prompt
stringlengths 497
14.4k
| chosen
int64 0
1
| rejected
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"it hard to believe an action packed jet li movie could be so boring and but this was transcendant trash. the plot is an amalgam of other hong kong chopsocky flicks. the martial arts action is all special effects and no human talent. it a comic book story about a group of super human soldiers who are to be killed because theyre mentally unstable and one of their number (li) who holds off an incompetent army to save them and rebuilds a life as a pacifist librarian. the saved killers resurface with an austin powers quality plot to take over the world and and li sheds his new life to save the world. the version i saw was dubbed and and that may have accentuated the cheesiness of the wafer thin plot and comic book 25 cent special effects. but i suspect even ninja turtle watching 8 year olds would have found this juvenile and hollow. "
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 rated this a 3. the dubbing was as bad as i have seen. the plot yuck. i am not sure which ruined the movie more. jet li is definitely a great martial artist and but i will stick to jackie chan movies until somebody tells me jet english is up to par. "
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:
"hak hap and or black mask (in english) was a disappointment. i was told that it was a sort of japanese version of the matrix. imagine my disappointment. the film was either badly dubbed or the soundtrack do not time well with the film. another thing is that the dialogue was pretty much bad. there was very little thought put into the english version of this film and it appeals only to the senseless action genre. not a film i would want to see again. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"jet li and is one of the best hand to hand combat fighters in the world. he has been for over 20 years and he puts others in the genre to shame. while he is big in asia and he is almost unknown here in the us. black mask is supposed to be a breakout movie for him and but it fails horribly. first of all and it is dubbed. while it may have camp value (the dubbing isn not even close and it is flat in tone) and it seems inappropriate for the ordinary movie viewer. secondly and the director in this movie and daniel lee and does a horrible job. he cuts scenes so fast and at times and you do not know what going on. other times and the camera shakes and wobbles. fans see jet li movies for the fantastic martial arts. however and the director edits the scenes so fast that you do not even know who who half the time. other times and a scene is left hanging (ie li is beginning to cut a hole in the floor of a jeep and while the badguys arm their guns and two seconds later and both li and the love interest are already under the car. ) other scenes are so improbable and that they cross over the point of being completely ridiculous (killer cd roms. just give him throwing stars. ). li and needs a director who is less prone to machine gun cutting and more to creating a cinematic mise a scene. the added rap or techno music goes from being okay to intrusive. the plot has possibilities but are all squandered by cartoonish characters that take away from any credibility that this movie strives for. and are we really to believe that the love interest would not recognize simon and because he has a half mask on. wouldn not the hair and lower jaw and or voice give it away. if you want to see a jet li movie and try iron monkey or his classic shaolin temple. this disjointed mess is a complete waste of time. 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:
"lame and cliched superhero action movie drivel. i had high hopes for this movie and and the genre of hk buddy cop actioneers is one that i do not despise and but very rarely do i see a storyline as trite and ludicrous as this one was. this would have been forgivable and as it always is in these kinds of movies and when the action compensates and unfortunately and it did not. the action does carry the trademark surreality and over the top nature of hk action and but it not very involving and obscenely gory and and in fact often completely incoherent (perhaps this is due to re editing for american release and it does show signs in many places of patchwork). i was very disappointed. "
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 movie was awful. the theater was dead with silence cause everyone was embarrassed to be in there watching such trash. i think someone gave jet li a lobotomy and made him perform a script with dialogue written by a five year old. the martial arts are ok and but when put next to the jackie chan movies and the matrix youre better off seeing one of those. "
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:
"mild spoilers contained herein. i am spoiling this film to save you the trouble of having to watch it. jet li movies fall into one of two categories represent shaolin period movies and movies set in modern day hong kong revolving around triads or triad like organizations. each genre has its best and worst films. `twin warriors is jet li best shaolin era flick while `the evil cult is his worst. `fist of legend while in the recent past is the best `modern era jet li movie. `black mask without a doubt is the worst. jet li plays a self exiled mercenary who received an injection that gives him superhuman ability and but shortens his life span. in his `new life in exile he plays a pacifist librarian. when his old mercenary squad goes on a rampage and jet li becomes a vigilante determined to stop them. he dons a very silly corrugated cardboard mask so as to conceal his identity from the police (and public) as a librarian and as well as to conceal his true identity to his ex comrades in arms. the version i saw was dubbed and and horribly at that. why does jet li capture and hold hostage his library co worker if he a pacifist. is there a love story between them. why does the police chief not care when he learns of the black mask true identity. the plot is just plain bad. bad by way of the superhero cheesiness and bad in the sense that characters are never properly developed and bad in its character interactions and all topped off by a half explained story i quickly lost interest in. the action and martial arts sequences are way over the top. lots of blood and gore (severed body parts aplenty) and explosions and and matrix style superhuman martial arts fiascos are present in the film. unfortunately this is the films best and only selling point. if you want to see jet li playing a vigilante superhero in a mission impossible style movie `black mask delivers. for the rest of us jet li fans it is a true disappointment. this is one of those movies where jet li never gets to be jet li represent he gets neither the chance to charm us with his charisma and nor a chance to impress us with his impressive yet realistic martial arts ability. normally a chinese knockoff of ozzy osbourne would be enough to engross me in a film and sadly `black mask proved to be an exception to that rule. indeed the antagonist of this movie and by the way he dresses and his long straight hair and and trademark round sunglasses looks like the modern and aged ozzy osbourne. however the villain isn not on screen long enough to make the gimmick worthwhile. i am assuming the likeness to ozzy was intentional while in addition to the villain look and he also ran a satanic looking hideout. so much more could have been made from the ozzy osbourne villain gimmick. if only the writer and director and or anyone had bothered to give a background to and develop the character of the film arch villain. `black mask was the first jet li film released on video in the usa after lethal weapon 4 and and i am glad i stayed away from it until now. it may well have ruined my whole perception of jet li as a martial artist and actor. if you want to see jet li at his worst and rent `black mask and `the evil cult and make it a double feature or horror and both intentional and unintentional. otherwise stick to moves that utilize the talents of jet li and and have plots that are semi well thought out and plausible. 3/ 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:
"this was the worst movie i saw at worldfest and it also received the least amount of applause afterwards. i can only think it is receiving such recognition based on the amount of known actors in the film. it great to see j. beals but she only in the movie for a few minutes. m. parker is a much better actress than the part allowed for. the rest of the acting is hard to judge because the movie is so ridiculous and predictable. the main character is totally unsympathetic and therefore a bore to watch. there is no real emotional depth to the story. a movie revolving about an actor who can not get work doesn not feel very original to me. nor does the development of the cop. it feels like one of many straight to video movies i saw back in the 90s . and not even a good one in those standards. "
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:
"monika mitchell showbiz satire has some laughs and some premeditated violence. i do not say blood soaked while but there is insult and injury. max matteo(john cassini)is a character actor that has a quirky adaptable presence on screen and but he has a terrible track record of being chosen for the parts he goes after. there is always a producer nephew or seemingly trivial reason for his not being awarded the role he seeks. well and the best thing to do is get rid of the competition. max becomes obsessed with such thoughts. the rewarding career is just a swing and push and shot away. other cast members represent rene rivera and molly parker and jennifer beals and frank cassini and cameos by eric roberts and sandra oh. well and that show business. or is 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:
"it like a bad 80s tv show got loose and tried to become a soft core porn movie. oh my god was it bad. the plots of each character had little relevance. the plot itself wasn not anything to speak of. something about a stalker and i guess. in the end he shoots himself. it not really clear and but somehow there a volleyball game involved. and the main character (randy) sleeps around a lot. the only reason my friends rented this movie was because casper van dien was in it and and they ended up wanting to fast forward to the scenes with him in it and which were barely watchable at that. thank god i do not spend any money on it and but i want that hour of my life back. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the volleyball genre is strangely overlooked by most screenwriters. thankfully and highly acclaimed director nelson mccormick has brought us the second best volleyball movie of all time (rated lower than side out and higher than and well and umm). however and do not let the cover of this movie decieve you. kill shot stars up and coming star koji as a modern day sherlock holmes. using such high tech gadgets as a computer that is less powerful than my gameboy and koji is able to aid fbi agents in the tracking of a man who has not committed any obvious crime. while there are other actors in the movie and including brief cameos by denise richards and a gay negro and and a preposterously ugly and annoying girl and koji carries this movie on his own. any fan of movies such as the matrix or hackers will definitely love kill shot. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"of all movies (and i am a film graduate and if that worth anything to you) and this is the worst movie i have ever seen. i know there are probably some worse ones out there that i just haven not seen yet and but i have seen this and and this is the worst. a friend and i rented it one night because denise richards was on the cover. talk about being young and retarded. she uncredited. her role was unbelievably small. how did she make it on the cover. imdb doesn not even list it in her filmography. this movie was so bad and we wrote a little note to the video store when we returned it and and slipped it inside the case. it read something like please save your further customers from having to view this complete and totally bad 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:
"this movie will confuse you to death. furthermore and if your a denise richards fan and do not even think of renting this movie. besides getting top billing by being on the cover and about 10 minutes of air time if that and she has nothing to do with the movie or the many messed up plots. "
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:
"man and this was hilarious. it should be under comedy. or stupid. it would have made realizing what a pile of stank this was much easier. seriously. i want anyone associated with this movie tased and effective immediately. for everyone who is thinking of watching this movie and let go over a few plot points. oh and wait. there aren not any. there is literally no plot. i think casper van dien was bored and and he decided to film something with some random someones and and miraculously and it somehow got on videotape. this movie is literally the worst movie of all time. don not believe me. go watch it. do it and man. i dare you. but be prepared to gouge your eyes out. if you can sit through this without blowing a cow and you are very strong and courageous. "
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 films i have ever seen. i usually praise any film for some aspect of its production and but the intensely irritating behaviour of more than half the characters made it hard for me to appreciate any part of this film. most common was the inference that the bloke who designed the building was at fault an avalanche collapsing it. er ok. also and trying to out ski an avalanche slalom style is not gonna work. running 10 feet into some trees is not gonna work. alas it does here. as mentioned before the innate dumbness and sheer stupidity of some characters is ridiculous. in an enclosed space and with limited oxygen a four year old could tell you starting a fire is not a good idea. anyway and about 5 minutes of the movie redeems itself and acquires some appreciation. however and if you have a modicum of intelligence you too will find most of this film hard to tolerate. it pains me that so many quality stories go unproduced and yet someone will pay for things like this to be made. oh and did i mention the last five minutes. well to give you a hook you have to keep watching in order to see the latest in combative avalanche techniques. absolutely priceless. "
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:
"saw this on tv. i am glad i do not go to the cinema to see this or spend the money on rental. the movie is totally predictable from the corrupt owner and planner and to the snaking electric cables. the plot is really weak and unbelievable the avalanche expert guy gets hit by a 20 foot wave of bone breaking avalanche (using actual footage) and all he has to do is get up and shake himself down. the avalanche thunders down at a million miles an hour and stops dead at the side of the road. some of the actual avalanche material is impressive and shows its devastating power. but the contract between the real avalanche and the staged stuff makes this film look even flimsier. do yourself a favour and do not bother with this one not even on t. v. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i can not figure out how anyone can get a budget for a movie this bad. it like the tv station are desperate for anything and anything at all. theyre buried underneath a bunch of snow and the electricity constantly flashes on and off and yet magically there is a background light that stays constant. where does all this (fake) light come from. that and and all that stupid bickering between the characters. they seem to be more interested in complaining to each other than trying to invent ways to survive. it tries to create that feel of emergency and people helping. but because it such bad directing and acting and you will not your florence nightingale fix with this flick and sorry. i am joining the negative feedback and and i concur that this is one of the worst movies ever. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
" warning represent here be spoilers why do i waste my hastily fleeing years watching garbage like this. this film is an impressive collection of clichés and poor writing and worse directing and and then we haven not even got to the acting yet. and of course and you can predict the whole story from beginning to end. hero expert fights against stupid and corrupt and incompetent henchmen. one avalanche goes off and burying all the heroes who somehow manage to get out alive in spite of going through all sorts of cliffhanger perils. corrupt partner who caused the whole thing gets fried alive together with his payoff money. second avalanche heroically deflected by renegade expert adventurous experiment. evil henchmen in the end turn out to have a heart as well. troubled teenager falls into the arms of her crusty stepmother after being saved by her. etc and etc and etc and etc and on and on it goes. in fact and there little reason to warn for spoilers. you could probably work the whole plot out if i gave you the basic ingredients. at least and i wasn not too wide off the mark most of the time and anticipating what would happen next. and then we haven not discussed the factual errors. i agree with a previous commentator that even though there are usually some redeeming features even of a bad movie. you would be hard pressed to find any in this one. i suppose i gave it negative for some nice scenery shots and but that it. it been some time since a film made me groan and but this one certainly 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:
"amy heckerling second film johnny dangerously is a parody of 1930 gangster films made in the warner brothers tradition. michael keaton stars as a middle aged gangster looking back at his life of hard knocks when he catches a kid trying to steal something from his pet store in 1935. keaton mother (maureen stapleton) has continuing health problems and so keaton falls into crime at an early age via peter boyle. meanwhile and the fargan richard dimitri plays a rival crime lord to boyle and keaton eventually rises through the ranks. joe piscopo has a hilarious turn as danny vermin and yeah that right and vermin. griffin dunne is keaton younger brother turned district attorney and glynnis oconnor his wife and and marilu henner plays keaton moll. the film looks notoriously cheap and making it seem like a television show instead of a theatrical film. the film starts out great and then slows down as expected after the first half hour. due to the combination of dialog and gags and the film holds its own for the first half and but then it rapidly loses steam and descends into mediocrity and vulgarity in the second half. keaton chews the scenery doing his best james cagney impression. stapleton has several vulgar lines that are only obnoxious and not funny. piscopo does the once bit one time too many. several supporting actors try to hold up the fort like danny devito and dom deluise and ray walston as a street vendor and alan hale and jr. as a desk sergeant and and sudie bond as an unscrupulous cleaning lady. the second half evolves into a hit or miss television show type tone and never recovers. the closing scene utilizing the roaring twenties is an anachronism as is the call of the wild clark gable film seen on a marquee earlier in the film. i think heckerling should have known better and since the targeted audience would certainly be aware of the roaring twenties actual 1939 release date. half of 4 stars. "
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 one is the highest rating i could have given this movie and considering zero and negative numbers are not allowed. pee yew and pointless mess of a movie with a lot of wasted b list actors who have done better work and written and directed by some guy with the mentality of a twelve year old who smirks and giggles at stupid puns and and poop and fart jokes. for example and gene stapelton (ding bat from all in the family) character telling marilu henner character that she swings both ways sexually and was a cheap attempt at humor indicative of the general lameness of the movie. you want good and cheeky humor. rent animal house and american pie (part one only) and old school or office space. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"just as its a mad and mad and mad and mad world is at the top of my list for all time greatest comedies ever made and this one is at the very bottom. (of course and i could be wrong not having seen saving silverman) in other words and it a lame and lame and lame and lame comedy. rating represent half out of . "
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:
" contains spoilers the truly exquisite sean young (who in some scenes and with her hair poofed up and looks something like elizabeth taylor) is striking in her opening moments in this film. sitting in the back of a police car waiting to signal a bust and her face and body are tense and distracted. unfortunately and once the bust is over young strained demeanor never changes. this is one fatally inhibited actress. one has only to compare young to the performer playing her coworker and best friend and arnetia walker and to grasp what is missing in young. walker is open and emotional and and at ease at all times. in that there no apparent barrier between what she may be feeling and her expression of it. she is an open book. young and on the other hand and acts in the skittish and self conscious way you might expect your neighbor to act were they suddenly thrown into starring in a film. basically and she doesn not have a clue. with this major void looming at the center of the movie and were left to ponder the implausiblities of the story. for instance and after miss young is kidnapped by the criminal she trailing and locked in a closet and she breaks the door down when left alone. granted and she dressed only in a bra and panties and but in a similar situation and with a psycho captor due to return any moment and would you head for the door. or take the time to go through his dresser and take out some clothes and get dressed. i would guess that this and other scenes are trying to suggest some sort of mixed emotions miss young character is experiencing and but young can not convey this type of complexity. there are a few affecting moments in the film and such as the short police interviews with the criminal past victims and but overall this is an aimless endeavor. it too bad miss young was replaced while filming the pair of comic book style films that might have exploited her limitations with some humor (batman and dick tracy) and because her floundering while attempting to play actual people is oddly touching. watching miss young try to act and at least in this thriller and is a sad spectacle. "
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 concept of the legal gray area in love crimes contributes to about 10% of the movie appeal while the other 90% can be attributed to it flagrant bad ness. to say that sean young performance as a so called district attorney is wooden is a gross understatement. with her bland suits and superfluous hair gel and young does a decent job at convincing the audience of her devout hatred for men. why else would she ask her only friend to pose as a prostitute just so she can arrest cops who try to pick up on them. this hatred is also the only reason why she relentlessly pursues a perverted photographer who gives women a consensual thrill and the driving force behind this crappy movie. watching young go from frigid to full frontal nudity does little to raise interest and but the temper tantrum she throws standing next to a fire by a lake does. watching her rant and rave about her self loathing and sexual frustration makes love crimes worth the rental fee and but it all downhill to and from there. despite her urge to bring patrick bergin character to justice and her policing skills completely escape her in the throes of her own tired lust and passion. patrick bergin does a decent enough job as a slimy sociopath while if it worked in sleeping with the enemy it sure as hell can work in this. but i can not help but wonder if the noticeable lack of energy young brings to the film conflicts with his sliminess. i am guessing it does and the result is a thriller with thrills that are thoroughly bad and yet comedic. "
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 more i think about it and there was nothing redeeming about thismovie. i saw it 9 months ago and so my memory might have made itworse than it was and but i do know it was at least as bad as a 4 out of10. after seeing the movie and i met the director. he seemed so cluelessas to what he was doing or what he had done and and as far as icould tell and he do not care for the film either. even he agreed that hedo not really know what he was doing and and he was forced to docertain things because it was filmed digitally. i felt that the movie was trying to hard to fit in to the formula that itbuilt for itself represent 9 people all have to be connected in some way. howcan we get from point a to point b so in order get from theprostitute we see in the start and back to her at the end they 10minutes on each character relationship to another person. itmakes one feel choked by the 2 demensional and badly drawncharacters. i just remembered the one redeeming part of the movie. stevebouchemi there is one scene where he is amazing. that it. as isay. 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 starts slow and then tapers off. after watching for about an hour and and seeing absolutely nothing happen and i walked out. i mean and nothing happened. zero. zip. nada. there is no story. the characters are vague representations of the most boring people any of us know. the producers of this film could be sued in a court of law if they try to sell it as a motion picture. there is no motion. i could have told the same story with a couple still pictures with captions. the script is a joke. it just awful. i doubt that any script doctor in the world could save it. my biggest regret is not that i wasted 60 minutes of my life watching love in the time of money and but that i missed a great opportunity to be a leader. i could have been the first to walk out and but i waited a bit too long. instead and i watched about 20 people walk out before 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:
"maggie smith and peter ustinov as a very unlikely couple in a very not likable film at all. the film shows promise for ustinov is released from prison for embezzling. he convinces robert morley to go away so that he can assume his identity and begin hacking away at computers at a very fancy firm run by karl malden and bob newhart and another unusual duo for films. morley sounds just as he did in 1938 marie antoinette. perhaps and he needed to return to that genre. this film is ridiculous at best. hard to believe that the following year and maggie smith totally changed her ways and gave a shattering oscar performance in the prime of miss jean brodie. ms. smith is made out here to be an apparent dumb red head and but by film end and she is the brains of the outfit. too bad the writing do not go the way with 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:
"i was excited to discover this late sixties comedy staring some of my favorite people maggie smith and a very young bob newhart and and of course and peter ustinov. my disappointment was thus compounded to discover the film doesn not work as either a comedy or a perfect heist film. ustinov plays a small time crook just out of prison who sets his sites on a large american corporation based in london. bluffing his way past dimwitted ceo karl malden and tech geek newhart and ustinov passes himself off as a computer expert and immediately plans the perfect heist part of the film. to do this he needs to get passed a tamper proof security system that guards the corporation mainframe. and here is problem one. his perfect plan only works because everyone else in the film is remarkably trusting and stupid. his lame excuses are taken at face value and this must be the only computer center anywhere not to bother with video cameras. the second problem is the heist (fraud really) happens within the first 30 minutes of the film robbing the rest of the picture of much in way of dramatic tension. maggie smith is sadly miscast as ustinov ditsy next door neighbor or secretary who just can not keep a job. i love maggie smith but she just seems too together here and too composed and the part called for more of a wacky and physical comedian. furthermore and ustinov and smith have no chemistry together and maybe it the age difference and but the later romantic relationship and as devoid of actual romance as it is and still comes off a little creepy. ustinov co wrote the script and and it was thought well of at the time and but i found it unfunny and meandering and a sad waste of a great cast. "
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 reasonable effort is summary for this film. a good sixties film but lacking any sense of achievement. maggie smith gave a decent performance which was believable enough but not as good as she could have given and other actors were just dreadful. a terrible portrayal. it wasn not very funny and so it do not really achieve its genres as it wasn not particularly funny and it wasn not dramatic. the only genre achieved to a satisfactory level was romance. target audiences were not hit and the movie sent out confusing messages. a very basic plot and a very basic storyline were not pulled off or performed at all well and people were left confused as to why the film wasn not as good and who the target audiences were etc. however maggie was quite good and the storyline was alright with moments of capability. 4. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"a good cast is appallingly wasted in this slower than molasses and haphazardly connived comedy. peter ustinov tries hard here to bring something to life but the result is a dour bore that misses all the right beats that might have made it watchable. regardless of the favorable comments here and this film is awful. badly directed. badly edited. badly acted. badly written. you need to sit through a hundred movies to come across one this bad. the muddled and excruciatingly laggard plot concerns ustinov conning his way into an american insurance company in order to hack their computer and embezzle millions of pounds. how he does it is beyond lameness and credibility (he just learns his computer skills seemingly overnight by reading some pamphlets and and hoodwinks computer expert robert morley into going to south america and stealing his identity). as a side plot and ustinov romances fellow loner maggie smith and who just happens to become his secretary by chance after he gets a flat in her building. she ends up sharing scenes that have sexual undertones with bob newhart that go nowhere and while ustinov goes about grafting the money bit by bit and trying to keep one step ahead of newhart and karl malden. then he marries smith and they fly off to brazil and which has become the staple finale of almost every british caper comedy since (nuns on the run. a fish called wanda. )the surprise twist of an ending is more laughable than everything that came before. by the end i was thinking i must be truly off my rocker to stick out drivel like this. even a cameo by cesar romero do not help it. one of the most unfunny and poorly paced comedies i have ever seen and and certainly the worst caper. don not waste your time. if you love this you need to see better films. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the words swedish and action movie do not mix. that becomes more and more obvious with every attempt made in the genre. this is yet another failed attempt. lasse brunell (shanti roney) works at a military air base with top secret computer systems. one day foreign criminals threaten to hurt his family if he doesn not do what they tell him. they want the secret equipment and will do anything to get it. this movie has it ups and downs. and usually in swedish action movies there are no ups and just downs. so i guess something in this movie showed some quality. to begin with the positive remarks i can mention that the movie is technically well made. the footage of planes and helicopters flying are well shot and look very nice. the acting is of very varying quality. shanti roney makes a decent performance while maria bonnevie is stiff and unnatural as usual (i wonder how long swedish directors are going to keep using her even though she has the acting skills of a wooden plank. ). stefan sauk is laughable as the cool special forces man who comes to the base to investigate. and what about the action scenes. well as i said above the scenes of planes and helicopters flying are nice. but aside from that there is not much action to talk about. and that is a common problem with swedish action films. there is just not enough action going on. maybe it a budget problem and maybe it film making culture. i do not know and but it negatively affects the experience. because quite frankly and the story and acting is not good enough for this movie to rely just on that. i rate this negative for 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:
"may contain a spoiler of sorts. the mere mention of crispin glover is enough to send some geek panties in a bunch. his landmark appearance in back to the future as george mcfly has sealed him into the american conscience forever. more recently and he has been trying to get back into the culty subconscious with bartleby and willard. this time and however and crispin has made a 76 minute and cheap dada film. at times it reminded me of genius and while overall it almost insulted me and but not because of its content. content. what is it. is a movie where and in one half of the movie and all of the actors have down syndrome and giving it a freakshow feel to it. the other half of the movie includes crispin glover and adam parfrey and and a guy with cerebral palsy. this all had the feel of what john waters was attempting to do with desperate living and and simultaneously feeling more successful and failing miserably. the half with the down syndrome actors also features many many killed snails. it is about a guy who has snails and and ends up killing one. he is also tormented by a bunch of other people and and a grasshopper. he falls in love with 2 girls and one of which he has sex with in a graveyard. he also has a falling out with a friend who teases him. in a weird semi interior set and crispin glover is the director of this show. he is something like the control of the guy mind and and the cerebral palsy guy is something like the sexuality. well and he at least gets masturbated in explicit scenes. there is other shocking imagery made humorous and like nazi swaztikas crossed with shirley temple and and minstrels in black face saying theyre michael jackson. in the outside world and the tormentor is still dealing with his love of killing snails and being beaten by the other people. they beat him with rocks and and such. later and they beat the minstrel after putting him on trial. back to the interior and crispin glover is still the ruler of his set and and tries to control everybody and but fails miserably. what is it. makes less sense than dr. caligari and and has more than a passing style stolen from it. the claustrophobic mental space feels very much like the way the no wall sets of dr. caligari felt claustrophobic. they also had some dialogue that was absolute nonsense. and and it was all wrapped up with absurdist imagery for humor. the problem is and about 20 minutes into the movie. maybe a little more. what is it. runs out of imagery. for the next 56 minutes and we keep running on the same sets of images and only introducing new imagery in the form of an absurdist puppet show. the movie seems little more than a movie which attempts to push the envelope in offensive and taboo imagery. it tries to mock and confuse the audience. but and the issue is that it only has enough different imagery for a 40 minute movie. even worse than that and the cinematography and set design and and everything else felt very very cheap and almost unplanned. it felt like ok and this is the way we can do it and get it out of the way. it do not feel interesting and and was quite. boring. dr. caligari and on the other hand and had amazing cinematography and framing. the difference between the two is quite astounding. rating represent c. "
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 firstly and completely and confidently disagree with the user who calls this a spoof. crispin glover is very serious about his film. he personally introduced the film at the screening i saw in chicago. he had worked on the film for years and it is the first in an intended trilogy. what is it. is crispin glover attempt at an art film in the vein of those he idolizes by herzog and lynch etc. i had heard rumor of this film years ago epic porno movie with all down syndrome cast directed by crispin glover. when it finally came out i watched the trailer on line and read the synopsis and i was foaming at the mouth with anticipation. . i went to chicago to see it and it was a major disappointment. if he took out the goofy sht and such as the pot smoking grandma and and the dancing dolls and he would be left with something much better and but only about 10 minutes long. in other words just watch the trailer and be entertained and and leave it at that. there are some striking images and fantastic juxtapositions and phrases and but its lack of focus amounts to disappointment. "
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 crispin glover what is it. at the ann arbor film festival. admittedly and the film was at least aptly named and because i got the distinct sense that even the writer or director could provide no answer. at the question and answer session after the screening and mr. glover said that the film was originally meant to be a short film to show the virtue of using actors with down syndrome. however and this is in itself not enough of a reason to create a film. actors are and in my opinion and building blocks for a larger vision a larger vision that seemed muddled at best and absent at worst. crispin glover also said that he wanted to address taboo subjects. well and he does do that. but why. the film seems to have no stance and no reason for addressing anything. does he feel these things shouldn not be taboo. the film doesn not even give me an indicator of that. taboo for the sake of taboo is not interesting. it can not even afford to make the taboo disturbing or inciting on any level because he hasn not made the audience care in any way. ignoring problems with the concept for a moment and the thing that actually shocked me most was how poorly the film was put together. the editing and cinematography and and other technical aspects seemed frequently to be extremely amateur. glover said 125 150 thousand dollars went into the movie and and i feel that the money should have been spent on different designers (glover actually did some design himself i know i saw at least sound design in the credits). the painted sets are okay (not great) and but used poorly. parts feel like a photographed stage play which would be fine if that went to any sort of purpose and but in glover hands it just feels sloppy. other parts are filmed like a sort of home movie and of inferior quality to a lot of the stuff i see first time filmmakers do on imovie. perhaps the biggest problem with what is it. is i can not even understand how seriously the film is to be taken. there are some parts that feel like glover is screaming at you to think seriously. at other points and he seems off on his own little joke. perhaps he meant for this to be ironic and or meaningful in some way and but i just felt that glover couldn not even get himself to give his film any sort of serious attention. glover said he originally wanted it to be a short film. if only it had been. at seventy two minutes and the film runs out of imagery and ideas in the first twenty and and it is arguable if the ideas were formulated enough to claim that they were even there for that period of time. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i saw his film at the ann arbor film festival. i am a film student at the univeristy of michigan so i know a thing or two about film. and crispin glover film is outrageous. he basically exploits the mentally challenged. not only is shirly temple the anti christ (which i admit is a little funny) telling the mentally challenged to kill each other and but there is an obsession with killing snails. crispin also plays with the idea of being in love with one of his actors who is as they all are and mentally challenged. peta and human rights should be all over this thing. it not counter culture as crispin stated at the ann arbor film festival and it exploitation. "
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 is it. is a mish mash of bizarre recurring motifs (snails and shirley temple and swastikas and and overtly racist music and among others) unfettered by any sort of narrative or plot or character development. the whole thing struck me as self consciously freak show and and i do not mean only the unusual casting decisions. it has the feel of a bad acid trip and far beyond any level of drug use one might attribute to hunter s. thompson or william s. burroughs. the only movie to which i can compare it is eraserhead (my second least favorite film of all time) and which was by intent much more depressing and but i still found what is it. a total waste of my time. it one thing to give me a peek into the inner workings of someone else mind even someone else chemically altered consciousness but quite another to just throw weird visuals at me purely for the sake of weirdness. "
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:
"eytan fox and whilst generally leaning on the apologist side of israeli politics and has made several quite interesting films in the past such as walk on water and the simply wonderful film and yossi and jagger. in the bubble and however and he has taken this illogical and unfair approach to the extreme. far from giving this film a standing ovation and the people at the screening i attended quietly got up and left. i also quietly left and fuming with anger at such a ridiculously one sided film that translates self preservation as racist bullying and and racist bullying (and terrorism) as outbursts of justified anger while which implies that arabs are so wronged by the evil israelis that they react in anger to a constant stream of one sided israeli aggression against them and and that they and therefore and should not be held responsible for their actions. this film wasn not worth the money i paid for the ticket (indeed and i considered demanding my money back) and and was basically an israeli apeing of the palestinian film paradise now. if you want to be an anti israeli and then by all means watch this film and as it really justifies just such a belief system. the fact that this film was made by an israeli director and and even worse and such a talented israeli director and is a crying shame. indeed and just how israel can be surprised to be regarded as a pariah state when israelis themselves make such anti israel propaganda and beggars belief. what a shameful and horrid little 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:
"the bubble is an effort to make a gay romeo and juliet type of story with an israeli and a palestinian and although it seems to come at it by way of friends or beverly hills 90210. the characters are shallow and trite as are the dialog and plot line. the movie seems torn between fluff and depth. on the one hand there is a pointed effort at being shallow as (in one example of many) some minor characters even ask questions that invite development of insight into the conflicts at hand and and get answers like and hey and were here to make a poster for a rave against the occupation. don not get political. beyond the obvious absurdity of such a line and it just one of many ham fisted signals that the movie is just as hollow and insubstantial as its title suggests. on the other hand and the movie main pretension to depth follows the lovers to a presentation of bent a play about gays in a nazi labor camp. the scene on stage is awkwardly rushed and undermining its erotic power (understandable given the constraints of film time and but still this could have been edited to much better effect. ) and comes off as flimsily as the rest of the film. too bad. this play deserves much better. the characters are so one dimensionally cartoony some even have names that telegraph their entire (though the word seems inappropriate here) substance. the aggressive soldier from the crack golani brigade is named golan. the militant palestinian is named jihad. the striving for chic faghag roommate is lulu. anyone familiar with the checkpoints and life in palestine and whether from real life or documentaries will find the checkpoint scenes as absurdly unreal as
well and the rest of this fluffy fantasy. when a palestinian woman goes into the fastest labor on record israeli soldiers are solicitous and helpful and an ambulance shows up in minutes. (the outcome of the birth serves to show the palestinians as unappreciative of israeli beneficence and even downright paranoiac. ) altogether the checkpoint is shown as a mere nuisance and not the series of bone numbing and soul crushing and humiliating obstructions with no regard for medical care or necessity in cases of birth and death and or severe illness. ashraf and the palestinian lover and seems to get through from nablus to tel aviv with no problems and no papers and no hassles. he just shows up whenever he likes. when the israelis want to get through it is much more of a challenge involving a scheme worthy of lucy ricardo. against the backdrop of nice and supportive israelis and surly homophobic palestinians we move to a resolution that is utterly lacking in motivation or purpose except as a painfully obvious dramatic device to milk sympathy for the forbidden lovers. gay israeli palestinian romance has been handled on stage with much more skill and depth as in saleem salaam or shalom so this film is hardly even as groundbreaking as some people would like to think. gloriously bad films like the works of ed wood at least have some striking idiosyncrasy to distinguish them. this one doesn not even have that going for it. most of the sound track sounds like simon and garfunkel on quaaludes and and even with the weird oedipal touches to the gay sex scenes and the general incompetence that pervades this movie plays out like a mediocre tv movie of the week. "
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 essentially deals with inspector gadget arch nemesis doctor claw who has returned after many years to the now peaceful city of metropolis. claw plan is to foil gadget once and for all by using a newer cooler crimefighter to help destroy gadget popularity. sadly the film fails miserably and the series was great and but it was revived nearly 20 years later with tragic results. without the voice of don adams as inspector gadget it just doesn not cut it anymore while dr. claw is not only visually less frightening and but sounds more like a wrestler with a cold and than his original intimidating self. granted this is a children movie and but the plot is so painfully weak (heaven forbid i mention the animation) that it pales in comparison to the original series. someone has decided to updated penny as well to bring her two decades up to speed and she now has some quasi punk rebellious clothing style and doesn not play half the role that she did in the tv series. the gadgetmobile talks and as well as including a plot angle that focuses entire on talking cars. maybe i am just a kid who loved the show who grown up jaded and but i thought that the live action version was more pain than i could bear and but now they go and spring this complete watering down of the quality tv series on us. it more than i can take. "
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 dvd well over 2 years ago and only decided to watch it yesterday. i do not know why it took me so long as i do like the inspector gadget show and even the new gadget and the gadgetinis. while it may have a bright color pallet and all the technical sophistication of a modern animated movie and there are some old things missing that bog this gadget right down the toilet. first of all the classic inspector gadget theme song and music is completely absent. the composer tries to compromise by doing a score that sounds similar but it still just no good enough. the gadget mobile is now a talking car and not a car that can turn into a van. plus it looks a lot cuter and rounder instead of being plain cool. penny no longer has her computer book and she and brain hardly make an appearance at all. the plot is non existent. there something about a transformation formula and doctor claw using for some never revealed evil but that all i got. what the deal was with the short or giant italian guy i will never know. it had nothing to do with anything. and if the title is anything to go by and his last case is wrapped up in no way whatsoever. and he stays on the force so why it called last case is a mystery also. i wasn not impressed at all. this is an affront to a great animated show that is strangely absent on dvd and but do not let that prompt you into buying whatever inspector gadget dvds you can. i sold this mere seconds after finally watching it. no kid will like or appreciate this and no fan of the old show with tolerate 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:
"this animated inspector gadget movie is pretty lame. the story is very weak and and there is little action. most of the characters are given little to nothing to do. the movie is mildly entertaining at best and but really doesn not go any where and is pointless. it watchable but only just and is nowhere near the calibre of the animated tv show from the 80 . it not a movie that bears repeat viewing and at least in my mind. it only about 74 minutes long including credits and so i guess that a good thing. unlike in the tv show and the characters are not worth rooting for here. in the show and you wanted inspector gadget to save the day and but there and who really cares. anyway and that just my opinion. for me inspector gadget last case is a disappointing 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:
"inspector gadget was probably my all time favorite 80 cartoon. i enjoyed both the first and second seasons of the series as well as 1992 christmas special inspector gadget saves christmas. some gadget fans are quick to criticize the second season (1985) of the show and but they need to compare it to dic 2002 release of inspector gadget last case represent claw revenge for then and they will find the second season to be absolute gold. being a gadget fan and i couldn not resist the opportunity to see the animated inspector gadget in something that wasn not gadget boy related. i purchased the film and and i swore to myself that i would be objective while i knew that sometimes artistic liberties would be taken from the original series. i was not even prepared for what i was about to watch. there was barely a shred of the original show still intact. here is a short list of just some of the cons for this movie represent the humor is non existent from the original series. penny and brain (originally having a nearly equal part in the series as gadget) are missing from the action for fifteen to twenty minute intervals. the original music by saban and levy is not there and and the score that exists is sub par. (understood that saban has his own production company now and but at least inspector gadget saves christmas had good music and even without saban. ) don not expect to see any of gadget gadgets which made the show so endearing and such as gadget copter and gadget brella and gadget mallet and gadget coat (which actually was used but it was not even called the same thing) and as well as his standard other hat and hand gadgets. in this movie and his gadget legs were telescopic instead of springs. that kind of stuff annoys true fans of the show and and simply aren not necessary to change. the gadgetmobile from the original series is now a fast talking and supposedly hip convertible. all the fans from the original series enjoyed the gadgetmobile transforming into the gadget van and vice versa. chief quimby is now very short tempered and even mean to gadget. he was always grumpy in the original series and but this pushes the situation a bit much. penny no longer has a computer book. are there any positives to this movie. ok and here goes. maurice lamarche does a good job of taking over for the great don adams as inspector gadget. in one scene and chief quimby alludes to an actual villain from the cartoon series represent the great wambini (classic gadget villain from the second season and voiced by louis nye). looking for more redeeming factors for this movie. well and youre out of luck. life is about making choices and living by those choices. most situations in life have a purpose even if it is to teach a lesson. the lesson learned here represent keep to the original formula. if it ain not broke and do not fix it. true gadget fans should steer clear from this movie while you will surely be disappointed. hopefully and dic and shout. factory will continue to release more of the original series after the 2006 release of inspector gadget represent the original series and volume 1 and containing the first 22 episodes of the series. as a true gadget fan and lover of 80 animation and many of dic programs and i urge you the viewer to purchase inspector gadget represent the original series and volume 1 and inspector gadget saves christmas dvd which are excellent and sure to bring back good memories. "
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:
"dear friends and family and i guess if one teen wants to become biblical with another teen and then that their eternal damnation just remember kids and birth control doesn not mean oral sex and i do not care what the honor student says. on the other hand and even if the senator aid quotes himself as a bit of a romantic guy and he still only hitting on a high school girl. if she was my sister and i would eat this guys kneecaps. other than that i found out that mongolians do not kiss the same way the french do and that baseball players named zoo like delicate undergarments. i think i would almost rather watch richie rich one more time than suffer the indignity of this slip and slap and slop. thank you and and good night. "
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:
"to be clear from the get go and the bagman is very and very and very bad. it suffers terribly in almost every aspect except for one represent the finished product is such an awful film that it actually hysterically funny to watch. this is a very low grade film. budget constraints for the film should be obvious to anyone who watches even just the opening title sequence. i am not sure if much of the humour in the film was intended or not. for example and the movie takes place in doomsville. note to all prospective home buyers represent if the town youre moving to is called doomsville and keep moving. stephanie beaton is quick to pull off her top for a pretty enthusiastic sex scene in the kitchen. i couldn not help but laugh because it has intentional humour (she turns on the gas stove . get it. the sex is that hot. get it. ) and unintentional humour. the unintentional in this case is the music. it like the theme music for chariots of fire goes electronica. break out the computer and the synthesizers. i realize that coming up with music for a small production like this is cost prohibitive. i really feel for them because the work here is so well intentioned. the problem is that cheap music isn not necessarily good music. i haven not laughed so hard at sex on screen since alone in the dark with that seven seconds song (i guess they were implying that poor old mr. slater was a bit . quick on the draw. ). even the end credits are hilarious. intentional or not. you be the judge represent a pet dog and cat are part of the credited cast and an animal wrangler was on set for them. the boom is credited to mr b. stick and and the 3rd unit wardrobe (yep and they had a third unit) is credited to k mart. maybe it just me and but i think the hilarity of this more than saves the film. the movie is very and very bad and but the goals of stephanie beaton and her friends and family are so well intentioned in the bagman that you can not help but like the movie they have produced. the bagman is bad but not dreadful. in its own sweet way and it even manages to be a bit endearing. it wears its flaws so honestly that you can not help but forgive them. better films that try to hide the flaws are almost worse in a way. i guess this is just a film that knew who its audience was and was produced accordingly. watch any number of movies and most of them will probably be a lot better than this. some of them might look cheaper and or have worse acting and or sillier production value. they may not suffer terribly as the bagman does from awful editing and sound and and foley effects. mr b. stick do not do a very good job. the special effects look to be where most of the money went. they tend to be more funny than gruesome and although when the bagman is finally unmasked at the end and the make up job there is surprisingly well done. my negative is a little high but the humour helped a lot. this is an ideal movie to track down some night with a few friends and a few beers in hand. great entertainment is to be had by anyone who seriously considers themselves b movie or low budget film aficionados. all others should probably avoid with great prejudice. "
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:
"any film with a title as ridiculous as the bagman should automatically attract the attention of any bad movie lover and but the plot is far different than what one may expect after viewing the dvd cover. the bagman is by no means a good movie. it falls into the category of films that seem to have been (and probably were) filmed on a home video camera. the acting is awful. i haven not heard and seen such wooden acting since troll 2. there are plenty of scenes with nudity and sex and but they are clearly jumped into too fast. the characters are morons and entirely forgettable. the ending (which i will not spoil) can be easily anticipated after watching the very first scene. due to the cheesy nature of the film and nothing aside from the awful production values is truly scary (awful attempts at realistic gore and a driving scene where the car is clearly stationary and etc). recommended for bad movie aficionados only. "
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 bought this film from a shop called poundland. we were looking for more inspiration as we have previously bought the film no big deal an remade it. we expected this film to be badly inspirational so that we might remake it and put it on the tube. however and this was shocking. boring is the main word that comes to mind. the bad effects and script aren not enough to make you watch it. the main woman body seems to be whipped out at opportune moments in a pathetic attempt to keep the viewer interested. however and it just makes you wonder and did they blow the budget getting her to take her clothes off. if so and i would have asked for a refund. it looks like a homemade film and the shots do not even correspond with each other and the camera work is so amateur it makes our remakes of bad movies look professional. i cannot believe that this is being sold as a marketable product. it is just boring and ugly to watch. the actors are bad and there is no degree of professionalism about it. there are no words to describe how terrible it is. "
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 the freshman effort of stephanie beaton and her new production company. while it suffers from a few problems and as every low budget production does and it is a good start for ms. beaton and her company. the story is not terribly new having been done in films like the burning and every friday the 13th since part 2. but and the performances are heartfelt. so many big budget movies just have the actors going through the motions and its always nice to see actors really trying to hone their craft. the story deals with the murder(and possible return) of a disfigured classmate. the others are sworn to secrecy and but the trauma of the event sends each person in different directions in their lifes. ten years later and the friends are murdered one by one by a gruesome stalker known as the bagman. who will survive. you have to watch. if you are roger ebert or any number of arrogant critics and you probably shouldn not bother. but if your taste run more towards joe bob briggs and you want to see a group of people honing their craft and then check out the bagman. "
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:
"following the success of the (awful) gilligan island tv movie reruns and a number of tv movies were made in the 1980 reuniting casts from classic shows. most of these movies completely missed the boat as far as recapturing the humor that made the shows so special. the munsters revenge is among the most disappointing because it goes for a laurel and hardy type comedy style that really wasn not in the original series. yvonne de carlo and a wonderful comedienne and essential to the series and is completely wasted she has less time here in this 90 minute movie than she did in any single 30 minute episode. and since the roles of eddie and marilyn in this movie are nothing more than cameos and what was the point of making them younger and recasting them. with very little rewriting and they could have used butch patrick and pat priest. although seeing some of the munsters spooky relatives was a nice touch and i do not enjoy sid caesar as the hammy mad scientist mainly because there too much of him and not enough of the underused munsters (ironically that very year and 1981 and caesar old partner in comedy and imogene coca and was also inappropriately cast in a major part in a tv movie reunion return of the beverly hillbillies). another strange inexplicable bit at the beginning of the film has the munster family represented as wax figures at a local horror wax museum. why would they be in there when they are supposed to be a typical (if strange) american family and not famous monsters. this was the last munsters project featuring the original cast in their roles and there was an awful revival of the series in the late 1980 with a completely new cast and a 1990 tv movie which featured decarlo and lewis and priest and and patrick in cameo roles as a family dining. "
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:
"96 minutes of this is cruel. and i love the old munster . yes and the plot is thing while yes the lines are trite while but whoever was at the helm of this was not a fan. there is so much intrigue (and i use that word with great pause) that i wonder if it an old starsky and hutch episode. i lost count of the number of times i noticed that makeup had missed a spot near the collar. refusing to acknowledge that any time had passed since the mid 60 (ludicrous) the producers simply replace marilyn and eddie with younger actors. why not let them grow and age. the addition of an addam family style reunion does not add to the flavor of the halloween party. grandpa and herman fly to transylvania and back in a few hours (preposterous. ) sid ceaser is the most and yes the most unbelievable character (i am including the bad robots) since he babbles an unwild combination of gibberish and yiddish but claims to be an ancient arabic ruler. and yes and it looks like the laugh track is missing. in fact and there are several spots where there is dead air and as if the laugh track was to be inserted later. the actors seem to wait on the faux audience. it not laughable while it sad. oh and and the best part. yvonne decarlo has a line that just goes to show you how out of touch the writers and producers were. marilyn says something like represent where could uncle herman and grandpa be. they could have been in an accident. they could have been hit by a car. or a train. lily says responds with something like represent youre uncle herman will be here if he has to drag himself off the train track. what amazing about this is represent yvonne decarlo husband was a stuntman in the early 60 and lost a leg and was nearly killed in a train stunt. he never recovered and this financially devastated her family. (check out biography fantastic review of her life and career) this line could have been easily changed to be more sensitive to her. if you are a real fan of the munster then you will have to rent this mess. it illustrates how some things are better left alone. even with the (nearly) original cast and this is almost as bad as the attempted remake of the show a few years ago. "
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 sad and sad sight indeed is the munster revenge. the munsters are brought back one last time(fred gywnne received a huge paycheck to come back to the role of herman munster)in this made for tv movie about a pair of wax replicas of grandpa and herman that are robots terrorizing the city as preparation for a robbery of a mummy stash at an exhibit. with the police on their heels and the two elderly television icons try to find out who is actually behind the crimes in order to clear their names. we get to see them dress in drag as waitresses(a minor highpoint in the film) and grandpa turns into a bat with attached wire a couple times(one time even flying to transylvania with herman somehow invoking his frequent flyer miles i guess) and and a most annoying relative the phantom constantly sings and breaks glass ad nausium. what is most sad is hard to pinpoint represent is it that gywnne(especially) and al lewis look so haggard in every scene and so indifferent to the material. is it the hokey costumes of the robots that have that school production values look about them. maybe it is the ridiculous script. sid caesar crazy and mostly unfunny antics. or perhaps it is seeing something which brought me joy and fond memories as a child being treated to a super k mart fashion makeover. at any even and the result is decidedly disappointing and silly even for munster standards. as for the rest of the cast and yvonne de carlo is adequate in a most vacuous role(though showing more cleavage than usual for a woman of her years and experience). k. c. martell makes an ever so not affable eddie munster. jo mcdonell is an attractive marilyn. bob hastings as the aforementioned phantom looks and acts and speaks in the most absurd manner. the film has a real cheap feel about it even for a made for tv 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:
"i saw switching goals . twice. and always the same feeling. you see the olsen twins make same movie. they like play different sports and then fall in love to boys. ok now about the movie. first off all such little boys and girls do not play on such big goals. 2. football does not play on time outs. 3. if the game is at its end the referee gives some overtime (a minute or more). and the finish is so foreseen. i think that this movie is bad because of the lack of football knowledgement. if it were done by european producers it would be better. and also the mane actors aren not the wright choice. they suffer from lack of authentic. ok they played some seasons in full house but that doesn not make them big stars. you have got to show your talent. and that is what is missing in the olsen twins. "
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 you guessed it. another movie where identical twins switch places. i think now that the olsen twins are getting older they should try and make the plot less predictable and less like re runs of full house. if you plan on seeing this film and do not. watch the parent trap instead. it more entertaining. "
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 definitely not one of mary kate and ashley best movies. i really do not like it and and i was kind of disappointed in that movie. for some reason and it seemed like it was a movie that they put together really fast. in some parts and it got so boring that i had to fast forward it. it do not have any bloopers or any exciting parts like their other 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:
"this movie was awesome. (not quite as good as the leif garrett masterpiece longshot) but still awesome. i thought ashley looked freakin huge compared to mary kate in this film. i wonder why. who woulda thought they could swith places like that and almost get away with it. dad was kinda a jerk though and mom was a little too chummy with helmit head. i give it 4. any one who likes this movie shoudl check out longshot. "
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:
"so i finally saw the film my left foot last night after years of being told by my mother how amazing it is. the central performance of day lewis is indeed remarkable and amazing and but anyone with even minimal exposure to his other work should expect nothing less. the fatal misjudgement in my eyes was that in becoming obsessed with proving the normalcy of this man while the movie chose to show him as a complete and utter jerk. on the one hand i can see that this is a logical correlation while mankind always has the capacity to be objectionable and and disability shouldn not obscure that. i just wish that impartial onlookers do not be so forgiving of aberrant behaviour and assume that circumstances automatically make it forgivable. they do not. acting out is normal and and so yes and disabled people act out but they do not do it because theyre disabled while they do it because theyre being unreasonable. a physical impairment doesn not afford you the right to throw a hissy fit in public and just because someone you love turns you down. there are certain things it is unwise to do whether you are disabled or able bodied. giving someone tacit permission to boot a football directly at your head for the sole purpose of fitting in is one of them. (admittedly and i did once save a penalty from the school star striker with my face and but i already belonged by then. it wasn not for acceptance. ) engaging in a bar brawl is another. revelling in the fact that your father only extends companionship to you after you have proved yourself capable of metaphorically jumping through physical hoops takes masochism a step too far. all of these things are stupid and and suffering through them as a way to demonstrate your bravery doesn not make them any less foolhardy. so yes while just because you have overcome obstacles to achieve great things doesn not make you any less of a jerk. being a good person takes priority while setting an inspiring example for the disabled should appear way down the list. "
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 utterly disappointed by this movie. i had read some of the other reviews here and had much higher expectations. i expected a drama with more intense character development. but that never happens in the movie. daniel day lewis is a good actor and but not as good as some reviewers here would have us believe. i tought he repeated the same set of 4 or 5 movements in the movie. i would rate his performance positive . acting represent positive direction is 5 out of 10. script is the worst represent negative . i deleted the movie from my dvr at 70 mins. into the movie. much better movies out there than this. "
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 novelty of hearing clean cut jay leno spout four letter words is the only memorable aspect of this formulaic mismatched police partners caper. in collision course and the pelican faced comedian teams up with the late pat morita to track down a stolen prototype turbocharger (think car lover leno played a hand in the plot. ). the two leads try hard and they really do and but leno is no actor and morita fish out of water routine gets old in a hurry. the film carries a bit of cheesy 80s appeal and but its worthy moments become increasingly scarce as it fills out its overlong 100 minute running time. fans of leno considerable comedic talents will feel let down while everyone else will just be bored. "
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:
"collusion course is even worse than the typical evil white male corporate capitalist movie of the week. this movie is less pleasant than a toothache. jay leno can act. he good in his underrated debut movie and the silverbears and in which he gives a performance consist with the demands of his character. this movie is so bad leno character and a sanctimonious buffoon and is less annoying than morita character and a sanctimonious fool. "
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 a reason why jay leno himself will not acknowledge this film. it consistently ranks as one of the worst films of all time. the acting is horrible and the script lacks direction and the director himself doesn not seem sure on which way to take this film. a buddy film and an action or comedy and mystery. seems half way through and he gives up and and is just along for the ride. jay leno and pat morita are talented and dedicated performers. it is a shame that they wasted their time and gifts making this mess of a movie. jay leno and pat morita prior to involving themselves with this and had spent years pounding out their crafts on the hollywood circuit. mr. morita had already been a star in his own right and acting steadily since the mid 1960s as the star of such cult tv and movie classics as happy days and and the dismal but affable mr. t and tina. and won the hearts of america with his roles in the powerful film and midway and the karate kid and and a host of others. mr. leno can been seen on tv shows dating back to the mid 70s. and was a top performer in the comedy clubs of america. he can be seen in countless tv spots and in major films. it is a shame and that they agreed to be seen with this nonsense. "
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 awful. i haven not laughed so hard at a movie that was unintentionally funny in a long time. leno should have stuck to stand up and late night tv. the cars in the movie were cool and but the movie by itself is the dumbest movie i have ever seen. it pathetic and the acting is horrible and and the plot could have been written by a 4 year old. do not get me wrong and jay leno is hilarious and but not in this 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:
"this is a really stupid movie in that typical 80s genre represent action comedy. conceptwise it resembles rush hour but completely lacks the action and the laughs and the chemistry between the main characters of that movie. let it be known that i enjoy jay leno as a stand up and as a talk show host and but he just cannot act. he is awful when he tries to act tough he barely manages to keep that trademark smirk off his face while saying his one liners which and by the way and aren not very funny. and seeing him run (even back then) is not a pleasant sight. in addition and i have a feeling that pat morita at least by today standards doesn not give a very politically correct impression of the japanese. don not even get me started about the story. 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 dreadful film assembles every asian stereotype you can imagine into one hideous package. money grubbing and devious japanese business men send goofy but loveable policeman pat morita to recover industrial secrets in detroit. here he encounters a down at heel jay leno and who promptly refers to a murder victim as a jap and calls morita tojo. it all downhill from there. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"mindless dribble about the second coming of christ in the form of a hippie and albino looking sandra locke. you have no idea what happening on the screen with the irritating theme song suzanne being played over and over throughout the movie until when the second coming of suzanne is over you already know it by hard no matter how hard you try to forget the whole thing. this off the wall armature movie maker logan and jared martin and is out to make the movie of the century but is so rude and obnoxious that none in the banking world is willing to finance his project. planning to go on his own logan then spots this couple at a seaside café and is fascinated with the young woman suzanne and sandra locke and who reminds him of someone he knew in another life represent jesus christ. with logan assistant and all around gofer clavius and richard dreyfuss and somehow getting a $740 and 000. 00 loan from the bank to finance logan masterpiece he starts to work on suzanne by flattering her about her talent as an actress in order to get her interested to be in his film. this leads to suzanne not only leaving her boyfriend artist simon and paul sand and but later simon being so depressed and feeling all alone takes a gun to his mouth and blows his brains out. the movie also has two somewhat unrelated sub plots in it that has to do with a young autistic girl dorothy and kari avalos and who cured of her autism by suzanne after everyone else and at the psychiatric hospital that she was committed to and failed. it not really known what exactly suzanne was doing at the hospital but she seemed to be some kind of orderly or volunteer there while was this supposed to show us in the audience that she and like jesus and could miraculously heal the sick. there also this newspaper columnist and big time businessman tycoon jackson sinclair and gene barry and who seems to be either going through a very difficult mid life crisis or has seen a biblical like vision that changed his life forever. sinclair had been searching for the meaning of life as well as what it all about all through the movie and wanted to know why there all this suffering in the world and like this movie that he in and and seemed to have found the answer when he first laid his eyes on suzanne. sinclair also got some sense knocked into his head when his private chauffeur david and mark rasmusser and who gotten sick and tired of his weird and crazy hallucinations almost running him off a cliff in a kamikaze like drive along the pacific coast. the movie the second coming of suzanne goes on with a number of unrelated sequences and probably to fill or pad in some time by it director and film editor and and then goes to it final scene in a christ like crucification on a hill as logan has all the cameras rolling. it turns out that the crazed logan got so carried away with his masterpiece as he tried to replicate and on the helpless and tied up suzanne and the actual crucification of jesus christ some 2 and 000 years ago. hard to sit through and almost impossible to follow the second coming of suzanne puts you through the same kind torture that suzanne is put through by logan and the makers of the film. the movie tries to be arty but that just an excuse to cover up it brainless and non existent storyline and even worse the terrible and amateurish acting by everyone in it. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"richard dreyfuss is and indeed and in this flick and but in a rather small part. he is not the obsessed filmmaker he the group business manager or accountant. even the box describes the film inaccurately. there are no erotic scenes with sondra locke and as advertised and unless one uses the term erotic quite loosely. i would not have considered viewing the film without richard dreyfuss being in it as a major character. i might have and however and had i realized that the famous 60 anthem and leonard cohen suzanne and was an artistic influence. other than the brief recitation of lines from the end of james joyce ulysses and and an interesting visual reference to the end of ingmar bergman the seventh seal and i found it a poor attempt to meld symbolic elements and moods immortalized in films like last year at marianbad and un chien andalou. if you like the idea of the eccentric artistic troupe and there are many superior films and ranging from bye and bye and brasil to cecil b. demented. "
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 second coming of suzanne is yet another one of those surrealistic films that tries to come across as extremely sophisticated and yet all it does is put the viewer to sleep. like other movies of this type and there is limited dialogue. everyone is much more interested in the visual aesthetic of the shot. however and the cinematography stinks so there is nothing at all to keep your attention. the video box states that this film is one of the most exciting visual adventures ever seen on film. yeah. sure. it right up there with watching such stimulating events as a bucket of ice melting or a turtle walking for a mile. 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:
"it was and a simpler time ( the seventies ) and a simpler place ( san francisco ) and where a man could make a simple movie about a drug crazed psychotic re crucifixion of christ as a woman on acid with never ending dream sequences and inter cut flashbacks while having a multi racial inter gender orgies regardless of financial responsibilities or moral repercussion. this movie and tedious and slow and boring and is the worst example of the kind of pretentious heavy handed art school dreck that passed as art in the midst of the 70 . and i love it . once this train wreck of endless slow motion zoom ins and heavy reverbed echo chamber acid guitar licks starts you can not take your eyes off of it until the ridiculous and absurd end. its kind of a cross between jesus christ superstar and beyond the valley of the dolls and and a really crappy acid trip with your parents on a water bed. its simultaneously a train wreck and completely fascinating and and also a great snapshot of the worst ( or best ) elements of b grade seventies phychadelic film genre. the plot. i will just tell you the plot because you will hardly be able to tell whats happening due to the constant cross edited flashbacks to events that may or may not have happened to characters that may or may not be themselves and and the face painted hippy freak nicks endlessly cavorting about in banal sequences of performance art level mime like street theater. logan is a really annoying iconoclast film maker who yells at people allot and is surrounded by a mostly silent film crew who are always dropping acid and having what seem like really bad orgies. richard dreyfus has an ancillary role as what seems like the accountant. the film crew seems to hate him for some reason and break out into maniacal laughter perhaps to torment him. suzanne the titular character is a willowy blond who stairs vacuously into space and comforts the totally insane artist character. the artist is going completely mad and by the way. either from his hamfisted overacting or the incredible awfulness of his paintings. all of course terrible nudes of susanne. there are some other characters that randomly show up and a cigar chomping the man character. who also is all hot for suzanne i guess. he has a monologue. i couldn not really ever figure out what he had to do with the story except everyone had to hate the man back then and you couldn not make a movie without one. there is also a mute girl. the mute girl pays off in the end trust me and its incredibly stupid. "
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:
". because if i was and i may have wished it was me being crucified on a wooden cross. i am still trying to determine the plot of this movie and i am being generous that there was even a plot to begin with. as previously mentioned and it a misnomer on the cover of the dvd that richard dreyfuss is actually the star. he was barely in the movie. and if he was indeed frustrated as the back cover indicated he was and well and that probably because he said yes to be in this disaster of a movie and couldn not get out of it. the movie really seemed to focus on jared martin and and what his role in the movie was supposed to be and other than the extreme close ups and was not as big of a mystery as to what gene barry role actually was or wasn not. and speaking of big. whomever had the bright idea to fit gene barry in the humpty dumpty attire and which showcased his trousers literally pulled up to his chin and should be sentenced to hard time by watching this movie stoned sober. i could go on and on about how horrendous this movie was and from the dialogue not matching the actors mouths (think clutch cargo) and to the erratic jumping from scene to scene (again and being generous even calling the frames of pictures scenes) and to the lack of a plot. however and if youre into bad early 70s genre and if youre in a cottage in michigan with nothing but this movie and a box of kid and cat pictures and i recommend having a good bottle of wine before you embark on this weird ride of a movie because you will be thankful that you may not remember it the next day. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"richard dreyfus is not the star here. he has about three 20 second cameos and what is gene barry doing all over this movie. no idea and the director was probably his brother. this is a movie that makes no sense whatsoever. the inept writer or director (same dude) butchered up everyone talent with his horrendous uh. work. i got the dvd for a penny so can not complain. but it weird. and it makes you feel weirded out and in not a good way. this was the 70 and looks like the director was on a bad acid trip and wanted everyone to experience what it like to be inside his head. it has a somewhat interesting and controversial concept and but like a scratched record and it quickly plays foul. it has that manson family on acid vibe to it. i have no idea how the other reviewer got all they did out of this movie. maybe they worked in it back when. at any rate and be prepared to lose 80 plus min of your life you will never get back. yes and it that awful. "
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 exactly what i expected it to be when i first read the casting. i probably could have written a more exciting plot and it a pity that they left it to a pack of howler monkeys. alberto tomba was surely a good skier but he has to thank god (and we too) that he does not have to rely on his actor skills to earn his living. he can not play and he can not talk and he can not even move very good on mainland without his skis. michelle hunziker is a pretty blonde girl and and that all. she obviously wasn not chosen for her astounding competence in dramatic roles but most probably for her nice legs. nevertheless i must admit that she could be the tomba acting teacher and because he even a worse actor than her and and that funny and especially considering that she isn not italian. i laughed all the time and watching this movie. i found it so ridiculous and meaningless that it actually made me laugh and loud and very loud. "
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:
"probably somebody heard of alberto tomba. a former policeman and a former sky champion and and and now and a terrible actor. alex lariete was planned to be a tv mini serial and but the italian television itself refused to show the movie on its channels. now it a and believe me and ridiculous movie. the script it simply hilarious (it supposed to be a dramatic movie) and something like a 5 years old kid work. but what really blows you away it the amateurish acting represent alberto tomba and who actually was not believable as a policeman himself and plays terribly a totally silly character represent a special operations italian policeman specialized in smashing doors open. (ariete is ram). this super guy will try to save a young nice girl life (an actual italian little tv showgirl and married to the singer eros ramazzotti) represent nice but absolutely inept in the acting. lose this one and make yourself a favour. a movie that is a shame to italian cinema industry represent only john travolta in earth attack got close. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"a sentimental school drama set in denmark and 1969 and we shall overcome offers a pathetic danish take on us culture. frits (janus dissing rathke) and a flower power obsessed and naive 13 year old and exits with half his ear hanging off from brutal master lindum svendsen (bent mejding) office. lindum svendsen and a school director and portrayed as a fascistoid tyrant and has the local community in control. lindum svendsen gone too far this time and and with his father and recovering from a mental breakdown (sure and there wasn not enough drama already. ) and and overly stereotyped hippie music teacher mr svale (hi and call me freddie) and frits stands up for justice. tell you what. it so unconvincing and over (method )acted and and so full of misery and that as a family picture this grotesque filled with cliché excuse for a movie fails miserably to convince non scandinavian audiences. sorry and kind danish readers and to crash like this into your sentimental journeys. but it definitely not a tale about a boy becoming a man by fighting the system. the boy never becomes a man and but rather remains a naive and big eyed cry face. if you call a church of small minded small town folk and led by a dictator like cartoonish character the system and i am sorry if i am missing something. if youre into family pictures and go see happy feet instead. "
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 the folks at kino video assembled their fine slapstick encyclopedia collection and a multi cassette selection of silent comedies and someone decided to kick off the first installment with one too many (1916) and an obscure one reel farce made in florida starring the very young oliver hardy. as enjoyable as the set is over all and this decision was an unfortunate one and for one too many is a very poor film which almost discourages the viewer from watching further. like any typical farce and this one involves deception inspired by greed and panic when plans go awry and and complications escalating to the point of absurdity and but unlike the good ones and one too many is incoherent and unfunny and and downright annoying. it hard to tell at this point whether the hopelessly confusing plot is the result of missing footage or inept film making and but whatever the cause and by the halfway point even the most alert viewer has no idea what the character relationships are or what is happening and and by the end one no longer cares. the only point of interest here is seeing the 24 year old babe hardy and who appears considerably heavier than he would a decade later when he teamed with stan laurel and but who is nonetheless full of youthful energy. in the opening scene and awakening with a hangover and babe performs a highly athletic backward roll off a bed. trust me and that as funny as this movie gets. if you read this before seeing the first cassette of kino slapstick encyclopedia i suggest you fast forward past this one and skip to the good stuff. "
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:
"stan laurel and oliver hardy had extensive (separate) film careers before they were eventually teamed. for many of ollie pre stan films and he was billed on screen as babe hardy . and throughout his adult life and hardy was known to his friends as babe. while touring postwar britain with laurel in a music hall act for bernard delfont and hardy gave an interview to journalist john mccabe in which he explained the origin of this nickname represent early in his acting career and hardy got a shave from a gay hairdresser who squeezed hardy plump cheeks (the ones on his face) and said nice baby. hardy workmates started crying him babe and and the nickname stuck. although much of hardy pre laurel work is very interesting notably his comedy roles in support of larry semon and the chaplin imitator billy west his teamwork with billy ruge (who. ) in a series of low budget shorts for the vim comedy film company is very dire indeed. hardy and ruge were given the screen names plump and runt represent names which are unpleasant in their own right and but made worse because ruge (although shorter than hardy) isn not especially a runt. seen here and hardy looks much as he does in his early hal roach films with laurel . but without the spit curls and the fastidious little moustache. one too many and an absolutely typical plunt and runt epic and is direly unfunny . and its dreichness is made even more conspicuous by the fact that this film has exactly the same premise as that my wife and one of laurel and hardy most hilarious films. plump (hardy) is the star boarder in a rooming house run by a tall gawky landlady. runt (ruge) is the porter. plump receives a letter from his wealthy uncle john and whose dosh he expects to inherit. his uncle is coming to see him and to meet plump wife and baby. there only one problem represent plump hasn not got a wife and baby. he been lying to his uncle in order to seem a family man. now and of course and plump expects runt to find him a wife and baby on short notice. of course and the results are disastrous. it would be nice if those disastrous results were funny and but they aren not. most of the unfunny humour here is just empty slapstick and with characters settling their arguments by shoving each other into bathtubs. spoilers coming. vim director will louis (who. ) shows no instinct for camera framing represent the actress who plays the landlady is significantly taller than hardy and and louis consistently sets up his shots so that her head is out of frame. this could be funny if done on purpose and but it merely inept. at one point in this bad comedy and an extremely tasteless gag is looming on the horizon as runt approaches a black laundress. surely they do not stoop that low for a laugh and i thought. but they do. runt steals the woman black infant and tries to fob this off as plump progeny. somehow and plump acquires an infant cot and but he still hasn not got a baby. with uncle john coming up the stairs and plump conscripts runt for babyhood. this gag might just possibly have worked with a midget and or even with a truly runt sized actor such as chester conklin and but billy ruge is only slightly below average height. ruge impersonation of a baby is neither believable nor funny and and uncle john would have to be a complete moron to fall for it. amazingly and he does. the most notable aspect of one too many is a brief appearance apparently her only ever film appearance by madelyn saloshin and oliver hardy first wife. the marriage was not a happy one and although hardy marital troubles never attained the epic proportions of stan laurel . only one thing in this movie impressed me. there is a very brief flashback sequence and with hardy reminiscing about his seaside romance with a bathing beauty. in 1916 and there was still not yet a standard film grammar for conveying flashbacks represent the one shown here is done gracefully and simply. too bad this movie has no other merits. one too many is definitely one film too many on oliver hardy cv and and i will rate this movie just one point out of 10. laurel and hardy together are definitely much funnier than either of them separately. "
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:
"oliver hardy awakens with a hangover and soon learns that his uncle is coming to see ollie new wife and baby. the problem is and they do not exist ollie apparently made them up. so and it up to him and his pal to locate a lady with a baby who will agree to pose as his family. this isn not a particularly unique story idea and as i have seen at least a couple other silent shorts with this exact plot. the best of these was bobby vernon dont kid me. it is much better than one too many probably much of this was due to it being made a decade later when comedy became a bit more sophisticated and relied less on pointless slapstick. now i am not against physical comedy and but in some slapstick films and people starting shooting guns wildly and kick and strangle each other and etc. with little provocation. sadly and at the end of one too many and that exactly what they do. none of it makes sense and it was as if they would just run out of story ideas. overall and not exactly a milestone in entertainment. there just not enough payoff to merit watching it unless you are an obsessive silent fan like myself. "
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 the worst piece of crap i have seen recently. there is nothing good about this movie. the plot is plain stupid and dialogs do not make any sense and humorous scenes never heard anything about the real humor. actors just do not play and the worse they do not even try. the script itself is somewhat which is in the same league with ed wood and uwe boll. there is only one good thing in this flick and the fights. they are well choreographed as one would expect of the hong kong guys and and are the only reason to watch prince of the sun. although i believe the fights are just supposed to fill the empty space so that the screenwriter do not have to bother thinking about the storyline. however and this weak and absurd plot may prevent you from watching it to the end. avoid it unless you are fan of the dragon lady cynthia rothrock. "
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 bother trying to watch this terrible mini series. it is a six hour bore and an unbelievable love triangle between three people who have absolutely no chemistry for each other. there is no heat in this story and no real passion and no real romance. it is a dry and boring and drawn out and and uninspired as they come. and it doesn not even meet the expected level of technical proficiency. take those six hours of your life and use them for something more worthwhile. "
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:
"tom is listening to one of those old time radio broadcasts and something kids from the 1950s to today would watch on tv. however and they do not television when this cartoon was made so people got their entertainment from comedies to music to scary stories from the radio. tom is literally shaking in his boots listening to some story about the phantom. he actually literally doing everything the narrator is saying and such as hair standing on end and icy chills race down her spine and her heart beats in her throat and etc. jerry and meanwhile and is watching tom and laughing his butt off at his scaredy cat antics. we then get a taste of what we will see for many years after this 194 cartoon in which jerry tortures tom for no reason other than sadistic pleasure. if the cat asks for trouble and that one thing and but when he minding own business and jerry is physically (and in this case and mentally) abusing him and i have a hard time rooting for the little guy. these early t and m efforts also were a minute longer than all that followed. sometimes that one minute makes a difference. it did here as this actually dragged for awhile. it could have been cut to five minutes without missing anything because the sketches went on too long. that usual for tom and jerry . usually and they are much faster paced. "
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:
"jerry spies tom listening to a creepy story on the radio and seizes the opportunity to scare his nemesis. i do not find this particular episode that funny represent the humour seemed rather constrained and the whole set up was kinda lame (jerry is essentially the bad guy in this one and tormenting poor tom for no particular reason). there is the occasional flash of inspiration (such as tom literal heart in mouth experience and and the moment when his nines lives are sucked out of his body) and but and on the whole and this effort lacks the frenetic pacing and excellent animation and sheer wit of most of t and j other cartoons. "
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 plot is straightforward an old man living off a main road in woodland one day witnesses a man murdering a child in the woods. soft for digging follows the old man attempts to try and convince the police that what he saw was not a figment of his imagination. however and there is a problem each time the old man guides the police to where the murder happen no corpse can be found. soft for digging has a diminutive dialogue which reflects the majority of the scenes of the film and an old man living by himself in a house. during the film i found that i was scared twice namely when the murdered child abruptly appears before the old man. the rest of the film i have to admit did not engage me while i found the tempo of the film a little too slow. the limited dialogue was not a problem. however and the development of the story and its conclusions and after watching the film and took too long. i feel more could have been made of the relationship and ghostly encounters and with the child and the old man. alone in the woods at night unsure of your own mind can lead to some eerie situations and children are always scary as ghosts and see dark water. "
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 boring. it should least not more than 15 minutes. the images of child and animal being killed were little bit disturbing. usually i do not write comments but this one was so bad having so many good and excellent comments. i think in this case we are one step closer to honest assessment of this title. what more can i say. i fall asleep during this movie 3 times. it was about 4 hours after i had woken up from 8 hours long sleeping period. i think it is the point itself. there is no dialog between characters except maybe 2 sentences at the very end. when you fall asleep once watching it do not try to rewind and catch up because you will fall asleep again. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the thing that really gets me about this movie (that is and the thing about this movie that makes me physically ill) is that someone actually paid to have it made. there is absolutely no purpose for the existence of this movie. it is not frightening and it is not thought provoking and it is not entertaining and it is not good. it is a sleeping pill made of cyanide. the dvd case compares it to blair witch and evil dead and and a few other decent movies and making the filmmaker desperation glaringly obvious. it is nothing like any other movie ever made while it is far and far worse. the claims of an extremely shocking ending you will never forget are the equivalent of one ton of stinking horse droppings. please do not ever waste your time watching this piece of trash and because it may make you sterile. the man who wrote this movie should be wiped off the writer guild membership list and and never allowed to film anything again. because if he thought this was a movie worth making and he probably does not have much of anything to offer in the future. zero stars. may grod have mercy on the soul of anyone unfortunate enough to see this. i am going to go vomit now. "
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 really a very bad movie. i am a huge fan of italian horror and argento and mario bava and fulci and yes and even our good friend here lamberto sometimes comes out with a good one. i found the first two demons films to be highly entertaining they were so bad they were great but this one is just so bad that it is really and really bad. it is intensely boring and the story never goes anywhere and i hated the characters the wife slapping husband and whiny cry baby pain in the wife drove me mad and there was nowhere near enough of the story devoted to the ogre who was probably the best actor in the whole film. i turned it off about three quarters of the way through because i was very and very bored. don not bother. "
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:
"(aka represent demons iii)made for italian tv although shot in english and was never meant to be a sequel to the earlier demons films. it was supposed to be simply titled and the ogre and which is how director lamberto bava had released it. an american family rents an italian villa for the summer. the woman (virginia bryant) has recurring dreams of herself as a little girl going down to the old wine cellar of this villa an encountering this cocoon like structure hanging down from the ceiling. it glows and is covered in cobwebs and has what looks like spider or insect legs hanging down from it. it drips what looks like green paint. of course the husband doesn not believe any of this. the villa just is old and creaks and makes strange noises in the middle of the night and she should just ignore it. but then the ogre itself appears in what looks like some kind of 16th centaury costume with what looks like a wolf head attached to it and it attracted to the scent of orchids. the films isn not really that bad and at least the dialog is halfway intelligent without the ridiculous awkward phrases that dubbing would bring. there no real gore other than some skeletons rotting in a basement pond that really looks like the bottom of a modern swimming pool. the ogre itself just simply fades away after it is run over by the family jeep cherokee. the copy of the shriek dvd i watched was defective and with the picture going black for a few seconds about a half an hour into the film and a flaw i hope shriek has since corrected. extras include a short interview with lamberto bava where he explains how this wasn not a sequel and etc. etc. along with some trailers to other shriek dvd releases. this is pretty standard stuff. 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:
"demons iii represent the ogre is not related pre sequel are on the demons and the demons 2 are cool hip horror 1980 classic. demons iii represent the ogre is very stupid and bored and cheap monster. i am very confuse about the writer is demons iii represent the ogre (lamberto bava and dardano sacchetti are poor quality writer and stupid who the bored william shakespeare ghost or demon egg from spider web or what huhuhuhuhu make the girl dream). i am very sorry and very very very very boring movie. i bought the special dvd box called demons on the 3 different movies called demons iii represent the ogre and the other hell and and black demons do not have closed captioned and subtitles is cost $ 14. 99 from best buy store in the city of downey. why the lamberto bava and dardano sacchetti are poor quality writer who make the stupid movie almost like halloween iii do not have michael myer monster but the people wear halloween. i am very confused. i really love the demons and the demons 2 are better the boring stupid demons iii represent the ogre is not part for the demons and the demons 2 are same demons. thank you juan antonio de la torre. "
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:
"very low budget police procedural film about homicide detectives trying to solve the murder of a woman whose body turns up in a stolen car in central park and and their only clue is a tattoo on her arm. although released by rko and this has the look of an independent production that was picked up by the studio for distribution. the cast and crew and with a few exceptions among them a young and uncredited jack lord and director edward montagne and cameraman william steiner are comprised of complete unknowns and and it shows. the performances are universally sub par and do not pass muster in a high school training film and the direction is stodgy and choppy and and as mentioned previously and there no chemistry whatsoever between the lead actors. however and despite the film many shortcomings and it does have a few good points. the location shooting in new york city and and the film ultra low budget and gives it a gritty authenticity much like that of the far superior the naked city and a shootout in a dark basement is decently handled and and some of the investigating procedures are clever. otherwise and it not much to write home about. it is worth a look and however and for a glimpse at the seamier sections of new york city in the early 1950s and and old car buffs will be ecstatic to see the legions of 30s and 40s cars in the streets. "
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:
"edward montagne tattooed stranger is supposed to play like a crime thriller with a little film noir mixed in for flavor. instead and it a poorly acted and witless look into low budget and uninspired film making. the plot is absurd and the acting excruciatingly stiff and amateurish. john miles and who had a rather thin resume in the industry and grins and guffaws throughout and and everyone else acts with the same verve as characters in a government made filmstrip about driver safety. the movie anticipates shows like leave it to beaver and father knows best in its unnaturally wholesome view of new york in 1950. why and the viewer doesn not even get to see anyone light up a cig until some shapely woman is interviewed in a flophouse halfway through the movie. the only thing the movie has going for it (besides its brevity) is the excellent location shots coordinated by william steiner. the low budget of the film works in the cinematographer favor and as the viewer is treated to well framed shots of new york city interiors and expansive exteriors. unless you wish to enjoy the film for the choice of settings and camera angles and i suggest watching practically any other 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:
"this movie is just like every other dutch movie and so if you enjoy movies such as turks fruit and de kleine blonde dood. then you might be okay with this one (even though those two have much better stories and actors) zomerhitte starts strong enough and but even that one good scene ends up having nothing to do with the storyline. there a lot of nudity (but me and others just could not find that girl attractive) and the dialog is laughable (as we did a lot to the annoyance of other movie watchers) and and some of the scenes are so completely random that this is more of an unintentional comedy than anything else (like a random scene in which an owl rips somebody eye out. it has nothing to do with anything and is only referenced once later in a sentence saying did you hear what happened. i was there). the only reason i gave it a 2 is because some of the places they are at look nice. that it. and the reason i saw it was because we went to the sneak preview (here in holland we have a strange system regarding sneak previews and you pay less money then for a regular movie and you do not know what movie it is that you will be watching. all you know is that it a new movie that not yet in the theaters). my advice is to stay far away from this film and if you really want to see a good dutch movie watch temmink or zwartboek. "
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 recently saw this at the 2009 palm springs international film. this is the feature length directorial debut of veteran dutch actress monique van de ven and based on my observation it should be her last. i hate movies that are so implausible that you are picking apart practically every scene. this film immediately leaves you scratching your head. as it begins a young photographer and his girlfriend who works for an international aid organization are having a leisurely drive through the taliban controlled mountains afghanistan having a conversation about their love when a rocket stops a truck in front of them. they get out of their vehicle to watch as talliban fighters equipped with rocket launchers and machine guns and rifles and handguns and grenades execute all five people in the truck. bob (waldemar torenstra) starts taking pictures of all this when he is spotted by one of the insurgents who lobs a hand grenade at them that kills his girlfriend. since they are with hand throwing distance they can not be more than 50 yards away yet he somehow gets away. his girlfriend is blown up and he takes a picture of the moment of the grenade impact that kills her and wins a prize as photographer of the year for the photo. every scene and situation in this film as as ridiculous as it opening. the following year bob finds himself on assignment for national geographic on a dutch resort island where he meets kathleen (sophie hilbrand) and inserts himself into her seedy underworld of international drug smugglers. avoid this film. i would give it a 4. 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 film should have never been made. honestly and i must admit that before i saw it i had some serious doubts. the director is not a great actress and though she did a lot of movies in holland and and the young woman who took the main part is a tv personality with a constant smile on the face and not much self criticism. the actor who played the other main part i recently saw in bride flight and although that film is better and he did not convince me than. to start with the the story and i have not read the novel it is based upon and but the script that underlays the film is something that might have been done with in mind kids having a birthday party on a rainy sunday afternoon and not someone of the same age as the director who likes to watch a good movie. something really disturbing were the overdubbed dialogues and it was most of the time spoken out loud. my regards go to the cameraman and at least he tried to make something out of it. it is a pity that the film is edited lousy and if not and some scenes were certainly more credible. "
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 production has absolutely no storyline. the acting is embarrassing. the promising dutch television sophie hilbrand star should not add this movie to her cv. her acting is far from flawless and personally i think she has crossed boundary of professional decency while relating to the way she exposes herself in this movie. this movie contains too much unnecessary nudity and vulgar sexual scenes and rude language. it also shows a wrong image of the netherlands (as most movies do). do not bother to watch this movie represent a waste of time and a waste of money and an embarrassing record for hilbrand and who has proved to be better with her close on on the screen. "
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:
"sogo ishii can be a skilled filmmaker under the right conditions and but gojoe tells the story of a warrior monk and his only rival and a scion of the genji clan. the film making has the main hallmarks of a low budget production and including blurry fight scenes and clumsy montages (the kind you might find in an under produced dorama). the monk benkei informs his spiritual teacher that his destiny lies in defeating the mysterious spirit that guards gojoe bridge at night and but he doesn not realize that this decision will bring him squarely into conflict with nearly every element of society at that time but which could earn him enlightenment. there no absence of ambitiousness and however and in its depiction of the conflict between the holy and the worldly. artsy flourishes in some of the photography and editing help to compensate for the loose film making style. a disappointment. "
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 basically picked up this movie because i had seen kitano takashi brilliant remake of zatoichi and was in the mood for another updated samurai tale which also starred asano tadanobu. these two movies are worlds apart. zatoichi added humor and depth to its characters and subverted traditional samurai movie clichés. gojoe goes off the deep end in the other direction. first off and i hate movies that have other characters inform the audience what the main character is like instead of having the character develop over the course of the movie. you cannot decide whether you are a monk or a warrior says almost every character in benkei presence and yet this inner turmoil is barely conveyed within the character himself. instead of character development and we get bloated and boring and gory battle scenes. asano character is undeveloped and even he looks like he is bored and doesn not know what he is doing there. i know that he usually looks distant and cool and that is part of asano appeal and but this movie doesn not serve him. a lot of the camera movement is nauseating. there is a scene that goes on forever in which the camera spins around the main characters until my wife and i felt like vomiting. the ending is ridiculous and rather anti climatic. its too bad that really good samurai movies aren not being made in japan nowadays with this type of budget. the colors and scenery and and costumes were great and but the rest is just a loooong waste of time. i would rather see one of the kabuki versions of this myth. "
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:
"spoilersthis was an ugly movie and and i am sorry that i watched it. like jan kounen dobermann and it suffers mostly from poor editing or lack of it. it is as if the director was so in love with his work that instead of cutting the movie down to a pace that kept your attention and he added all of the footage he had shot together. there are maybe two cool scenes in the entire movie. one of them is spoiler when benkei is petrified and the camera starts spinning around him. that was cool but okay and we got it. move on please. the camera would not stop spinning around this guy. there maybe one or two more cool scenes that i forgot about in this flood of mediocrity and but the last duel scene is not one of them. it may be because unlike in the earlier sword handling scenes and shanao isn not masked but just because the director couldn not find a stuntman who somewhat resembled asano tadanobu doesn not give him the right to go ahead and make up 80% of the sword fight with extreme close ups of sword clashes. and all from the same angle and may i add. the director should learn from the american produced 1995 bullet train ninja movie the hunted. i personally saw the village raid scene as a tribute paid to the social activists of the previous generation who were confronted by the police in the violent demonstrations of their college years. the situation where innocence is oppressed by an authoritative and armed branch of the government unwilling to understand seems to be a message common in the japanese media and due to the strong influence of socialists and communists who are a political minority. the movie versions of gto and salary man kintaro are two other recent examples end spoiler i do not understand. i just do not understand why people who do not speak the language of the movie find praise worthy material in this. maybe the worst was lost in the translation. the ending of the movie on which marketing played a lot and is a different interpretation of the legendary encounter between shanao and benkei. but that legend is not the most popular in japanese folklore and and it is so detached from contemporary themes and that after 138 minutes of over played visual techniques and who cares how the director wants to re interpret the story. director sasaki hirohisa of crazy lips said that there was an unpleasant trend among new japanese directors to ignore japanese audiences and and target their movies for foreign film festivals in order to gain faster international fame. this works and although it doesn not make sense and because the point of an international movie fest is to introduce to the world what kind of movies are being made in other countries what kind of movies people watch in those countries. certainly not gojoe and the like. "
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 seriously one of the worst movies i have ever seen. i love japanese movies and and i think another film by the same director and electric dragon 80 and 000 v and is a masterpiece. i really wanted to like this movie asano is a terrific actor and the storyline was immensely appealing. but i couldn not find anything entertaining about it. the movie takes forever for nothing to happen. and the effects the director used like the constant percussion and the exorbitant use of slow motion merely added to my growing annoyance at the fact that the plot was so mind bogglingly slow and the actors were heinously overacting. a lot of the boredom was a result of extraneous additions that were completely unnecessary like an hour spent on asano going around slicing buddha statues and proclaiming how he doesn not worship anything. this added nothing to the plot. a fellow japanese film buff and i were both checking the time constantly. we couldn not believe this film was as terrible as it was. and the finale was awful. i thought the director would at least attempt to reward the viewer for managing to sit through this and but sadly i was mistaken. "
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 central theme in this movie seems to be confusion and as the relationships and setting and acting and social context all lead to the same place represent confusion. even harvey keitel appears to be out of his element and and lacks his usual impeccable clarity and direction and intensity. to make matters worse and his character name is che and and we are only told (directly and by the narrator) well into the film that he is not that che and just a guy named che. the family relationships remain unclear until the end of the film and and once defined and the family is divided the younger generation off to america. so cliché. other reviews discuss how the movie depicts the impact of the revolution on a boy family while however the political stance of the director is murky at best and and we are never quite sure who is responsible for what bloodshed. so they lost their property (acquired by gambling profits) so what. refusing to take a political stand and when making a movie about the cuban revolution and is an odd and cowardly choice. not to mention the movie was in english. why are all these cubans speaking english. no wonder they did not get permission to film in cuba. and if family life is most important to look at here and it would be great if we could figure out who is who we are introduced to them all in the beginning a cheap way out of making the relationships clear throughout the film. the acting was mostly shallow and wooden and and unbelievable and timing was off all around. the pecial visual effects were confusing and distracting. references to american films and the black character as greek chorus strictly gratuitous and intellectually ostentatious and and consistently out of place. i only watched the whole movie because i was waiting for clarity and or some point to it all. it never happened. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i am probably one of the few viewers who would not recommend this film. thought visually stunning like all of ang lee work (each still frame seems worthy of a print) and i was really disappointed by the film disjointed pace. it really was too long. the story is set in civil war era missouri and and is about a young man (roedel) who joins the feral forces of the bushwackers and sort of renegade confederate sympathizers who conduct geurilla type fighting with the jayhawkers and their union counterparts. he and his close friend and jack bull chiles played by skeet ulrich and join the group after chile father is shot point blank and his home is burned and presumably by jayhawkers. the story follows roedel and chiles raiding adventures and their interactions with other victims of the war and including former slave who fights for the bushwhackers (daniel holt played by jeffery wright) and and a war widow played by jewel. it seemed that every time the film developed the story to an interesting point and it would turn to some other subplot and leave things undeveloped. for example and the agitation among roedel group caused by former slave holt participating in the confederate cause is shown briefly through some conflict regarding propriety and protocol and and then dropped until later in the movie. a young villian or bully bushwhacker hates roedel and directs much angst and violence against him and but and we never know why. some of the characters never seem to surface while i think that is because the movie embraces too many of them as well as taking on large amounts of history. the historical detail was excellent. i loved looking at the housing and furniture and clothes and etc. and and i thought the lead actors did a wonderful job of humanizing the characters and though they stumbled a bit with the dialog. unless you really enjoy history or are a huge ang lee fan and though and take a pass on this one. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"okay. this wasn not the worst movie i have ever seen and but i had heard lots of good things about it and i was sorely disappointed. i could see where the film makers were coming from and that they were trying to express the fact that the two sides in this battle weren not a whole lot different from one another and that the individuals were getting lost in the fighting and etc and etc. (well and that my presumption and anyway equals ^_^ equals )at any rate. the movie kind of bored me. i have watched a lot of really long movies and but this one just seemed to drag on and on and on. basically because i just couldn not bring myself to care for any of the characters. i just kept thinking. who cares. i also found the acting to be rather dead pan and the dialogue strained. i understand that this was the 1800s and all and but most of the conversations just seemed rather unnatural. no one seemed to have any emotion throughout most of the film except during melodramatic events. the romance in the story do not seem to be supported by anything other than i am a guy and youre a girl and which i do not consider much of a romance and and yet i felt i was being steered to the belief that these people were in love. oh well. i guess it the whole all this horror around us and we have each other to cling to type thing and or whatever. i was also hoping for some sort of dynamic between the two best friends (who both initially seemed to have an interest in the girl) but that was just sort of dropped. maybe avoiding a cliche love triangle. i do not know. oh well. daniel holt was about the only character i really truly liked. and sue lee was all right. i do not exactly dislike jake and but he seemed a bit too. spineless and i guess. jack bull i did not care for at all. and i am pretty sure youre supposed to hate just about everyone else and with the exception of the poor normal people who just get mowed down left and right. it was pretty graphic and had that whole the horrors of war thing down and but i have seen plenty of other movies with the same theme and done better. (i enjoyed the patriot a lot and for instance and even if it was a bit emotionally manipulative) but and as i have already stated and i am a cynic. what can i say. 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:
"i am sad that a period of history that is so fascinating and so rich in material for film can be made into a ho hum event . wm c quantrill was barely shown in the film and probably the most intriquing figure of the period. frank james was never mentioned and cole younger and ditto and and bloody bill anderson and who would weep for his murdered sister every time he went into battle was completely absent in the script. instead we were forced to watch fictitious characters that never developed into anyone we cared about. how sad. the costumes were wonderful however and as was the location shooting in missouri. i hope ang lee will make another film from the period and try again and or some other film maker will look into the tremendous wealth of material to write a screen play on . "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this movie was two and a quarter excruciating hours. someone please tell me what the point was. i mean and i understand the historical setting. it supposed to be about a ragtag group of confederate bushwhackers (terrorists. ) on the missouri kansas frontier and taking revenge against all northern sympathizers and abolitionists during the u. s. civil war. but aside from gratuitous violence there wasn not really much of a point to this movie. perhaps it was a political statement. that war is really nothing much more than gratuitous violence. if that was the point it was done quite well and but i do not think that was the point. i think the producers really thought they were making a worthwhile movie here and but as far as i was concerned there was a complete lack of any plot. it seemed like i was watching a paperback novel come to life and with the characters looking like what you would see on the covers of such novels. this movie should be burned along with some of the towns this gang torched. "
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 new alltime low among westerns. the writing is excruciatingly bad and characters are impossible to emphasize with and are either disgusting or bland and the violence is appalling and technically not very convincingly executed. and tobey maguire shows us the flip side of his talent and sleepwalking through his part with those expressionless eyes and that raspy voice of his that here betrays only mannerism. ride with the devil is among my five worst movie experiences ever and a western never to be surpassed in the negative respect. "
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:
"long on action and stunt work and but so short on character delineation and development that it failed to hold our interest. not always easy to figure out which side a character is on and who doing what to whom. "
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.