prompt
stringlengths 497
14.4k
| chosen
int64 0
1
| rejected
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"start of with the good bit represent several times swayze talks zulu to his friends or that language is heard among the tribes. that a great plus and as normally usa and uk movie audiences think all people on this planet speak english (just in case youre one of them represent no they do not). but the acting is tenenkrommend as we say in the netherlands (it makes your toes curl and not in a good way). i like swayze but in this he awful. the muscles in his jaws make overtime and he frowning the whole movie some one must have told him it looks butch. no patrick represent it looks silly and is compensation for lack of character. alison doody (elizabeth) has opted for a style of acting that does not meet the style of her co workers. her acting is só relaxed that this movie could have been set in the current days. and it not. your frock was a clue and alison. the best acting came from the people from the african continent and sided onyulo as umbopa i liked best. clear and warm and in character and his performance is a joy to watch. general represent it is mwah entertaining on a rainy day. pity. could have been better. sack the director. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 imaginable crap. the novel by h. rider haggard is very entertaining and dramatic. the makers of this worthless movie do not follow it closely. well and old novels aren not sacred and making free versions of them is fine with me if one has ideas of one own. if all one can do is changing things and replace them with uninteresting and watered down clichés one should stick to the original. if they had done that this film would have been at least twice as good even with worse actors and if filmed inside a studio with huts made of cardboard. but there no imagination at all only tiredness. this should be bought or watched only by collectors of victorian novels made into movies. just a hint and and not a spoiler i think and to make those of you who have read the novel understand what has taken place and what you may expect if you decide to watch this on tv or god forbid waste money on buying this. gagool an old baddie witch in the book and some precursor to gollum has been turned into a nice gal. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 picked this movie on the cover alone thinking that i was in for an adventure to the level of indiana jones and the temple of doom. unfortunately i was in for a virtual yawn. not like any yawn i have had before though. this yawn was so large that i could barely find anything of quality in this movie. the cover described amazing special effects. there were none. the movie was so lightweight that even the stereotypes were awfully portrayed. it does give the idea that you can solve problems with violence. good if you want to teach your kids that. i do not. keep away from this one. if you are looking for family entertainment then you might find something that is more inspiring elsewhere. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"swayze doesn not make a very convincing alan quatermain. compared to stewart granger while which growing up was my ultimate hero in films like the 1952 scaramouche and the 1952 prisoner of zenda and the 1950 king solomon mines while patrick swayze fails utterly. even the portrayal of an older alan quatermain by sean connery in league of extraordinary gentlemen was very good in an otherwise big flop. also alison doody lacks the grace of deborah kerr in the role of the leading lady and and last but not least the impressive siriaque in the role of umbopa makes it very hard for anyone to fill his (shoes). for someone who was disappointed by richard chamberlain 1985 version and i now highly recommend it if you can not get your hand on the granger version. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 give negative only for the beautiful pictures of africa. the rest was. well pretty boring. for about 50min we have the outline of the plot. in war of the worlds and the introductory part lasted and oh and about 10min. then was real action. this is something like representlet take a walk in the savanna and gasp at the beautiful sunsets. and maybe deliver a message and like don not kill elephants. very ecological. i would have expected this out of a new steven segal movie and not from this. the leading actress makes me think about artificial sun tan and dyed hair and too much foundation. and i do not see one scene where her hair is messed up and or she sweats and or her clothes are dusty. she just doesn not look like a 19 century woman. and in the bar and where they seek up our hero and swayze makes a comment about the commander that he looks like dracula. hmmm and bram stoker wrote his book and published it in 1896 and and it became famous in the next years. livingstone and other explorers went to central africa from 1840 to 1880. so unless the action takes place between 1896 and 1900. houston and we have a problem. positive. swayze makes a nice impression. as a nutshell hard on the outside and but soft and cuddly on the inside. not that i would cuddle with a nut and but you get the point. he really manages to have that beaten puppy look on his face on several occasions. the movie stank. way too long and increasingly boring. do not watch it. don not buy it. it a waste of your money. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"well. what can one say. firstly and this adaptation is far too long at 4 hours and for the complexity (or lack of such) of the plot. the actors try really hard to make something of this film but there is too little content for the time available. swayzee is really not a quatermain character at all. after seeing sean connery interpretation of the great man in the league of extraordinary gentlemen and swayzee really does not make the grade. this chap with the winchester repeating rifle has none of the strength and stature and subtlety and or humour needed for the part and and is upstaged by everyone including the witch doctor and who incidentally seems from my point of view to be more convincing as an actor than the rest of the cast. some of the vistas are pleasing but there are silly mistakes in the cinematography. for example. when the happy team arrive at the water hole in the middle of the desert and their tracks are visible down to the oasis and just waiting for them to walk in them. climbing out of the mine leads to an exit (on the next shot) nothing like the exit seen from the passage they have climbed through and et cetera. i was waiting for doug mcclure to appear at any moment. in some ways i wish he had. the leader of the russians pursuing quatermain is a shoddily created stereotypical character who just shoots at everything. swayzee does quite well as the sad father and returned to london and who is unable to obtain the custody of his son. swayzee should stick to that sort of thing. he is not able to carry the part of a courageous gentleman with a stout heart and experience of life and and sense of fair play. negative . barely. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 missed the first 10 or so minutes of the movie but do not think watching it from the beginning would have made any difference. i found the film extremely boring and was disappointed with the acting. i remember patrick swayze and some of the other actors (roy marsden and for instance) in outstanding roles but they all disappointed here due to a very weak script. kind solomon mines. the very short part of the movie inside the mines was about as exciting as watching paint dry and i doubt that even a pre school kid would have been spell bound by watching the fight of the warriors. the entire movie was reminiscent of a cheaply produced american tv series. give me indiana jones any 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:
"oh dear. some of the best talent in british tv made this serial and and so i can only assume that they were working under incredible time pressure and and had to settle for first takes of many scenes. there are some frightening scenes in this highland mystery (mostly when the monster attacks and we see it from his point of view) and but i am afraid that i found most of the story unintentionally funny . such as the moment when the hero discovers a dismembered corpse on a golf course represent oh look and there a hand . oh and and there another hand over there . hmm this is a bit puzzling . for many years fans of british cult tv shows campaigned to have this serial released on vhs or dvd and but the bbc always said no. now i think i understand why . "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this film was made in saskatchewan and manitoba parks and returned the world eye again to what little of the wild western canada is left. when archie began to write his stories for the papers while the thought of the day was to tame the wilderness and convert or absorb the first nation peoples. the film puts forward and asks the question while why would a well educated and obviously talented englishman become an indian. archie and as an english boy dreams about becoming something but grasping the full meaning of that dream is unique and priceless no mater what it is. sounds like a famous puppet story doesn not it. in my opinion and i saw archie become my living image of the cigar store indian a very wooden character and not real at all very well done acting on the part of mr. brosnan. he also portrayed the wild indian in the dance scene for the tourist. the fullness and or reality of it weren not realized till he met and married his wife and annie. annie pushed archie in a direction that would bring him to the forefront of the englishman world stage and not as himself but grey owl an canadian native of the wilderness frontier. this is the closest archie get to becoming the noble savage prototype. mr. brosnan interpretation as well as the directors is both well done. i have watched documentaries on grey owl and i think this is a good big screen movie to add to my collection. spoiler i thought the final scenes with archie going to meet the grand council of chiefs was a great a great moment in the film. very beautiful canadian lake scenery and real grey owl locations. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"james bond in the wilderness. well and that the way it looks represent pierce brosnan is after all best known as bond in tommorrow never dies (1997) and golden eye (1995) both shot prior to this release. frankly and the film two leads are both badly miscast and with brosnan turning in the marginally more convincing performance and and with annie galipeau (as pony and grey owl love interest) having to battle with carelessly written dialogue. the two aunts and on the other hand are perfect. but the film is not about aunts. it is about the wilds of the canadian wilderness. and while the photography may be pretty and there is no grit to the harsh reality of living in the wilds. annie galipeau and as pony and just fails to be convincing and unfortunately and because i really wanted to believe in her. she was a relatively inexperienced twenty year old on this film and and it could have worked and but richard attenborough was maybe just not tough enough on her. he makes her look vulnerable and which of course she is. but in the wrong sort of way. but one thing for sure and she appears picture perfect throughout. but mascara and eyebrow thickener in the wilderness. it just doesn not fit and especially as she only ever seems to walk forest trials with bond (sorry and grey owl) and and use photo ops for kissing close ups. i have lived with forest people in the pacific north west and and they simply do not look this pretty and stay so sweet while fighting for survival. which brings me to another point represent the film fails to evoke the period in which it is set represent the 1930s. i put the blame here largely on a lack lustre script that is keen on preaching at the expense of dramatic arc and plot points and those small details that can evoke period through action. william nicholson wrote the screenplay and and his latest offering and elizabeth and the golden age opened three days ago and so i do hope there is an improvement. yes and i have read the comments others have posted and but i am not convinced. a lot of potential and but mishandled and even maybe ill conceived. if it had had a religious film and it would have been panned and but because it preaches environmentalism and the film remains somewhat above criticism and since it is politically correct. sorry and for all that and i do not buy it. amen. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"images are great and reflect well the landscapes of canada. the story was and on the other side and quite boring while to my eyes it was a love story in the woods just like titanic was a love story on a boat. i did not feel that grey owl was great environmentalist. i usually like lord attenborough but this one was . bad. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"it a good movie if you plan to watch lots of landscapes and animals and like an animal documentary. and making pierce brosnan an indian make you wonder does all those people do not recognize if someone isn not indian at plain sight. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
". possible spoiler . you`d think a story involving archie grey owl an englishman posing as a red indian would have a massive amount of humour involved . in fact i`d say the only way to treat a film like this where a remarkable man cons the gullible public is to treat it as a comedy . however richard attenborough commits something akin to a crime by making grey owl a serious drama . worse and he made an extremely dire film too . pierce brosnan lacks the charisma needed for the title role and the romantic subplot between grey owl and pony ( played by the equally wooden annie gaupeau ) lacks any type of on screen chemistry . but to be fair to the cast their not helped with the script which fails to portray archie as the cheeky chappy he is of fooling everyone into believing he a native american . the producers and screenwriter have made the major error of having the film centre around the plot twist of archie being an englishman that why i wrote possible spoiler it not actually revealed untill late in the film that the title character is english and but it obvious that everyone who viewed this movie knew that beforehand hence there absolutely no surprise involved. yes i do agree with everyone that the scenery is lovely and that it has a deep ecological message which isn`t actually a new concept . theodore roosevelt was the first important environmentalist of the 20th century if truth be told . and it should also be remembered that with the exception of soylent green ( and possibly the two towers if you want to class it as having a green message ) that there hasn`t actually been a great ecological film . in fact most environmentally concious films suck and that includes grey owl and a film that unsurprisingly had a serious problem in finding a distributor. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"while flipping through the channels on a late saturday night and my friends and i stumbled across this film. first of all and irish actor pierce brosnan as a native american. seriously. his accent was breaking through so much and although his character was apparently scottish. next and i was stunned to find that this film was made after he had already played james bond or agent 007 at least twice. this movie plays up the stereotypes and with the inspiring professor figure. the girl who played pony should be paid to keep her mouth shut. and and this film won an award. i cannot believe it. brosnan is an attractive man and but we seriously wanted to gauge our eyes out after watching this for just 10 seconds. we switched from kicking and screaming to this and and we wanted to switch back. we watched the 1995 children classic the indian in the cupboard earlier in the night and which also discussed the iroquois. the following line represents our desire to run away represent take me outside and earth grasper. from grey owl represent if you do not like it and you do not have to watch. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"may contain spoilers. so i watched this movie last night on lmn (lifetime movie network) which is not known for showing quality movies. this movie is awful. i am still amazed that i watched the entire thing and as it was terrible. could this movie contain any more stereotypes. (harping jewish mother who wants son to be a doctor and catholic family with priest sons and big big crucifixes in every room shown in the catholic family house and mexican whores and bad guy who is really a softie at heart and incredibly bad country accents) gag. i was at first intrigued by the fact that i had never heard of this movie and after seeing that cheryl pollack and corin nemec were in it and i decided to stay awake until 4am to watch it. anyway and the only redeeming thing about this movie is madchen amick beauty. i suppose pollack and nemec acting is okay and but they have a horrid script to work with. unlike the other reviewer who commented on the lack of texan accents (the movie is supposed to take place in austin and very few people there have a twang) i think that the accents were there (in supporting characters like mary margaret date and john) and were unnecessary. they were also very very bad. i am so very tired of hollywood southern accents that sound nothing like the area where the accent is supposed to be from. and since it was supposed to take place in austin and shooting movies there in 1991 would not have been expensive and i fully expected there to be familiar shots of the town represent the beautiful capitol building and the ut tower lit up for a winning football game and etc. none of these things were there. also and it takes about 5 6 hours to drive to mexico from austin. at one point in the movie and michael and his posse take off for mexico to lose their virginities and are able to drive off when it is dark (during the summer and early fall it doesn not get dark in austin until 9pm or so) and spend time in mexico getting drunk and having sex with mexican (is there any other kind. ) whores and and then return to austin by dawn. while this is theoretically possible it is not very likely. and if anyone has started school in the hill country (usually the third week of august and but may have been in september in 1960) they know that unless they want to pass out from heat stroke they do not wear their letter jackets. in august and september in austin and the surrounding areas it is 90 plus degrees. only people with no body temperature would be stupid enough to wear sweaters or letter jackets on the first day of school. all in all and a very bad made for tv movie experience. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"although this film was made before dogme emerged as the predominant method of filmmaking and and before digital triumphed over strike that. you get the point. this 1991 masterpiece clearly anticipated those developments. corin nemec is just outstanding as the neer do well author and narrator. the pace is slow and but elegantly so and because the cinematography is so beautiful. record it the next time its on t. v. and because i guarantee you will never see a better nostalgia rip off made for t. v. movie. direct to video never felt so good. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the british claymation series putting witty conversations taped from average people in the mouths of cute fanciful creatures at least had the advantage for non british viewers of seeming droll and the kind of rarefied cultured humor you couldn not get on u. s. television. someone made the mistake of putting it on u. s. television. sort of like the sadly miscast american version of the sublime brit com coupling which died in a month on nbc when the same basic scripts do not translate from british english to american english and what seemed droll and cultured (and just a bit dull) in england and comes across in creature comforts and the american version and as simply boredom with puppets. there no through plot line and no characters and after one and a half episodes watched (of the three ultimately aired) and no reason to suffer through more. the only positive thing to be said about the new summer series and the mercifully brief run it had is that the claymation is at least professionally done and coming as a set up for the single worst show on the cbs schedule and the new adventures of old christine (or how to be a horrible mother or person in one interminable and unfunny lesson) and kids who wanted to stay up past their bedtime happily ran to bed rather than sit through this show and and the adults could wait to tune in until 9pm when two and a half men (guilty pleasure) and how i met your mother (actual quality writing) come 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:
"one question represent why. first off and the premise is not funny or engaging at all. they use taped interviews and and take the audio to animate ite with animals speaking the parts. first off and the interviews aren not funny or entertaining to begin with and and even if they were and i am sure they would be a lot more entertaining being viewed as they are originally and without being turned into cartoons. how does that add any hilarity to it. i turned on cbs monday night sitcom line up and (which has become a regular way for me to relax after stressful monday workdays) and found this on. of course and the sitcom line up would be reruns anyway and being summer and but seeing those episodes over again would have been more entertaining. i tried to give cc a chance. i really did. when it started and i figured and well and maybe it will be funny. nope. and then it kept going. it was a long half hour. and i can almost see if there was a purpose and if the interviews were shown in their entirety and and had points to them. but no and it was just one line clips and cut and pasted together really quick. it was like a horrible dreadful version of cartoon network robot chicken. i wasn not a fan of cbs now cancelled sitcom the class. while that was on and it was one half hour of the line up i would struggle through. but if it came down to me deciding a whole season of that or three more episodes of creatures. let just say i would take the class. considering it been a couple hours since it aired and and i come on here to see i am the first to comment. i guess that a good sign that nobody watched it and and that it would not last much longer. cartoon roadkill. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 not sure what hk movies the other reviewers have been watching and but enter the eagles is nowhere near the top of the heap in hk action. michael fitz wong should be glad he can get acting jobs in hk and because he couldn not act his way out of a wet paper bag in english. shannon lee looks good and is a fantastic fighter (even better with the leg fighting than her dad) and but her acting skills are also sub par. in fact and all the english dialog (90% of the movie even more than in gen y cops) is so bad that i switched to mandarin audio just to spare myself the misery of the bad dialog delivery and the redundancy of the english subs. sure and there are some decent gunfights (but nothing we haven not already seen before) and good cinematography and but the cheesy visual effects really spoil the action. that said and it worth the price of admission to watch shannon and benny the jet urquidez go at it. spectacular and and almost worth watching the rest of the movie for. finally and you might notice some scenes that seem familiar to you and notably a shootout at an outdoor market (think matrix) and fitz diving out of a helicopter wearing black fatigues (think mi represent2). guess someone thought at least a few things in this flick were worth ripping off. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 has a good start portraying an interesting and strong shannon lee and introduces two very simpathetic side characters through the first half. but later something happens and all the sudden shannon turns into this straight faced and second hand bad girl and the movie gets lost in it own context. the second half lacks any kind of charisma and is full of clichés and bad acting and a horrible plot and even worse stunt coordination. not to mention the horrible actors they chose for the chechen mafia gang. game of death 2 was bad and clownified bruce and but his daughter tops it making an even bigger embarrassment of herself than the double who played bruce lee back then. i truly believe that she can do much better than this and i hope she participates in a better production next time. if you are a real hard core action fan and do not care about quality go ahead and see this movie. i was personally looking forward to it but just got terribly 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:
"wow. watching this film today and you can not help but be appalled by the writing of this film. spencer tracy and loretta young play a couple who and in modern times and might be featured on the jerry springer show as they have a sick and abusive relationship. and inexplicably and the writers appear to be endorsing it. the film begins with a hungry and homeless loretta being shown the ropes by the poor but very resourceful spencer tracy. he shows her how by conniving you can do very well with little money and takes her home to his shack to stay. it never clear whether or not they marry and considering it a pre code film and you can assume they aren not even though they are cohabiting. their relationship is very strange. and rather sick. while you can see that tracy cares about her by his actions and he is verbally abusive and a total jerk and young comes running back for more like some sort of dog. he calls her skinny or ugly and these are and in a sick way and his way of using endearments. later and when he starts fooling around with another woman (glenda farrell) and she tells her friend that if that what he wants and it okay with her. it sure smacks of a sado masochistic relationship and you can not help but feel a bit horrified. sure and he doesn not hit her but the relationship is very abusive. to show how sick it is and when young gets pregnant and she tells him . it your baby and it mine and but you do not need to worry and i will take all the blame for it. yikes. doesn not this all seem a bit like looking through a peephole into a sick and dysfunctional home. later and in a case of art imitating life and tracy proves what sort of man he is and disappears. after all and he can not be burdened with a baby even if it his. but and he changes his mind and decides to return home. wow. that bit of him. and and when he returns and he nasty and acts like if he stays and he isn not obligated to care for the kid. and and she tells him he a free man. free as a bird. wow and i was almost in tears at this tender moment. not. soon and this crazy pair are married. and and naturally and young is depressed because he seems to be staying as long as it suits him not because of any love or sense of responsibility. so how can you salvage anything with this sort of sick characters. what would you do. well and as for the writers and they have tracy soon commit a robbery to help pay for the brat. the romantic aspects of the film are underwhelming to say the least. during the robbery and tracy behaves like a chump doing almost nothing to take precautions not to get caught like he was secretly hoping to get sent to prison. and and to show what sort of nice guy he is and the guy he tries to rob is one of his best friends. while there more to the film and the bottom line is that tracy is a jerk and young is an idiot in the film. despite both being very good actors and there absolutely no way they could make anything of this crap the writers produced. nice music and nice sets and good acting. and a script that is 100% poo. how the film is currently rated 7. 4 is beyond me and i wonder how anyone can ignore the pure awfulness of the characters. a horrible misfire that somehow do not destroy the careers of those involved. oh and and if you wonder if loretta ever gets a backbone in this film or plays a person who is the least bit strong and the answer is no. by the end and she learned nothing and hasn not changed one whit for the better. they sure do not make films like they used to. and in this case. thank god. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 original lensman series of novels is a classic of the genre. it pure adventure sf with some substance (here and there) and i have always wondered why hollywood hasn not filmed it verbatim because it just the kind of thing they love represent massive explosions and super weapons and uber heroics and hero gets the girl and aliens (great cgi potential) and good versus evil in the purest form and etc etc. instead (and bear in mind i am a japan o phile and anime lover) we get this horrendous kiddies movie that rips the guts out of the story and mixes in star wars (ironic as the latter ripped off the books occasionally) pastiches and dumbs the whole thing down to thundercats level. to see kimball kinnison and the epitome of the galactic patrol officer and second stage lensman portrayed as a small boy is pitiful (etc). i just can not understand why the makers did this because they obviously had the rights to the story and could have made far more money (far. ) by telling straight. it makes no sense. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i rented the dubbed english version of lensman and hoping that since it came from well known novels it would have some substance. while there were hints of substance in the movie and it mostly do not rise above the level of kiddie cartoon. maybe the movie was a bad adaptation of the book and or it lost a lot in the dubbed version. or maybe even the source novels were lightweight. but for whatever reason and there wasn not much there. i noticed lots of details that were derivative and sloppy and poorly dramatized and or otherwise deficient. some examples represent the opening scenes looked borrowed from the 2001 star gate scene and the star wars image of hyperspace. the robot on the harvester looked like an anthropomorphized r2 d2. it starts out trying to borrow its comic relief style of star wars and but mercifully (since the humor doesn not work) gives up on comedy and plays it serious. in that sense and it superior to the star wars franchise and which started with a clever sense of humor and and eventually deteriorated to jar jar annoying silliness. the agricultural details were apparently drawn by someone who had never seen a farm. the harvester was driving through the unharvested middle of a field and dumping silage onto unharvested crops and rather than working from one side to the other and dumping the silage onto already harvested rows or into a truck. corn (maize) was pouring out the grain chute and but the farm lands were drawn like a wheat field. when it was time for kim father had to face his fate and there wasn not any dramatic weight to the scene. that could have been partly the fault of the english language voice actor and but the drawings do not show much weight either. kim reactions in that scene were similarly unconvincing. similarly and when a character named henderson was killed and chris showed very little reaction and even though they were apparently supposed to have been close. (henderson death is no spoiler while his name isn not revealed until his death scene. ) she seems to promptly forget him. someone expression of sympathy shows more feeling than she does. i think the voice actor deserves most of the blame in that case while there at least a hint of feeling in the drawings of chris. on several occasions and villains fail to accomplish their orders. a villain leader often punishes those failures with miserable deaths. i can not say whether that lifted from star wars and or if that comes from an earlier source possibly the lensman books. there a scene where a space ship crash lands. as it plunges toward the ground and parts are break off the ship. but so many pieces are fall off that there should be nothing left of it by the time it lands. while in most cases chris seems like a competent and tough space hero and there a scene where she shrieks like an incompetent damsel in distress. someone tough enough to get over henderson death so quickly should at least be able to shout and help and it got me and i can not reach my gun. instead of just shrieking. the character with the most personality (almost too much at times) is d. j. bill. he sounded like wolfman jack and the d. j. in american graffiti. i wonder if he as well voiced in the original language. two planets in the movie exploded. the explosions were unimpressive and and appeared to owe a lot of inspiration to star wars. to its credit and however and the cause of the explosion was completely unlike the death star primary weapon. the dialog had a good and interesting explanation for the cause. many other explosions in the movie did look good and just not the planetary explosions. some of the sound effects are very cheesy and as if borrowed from a late 1970s video game. some of the images look like primitive video games and and some influence from tron is visible too. on the other hand and the sound effects are often pretty decent and although that emphasizes the cheesy sounding parts. the art is good too and particularly when it stays away from the often cheesy looking computer graphics. finally and there the story. if a movie tells a good story and it can get away with a lot of production shortcomings. but the plot here was pretty lightweight. a naïve boy tries to help someone on a crippled space ship and and acquires a great power he doesn not understand. he and his band of very virtuous companions struggle against a powerful and unredeemably evil enemy. he makes friends and learns about his special power and and grows into a young man. if he is persistent and virtuous enough and he might even defeat the evil enemy. details along the way can make such a story rise above the simple outline and but there very little more than that in this movie. in the end and it just a kiddie cartoon. but then and since it looks like the primary intended audience is older children and maybe it doesn not need to be anything more than that. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"[i saw this movie once late on a public tv station and so i do not know if it on video or not. ]this is one of the baby burlesks (sic) that shirley temple did in the early 1930s. it is hard to believe that anyone would let their daughter be in this racy little film which today might just be considered this side of kiddie porn. shirley temple stars in a cast which probably has an average age of 5. they are all in diapers and and are in a saloon which serves milk instead of alcohol. the cash is in the form of lollipops. shirley playing a femme fatale sashays up to the bar and talks to soldiers who make suggestive comments about her (. ). but shirley doesn not need really their lollipops or cash because her purse is full of ones from other men. meanwhile a little black boy does a suggestive dance on a nearby table (. ). what a strange film . . . infants using racy dialogue playing adult roles in a saloon. who thought up this stuff any way. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this is a horrible little film and unfortunately and the company that made this short made several others. the short is essentially a one joke idea that wasn not funny to begin with and may also offend you. it certainly made me uncomfortable watching very young children (most appeared about 2 years old) cavorting about and pretending to be adults in this case and a dancehall girl and bar room patrons. it the sort of humor that you might be forced to laugh at from your own kids if they pretended to be adults and but i can not see anyone wanting to see this especially when a very young shirley temple is dressed in a rather slinky outfit and acts like a vamp. and then and other kids act like adults in some rather adult situations. at the time and i am sure they were not trying to appeal to pedophiles and but when looking at it today and that is what immediately comes to mind. because of this and this boring film also creeped me out and i hope to never see it again. pretty strange and pretty 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:
"i do not know why this conduct was ever tolerated in the movie business. this movie (short) is gross (to say the least). it is a bunch of 5 7 year old children wearing diapers with big bobby pins and acting like adults (and too much so. ). however and it is interesting because it is a good example of how the good old days may not have been so good after all. (thank god we have laws against this kind of material now. ){this is one short from the shirley temple festival}. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"while on a vacation at the beach and red haired brothers michael mcgreevey and billy mumy (as arthur and petey loomis) find a seal. the lads christen their critter sammy and and spend summertime frolicking with the sandy sea lion. when it time to go home and the boys begin to suffer separation anxiety. young mr. mcgreevey decides they can not take sammy back to disneyland
er and gatesville but and young mr. mumy packs him anyway. at home and they try to hide the way out seal from adults and and and of course
hijacks ensue. sammy the way out seal and pt 1 (10/28/62) norman tokar ~ michael mcgreevey and bill mumy and robert culp. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"strange. i like all this movie crew and dark humor movies while but do not like this one at all. it awful and horrible and surely not funny at all. pity cannot do a whole movie plot and disgust either. and it was really boring. long empty moments fills the movie while it could have been removed. it should have been in another shorter format and surely. maybe i expected too much from the crew like saving the movie lol . it also filled with overused clichés of characters and situations. i do not get it why people liked it. poetry and hope while nope amam and do not see anything like that. ^^ all in all and it empty and crude and pitiful and hopeless. oh darn 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:
"i had high expectations for this indie having perused the many thumbs up reviews. then. here my additional two cents to the already posted and excellent lost in translation review. premise represent morgan is tuck in a dusty small town where he meets lovely scarlet who is working in the local supermarket. can morgan help elevate the lovely scarlet from her trailer trash life. realistic dialog. not. how about that shopping in target. first and freeman looks at the target interior as if he walked into harrods. then and he bowled over at a t shirt rack confirming he has never been in any store visited by lovely scarlet. morgan is detached from any and all aspects of scarlet reality and is portrayed as gleeful in his ignorance of everyone and everything in scarlet life. one reviewer enjoyed the scarlet and ex hubby fight scene where her survival and a car in this instance and requires she physically attack her ex hubbie. does freeman run to her defense. naw. he cowering in disbelief and totally incapable of dealing with such a blunt aspect of her very real and sorry lot in life. freeman character believes a car wash and new very revealing and tight fitting blouse is the key to scarlet job interview. another sign that freeman is clueless. freeman endless tage talk where all aspects of scarlet reality are reduced to one or another stage related freeman experience was irritating. freeman is right to emphasize that scarlet is young with her future ahead of her and then conveniently ignores the brick walls she faces vis a vis represent uneducated and no white collar skills or experience and very poor and no family support and a lifetime of low self esteem. scarlet learns such life lessons from freeman as represent some people pay $100 for a t shirt and a revealing blouse may open doors in lieu of her lack of education and white collar job skills. in the end freeman offers scarlet little more than strange diversion with a tar and not even paying for gas for scarlet dead of night return to her unchanged life in a town the name of which freeman cares not to know. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"after i watched this movie and i came to imdb and read some of the reviews and which compared it to lost in translation lite. when i read that i immediately could see the reviewers point. this movie was a poor attempt at a similar theme. interestingly and the format of the movie is nearly identical and but the pacing is incredibly different. 10 items rushes the viewer through the 1 day time line of the movie and whereas the better planned lost in. seems to stretch out over a few long days. i am sure some people will see this because it has morgan freeman and and will be disappointed. it seems his better roles now a days are supporting roles in big blockbusters and rather than leading roles in sub $10mil limited release movies and indie 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:
"i love morgan freeman. paz vega is an attractive and appealing and talented actress. i am sure that this would have been a good movie had anything happened in it. nothing does. it short (less than 90 minutes). it was 75 minutes too long. after an hour of frustration and i scanned through the remaining 20 odd minutes. excruciating. freeman plays an actor who hasn not worked in a while researching a part that he might play and as a checkout clerk in a supermarket. he visits the supermarket where she works. nothing happens. she decides to give him a ride home and they go to an arby and a target and a car wash. nothing happens. they converse about their lives. nothing happens. ever. i do not get it. but i also do not get the bill murray flicks lost in translation and broken flowers. if you like those movies and maybe you will like this. lots of people find movies like this whimsical and charming and or for reasons that escape me find the dialog fascinating. a common device in movies of this ilk is to have a long take of stillness or silence after an actor delivers a line that supposed to be meaningful. we know it meaningful because it followed by two minutes of nothing on the screen. sorry and i must be a philistine. i do not get it. to me and these kinds of movies aren not funny and or charming and or thought provoking. theyre just boring. why. because there no comedy. no drama. no tension. no laughs. no suspense. no action. nothing to watch. in short and none of the things i go to the movies for. i can be bored for free. i see oddball or quirky characters in real life. i go to target and and fast food restaurants and and car washes. these elements do not a movie make and even if stars are doing this stuff. i pay to be entertained. if youre crazy about morgan freeman and just like to hear him ramble on about nothing and have fun. if you wanna drool over paz vega and you can look and listen to her. but nothing happens and i promise. a total snoozefest. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"while watching this movie and i came up with a script for a movie and called the making of 10 items or less representproducer represent i have got good news and bad news. the good news is and we can get morgan freeman. writer represent that great. but what the bad news. producer represent we can only afford to hire him for one day. i guess we will have to get someone else. writer represent so we hire him for one day. a movie is an hour and a half long. a work day is eight hours long. i fail to see a problem. producer represent but. he will have to spend time getting into character. writer represent so we have him play a character who is essentially himself. producer represent but he will still need to understand his motivation and all that. youre not saying we have him play a big name actor that doing a low budget movie and are you. writer represent why not. producer represent that ridiculous. but fine and at least we will have morgan freeman in our movie. and i guess we have to set the movie in los angeles too. writer represent of course. producer represent this script is a load of crap. we would better make money on this. just in case and have morgan freeman character plug wal mart or target or one of those stores and so at least someone will want to sell the dvds. writer represent sure thing. producer represent wait a second. what this about a tiny bodega with a ten items or less express lane. writer represent oh and i guess that is pretty weird. but we can not change the title now. i doubt my script actually bears much resemblance to reality and but then neither did 10 items or less. this is a case of good acting and but bad writing and and i hate to see it happen. when watching an independent movie and you expect it to try to convey some sort of message. i think they might have been trying for the tired old do not let anything hold you back message that has been done to death in much better films. in any case and with 10 items or less and the only message i got was look. look at morgan freeman. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 great the first time i saw it and when it was called lost in translation. but somehow bill murray turned into an eccentric black man played by morgan freeman and scarlett johansson turned into a cranky latino woman played by paz vega and and tokyo and japan turned into carson and california. instead of meaningful conversations and silence we enjoyed in translation and we get meaningless blabbering in 10 items that verges on annoying. instead of characters that were pensive and introspective as in translation and we get characters that spew pointless advice on topics they have no clue about. how can a character that wears hundred dollar t shirts and has never been inside a target department store expect to give advice to a working class woman on how to prepare for a job interview as an administrative assistant. don not think that stops him. if he isn not giving her clothing advice and he telling her what she should eat. the most annoying part of the movie for me was how supposedly they were in a hurry to make an appointment and and yet the characters keep finding time to run another errand and be it washing the car and stopping at arby and or just laying around to list off their 10 items or less lists of things they love and hate. i kept wanting to yell at them saying and didn not you say you had somewhere to be. what the heck are doing. a minute ago you were practically late and now youre eating roast beef and pondering your lives. until i saw this movie and i never truly understood how something could insist upon itself and but i think this movie does exactly that and and undeservedly so. the dialogue makes the characters cheesy and unsympathetic
with the exception that i felt sorry for both of the actors for having signed onto this project. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 still famous but decadent actor (morgan freeman) has not filmed for four years. when he is invited to participate in a new project and he asks the clumsy cousin of the director to drop him in a poor latin neighborhood in carlson to research the work of the manager of a small supermarket. he sees the gorgeous spanish cashier scarlet (paz vega) and he becomes attracted with her ability. his driver never returns to catch him and scarlet gives a ride to the actor. but first she has a job interview for the position of secretary in a construction company and the actor helps her to be prepared while then they spend the afternoon together having a pleasant time. i am a big fan of morgan freeman and paz vega. however and the pointless 10 items or less is absolutely disappointing. this low budget movie does not seem to have a storyline and and is supported by the chemistry and improvisations of morgan freeman and paz vega and actually nothing happens along 82 minutes. the ambiguous open conclusion is simply ridiculous and with the character of morgan freeman returning to his silver spoon world and telling the simple worker that they would never see each other again. was he afraid to have a love affair with her and destroy his perfect world with his family. or was a clash of classes and and he realizes that his fancy neighborhood would not be adequate to a simple worker from the lower classes. my vote is four. title (brazil) represent um astro em minha vida (a star in my life). "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"not really spoilers in my opinion and but i wanted to cover myself and nevertheless. as the executive producer and morgan freeman wants the audience to ignore the numerous absurdities of his character in 10 items or less and a movie with an intentional indie feel and and just be absorbed in the mentor or be all that you can be theme. he plays a alternate universe and semi washed up version of the real morgan freeman and who is chauffeured in an old econovan by a kid all the way into carson and ca from brentwood to research his next movie role. why carson and is a mystery to so. cal residents. he could have saved the trip and gone anywhere in the san fernando valley and found the same elements. paz vega is pretty to watch and a cross between salma hayek and penelope cruz and playing a disgruntled grocery checker at a large but slow local market that apparently is the ultimate source for moragn freeman research. his character is only known as him to allude to how actors are regarded when encountered in real life by average people psst and that him and etc. unfortunately and i was too distracted that him had all kinds of worldly wisdom and advice but had no reliable return back to his home in brentwood and carried no cash or debit card and or had the wisdom to keep a cell phone with him. if one has such a high opinion of their self that they believe they possess an answer to everything like him does and then i gotta see cash and a blackberry which displays intelligence and good survival instincts to preserve that big ego which him definitely has. nothing really happens in this movie. i do not believe that either of the main character were substantially changed by their encounter with each other. it flirts with the idea of adultery and but then that thought fizzles. this to me was similar to steve martin shopgirl and without the sexual affair. it was self indulgent for freeman and unconvincing to the audience. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i did not expect a lot from this movie and after the terrible life is a miracle. it turns out that this movie is ten times worse than life . i have impression that director or writer is just joking with the audience represent let me see how much emptiness can you (audience) sustain. dialogues are empty and . scenario is minimalistic. in few moments and photography is really nice. few sarcastic lines are semi funny and but it is hard to genuinely laugh during this comedy. i have laughed to myself for being able to watch the movie until the end. if you can lift yourself above this director fiasco and . you will find good acting of few legends (miki manojlovic and aleksandar bercek) and and very good performance of emir son stribor kusturica. in short represent too bad for such a great director . emir kusturica is still young and should be making top rated movies. instead and he chooses to do this low budget just for my private theater movie and with arrogant attitude toward the world trends and negligence toward his old fans. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"first of all and this plot is way overdone girl wants to make it and everyone loves her and snobby girl intervenes and all looks lost and girl pulls through and everyone loves her again etc. throw in the fitting in thing and an attractive male crushing on the heroine and plus single parent troubles and it so predictable that you can practically recite along with it. second of all and i really hate how they keep on dissing classical music. they send out the message that everyone involved in classical music is uptight and snobby and close minded in fact and i do not recall the quote exactly and but i remember at one point in the movie and holly says and why do they have to be so uptight. so classical. it really insulting how label classical music in this way. third and i have went over it dozens of times and but the only reason that i can think of for making this movie is to promote britney spears. there just isn not any point at all. and oh yeah and while the actress who portrayed holly (i am not sure whether that was really her singing or not) had a reasonably good voice and it wasn not as amazing as they were making it out to be especially when she was belting. she was oversupporting the whole time. negative 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:
"this is no doubt one of the worst movies i have ever seen. this makes your run of the mill tv movie look like reservoir dogs. based on a book by the one and only britney spears and her mother this is trash with nothing bar a reasonable performance from virginia madsen (i hope you got paid well) to save it. the story of a red neck country gill who wins a scholarship in a prestigious music school is little but a vehicle to pedal ms spears pants music to the consumer and to generally agree that low brow must be the way. there is nothing good going on here with all the beats as predictable as night following day. never ever 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:
"hello boys and girls. this isn not your regular movie review and because this is going to be the cold. hard. truth. are you serious. this movie sucked so many balls i couldn not keep them out of my mouth. they might as well have sprayed me in the eye with monkey semen. you would need one seriously large douche to pump out all the vaginal fluid from this movie. the plot was very lacking. the actors were terrible. i rewound the dance number several times and had to pause it even more because i was choking on my own spit. do boys and everyone. peace r and h besties4lyf. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"extremities aspect ratio represent 1. 85 represent1sound format represent monoa woman turns the tables on a would be rapist when he mounts an assault in her home and and is forced to decide whether to kill him or inform the police and in which case he could be released and attack her again. exploitation fans who might be expecting another rough n ready rape fantasy in the style of day of the woman (1978) will almost certainly be disappointed by extremities. true and farrah fawcett character is subjected to two uncomfortably prolonged assaults before gaining the upper hand on her attacker (a suitably slimy james russo) and but scriptwriter william mastrosimone and director robert m. young take these unpleasant scenes only so far before unveiling the dilemma which informs the moral core of this production. would their final solution hold up in a court of law. maybe. based on a stage play which reportedly left its actors battered and bruised after every performance and the film makes no attempt to open up the narrative and relies instead on a confined setting for the main action. acing and technical credits are fine and though fawcett overly subdued performance would not play effectively to viewers who might be relying on her to provide an outlet for their outraged indignation. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 terrible. the suspense is spent waiting for a point. there isn not much of one. aside from a few great lines ( i found a tooth in my apartment ) and and the main characters dedication to killing himself and it a collection of supposedly eerie sounds. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 possibly the most boring movie in history. i was really looking forward to seeing this movie given the actor or director roman polanski. i think i would rather see the three amigos than ever watch this movie again. it promptly went from the dvd player straight into the garbage. my apologies to those of you who apparently liked this movie however you probably liked new coke as well. i am at a loss to see why anyone would have enjoyed this movie and it is slow and dull and has no real plot. you wait for 105 minutes for the movie to get started. i understand this was made in 1976 however this was an era of bad television all around. thank god disco and three company are gone along with stop sign glasses and the bay city rollers. oh well just my thoughts. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 worth five punches on my hurter card. i saw this while stationed in virginia in the mid 70 . i saw it alone so i was not distracted while i watched it. it sucked. it was the most ridiculous and total waste of celluloid i have ever seen. i know that others who have reviewed this movie have thought that it was awesome. i offer you this represent if it was so awesome what was it box office take. end of discussion. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 unlikely that anyone except those who adore silent films will appreciate any of the lyrical camera work and busy (but scratchy) background score that accompanies this 1933 release. although sound came into general use in 1928 and there are no more than fifty words spoken to tell the story of a woman and unhappily married and who deserts her husband for a younger man after a romantic interlude in the woods. the most vividly photographed scene has the jealous husband giving a lift to the young man for a ride into town and proceeding to drive normally until he realizes the man is his wife lover. in a frenzy of jealousy and he drives at top speed toward a railroad crossing but changes his mind at the last moment and losing his nerve. it probably the most tension filled scene in the otherwise decidedly slow moving and obviously contrived story. hedy lamarr is given the sort of close up treatment lavished on marlene dietrich by her discoverer and but her beauty had not yet been refined by the cosmeticians as they were when she was transported to hollywood. her performance consists mostly of looking sad and morose while mourning the loss of her marriage with only brief glimpses of a smile when she finds her true love (aribert mog) and the handsome young stud who retrieves her clothes after a nude swim. the swimming scene is very brief and discreetly photographed and and not worth all the heat it apparently generated. the love making scene and later on and is also artfully photographed with the sort of lyrical photography evident throughout most of the film artfully so. more is left to the imagination with the use of symbolism and this is the sort of thing that has others proclaiming the film is some kind of lyrical masterpiece. not so. it disappointing and primitively crude in its sound portions (including the laborious symphonic music in the background) and certainly miss lamarr is fortunate that louis b. mayer saw the film and on the basis of it and gave her a career in hollywood. he must have seen something in her work that i do not. it apparent that this was conceived as a silent film with the camera doing all the work. the jarring workers scene at the conclusion goes on for too long and is a jarring intrusion where none is needed. it fails to end the film on the proper note. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 really shows its age. the print i saw was terrible due to age and but it is possible that there are better prints out there. however and this was not the major problem with the movie. the problem was that although the film was made in 1933 and it was essentially a silent film with only the barest of dialog scattered (only a few sentences) in the film in the most amateur fashion. sometimes the characters backs were turned or they were talking with their hands over their faces all in a pathetic attempt to obscure their lips and cleaverly (. ) hide the fact that the film was dubbed. well and its true that this czech film would need to be dubbed into many languages but to do it this way was really stupid and obvious. it just looked cheap. overall and the film looked low budget and silly. it really a shame though and because there was a grain of a good story a young woman who marries an older man who is either gay and or or has no interest in women. but in the 21st century and few people would really be willing to sit through this archaic mess. even with a few glimpses of the naked (and somewhat chunky) hedy lamarr and it isn not worth all the fuss that accompanied the film when it debuted. even by 1933 standards and this film was a poorly made dud. about the only interesting thing about the film is to see how different lamarr looked in 1933 compared with the glamorous image hollywood created when she came to america she looks like 2 completely different people. it such an incomplete looking and technically inferior film and i do not see how it has gotten such rave reviews. for technical problems alone and the movie can not rate a 10 or anything near 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:
"final score represent 0 (out of 10)possible scene specific spoilers (but who the hell cares)yes and that right represent zero. and i rarely give 1 . even for the lamest of movies i look for things like music and cinematography and imagination and it humor and even a good pace to be as objective about the score as possible. looking at it within it own genera or subgenera. but there is absolutely nothing redeeming here. i can not remember another time a movie actually sent me pacing up and down the room when it was over. the only reason i made it to the end was because i couldn not seem to change the channel i sat there simply aghast and watching to see what insultingly stupid bit it would come up with next. it was like watching a snake digest a rat. but let have some fun and pull this baby apart and shall we. first of all and there is nothing technical about whipped that works. the visuals are all sitcom style. the cut scenes all just pictures of the street traffic going by at night over and over. the music and score and not only doesn not contribute anything to the movie it obnoxious. not to mention it doesn not have anything to contribute to anyway. the acting is as cardboard as it comes and all around and that goes for amanda peet (clearly the star that got this train wreck green lighted) too. these guys and supposedly good friends and have no more chemistry or sense of purpose then if director peter m. cohen had rounded them up at a bus station minutes before shooting. on the creative side and there isn not an original bone in it body. it has no imagination. it shows us nothing we haven not seen a thousand times before. the whole premise and or twist and of this movie is based on male bashing and the idea that an empowered women can play men just as they get played. anybody and that thinks this is somehow a twist or is in any way original has obviously never turned on a tv before. twisted and shallow women are common. male bashing is the norm. it not stealing from anything specifically and it worse represent it stealing from clichés. i can not imagine a women making a movie that depicted other women based so much on stereotypes and with this sense of contempt. makes me want to go rent in the company of men or better yet and there something about mary. this movie wants to be a edgier version of there something about mary so bad you can see the sweat. the movie has no insights into women and men and dating and sex and or really anything. cohen is simply content to regurgitate myths he has been indoctrinated with from other sexist movies. on the other end and the movie doesn not work as a satire either and because even though it is ripe with exaggerations one could view as satirical it doesn not have that grounding in reality that satires need. it doesn not even know what it satirizing. then there the dialogue and which is little more then the characters screaming obscenities at each other. example represent character 1 represent fk you character 2 represent oh yeah and well fk you (repeat)and the bottom line and the thing that could excuse all the other discretions represent there are a lot of movies without plots and without good acting and with morally repulsive characters and obscenity laced dialogue that have been funny and thus and been good. whipped ain not funny. not for a second. it has no comic skills or timing. the situations are all completely phony and not based in any shred of truth and especially enough to wring laughs out of us. the characters all broadly drawn so they will seem relatable to the lowest of the lowest common denominator. just look at the marquee scene and cult classic hair gel scene. one of our bumbling anti heroes opens the medicine cabinet and sees mena (peet) vibrator. for some reason light shines down on it as if he found the holy grail. why cohen thinks men react this way to vibrators i do not know. while he rubs it on himself and he drops it in the toilet and then attempts to fish it out with his bare hands when and oh my and mena walks in on him. oh and my sides. but strangely enough and people actually like this movie. of course and people also like friends and reality dating shows so i shouldn not be surprised. all of this has a common thread however. whipped is big evidence to me that there is just a huge pocket of people in america that will laugh at any joke just because it is about sex. they will like any show or movie (or think they like it) just because it is about dating or relationships. it lack of any quality has no baring on these people. just as people are indoctrinated to want whiter teeth and thinner bodies to sell toothbrushes and weight loss programs and they are also indoctrinated to blindly lap up anything dating or relationship related to sell them cheap and empty and effortless tv and movies and any number of products. the only consilation will be that when i die and because i saw this movie and i have got a credit to get 80 minutes 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:
"it just seems bizarre that someone read this script and and thought and this is funny. i mean and it so hilarious it just has to be made. who was this person. is he or she the person really responsible for this. are they the one who owe me for my time and more so than the director or writer. this film stinks in most every way possible. there no one shred of good dialogue and and not one likable character. and the story. i prefer the 2nd worst movie ever and hulk hogan no hold barred to this by quite a considerable degree. it seems almost shakespearen in comparison. the ending is padded out with several minutes of outtakes and and it still under 80 minutes. the outtakes include cast members laughing at the hilarious mistakes they have made and and things that went wrong on the set of this comedy. glad to see someone laughing in someway and with some connection to this film. nothing in this film is funny. nothing. it just goes on and and on. it truly that lame. i love films that are so bad theyre good. this is so bad it . something and but i do not know what and and hopefully will never find out. amanda peet doesn not suck outright and and is in fact the only half good thing about this wannabe film. but and that really means little. avoid at all costs. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i will be blunt and to the point. this film is not good at all. the film buff part of me hated the acting and script and story and direction and almost all of the editing. amanda peet has proven that she can act and as she was a high point of the whole nine yards. so she should have avoided this movie with a ten foot pole. however and the infantile part of me found this film to be very funny. if you can forget about how underpar the production quality is and and if you find smut jokes funny and then you should be all right. and for those of you who can not get off your pedestal and thats your choice. my inner child hasen not died and and i laughed a fair bit. even then and only a 3 out of ten and because as a movie and it really does stink. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 poorly written script with no likeable characters. as for it being a comedy and i forgot to laugh. it about 2 conceited friends who scam to get women in too bed with them (no sex scenes) and another friend(who is semi discustingly weird)who sometimes also scams but mainly is considered as being the guy who masterbates. the 3 friends separately meet and fall for the same woman (amanda peet). somehow this is done without really any romance. the 3 guys stop being friends as they separately dated her. she scammed them out of their friendship because they scammed women. a 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:
"four best friends young male chauvinist pigs (with the emphasis on pigs) meet weekly at a nyc diner to recount their dating sexploits in this misanthropic and visceral comedy. peet is the common denominator who dates the three bachelors in the group which leads to conflict and the inevitable whipping. although the film premise has potential and there are some funny moments to be had and overall the flick doesn not work especially in the end where the girls are made to appear no better than the guys which runs contrary to the crux of the story. one of those one man band flix with a dozen producers and whipped is likely to be enjoyed only by the kind of young males who think the man show is emmy material. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"every sunday and a trio of buds get together at a nyc diner to boast about their sexual conquests of the night before. sometimes theyre joined by a newlywed ex comrade and hoochie hunter who hangs on them like a puling barnacle. theyre unabashed horn dogs or corn dogs and mia and who witnesses them on the prowl and decides that they need to be taught a lesson and dammit. ergo and she will date and dump why not. all three of them. gasp. what a wild idea. what a radical and naughty gal. women now have the right to date and sleep around as much as they want to. as much as men do and even. there is one solitary laughable element in whipped namely the fact that not once and during the amigo detailed discussions of their bodily functions and the tantric talents of the bed partners they trash and do the other customers in the diner turn around and say and dude and were trying to eat here. indeed and a heh heh gag has an older lady eagerly weigh in on the useful sexual properties of certain beverages. a big fat kermit the frog sheesh to that. it truly unfortunate that a buddy movie with a great setting and a smart and cute heroine and three possible pairings had to have such a cop out ending. p. s. 30 whip oosh sound effects to the screenwriter for use of the phrase you go and girl. it was tired in 2000 and and it tired now. save your time and watch some sex and the city reruns. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"personally and while i am able to appreciate really good movies and i also have a strange ability to somewhat enjoy even the most crappiest of crap. you know and those times when you just want to sit there and watch some horrible cookie cutter action movie to kill time. this is the only movie that i can remember actually shutting off in the middle and and i have absolutely no intention of going back to finish it. the plot was so contrived and predictable and i was calling out what the next scene would be easily (and i am usually not very good at this). the actors were horrible and i have seen better acting in middle school plays. even the scene cuts were bad and the flow was all wrong. this movie is like a parody that forgot the funny. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"first and foremost and zorie barber (zeke) and might be one of the worst actors i have ever seen. as a character that supposed to be a hip and village writer into the martial arts and proud of being mysterious and why is he so hyper and over dramatic and and plain horrible. did he know anything about his character before they started filming. did the director. don not the martial arts teach discipline. aside from that and this film misses the target with its lame jokes and seen it already gross out humor. hand in toilet. <i>trainspotting< or i>. masturbation. hmm. <i>fast times at ridgemont high< or i> and <i>american pie< or i> and the list goes on. . bad dialogue represent in one sequence and eric says it none of my business <i>but< or i> . . and 30 seconds later mia says why is this any of your business. bad editing represent at least five minutes worth of film are wasted on nyc traffic shots. <hr>it also impossible to believe that the four main male characters would be a tight knit group of friends in any world. i can not comment on what makes everyone laugh and but if you enjoy low brow and basic bathroom humor and insults and by all means and enjoy. if you want something a little smarter but on the same lines and see <i>boomerang< or i>. if you want a solid what goes around romantic comedy and go for <i>the tao of steve< or i>. but anyone who thinks <i>whipped< or i> is witty and an accurate portrayal dating and well and i cannot agree at all. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i like movies about morally corrupt characters and but this was too much. the acting wasn not great and but that wasn not the real problem. the issue was the sinking feeling i got in the pit of my stomach about 20 minutes into the film. these characters were hollow. they had almost no depth and and what little they did have was devoted to the cruelty they displayed to each other in the guise of friendship. exploring the darker sides of a set of characters can be fascinating and but you have to give those characters actual personalities or they are just cardboard cutouts. these characters were cardboard and the picture they gave was just ugly. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 just watched this movie last night and and i had to put a warning out for anybody else considering to see this film. in a word do not. i seriously feel like this is something that a screenwriting student would have written in a quentin tarantino or eddie murphy phase and i. e. every other word was a curse word. i do not have a problem with profuse cursing and as in good will hunting and provided it helps to delve more into the characters. in this case it was just hollow banter with the attempt to draw an occassional gasp or laughter from the audience. the three lead characters are all their own unique stereotype and the wall street jerk and the coffee house jerk and and the i am not gay just in touch with my feminine side slightly less of a jerk. you just do not give a damn about any of them. they are all shallow and unredemable losers who you want to see lose. for those who dare and this film does have a couple funny moments and the very beginning and and the very end. the toilet or vibrator scene is funny in a sick kinda uh and yeah way. really though and i would only recommend this film to my worst of enemies. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"hands down the worst movie i have ever seen. i thought nothing would ever dethrone last action hero and but this does easily. the movie is about 3 single guys who meet on sundays to discuss their sexual escapades from the weekend. a fourth guy who is married and that used to be a part of the group shows up and talks about what he and his wife do. nothing works in this movie. the jokes are not funny but they are repeated throughout the movie. the big kicker at the end of the movie is laughable. avoid at all costs. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"whipped is one of the most awful films of all time. it is a mean and hateful piece of garbage that had me forcing myself to stay in the theater more than any other movie of 2000 and besides maybe the grinch. it is not and as people have called it and an insightful portrait of modern relationships. that would be a little film called high fidelity. whereas that movie was honest and sympathetic and whipped is hostile and cynical and misanthropic cinematic poison. avoid this like so many plagues and unless you want to see how truly bad a comedy can get. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"for months preceding the release of this movie you saw it advertised in all sorts of print media and so i patiently waited for its video release to see what all the hype was about. after it was over i had to apologize to my roommate for occupying the vcr for the last hour and a half to watch such a horrible movie. it essentially fails because it is a character based movie about unredeemable characters. with the possible exception of amanda peet (whose only redeemable quality is that she is amanda peet) you cannot stand any of them. the film relies on its dialogue which is sophomoric and moronic and and crude. the only slightly amusing character is eric and whose portrayal of the sole married member of a group of friends is dead on. the final twist and designed to make you laugh at the three main characters and only instead inspires the same kind of resentment towards peet. all in all and only rent if you are desperate or possess a dark sense of humor. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 not funny. it is not entertaining. it does not contain one single second of originality or intelligence and nor does it lead you to take the slightest interest in the characters or situation. added to that it about as juvenile a movie as anything in recent memory. it as if a group of 14 or 15 year old high school kids who had never actually met or had any type of relationship with a real girl had sat down and wrote a movie based on their incorrect fantasies about what being an adult man would be like. this movie is boring and obnoxiously mind numbing and and at times offensive and disgusting. at most and it contains one or two moments that make you laugh. also and it seems twice as long as its 85 minute running 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:
"this movie lacked. everything represent story and acting and surprise and ingenuity and a soul. fifteen minutes in and i was staring at the screen saying and how could all of these guys get together and consider themselves friends (even without the girl). another fifteen minutes in and i was praying for as much amanda peet as possible. when a bad movie quietly rears it ugly head and eye candy is a nice consolation. but there wasn not much of that. cheated on all fronts. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"whipped is 82 minutes long. this review is 82 words long. three unlikable new york lotharios and ruthless scammers and end up wooing the same woman and played by amanda peet and with disastrous results. that applies to the story and the film. too sophomoric to be misogynistic and flaccid and ridiculous and whipped mixes the philosophies of shock jock tom lykis with penthouse letter fantasies. though technically proficient it dated and grating and poorly written and mean and and obvious. people do not act like this. people do not talk like this. really. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 looking forward to seeing amanda peet in another good role after recently renting the whole nine yards easily worth the rental and by the way but this wasn not it. i remembered that the trailer for whipped was somewhat funny and the plot about three oversexed new yorker twenty somethings all falling for and getting manipulated by the charming ms. peet was worth a shot. so and i convinced two friends one afternoon to come see this movie with me. this review is my penance. in the first act we have the three lead studs and recounting their conquests in a diner. what should have been funny and or at least telling and comes out rather pathetic. was there any redeeming quality about the three men and their encounters that we were supposed to get out of this. [and while i do not mind movies that are cheerfully vulgar and i kept wondering why no one in the diner turned around when the studs talk loudly about sexual and scatalogical details. they do this every week at the same diner. you would think someone would complain. oh and wait and i forgot represent two other diners do notice in one scene. but this is just a setup for a punchline. everyone else in the diner is deaf. ]the second act has the three studs all falling for mia and then developing brain rot and failing to ask each other or her about what really happening between the four of them. and i kept asking myself and as the studs keep acting like they have been and what redeeming qualities does she see in them to stick with them longer than one date. does she start out with brain rot. i kept hoping for eric character and the married buddy and to become something more than simply the annoying punching bag in this act. his role is clearly to dispense advice on being married. but why do they even bother to talk to him when they would not talk to each other. and his advice. sheeesh. the third act resolves what plot there is but by this time i was looking at my watch. my friends told me they were still waiting for something genuinely funny to happen and i had to agree. the scene that explains all was adequate and managed to explain all of the questions and mysterious dialogue bits throughout the movie but we were just checking them off a list. (oh and okay and that why brad had that happen and jonathan says this and. )what laughs we made were from the stupidity of the plot than at anything amusing. even the outtakes during the credits weren not very funny. ultimately i was left with nothing except a desire to warn people away from this movie. rating represent 3. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"bad acting. bad writing. this was a poorly written film. it too bad because it had some potential. it not even close to american pie or something about mary as previous comments might have you believe. rent it at dollar night from you local video store if youre kind of 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:
"this movie will be a hit with those that enjoy sophomoronic and mindless and explicit bragging about sexual exploits and f. in almost every sentence. like a good plot. like comedy. like romance or other human values. stay away from whipped. it was so bad i left after about half an hour. i saw two kids slip in that looked to be about 10 very harmful this deserves an x. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 see quite a few positive reviews on this board and trying to revive this film from its lackluster status and starting a cult following. i see the usual ranting i guess this movie is just not for the easily offended and this movie is not shakespeare and etc. guess what. neither was road trip. and i laughed my a off during that movie. there a way to make a crude and tasteless comedy and deliver laughs while and there a way to. just make it crude and tasteless. whipped tries to be swingers without the wit or intelligence. it seems to have been written through the puerile eyes of a 14 year old boy. for god sake and the characters in this movie are supposed to be white collar and upright citizens and they talk like some of the idiots i knew in freshman year of high school. the dialogue is laced more like drowned with four letter words. you would think that people of their status would have some degree of intelligence and a more extensive vocabulary. just watch a whit stillman film and you will see the difference. not to mention the fact that the dialogue sounds totally unrealistic and downright cartoonish. if you know any successful and white collar businessmen who speak like the characters in this movie please let me know and introduce me to them. their annoying sexual banter is equivalent to that of standard locker room chat among teens just arriving at puberty. there is absolutely no insight into relationships and sex or. anything. it just a poor excuse to showcase an array of extremely and do not take the word extremely for granted and because i mean it with all my heart crude gags. these are gags with no substance. gags that are meant more for groans than laughs. the scene at the end between amanda peet and her girlfriends was totally un called for and totally unconvincing. there are some movies that involve interaction among females that were written by (straight) men and play out wonderfully. this scene involves a barrage of sexual metaphors and gestures. it involves the kind of dialogue you can never imagine leaving a woman mouth. it was one of those noticeably written by a guy scenes. i wasn not believing it for a second. whipped is purely a sick male fantasy that as flat as it is annoying. i got (very) few laughs out of this utterly forgettable comedy and and those were probably a result of desperation. when youre not laughing for a long period of time and you desperately look for humor in the most trivial things. so i do not mark that down as a 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:
"begin spoiler represent fitfully funny and memorable for mr. chong literal roach smoking scene represent chong coolly mashes a stray kitchen cockroach into his pipe bowl and lights up and coughs and hacks violently for a seeming eternity and then with perfect aplomb and not skipping a beat and re loads the bowl properly and re lights and re tokes. end spoiler. alas and i began to lose faith less than half way through the proceedings. it occurred to me that the lackadaisical duo are way obnoxious and less than relatable. i have come to appreciate the relative sophistication of contemporary stoners and harold and kumar. i simply prefer brighter company. yet and the movie is probably a perfect fit for baked frat bros or those viewers who are so feeble minded as to be outwitted by a stoner when they the former are sober. notable guest appearance by paul reubens spouting obscenities in pre pee wee form. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"one of those el cheapo action adventures of the early 1980s that used to fill video rental stores solely to be taken out by adolescent boys in the hope of a cheap thrill. woeful down market attempt to cash in on the death wish phenomenon by substituting a moderately attractive woman for the visually challenging bronson. acting is terrible and sets are cheap and the baddies are and well and bad. identification with any of the characters is unlikely. only redeeming feature is modest amount of gratuitous female nudity and a smattering of which is full frontal. other than that and you can leave 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:
"an apparent vanity project for karin mani (who. ) and as a hottie charles bronson going around wiping up the cum that mugged her parents and or grandparents or something and and impressing young hunks with her karate skills. in a pivotal scene she intervenes to stop a rape and a moron cop throws her in jail and so after a couple cool shower scenes and some abortive prison dyke seduction she has to take the law into her own hands blah blah blah. i guess there were a lot of movies like this. the script is dumber than usual if you can believe that. mani comes off as exactly the kind of showbiz type that would co produce her own death wish starring role and and i find that type sporadically endearing and but the movie is an ungainly apparatus. competent actors would be wasted on the scumbag roles here and and would actively undermine the fantastic mincing incompetent da and a judge that has got to be the producer uncle. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"please humour me if you will and for a minute while i read you the back of the alley cat vhs box. it says that representin this part of the city every street is a dead end on every corner something to buy in every alley another way to die to survive youre got to be the best just like the alley cat. alley cat this lady owns the night. on the streets where even the predators become victims she knows how to survive cross her and you have run out of luck. alley cat this animal is aroused. now isn not that one of the most pathetic blurbs you have ever heard in your life. whoever wrote that must be insane if they thought such a awful description could tempt us into viewing the video. yet unfortunately and whichever faceless individual was responsible for that tragic use of english was doing their job only too well. the movie contained within the little plastic case is as bad as it sounds and and then some. karin mani plays the title role and and the script basically tells her during every given scene to either a) pout like a goldfish b) kick male butt or c) show off her feminine attributes. no complaints about the latter and but in terms of the other two. let just say she isn not much of an actress and and is even less convincing as a martial arts expert. but even meryl streep with cynthia rothrock body (what a scary thought) would fail to save this movie. the unfolding of the plot is boring beyond belief and as we get one ineptly directed fight sequence after enough and pausing only for hysterical courtroom shenanigans and the occasional gag inducing love scene with the interestingly named robert torti. the camera work also follows a similar path of shame and with far too many unneeded close ups and continuity errors abound. the part that i think really sums this scum bucket of a movie up is where our heroine is sexually assaulted and and finds herself testifying in front of a corrupt judge while her rich kid rapist leers at her from the box. not only does he get off scot free despite the overwhelming evidence against him and but she herself is then jailed for daring to protest about the verdict in front of his honour. behind bars and she then has a group shower and a lesbian crush and a couple of cat fights and a nice and sweaty game of volleyball before being released on bail to continue her battle. this ten minute section has nothing to do with the rest of the movie and and the screenplay grinds to a halt to encompass it. i can only imagine the producers wanted to add a bit more t and a to the mix and and came up with this needless sub plot as a means to achieving that end. which kinds of begs the question and is this an exploitation film and or a serious drama. neither and is my response to that. it isn not sleazy or camp enough to appeal to fans of troma style cinema and and it certainly doesn not make the grade as an exploration of one woman fight against the system. purely because it is so appallingly made. so who on earth would want to see it. lunatics and i guess. or imdb reviewers who stay up till 3pm and watch any old rubbish on the box while trying to get to sleep. sadly on this occasional i failed and and the horrors will stay with me for quite some time. don not make the same mistake i did. have a hot milk and or something. 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:
"mary pickford becomes the chieftain of a scottish clan after the death of her father and and then has a romance. as fellow commenter snow leopard said and the film is rather episodic to begin. some of it is amusing and such as pickford whipping her clansmen to church and while some of it is just there. all in all and the story is weak and especially the recycled and contrived romance plot line and its climax. the transfer is so dark it difficult to appreciate the scenery and but even accounting for that and this doesn not appear to be director maurice tourneur best work. pickford and tourneur collaborated once more in the somewhat more accessible the poor little rich girl and typecasting pickford as a child character. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 routine mystery or thriller concerning a killer that lurks in the swamps. during the early days of television and this one was shown so often and when dad would say what on tv tonight. and we would tell him strangler of the swamp he would pack us off to the movies. we went to the movies a lot in those days. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"without question one of the most embarrassing productions of the 1970s and gaots seems to really and really want to be something important. the tragic truth is that it so entirely valueless on every level that one can not help but laugh. reaching in desperation for the earthy elements of ingmar bergman films and it follows a city couple day in the wilderness. they walk along a shady path and allthewhile pontificating like a u. c. berkeley coffee clatch. almost every line of tarradiddle dialog delivered here is uproariously bad(i feel that life itself is made up of as many tiny compartments as this pomegranate. but is it as beautiful. ) after what seems like an eternity of absolutely nothing happening(well. ok. we are treated to some nudity and a tepid soft sex scene) and there is finally a very anticlimactic confrontation involving a pair nam vets who are making the nature scene and performing some pretty harsh folk ballads with an acoustic guitar. nothing at all eventful or interesting happens in this entire film. i thought the larry buchanan picture strawberries need rain was a weak example of a bergman homage. golden apples is every bit as bad and but the ceaseless random verbiage it presents makes it memorably awful. 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:
"i used to review videos for joe bob briggs legendary we are the weird newsletter. i saw a lot of stinkers and but this by far was the worst and and the years have not been kind it remains the most indecent crime against cinema i have ever witnessed. don not get me wrong caged terror is nominally more technically competent than and say and monster a go go or the guy from harlem or something of that ilk. what solidifies its claim as worst movie of all time for me is its unique blend of bare proficiency with crippling pretension. is it a vietnam commentary. an ecological protest. an incitement to race riot. a study of man inhumanity to man. a novel exercise in padding nature footage out to (nearly) feature length. in short represent a hep young urban professional (possibly the most loathesome screen character ever) somehow seduces a nubile asian american associate into camping in the woods with him. after brow beating her with quasi philosophical clap for the better part of an hour and they run across two wandering veterans and the unforgettable jarvis (a righteous brother) and the troubadour (guitar toting manson family reject). hey and a plot twist. tension. action. suspense. well and no and just a climactic getting locked in a makeshift wire chicken coop and lightly belittled scene. the victim in question stares listlessly at the captors and mutters and no. no. please. do not. meanwhile and jarvis addresses the troubadour as trouby once every two minutes and bringing to mind nothing so much as the alien star of juan picquer pod people. that about all that happens in caged terror and and such a synopsis perhaps makes it seem almost tolerable. but trust me and i have seen thousands of movies in my life and and this one has remained and for the past eight years since i first saw it and the absolute worst. (i pop it in the old vcr once every two years or so just to reassure myself and and reassure myself i certainly do. ) i think the element which makes caged terror so particularly hateful is this represent very little happens and and although what little does happen happens quite poorly and quite slowly and what truly makes it compulsively unwatchable is the suffocating sense that the filmmakers really and really want to shove some kind of message down your throat. but because caged terror is so incompetent and ineffectual and what was intended as a civics lesson becomes a crash course in intense viewing discomfort. this film is 75 minutes long and feels like three and a half hours. it terrible and truly truly terrible. folks and trust me and i saw ghosts that still walk and this one is worse. go see it. you will thank me. and curse me. just for the record and my favorite line represent (in caged terror but perhaps ever) yeah and well and you probably think the song of solomon was an allegory for christ love for the church. (note represent must be delivered in a tone of concerted condecension. ). "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 turned up on local tv here in south africa recently and i thought that i would warn even those who enjoy watching b grade bad movies (which i do)that this is not even amusing. the plot concerns a couple visiting a house in the country. some strangers appear and . the problem is that most of the film and obviously shot in the early seventies and consists of extreme wide shots of people walking and in real time and awfully slowly and from a to b. this makes the film tedious in the extreme and the expected blood and gore payoff just never happens. i am really curious how many people have actually watched this from beginning to end. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"when i was in school i made a film about a couple roaming around in the trees and talking and and i realized halfway through editing that this was not just a failing aesthetic strategy but a cliché of canadian cinema represent sodden lyricism married to vacant and metaphor burdened stabs at social commentary. but whatever my own film failings i feel much better after seeing this. this. thing. for one thing and mine ran 20 minutes and not 85 and and had more content at that represent every pointless bit of business here is fawned over for four and five and six relentless minutes. the male lead is just incredible and a brow beating and loudmouthed creep given to outbursts of drama class improv in between philosophical insights culled from the u of t pub and and he is given lots and lots of space to make us hate him. admittedly if he weren not such an ahole then the third act would make even less sense and as a couple snarky dudes show up to provide distant and thoroughly unhelpful echoes of exploitation values while but it doesn not make it any easier to watch the caged creep whimper please in closeup until the magazine runs out. i take back what i said about autumn born and which at least had the courage of its own misbegotten lechery represent this cinematic crater is and will remain the very worst canadian movie of all time. at least and i really really hope so. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i saw this movie a couple years back. i couldnt sleep and there was nothing on. so i peeped it. what really gets me is it makes no sense and thats why its disturbing. richard gets tied up in chicken wire and jarvis starts making out with richard girl while she unconscious. then jarvis buddy troubador is playing some stupid song on his guitar. by the next morning it shows richard girl talking to jarvis and trouby and then she walks back to richard and looks at him while he still tied up. then they play some happy music and the movie is finished. i mean what happened. did they brake up. and what was she saying to those 2 guys(trouby and jarvis). its to puzzling and to poor to. i can not stand movies that are disturbing and do not make sense. this was the worst film i have ever seen since the 90 version of lord of the flies. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"basing a television series on a popular author works is no guarantee of success. yorkshire television learnt this the hard way when in 1979 they bought the rights to the books credited to dick francis and three of which were broadcast under the collective title the racing game. mike gwilym was sid halley and a former jockey turned private eye following an accident in which he lost his right hand and only to have it replaced by an artificial one. gwilym suffered from an acute lack of charisma ( and looked like one of the bad guys ) while mick ford ( who played the irritating chico barnes ) made me think of a horse arse whenever he was on screen. for six weeks and this less than dynamic duo charged about the countryside and foiling nefarious plots to fix races and usually by the same methods blackmail and kidnapping riders or doping horses. yorkshire television threw money at the show and but to no avail. violent and sexist and far fetched and repetitious and it was quickly carted off to the knackers yard. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 one reason i remember this is that it was shown the week after nigel kneale brilliant quatermass serial was broadcast . the trailers made heavy emphasis that the main character had a mutilated arm which had me hoping he`d be like victor caroon from the quatermass experiment stalking the streets of london . no such luck because the racing game is just a rather drab thriller with the gimmick of having a hero with a physical disability trying to get to the bottom of investigations of corrupt horse racing . i suppose if you`re a fan of dick francis you might enjoy it but setting it in the context of the late 70s when the sweeney had just finished and the professionals was still being produced and there something lacking about the racing game . one trailer featured a car over taking another on a motor way and if it`d been a trailer for the sweeney you`d see jack regan over taking a car and beating a confession out of the slags who`d done a blag while the professionals would have over taken a car and blown away the terrorists inside . i think that sums up what wrong with this series. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 fox and the child is the new film by french director luc jacquet and who brought us the oscar winning documentary march of the penguins. it focuses around a young girl (wonderfully played by bertille noël bruneau) and her blooming friendship with a fox. there are some truly mesmerizing moments here while badgers mucking about and a lynx chasing the fox through a snow littered forest while one scene in particular when the fox is being tormented by a pack of wolves is quite intense and even frightening at times. however and there simply not quite enough of them. beautifully shot while the cinematography is dazzling. the bubbly kind of look of the film is wonderful. it undeniably a very lush production. the english version is narrated by kate winslet and but what little dialogue there already is has been very poorly dubbed. the score is also far too fluffy and or at least it is for my liking while and the screenplay and while subtle and seemingly jumps from one scenario to another and ultimately leaving me almost baffled. while there a nice moral at the heart of the film and and the rather quiet performance from noël bruneau is quite lovely and the real star is the fox. those captivating moments focusing solely around our furry little friend are tremendous. however and again and there simply not nearly enough of them. to keep up to date with all the latest in film and including reviews and news and discussions and more and be sure to visit www. mybluray. com. au. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 has little to recommend it and though that little being the breathtaking scenery and cinematography and direction of wildlife and it is difficult to bring up its weak points in the company of such rave reviews. it is precisely these things and however and that make the lack of a satisfactory plot and its execution so disappointing. i watched this with my children and none of us was too impressed by the end. yes and the pictures were great and the broad landscapes across the forest and mountains magnificent and but what was going on in the foreground. the rather dull narration of the stupidity of an insipid girl who learns all too slowly a very basic lesson about befriending wildlife and gets off quite easily given the track record of that sort of thing. it is certainly not a new story and in fact there is nothing remotely novel about the way it is told and and we have all seen this before and and and indeed and much more eloquently by antoine de saint exupéry. the only thing really to be gleaned from this film is a sense of how to work with these wonderful lenses and forest lighting while the rest is a waste 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:
"at the beginning of the movie and the beautiful photography and the scenes of the fox were amazing. however and the story was so very slow and boring. and then the little girl begins to domesticate the fox and which leads to tragic events. we live in the forest and and frequently see foxes. one thing anyone should know is that you leave wild animals to be wild and and enjoy them from afar. this movie sets a terrible example to the children who will be watching it and in trying to make a wild creature into a pet. i do not know what the point of the story was supposed to be. even after the terrible events with the main fox and the little girl was still wanting to play with the kits. does she never learn her lesson. and there are other scenes featuring predator animals to the fox and which only adds to the trauma inflicted on children watching this movie. what a disappointment this movie was. and what a horrible story it tells. the final narrated dialog was so stupid and by which time my wife and i were screaming at the tv. i absolutely hated this movie and and would never recommend it to anyone. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i went to see this movie with the most positive expectations. i had seen jacquet previous movie (march of the penguins) and had heard a very positive review of this one on the radio. however and i was severely disappointed. most of all and this movie is terribly boring. literally nothing happens. i tried to describe the content of the movie to a friend and and we both ended up laughing because i could only stammer things like well then the winter comes and and then spring and and then there an eagle and and a river and and one time it is dark and and the girl goes into a cave and and another time the fox has babies and so on. after about half an hour i began sighing and yawning and rolling my eyes and cursing the reviewer at the radio station and and hoping that it would be over soon. but the movie went on and on. when it finally ended i had sunken so deep into my chair that i must have looked somewhat similar to stephen hawking. the most annoying parts of the movie are (a) the girl and who is obviously there to give children someone to identify with. she wears the same clothes throughout the entire movie (one year) and and shows exactly two facial expressions represent joy and seriousness. she is cute and no question about that. however and a movie about the beauty of nature like this one would have done better without her all too human presence. i found myself constantly hoping that she might get eaten by a bear and drown in the river and or something similarly terrible. (b) the commentary by the girl adult voice and which tells us nothing but negligible and obvious and boring and redundant things. (c) the music and which is desperately lacking subtlety. when the girl is happily jumping around and the music jumps around and too. when the fox is threatened by an eagle and the music becomes threatening and too. it reminded me of the very early days of film making and and was just too predictable to enjoy. admittedly and many of the children who saw the movie with me did obviously like it and at least they got somehow involved. thus and my warning concerns adults only represent if you are over ten years old and avoid this movie. you can get a better (and cheaper) sleep in most other places. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"what an unusual movie. absolutely no concessions are made to hollywood special effects or entertainment. there is no background music and not special effects or enhanced sound. facial expressions are usually covered by thick beards and the spanish language is a strange monotonic lilt that sounds the same whether in the midst of a battle or talking around a campfire. i sort of viewed these movies (parts 1 and 2) as an educational experience and not really something to go and get entertained by. its quite long and in places dull. but i suspect that given the lack of any plot development and i do not think its very educational either. its also difficult to perceive any story from the movie dialogue it would be a good idea to read up a little on the history so that you can understand the context of what is happening and since for some reason the director do not see fit to inform the audience why che band was moving around the way they did as a result there seem to be groups skulking around the woodland for no particular reason and getting shot at. i would have loved to give this movie more stars for somehow generating more empathy with me and developing depth of character and but somehow all of the characters were still strangers to me at the end. the stars it gets are for realism and showing the hardships of guerrilla warfare. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"star rating represent saturday night friday night friday morning sunday night monday morning this second instalment of the che films moves the story forward to the late 60s and where the man has now moved his resistance fighters into the hills of south america and surviving without enough food and water and with tensions mounting between the group. everything comes to a head when he crosses the border into bolivia and the government forces step up their campaign to bring him down. without the flitting between time and places of the last film and soderbergh second instalment focuses solely on the action in the hills and and manages to be an even duller experience. and more pretentiously and the score has been drowned out and giving the second instalment more of an unwelcome air of artsieness that proves just as alienating. there just an unshakeable air of boredom to the film that never lets up. you can not fault soderbergh ambition or del toro drive in the lead role and it just a shame that somewhere in the production things managed to take such a disappointing turn. . "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"same old same old about che. it completely ignored the really interesting facts of che true character. sodeberg redid the same boring narrative of che. the silly seductive tale of an argentinean rich boy who was so shocked by poverty he became a robin hood fighting alongside the poor and until eventually he was murdered by the cia. yeah and yeah and heard it all before and boring and untrue. the reality of che guevara is very different and far more explosive. the facts show that he was a totalitarian with a messiah streak and who openly wanted to impose maoist tyranny on the world. he was so fanatical that at the hottest moment in the cold war and he even begged the soviet union to nuke new york and washington or los angeles and bring about the end of the world. che urged khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike against us cities. for the rest of his life and he declared that if his finger had been on the button and he would have pushed it. when khrushchev backed down and literally saved the world and che was furious at the betrayal. if che recommendations had been followed and you would not be reading this review now. how a homicidal maniac became a pop icon would have made a much more interesting film. incredible that no filmmaker has been daring enough to show the real side of che and his posthumous media transformation. that would make an oscar winning film. i thought making independent film meant taking real risks and being groundbraking. they only stick to safe counterculture themes and to wit and che cool and wall street bad and republican equals nazi and bush ex hitler and nra is worse than kgb and christians are fanatics and stupid and etc. ad nauseum. oooh and how daring and how mind blowing. tres anti mainstream and edgy. i wish they would have some real cojones and tackle the independent film oligarchy. that would be truly daring. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 half of steven soderbergh revolutionary bio on che guevara deals with his last campaign to export revolution to bolivia. in order to maintain his saintly visage of che soderbergh conveniently leap frogs the mass executions he presided over after the revolution in cuba and the folly of his congo adventure (this is the history of a failure he writes in the preface of his congo journal) to concentrate fully on che attempt to rally support to rise up against the government in bolivia. it would turn out to be a disaster and guevara final act. what plagued the first chapter follows suit here as soderbergh slows his film to a crawl to study the beatific countenance of the contemplative guevara once again being played like james dean in east of eden by bernicio del toro. the problem is guevara has little success in gaining converts and he soon finds himself and his starving comrades being swallowed up in the heart of darkness bolivian jungle. unlike werner herzog in the magnificent and aguirre and the wrath of god soderbergh fails to utilize the jungle metaphorical possibilities to heighten the desperation of the guerrillas. he seems more concerned with keeping che nimbus above his head than exploring the panic setting in on the dead enders. there is one herzogian moment where che sits astride an obstinate horse kicking and screaming to get it moving but overall soderbergh mise en scene remains flat and sloppy and uninteresting. in both of his films soderbergh shows he is clearly a che groupie and because of it his focus remains myopic and narrow. he spends too much time building his monument to che and too little in developing his relationships with key players in his saga and especially fidel castro. making matters worse he does it with a slow and dispassionate approach that never catches fire. one would think he was steeped in enough eisenstein and vertov to realize that sweeping change is showcased a lot better with sweeping style. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"now that che(2008) has finished its relatively short australian cinema run (extremely limited release represent1 screen in sydney and after 6wks) and i can guiltlessly join both hosts of at the movies in taking steven soderbergh to task. it usually satisfying to watch a film director change his style or subject and but soderbergh most recent stinker and the girlfriend experience(2009) and was also missing a story and so narrative (and editing. ) seem to suddenly be soderbergh main challenge. strange and after 20 odd years in the business. he was probably never much good at narrative and just hid it well inside edgy projects. none of this excuses him this present and almost diabolical failure. as david stratton warns and two parts of che do not (even) make a whole. epic biopic in name only and che(2008) barely qualifies as a feature film. it certainly has no legs and inasmuch as except for its uncharacteristic ultimate resolution forced upon it by history and soderbergh 4. 5hrs long dirge just goes nowhere. even margaret pomeranz and the more forgiving of australia at the movies duo and noted about soderbergh repetitious waste of (hd digital storage) represent youre in the woods. youre in the woods. youre in the woods. i too am surprised soderbergh do not give us another 2. 5hrs of that somewhere between his existing two parts and because he still left out massive chunks of che revolutionary life. for a biopic of an important but infamous historical figure and soderbergh unaccountably alienates and if not deliberately insults and his audiences by1. never providing most of che story while 2. imposing unreasonable film lengths with mere dullard repetition while 3. ignoring both true hindsight and a narrative of events while 4. barely developing an idea and or a character while 5. remaining claustrophobically episodic while 6. ignoring proper context for scenes whatever we do get is mired in disruptive timeshifts while 7. linguistically dislocating all audiences (even spanish speakers will be confused by the incongruous expositions in english) while and 8. pointlessly whitewashing his main subject into one dimension. why and at this late stage. the t shirt franchise has been a success. our sense of claustrophobia is surely due to peter buchman and benjamin vander veen basing their screenplay solely on guevara memoirs. so and like a poor student who has read only one of his allotted texts for his assignment and soderbergh product is exceedingly limited in perspective. the audience is held captive within the same constrained knowledge and scenery and circumstances of the revolutionaries and but that doesn not elicit our sympathy. instead and it dawns on us that ah and soderbergh trying to hobble his audiences the same as the latino peasants were at the time. but these are the same illiterate latino peasants who sold out the good doctor to his enemies. why does soderbergh feel the need to equate us with them and and keep us equally mentally captive. such audience straitjacketing must have a purpose. part2 is more chronological than part1 and but it literally mind numbing with its repetitive bush bashing and misery of outlook and and lack of variety or character arcs. deltoro che has no opportunity to grow as a person while he struggles to educate his own ill disciplined troops. the only letup is the humour as che deals with his sometimes deeply ignorant revolutionaries and some of whom violently lack self control around local peasants or food. we certainly get no insight into what caused the conditions and nor any strategic analyses of their guerrilla insurgency and such as it was. part2 excruciating countdown remains fearfully episodic represent again and nothing is telegraphed or contextualized. thus even the scenes with fidel castro (demián bichir) are unexpected and disconcerting. any selected events are portrayed minimally and latino centrically and with part1 interviews replaced by time shifting meetings between the corrupt bolivian president (joaquim de almeida) and us government officials promising cia intervention(. ). the rest of part2 woods and day for night blue filter just exasperate the audience until theyre eyeing the exits. perhaps deltoro felt too keenly the frustration of many non american latinos about never getting a truthful and unspun history of che exploits within their own countries. when foreign governments still would not deliver a free press to their people for whatever reason then one can see how a popular american indie producer might set out to entice the not so well read (i may not be able to read or write and but i am not illiterate. cf. the inspector general(1949)) out to their own local cinemas. the film obvious neglects and gross over simplifications hint very strongly that it aiming only at the comprehensions of the less informed who still speak little english. if they did and they would have read tomes on the subject already and and critiqued the relevant social issues amongst themselves learning the lessons of history as they should. such insights are precisely what societies still need and not just the remaining illiterate latinos of central and south america yet it what che(2008) gleefully fails to deliver. soderbergh buries his lead because he weak on narrative. i am gobsmacked why benicio deltoro deliberately chose soderbergh for this project if he knew this. it been 44yrs and hindsight about guevara was sorely wanted represent it what i went to see this film for and but the director diabolically robs us of that. david stratton and writing in the australian (03 oct 2009) observed that while part1 was uneven and part2 actually goes rapidly downhill from there and charting che final campaign in bolivia in excruciating detail and which . feels almost unbearably slow and turgid. che representthe guerilla aka part2 is certainly no travelogue for bolivia and painting it a picture of misery and atavism. the entire second half is only redeemed by the aforementioned humour and and the dramatic yet tragic capture and execution of the film subject. the rest of this interminable cinema verite is just confusing and irritating misery shockingly and for a soderbergh film and to be avoided at all costs. it is bound to break the hearts of all who know even just a smattering about the subject. ( 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 is incredible that with all of the countless crimes that have been uncovered and laid unequivocally at the doorstep of marxism and from the berlin wall to the gulag archipelago to the cultural revolution to the khmer rouge and one still finds admirers of communist totalitarianism in hollywood and are still making propaganda in its favor. it just shows the moral depravity of hollywood. in this particular film a psychotic murderer is glorified. needless to say that neither his crimes nor his psychotic proclamations were included. that both the director and the actor expect audiences to sit through this seemingly interminable propagandistic film demonstrates the tunnel vision that they have in regards to their object of worship. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i think that this is awful produced and directed movie. benicio del toro shouldn not work in production of movies and he should put accent on his acting and that it. steven soderbergh missed the whole point of the idea about revolution and about it ideals and and most important about life of che guevara and so on. camera is awful and like someone with 2 day working experience is shooting with it and music is . i do not know. is there some music in the movie. i will not recommended this piece of sh. to no one. it just wasting about 4 hours in front of the tv or whatever. i can not figure out how can someone rate this movie more than negative . disaster. disaster. disaster. disaster don not watch please. save yourself from this misery of 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:
"what i found so curious about this film i saw the full 4 hour roadshow version and is how oddly dispassionate it is. for a film about 2 very charismatic men castro and che and engaged in a gargantuan political struggle and it almost totally devoid of emotional fire. the scenes between benicio del toro and demian bichir (who is at best a second level actor and with a slightly high pitched voice) have no drama or depth and basically come down to castro telling che represent go here and go there and do this and that and with no explanation as to what effect or use this action will result in. odder still is there is an actor in the cast who has the requisite power to play castro joaquim de almeida and but he shunted aside in a minor part in the second half. without the tension or passion that you would expect to fire these men and their followers and the film becomes a dullish epic length film about hairy and bearded men running through various jungles shouting and shooting to no particular purpose or end. several of the reviews i have read showered praise on the work of director steven soderbergh while ignoring the actors almost completely. (one in fact spent more time talking about soderbergh new digital film camera than the plot or actors or the fact that it entirely in spanish with english subtitles. )this is an odd and odd thing to do since a) soderbergh was only a hired gun on the film and b) it no more than a competent job of work and with an unremarked upon nod to oliver stone jfk in the black and white cut up camera work when che visits new york. if you can imagine reds directed by andrew mclaglen instead of warren beatty and you would get an idea of the dull competency of 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:
"the first part and che in cuba and is about that portion of his life. it contains too many indistinguishable battles and che ministering to too many indistinguishable wounded (remember that che was a physician). it ends as castro wins the revolution while che never gets to havana. the second part and che in bolivia and is about guess what. it contains too many indistinguishable battles and che ministering to too many indistinguishable wounded. when i realized this was supposed to be an epic (i never knew anything but the title before it started) and i naturally thought of the greatest epic of them all and david lean lawrence of arabia. more of that later. not to be a racist and but aside from what i have already mentioned is the fact that there are too many characters who are and well and indistinguishable unknown hispanic actors who look alike and especially considering they all wear che beards and all wear che fatigues. this results in the viewer not being able to identify with anyone other than che and benicio del toro (even fidel has a very minor role). while del toro terrific and think of lawrence with peter otoole as the only discernible character represent no alec guinness and no omar sharif and no anthony quinn and etc. you get the idea. because the other characters are interchangeable and this results in a loss of reference. when top aides of che are killed and you feel no remorse since you do not know who they are. even when che is killed (i do not think that a spoiler) and there no empathy from the audience he just killed. he too one dimensional to relate to as a human being. aside from being a revolutionary and second only to jesus in moral rectitude and the only thing we learn about che is that he married with five children (he tells another character that near the end). what was his motivation. a complete enigma. maybe soderbergh is purposely aping lean. like soderbergh che and lean never lets us know anything about lawrence and the mystery man of arabia. but at least lawrence had a friend (sharif) and associates (guinness and quinn). he was as courageous as he was insecure i. e. and had human qualities. che is like a machine and about as warm as the terminator. earlier this year there was another war epic and mongol. che makes mongol look like it a wonderful life. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"(48 out of 278 people found this comment useful and and counting. )people are such suckers for image and looks as much as for the intellectually hollow idealism that lurks behind communism. che charisma and looks have as much to do with his iconic stature as the misinformation that has been spread by leftist propaganda (such as this movie) about him. i do not know what worse represent being captured by one of che murder squads or having to sit through 4 hours of this typically soderberghian garbage. the question isn not why this pet project was made but what took them so long. by them i am referring and of course and to left wing hollywood and its secret love of marxist tyrants (lenin and castro. take your pick). i am fascinated that it took decades for one of tinseltown least talented liberal directors to finally take on such an irresistibly biased propaganda project. where was oliver stone all these years. robert redford. tim robbins. warren beatty. alan pakula. george clooney. barbra streisand even. it a mystery. all these overrated artists have often indulging themselves in similar and politically one sided projects and yet somehow che guevara and who is arguably the most popular and well known communist and hasn not been a film topic of theirs yet. guerrilla has all the hallmarks of an american truth bending story of an epic scale while there is as much factual detail to be found here as in other similar hollywood big budget political fairy tale bios such as malcolm x or gandhi and i. e. almost none. the movie stars del toro as the famous argentinian revolutionary. nevertheless and however controversial and criminal this man actions may have been and one thing nobody could take away from him represent he was an intelligent manipulator who came from a rich family which is why del toro fits the bill only visually. del toro may be an interesting and charismatic actor and he may resemble guevara physically and but he exudes no intellectual qualities whatsoever and hence he makes guevara come off as too primitive. casting such mediocrities as bratt and philips and franka incompetente only underlines the director lack of sound judgment. the movie is to the most part extremely slow (no surprise there) and and visually uninteresting. even a director as brilliant as kubrick would have carefully considered releasing a movie that goes beyond the 3 hour mark and so it quite telling that this soderbergh and who has only made one or two solid movies and early on in his career and would think that his oceanic grandness was up to the task. if you think the film length indicates that a bulk of che life has been shown here then think again. soderbergh focuses on che last phase and and a lot of the movie is tedious jungle nonsense and full of guevara alleged idealism. (psychopaths do not have ideals. ) i do wonder what kind of a mind this highly esteemed director has to have to actually choose to ignore some of che earlier life. did he actually consider it too uninteresting. a massacre of 600 people holds no interest for the viewer and huh. amazing. some much better directors than this over praised charlatan would have easily fit not one but two complete biographies into a 4 hour movie. soderbergh and in a sense and becomes an accomplice by never addressing the negative and dark side which is more than 90% of guevara. by spreading this kind of historical inaccuracy and consciously ignoring the ugly truth (god forbid he should taint the holy image of che) and soderbergh proves himself not a humanist a fake image which most hollywood and pop music personalities struggle very hard all their careers to uphold but the opposite represent that he cares only about ideas and never about the people on whom these ideas are tested (like on guinea pigs). soderbergh and the like are elitists of the worst kind while such people often have a latent contempt for the proleteriat (what a stupid term) theyre supposedly siding with. half of all students around the world wear che image on their red and orange shirts and but without ever knowing why. he has become an iconic figure for clueless and uninformed and very often young people and who think that by having this man face on their chest that somehow makes them appear edgy and intellectual and hip or interesting. in reality and wearing a che shirt only underlines one overall shallowness and total disinterest in self education. (wouldn not you want to find out more about a person before you start advertising his or her face to the world. ) wearing che by now cliché image has become as common as having a bart simpson coffee cup. all those che wearers probably know more about marge blue hair than they will ever read up on about fidel castro dead ally. after everything that would been done in the name of marx and one would think that these mongrel ideals would be finally laid to rest. it seems mankind will never learn. stalin and mao and kim il and pol pot and castro and milosevic and ceausescu and the iron curtain and a hundred million dead and more than a billion ruined physically and or or mentally through this system. so none of that matters and huh. the fact that del toro won a cannes award should only surprise those who are absolutely clueless as to how cannes and other european festivals work and vote. hint represent sean penn headed a jury not long ago. for my music related rants and go to represent http represent or or rateyourmusic. com or collection or fedor8 or . "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 documentary is a proof of talent being used for mean purposes. the fact that it is financed by the venezuelan government gives it a lack of legitimacy in the purpose of searching for the truth of what really happened those horrible days of april 2002 in venezuela and something even we venezuelans do not know for sure. there are ways of lying and and the directors of this stuff lie both by omission and by knowledge. the venezuelan political process is too complex to be easily understood by foreign audiences and and they take advantage of that. for instance possible spoilers they show pro chávez demonstrators shooting at an empty street (what the hell they did that for. ) in a way of saying they do not kill anyone and but do not bother showing the images we all saw here and of opposition demonstrators (and a journalist) falling dead or injured at the other side of that empty street. they can not explain why the chopper of the political police was the only one authorised to fly over caracas that day and did nothing against the snipers that were all over the roofs of the buildings nearby the presidential palace and something that would exhibit how inefficient would be the security measures to guard the president. a few days after the coup and the chief of the military guard in charge was asked at the national assembly (our congress) why do not they act against the snipers and he said cause they weren not there to act against the president and isn not that a confession. there is so much more and the fact that the highest rank military announced that chávez had resigned and 2 days later he said he had lied because that politics and nowadays is the minister of internal affairs of chávez administration. it would take me thousands of words to explain all the lies depicted in this documentary and made with the intention of selling the world an image of the good old hugo chávez who rules for the poor and the bad rich opposition that wants him out at all costs and when the truth is that 60 70% of people rejects his government and and that percentage includes the poor. i hope those of you who have seen and bought this will be able to see a different version that is being made by a group of venezuelan people showing no less than 30 lies. nazi propaganda has returned. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"in this movie and chávez supporters (either venezuelan and not venezuelan) just lie about a dramatic situation in our country. they did not say that the conflict started because of chávez announcement firing a lot of pdvsa best workers just for political issues. they did not say anything about more than 96 tv interruptions transmitted by chávez during only 3 days in cadena nacional (a kind of confiscation o private tv signals). each one with about 20 minutes of duration. they did not tell us anything about the quiting announcement made by general en jefe lucas rincon romero and inspector general of the army forces and who is a traditional supporter of chávez. even now and in despite of his announcement and he is the ministro de interior y justicia. after chávez return he occuped the charge of ministro del defensa (equals to defense secretary in us). they did not say anything about chávez orders about shooting against a pacifical people concentration who was claiming for elections. they did not say anything about the people in this concentration that were killed by chávez supporters (either civilians and military official forces). they present some facts in a wrong order and in order to lie. they did not say anything about venezuelan civilian society thats are even now claiming for an elections in order to solve the crisis and chávez actions in order to avoid the elections. that why i tell you. this movie is just a lot of lies or a big lie. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"recently and i saw the documentary the revolution will not be televised and also know as chávez represent inside the coup. at first i thought it showed a genuine inside view of events during the venezuela coup of april 2002. what bothered me though was the fact that the tone of the narration and the accompanying music were suggestive and and that at no point any criticism was expressed about hugo chávez. this is peculiar because if a documentary is giving an non biased account of what happened and there should have been some of that too. after all and chávez certainly is not a saint. fortunately and since the documentary is several years old and a lot of additional information is available on the internet nowadays and and it was not difficult to find for instance urgent investigation about chavez the coup by the 5 european tv corporations who financed the film which presents blatant falsehoods about venezuela. it lists the many errors and intended or unintended falsifications in the documentary. (just use the title as a search string in google and you will find it). another interesting document was the video registration of a presentation of the findings of the many errors in this documentary and x ray of a lie. to me it seems to be a good counterweight to chávez represent inside the coup it available at video. google. i strongly advice you after watching chávez represent inside the coup to look at x ray of a lie and then form your opinion. my conclusion is that kim bartley and donnacha obrian were (knowingly or not) part in chávez propaganda. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"remember a film you seemed to enjoy in the past that doesn not quite meet those same feelings as an adult. that occurred to me when i went back to school. the national lampoon class reunion. the film has a perfect opportunity for laughs and but surprisingly wanders aimlessly as we see a bizarre collection of characters such a woman who sold her soul to the devil and can shoot out flames of fire from her mouth and a man who appears to be a vampire and and a lunatic killer dressed as a woman and wears sacks over his head. you have the class president who believes he the best thing since sliced bread(but as we see in the film and he a coward and joke) and a couple of pot smokers who do not even know they are at their own class reunion and and a man named gary for whom know one even knew existed(and no one can seem to remember his name. this is the one running joke i enjoyed). there is a plump pervert who likes to grab women in inappropriate places and a deaf and blind woman who has a screeching holler when calling for her dog and and the cook(you know her from goonies and throw mama from the train)who loves to place food on people plates with her hands. the film is essentially about a nutcase who is(or at least attempting to)taking revenge on his classmates for a gag they pulled on him(they arranged for him to sleep with his own twin sister. ). the film follows the characters as they search for the killer canvasing darkened and trashed hallways of the old high school. they were told of the killer by his psychologist who seems a bit odd himself. the film has a few good gags that work(pretty much early on) and but the film slowly gets worse each passing minute. the film true problem is that it really doesn not know where to go. the film is pretty much a one joke premise for it has unassured direction. if it really has any direction at all. the cast is enthusiastic enough and but the material they are to make funny just doesn not have the quality to hold any interest. it a curio for fans of early 80 comedy relics that are forgotten(this one rightfully so). "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"if it wasn not for the performances of barry diamond and art evans as the clueless stoners and i would have no reason to recommend this to anyone. the plot centers around a 10 year high school reunion and which takes place in a supposed abandon high school(looks more like a prop from a 1950s low budget horror flick) and and the deranged student the class pulled a very traumatizing prank on. this student desires to kill off the entire class for revenge. john hughes falls in love with his characters too much and as only one student is killed as well as the lunch lady(goonies anne ramsey). were led to believe that the horny coupled gets killed and but never see a blasted thing. this is a horrible movie that continued national lampoon downward spiral throughout the 80s and 90s. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"anyone who thinks this film has not been appreciated for its comic genius must have been smoking with the two stoners in the film. this film is not under rated. it is a bad movie. there should be no comparisons between this film and the naked gun or airplane since the latter two films are well written and funny. class reunion is neither of those things. the sad thing is it had such potential (good cast and good story lines) but the good jokes are few and far between. the scenes that were supposed to be funny came off more annoying than amusing. the stoner guys and the vampire and the blind girl. not funny. the only funny character were delores (the one who sold her soul to the devil). national lampoon has made some really good films (animal house and vacation) but this isn not one of them. i certainly expected more from john hughes. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"stereotypical send up of slasher flicks falls far short as supposed entertainment. gerrit graham and michael lerner and zane busby and and in fact the entire cast are totally wasted. lame jokes abound and and every punch line is well telegraphed. the dumb one liners come at a fast pace and and almost every one falls flat as a squashed grape. the musical numbers only contribute to the boredom that sets in and lingers for the entire movie. another negative is the claustrophobic setting entirely within the walls of an abandoned high school. avoid this and seek out one of lampoon truly funny films like national lampoon golddiggers merk. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 biggest national lampoon hit remains animal house and and rightly so. it was funny and raucous and good natured. the exact opposite of every other national lampoon film. including class reunion. please do not be fooled by the inclusion of stephen furst (flounder) from animal house. or by the fact that john hughes wrote this jumbled mess. this reunion is about as hilarious as root canal and twice as painful. one star and and that being generous. then again and i always thought most of my old classmates were demons and vampires and serial killers and too. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if 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.