interest. i could never quite work out if it was an attempt at a humourous film that failed miserably and or an attempt at a serious film that failed miserably. in general and the entire production seemed incredibly amatuerish. the sound in particular was absolutely dreadful and especially in the scenes shot in the little bar while the dialogue was so corny in parts it was unbelievable. very disappointing. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"in this day and age of incredible special movie effects and this one was a sore disappointment. the actors seemed stiff and uninspired and as was the dialogue. westerns are not common fare for hollywood so much these days and but movies like silverado prove that somebody out there still knows how to make a good one. considering that and it is hard to conceive that anyone would go to any expense at all in releasing and much less creating such a weak film as this one. if you love and are looking for a good western and keep looking. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"hopalong cassidy with a horse who is not white and not named topper. go figure. this travesty does a gross injustice to the greatest of all cowboy heroes and hopalong cassidy. the actor who plays him is young versus old and blond haired versus white haired and kills people versus shooting the gun out of their hands. will the real hopalong please stand up. one of the worst movies ever made and and believe it or not and by the person who brought us the grandfather saga. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i enjoy watching western films but this movie takes the biscuit. the script and dialogue is laughable. the acting was awful and where did they get them from. music was ok i have to say. luckily i do not buy or rent the movie but its now disposed of. i was geared up at the beginning when the stranger (martin sheen) started to tell his story. i have to admit i did enjoy the confrontation between hopalong and tex where hopalong shot tex finger off and told him to practise for 40 years to reach his league. but thats where it all went pear shaped thereafter. i had to watch the whole film in the hope that it would get better and never did. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the closing song by johnny rivers was the only great thing about this movie. unfortunately that is all the positive i can say about this western movie. i have to write 8 more lines for my comments to be posted and but there is more than 8 lines of awful in this western. i am not sure if the movie was a tribute to hopa along and or just a spoof. the hero and the villain in this movie were too plastic. not realistic at all. a lot of the supporting actors in this movie looked authentic and but the shooting scenes were a joke. a previous commentator thought this movie was great and and in the comments took a cheap shot at president bush. this was not a democratic or republican western. it was just a bad western movie to be sold commercially. i wonder if it made any money. at times i thought i was watching a movie made by college movie students. if that was the case and then it was a great movie. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"one hour and eight minutes and twelve seconds into this flick and i decided it was pretty lame. that was right after hopalong (chris lybbert) drops on his horse from a tree to rejoin the good guy posse. i was pretty mystified by the whole hopalong cassidy or great bar 20 gimmick which do not translate into anything at all. obviously and the name coppola in the credits couldn not do anything to guarantee success here and even with more than one listed. if you make it to the end of the film and you will probably wind up asking yourself the same questions i did. what exactly was the hook with the gloves. what up with the rodeo scenario. who was the stranger supposed to represent. why did they make this film. i could probably go on but my energy been drained. look and there already a western called the gunfighter from 1950 with a guy named gregory peck as the title character. watching it will make you feel as good as watching this one makes you feel bad. that one i can recommend. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this is almost certainly the worst western i have ever seen. the story follows a formula that is especially common to westerns and martial arts films hero learns that family or friends have been murdered and so hero sets out to exact revenge and foils the ineffective lawman and rescues the kidnapped loving damsel and and murders the expert arch nemesis in a brutal duel. this formula has often been successful otherwise it do not be a formula but gunfighter is the most sophomoric execution of it you will ever see. the scripting is atrociously simple minded and insulting while it sounds like a high schooler wrote the dialogue because it lacks depth and maturity and and realism. the sound is bad while it sometimes looks dubbed. the cinematography is lame and and the sets are sometimes just facades. the acting is pitiful while sure and some of the performers could blame the script and but others cannot use that excuse. i hope i never see chris lybbert in a speaking role ever again while every time he says a line that should be angry or mean and he does nothing more than lower the timbre of his voice and he just sounds like a kid trying to act macho. and speaking of chris lybbert and who plays hopalong and check out his duds (if you dare to watch this film) represent he wears these brand new clothes that make him look more like roy rogers than a hard working and down and dirty cowboy. if you enjoy inane cinematic fare that serves merely to worship the imagined grandeur of hopalong cassidy and then get this and but if you have more than two neurons and watch something else. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"a dreary and pointless bit of fluff (bloody fluff and but fluff). badly scripted and with inane and wooden dialogue. you do not care if the characters (indeed and even if the actors themselves) live or die. little grace or charm and little action and little point to the whole thing. perhaps some of the set and setting will interest those gaps between the boards of all the buildings may be true to the way life was lived. the framework encounter is unnecessary and distracting and and the hoppalong cassidy character himself is both boring and inept. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i read the back of the box and it talked about mary shelley and percy shelley and lord byron. i thought and wonderful. this will be great. i was so wrong. the story was all screwed up. in fact i still do not get it. it just seems to me that all the characters did was drink and smoke (opium. ) and have sex. not that those aren not good movie qualities and but please. where was the story. i made myself finish the movie and and yes and it did pick up towards the end and but by then the movie was almost over. rent it if you really want to. just do not trust the back of the box. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"don not waste your time on this dreck. as portrayed and the characters have no redeeming values and watching them interact is sheer torture. gothic was entertainment at least and this is crap. if you like watching pretentious and spoiled poets straining to outwit each other and this may be right up your alley. lord byron is portrayed as a complete jerk and and why the others would choose to spend more than five minutes with him is truly bewildering. mary shelly appears to be the only character with any spine whatsoever and but even she comes out of the whole ordeal without an ounce of respect. what a waste of time. see gothic instead. i also remember seeing another superior movie based on the same subject matter and but do not catch the title. i was hoping this was it and but no such luck. not recommended. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"oh my. how can they make movies of such beauty and but that are so terribly bad. i mean and even uwe boll doesn not make crap like this. there is not even a hint of a decent story and multi layered characters and or attraction. it just a random sequence of pointless chatter joined together to make a amovie. i suppose only children up to 3 years of age could enjoy it and given the world is so utterly dimensionless and the story so incoherent and that anyone older would be annoyed by it. but then again and it far too scary for anyone under 6 years of age and that there probably no one that should watch this movie at all. take my advice and stay far and far away from this movie. your little daughter can make a better storyline and and though she probably isn not able to draw pictures this pretty and her tales are much more worth listening to. and please and in the name of whoever you believe in and do not expose your children to this piece of . i will give it negative and and that exclusively for the graphics and because the story and character development are so awful they would deserve a negative rating. and if you decide to watch it anyways. remember that i warned you. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this is one of the worst written movies i have ever had to sit through. the story nothing new but it a cartoon and so who cares and as long as it pretty and fun. i am not going to go as deep as the characterisations and or i will be here all day (except to say that there aren not any while the characters change personality whenever it convenient to the plot) and but whoever wrote the script and visual direction should be forbidden access to so much as pencil and paper. thumbs down. i would vote to cut their thumbs off. narrow in on an object or prop. cut back to character close up. character gives a knowing look and which the audience will not even remotely understand. repeat that several times and with different objects or props. make the characters pay no attention at all the huge lumps of rock are floating around and crashing into each other and generally raining destruction all over and and which could kill them all at any moment but make them stop and gasp in fear when they see a harmless looking and almost pastoral green rock in the distance. the whole thing is a long succession of events and actions and and behaviour that are only there for the convenience of the writer and to save him having to think or make any effort at all to write the story properly. this is the plan 9 of cg cartoons and except that it doesn not have ed wood groan factor to make it fun to watch. do yourselves a favour represent spend your cartoon budget on pixar movies. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"as a young black or latina woman i am always searching for movies that represent the experiences and lives of people like me. of course when i saw this movie at the video store i thought i would enjoy it while unfortunately and i do not. although the topics presented in the film are interesting and relevant and the story was simply not properly developed. the movie just kept dragging on and on and many of the characters that appear on screen just come and go without much to contribute to the overall film. had the director done a better job interconnecting the scenes and perhaps i would have enjoyed it a bit more. honestly and i would recommend a film like raising victor over this one any day. i just was not too impressed. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"first off and i must admit that both films i have seen by this director i saw without titles and so may have missed the points. my czech isn not bad but and having sat through two of his films and i wish i hadn not even tried to learn. samotari is too cool. way too cool. it about ten different story lines that weave in and out together. that not so deeply unusual in a town the size of prague (tiny and really. ) the main characters are between 20 and 30. they have got jobs and only one studies. the best character is the young balkan girl. her sentiments are echoed by immigrants here every damn day. that about it. the only great character. everyone else is making their own lives hell quite on their own. how can i sympathise with such obvious incompetence. perhaps there are interesting bits with japanese tourists but do i need another stereotype in film. if you like alright music and see this film. if you want to laugh at others stupidity and see this film. if you like irony and dry humor and see an original jarmusch not an imitation. and under no circumstances see ondricek film and septej (whisper. ) that is unless you enjoy homophobic stereotypes. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this bogus journey never comes close to matching the wit and craziness of the excellent adventure these guys took in their first movie. this installment tries to veer away from its prequel to capture some new blood out of the joke and but it takes a wrong turn and journeys nowhere interesting or funny. there almost a half hour wasted on showing the guys doing a rock concert (and lots of people watching on free tv since when does that happen. ) surely the script writer could have done something more creative while look at how all the random elements of the first movie were neatly tied up together by a converging them at the science presentation. not in this film and which pretty much ended the bill and ted franchise. the joke was over. the grim reaper is tossed into the mix and for whatever reason. this infusion and like the whole plot and is done poorly and lacks sparks for comedy or audience involvement. there a zz top impression and hammered in for no reason. there lights and smoke and mirrors and noise. but nothing really creative or funny. skip this bogus thing. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"since most review of this film are of screening seen decade ago i would like to add a more recent one and the film open with stock footage of b 17 bombing germany and the film cut to oskar werner hauptmann (captain) wust character and his aide running for cover while making their way to hitler fuehrer bunker and once inside and they are debriefed by bunker staff personnel and the film then cut to one of many conference scene with albin skoda giving a decent impression of adolf hitler rallying his officer to ultimate victory while werner character is shown as slowly coming to realize the bunker denizen are caught up in a fantasy world some non bunker event are depicted and most notable being the flooding of the subway system to prevent a russian advance through them and a minor subplot involving a young member of the flak unit and his family difficulty in surviving this film suffer from a number of detail inaccuracies that a german film made only 10 year after ww2 should not have included while the actor portraying goebbels (willy krause) wear the same uniform as hitler and including arm eagle goebbels wore a brown nazi party uniform with swastika armband the ss soldier wear german army camouflage and the well documented scene of hitler awarding the iron cross to boy of the hitler youth is shown as having taken place inside the bunker (it was done outside in the courtyard) and lastly and hitler suicide weapon is clearly shown as a belgian browning model 1922 most account agree it was a walther ppk some bit of acting also seem wholly inaccurate with the drunken dance scene near the end of the film being notable and this bit is shown as a cabaret skit and with a intoxicated wounded soldier (his arm in a splint) maniacally goose stepping to music while a nurse does a combination striptease or belly dance and all by candlelight. this is actually embarrassing to watch the most incredible bit is when werner captain wust gain an audience alone with skoda hitler and hitler is shown as slumped on a wall bench and drugged and delirious and when werner character begin to question him and hitler start screaming which bring in a ss guard who mortally wound werner character in the back with a gunshot this fabricated scene is not based on any true historic account werner character is then hauled off to die in a anteroom while hitler prepare his own ending and hitler farewell to his staff is shown but the suicide is off screen and the final second of the movie show hitler funeral pyre smoke slowly forming into a ghostly image of the face of the dead oskar werner or hauptmann wust this film is more allegorical than historical and anyone interested in this period would do better to check out more recent film such as the 1973 remake hitler represent the last 10 day or the german film downfall (der untergang) if they wish a more true accounting of this dramatic story and these last two film are based on first person eyewitness account and with hitler represent the last 10 day being compiled from gerhard boldt autobiography as a staff officer in the fuehrer bunker and downfall being done from hitler secretary recollection and the screen play for der letzte akte is taken from american nuremberg war crime trial judge michael musmanno book ten day to die and which is more a compilation of event (many obviously fanciful) than eyewitness history it is surprising that hugh trevor roper account and the last day of hitler was never made into a film. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i was shocked by the ridiculously unbelievable plot of tigerland. it was a liberal fantasy of how the military should be. the dialogue was difficult to swallow along with the silly things colin farrell character was allowed to get away with by his superior officers. i kept thinking and hey and there a reason why boot camp is tough. it supposed to condition soldiers for battle and turn them into one cohesive unit. there no room for cocky attitudes and men who would not follow orders. i was rooting for bozz to get his butt kicked because he was such a danger to his fellow soldiers. i would not want to fight alongside someone like him in war because he was more concerned with people feelings than with doing what was necessary to protect his unit. . "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i got this movie in the $5 bin at walmart. i would not recommend watching this move. i might give it to one of my friends if i am angry at them and want them to suffer for 2 hours. i looked at the cover and skimmed through the summary and thought it was a war movie. i wish i would have known how boring this movie was going to be before turning it on. it was my mistake to think something was going to happen in this movie. it just about a group of people going from one boot camp to another. the drill sargents treat the soldiers very badly and the main character tries to help people get out of fighting in vietnam. okay and here is my rant about this movie represent to me and this movie is slow and hard to watch. it was just one of those movies that you put in and are stuck watching because you want to turn it off but your hanging on to a string of hope that it might pick up towards the end. it doesn not. after the movie was over i through it behind my t. v. because i was angry that i wasted almost 2 hours of my life watching it and and another 10 minutes writing this review to warn people about it. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i realise that the us army was demoralised by 1971 and but this film was unbelievable. it was supposed to be a training camp not the ss punishment battalion in a sven hassell novel. the writer must be a real army hater. the psycho sergeant who kept beating the crap of people belonged in a prison cell and and the useless black top sergeant should have been sacked as well. these men were going overseas and the receiving units would surely have wondered where all the unusable damaged recruits were coming from and and an investigation would have ensued. the scene that blew it completely was the electrocution one. farrell and the alleged barrack room lawyer and would have had the instructor over a barrel for issuing an illegal order ( to torture pows in contravention to the geneva convention ) and actual assault on an enlisted man and sexual assault and conduct unbecoming an officer. intead he just walks away. after this and discipline brakes down into a madhouse level and the film becomes unwatchable. i do not know how it ended and i went to bed. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"while some scenes of training were realistic and too many of them depicted military instructors as ex nazi types. obviously and the people who wrote the screen play were either anti military types or writing a film for that audience. i am a viet nam vet and and even during this period and military instructors who behaved in the manner some of these did would probably still be serving time in military prison. and i really loved the scene where the hero and his buddy (both privates) are sitting down in the captain office and smoking cigarettes and talking and cussing with the captain as if he were their buddy. this sort of thing never happened in training or in a formal situation and as was the purpose for the scene. at the end i asked myself and what was this film about. as it seemed to wander around all over the place with no focus except i hate all authority. thank god i got it from the library and did not pay to rent it. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i watched this a few days ago and so details are getting hazy. the film is shot on hand held cameras and and a lot was made of this at the time it was released originally and since we hadn not had many studio pictures made in this way. i can not help but feel this was more of a gimmick than anything and designed to make the audience think that what we are seeing on the screen hasn not had all the compromises that come with a big budget and and so was more real. however what we have here isn not much more than a not as good rip off of the first half of full metal jacket and so anyone who has seen that and or any one of the other rip offs there of and will know what to expect. the main problem i had was the stereotyped characters and with the weedy soft kids out of their depth and close harmony singing and ebonics spouting black dudes and world weary sergeants and bitter and twisted psychos etc etc. all being put into the sorts of situations that would provide the most friction and tension at any given time. maybe this was intentional to highlight the stupidity and injustice of the situation and maybe it was laziness and or maybe it was just a committee trying to appeal to the biggest audience and all i know is it was annoying. one novel thing was the mixture of volunteers and draftees (where normally all the characters would have been forced into the situation and ) although only the scenes between the two main characters really make much play of it. this seems to be the main pivot of the plot and with the volunteers coming to their senses and the draftees gaining a sense of duty and self worth and but its all done in a rather forced and unsubtle way. the other big bug i had was how all the characters (with the exception of the psychos and the real softies) would react to each inevitable conflict with at first aggression and threats of violence and faced with farrell ubiquitous stoicism and immediately back down and be all reasonable and diplomatic. i guess if i had to find a plus it would be the acting from the two leads and which was strong and very convincing and tho considering the formulaic nature of the characters and this wasn not too hard. in my imagination and bozz grew up to be zeke off tour of duty and and for my money and 4 episodes of that would be more fun to watch. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"hard to describe this one if you were a fan of russ meyer films back in the day and you will surely be pleased to see that haji is still looking really hot and though forry ackerman has not fared so well (what is he doing still making these movies anyway. if i go up to him with a camera will he be in my movie. ). it was a pretty fun premise a superhero whose giant mammaries are her secret weapon but sometimes it did not pan out for the whole length and and the jokes were on a level with your average joe e. brown comedy (or and abbott and costello if that your thing) basically just bad puns. still and i found this movie fascinating to watch and and for more than 2 reasons. good job and but still a fundamentally flimsy production. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"kitten natividad and of russ meyer film fame and plays chastity knott and a woman who has found she has breast cancer and so she goes to south america to get some special fruit (crockazilla. ) that is supposed to have healing powers. after going down on some of this fruit (which appears to be plastic bananas on stalks) chastity is endowed with some mystical magical powers that makes her a super hero and specifically and the double d avenger. note that she also wearing a pair of panties as a mask. in writing and that all sounds pretty good. in execution and well and it leaves more than a little to be desired. it seems that chastity owns a pub and a local strip joint is upset because she taking away their business so some of the strippers (including haji and also of russ meyer film fame) go after her to ruin her. of course and chastity fights back in the guise of the double d avenger. watch her do a wonder woman type spin to change into her outfit and also lose her balance due to excessive centrifugal force. bad jokes and lame double entendres fly like there was no tomorrow. with the inane theme song playing over and over this comes off like a twisted 70 live action kid show with adult content and although while this is unrated it could probably get away with pg 13 at the worst. and it probably a blessing that the faded stars kept well covered. this makes doris wishman chesty morgan films look positively wonderful in comparison. special appearance by forest j. ackerman but so what. very stupid and and i am never buying another film with joe bob briggs on the cover. negative . "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"well and i suppose the good news concerning william winckler 2001 opus and the double d avenger and is that it manages to unite three of russ meyer mammarian marvels kitten natividad and haji and raven de la croix in one picture. (i can only assume that lorna maitland and tura satana and babette bardot were busy the week they shot this thing. or else managed to see a copy of the script in advance. ) the bad news and though (and there plenty of it) and is that this film if it can even be called that and having been shot straight to video is a complete misfire and a total abortion and an out and out atrocity and an absolute abomination and and truly one of the worst pictures that i have ever seen. look no further for the lamest superhero movie ever made. the plot here and such as it is and deals with kitten gaining superpowers after fellating the rare cockazilla plant in south america to cure her breast cancer (oy) and and later battling a trio of megalunged bikini dancers back in l. a. too bad that every lame boob joke trotted out falls completely (you should pardon the expression) flat and that there is zero actual nudity in the film at all (other than some old photos of kitten in her heyday) and and that some shaving cream and a papier mache boulder are the sum total of the special fx. the meyer gals here are a bit long in the tooth or saggy in the chest and to put it kindly and although sheri dawn thomas and as bikini girl ooga boobies (. ) and does manage to and uh and stand out nicely. so why have i given this juvenile and unfunny and failed embarrassment of a movie negative instead of 1. to be succinct represent joe bob briggs. his voice over commentary in the special features of the dvd i just watched is absolutely hilarious and especially when he pulls out around 100 synonyms for the word breast from the 1 and 000 plus on his web site canonical hooters list. the man is a national treasure and and he manages to upgrade this skeet of a disc to coaster status. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"dreary. schlocky. just plain dreadful and awful. let be honest and when you sit down to watch something called the double d avenger you aren not expecting great art or even mild mainstream entertainment. you are probably expecting a cult film type and maybe get some good looks at some impressive busts. you do not get really either of these in the video. the story and as it consistent with most of these types and is inane represent kitten natividad runs a local pub and finds out she has breast cancer and flies down to south america for a fruit that claims to be a panacea for any ills and a super human abilities giver and returns and fights and dressed as the double d avenger and a group from a local strip club wanting to edge out the competition. as stories go and i have seen a lot worse and but as another reviewer noted the execution is horrendous. the action sequences lack zip and drive and motivation and and are tissue thin. the acting isn not even properly campy and the dialog is the pits. nothing and and i mean nothing is funny from the wincing puns to the heavy handed boob references. all could be forgiven if the girls could make up for it and but they all fall way short. kitten and haji and and raven de la croix are all quite older(still lovely in their own ways) yet expose nothing and become the antithesis of what they are trying to be represent older and campy caricatures of their former selves. instead and they look so lame and desperate more because of the vehicle they are starring in rather than their own abilities. there are some other lovely ladies and but you really do not see much of anything. pg 13 definitely could be an appropriate rating for this. the material and the actresses and and director are all tired and tiresome and and dated and again not funny. it was a brutal hour plus sitting through this and and that is a shame as i was expecting something campy and fun. the guy playing bubba by the way was the only real laugh for me. not that he was good at all mind you and but every time he opened his mouth i kept thinking how truly awful he was. the lone bright spot here at all is seeing mr. sci fi himself and forrest j. ackerman and play the curator of a wax museum and chatting to his wax frankenstein affectionately called frankie. other than that this is a complete bust now how is that for another tired and dreadful and trite pun. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this was the most pointless film i have ever seen as there was no plot and the actors did not seem to care. 90% of the film had absolutely no plot whatsoever and i laughed so much my ribs began to ache. the bit where the old men when to capture robert duvall was ludicrous. on a directorial level making a noir film does not involve lots of raining sequences and pointless closeups on the main character. this is a failed attempt to create a noir thriller and instead alienates the viewer with incoherent scenes. seeing as this was based on a amanuscript by john grisham i do not count this as one of his book to film adaptations as it displays none of the suspense and engaging storyline as films such as the firm or the rainmaker. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"what up with robert pretentious altman. was he saving on lighting. everything was so dark in this boring movie that it was laughable. i mean and have you ever seen a lawyer office where everyone works by candlelight. don not waste your time. in fact and do not waste your time with anything altman makes represent it all a pretentious waste of film. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"rarely have i witnessed such a gratuitous waste of talent. there is almost nothing constructive to be said about this hopeless swamp of a film. what few interesting strands the film seems to promise initially turn out to be little more than red herrings. actors of stature robert duvall and robert downey and jr. are deployed in roles which go nowhere while a director of occasional genius produces a film which looks like it is filmed through a coffee stained camera lens while a writer (john grisham) who has never produced anything of merit and discovers new depths of under motivated incoherence. the film has a cheap and lecherous feel about it but barely at the level of commentary its really part of the aesthetic. normally and i come on to the imdb to write balanced and generally appreciative comments. this egregious disaster of a film just makes me want to produce an endless and bilious rant. i would not and but only because i no longer want to occupy my mind with this trash. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this is one of the worst movies i have ever seen. while featuring good actors the movie doesn not live up to the expectations. the most dramatic thing about this movie is the music and which pretty much sums up the movie represent compensating for a bad and confusing storyline by having known good actors and loud and dramatic music. it doesn not change the fact and that this is a very boring movie to watch. earned itself a score of 1. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"in spite of its impressive cast and crew pedigree gingerbread man crumbles early and often. the plot is unrealistically convoluted and the actors sport bad accents and director robert altman participation amounts to collecting a pay check. once again he has assembled an impressive cast (like woody allen and everyone wants to work with altman)that this time around to the letter is miscast. but that only part of the problem. kenneth branagh is rick magruder a high powered georgia lawyer who in the film heavy handed opening scenes manages to get himself preposterously seduced by a mysterious catering company waitress who convinces him she is in grave danger from an ex husband and a loony dad. with red flags everywhere the astute lawyer plods on even managing to get his children in harms way. fights of gun and fist follow along with a requisite car chase and if that not enough there a hurricane thrown in for the ridiculous finale. branagh plays macgruder with a mealy and unconvincing southern accent. running around in a trench coat in all kinds of weather he blind to the obvious in order to keep the story going. hipster bob downey jr. is every bit as bad as a p. i. but with a little more emphasis on the bad accent. robert duvall as the old man is boo radely all growed up en crazier than a bed bug serving some thick slices of ham but at least his twang is plausible. the female leads (embeth davidtz and darryl hannah and famkhee jansen)are lean leggy and unemotive. even the celebrity lawyers doing cameos (vernon jordan) are wooden with the few throw away lines they have. in addition to paying little attention to his actors and altman mise en scene dripping with spanish moss is murky and shapeless and his action scenes comic book. it lacks his offbeat touches and observations (he does inform the viewer that the stars and bars still wave in georgia)that make a well done altman so unique. unfortunately and gingerbread man is altman at his worst and even if the pay is the same. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"did anyone who was making this movie and particularly the director and spare a thought for the logic of the story line. these are not mere plot holes and but plot graves and that become ever deeper as we lose any sympathy for the main character and his plight. that is and if you are kind enough a viewer to valiantly ignore the fact for most of the movie that the characters are either servants to the grave hole plot and or boring and unlikeable. or and in the case of downey and hannah characters and apparently superfluous. in pondering the reason for existence of downey character significant screen time in the movie and i decided that either the director had liked his character and unnecessarily increased his screen time (unlikley and as the director do not change anything else about the script he actually needed to) or that his character was going to be sacrificed on the altar of bad plotting. i will leave you to guess which one it was to be. i had to keep checking the cover of the dvd to confirm that this really was made by credible talents. i cannot understand why robert altman would take this job. surely he has some power to pick and chose. actually and i can not understand why anyone would take this script on and except a first time director looking for the experience. i suppose robert downey jr. needed the money for his habit. i suppose kenneth branagh wanted to try a southern accent. i suppose robert duvall was only given a few pages of the script and thought the role in isolation sounded intriguing. these are the only motivations i can see that would coerce good actors to take on roles in this movie. as for robert altman and plenty of effort has gone in on his part to making the movie look fantastic. i found myself noticing how he had framed such and such a scene and or used the bright orange float vests in another scene to draw the eye movements and or imposed a beautiful filter to create a particular mood. i do not typically notice such things in movies and since most movies i bother to watch to the end actually engage me for reasons of good story telling and interesting characters with understandable motives. i watched this to the end only because some ridiculous element of optimism in myself kept looking at that dvd cover and being convinced that and due to the talent involved and there had to be some redeeming factor in this movie. nice direction. but that not why i watch movies. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i rented this dvd for two reasons. a cast of great actors and and the director and even though robert altman can be hit or miss. in this case and it was a big miss. altman attempt at creating suspense fell on its keester. after seeing kenneth branagh in a good film like dead again and i do not think he could possibly contribute to such a turkey and and i hope it do not ruin his reputation. robert duvall seems to have fallen the way of most one time oscar winners. on a downward spiral that includes acting in eating money films such as this one. duvall was once a great actor in excellent films and even though his best performance was not tender mercies and but the great santini. this movie was truly a big waste of time. i give it a negative . "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this movie is like real life and by which i mean not a lot happens in the available 2 hours or so and and not much game plan or plot is evidenced by the frequently invisible cast (their invisibility being due to the experimental lighting as mentioned by many reviewers). a big bore. no big surprise that altman helms this he is a very variable performer (yes we all loved gosford park and but pret a porter anyone. kansas city. dr t. and the women. aaargh) and but the fact that the raw material is a john grisham tale and and the excellent cast that you will perceive through the gathering gloaming of your insistent slumber makes this truly a masterpiece of bad film. and no and it is not so bad it good. it just bad. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i think i have seen all of the grisham movies now and generally theyre all very poor and except for the rainmaker and but this one is so bad it unbelievablewarning spoilerishit one of those movies where the character does the stupid irrational things that no one would ever do. he a lawyer for christ sake. why when his children go missing does he not call the police. oh yes it because all the police hate lawyers so theyre just ignore him and let him be attacked. when he arrested for murder they just let him go free and he would be locked up in a cell pending a bail hearing. why would you drag your kids halfway across the country when you could easily protect them at home. the police do not bother to try and find an escaped mental patient and they do not bother to interview his daughter. as for the ridiculous ending
. in summary and silly and very unrealistic and a complete waste of time. negative one of the worst films ever made. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"there is not a single sympathetic character in this entire movie. is it the lawyer played by kenneth branagh that were supposed to be pulling for. well and let see we learn he a sleazebag defense attorney who gets criminals off on technicalities. he treats his coworkers like cattle and gets them involved in his own personal crisis (in the process and getting one of them killed) and jeopardizes the safety of his kids and threatens his ex wife new boyfriend and tries to strong arm the police and school administrators and all this for what. because he was thinking with his little head. i was really pulling for the father and his gang to beat the stuffing out of the lawyer and drown him in the swamp. it would have made for a far more satisfying ending. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"how a director of altman experience could ever expect us to want to spend time with and or to care about what happens to and a lead character who is neurotic and a whiner and a jerk with no redeeming qualities that is the central puzzle about this profoundly confused piece of work. a monstrous piece of trash. in addition to this crippling flaw and the plot line requires serious concentration to follow. the setup that the branagh character walks into is so obviously a setup from the start that we are inclined to wonder whether the writer and director have totally lost respect for their audience. this latter issue is at the core of the film represent it represents directorial self indulgence with profound contempt for the taste and values and and intelligence of the viewer. very unusual for mr. altman. patrick watson. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i feel like i am the only kid in town who was annoyed by branagh performance. he is a fine actor by most accounts and but he simply could not pull off the southern accent. i mean and it was deplorable. it was as if he was trying too hard to be a yank. one of the previous reviewers questioned why u. s. actors were not cast in this film. i second that notion. it wonderful when actors or actresses wish to expand their horizons and but it another thing to try too hard so that a performance becomes strained. maybe it was altman and but he a such a great director. well and i really do not want to bash branagh for his absolutely hideous accent too much. everybody deserves to screw up here and there. but it is hard to watch something so annoying that you would rather choke on a chicken bone or eat a bucket full of crap than sit through the gingerbread man. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"divorced lawyer rick magruder (branagh) stumbles drunk out of a party hosted by his firm one night and has a chance meeting with a woman named mallory doss (davidtz) and who was a waitress at the party and seems to have lost her car. rick drives the woman to her home and there they discover that her car has been already parked there and seemingly by her father and dixon doss (duvall). rick and mallory walk into the house arguing about the situation when mallory carelessly undresses in front of rick and and he then spends the night with her. rick wakes up in the morning and mallory encounters him later in the day and asking him to file suit against her father because of his dangerous behavior. rick and now obsessed with mallory and willing to do anything for her and is successful in having dixon put on trial and sent to prison and but when he is freed by his local friends and rick finds himself in a trouble and trying to protect himself and his children from the danger he has unknowingly brought to life. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"have you ever heard the saying that people telegraph their intentions. well in this movie and the characters actions do more than telegraph future plans they show up at your house drunk and buffet you about the head. this could be forgiven if the setting had been used better and or if the characters were more charismatic or nuanced. embeth davidtz character is not mysterious and just wooden and and kenneth branagh doesn not succeed in conveying the brash charm his character probably was written to have. the bottom line represent obvious plot and one note performances and unlikeable characters and and grotesque southern accents employed by british actors. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this was one of the worst movies i have ever seen. branaugh seemed to have so much trouble remembering his accent that he couldn not deliver his lines. the plot was definitely not worthy of john grisham name. no wonder it was never published as a book or released in theaters. i do not even watch the whole thing. i decided i do not care who done it and then realized there was no whodunit to care about. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.